John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. That is fair enough. We will work it out tomorrow.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last month, the President signed into law bipartisan legislation that provides greater portability of health insurance for working Americans. Today, I join with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, in the introduction of a bipartisan bill that will provide some of the same guarantees for seniors who buy Medicare supplemental insurance or Medigap policies. Of the 37 million Medicare beneficiaries, 80 percent, or nearly 30 million, have some form of Medicare supplemental insurance, whether covered through a retiree health plan or a private Medigap policy. Under current law, Medigap insurers must issue these policies without pre-existing condition limitations during the 6-month period immediately after the beneficiary becomes eligible for Medicare. Our bill does three things for seniors who have purchased Medigap insurance. First, it guarantees that if their plan goes out of business or the beneficiary moves out of a plan service area, he or she can buy another comparable policy. These rules also would apply to a senior who has had coverage under a retiree health plan if their plan goes out of business. Second, it encourages seniors to enroll in Medicare managed care by guaranteeing that they can return to Medicare fee-for-service and, during the first year of enrollment, get back their same Medigap policy if they decide they do not like managed care. Under current law, if a senior wishes to enroll in a Medicare managed care plan, they have two options. They may drop their Medigap policy, and hope they can get another if they go back to fee-for-service, or they can continue paying their Medigap premiums in the event that they may need the policy again some day--a very costly option for those on fixed incomes. Third, it provides a 6-month open enrollment period for those under 65 who become Medicare beneficiaries because they are disabled. Under current Federal law, Medicare beneficiaries are offered a 6-month open enrollment period only if they are 65. There are approximately 4 million Americans who are under 65 years of age and are enrolled in the Medicare Program. Currently, they do not currently have access to Medigap policies unless State laws require insurers to offer policies to them. It is true that this bill does not go as far as some advocacy groups would like. Our bill leaves to the States more controversial issues, such as continuous open enrollment and community rating of Medigap premiums. I believe, however, that this legislation will provide seniors the same guarantees that we provided to working Americans under the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last month, the President signed into law bipartisan legislation that provides greater portability of health insurance for working Americans. Today, I join with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, in the introduction of a bipartisan bill that will provide some of the same guarantees for seniors who buy Medicare supplemental insurance or Medigap policies. Of the 37 million Medicare beneficiaries, 80 percent, or nearly 30 million, have some form of Medicare supplemental insurance, whether covered through a retiree health plan or a private Medigap policy. Under current law, Medigap insurers must issue these policies without pre-existing condition limitations during the 6-month period immediately after the beneficiary becomes eligible for Medicare. Our bill does three things for seniors who have purchased Medigap insurance. First, it guarantees that if their plan goes out of business or the beneficiary moves out of a plan service area, he or she can buy another comparable policy. These rules also would apply to a senior who has had coverage under a retiree health plan if their plan goes out of business. Second, it encourages seniors to enroll in Medicare managed care by guaranteeing that they can return to Medicare fee-for-service and, during the first year of enrollment, get back their same Medigap policy if they decide they do not like managed care. Under current law, if a senior wishes to enroll in a Medicare managed care plan, they have two options. They may drop their Medigap policy, and hope they can get another if they go back to fee-for-service, or they can continue paying their Medigap premiums in the event that they may need the policy again some day--a very costly option for those on fixed incomes. Third, it provides a 6-month open enrollment period for those under 65 who become Medicare beneficiaries because they are disabled. Under current Federal law, Medicare beneficiaries are offered a 6-month open enrollment period only if they are 65. There are approximately 4 million Americans who are under 65 years of age and are enrolled in the Medicare Program. Currently, they do not currently have access to Medigap policies unless State laws require insurers to offer policies to them. It is true that this bill does not go as far as some advocacy groups would like. Our bill leaves to the States more controversial issues, such as continuous open enrollment and community rating of Medigap premiums. I believe, however, that this legislation will provide seniors the same guarantees that we provided to working Americans under the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, few people had ever heard of the White House Travel Office before the Clinton administration took office. Now the White House Travel Office is a household name and its former employees have been falsely accused, they have been fired, they have been investigated by the IRS and the FBI, they have been defamed, and in one case indicted and finally, after a trial, they were fairly acquitted. These employees served at the pleasure of the President. He could have replaced them any time he wanted. There is no argument about that. But it is the manner in which these employees were fired, the manner in which they were treated, and the web of improprieties uncovered as a result of the investigation into these firings that I find most troubling. The White House, which promised what Newsweek magazine called, ``the most stringent ethical requirements of any administration ever,'' has been the White House that has been entangled in one ethical misadventure after another. Instead of informing the Travel Office employees that their services were no longer required, services which they could perfectly well do when they came into office, instead, they install one Katherine Cornelius, a cousin of the President. Her duty was to monitor activities in the office, and what did she come up with? She came up with a scheme to replace all those employees with TRM, a travel agency owned by Harry Thomasson, a Hollywood friend and close adviser of the Clintons. It was on so-called evidence of wrongdoing.