John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feinstein's amendment, which is designed to keep assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices out of the hands of children. Also, I am grateful to Chairman Hatch for the opportunity to discuss this important matter. For years, Senator feinstein has been an ardent proponent of banning assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips. In 1994, Congress wisely enacted legislation to prohibit domestic production of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Regrettably, it took a terrible tragedy to give us that wisdom. In January 1989, our nation was stunned when Patrick Purdy murdered 5 children and injured 30 others in a schoolyard in Stockton, CA. With the horror of that slaughter fresh in our minds and hearts, Congress enacted the assault weapons ban as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That legislation, principally proposed and fought for by the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, prohibits the manufacture, possession, and transfer of semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity ammunition clips that were not lawfully owned prior to enactment of the 1994 act. Regrettably, there are gaping loopholes in that law. The amendment Senator Feinstein and I have offered today is designed to close the loophole in the law that enables children to gain access to assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips. It is intended to close the loophole that allows large capacity ammunition clips, which are manufactured abroad, to flood the United States. And it is designed to increase penalties on adults who provide children with handguns, deadly assault weapons, and large capacity clips. This amendment is a matter of common sense. Common sense led us to prohibit possession of handguns by children. Nevertheless, we permit children to possess assault weapons and large clips. These are not weapons intended for hunting or recreational purposes. These are lethal weapons designed to make it easy to kill. Yet, the law says it's just fine for children to possess them. There is a lot of discussion on the floor of this Chamber about the culture of violence. We are asked to blame the ``culture of violence'' for the rash shootings that have rocked our nation and our schools. Children watch too much TV, therefore they are violent. Children go to violent movies, therefore they act out what they see. Children play video and computer games with violent themes, therefore they become killers. Perhaps there is truth in these conclusions, but there is a much simpler truth. It is foolhardy and irresponsible to allow children to possess assault weapons. In America, a 15-year-old child can't drive a car, but he can own an assault weapon. An 18-year-old can't buy a beer, but he can own an assault weapon. There are age requirements for buying cigarettes or attending certain movies, but there are no age limits when it comes to assault weapons. The age requirements for certain activities are meant to keep children out of harm's way. That's what this amendment is meant to do, too. We have an opportunity today to say enough is enough. We have an opportunity to use our common sense and take assault weapons and large capacity clips away from children. We have an opportunity to learn from the horror that all of American has witnessed in our nation's schools. Assault weapons and large capacity magazines were used in two of the horrific shootings we all watched on the evening news. At Thurston High School in Springfield, OR, a 15-year-old, who was suspended for bringing a gun to school, returned the next day and opened fire in a crowded cafeteria. He killed two students and wounded 22 others, using a large capacity ammunition clip. Most recently, two boys in Littleton, CO, devastated their community by storming their school, murdering 12 schoolmates and a teacher, and finally killing themselves. One of the weapons the boys used was a Tec-9 assault pistol. It's time to end the madness. It's time to take common sense steps to keep guns, particularly assault weapons and large capacity clips, out of the hands of children. We teach our children not to play with matches; to look both ways before crossing the street; we tell them not to talk to strangers. We teach them lessons to keep them safe, but we allow them access to the deadliest of weapons. It doesn't make sense. It is unjustifiable. We have a chance today to close the loophole in the assault weapons ban that permits what our common sense tells us is insane. Mr. President, clearly, it will be argued on the floor of this Senate that we have a host of laws on the books--I think somebody said 40,000 laws. I don't know whether that is accurate or not. But if it is, there is a mass of laws on the books, and all we have to do is enforce these laws and we wouldn't have these troubles. There is no law dealing with assault weapons in the hands of children--certainly no Federal law. There ought to be one along with passage of these laws on the floor of this Chamber. Certainly, there should be greater enforcement than there is. But, first of all, let's have the law making it illegal, not only to own one of these weapons--for a minor to or for a child to--but also the clip that goes with it. It should not be lawful for children to possess assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips. It should not be possible for foreign manufacturers to flood the United States with a product domestic manufacturers are forbidden to produce. Adults who provide these deadly weapons to children should be punished. That is part of the legislation for which the distinguished Senator from California has pushed. Senator Feinstein's amendment is about children and safety. I urge my colleagues to rely on their common sense and vote to take assault weapons away from children. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished proponent of this amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. I am delighted to be associated with her. I want to say, regrettably, we haven't passed much gun control legislation on the floor of this Senate, but because the Senator from California was so dogged and determined in, I believe, 1994, some 5 years ago, we were able to take a big step forward. Now she has come up with legislation to eliminate some of the loopholes in that bill. I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Structured Settlement Protection Act, together with Senators Baucus, Grassley, Rockefeller, Breaux, and Kerrey of Nebraska. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House as H.R. 263, sponsored by Representatives 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. 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 non-assignable. 