John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont. I believe I have 6 minutes left.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield him 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. I might like a little time, if I could, at the end for rebuttal. If the Senator is prepared to go now--

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, I will take 2 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. The arguments, I believe, have been very, very forcefully set forth this evening by the speakers on our side, Democrats and Republicans. What are we talking about? We are talking as a bipartisan group that something has to be done about the deficit of this Nation or future generations are going to be in terrible trouble. We heard the statistics from the Senator from South Dakota in connection with this, and others likewise who talked about what Social Security is going to look like or Medicare or the other entitlement programs unless in some fashion we get control. This budget that we are presenting does that. This budget not only balances itself in the 7 years, but in the outyears, that is where the tremendous savings are. So I commend my colleagues to come forward and join us. As the Presiding Officer in his remarks pointed out, there are those who are saying, ``We would be with you, but we're not sure you have enough votes.'' If we spent all our time going only with those who have a majority, we would not stand for anything. We are not sent down here as weather vanes to go where the majority is. We are sent down here, it seems to me, not only to look after this generation, but future generations as well. So, Mr. President, we put forward a tough program, but the solutions to the problems of this Nation are not going to be sugar candy. They are going to have to be by facing up to difficult decisions. Is reducing the CPI by 0.5 percent a difficult decision? Sure it is. The easy way is to do nothing, continue the reckless course we are on now in this Nation of ours. But I want to pay tribute to every single one of those who have joined with us in putting forward this budget on behalf of Senator Breaux and myself. Mr. President, I will never forget a movie I saw during the war. The colonel comes before the pilots who have just graduated from pilot school, and some are going into fighters and some are going into bombers. The colonel who was addressing them happened to be a bomber pilot. He said, ``Here's where we separate the men from the boys.'' I am not taking any sides of pilots being fighter pilots or bomber pilots. But I will say that this is a tough decision that we are facing very shortly in this Congress. I hope that those colleagues who are not here this evening who are still doubtful, will say that program is a good one. It is not only a good one for now, but it is a good one, even more importantly, for future generations. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider S. 1005, the Public Building Reform Act of 1996. This legislation, which will improve the way we construct, acquire and lease public buildings, was introduced on June 29, 1995. It is cosponsored by Senators Warner and Baucus, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The full committee approved S. 1005, with amendments, on December 19, 1995. Before I go on, Mr. President, I would like to recognize the efforts of Senator Baucus and Senator Warner. They have worked together over the last year on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee to shape this important and necessary set of reforms. As I will discuss further in my remarks today, the issue of Federal building and courthouse construction has received a tremendous amount of critical commentary in the media and here on Capitol Hill. I believe that S. 1005 responds to the important problems in a thoughtful and measured way. Over the last three to four years, we have witnessed an endless stream of General Accounting Office (GAO) reports, newspaper stories and congressional investigations citing excessive General Services Administration (GSA) spending for Federal building projects. These reports and investigations have discussed management failures at GSA, insufficient project prioritization, the inclusion of unneeded and ``luxurious'' facility features, and inappropriate congressional influence upon the selection of projects as causes for wasteful and excessive spending. The courthouse construction projects, in particular, have been a source of great controversy. Members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works have worked hard over the last three years, in particular to reform the public buildings process and to achieve significant taxpayer savings. Some here might recall that in the fiscal year 1996 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, the Congress called for a 30 percent reduction in new construction funding at GSA over seven years. Last year, in the first year of the seven-year period, we achieved that budget goal, The Committee cut a number of new construction projects and authorized less than 70 percent of the $1.022 billion requested by the administration. The Committee has recently received and is reviewing the administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request. Like last year, we will be looking to authorize an overall funding level that is significantly below the levels authorized in previous years. While thorough review of the annual project requests must and will continue, there is also the need for fundamental reform of the process by which these new construction projects are identified, designed, submitted to the Congress, authorized and finally approved for funding. We believe that the reforms contained in S. 1005 will: improve the quality of the projects submitted for congressional approval; improve and enhance congressional oversight; and ultimately, save the taxpayers millions of dollars. The bill addresses four major issues. The first issue is priority- setting. As I stated previously, the fiscal year 1996 Budget Resolution called for a 30 percent reduction in GSA construction funding over seven years. To achieve this target in a reasonable fashion, we must be aware of what GSA and its tenant agencies consider to be the top priorities. S. 1005 requires a clear prioritization of all GSA projects submitted to the Congress for approval. With regard to courthouse projects, I might note that the Judiciary and GSA have already begun to comply with this important requirement. Next is the issue of long-range planning. The idea here is to know, in advance, what projects are likely to be requested in future years. Our experience has been that too many worthwhile projects--which have gone through all of the steps--get bumped out of GSA's annual request to accommodate other projects which are politically driven. This legislation requires GSA to submit to Congress--as part of its annual authorization requests--a list of the projects it intends to request for the subsequent two years. This way, the Congress will be able to identify and plainly judge