John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I will take a moment to pay tribute to the U.S. hockey team. As many of my colleagues may know, Team USA won the World Cup of Hockey last Saturday night with a decisive 5-2 victory over Canada. This was an extraordinary tournament. All the traditional hockey powers--countries such as Canada, Russia, and Sweden--sent their very best players to this competition. Unlike the Olympics, in which the teams have been made up principally of amateur players, these players were strictly professionals. It was the best in the world against the best in the world. At the outset, the Americans were the underdogs. In the end, however, not only did we win, but we dominated play throughout the tournament. As an American, I was thrilled to read about Team USA's outstanding performance. But I am particularly proud of this team's accomplishments as a Rhode Islander. The team was assembled by Lou Lamoriello--a native of Rhode Island and a former head coach of the Providence College hockey team. Lou is now the president and general manager of the New Jersey Devils. The team's assistant general manager was Jack Ferreira, a graduate of LaSalle Academy in Providence, and a former assistant coach for Brown University. The team was coached by Ron Wilson. He grew up in East Providence and played hockey for Providence College. He's now the head coach of the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Defenseman Mathieu Schneider is a graduate of Mount Saint Charles High School in Woonsocket, RI. The athletic trainer, Peter Demers, a long-time trainer for the Los Angeles Kings, is originally from Pawtucket. To top it off, the team trained at Providence College's Schneider Arena. So you can see that this team had a distinct Rhode Island flavor to it. And so, I join with all Rhode Islanders and Americans in congratulating the U.S. hockey team for their marvelous achievement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senators for the clarification. central registry

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, section 105(e) of the manager's amendment directs the Secretary of Commerce to provide transshipment permits for up to 14 Canadian vessels for the purposes of transporting Atlantic herring caught off the coast of Maine in the sardine processing trade. I would like to ask the Senators whether the manager's amendment would also require this herring transshipment practice to be consistent with any applicable regulations, including fishery allocations, approved by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The ASMFC has management authority for Atlantic herring.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, and the chairman of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, in a colloquy.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend and thank the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, for his many months of hard work in getting this vitally important environmental legislation to the floor. I know that in writing and bringing this bill to the floor, Senator Stevens has had to contend with a great many competing interests that were often at odds on some very complex issues. Despite this obstacle, he has been able to fashion what I believe to be a strong but fair piece of legislation. There remain several changes I would like to see in this bill, but on balance I support S. 39, legislation which should help our fisheries recover from years of overfishing, mismanagement and other negative factors. I would like to briefly share with my colleagues our unfortunate experience with the decline of fishing in New England, and hope that this experience and others like it might convince all Senators on the importance of passing this bill. Commercial fishing has long been a great source of pride for Rhode Island and New England, its history in our region stretching back several hundred years. Explorers of the New World returned to England with reports of codfish so plentiful that men actually scooped them from the sea by the bucket. In addition, early colonists relied on fish for subsistence during their first, difficult years of settlement. More recently, commercial fishing remained a fruitful and profitable industry in New England throughout the 20th century. Fishing and all of its associated businesses have employed tens of thousands of New Englanders in ports along the coast, making it one of our region s most important industries. But beginning in the 1960's, distant-water factory trawler fleets from more than a dozen countries were decimating fish stocks off New England. In response, Congress in 1976 passed the Magnuson Act, which sought to Americanize our fishing grounds within 200 miles of the U.S. coast and let stocks recover from foreign overfishing. Unfortunately, though, the Americanization of our fishing grounds 20 years ago has not resulted in the intended conservation of this valuable national resource. Domestic fishermen have more than made up for the departure of foreign fleets--the introduction of more boats and the use of increasingly sophisticated fishing technology has resulted in destructive overfishing throughout New England's prime fishing grounds. In 1976, there were 775 New England boats licensed to catch groundfish. Today there are 4,000, of which 1,800 still actively fish. Overfishing and the resulting sharp downturn in our fishing industry, particularly in New England, is nothing short of a genuine tragedy. A look at some of the consequences of years of fisheries mismanagement in New England is staggering: in 1980, Georges Bank cod biomass totalled about 90,000 metric tons; by last year it had declined to under 20,000 metric tons. Georges Bank haddock biomass was nearly 70,000 metric tons in 1978, while today it is under 20,000. Many of these once abundant fish stocks, which have been such a major influence on New England's economy and heritage, are now, sadly, at or near commercial extinction. The question we now face in the context of the legislation before the Senate today is how do we best restore this sadly declining industry and bring life back to a marine resource that is disappearing? Unfortunately, efforts thus far to halt this collapse of fish stocks in New England have met with limited success at best. In fact, in 1991 it actually took a lawsuit by two Massachusetts environmental groups to force the notoriously slow New England Fishery Management Council to draft and implement a fishery management plan that contained the teeth needed to stem continued overfishing and stock decimation. And this plan, entitled amendment 5, did not even take effect until some 3 years after the lawsuit was filed. But amendment 5, while its ground-breaking restrictions on fishing effort were significantly stronger than previous efforts, proved to be insufficient to stem the continuing decline in New England fish stocks. So amendment 7, which further restricts fishing off New England in several ways, was proposed and approved by the Department of Commerce several months ago. Those of us who are committed to restoring New England's fisheries are hopeful that amendment 7 might begin to reverse the tremendous damage that has been done to this resource. Unfortunately, though, the New England and other regional fishery management councils, while their efforts have improved during recent years, still require additional tools to address the many conservation needs of our Nation s fisheries. Through a long series of hearings and a tremendous amount of hard work and patient listening, the Commerce Committee has succeeded in producing a far-reaching bill, S. 39, that provides the Councils these tools. I strongly endorse this legislation, and urge all of my colleagues, both from coastal and inland regions, to do so as well. S. 39 defines ``overfished'' and ``overfishing'' in the Magnuson Act and requires fishery management plans to specify criteria for determining when a fishery is overfished and include measures to rebuild any overfished fishery. A council would have 1 year to come up with a plan to stop overfishing and rebuild the fishery, and the Secretary of Commerce would be required to step in if the council fails to act. This bill also adds a new national standard to the Magnuson Act requiring that conservation and management measures minimize what we call bycatch, which is the incidental harvest of nontarget fish. Bycatch has caused much damage to many fisheries in the United States as unintentionally caught fish are often thrown back in the water dead or dying. In addition, S. 39 imposes several significant reforms on the council process, including conflict-of-interest procedures and new mechanisms to push councils to develop difficult conservation and management measures. Our experience in New England, where an industry-dominated council for years stymied effective management, certainly illustrates the need for these council reforms. Mr. President, the Sustainable Fisheries Act includes many other provisions aimed at restoring and sustaining some of our Nation's most valued resources. I look with amazement at the array of fishing and conservation organizations that have endorsed this vitally important legislation. These groups range from industry to environmental to recreational. I commend the work done by Senator Stevens to obtain this wide-ranging level of support, and urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill. Thank you. Jurisdiction Over Fisheries in the EEZ