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do hope this individual will be reimbursed, and that is what this is all about here today. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to speak in favor of the committee amendment. What this committee amendment would do is allow the Federal employees health program to resume coverage for abortion services. Unfortunately, and I believe it was unfortunate, last year, Congress voted to prohibit the Federal employees health program from covering abortions for our female employees and our female dependents. If this committee amendment were not adopted--in other words, if it were rejected --we will be responsible for continuing a lower standard of health insurance for our female employees than they could get if they worked in the private sector. In the private sector you can get this. What this says is you cannot offer this service. Now, there is nothing that says these programs have to include coverage for abortion services. Not at all. Indeed, before that amendment last year was passed, out of the 345 health plans that are all put under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, 345 of them--about half; 178--offered some form of abortion coverage. In other words, a woman could choose this if she wanted; if she wanted a plan that did not cover it, fine, she could choose that. But it seems to me terribly unfair for us to say, no, no, none of those programs can offer this benefit to women who might want to have it. Indeed, if they are in the private sector, they could get it. Now, some say this is a gift of the Federal Government to these women. No, it is a benefit. It is a benefit that comes with the health package that our Federal Government offers. It is like saying that a woman could not use her private funds, her earnings, her salary, her wages from the Federal Government to obtain an abortion. Nobody is suggesting that, because the Constitution says the woman has a right to go out and buy this procedure--it is a legal procedure, a medical procedure--and the right is held up by the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I think what is being attempted here is a very, very, unfair move against employees of the Federal Government. Last, here is a notice that came out last year after this prohibition was passed in the Congress. Dear Blue-Cross and Blue-Shield benefit plan member: On November 19, 1995, public law [so and so] was enacted which limits the Federal Employees Health Benefit plans coverage of legal abortions. And then it says to the whole of the plan that they no longer can cover that. You are out of luck. If you are in the private sector, as I said, you can get this, but you cannot get it any longer if you are a Federal employee. There are 345 plans and none of them can be permitted to offer it. I think it is very, very unfortunate, Mr. President. I hope the attempt to defeat the amendment is not successful.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to make two comments in favor of this bill, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA. I believe the matter before the Senate is a very simple one: Whether or not sexual orientation is a factor that should be considered in employment decisions. In my view, the answer is clear. The only factor that should be considered in the workplace is the ability of an employee or potential employee to do the job at hand. Since sexual orientation, like race or ethnicity, has nothing to do with job ability, it seems to me it has no place as a basis for discrimination. There is nothing particularly radical about this proposition, Mr. President. It is a singularly American belief that each and every person shall be judged not on unrelated factors such as color or gender but on their merits. In the workplace, that translates to an individual's job skills and capabilities. To judge a person otherwise, I believe, goes against the grain of what this whole country stands for. As Barry Goldwater recently noted, ``job discrimination against gays or anybody else is contrary to each of our founding principles.'' Other Senators have recounted tales of gays and lesbians who have suddenly lost their jobs when employers discovered their sexual orientation. These instances are shocking and, I believe, shameful. No one deserves such treatment. So let me make one point clear, Mr. President. An employee whose behavior in the workplace is inappropriate deserves no protection from sanction. A gay employee who makes inappropriate statements or otherwise conducts him or herself in an inappropriate manner should not be countenanced. That is clear. The same would apply to a nongay individual who conducts him or herself inappropriately. That conduct would not be tolerated. As my colleague from California, Mrs. Feinstein, put it last Friday, ``Do something that is improper conduct, and it all changes.'' Any kind of untoward behavior, no matter from whom it comes, must not be permitted. This bill before us would provide basic protection to Americans who are subject now to arbitrary and unreasonable job denial or dismissal. I think that is appropriate, Mr. President, so I urge support of this measure.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. So in other words, the mother could say, ``I want to go home in 24 hours,'' but she would get the care, somebody at home would care, if she wanted, for the next 24 hours?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think that is an important point. I will give my qualifications in the area. I had six children. I suppose that would give me some knowledge about this subject. As I understand it, if a mother should choose to leave in 24 hours-- obviously, that is a big savings to the insurance company; say it cost $1,000 a day in a hospital, and I do not think that is outrageous and that suggestion is pretty much on the mark, or something like that--it may well be that the mother would vastly prefer being home but have some help at home, and maybe that help would extend for 5 days. How do you handle that?

