John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is with pride that I present to you the outstanding individuals who have achieved the highest honors as a Girl Scout or Boy Scout. These young people possess qualities of leadership and hard work that distinguishes them from the rest. Since the beginning of the century, the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts have provided a positive outlet for young men and women to develop leadership skills, make new friends, explore new ideas, as well as gain a sense of self determination, self-reliance and team work. The highest honors that can be received by a Girl Scout are the Gold and Silver Awards. These awards are presented to those Girl Scouts who have demonstrated their commitment to excellence, hard work and the desire to help their community. The Eagle Scout Award is the highest honor given to a Boy Scout. Recipients display outstanding leadership in outdoor skills, and in community service that is helpful to religious and school institutions. It is with great honor that I congratulate the recipients of these awards. The accomplishments of these young people are certainly worthy of praise. The skills they have learned as Scouts will allow them to help the world become a better place. We also pay tribute to the parents, Scout leaders, and Scouting organizations that have guided these young people to achieve such greatness. Without their time and energy none of this would be possible. It is a privilege to submit to you the list of the young men and women who have earned these awards, so I ask that it be printed in the Record. The list follows: Girl Scout Gold Award Recipients For 1995 Cranston: Amanda Toppa. East Greenwich: Kimberly Gaffney. Johnston: Amy Crane, Bonnie Renfrew. Kenyon: Kimberly Pierce. North Providence: Heather Konicki. Pawtucket: Tanya Coots, Heather Davis. Portsmouth: Elizabeth Goltman, Julia Kohl, Janessa LeComte, Jennifer McLean, Bridget Sullivan. Rehoboth, MA: Nicole Swallow. Riverside: Cochetta Dolloff. West Kingston: Cheryl Berker. West Warwick: Heather LaBelle. Wood River Junction: Shayna Horgan. Woonsocket: Kimberly Hebert. Girl Scout Silver Award Recipients For 1995 Barrington: Heather Bianco, Nicole Daddona, Caroline Danish, Alison Fodor, Emilie Hosford, Ashley Humm, Stephanie Mailloux, Carly Marsh, Amy Poveromo, Sarah Richardson, Adrian Schlesinger, Emily Wetherbee. Carolina: Amanda Bouressa. Cranston: Sara Carnevale, Shannon Corey, Louise Humphrey, Elizabeth Kronenberg, Sarah Lavigne, Stacey Lehrer. Middletown: Jennifer Hancock, Elizabeth Jump, Amy Kobayashi, Marie Kobayashi, Sarah Peter, Aimee Saunders, Mary Saunders. North Smithfield: Jessica Cavedon. Narragansett: Caroline Cutting, Shauna Dickens, Katie Webster. Newport: Andrea Innes, Meredith Innes, Jennifer Matheny. Pawtucket: Amy Medeiros, Valerie Poisson, Brce Smith. Richmond: Emily Hisey. West Kingston: Michelle Berker. Wakefield: Ruth Anderson. Warwick: Bethany Ascoli, Lynn Summers. Woonsocket: Danielle Auclair, Tina Brin, Jessica Cousineau, Sarah Doire, Diane Ferland, Alicia Gamache, Stephanie Joannette, Melanie Labrecque, Lynn Turner. Boy Scotts of America Eagle Scout Recipients for 1995 Ashaway: Chris Dumas. Barrington: Jonathan T. Belmont, George William