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for his help on this and also Senator McCain, the floor manager of this legislation. This is something that has been worked out. Amazingly enough, we seem to have everybody satisfied. Having seen these things in the past, I am a great believer in getting things done, if we can. I will suggest the absence of a quorum and see perhaps if we can get Senator McCain here just briefly and get this one accepted, if it is agreeable. If there is no other business, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE. Again, I want to express my appreciation to Senator McCain and Senator Ford for their assistance in this, also the folks from the FAA and EPA. I think we have worked out a good solution here, and I am very pleased with that. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, and I send that modification to the desk.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I call now for my amendment No. 5361.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia for the very kind comments that he made about the friendship that we have had. I am here now in my 20th year, and as I look back on the individuals I have known here and the friends I have had and the respect I have for them, there is none that stands higher than the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, who I feel lucky to have known. We have worked together on issues. Sometimes we have been in opposition on issues, I will confess to that, but never with rancor and always with friendship and always with, certainly from my point of view, respect, and I would like to believe the respect was mutual. I am absolutely confident that there is no tribute that Howard Greene has received on this floor that will mean more to him than the one he has received from the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, because he has, as do all the Members on this side and all the Members of the Senate, tremendous respect and affection for the gentleman who once upon a time was majority leader, and he has been minority leader. He has had every post in the Senate. And Howard Greene, I know, will be very, very pleased to receive the accolades that came from the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator and say how flattered I am by the kind comments that the Senator from West Virginia made about me.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I will read a portion of this letter addressed to the Honorable Larry Pressler, chairman of the Committee on Commerce, dated September 12, 1996. Page 2 reads: In consideration of the very significant budget constraints faced by the FAA, I urge the deletion of the new responsibilities that section 631(a)(1) of S. 1994 entitled, ``Aircraft Engine Standards'' would impose on the agency. If adopted, this section would vest responsibility to set aircraft engine emission standards with the FAA. Such responsibility would not only duplicate the responsibility and authority already vested with the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] under the Clean Air Act, but would also require the expenditure of substantial resources to develop a level of expertise requisite to environmental rulemaking that already exists at EPA. What is the third reason that this provision should be stricken? If the provision in the bill has the effect of forestalling any EPA regulation of aircraft engines--which probably is the effort here, to get EPA out of this--the result will not be less regulation or less costly regulation. It will merely mean, and this is important, more regulation for other sources like small businesses and automobile owners and manufacturing facilities. Airplanes emit hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen into the atmosphere where they combine with the air pollutants admitted by thousands of other sources to form what is known as smog. The way the Clean Air Act works, States must adopt regulations reducing pollution from targeted sources until a safety level for smog pollution is attained. In other words, the States have this responsibility. If aircraft engines, the airlines, and air transport companies are not required to reduce their pollution, then somebody else has to do it. It might be the dry cleaner, it might be a small manufacturing company, it might be a bakery. Somebody has to reduce its, his, or her, emissions, and will probably have to do more and do it at a higher cost than if an overall look could be taken and seen where it can be done most economically. That might in certain instances pertain to aircraft engines. This provision does not reduce regulation. It just shifts the burden to somebody else, somebody else who is not represented by a high- powered lobbyist that can send letters saying, ``Take EPA out of this.'' Mr. President, for these reasons, Senator Baucus and I are offering this amendment to remove the provisions creating duplicative regulatory authority and encouraging more cooperation. What our amendment does is say, yes, there should be more cooperation between the FAA and EPA. The EPA should consult with FAA on these matters. Now, Mr. President, let me just say the following: I am deeply disturbed by the trend that is taking place in connection with what I believe to be ill-advised efforts to cut back on environmental regulation. Here is one industry attempting to be exempted, then another, then