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 and has included a similar proposal in the Administration's FY 2000 budget. An article in the January 25 issue of U.S. News & World Report highlights the growing problem of structured settlement purchases. Orion Olson was bitten by a dog when he was three years old. The dog bite caused him vision and neurological problems. The settlement resulting from his lawsuit called for Mr. Olson to receive $75,000 in periodic payments once he turned 18. Unfortunately, Mr. Olson was lured into selling his payments for a lump sum payment of $16,100. Within six months this money was gone and Mr. Olson was living in a car. Last year, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association wrote to the Chairman of the Finance Committee strongly supporting the legislation. They stated: [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.'' The legislation we are introducing would impose a 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 future structured settlement payments. 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 a copy of the bill, a summary of the legislation and the article from U.S. News & World Report be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last night the Senate approved a motion to table the Bryan CRA amendment by a vote of 52-45. I voted in favor of the tabling motion, and would like to take a moment to outline my position on this matter. What did Senator Bryan propose in his amendment? The Bryan amendment would have stricken two provisions in the underlying bill related to the Community Reinvestment Act, as follows: (1) the so-called CRA integrity provision and (2) the exemption for small, rural banks. In addition, the Bryan amendment would have conditioned approval of a bank's affiliation with a securities firm or insurance company on CRA compliance. On this last point, linking approval of new financial activities to CRA compliance, I want to acknowledge Senator Bryan's efforts to develop a pragmatic approach to this issue. Unlike some of the more far-reaching proposals that have been put forward, this provision would not have expanded CRA to apply to nonbank institutions, nor would it have required holding companies to divest themselves of a bank that falls out of compliance. Despite the relative appeal of this portion of the Bryan amendment, however, I found myself unable to support the overall package. With regard to the integrity provision, I have long thought that banks that do a good job under CRA should get some credit for it. Under current law, however, a bank with an outstanding CRA rating that seeks to merge or expand potentially is subject to the same challenges from community groups as a bank with a rating of substantial noncompliance. This situation simply is not fair, in my judgment. Now, the opponents of this provision point out that 97 percent of the banks receive a satisfactory CRA rating, and thus the bill offers the protection of the ``substantial, verifiable information'' standard to nearly every institution in the country. Admittedly, I would prefer to see the integrity provision deal only with ``outstanding'' banks. Unfortunately, the procedural situation did not permit an opportunity to make such a change. Turning to the small bank exemption, only one financial institution in my state fits the bill's description of a small, rural bank. Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic to the hundreds of tiny banks across the country--institutions with only a handful of employees--that face a daunting, expensive regulatory burden in terms of CRA recordkeeping. In addition, I found particularly persuasive Senator Gramm's observation that of the 16,380 audits of these small, rural banks in the past nine years, only three have been found to be substantially out of compliance. I fully recognize the important role CRA has played in expanding the availability of credit in Rhode Island and across the nation. Small business owners, homebuyers, and renters alike have benefitted from the pressure CRA exerts on banks to make loans in neighborhoods they might otherwise overlook. At the end of the day, however, I determined that Senator Gramm's proposed CRA reforms had some merit to them. For these reasons, I voted against the Bryan amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the manager of the bill. Madam President, I will support the motion to table, not because I am opposed to properly carrying out this military campaign but because I believe that setting this resolution aside today will give NATO a better chance to achieve our military objectives in Kosovo. Since the early days of this military campaign, I have argued that the President ought not have ruled out the use of ground troops as a military option in NATO's campaign against Yugoslav forces in Kosovo. Sending this signal gives President Milosevic some comfort, knowing that his army and Serb para-military forces would not have to confront a NATO ground campaign. That gives Milosevic a freer hand in carrying out his brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against ethnic Albanians. Today, the Senate must decide whether to give the President authority to use ``all necessary force and other means'' to accomplish U.S. and NATO objectives in Yugoslavia. Passage would certainly permit the Administration to send U.S. ground forces into Yugoslavia. I commend the efforts of Senator McCain and the other sponsors of this resolution, who I know have only our national interests in mind in bringing this measure forward today. My instinct is to support this resolution. However, I must oppose considering it at this time for two reasons. First, it should be clear to anyone following this debate that a majority of Senators needed to pass this resolution simply does not exist today. An acrimonious debate, followed by a vote against granting the President enhanced authority to conduct this military campaign, would weaken significantly NATO's hand in carrying out its mission. Such a vote would give Slobodan Milosevic and his band of marauders in Kosovo aid and comfort in fighting an alliance led by a divided U.S. government. So, in the interests of taking on Milosevic with as unified a front as possible, I think a vote today to table this resolution is prudent. Second, it is not entirely clear to me whether the timing for passage of this resolution is appropriate. Although many are frustrated at the progress of the six-week air campaign, I think it deserves a chance to succeed. No one ever said that this military campaign would be quick and tidy--as wars rearely are--and it is wrong to demand an immeidate result. However, if, in the coming days and weeks, the President and our NATO allies decide that ground forces are, in fact, needed to carry out our campaign against Yugoslav forces, I believe that consideration of this resolution would be appropriate and I would vote for it. Madam President, while my instinct is to support this resolution today, I believe it is premature. Thus I shall vote to table the resolution.