the merit of projects which might have been ``hurried through the process.'' The third major issue addressed by the bill is the need for specific information on project requests. If GSA is to establish project rankings or ``priorities'' under this bill, they must do so after following a sensible set of criteria. When did the project reach its maximum space capacity? Are there time-sensitive lease circumstances associated with the project request? In the case of courthouse projects; how many judgeships are authorized and what is the appropriate number of courtrooms? Or, what is the security situation? The bill requires that all of this essential information be included in the prospectuses sent to Congress. Again, with respect to courthouses, this legislation addresses the issue of design standards. While the Congress cannot and should not dictate the exact parameters of courtroom ceiling heights and judges' chambers--I am convinced that we need a consistent set of guidelines or standards. The bill before us establishes a partnership between GSA and the Judiciary on design guidelines. It is my hope that these two entities can work together to establish design guidelines which will put an end to the controversy that has followed some of these projects. In closing, Mr. President, let me say that I am glad to be a part of this reform effort and wish to again commend Senators Baucus and Warner for their leadership. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this sensible reform measure. Amendment No. 3983 (Purpose: To make a technical correction.)

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I first got to know Bob Dole well 18 years ago when I went on the Finance Committee and he was the senior Republican on the Finance Committee. The chairman at the time was Senator Russell Long, a Democratic Member, of course, from Louisiana. During those early years on the Finance Committee, I was struck by several characteristics of Bob Dole. I had known him to some degree when he had been running for Vice-President, but not intimately. During those early years in the Finance Committee, I had the privilege to get to know Bob Dole and see him in action. I was struck by several things. First of all, he is very bright. Not only did he know the intricacies of the Tax Code, but when different matters would come up, it was obvious he was a quick learner. Second, the characteristic that struck me was his seemingly inexhaustible energy. When he became chairman of the committee after several years, he would manage those bills on the floor--tax bills-- and, as we all know, in those days, tax bills would sometimes last 2, 3, 4, 5 days, with all sorts of amendments coming from every direction. Bob Dole had the capacity to stand here always looking fresh and fit, everybody else looking a little bit bedraggled as we would go late into the night, accepting amendments, rejecting those, calling for votes, tabling this, and moving on in totally admirable fashion. And so, out of that, I came to have a great admiration for Bob Dole as I saw him in action on the Finance Committee. Then came his leadership here in 1984, succeeding Howard Baker. And, again, Bob Dole had exerted those extraordinary characteristics of leadership--paying attention to the needs of all of his members, his flock, as it were, and leading us with clear direction and with zest and always with good humor. I suppose there is nobody who made us, as Senators--whether we were in our caucuses, or whether on the floor here--laugh so much, with his quick wit and one-liners, as Bob Dole. And now, of course, he has announced this afternoon that he will be leaving the floor of the Senate, where he has served with such distinction for many years. As others have pointed out, he is the longest-serving majority leader in the history of our Nation. To me, it is not surprising that he is leaving. Yes, I was surprised, as everybody was, by the announcement that came today. But when one thought about it, there is no reason for surprise, because it seems to me that Bob Dole's life has been marked by a sense of duty. And he saw a duty here. He has received the nomination of the Republican Party for President. But he looked on and weighed the factors and saw he could not be serving the people of Kansas while he was still here trying to do two things at once. Nor could he serve the people of the United States in the fashion and style he felt they were deserving of. And so, in responding to this sense of duty that he give his best to the office he was seeking, while he could not continue to give his best to the people of Kansas and the United States, he chose to resign. It has been pointed out that that is a big decision. But it is a decision that I think we have all come to expect in the style of Bob Dole. So I join others in wishing him well, looking forward to doing whatever I can to help him, as he has helped each of us. He came to my State three times to campaign on my behalf in the different elections. I think each Senator on this side could say the same thing. So we wish him well. I share the sense of optimism that others have voiced. I know that with his tremendous energy, with his quick learning ability, with his ability of retention of matters that he has studied, and with the sense of duty I previously remarked on, he is going to conduct an absolutely marvelous campaign that is going to be a great credit to him, to all who nominated him, and a wonderful reflection on the people of the United States of America. I thank the Chair. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what we are doing this afternoon is trying to move forward to get approval of a piece of legislation, S. 295, called the TEAM Act--T-E-A-M, TEAM Act. Now, what the TEAM Act says is that it is perfectly permissible for an employer to sit down with a group of his employees and say, what do you think is the best way to make this place more efficient? Or how can we make this place safer? Or what can we do to increase our productivity? Now, apparently--and I must say I was stunned to learn this--that is illegal. You cannot do that. Now, of course, it is happening across the country, but if it is discovered it is illegal, you can be hauled up before the National Labor Relations Board. There is something about this that has an Alice in Wonderland complex to it. What is going on in the United States of America when an employer cannot say to a group of workers out there, the fellow down the road is producing our product at a lower price and faster than we are. What can we do to improve our productivity? And so they give him some suggestions. But it turns out that is against the law. It is against the National Labor Relations Act which was passed in 1935. So we are held up, ensnarled in an act that was passed 61 years ago. So what this act, introduced by the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], reported out of the committee, says is that there are certain things you can do. No, you cannot do collective bargaining with a group of employees like that. That is separate. But