Campbell, Morgan Huffman Densley, Scott D. Harrison, Patrick Charles Keenan, Matthew Joseph Stoeckle, Jonathan Larrison Vohr, Russell Aubin Wallis, Rory W. Wood. Blackstone Massachusetts: Joseph E. Niemczyk. Bristol: Jason M. Bloom. Charlestown: Jesse Rhodes. Chepachet: John F. Valentine, IV. Cranston: Matthew Erik Anderson, Benjamin J. Caito, Peter W. Caito, Peter Eli Jetty, Michael R. Kachanis, Anthony Mangiarelli, Christopher N. Reilly, Bryan Rekrut, Kevin A. Silva. Coventry: Brian K. Martin, Matthew Walters. Cumberland: Chad Michael Dillon. East Greenwich: Christopher Joseph Cawley, John J. Doyle, Frederick W. Lumb, Kevin Allen Schwendiman, James M.R. Sloan. Greene: Jeremy P. Skaling. Greenville: Kenneth C. Collins, Charles Bradley Daniel, Scott E. Hopkins, Mark S. Wong. Harrisville: Steven B. Mendall, Jr. Hope: Stephen Raymond Pratt, Jr., Steven Etchells. Hope Valley: Andrew J. Horton. Hopkinton: James Romanski, Corey Small. Jamestown: Scott E. Froberg, Alan D. Weaver, Jr. Johnston: Neal R. Bradbury, Edward Albert Darragh, William P. DeRita, III, Michael L. Porter, Jr., Guy S. Shaffer. Manville: Jason Michael Allen, David Raymond Levesque. Middletown: Todd Michael Fisher, Michael A. Henry, Luke Allen Magnus, Eric Oldford, Brian J. Paquin, Jason F. Soules, Aaron M. Wilbur. Millville, Massachusetts: Jeffrey Dean. Narragansett: Matthew W. Maruska. Nasonville: Brian D. Lafaille. Newport: Aaron Hauquitz, Douglas Everett Jameson. North Attleboro, Massachusetts: Raymond Gauthier, Jr. North Dighton, Massachusetts: Joshua N. Labrie. North Kingston: William C. Mainor, Walter E. Thomas, IV, John T. Walsh, III. North Providence: Kevin M. Brault, Matthew William Thornton. North Scituate: Thomas D. Alberg, Paul L. Carlson, Peter Charles Carlson, Matthew P. Koehler. North Smithfield: James E.K. Doherty. Pawcatuck, Connecticut: Patrick K. Cryan, James D. Spaziante. Pawtucket: Dominic Chirchirillo, III, Ramiro Antonio Dacosta, Peter Fleurant, Albert Joseph Prew, Joseph Edward Sullivan, Joshua Brian Waldman. Portsmouth: Jeremy Sawyer Brown, Benjamin Gorman, Kent D. Rutter, Colin B. Smith. Providence: John James Joseph Banks, Matthew Charles Bastan, Luke C. Doyle, Andrew Frutchey, Christopher A. Goulet, Patrick J. Horrigan, Vincent R. Iacobucci, Jr., Adam Ryan Moore, Thomas J.W. Parker, Peter Scheidler, Jr. Rumford: Tony Poole. Seekonk, Massachusetts: Nathanael J. Greene, Brett Marcotte, Jeffrey C. McCabe, Christopher R. Nicholas, William J. Wood, Jr. Smithfield: Brian P. Breguet, Michael J. Hogan, Nathan Moreau, Colin M. Segovis. Sutton, Massachusetts: Matthew John Zell. Uxbridge, Massachusetts: Brian M. Zifcak. Warren: William Garcia. Warwick: Ryan W. Arnold, Steven L. Bailey, Christopher A. Bissell, James R. Caddell, Jr., Fred Crossman, Jr., Joseph G. Diman, Ian T. Fairbairn, Sean R. Guzeika, Matthew L. Lutynski, Michael Marseglia, Andrew P. McGuirl, Adam J. Morelli, Matteo D. Morelli, Gerald Theroux, Bradley Thompson, Robert A. Wilcox. Westerly: Shane Matthew Belanger, Vincent Anthony Fusaro. West Kinston: Benjamin T. Brillat, Jacob Casimir Sosnowski. West Warwick: Linton S. Wilder, IV, Frank M. Caliri. Woonsocket: Adam Christopher Crepeau, Dominique Doiron.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the manager of the bill.