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am adding my name as a cosponsor of S. 171 the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999. This bill sets a national, year-round cap on the sulfur content of gasoline sold in the United States. The bill would bring American gasoline standards in-line with the low sulfur levels required in Japan, Australia, the European Union and the State of California. As we all know, cars are a significant source of air pollution. This bill would have an effect on pollution equal to removing 54 million vehicles from the road. The reason for such a dramatic improvement is that sulfur in gasoline coats the car's catalytic converter and spoils its ability to reduce emissions smog-forming pollutants. More than 30 percent of these pollutants are emitted by cars and trucks. In the new breed of low emission vehicles, sulfur is particularly damaging. Engineers have created a new generation of pollution control devices for these vehicles that more effectively reduce smog-forming emissions. But, these cutting-edge technologies are poisoned by even moderate sulfur levels in the gasoline. According to industry research on this new class of clean cars, reducing gasoline sulfur concentration from the current national average of 330 parts per million to 40 ppm will reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 34 percent, carbon monoxide emissions by 43 percent, and nitrogen oxides emissions by 51 percent. If these devices fail to work properly because they are clogged with sulfur, those emissions reductions will be lost and much of our investment in cleaner automotive technology will be wasted. More importantly, lower sulfur levels in gasoline will reduce emissions from nearly every car on the road today--not just those with the latest pollution control devices. This is because reducing the sulfur content of gaoline instantly improves the performance of all catalytic converters in all cars. Low-sulfur fuel adds value to our existing investments in pollution control technology. There are more than 125 million passenger cars on the road today, and this bill will make almost every single one of them cleaner. I'm sure my colleagues recall the phase-out of leaded gasoline in the late 1970s. We undertook that phase-out because we understood that catalytic converters--a new technology at the time--would not work with lead in the gasoline. Now is the time to phase-out sulfur because, by reducing sulfur levels, we can reap more rewards from existing technology and eliminate barriers to new technology. Reducing sulfur levels in gasoline will require some changes to oil refining and processing techniques, and there is a modest cost associated with that. But, no other strategy can achieve such large reductions in air pollutants so quickly. We must capitalize on two decades of improvements in automotive technology by making similar advances in the gasoline used in those cars.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support for S. 574, a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to make two technical corrections to a coastal barrier unit in Delaware. Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982 to address financial and ecological problems caused by development of coastal barriers along the eastern seaboard. The law was so successful that we expanded the Coastal Barrier System in 1990 with the support of the National Taxpayers Union, the American Red Cross, Coast Alliance, and Tax Payers for Common Sense, to name just a few. When we mapped the coastline some mistakes were made, and S. 574 would make technical corrections. the first change modifies the upper northeastern boundary to exclude land under development at the time of its inclusion into the system. the second change modifies the northwestern boundary to include a section of the Cape Henlopen State Park that was mistakenly excluded when the boundary was drawn. S. 574 is identical to a bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. I will try.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator Moynihan, the Federal Employee Flexibility Act of 1999, 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 (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'' enacted in 1993 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. This bill is very similar to a bill Senator Moynihan and I sponsored in the 105th Congress, S. 2575 and H.R. 4777 sponsored in the House by Representatives Norton, Nadler, Morella, and Moran. These same House colleagues are today introducing a bill identical to the bill we introduce today. 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 this session of Congress. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect our nation's estuaries--the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999. I am pleased to introduce this bill with Senator Breaux and so many other distinguished members of the Senate. I am particularly pleased that there is strong bipartisan support among the 16 cosponsors of this bill. Such support underscores the importance of estuaries to our economy and to our environment. To understand the importance of this bill, we must first understand exactly what estuaries are and why they are so significant. Estuaries are the bays, lagoons, and inlets created when rivers and oceans meet, mixing fresh and salt water, creating one of our most economically and environmentally valuable natural resources. They support diverse habitats--from shellfish beds to beaches to sea grass meadows. Estuaries are a crucial component of unique and fragile ecosystems that support marine mammals, birds, and wildlife. There are many commercial and recreational uses that depend upon estuaries, making them integral to our economy as well. Coastal waters generate $54 billion in goods and services annually. The fish and shellfish industries alone contribute $83 million per year to the nation's economy. Estuaries are vital to more than 75 percent of marine fisheries in the United States, making those regions important centers for commercial and sport fishing, while supporting business and creating jobs. The great natural beauty of estuaries coupled with the sporting, fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities they provide make coastal regions important areas for tourism. People come to hike, swim, boat, and enjoy nature in the 44,000 square miles of outdoor public recreation areas along our coasts. In fact, 180 million Americans visit our nation's coasts each year. That is almost 70 percent of the entire U.S. population. The large number of visitors has a strong economic impact. Coastal recreation and tourism generate $8 to $12 billion annually. Estuaries are home to countless species unique to these ecosystems, including many that are threatened or endangered. From birds such as the bald eagle, to shellfish such as the American Oyster, to vegetation such as eelgrass--an amazing variety of wildlife relies upon those areas. It's not only plants and animals that make their homes near estuaries. People are moving to these areas at a rapid rate. While coastal counties