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator for that description. As I say, I am troubled by the U.S. Congress getting involved in an issue like this. I found the explanation, particularly the ERISA argument, to be a very telling argument.

Mr. CHAFEE. Now, is this the so-called Kaiser Permanente language? Is that in the first amendment?

Mr. CHAFEE. Now, the final question, the number of States that have dealt with this you say is 28 in total or in part?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, when I heard about this amendment of the Senator from New Jersey originally, my first thought was, why is the Federal Government getting involved in deciding how long hospital stays are? It seemed to me that was a matter that quite properly should be handled by States. And indeed in my State we have handled it. We have a bill, the best as I understand it, that is very similar to the suggestion of the bill proposed by the Senator from New Jersey. Indeed, I made notes of the Senator's remarks. He indicated that some 28 States have taken action. That does not mean they have gone the complete route--and the Senator can obviously explain that further--but I take it some 28 States have dealt with this matter of how long a hospital stay should be or could be. So I will confess that my original reaction was unfavorable to the Senator's proposal. However, two things happened. For one thing, my daughter called me. She has four children and she has some views on this subject. And also the ERISA point that the Senator raised. And I would like to explore that if I might. Finally, the so-called Frist amendment. I am not sure exactly what the Frist amendment does. But my first question would be, of the Senator from New Jersey, as I understand it--first, I want to say, I listened to his arguments. One of his arguments is that you need a national law because you might have the State wherein the individual resides on a town right on the border of another State where the hospital is that serves that town, and the other State does not have the legislation. However, I thought the most telling argument he made was the so- called ERISA argument. That is, as I understand it, that because ERISA applies to those corporations that have interstate health care plans, that the ERISA law prevents the State government--and we dealt with this, of course, when we were dealing with the health care business in 1994--the ERISA prevents the State law from getting involved with the plans that are covered by the ERISA statute. I had not thought of that. And so first, if the Senator would be good enough to explain a little bit on that. Is that point correct?

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator would withhold that.

Mr. CHAFEE. So your point is, to follow it up, it only would be a Federal law that would deal with that situation. The State law could not affect it. The second point that would be helpful--maybe I should address this to the Senator from Tennessee. I am not sure exactly what the Frist amendment is. What does it do?

Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, during the August recess, 14 youngsters from Cranston, RI, achieved something that no Rhode Islanders had ever achieved before. On August 22, the Cranston Western Little League All-Stars were crowned the National Champions at this year's Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA. Mr. President, I know we are dealing with important matters here. But this is an important matter also. This wonderful team of youngsters from our State first had to win the State championship. Then they went to the national championships in Williamsport where they defeated--can you believe it--California 5 to 1. Three days later in front of 17,000 fans and a national television audience they defeated the team that had previously defeated them, namely the heavily favored Panama City, FL, team which put them into the world championship game. That was against Chinese Taipei. I think for anyone who follows the Little League baseball knows that the Chinese Taipei team was always an outstanding one and, indeed, they did win against the Cranston Western All-Stars. This was truly an amazing accomplishment. When Cranston Western started down this road, it was just one of several thousand teams across the country vying for the right to play for the world championship. To get into the World Series, it had to win three mini- tournaments against the best teams in Rhode Island, and then in the Northeast, over the course of 2 months. Listen to some of these last-minute heroics. It took a home run in the tenth inning just to advance beyond the district playoffs. Then they had to win three straight games, including two in a row over a previously undefeated South Kingstown team, to stave off elimination in the State tournament. And in the final game of the East Regionals, Cranston Western needed a game-saving, diving catch by their left fielder, and then a three-run homer in the bottom of the seventh, to overcome a tough Pennsylvania squad. Once they got to Williamsport, the job only got tougher. History certainly was not on their side. Indeed, Cranston Western was only the third team from Rhode Island to make it to the Little League World Series, and the first to do so since 1980. And in neither of those two cases did a Rhode Island team win a single game at the national level. What's more, in the first game, they had to face California--a State that had produced 5 World Series champions and had been represented in the tournament a record 32 times. But these courageous, young Rhode Islanders proved their mettle. They shook off any butterflies they might have had, and defeated the Californians by a 5 to 1 score. Three days later, in front of 17,000 fans and a national television audience, they avenged an earlier loss to heavily favored Panama City, FL. That win put them in the world championship game. Unfortunately, Cranston Western came up short in the World Series final against Chinese Taipei. But that loss in no way diminished what these boys from the city of Cranston accomplished. They were front page news in Rhode Island for a solid week. Nearly