certainly you can sit down and decide how you are going to increase productivity or how you are going to make the place safer or what can we do to make it more attractive to get other workers to come and join with us in this effort. That is what this is all about. The mere idea that we need a law to do this seems to me--I must say I never dreamed this would be required. Frankly, when they started talking about the TEAM Act, I did not know what it was and had to have somebody spell it out. So that is why we are here today. This is vigorously resisted by the unions, and it is vigorously resisted by the administration. The administration has gone so far as to say if this law is passed, this TEAM Act, it will be vetoed. I must say I think that is unwarranted and extremely shortsighted. There are two factors, it seems to me, that make it very important we pass this legislation. First--and this is no secret to anybody who is watching this or in the galleries or anywhere--American industry is in the fight of its life against competition. We now have a global economy, no question about it. Something made in China or the Philippines or in the Caribbean nations comes into the United States and is sold is competition. So we in this country have seen the loss of tens of thousands of high-paying American jobs. I have seen this regrettably in my State to a considerable degree. So what this intense competition abroad has required is for American industry to produce better products at a lower price, increase productivity and be more efficient in every fashion. So this painful but necessary reexamination has required more intensive labor and management cooperation than in the past. The second thing that has taken place--the first is the global competition. We have to compete or our jobs will not survive--our laws have not kept pace and in many ways impede our progress toward reaching this global competitiveness. Labor law must change just like manufacturing processes must change or cooperation has to be greater. And that is true of labor laws likewise. Labor laws have to reflect the need for cooperation and teamwork that is critical for our survival. The National Labor Relations Act, as I previously mentioned, was enacted in 1935 and has changed very little in those ensuing 61 years. Unfortunately, that law is rooted in adversarial--when that law was passed in 1933, it was there to take care of a situation. At that time, there was great turbulence in our industries. There was an adversarial situation between labor and management. Indeed, workers were prohibited from organizing in many States. They were prohibited from going on strike. All of that changed in the early 1930's with the National Labor Relations Act and other laws such as that. The act, as I say, has not been adequately changed in the 61 years that have passed, and it does not recognize that now there is a great deal of cooperation that is needed in our factories and workplaces, so efforts to increase workplace cooperation were substantially hindered in 1992 by a decision called the Electromation case. That was a National Labor Relations Board case some 4 years ago. In that case, the National Labor Relations Board said that employers and employee committees which talk about attendance--people are not getting to work on time. What is going on around here? What can we do to increase the attendance? We have a lot of people who are not showing up. We have some people who work a 4-day week when they are meant to be here 5 days. What can we do about it? What can we do about no-smoking policies? What do you want? Do you want a separate place to smoke? Do you want no smoking? What do you want? It was decided you cannot do that. You cannot even talk to your employees about what is the best smoking policy or no-smoking policy. This act we are talking about today, called the TEAM Act, would simply conform labor law with what is already happening. As I say, all across our country there are, in fact, these committees, and our managers and our owners of these companies do not realize it is against the law. Indeed, there are some 30,000 of these labor/management committees across the country. But if any one of them is discovered, it could well be that it is in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and could be punished with fines of a very severe nature. It is said that this bill is a threat to labor unions. I must say, I do not understand the rationale for that argument. This bill specifically states in its language that the committees that are entitled to be formed under this act cannot negotiate, cannot amend existing collective bargaining agreements. All they can do is talk about better productivity, talk about greater efficiency and matters of that nature. As has been mentioned previously, the hitch is that the law says employers cannot enter into the formation of any organization that deals with these problems that I have mentioned: attendance, productivity, efficiency. This, as I further mentioned, has received a very broad interpretation from the National Labor Relations Board. So it makes illegal most of those employee-involvement committees that I previously dealt with and mentioned. What we seek in this act is to have some clear definition of what we might call a safe harbor. What is a safe harbor? A safe harbor is an area where the employer knows it is safe for him to enter into discussions with employees without running afoul of the law. That is what this is all about. The TEAM Act is this safe harbor. It would do nothing to undermine union organizing or collective bargaining. It would recognize and authorize a simple fact of life: Employers are, indeed, nowadays looking to their employees more than ever before to help them, the employers, have a better workplace, a smarter workplace, a more efficient workplace, a more successful workplace that, hopefully, will result in more jobs, not only for those employees and their families but others across our Nation. This is very simple. It is a good idea that, as I say, I am stunned it is causing this furor, this fuss, because it ought to be adopted, I think, unanimously. Democrats and Republicans and unions all ought to embrace something that is going to make our country more efficient. I do hope this TEAM Act, S. 295, will be adopted, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill entitled the ``Oilspill Prevention and Response Improvement Act.'' As its name suggests, the bill has two purposes. First, it will help to prevent oilspills. Second, it will improve the response to the environmental and economic injuries from oilspills that do occur. It does this by increasing access to funds and by providing measures to make sure that both types of injuries are redressed. Before getting into the substance of the bill in more detail, let me describe briefly how it came to be. Generally speaking, the bill is a response to lessons learned from a number of recent oilspills that have spurred requests for oil pollution reforms. Of these spills, the one of most interest to me occurred a little