account for 11 percent of the land area of the continental U.S., at least half of all Americans call coastal and estuarine regions home. Coastal counties are growing at three times the rate of non-coastal counties. It is estimated that 100 million people live in such areas now, and by 2010 that number is expected to jump to 127 million. Unfortunately, because so many of us enjoy living, working, and playing near estuaries, we have stressed the once-abundant resources of many of these water bodies. Population growth has been difficult to manage in a manner that protects estuaries. Housing developments, roads, and shopping centers have moved into areas crucial to the preservation of estuaries. They have also placed a more concentrated burden on estuaries from pollution caused by infrastructure required by greater number of people: more sewers, cars, and paved roads, among other things. The result of this population growth is painfully evident. Estuary habitats across the nation are vanishing. Almost three-quarters of the original salt marshes in the Puget Sound have been destroyed. Ninety- five percent of the original wetlands in the San Francisco Bay are gone. Louisiana estuaries are losing 25,000 areas of coastal marshes each year. That's an area about the size of Washington, D.C. Those habitats that remain are beleaguered by problems and signs of distress can be seen in virtually every estuary. The 1996 National Water Quality inventory reported that nearly 40 percent of the nation's surveyed estuarine waters are too polluted for basic uses, such as fishing and swimming. Falling finfish and shellfish stocks due to over- harvesting and pollution from nutrients and chemicals, proliferation of toxic algal blooms, and a reduction in important aquatic vegetation has signaled a decline in the condition of many estuaries. Nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen carried from city treatment works and agricultural land flow down our rivers and into our estuaries, leading to over-enrichment of these waters. As a result, algal blooms flourish. These blooms rob the water of the dissolved oxygen and light that is crucial to the survival of grass beds that support shellfish and birds. Nutrients have also contributed to the disappearance of eelgrass beds in Narragansett Bay on Rhode Island. While once eelgrass beds covered thousands of acres of the Bay floor, today that figure has fallen to only 100 acres or so. Sadly, the disappearance of eelgrass is not the only problem facing the Bay. Its valuable fish runs are disappearing. Salt marshes are also in decline. Fifty percent of the salt marsh acreage that once existed has been filled, and 70 percent is cut off from full tidal flow. Nowhere has the problem of nutrient over-enrichment been demonstrated more dramatically of late than in the nation's largest estuary: the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrient pollution in the Bay has contributed to the toxic outbreak of the algae pfiesteria, or ``fish killer'', which has been responsible for massive fish kills in the Bay's waterways. While scientists believe pfiesteria has existed for thousands of years, only recently have we witnessed an alarming escalation in the appearance of the algae in its toxic, predatory form. Unfortunately, the effects of pfiesteria have not been confined to the Chesapeake Bay region. Pfiesteria has also been identified in waters off the coast of North Carolina, indicative of a longer trend of harmful algal blooms in the U.S. and around the world. This trend correlates to an increase in nutrients in our waterways. Perhaps more distressing than the environmental threat posed by pfiesteria is the fact that pfiesteria has also been linked to negative health effects in humans. Estuaries are also endangered by pathogens. Microbes from sewage treatment works and other sources have contaminated waters, making shellfish unfit for human consumption. In Peconsic Bay on Long Island, for instance, more than 4,700 acres of bay bottom is closed either seasonally or year-round due to pathogens. Toxic chemicals such as PCBs, heavy metals, and pesticides degrade the environment of estuaries as well. Runoff from lawns, streets, and farms, sewage treatment plants, atmospheric deposition, and industrial discharges expose finfish and shellfish to the chemicals. The chemicals are persistent and tend to bioaccumulate, concentrating in the tissues of the fish. The fish may then pose a risk to human health if consumed. In Massachusetts Bays, for instance, diseased lobster and flounder have been discovered in certain areas, prompting consumption advisories. Unfortunately, this problem is not an isolated one. In many of our nation's urban harbors polluted runoff creates ``hot spots'' of toxic contamination so severe that nothing can survive. Estuaries are also threatened by newly introduced species. Overpopulation of new species can eradicate native populations. Eradication of even one native species has the potential to alter the food web, increase erosion, and interfere with navigation, agriculture, and fishing. In Tampa Bay, for example, native plant species have been replaced by newly introduced species, altering the Bay's ecological balance. All of these changes to the condition of our estuaries threaten not only our environment, but the economies and jobs that rely upon estuaries. Indeed, the stresses we have placed on estuaries in the past may jeopardize our future enjoyment of the benefits they provide, unless we continue to strengthen the commitments we have made to protecting this resource. Thankfully, the fate of the nation's estuaries is far from decided. We are beginning to see signs that efforts made by many to restore and protect our estuaries are having a positive effect and turning the tide against degradation. Nutrient levels in the Chesapeake Bay are declining due in part to programs designed to better manage fertilizer applications to farmland and lawns and to reduce point source discharges. People in New York have targeted sewer overflows, non-point runoff, and sewage treatment plants by implementing techniques to prevent stormwater pollution and mitigate runoff. By doing so, they hope to reduce the threat of pathogen contamination in Long Island Sound. In Rhode Island, a non-profit group, Save the Bay, has partnered with school kids to do something about the loss of eelgrass beds in Narragansett Bay. The children are growing eelgrass in their schools and it is then planted in the Bay by Save the Bay. In this way, they hope to encourage growth of the beds that provide a home for shellfish and a food source for countless other Bay creatures. In Florida, a partnership of volunteers, students, businesses, and federal, state, and local governments prepared sites and planted native vegetation on six acres of newly-constructed wetlands in a park adjacent to Tampa Bay. The students received job training, education, and summer employment, and the Bay received a helping hand