every television in the State--whether in private homes or restaurants--was tuned to the final game. And when they returned home they received a hero's welcome, complete with a police escort from the Connecticut border and a fireworks display in their hometown. What did these boys learn from their experience this summer? I can think of three things. First, they learned that you don't have to be the biggest, or the strongest, or even the most-talented to succeed in life. While those attributes are important, they're meaningless without heart, grit, and fierce determination. And Cranston Western led the pack in those three categories. Second, they learned that practice really does make perfect. Throughout the summer, the team spent nearly every waking moment on the baseball diamond, whether it was at official practices or playing pick- up games. Moreover, at the beginning of their championship run, every player made a commitment to the team not to miss a single practice. And each one of them lived up to that commitment. Third, and I believe most importantly, they learned to place a high value on teamwork. No single player could be counted on to carry the load alone. Each member of that team made a crucial contribution at one point or another. That's a critical lesson I hope these little leaguers will remember for the rest of their lives. And Mr. President, as I'm sure they would tell you, these boys had a lot of help along the way. There was their very capable manager, Mike Varrato. He was the one who set the lineup, arranged the defense, and made sure the team was physically and mentally ready to play every day. They had veteran coaches Nick Dinezza and Larry Lepore. These two men helped the pitchers with their location, threw batting practice, and hit hundreds, if not thousands, of ground balls to the infielders and fly balls to the outfielders. There's no doubt that on many occasions, the coaches went home more tired than the young ballplayers. And, of course, there were the parents. You've never seen a more loyal group. They scheduled family meals around games and practices. They gave up summer vacations at the beach to follow their sons from one venue to the next. During the games, they rang cowbells, and banged pots and pans, and did whatever it took to rally the troops. They cheered mightily when their boys won, and hugged them and reassured them the few times that they lost. And I'm sure they never hesitated to voice their opinions whenever the umpires made a bad call. And so, I want to offer my heartiest congratulations to the members of the Cranston Western Little League team, and all who were associated with their championship season. They stirred an enormous amount of pride in Rhode Island, and made for a very exciting August in our State. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the team roster be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank my friend from Missouri. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in 1994, the EPA awarded the University of Rhode Island's Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory a $1.4 million grant to examine the degree to which coastal marine areas of the United States are degraded by elevated concentrations of waterborne nitrogen. Why should this matter be studied? Why do we care if elevated concentrations of nitrogen exist in estuaries and bays? Let me provide just a few reasons. Nitrogen concentrations stimulate the growth of marine plants such as phytoplankton and seaweed. Excessive growth of these plants often shade out and thus kill off natural sea grasses that form fish habitat, as in Chesapeake Bay. In some instances these plants sink to the bottom and decompose, thus consuming all oxygen and leading to widespread fish kills, as in Long Island Sound, Mobile Bay, and elsewhere. Elevated nitrogen levels are also believed to be responsible for altering the species composition and biodiversity of indigenous plants, thus dramatically altering marine food chains. Some suspect links between nitrogen enrichment and toxic algal blooms and fish disease. The project undertaken in 1994 at the University of Rhode Island is designed to help scientists and policymakers better understand how coastal marine systems respond to nitrogen enrichment. Regrettably, only two-thirds of the agreed upon project has been completed. Under the 1994 grant agreement, the University of Rhode Island was to receive $1.4 million over fiscal years 1994 through 1996. According to EPA, insufficient fiscal year 1996 resources prevent the Agency from fulfilling the third and final year's commitment of $474,000. Mr. President, it is my belief that this important research effort warrants the very modest resources committed to it just 2 years ago. I might note that two papers submitted by the university as a result of this project have been published recently in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Thus, it is my hope that the EPA Administrator and her Assistant Administrator for Research and Development will give every consideration to providing the final year of funding for this effort in fiscal year 1997.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Missouri and appreciate all of his good work on this bill. Mr. President, before I yield, I would like to conclude with a statement made by President Reagan on April 5, 1988, concerning the Montreal Protocol: The Montreal Protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and effects. The Protocol is the result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement. Indeed it is. With that, Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Missouri and yield the floor. epa research