over 3 months ago when a barge, the North Cape, ran aground just off of the coast of my State of Rhode Island. Despite valiant efforts by the Coast Guard and others, the grounding resulted in the largest oilspill in Rhode Island's history. By the time the leak was contained, nearly 800,000 gallons of oil had poured into our coastal waters. Of course, much of the spilled oil ended up on our beaches, along with the carcasses of many fish, birds, and thousands of lobsters. As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over oil pollution-- Environment and Public Works--I convened the committee twice to examine Federal oil pollution legislation in light of the North Cape incident and the other recent oilspills. The first time was for a field hearing that took place in Narragansett, RI. It examined the Nation's oilspill pollution laws in the context of how they operated during the North Cape spill. The principal law we evaluated was the Oil Pollution Act, better known as OPA, which was enacted in 1990, after the infamous Exxon Valdez spill. The second hearing in Washington, DC, took a broader approach. It looked at the issues raised during the Rhode Island hearing and assessed the possibility of improving OPA to prevent and better respond to oilspills. In these hearings we learned that, overall, OPA is working pretty well. In comparing a similar oil spill that occurred in Rhode Island waters in 1989, the World Prodigy spill, with this year's North Cape spill, the hard work of Rhode Islanders was evident in both cases. However, such efforts clearly met with better results in the North Cape spill. The difference was OPA. The clear consensus of all witnesses who testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee is that OPA is a valuable piece of legislation. It has produced faster and more effective spill responses throughout the last 6 years. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. On the prevention side, for example, several witnesses suggested how OPA can be strengthened so that we can avoid having to respond to an oilspill at all. The general consensus was that equipping oil-carrying tank vessels with double hulls is far and away the best way to prevent oilspills. The other set of issues that emerged related to response. For example, agencies have struggled to coordinate and agree on how to proceed with decisions related to the reopening of closed fishing grounds. Lobstermen and fishermen have found it difficult to secure short-term financial assistance under the act. Finally, questions have been raised about the availability of the $1 billion oilspill liability trust fund to pay for the toll on fish and wildlife injured by a spill. The issues raised during our hearings set the stage for the bill introduced today. Let me now explain how the bill addresses these issues and how it improves prevention and response to oilspills. First, the bill reduces the likelihood that oilspills will occur in the future. It does so through the use of both carrots, or incentives, and sticks, or regulations. On the incentive side, the bill recognizes the key role of double hulls in spill prevention. Indeed, this is why OPA mandates that all major vessels be double-hulled no later than the year 2015. But the bill also recognizes that converting the Nation's oil-carrying fleet will be costly. The bill gets around financial concerns by providing an inducement to those operators who take the initiative and convert to double hulls before the mandate kicks in. Currently, there is a cap in OPA establishing a ceiling on the amount of liability for a vessel that spills oil. However, there are a host of exceptions to that limit, which has led some oil shippers to assert that the liability cap is meaningless. This bill greatly reduces the chances that an oil carrier who converts to a double-hull vessel will have to pay more than the liability cap established in OPA. It does this by limiting the conditions under which the cap can be exceeded for such an operator to those in which the operator has been grossly negligent or has engaged in willful misconduct. The bill directs the Coast Guard to issue operational rules within the next 3 months and structural rules within the next 8 months for single-hulled tankers and barges. It also requires final rules to be issued for the tug boats that tow such barges. The purpose of these rules is to enhance protection of the marine environment by reducing the likelihood of an oilspill. OPA as originally enacted required the Coast Guard to issue the rules for tankers and barges nearly 5 years ago. This bill says: Enough is enough when it comes to delay. If the Coast Guard does not get out the rules when it says it will, interim prevention measures such as requiring a vessel to have an operable anchor and man on board, or an emergency barge retrieval system, will automatically go into effect. In addition, minimum under-keel clearances also will be required. On the response side, the bill will reduce the economic hardship and environmental damage caused by a spill. To limit financial injury, for example, it requires that advance procedures are developed for the reopening of affected fishing grounds. These procedures will make sure that such reopening occurs as quickly as possible consistent with public health and safety. Advanced planning also will ensure that bureaucratic in-fighting does not hold up reopening. To mitigate environmental harm, the bill provides greater access to the oilspill liability trust fund, to information, and to scientific expertise. This will allow response personnel to better minimize harm to the marine environment in the aftermath of a spill. Finally, the bill will help make financial assistance available right away for those whose livelihoods are affected by a spill. It achieves this purpose in two ways. First, it makes clear that a person injured by a spill may receive a partial settlement in the short term without waiving the right to full compensation. Injured parties will no longer have to wait before pursuing a claim while their rent and grocery bills pile up. Second, the bill allows major oilspills to be declared major disasters and thus, to qualify for Federal major disaster relief. Such relief carries with it the availability of immediate funding. Overall then, the Oilspill Prevention and Response Improvement Act builds on the successes of OPA, yet it addresses the lessons learned from OPA's shortcomings. While the bill puts tougher prevention measures in place, it also gives operators the necessary incentives to take such measures. And in the event an oilspill does occur, it creates a response scheme that truly addresses economic and environmental losses. The bill also reflects an attempt to respond to calls to reform the Nation's oil pollution laws in an expeditious and effective, yet deliberate and precise, way. I am confident that the bill is broad enough to bring about meaningful reform yet narrow enough to enlist the support necessary to become law. In closing, I would like to thank the two primary cosponsors of the bill, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey. Both of these colleagues of mine on the Environment and Public Works Committee have worked diligently with me to make it a better product.