another. We have a bill over in the House of Representatives dealing with immigration. What does it say? You can build a fence to keep out immigrants and you do not have to pay any attention to the Endangered Species Act. But that is not enough. They then go on to say pay no attention to the Endangered Species Act and, indeed, pay no attention to what is known as the National Environmental Policy Act. In other words, forgo all environmental regulations while you are building this fence. Build this fence in California between Mexico and the United States--oh, no, to build any fence anywhere in the United States, dealing with immigration, pay no attention to the National Environmental Policy Act. Mr. President, this Nation was blessed in the early 1970's by a series of great Senators, and we know who they are. They are Ed Muskie, Jennings Randolph, Howard Baker, Bob Stafford, who in a bipartisan fashion brought forward in this Nation tremendous environmental protection laws, and whether you are talking the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency or the National Environmental Protection Act, whatever it is, those were the bills that were brought forward. They were brought forward because there was a need for them. When the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire, it caught the attention of the people in the United States--something is wrong with the waters of this Nation. So we embarked on a $60 billion program over the course of the years to clean up discharges from municipalities, and the industries, likewise, complied, because we had regulations. Now we have clean waters. At that time, one-third of the waters of the United States' lakes, rivers and streams were fishable and swimmable. Now two- thirds of the lakes, rivers and streams in the United States of America are fishable and swimmable, and every year that percentage increases. So we have been blessed by these laws. I, Mr. President, find it discouraging and disappointing that constantly there is an effort to nibble away at those statutes. Here in this one, to remove the aircraft engine and the Air Transport Association's aircraft from the restrictions that have been applied, wisely, by the EPA over many years, and give it to another agency where they think they will find a much more sympathetic home. Therefore, Mr. President, I hope we do not turn our backs on those magnificent achievements that were made in the early 1970's and continued since then, whether it is the control of toxic waste and the manner in which we dispose of them, whether it is what we did in the Clean Air Act in 1991, all of these statutes have been for better health and a better America. I, Mr. President, just hope we will not nip, nip, nip away at cutting back on these statutes that have meant so much to our Nation and the health of our people. Exhibit 1 The Secretary of Transportation, Washington, DC, September 12, 1996. Hon. Larry Pressler, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I have appreciated your past support for the important work that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does to provide the American traveling public with safe and efficient air travel. I know you agree that a strong, effective FAA is absolutely essential for aviation safety in this country. The safety and security of our air transportation system have always enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. It is because of this shared vision that I urge you to enact--before Congress adjourns--the comprehensive FAA reform and reauthorization legislation contained in S. 1994. Without the timely enactment of this legislation, it will be considerably more difficult for the FAA to meet the safety demands of the traveling public. This legislation will reauthorize funding for critical FAA safety, security, air traffic modernization, and research programs. It will also reauthorize the airport development grant program. In the absence of an extension of the airport grant program, FAA's ability to fund many important airport projects involving capacity, safety, and security will end October 1. S. 1994 also contains critical provisions to help ensure a better way to finance the FAA. These provisions will help to ensure FAA has adequate resources in the future, but are also designed to provide appropriate incentives to users of the air traffic control system and ensure that the air traffic control system is used in the most cost-effective manner. A bill that does not contain the foundation for meaningful financial reform for the agency will undermine the FAA's ability to meet the safety and security needs of the traveling public, and lessen public confidence in our air transportation system. Congress has already taken critical steps in the past year to provide FAA with needed acquisitions and personnel reform. It is imperative that Congress stay the course on these reforms and not tie FAA up once again with unnecessary red tape that will impact the efficiency of the air traffic control system and delay air traffic modernization efforts. The most significant step is to pass meaningful financial reform since these reforms will be limited without sufficient resources and budget flexibility for the agency. The lapse of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund taxes this year underscores the need to find a long-term, new funding solution for the