fighting the invasive species that threaten those native to it. The ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act'' will further these efforts to preserve and restore estuaries. The Act is designed to make the best use of scarce resources by channeling them directly to those citizens and organizations that best know how to restore estuaries. It will help groups like those in Rhode Island and Tampa Bay continue their work while encouraging others to join them in projects of their own. The ultimate goal is to restore 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by 2010. To achieve this goal, the bill establishes a streamlined council consisting of representatives from citizen organizations and state and federal governments. This ``Collaborative Council'' will serve two functions. The first function is to develop a comprehensive national estuary habitat restoration strategy. The strategy will be the basis for the second function of the Council: efficient coordination of federal and non-federal estuary restoration activities by providing a means for prioritizing and selecting habitat restoration projects. In developing the strategy, the Council will review existing federal estuary restoration plans and programs, create a set of proposals for making the most of incentives to increase private-sector participation in estuary restoration, and make certain that the strategy is developed and implemented consistent with existing federal estuary management and restoration programs. The Council's second function is to select habitat restoration projects presented to the Council by citizen organizations and other non-federal entities, based on the priorities outlined under the strategy. Those projects that have a high degree of support from non- federal sources for development, maintenance, and funding, fall within the restoration strategy developed by the Council, and are the most feasible will have the greatest degree of success in receiving funding. A project must receive at least 35 percent of its funding from non- federal sources in order to be approved. Priority will be given to those projects where more than 50 percent of its support comes from non-federal sources. Priority status also requires that the project is part of an existing federal estuary plan and that it is located in a watershed that has a program in place to prevent water pollution that might re-impair the estuary if it were restored. To achieve its 1,000,000 acre goal, the Act does not establish mandates or create a new bureaucracy. Instead, the Act encourages partnerships between government and those that are most concerned and best able to effectively preserve estuaries--citizens. It will make the most of federal dollars by providing those citizens and organizations that are most affected by the health of our estuaries the opportunity and the incentive to continue their efforts to improve them through projects that they develop, implement, and monitor themselves. This approach has several advantages. All estuaries are not the same, nor are the problems that face each estuary the same. Therefore, the Act allows citizens to tailor a project targeted to meet the specific challenges posed by the particular estuary in their region. In this way, we are doing the most to help protect estuaries while wasting none of our scarce federal funds. The Act also ensures the continued prudent use of funds through information-gathering, monitoring, and reporting on the projects. Estuaries contribute to our economy and to our environment, and for these reasons alone they should be protected. But, they also contribute to the fabric of many of the communities that surround them. They define much of a region's history and cultures as well as the way people live and work there today. For all of these reasons, then, we must make efficient use of the resources we have in order to assist those people that are protecting and restoring our estuaries. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act is the best, most direct way to do just that. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect our nation's estuaries--the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999. I am pleased to introduce this bill with Senator Breaux and so many other distinguished members of the Senate. I am particularly pleased that there is strong bipartisan support among the 16 cosponsors of this bill. Such support underscores the importance of estuaries to our economy and to our environment. To understand the importance of this bill, we must first understand exactly what estuaries are and why they are so significant. Estuaries are the bays, lagoons, and inlets created when rivers and oceans meet, mixing fresh and salt water, creating one of our most economically and environmentally valuable natural resources. They support diverse habitats--from shellfish beds to beaches to sea grass meadows. Estuaries are a crucial component of unique and fragile ecosystems that support marine mammals, birds, and wildlife. There are many commercial and recreational uses that depend upon estuaries, making them integral to our economy as well. Coastal waters generate $54 billion in goods and services annually. The fish and shellfish industries alone contribute $83 million per year to the nation's economy. Estuaries are vital to more than 75 percent of marine fisheries in the United States, making those regions important centers for commercial and sport fishing, while supporting business and creating jobs. The great natural beauty of estuaries coupled with the sporting, fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities they provide make coastal regions important areas for tourism. People come to hike, swim, boat, and enjoy nature in the 44,000 square miles of outdoor public recreation areas along our coasts. In fact, 180 million Americans visit our nation's coasts each year. That is almost 70 percent of the entire U.S. population. The large number of visitors has a strong economic impact. Coastal recreation and tourism generate $8 to $12 billion annually. Estuaries are home to countless species unique to these ecosystems, including many that are threatened or endangered. From birds such as the bald eagle, to shellfish such as the American Oyster, to vegetation such as eelgrass--an amazing variety of wildlife relies upon those areas. It's not only plants and animals that make their homes near estuaries. People are moving to these areas at a rapid rate. While coastal counties account for 11 percent of the land area of the continental U.S., at least half of all Americans call coastal and estuarine regions home. Coastal counties are growing at three times the rate of non-coastal counties. It is estimated that 100 million people live in such areas now, and by 2010 that number is expected to jump to 127 million. Unfortunately, because so many of us enjoy living, working, and playing near estuaries, we have stressed the once-abundant resources of many of these water bodies. Population