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill entitled the ``Oilspill Prevention and Response Improvement Act.'' As its name suggests, the bill has two purposes. First, it will help to prevent oilspills. Second, it will improve the response to the environmental and economic injuries from oilspills that do occur. It does this by increasing access to funds and by providing measures to make sure that both types of injuries are redressed. Before getting into the substance of the bill in more detail, let me describe briefly how it came to be. Generally speaking, the bill is a response to lessons learned from a number of recent oilspills that have spurred requests for oil pollution reforms. Of these spills, the one of most interest to me occurred a little over 3 months ago when a barge, the North Cape, ran aground just off of the coast of my State of Rhode Island. Despite valiant efforts by the Coast Guard and others, the grounding resulted in the largest oilspill in Rhode Island's history. By the time the leak was contained, nearly 800,000 gallons of oil had poured into our coastal waters. Of course, much of the spilled oil ended up on our beaches, along with the carcasses of many fish, birds, and thousands of lobsters. As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over oil pollution-- Environment and Public Works--I convened the committee twice to examine Federal oil pollution legislation in light of the North Cape incident and the other recent oilspills. The first time was for a field hearing that took place in Narragansett, RI. It examined the Nation's oilspill pollution laws in the context of how they operated during the North Cape spill. The principal law we evaluated was the Oil Pollution Act, better known as OPA, which was enacted in 1990, after the infamous Exxon Valdez spill. The second hearing in Washington, DC, took a broader approach. It looked at the issues raised during the Rhode Island hearing and assessed the possibility of improving OPA to prevent and better respond to oilspills. In these hearings we learned that, overall, OPA is working pretty well. In comparing a similar oil spill that occurred in Rhode Island waters in 1989, the World Prodigy spill, with this year's North Cape spill, the hard work of Rhode Islanders was evident in both cases. However, such efforts clearly met with better results in the North Cape spill. The difference was OPA. The clear consensus of all witnesses who testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee is that OPA is a valuable piece of legislation. It has produced faster and more effective spill responses throughout the last 6 years. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. On the prevention side, for example, several witnesses suggested how OPA can be strengthened so that we can avoid having to respond to an oilspill at all. The general consensus was that equipping oil-carrying tank vessels with double hulls is far and away the best way to prevent oilspills. The other set of issues that emerged related to response. For example, agencies have struggled to coordinate and agree on how to proceed with decisions related to the reopening of closed fishing grounds. Lobstermen and fishermen have found it difficult to secure short-term financial assistance under the act. Finally, questions have been raised about the availability of the $1 billion oilspill liability trust fund to pay for the toll on fish and wildlife injured by a spill. The issues raised during our hearings set the stage for the bill introduced today. Let me now explain how the bill addresses these issues and how it improves prevention and response to oilspills. First, the bill reduces the likelihood that oilspills will occur in the future. It does so through the use of both carrots, or incentives, and sticks, or regulations. On the incentive side, the bill recognizes the key role of double hulls in spill prevention. Indeed, this is why OPA mandates that all major vessels be double-hulled no later than the year 2015. But the bill also recognizes that converting the Nation's oil-carrying fleet will be costly. The bill gets around financial concerns by providing an inducement to those operators who take the initiative and convert to double hulls before the mandate kicks in. Currently, there is a cap in OPA establishing a ceiling on the amount of liability for a vessel that spills oil. However, there are a host of exceptions to that limit, which has led some oil shippers to assert that the liability cap is meaningless. This bill greatly reduces the chances that an oil carrier who converts to a double-hull vessel will have to pay more than the liability cap established in OPA. It does this by limiting the conditions under which the cap can be exceeded for such an operator to those in which the operator has been grossly negligent or has engaged in willful misconduct. The bill directs the Coast Guard to issue operational rules within the next 3 months and structural rules within the next 8 months for single-hulled tankers and barges. It also requires final rules to be issued for the tug boats that tow such barges. The purpose of these rules is to enhance protection of the marine environment by reducing the likelihood of an oilspill. OPA as originally enacted required the Coast Guard to issue the rules for tankers and barges nearly 5 years ago. This bill says: Enough is enough when it comes to delay. If the Coast Guard does not get out the rules when it says it will, interim prevention measures such as requiring a vessel to have an operable anchor and man on board, or an emergency barge retrieval system, will automatically go into effect. In addition, minimum under-keel clearances also will be required. On the response side, the bill will reduce the economic hardship and environmental damage caused by a spill. To limit financial injury, for example, it requires that advance procedures are developed for the reopening of affected fishing grounds. These procedures will make sure that such reopening occurs as quickly as possible consistent with public health and safety. Advanced planning also will ensure that bureaucratic in-fighting does not hold up reopening. To mitigate environmental harm, the bill provides greater access to the oilspill liability trust fund, to information, and to scientific expertise. This will allow response personnel to better minimize harm to the marine environment in the aftermath of a spill. Finally, the bill will help make financial assistance available right away for those whose livelihoods are affected by a spill. It achieves this purpose in two ways. First, it makes clear that a person injured by a spill may receive a partial settlement in the short term without waiving the right to full compensation. Injured parties will no longer have to wait before pursuing a claim while their rent and grocery bills pile up. Second, the bill allows