Mr. CHAFEE. Could I ask this, Mr. President: Is there a time certain set to vote tomorrow on this measure?

Mr. CHAFEE. And reach a time agreement tomorrow?

Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding since we have not agreed on anything that there is no time agreement.

Mr. CHAFEE. I make the request, if I could. I think it is fair that the opponents get some time. I am not trying to cut anybody out of time.

Mr. CHAFEE. I am agreeable.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, that is fine.

Mr. CHAFEE. Whatever time we get, perhaps it would be best if it were evenly divided.

Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that there will be set aside tomorrow before we vote, 15 minutes, of which Senator Baucus would have 10 minutes and I would have 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of myself and Senator Baucus. Mr. President, what does this amendment do? This amendment would remove a provision in the bill which gives the Federal Aviation Administration, which sometimes is referred to as the FAA, removes the authority given to the FAA under this legislation to regulate air pollution emissions from aircraft engines. This new authority--this is not authority that they currently have; this is brand new authority to the FAA. It would duplicate authority which is already assigned to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. The amendment that Senator Baucus has joined me on would encourage greater cooperation between EPA and FAA in this area, but it would preclude the confusion and waste that would result from two Federal agencies charged to do the same job. That is what this legislation does; it sets up one more agency to do exactly the same thing that the EPA does now. Mr. President, we object to giving the FAA this authority for three reasons. First, there is no need to duplicate the authority that the EPA already has. There is no evidence, Mr. President--no evidence--that EPA has abused this authority or that it has overregulated aircraft engines. The last time EPA issued regulations for aircraft engines was in 1982. Mr. President, that was 14 years ago. So that is hardly a case of overregulation. As a practical matter, Mr. President, the way this system works is that the world's three major aircraft engine manufacturers--there are three in the world, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric, and Rolls Royce--comply with emissions standards that are set by an international body, sometimes referred to as ICAO. That international body's regulations cover more pollutants and are more stringent than EPA regulations. So, Mr. President, to instruct two separate Federal agencies to issue regulations on the same subject is to set the stage for confusion and conflict and wasted resources, both public and private. Second, the FAA is in no position to regulate aircraft engine emissions as provided in this legislation. The FAA does not have the expertise to know which air pollutants adversely affect human health or the environment. The FAA does not know how emissions from aircraft engines fit into the bigger picture on air quality problems. In fact, Mr. President, the Commerce Committee has received a letter, dated just 5 days ago, from Secretary Pena of the Department of Transportation asking that this provision, the provision I am referring to, giving the same powers that the EPA has, giving those to the FAA in this bill--Secretary Pena has written asking that this provision be removed from the bill because the FAA does not have that expertise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Pena be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. I am perfectly prepared, and I want to make sure that the opponents get whatever time they want. Thank you.