growth has been difficult to manage in a manner that protects estuaries. Housing developments, roads, and shopping centers have moved into areas crucial to the preservation of estuaries. They have also placed a more concentrated burden on estuaries from pollution caused by infrastructure required by greater number of people: more sewers, cars, and paved roads, among other things. The result of this population growth is painfully evident. Estuary habitats across the nation are vanishing. Almost three-quarters of the original salt marshes in the Puget Sound have been destroyed. Ninety- five percent of the original wetlands in the San Francisco Bay are gone. Louisiana estuaries are losing 25,000 areas of coastal marshes each year. That's an area about the size of Washington, D.C. Those habitats that remain are beleaguered by problems and signs of distress can be seen in virtually every estuary. The 1996 National Water Quality inventory reported that nearly 40 percent of the nation's surveyed estuarine waters are too polluted for basic uses, such as fishing and swimming. Falling finfish and shellfish stocks due to over- harvesting and pollution from nutrients and chemicals, proliferation of toxic algal blooms, and a reduction in important aquatic vegetation has signaled a decline in the condition of many estuaries. Nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen carried from city treatment works and agricultural land flow down our rivers and into our estuaries, leading to over-enrichment of these waters. As a result, algal blooms flourish. These blooms rob the water of the dissolved oxygen and light that is crucial to the survival of grass beds that support shellfish and birds. Nutrients have also contributed to the disappearance of eelgrass beds in Narragansett Bay on Rhode Island. While once eelgrass beds covered thousands of acres of the Bay floor, today that figure has fallen to only 100 acres or so. Sadly, the disappearance of eelgrass is not the only problem facing the Bay. Its valuable fish runs are disappearing. Salt marshes are also in decline. Fifty percent of the salt marsh acreage that once existed has been filled, and 70 percent is cut off from full tidal flow. Nowhere has the problem of nutrient over-enrichment been demonstrated more dramatically of late than in the nation's largest estuary: the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrient pollution in the Bay has contributed to the toxic outbreak of the algae pfiesteria, or ``fish killer'', which has been responsible for massive fish kills in the Bay's waterways. While scientists believe pfiesteria has existed for thousands of years, only recently have we witnessed an alarming escalation in the appearance of the algae in its toxic, predatory form. Unfortunately, the effects of pfiesteria have not been confined to the Chesapeake Bay region. Pfiesteria has also been identified in waters off the coast of North Carolina, indicative of a longer trend of harmful algal blooms in the U.S. and around the world. This trend correlates to an increase in nutrients in our waterways. Perhaps more distressing than the environmental threat posed by pfiesteria is the fact that pfiesteria has also been linked to negative health effects in humans. Estuaries are also endangered by pathogens. Microbes from sewage treatment works and other sources have contaminated waters, making shellfish unfit for human consumption. In Peconsic Bay on Long Island, for instance, more than 4,700 acres of bay bottom is closed either seasonally or year-round due to pathogens. Toxic chemicals such as PCBs, heavy metals, and pesticides degrade the environment of estuaries as well. Runoff from lawns, streets, and farms, sewage treatment plants, atmospheric deposition, and industrial discharges expose finfish and shellfish to the chemicals. The chemicals are persistent and tend to bioaccumulate, concentrating in the tissues of the fish. The fish may then pose a risk to human health if consumed. In Massachusetts Bays, for instance, diseased lobster and flounder have been discovered in certain areas, prompting consumption advisories. Unfortunately, this problem is not an isolated one. In many of our nation's urban harbors polluted runoff creates ``hot spots'' of toxic contamination so severe that nothing can survive. Estuaries are also threatened by newly introduced species. Overpopulation of new species can eradicate native populations. Eradication of even one native species has the potential to alter the food web, increase erosion, and interfere with navigation, agriculture, and fishing. In Tampa Bay, for example, native plant species have been replaced by newly introduced species, altering the Bay's ecological balance. All of these changes to the condition of our estuaries threaten not only our environment, but the economies and jobs that rely upon estuaries. Indeed, the stresses we have placed on estuaries in the past may jeopardize our future enjoyment of the benefits they provide, unless we continue to strengthen the commitments we have made to protecting this resource. Thankfully, the fate of the nation's estuaries is far from decided. We are beginning to see signs that efforts made by many to restore and protect our estuaries are having a positive effect and turning the tide against degradation. Nutrient levels in the Chesapeake Bay are declining due in part to programs designed to better manage fertilizer applications to farmland and lawns and to reduce point source discharges. People in New York have targeted sewer overflows, non-point runoff, and sewage treatment plants by implementing techniques to prevent stormwater pollution and mitigate runoff. By doing so, they hope to reduce the threat of pathogen contamination in Long Island Sound. In Rhode Island, a non-profit group, Save the Bay, has partnered with school kids to do something about the loss of eelgrass beds in Narragansett Bay. The children are growing eelgrass in their schools and it is then planted in the Bay by Save the Bay. In this way, they hope to encourage growth of the beds that provide a home for shellfish and a food source for countless other Bay creatures. In Florida, a partnership of volunteers, students, businesses, and federal, state, and local governments prepared sites and planted native vegetation on six acres of newly-constructed wetlands in a park adjacent to Tampa Bay. The students received job training, education, and summer employment, and the Bay received a helping hand fighting the invasive species that threaten those native to it. The ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act'' will further these efforts to preserve and restore estuaries. The Act is designed to make the best use of scarce resources by channeling them directly to those citizens and organizations that best know how to restore estuaries. It will help groups like those in Rhode Island and Tampa Bay continue their work while encouraging others to join them in projects of their own. The ultimate