major oilspills to be declared major disasters and thus, to qualify for Federal major disaster relief. Such relief carries with it the availability of immediate funding. Overall then, the Oilspill Prevention and Response Improvement Act builds on the successes of OPA, yet it addresses the lessons learned from OPA's shortcomings. While the bill puts tougher prevention measures in place, it also gives operators the necessary incentives to take such measures. And in the event an oilspill does occur, it creates a response scheme that truly addresses economic and environmental losses. The bill also reflects an attempt to respond to calls to reform the Nation's oil pollution laws in an expeditious and effective, yet deliberate and precise, way. I am confident that the bill is broad enough to bring about meaningful reform yet narrow enough to enlist the support necessary to become law. In closing, I would like to thank the two primary cosponsors of the bill, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey. Both of these colleagues of mine on the Environment and Public Works Committee have worked diligently with me to make it a better product.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering H.R. 1836, legislation which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 98 acres, known as the Shadmoor parcel, in East Hampton, NY, for inclusion in the Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge. Identical companion legislation, S. 1422, was introduced by Senators Moynihan and D'Amato on November 17, 1995 and recently reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee. This legislation will strengthen conservation of important fish and wildlife within the National Wildlife Refuge System by protecting valuable coastal habitat for the federally endangered sandplain gerardia, 4 State-listed plant species, and over 70 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The Shadmoor parcel consists of maritime shrubland, freshwater wetlands, and rare maritime grassland. If acquired, this critical coastal habitat would be managed from the existing refuge offices for the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, with no additional staff needed. While the estimated costs for acquisition of the Shadmore parcel range from $5 to $8 million, it is expected that the town of East Hampton and the local chapter of the Nature Conservancy will contribute a considerable portion of the project's total cost. I applaud the local community for their support for the Amagansett Refuge. This kind of partnership between the Fish and Wildlife Service, the local government, and conservation groups is exactly what we need as we seek to stretch limited Federal dollars. Mr. President, I also support the amendment to H.R. 1836 offered by Senators Moynihan and D'Amato. This amendment also addresses important coastal resources on the barrier islands off the coast of New York. The Moynihan-D'Amato amendment simply adds a new section to H.R. 1836 directing the Secretary of the Interior to correct an error in the map relating to the Fire Island Unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. This provision has already been included in legislation, H.R. 2005, reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee last year and is identical to S. 1352, a bill introduced by Senators D'Amato and Moynihan. This noncontroversial legislation would correct a mapping error by the Department of the Interior. Certainly, the residents of Point O'Woods, NY--the area affected by this legislation--deserve to have this matter set straight. Let me take a moment to describe how we got here. In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to promote several important goals--conservation of fish and wildlife, minimization of loss of human life, and reduction in Federal expenditures. How does this law accomplish all of this? It's simple. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act prohibits most Federal Expenditures and financial assistance within undeveloped coastal barriers that are designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Mr. President, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act makes perfect fiscal and environmental sense. It gets the Federal Government out of the expensive business of subsidizing development of ecologically sensitive and dangerous coastal areas. In fact, between 1982 and 1990, savings associated with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act were estimated by the Department of the Interior at over $830 million. With passage of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990, Congress doubled the size of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, adding areas along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean and the gulf of Mexico, the beaches of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and the shores of the Great Lakes. The 1990 law also established a new category of coastal barriers designated as ``otherwise protected areas.'' These encompass undeveloped coastal barriers with the boundaries of areas that are owned and managed for conservation purposes. Thus, otherwise protected areas include open spaces such as parklands, sanctuaries, and forest preserves. Under the 1990 law, sale of new Federal flood insurance is prohibited within otherwise protected areas, with one exception. Federal flood insurance can be obtained for structures that are used in a manner that is consistent with the purpose for which the area is protected. Both the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and the 1990 act to expand the Coastal Barrier Resources System refer to a series of maps, approved by Congress and maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that depict the boundaries of the system units and the otherwise protected areas. Unfortunately, the map of the Fire Island Unit that was added in 1990 erroneously depicts a private area owned by the Point O'Woods Association as part of an otherwise protected area, known as the Sunken Forest Preserve. To correct this mistake, the Department of the Interior has recommended that the Point O'Woods property be removed from within the boundary depicted on the map for Fire Island Unit NY- 59P. And, the Moynihan-D'Amato amendment does just that. Mr. President, this legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to correct the error on the map relating to the Fire Island Unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System by modifying the boundary of the otherwise protected area to exclude the Point O'Woods Association's property. As I mentioned, a bill to make this correction was introduced by Senator D'Amato and Senator Moynihan earlier this Congress and reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is important that the Congress modify the maps of Coastal Barrier Resources System units and otherwise protected areas when true mapping errors are identified. That is why we enacted a technical corrections bill last Congress, Public Law 103-461, and why I support this legislation. In each case, changes to