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the EPA portion of this bill includes $12 million for Agency contributions to the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund. This funding level is the same as that approved by the Congress last year, but $7 million lower than the administration's request of $19 million. It is my understanding that the House of Representatives approved the full fiscal year 1997 administration request of $19 million for EPA's contribution to this fund. This funding is included in the EPA environmental programs and management account. If I might, Mr. President, I would like to provide some historical perspective on the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund. The fund was created in 1990 through the London Amendments to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It was created to assist developing countries in their efforts to phase out ozone depleting substances. The United States agreed to participate in the fund after the Senate, on December 18, 1991, voted to approve ratification of the London Amendments. It is important to remember that the Montreal Protocol and the facilitation fund were successfully negotiated by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, respectively. The Montreal Protocol facilitation fund was established with the clear understanding that the problem of ozone depletion was global in nature. That understanding, and the agreement which ensued, was that the developed countries would provide technical and financial assistance to developing countries who agree to strict ozone depleting substance use reductions. This is a pact, Mr. President, that the United States freely committed itself to. A pact which has enjoyed tremendous success with respect to reducing the use of these chemicals around the world; with respect to the promotion of American goods and services around the world; and with respect to the development of a global effort to solve a complicated environmental problem. Contributions to this multilateral fund, from nations like Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada, have been made at a higher rate, 85 percent, than any other United Nations trust fund. How large is the facilitation fund? How much does the United States contribute? The total size of the fund has been set at $510 million with the U.S. share capped at 25 percent of the total, which is the U.N. standard. The current U.S. contribution is set at $38 million per year. The problem, Mr. President, is that we have not met our obligations to the fund. At the conclusion of calendar year 1996, the United States will be approximately $27 million in arrears. Even if the full administration request for EPA and State Department contributions were to be provided for fiscal year 1997, the United States would still find itself behind in 1997 by approximately $18 million. If the $12 million level recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee is approved by the Senate and ultimately prevails in conference with the House, the United States would find itself $25 million in arrears. This estimate assumes that the full State Department allotment of $27.5 million will be provided in fiscal year 1997. Mr. President, we cannot afford to fall further and further behind on this commitment. Failure by the United States to maintain this pact in the agreed-upon fashion would not only harm the progress made in this area, but would undoubtedly make negotiation of future international environmental agreements much more difficult. As such, I would request of my friend from Missouri, who will be leading negotiations with the House on this matter, that he work toward conference adoption of the House-passed funding level of $19 million for the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support final passage of the conference report on the appropriations bill for the legislative branch. The managers of the bill have done a laudable job in their continued efforts to reduce spending, and I am particularly delighted that they were able to include my amendment on books for the blind. This amendment, which makes a very small change in current copyright law, will make an enormous difference to our Nation's blind children and adults. It has the approval of the authorizing committees in both Chambers, as well as the support of the National Federation of the Blind, the American Foundation for the Blind, the American Printing House for the Blind, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, the American Council of the Blind, the Association of American Publishers, and the U.S. Office of Copyright. The amendment which I offered with Senators Frahm, Stevens, Leahy, McConnell, Bingaman, Frist, Ford, Pressler, and DeWine resulted from the efforts of Ambassador Anthony Veliotes, representing the Association of American Publishers, and Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, representing the blindness community. In January, they met and agreed that this amendment would address the needs of the blindness community without compromising the rights and interests of the publishers. I greatly appreciate their help and the help of my constituent, Ed Beck, the legislative representative for the Rhode Island affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, who first brought this to my attention. National Library Service and a number of nonprofit organizations, such as The American Printing House for the Blind and Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, reproduce, in specialized formats, published material that is readily available to sighted individuals in libraries, bookstores, newsstands, and countless other locations. ``Specialized formats'' refers to braille, sound recordings--either on cassette or phonorecord--and new digital formats that can be used with special software. My amendment seeks to end the unintended censorship of blind individuals' access to current information. Under this amendment, groups that produce specialized formats for the blind no longer are required to gain permission from the copyright holder before beginning production. James Gashel of the National Federation of the Blind was invaluable in his efforts to help us put forth a proposal that would be acceptable to all sides. He is a strong and able spokesman for the blind. Also, I would like to thank the managers of the bill, who were completely accepting of this amendment, as well as their staff, Larry Harris with Senator Mack and Jim English with Senator Murray. Let me close by quoting from a letter I received from Mr. Gashel that explains the significance of this amendment to the blindness community. Mr. Gashel writes: This is a significant change for us. It means, for example, that the current best-sellers, which the Library of Congress produces for us, should be available in Braille or recorded format within months rather than a year or more. It also means that blind children in schools should be able to have the editions of textbooks being used by their sighted classmates this year rather than the ones in use last year. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if my colleagues would permit, I would like to add a few comments of my own on the subject of the Burns sense- of-the-Senate included in the managers' amendment. As my colleagues may know, earlier this spring a World Trade Organization [WTO] panel found that a 1993 regulation adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] discriminated against imports. The regulation in question established baselines against which refiners must measure compliance with requirements under the Clean Air Act for conventional and reformulated gasoline. In coming to its conclusions, the WTO panel noted that the United States had not fully explored ways to overcome the administrative difficulties relating to imported gasoline, and that although the United States had considered the costs to domestic refiners of complying with the regulation, the same consideration was not given to the costs that would be incurred by foreign refiners. On June 19, the United States informed the WTO that we would endeavor to meet our international obligations by complying with the panel decision. This case has received a good deal of attention, and provoked a good deal of comment. Unfortunately, many of the assertions that have been made about this case misinterpret both its meaning and its effect. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I regret such misinterpretations, and want to take a moment to set the record straight. First, let me stress that the April WTO decision has nothing to do with the Clean Air Act itself; nor does it undermine the act in any way. Rather, the WTO decision deals with the approach set by a regulation issued pursuant to the Act. The Clean Air Act did not force EPA to discriminate against foreign refiners. EPA had a range of options from which to choose and, unfortunately, they chose one that ran afoul of our international obligations. I want to emphasize that the panel decision did not invalidate or otherwise undermine the act's requirements or the concept of using baselines. What the decision did do is say that the law must be implemented in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. That concept is one of the most basic--and most important--elements of our global trading system. And I would point out that it need not conflict with strong environmental protection. The WTO ruling does not affect the ability of the United States to enforce the Clean Air Act. The WTO itself explicitly recognizes the right of member nations to take steps to protect human health and exhaustible natural resources. Neither the Clean Air Act nor its objectives were ever at issue in this case. Finally, the panel decision does not mandate whether, or how, the United States should come into compliance with the WTO ruling. Such matters are left to the member nation to decide for itself. In this case, the United States informed the WTO that we will take steps to comply--a decision I believe was the right one. Indeed, I would urge EPA in the strongest terms possible to act without delay, so that we may come into compliance as quickly as possible. So there should be no confusion about this case or its outcome. The WTO examined a regulation promulgated under the Clean Air Act and found that its separate requirements for foreign refiners were discriminatory. That is all there is to it. Fix the discrimination, and the problems cease. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act and our other environmental laws remain in effect, as always. Now, with regard to the sense of the Senate, which attempts to describe the current situation and hold the EPA to certain commitments regarding the upcoming review process, since it does not constitute an amendment to the Clean Air Act and is not binding, I do not intend to raise an objection. However, let me say this: there is no question that complying with the WTO decision is in the best interests of the United States, not only for the reasons outlined just now by my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, but for our own interests in environmental protection. Frankly, there are some in the domestic refining industry who have benefited from the current unequal state of affairs, and who would prefer to see the United States avoid coming into compliance in this case. They may attempt to influence the review process to ensure that at the end of the day, they retain their current advantage. An outcome along those lines would be an act of cynicism that would do us serious damage in our efforts to maintain a fair international trading system. Such an outcome will not do. We have an obligation to make a good faith effort to come into compliance with the WTO decision as soon as possible. Adopting an approach that purports to solve the problem, but that merely prolongs the current inequity, is not acceptable. An acceptable solution is one in which no unfair distinction is drawn between domestic and foreign gasoline; in which domestic and foreign refiners alike meet the levels currently allowed by the Clean Air Act; and in which the United States may ensure enforcement for both domestic and foreign industry using approaches that have proven effective in the past. That truly would be a level playing field. For my colleagues' information, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter on this issue that was sent to me by the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund. I appreciate the managers of the bill allowing me the opportunity to make comments about this matter, and yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair for notifying me. We will hear from other Members of our side who will have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.