goal is to restore 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by 2010. To achieve this goal, the bill establishes a streamlined council consisting of representatives from citizen organizations and state and federal governments. This ``Collaborative Council'' will serve two functions. The first function is to develop a comprehensive national estuary habitat restoration strategy. The strategy will be the basis for the second function of the Council: efficient coordination of federal and non-federal estuary restoration activities by providing a means for prioritizing and selecting habitat restoration projects. In developing the strategy, the Council will review existing federal estuary restoration plans and programs, create a set of proposals for making the most of incentives to increase private-sector participation in estuary restoration, and make certain that the strategy is developed and implemented consistent with existing federal estuary management and restoration programs. The Council's second function is to select habitat restoration projects presented to the Council by citizen organizations and other non-federal entities, based on the priorities outlined under the strategy. Those projects that have a high degree of support from non- federal sources for development, maintenance, and funding, fall within the restoration strategy developed by the Council, and are the most feasible will have the greatest degree of success in receiving funding. A project must receive at least 35 percent of its funding from non- federal sources in order to be approved. Priority will be given to those projects where more than 50 percent of its support comes from non-federal sources. Priority status also requires that the project is part of an existing federal estuary plan and that it is located in a watershed that has a program in place to prevent water pollution that might re-impair the estuary if it were restored. To achieve its 1,000,000 acre goal, the Act does not establish mandates or create a new bureaucracy. Instead, the Act encourages partnerships between government and those that are most concerned and best able to effectively preserve estuaries--citizens. It will make the most of federal dollars by providing those citizens and organizations that are most affected by the health of our estuaries the opportunity and the incentive to continue their efforts to improve them through projects that they develop, implement, and monitor themselves. This approach has several advantages. All estuaries are not the same, nor are the problems that face each estuary the same. Therefore, the Act allows citizens to tailor a project targeted to meet the specific challenges posed by the particular estuary in their region. In this way, we are doing the most to help protect estuaries while wasting none of our scarce federal funds. The Act also ensures the continued prudent use of funds through information-gathering, monitoring, and reporting on the projects. Estuaries contribute to our economy and to our environment, and for these reasons alone they should be protected. But, they also contribute to the fabric of many of the communities that surround them. They define much of a region's history and cultures as well as the way people live and work there today. For all of these reasons, then, we must make efficient use of the resources we have in order to assist those people that are protecting and restoring our estuaries. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act is the best, most direct way to do just that. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on May 1st, fifteen outstanding students from Scituate High School in Rhode Island will visit Washington to begin their competition in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with it, the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program is among the most extensive educational programs in the country focusing on citizenship. The program was developed specifically to ensure that young people understand the history and philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students are given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on historical and contemporary constitutional issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history. It is heartwarming to see young Rhode Islanders taking such an active and participatory interest in public affairs. I am very proud of Philip Amylon, Matthew Bilotti, Caitlin Bouchard, Jessica Bradbury, Kathleen Burdett, Jacqueline Gallo, Christopher Granatino, Thomas Hynes, Carolyn Jacobs, Danielle Lachance, Catherine Moser, Ross Mtangi, Christopher Natalizia, Ian Noonan, and Christina Rossi for making it to the national finals. I applaud this terrific group of young men and women for their hard work and perseverance. Also, Mr. President, I want to congratulate Amy Grundt, a fine teacher who deserves so much credit for guiding the Scituate High School team to the national finals. Congratulations to Ms. Grundt and her students for what they have already achieved, and best of luck in the final competition. These students, with the guidance of Ms. Gundt, have learned what our Nation is all about and what countless men and women have fought and died to protect. No matter what the outcome of the contest is, they have each earned the greatest prize of all: knowledge.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to engage my distinguished colleagues, Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Domenici, in a colloquy, with their indulgence. As my colleagues are aware, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is the primary vehicle through which the Federal Government funds the acquisition of land and water resources throughout the Nation. It does so through two programs, one allowing for Federal land acquisitions and one providing for matching grants by State and local governments. However, funding for the LWCF has been sporadic, and for the State-side program, funding has been non-existent since 1995.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention an amendment I offered, with great assistance by Senator Smith of New Hampshire, as well as Senators Leahy and Feingold, that increased Function 300 by $200 million, with a commensurate decrease from Function 370. The amendment included language that this increase was to fund the State-side program of LWCF.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to ask the distinguished manager of the budget resolution whether these assumptions still apply, even if they do not appear in the resolution?

Mr. CHAFEE. Is there a presumption that the Senate, in accepting the House-passed, higher funding level for Function 300, is also adopting the assumptions that may have been used by the House in reaching its Function 300 spending levels?