the boundaries depicted on the Coastal Barrier Resources System maps were necessary because the areas in question did not qualify as undeveloped coastal barriers or as otherwise protected areas at the time that they were included in the system by Congress. And, in each case, the Department of the Interior supported making technical changes to the maps. Mr. President, the integrity of the Coastal Barrier Resources System--a system that continues to save American taxpayers money-- depends on maintenance of strict standards. Of course there are plenty of landowners who would prefer not to be included in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. But, it would undermine the purposes of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act if Congress were to start removing areas that did qualify as undeveloped coastal barriers when they were included in the system in 1982 or 1990. Not only that, but it would be patently unfair to property owners who are within the Coastal Barrier Resources System if Congress started to bend the rules for some but not for others. I would like to thank the Senators from New York for working closely with the committee on this legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to acquire an area of critical coastal habitat and making a needed correction in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. H.R. 1836 deserves enactment without delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters from the Department of the Interior in support of the provisions included in the Moynihan-D'Amato amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate has passed S. 811, the Water Desalinization and Research and Development Act. This legislation, which was approved by the full Senate in both 1992 and 1994, is sponsored by Senators Simon, Reid, Mack, and others. Very briefly, Mr. President, S. 811 authorizes an expanded U.S. research and development program with the goal of producing lower cost desalinization technologies. The bill assigns primary program responsibility to the Department of the Interior, in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to the basic research and development program, S. 811 authorizes the development of experimental desalination facilities and requires the Agency for International Development to host a conference for countries either currently using or planning to use desalinization technologies. Mr. President, in the face of growing domestic water shortages, as well as strategic international concerns, this legislation is designed to increase the U.S. commitment to developing more economical desalinization technology. S. 811, as reported, authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 1997 for the basic research and development at the Interior Department; $7.5 million is authorized for this purpose in each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001, for a 5-year total of $35 million. For the facility development program, $40 million is authorized for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. I note that the total authorization for appropriations in this bill is $20 million less than the $95 million provided in the bill as introduced. I thank Senator Simon and the others who support this bill for working with us to reduce the authorization levels. Based upon the very limited amount of discretionary funding that will be available over the next 5 to 7 years, we have no choice but to do more with less in this area.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, H.R. 2243, a bill to reauthorize and amend Public Law 98-541, the 1984 Trinity River Restoration Program, is a truly bipartisan piece of legislation. Introduced by Representative Riggs, H.R. 2243 passed the House by a vote of 412 to 0 on December 12, 1995. The bill would extend funding authority for Trinity River basin restoration programs through fiscal year 1998. In addition, H.R. 2243 would expand the management plan to aid in the resumption of commercial and recreational fishing, and increase the task force by five members to include representatives from commercial and recreational fishing interests, two native American tribes, and the timber industry. The administration supports H.R. 2243. To date, restoration efforts in the Trinity River basin have included the modernization of the Lewiston hatchery, the construction of the Buckhorn Debris Dam, sediment collection pools in the Grass Valley Creek, and the purchase of 17,000 acres of highly erodible land in the Grass Valley Watershed. Other habitat restoration efforts are underway to encourage natural fish spawning and rearing, including replacement of spawning gravel below the Lewiston Dam, reestablishment of meander channels, dredging of pools in the Trinity River, and feather-tapering the river's edges. Reauthorization of Public Law 98-514 will continue the restoration of the Grass Valley Creek Watershed, control sediment on tributary watersheds, restore the South Forks Trinity River fish habitat, and implement a wildlife management program. These efforts will contribute to rebuilding the populations of salmon and trout, which are important to commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing interests.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate considers H.R. 1743, a bill to reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act of 1984, as amended. This legislation was adopted unanimously by the House of Representatives on October 17, 1995. With the strong support of Senators Kempthorne, Thomas, and Reid, the Committee on Environment and Public Works approved the measure with an amendment on March 28 of this year. The legislation, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, extends the authorization for the State Water Resources Research Institutes for 5 years. Fifty-four of these institutes have been established at land grant universities in each of the 50 States, Washington, DC, and 3 of the territories. These institutes are a primary link between the academic community, the water-related research and regulatory personnel in our State and Federal agencies, and various interests in the private sector. The institutes provide a mechanism for promoting State, regional, and national coordination of water resources research and training. They also serve as a network to facilitate research coordination and information transfer. Their programs are coordinated with the general guidance of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. President, this is a popular program because research from the water institutes is often directed at finding solutions to particular water problems at the local or regional level. Research results from the program are often applied to real-world problems in water management. In my own State, the University of Rhode Island's Water Resources Center has used this program to further ground water resources management and protection, wetlands preservation, and the understanding of the effects of air pollutant deposition on lakes and streams. Nationally, this program is designed to address water resource management problems such as: the abundance and quality of water supplies, the sources of water contaminants and methods of remediation, and the training of research scientists, engineers, and technicians. In addition to continuing the general authority for the institutes, this bill extends authorization for the awarding of funds for research projects. Mr. President, let me conclude by explaining the authorization of appropriations made in this bill. The 1984 act authorized $10 million annually to cover all general water resources research for the institutes. H.R. 1743, as approved by the House and reported by the committee, authorizes the institutional grants program at lower levels. Beginning with fiscal year 1996, $5 million is authorized. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, $7 million is authorized. For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $9 million is authorized. This provides the institutional grant program with a 5-year authorization total of $37 million. Finally, the Committee on Environment and Public Works unanimously adopted an amendment offered by Senator Thomas to add funding for research focused exclusively on water problems of an interstate nature. For interstate research, the bill authorizes $3million for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000, for a total of $15 million. Mr. President, the Water Resources Research Program authorized by H.R. 1743 is a cost-effective program. Costs of operating the program are shared with non-Federal interests. The program provides valuable research that is useful to State and local water managers throughout the Nation. This program has given us years of valuable service and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1743.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I say, this is an amendment that is far narrower than any other amendment that has been brought up in connection with this matter that we have been discussing. I hope that the floor managers of this legislation will accept this amendment. What it does is it says in those areas where illegal aliens--illegal--who have come in unauthorized into the country are entitled to certain benefits in four categories--emergency Medicaid, prenatal and postpartum Medicaid services, short-term emergency disaster relief, and public health assistance for immunizations, all of these are emergency health matters--all of these are granted to illegal aliens, and I am saying they ought to be granted to legal aliens. If we let those who have come into the country illegally have these services, then certainly they ought to be available for legal aliens who properly came in under all the right procedures. There will be considerable discussion, I suspect, about deeming, about saying, ``Well, their sponsors ought to pay for these things.'' First of all, in a straight matter of equity, if you are illegal, you get them for free or you are able to qualify under whatever the qualifications are under these programs, and it seems to me if you are legal, you should be entitled to the same thing. You do have situations where a legal immigrant is reluctant to go to his or her sponsor for support in certain matters. We have determined by the fact we are granting these privileges to illegal aliens, we are doing it not because we have great big good hearts, but because we think it is good for the country. We think it is good that illegal aliens get immunization shots, and certainly if that is true, for the benefit of the Nation, for the benefit of the public health, then the same ought to apply to legal aliens. So there it is, Mr. President. It is strictly an equity matter, if you will. It is strictly a public health matter, likewise. We think it is worthwhile for illegal aliens to get proper prenatal care, and if we think that is true for illegal aliens, certainly it ought to be true for legal aliens. This is not a budget buster. This is not going to drive the national debt through the sky. These are very narrow, very limited matters, far more limited than any of those that have been brought up in past amendments. This is not replaying an old record. This is a very, very defined group of benefits, and I hope that the floor managers will accept it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to stress once again that these are all emergency or health-oriented measures. Emergency Medicaid, prenatal Medicaid services, short-term disaster relief, nutrition programs, immunization. We do not want these legal aliens hesitating to apply for those because they are reluctant to go to their sponsor, because they are a long distance from their sponsor, because their problems might involve with just going to their sponsor to start with. We want them immunized. We want them to have prenatal care. We will not spend a lot of time asking a lot of questions. We have decided as a nation, not just out of generosity, but for the rest of us who are here, that we want illegal aliens, immigrants, immunized so that we will not have a whole series of infectious diseases passed around. Certainly we ought to have the same requirement or hope that the same thing will apply to the legal aliens. Mr. President, that is the argument. On the basis of fairness and the basis of public health protection, I hope we support the amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. May I ask the Chair, is now the time to ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. CHAFEE. Under the system of the stacking, will there be the usual system of when we do vote, we will have a minute to each side to explain?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am willing to enter a time agreement of 20 minutes equally divided, with the understanding that if I do need a couple more minutes, the Senator will be good enough to let me have that. I will sure appreciate it.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, just a query. What is the plan here? Is it to stack votes? What is the arrangement going to be?

Mr. CHAFEE. At 3:45 we go down.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time on this.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I hope everybody will listen to this because we think it is important. Illegal immigrants now are entitled to a series of limited benefits, such as emergency Medicaid, prenatal Medicaid services, nutrition programs, and public assistance for immunizations. Illegal aliens are entitled to this. This is not the big broad scope of things. This is limited. What we are saying is legal immigrants should be entitled to the same thing. It is a little odd to say that the illegals can get these. Why do we give them to those individuals, the illegals? It is for the benefit of public health overall. It seems to me that the legal immigrants should likewise be entitled to immunization, prenatal, and postpartum Medicaid services. That is what it is all about. It is a limited group. It is not going to break the budget, but certainly the legals under equity should be entitled to what the illegals are entitled to. Thank you.