Mr. CHAFEE. Finally, Mr. President, on the issue of federally funded vouchers for religiously affiliated schools, I would like to quote Mr. Gunderson, the author of this proposal. On August 12, 1992, during a speech in the House Chamber in opposition to a voucher amendment by Mr. Armey, Representative Gunderson said, ``Choice which goes beyond public and private schools to include religious schools, I have to tell my colleagues, raises serious constitutional questions.'' The underlying assumption of private school voucher plans is that public schools are doing a bad job and private schools are better. The advantage that private schools appear to have over public schools disappears when students of similar backgrounds are compared. Private school achievement measures at a much higher rate than public school achievement because private school students come from much more advantaged backgrounds with higher incomes and parents with higher levels of education. In a report entitled ``Fourth Year Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,'' researchers found that voucher students in private schools are not doing better in math and reading than low-income students who remained in the public schools. Another study by Bruce Fuller of the Harvard University graduate school of education called ``Who Gains, Who Loses From School Choice: A Research Summary'' reported that after the third year of the Milwaukee voucher experiment reading scores were essentially no different between choice students and similar low-income Milwaukee public school students. In 1993, many of those who support forcing this voucher program on the District of Columbia opposed Goals 2000: the Educate America Act because, they argued, it lessened local control over education. Well, Mr. President, if anything lessens local control over education in the District of Columbia, it is this conference report. It has not been asked for by the D.C. school board, but Congress set up a special board and a new program for the District of Columbia. Supporters of the voucher plan say the District of Columbia should provide choices to parents. They say the District of Columbia should have charter schools. They call for partnerships between city schools and the Smithsonian Institution. The truth is that the District of Columbia has all of these things. The District has public school choice. There is a charter school program at a school not six blocks from the Capitol. Down the street there is a middle school which has entered into a partnership with the Smithsonian. D.C. public schools are the only public schools in the area that provide an all-day kindergarten program, and every high school in the District is a magnet school. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, and I suggest that if those who put forth this plan were truly interested in improving the education of D.C. students, they would provide sorely needed additional resources to the public schools here. They would encourage the District of Columbia to look at schools and programs that are succeeding here and try to emulate that success. I find it extraordinary that the 104th Congress, which is dedicated to local control and cutting spending, is seeking to enter into a brandnew spending program to micromanage a local school system. I will vote against cloture, and I urge my colleagues to do so. Exhibit 1 gunderson's ``scholarships'' hurt religion As clergy of the District of Columbia and those committed to the principle of separation of church and state, we strongly oppose the ``scholarships'' provision, advanced by Congressman Steve Gunderson, in the D.C. Education Reform Proposal. These ``scholarships'' will funnel public dollars to parochial and other religious schools, thereby damaging their religious autonomy and violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Public funding will inevitably lead to regulation of religious schools, harmfully entangling the government in religious matters. Currently, religious schools are free from government intrusion and may enroll and hire only those of their own religion. This independence is important given that the mission of a religious school is to promote its faith in its pupils. The ``scholarships'' will threaten the schools' ability to operate in a fully sectarian manner. Furthermore, under the U.S. Constitution's church-state separation provisions, government may not subsidize sectarian education. If tax dollars are funneled to religious denominations in the form of ``scholarships,'' all citizens will be paying taxes to support religion. This intrinsically breaches our nation's heritage of religious freedom. Therefore, in the debate over the ``scholarships,'' do not omit the principle of religious liberty from consideration. Sincerely, Rev. Charles Worthy, Pennsylvania Avenue Baptist Church. Rabbi Fred Reiner, Temple Sinai. Rev. Kenneth Burke, E. Washington Heights Baptist. Rev. Eliezer Valentin-Castanon, General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church.

Mr. CHAFEE. The results of that have not shown an improvement in those students who come from the low-income schools as opposed to those students who remained in the low-income schools. This proposal permits taxpayer dollars to be used to pay for religious education. Even if this plan was approved by the House and Senate and signed by the President, it would be a long time before poor children in the District received these vouchers because this proposal would go straight to the courts. On December 14, 1995, I received a letter opposing the voucher proposal from a group of local D.C. religious leaders who believe that providing taxpayer dollars to religious schools would damage their religious autonomy, and they agree that it would violate the first amendment. They argue: Public funding will inevitably lead to regulation of religious schools, harmfully entangling the government in religious matters. Currently religious schools are free from