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire, as well as the distinguished manager of the budget resolution, for engaging in this colloquy. I also wish to wholeheartedly thank the manager for his support on this issue throughout the consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Breaux and Jeffords, to correct an inequity that currently exists with the taxes imposed on transportation fuels. In 1990 Congress extended fuel taxes beyond their traditional role as transportation user fees by introducing a 2.5 cents-per-gallon federal deficit reduction tax on railroad and highway fuels. These taxes were enacted as part of legislation that was designed to reduce the federal budget that existed at that time. In 1993, Congress increased these ``deficit reduction fuel taxes'' and extended them to inland waterway users and commercial airlines. The taxes imposed on barges went into effect immediately, while those affecting the airlines were delayed for 2 years. As a result of these two pieces of legislation a deficit reduction fuel tax of 6.8 cents per gallon was imposed on railroads and trucks, 4.3 cents per gallon on barges, and a suspended 4.3 cents per gallon tax on airlines. Beginning in 1995, however, Congress began to redirect these taxes for other uses. The first step was taking 2.5 cents of the amount paid by highway users and transferring it to the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund, as many of my colleagues know, is the principal source of money used for highway infrastructure. Taxes paid into this trust fund by highway users results in a direct benefit to them by being recycled back into improvements to our nation's roads and bridges. Recognizing that this transfer would place the railroad industry--a direct competitor of the trucking industry--at a competitive disadvantage, Congress reduced the deficit reduction tax paid by railroads by 1.25 cents. As a result of these changes, then, highway users, commerical airlines and inland waterway users paid a deficit reduction tax of 4.3 cents while railroads paid a tax of 5.55 cents. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act further disadvantaged the railroad and inland waterway sectors by relieving highway users and commercial airlines from the remaining 4.3 cent deficit reduction fuel tax. Instead of these funds going into the General Fund of the Treasury, the taxes paid by these sectors were redirected to their respective trust funds. I have a chart that I will ask be included with my statement that shows the evolution of deficit reduction fuel excise taxes over the past decade. Today, two sectors of the transportation industry--railroads and inland waterway users--pay ``deficit reduction'' taxes even though we no longer have a deficit. Furthermore, these sectors are required to continue paying these taxes even though their competitors do not. There is absolutely no policy rationale for railroads and barge operators to pay deficit reduction fuel taxes while motor carriers and commerical airlines are required to pay nothing. We believe the time has come to correct this unfairness. This bill levels the playing field by repealing the remaining 4.3 cent tax paid by the railroads and inland waterway users. I urge all of my colleagues to our legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the chart be included in the Record. The chart follows:

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on March 23, 1999, the Committee on Environment and Public Works filed S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, accompanied by Senate Report 106-34. At that time, the analysis prepared by the Congressional Budget Office was not available, and therefore was not printed with the report. The analysis subsequently has been received by the committee and I now ask unanimous consent, pursuant to section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Domenici and Wellstone, in introducing the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999, and I applaud them for their leadership on this issue. This legislation is an important step towards ensuring that people with mental illness have access to the care they need. For too long, insurance plans have treated patients with mental illnesses differently than those with physical illnesses. However, research has proven the biological origins of mental illness. It is now time to bring coverage of mental illness into the 20th century. There is no rational basis for excluding or limiting coverage for such conditions; doing so is patently discriminatory. Enactment of the Mental Health Parity Act in 1996, which I cosponsored, was the first step in correcting this disparity. This legislation builds upon the 1996 law by adding some important new protections. In my home state of Rhode Island, over 28,000 people are suffering from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression. These disorders can be as threatening to the health of the patient as physical illnesses, such as cancer or AIDS. Discriminatory coverage restrictions or cost-sharing requirements--such as limits on the number of therapy visits or disparate co-payments-- place an undue hardship on these patients at a time when they require medical care. If left untreated, mental illnesses can result in more serious disability or even death. This legislation takes another step in helping to prevent such tragedies. I hope we one day will be able to end discrimination in the coverage of all mental illnesses. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Domenici and Wellstone, in introducing the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999, and I applaud them for their leadership on this issue. This legislation is an important step towards ensuring that people with mental illness have access to the care they need. For too long, insurance plans have treated patients with mental illnesses differently than those with physical illnesses. However, research has proven the biological origins of mental illness. It is now time to bring coverage of mental illness into the 20th century. There is no rational basis for excluding or limiting coverage for such conditions; doing so is patently discriminatory. Enactment of the Mental Health Parity Act in 1996, which I cosponsored, was the first step in correcting this disparity. This legislation builds upon the 1996 law by adding some important new protections. In my home state of Rhode Island, over 28,000 people are suffering from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression. These disorders can be as threatening to the health of the patient as physical illnesses, such as cancer or AIDS. Discriminatory coverage restrictions or cost-sharing requirements--such as limits on the number of therapy visits or disparate co-payments-- place an undue hardship on these patients at a time when they require medical care. If left untreated, mental illnesses can result in more serious disability or even death. This legislation takes another step in helping to prevent such tragedies. I hope we one day will be able to end discrimination in the coverage of all mental illnesses. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.