government intrusion and may enroll and hire those of their own religion. This independence is important given that the mission of a religious school is to promote its faith in its pupils. The ``scholarships'' will threaten the schools' ability to operate in a fully sectarian manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that another letter in opposition to the voucher proposal from the Baptist Joint Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last fall the Senate approved a version of the D.C. appropriations bill with no trouble. We passed it here in the Senate with no difficulty. Later, the House passed its version, but in its version there was the creation of a new Federal spending program to provide private school vouchers to a select group of students. This conference report which we are dealing with today creates the first federally funded private school voucher program in the United States of America. The Senate conferees, Republicans and the Democrats from the Senate, were united in their opposition to the House private school voucher provision. The House would not yield, and for months an agreement could not be reached. The Senate bill did not include, as I say, anything to do with vouchers. We never had an opportunity to address it. There had been no hearings on this measure in the Senate. But the House has said, take this new Federal spending program with all its flaws or the District of Columbia will not receive its Federal payments. This appropriations bill, I submit, should not be used to force the Senate to endorse the creation of a new Federal spending program with dubious merit. It is no accident, it seems to me, Mr. President, that this new voucher program has been attached to the D.C. appropriations bill. None of us have a constituency. None of us are responsible to the District of Columbia voters. They cannot punish us or reward us in any fashion. We are unaccountable for our actions. Under this proposal, the parents do not choose the school that their children will attend. The private schools select the children who are going to attend those schools. This is not a luxury that our public schools have. Our public schools cannot pick and choose among the students. Public schools are committed to providing an education to all our children. They have to accept the child who comes to the school in the middle of the school year, the child who comes with disabilities, the child whose primary language is not English. They have to accept the child with disciplinary problems or the child with the low IQ. Private schools do not have to accept any of those children and can reject any child who falls into the above categories--does not speak good English, does not have the adequate IQ, and so forth. In short, private schools have the ability to select the smartest, the least difficult students with the fewest challenges to overcome, those students with the greatest family support. Jonathan Kozol, the Harvard-educated Rhodes scholar who is best known as a teacher, a civil rights worker, and the best-selling author of ``Savage Inequalities,'' and more recently the good ``Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation,'' has been an outspoken critic of American education, particularly in our inner cities. Yet when asked about private school choice, this is what he had to say: Choice doesn't do anything for poor children. It simply creates a system of triage that will enable the most fortunate to opt out and leave the larger numbers of the poorest and least sophisticated people in schools nobody willingly would choose. There is a myth that poor schools somehow magically improve to meet the competition. Kozol says: Contrary to myths, the poor schools do not magically improve to meet the competition, nor do they self-destruct. They linger on as the depositories for children everybody has fled. The role of our schools has changed dramatically in the past three decades. Schools have taken on extraordinary new burdens. Today we are seeing youngsters with learning disabilities, youngsters who do not get enough to eat, youngsters born with drug or fetal alcohol problems, youngsters from totally shattered families. As a society, we expect that our schools will take in these children and help make their lives better through education. I believe it is wrong to provide Federal dollars to private schools to enable them to skim the best students from the public schools and leave the public schools with the greatest challenges to deal with. It is curious, it seems to me, Mr. President, that under the House appropriations bill, the District of Columbia will lose its $13 million this year, $13 million in title I and so forth programs, yet at the same time this report authorizes $42 million over the next 5 years--$5 million this year alone. So this is $42 million over the next 5 years that, it seems to me, could far better be spent on improving our public schools in the District of Columbia, renovating the shabby buildings, upgrading the facilities, purchasing new books, installing computers and Internet connections, rewarding excellent teachers. All of these things that money could go for. Mr. President, I would like to conclude by saying that in Milwaukee they have such an experiment. They have had it for 4 years.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia wanted 1 minute, and I would be glad to yield to him. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to bring to the Senate's attention the accomplishments of an amazing young man. I first met Doug Wilson in connection with legislation that I sponsored to encourage States to pass universal motorcycle helmet laws. This legislation was included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA] and Doug was very helpful to me in getting this law passed. But Doug didn't stop there. He has worked tirelessly at the State level, encouraging State legislatures to pass effective motorcycle helmet laws. Doug was instrumental in convincing the Maryland Legislature to pass a universal motorcycle helmet law. Doug is a very convincing young man. Unfortunately, one of the reasons he is so convincing is because he has experienced first hand the consequences of being involved in a motorcycle crash without a helmet. Doug's injuries were minor except for a severe brain injury-- the result of hitting his head on the pavement. His journey to recovery has been long and difficult but it also has been extraordinary. His accomplishments are many and the Journal in Maryland has just named Doug Wilson its ``Man of the Year.'' Mr. President, I cannot think of a more deserving person to be the ``Man of the Year.'' Since Congress unfortunately repealed the Federal motorcycle requirements recently in the National Highway System Designation Act, I am particularly grateful that Doug, and others like him, are working at the State level to educate people about the benefits of wearing motorcycle helmets and the terrible consequences when they do not. I want to congratulate Doug and wish him the very best in whatever he chooses to undertake in the future. I ask that the Journal article recognizing Doug's accomplishments be printed in the Record. The article follows: After a Brush With Death, He Leads Full Life (By Sean Scully) Doug Wilson was never supposed to walk or talk again following a severe motorcycle accident almost five years ago. But in September, he ran a 5-kilometer race--the third annual Doug Wilson Thumbs Up race--and he's eager to talk about it. ``I was in the hospital for three months [in 1991],'' Wilson said. ``It never made me upset because I said I was going to be fine, I never thought [running] was something I'd never be able to do again.'' In the spring of 1991, Wilson was a senior at the University of South Carolina, only six weeks away from an economics degree. The athletic and good-looking Wilson had been a soccer player at Churchill High School in Potomac and a place-kicker for the university's Gamecocks football team. He seemed to have it all. Then it came crashing down. For a still-unknown reason, Wilson lost control of his motorcycle on a clear, straight road. He fell and struck his head on the pavement. He wasn't wearing a helmet. The accident only broke three bones, but it jarred his brain severely, causing swelling and plunging Wilson into an eight-day coma. He spent three months in the hospital and six months in a wheelchair. Over the next four years, he had to relearn the tasks most of us take for granted. ``I have an appreciation for certain things most of the whole world wouldn't understand,'' said Wilson, who has only the slightest hesitation of speech, along with a shuffle in his walk, giving clues to the serious injury he has overcome. But Wilson's recovery is more than a personal journey for him. It has involved his entire community. When he first began to walk again, Wilson said, he volunteered to help with local youth sports. Kids and parents rallied around him, he said. The kids would pick him to play on basketball teams, even though he could barely walk, let alone run and jump. ``They said, `we don't care, we just want you on the team,' '' Wilson said. He received so much support that he's made it a mission to give something back. ``I learned to respect kids,'' Wilson said, ``I help them because they helped me.'' Wilson, now 27, lives with his parents In Potomac. His list of activities is impressive, long enough that he has trouble remembering them all: He is one of the original volunteers at Club Friday, a youth program at the Potomac Community Center, he is a youth soccer instructor for Montgomery Soccer Inc.; he serves on two county recreational advisory boards; he helped found the Potomac Adaptive Basketball Association; he is an active member of the Rotary Club of Potomac, and he founded the annual 5-kilometer race, which benefits Club Friday and the Brain Injury Association of Maryland. ``To me, he's just a super human being,'' said Potomac resident Randy Zeibert, whose children played on a soccer team coached by Wilson. ``He does all these things and asks nothing in return.'' In the wake of his accident, Wilson made it a personal quest to see Maryland and other states adopt mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. His testimony was a key factor in Maryland's law, which narrowly passed the General Assembly four years ago, said former state Sen. Howard Denis. Denis said he was wavering on the bill, torn between his desire to prevent devastating injuries and his belief that the government should not place to many restrictions on the public. In the end, Wilson pushed Denis to back the law. ``Doug was a particularly compelling witness because he had lived through it and he was very articulate,'' Denis said. On top of all his other activities, Wilson returned to South Carolina for a semester in 1993 and earned his degree. ``I wasn't supposed to walk again, so I walked,'' Wilson said. ``I wasn't supposed to go to college and take classes, so I went back and graduated with my best semester in college.'' Despite volunteering at least 50 hours a week,'' Wilson has started a business, called ``We'll Keep It Clean,'' hiring disabled people to clean and maintain people's property; yard work, pool cleaning, and the like. Disabled people, he said, make excellent workers because. ``they're not interested in doing it for the money; they're out there trying to prove they can do it.'' On top of that, Wilson lobbies state lawmakers nationwide to pass motorcycle helmet laws similar to the one he helped pass in Maryland. ``He's just gung-ho about life,'' said Sam Eammelli, past president of the Rotary Club. ``I think it's great.'' The key, Wilson said, is to set goals high. That way people can fall a little bit short and still do better than anybody else expects. And his goals remain high. ``Maybe someday,'' he said with a twinkle in his eye, ``I'm going to try out for an NFL team.''

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan states the situation accurately. It is unfortunate that the House has not yet acted on S. 534 or a similar bill. I will certainly work with him to ensure that the House understands that enactment of S. 534 is a priority for the Senate in this Congress. And, the Senator certainly retains his right to offer S. 534 to other vehicles, should he so choose. In the meantime, I appreciate his willingness not to stall progress on moving H.R. 2036.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act. This bill, which on January 31, 1996, passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 402 to 19, amends the so-called land ban provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Senator Nickles introduced a similar bill in the Senate, S. 1497, which was cosponsored by Senators Smith, Pryor, Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, Lott, Breaux, Johnston, Abraham, Kempthorne, Lieberman, Faircloth, Glenn, and Warner. H.R. 2036 and its Senate companion, S. 1497, provide a model for moving targeted, commonsense legislation that maintains protection of human health and the environment while removing duplicative or overlapping layers of regulation. It is proof that we can fix those parts of our environmental laws that need to be fixed without gutting, repealing, or rolling back environmental protection. H.R. 2036 passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin. The legislation is strongly supported by the Clinton administration. A joint letter signed by EPA, CEQ, and OMB stated that the bill ``would eliminate a mandate that the Environmental Protection Agency'' promulgate stringent and costly treatment standards for certain low-risk wastes that already are regulated in Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act units.'' I believe that H.R. 2036, as amended today, ensures protection of human health and the environment while easing two specific regulatory burdens imposed by the Solid Waste Disposal Act. In both instances, EPA tried to reduce these regulatory burdens through administrative action but the Agency was rebuffed by the courts. That is why this legislation is necessary. Time is of the essence because the Agency is under court order to promulgate new rules under the current law. If we are going to provide relief, now is the time to do it. The primary purpose of this bill is to prevent duplicative and inconsistent regulation of a specific, limited category of wastes under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The premise underlying the bill is that certain low risk, high volume waste streams that are treated to remove any hazardous characteristics and that are subsequently discharged in a manner meeting the standards of section 402 of the Clean Water Act or are injected in class I wells that have received individual permits under the Safe Drinking Water Act, need not be subject to the land disposal restrictions under RCRA. In 1990 regulations to implement the Solid Waste Disposal Act's land ban provisions, EPA reasoned that if low risk, high volume wastes were being treated in a manner that protects human health and the environment under the Clean Water Act in a treatment system or are injected into a Safe Drinking Water Act permitted deep well injection system, then there was insufficient justification for imposing additional, and perhaps inconsistent land ban treatment standards under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. EPA's rule was challenged in court, and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned EPA's approach. This bill will allow EPA to grant some relief from the requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act while undertaking a study to assure that the conclusions the Agency reached in 1990 are still valid. It is important to note that this bill retains the Agency's authority to impose land ban restrictions and treatment standards under the Solid Waste Disposal Act if it is found to be necessary in the future. The bill will also allow EPA to reimpose another rule vacated by the courts; a rule exempting certain small municipal solid waste landfills from groundwater monitoring requirements. This provision in H.R. 2036, as added by this amendment, conforms with the language in S. 534, the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act, which passed the Senate on May 16, 1995. This amendment contains several modifications to the House-passed bill that will ensure that risks to human health or the environment from decharacterized wastes receiving treatment equivalent to that required by section 402 of the Clean Water Act or injected in deep well injection units that have received individual permits under the Safe Drinking Water Act are minimized. The amendment provides that all of the Solid Waste Disposal Act inspection and enforcement authorities are preserved and will continue to apply to so-called decharacterized wastes even if the waste is not subject to the land disposal ban requirements as a result of this bill. The amendment protects against potential misuse and the use of ``sham'' treatment systems by requiring treatment in Clean Water Act impoundments, not merely holding or storing waste in the impoundment while it evaporates or settles or, worst of all, leaches into ground water. The amendment also makes it clear that the Administrator may act to impose additional requirements upon receipt of information regarding the risks posed to human health and the environment by the wastes managed under this act. If the Administrator decides the imposition of additional requirements is warranted, the authority is there to do so. The Administrator does not have to wait for the results of the study. I want to thank Senator Nickles, Senator Smith, chairman of the Environment and Public Works subcommittee with jurisdiction over hazardous waste, and the other cosponsors of the bill for bringing these issues to the attention of the Senate. I especially want to thank my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee for agreeing to clear H.R. 2036 for rapid floor action. I urge your support for this amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague, the senior Senator from Indiana, for the enormous amount of effort he has put into this bill. He and his colleague on the other side have done good work. The legislation that is before the Senate represents a critical change in our farm policy that will do much to move us toward a market-oriented system. And that is a welcome change indeed. I must say, however, that as enthusiastic as I am about the important structural changes wrought by this bill, I am sorely disappointed that one provision of particular importance to my State and the New England region was deleted earlier today. It was my understanding that this provision would be included in the final version of the Senate bill. The provision that I am referring to is the New England Dairy Compact-- which has earned broad support from our region's Governors, legislators, and industry. Without congressional authorization, the compact cannot move forward. And today's action to eliminate the necessary congressional consent means moving forward will be extremely difficult. I also regret that the Senate failed to adopt much-needed reforms to the sugar and peanut programs. While the legislation crafted by the managers revises both of these programs to some extent, those revisions do not go nearly far enough. Therefore, with regret, I will be casting my vote against the underlying bill. Change of Vote

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I might be added as a cosponsor of both measures, S. 1541 and the Lugar-Leahy bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I congratulate the managers of this bill and the leadership of the House and Senate on bringing to the floor this complex, overdue effort to bring our Nation's telecommunications laws into the 21st century. Although this legislation does not receive the attention in the media as do issues such as the Federal budget and tax cuts, its importance to our economy, to the livelihoods of all Americans, and to continued technological progress cannot be overstated. In fact, it has been said that the telecommunications reform bill is the most important piece of legislation we will pass in this Congress. This bill recognizes that market forces and competition are the fuels that drive our Nation's economy. For too long, most sectors of our telecommunications industry, particularly the telephone industry, have been hamstrung by outdated laws that limit access to the marketplace. The great bulk of law in this area is actually some 61 years old. It should be obvious to everyone that communications technology has been revolutionized during these 61 years, and our laws ought to keep up with these changes in technology. Since the 104th Congress began consideration of telecommunications reform early last year, there have been countless forces pulling the authors of this legislation is many different directions. There have been industry groups, individual companies, consumer groups, unions, think tanks, the administration, and many, many more all with an interest in this bill who have rightfully voiced their concerns as this process has gone forward. I admire the long hours of hard work performed by the Commerce Committee and its staff in sorting through the maze of this highly complex issue and producing this conference report. I certainly did not envy these individuals as they tackled this extraordinary difficult task. While, as I have said, we all respect the ability of the free market to produce jobs and foster economic growth, there are many in Congress who are reluctant to let the marketplace operate completely freely in all telecommunications industries. For example, many of my colleagues are concerned that the regional Bell companies will take undue advantage of their ownership of local telephone networks to compete unfairly in the long distance market. On the other hand, many other colleagues are equally adamant that we should place very few restrictions on Bell companies as they are permitted to offer long distance service. This debate over long distance represents just one of the many, many difficult balancing acts the managers of this bill struggled with. In short, my colleagues had to reconcile the views of those who wanted to let the marketplace more or less reign free with those who sought regulatory protection for industries and for consumers. And let me tell you, this was no easy task for the authors of this bill; I commend them for their legislative ability. No one is 100 percent happy with the final product, but I am confident that the benefits we will realize in enacting this bill in the way of job creation and technological progress are real. We can all be proud of the job done by the authors of this legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last Friday, January 19, the barge North Cape ran aground on a sandbar off the coast of my home State of Rhode Island. It is estimated that more than 800,000 gallons of No. 2 diesel heating oil aboard the barge spilled into Block Island Sound, making this the worst oilspill in Rhode Island's history. Alarmingly, the North Cape is grounded 100 yards offshore of the Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, an area set aside as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. So far, oil has penetrated salt ponds in the refuge, and along the southern coast, including Point Judith Pond, an important spawning area for winter flounder. The spill's effect may continue to have adverse impacts on fish and wildlife now that oil has entered the natural food chain in the area. The cost to my State's environment and economy will be steep. Already, more than 11,000 lobsters have been killed by the spilled oil. Their carcasses, and those of clams, starfish, and other sea creatures, litter southern Rhode Island beaches. The Fish and Wildlife Service has collected over 300 oil-logged birds, of which more than 100 are dead, and 1 dead seal. Sadly, volunteers keep bringing in more casualties. Because Rhode Island relies heavily on its coastal resources, the financial toll of the spill is heavy. Governor Almond has declared a state of emergency and has requested Federal disaster relief. According to Timothy Keeney, director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, damage to marine industries ultimately could run into the tens of millions of dollars. I wish I could say that Rhode Island is a stranger to oilspills. Unfortunately, as recently as 1989, the World Prodigy oil tanker ran aground on Brenton Reef and leaked 420,000 gallons of oil into Narragansett Bay. And there have been a number of other spills over the years. A constant theme in these crises has been the generosity and sacrifice demonstrated in the response of Rhode Islanders. Their response to the current spill is no exception. Volunteers--as many as 500 a day--have been pitching in energetically: bathing waterfowl, cleaning beaches, donating paper towels. It is inspiring to see individuals band together in an effort to combat a potential environmental disaster. In addition, local environmental and emergency-preparedness officials have dropped everything. Federal workers are giving their all. My hat is off to these Government workers; people like Joe Dowhan and Paul Casey of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Charlie Hebert, our Rhode Island Refuge Manager, who spent the first 36 hours of the crisis on his feet. Our State owes a debt of gratitude to all who have rolled up their sleeves. While the willingness of Rhode Islanders to respond to this spill has been the same as in years past, one thing is different this time around. That is the fact that there is in existence comprehensive Federal oilspill legislation, the Oil Pollution Act, which Congress enacted in 1990. While many questions remain to be answered about why the North Cape spill occurred, the provisions of OPA 90 ensured that advance planning had been undertaken to expedite the response to the disaster. The law will also ensure that parties injured by the spill will receive compensation. OPA 90 established a new national planning and response system to provide for more expeditious and well-organized responses to oilspills wherever and whenever they might occur. The system relies on a host of groups of experts and agency officials at numerous levels, including a National Response Unit, Coast Guard strike teams, 10 Coast Guard district response groups, and area committees. This structure ensures that battle stations are manned with alacrity. The immediate deployment of booms and other barriers along the south county shoreline, to keep the oil from contaminating fragile habitat, speaks to the wisdom of having such a response system in place at all times. Furthermore, OPA 90 is designed to make sure that the polluter pays. In the case of the North Cape, its owner, Eklof Marine, based in Staten Island, has laudably come forward to accept responsibility for this accident. The company has provided ships, manpower, and other resources to assist in the cleanup. As for the fishermen and others whose livelihood and property have been harmed by the oil, OPA 90 entitles them to compensation for their economic losses. The act mandates that a vessel that discharges oil is liable for the costs of the ensuing cleanup and damages, including those caused by loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity. The act also provides that the Government, acting as public trustee for injured natural resources, may seek damages to restore the resources. This means that damages would be available to restore the fish and wildlife in Rhode Island's sensitive coastal areas, including habitat within the national wildlife refuge. OPA 90 establishes four other categories of damages for which compensation is provided: First, owners of real or personal property may seek damages for any economic loss arising from destruction of their property. Second, a person who relies on injured natural resources for subsistence may seek damages for injury to those resources. Third, the Government may seek damages for loss of tax revenue resulting from the spill. Fourth, the Government may seek damages for net costs of providing additional public services necessary during or after cleanup of the spill. Moreover, OPA 90 requires vessel owners to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility at least up to the amount of a statutory liability cap--in the case of the North Cape, $10 million. Should claims be denied or left unsatisfied by the responsible party, OPA expanded the list of items for which compensation may be sought from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The fund currently contains more than $1 billion. In contrast, the former Clean Water Act Fund designated for oilspill cleanup was nearly bankrupt at the time of the World Prodigy spill. The current fund thus acts as a real safety net that helps guarantee payment of all damages arising from a spill. Stepping back for a moment, the oilspill in Rhode Island is a perfect example of the need for strong environmental regulations. Thank goodness for OPA 90. Without it, the State and Federal Government would have been ill-prepared to cope with an oilspill of this magnitude, taking place in such rough weather conditions. Without it, Fish and Wildlife Service officials charged with the care of fragile waterfowl habitat would see many of their hard-won gains eroded, possibly for good. Without it, the lobster fishermen of southern New England would be robbed of their livelihood. Just this week, the Washington Post reported on the results of a survey just completed by Republican pollster Linda DiVall, which--once again, I should emphasize--found strong, bipartisan backing nationwide for Federal laws that protect the environment. Ms. DiVall concluded that, ``Attacking the Environmental Protection Agency is a nonstarter.'' We should be emphasizing the safeguarding of reasonable and balanced environmental protection done in a more efficient manner. Just about everyone in Rhode Island--and, indeed, anyone who has viewed the oily sheen covering Rhode Island waters on the nightly television news--would say that Ms. DiVall has it just right. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I just want to join in congratulating the majority leader for what he has done today. This is really terribly important. And while many citizens in the country are not suffering at all--they are getting their Social Security check, the VA checks, the AFDC checks--there are literally hundreds, and, indeed, thousands who truly are suffering out of this, whether it be a passport they cannot obtain, having made payments on flights that are not redeemable, whether it is the AmeriCorps individuals who are working in the inner cities and live paycheck to paycheck and are not receiving their check, whether it is those who are under some Government contract and not being paid. There is a lot of suffering taking place across the country. And so I just give high praise to our distinguished majority leader, the senior Senator from Kansas, for what he has done, and I just hope the House accepts it. It is, as I understand, until January 12. And in the meantime the negotiators on the biggest subject, namely the budget, can keep working. This is not something that is fostering--in other words, the shutdown is not fostering the talks. Nothing is being gained from that. The administration is not being bullied, and the Republicans are not being bullied. It is a nonwinner. It is one of those rare things where everybody loses. So I congratulate the majority leader, and I just hope the House accepts this and we can get on with the Government reopening. If things are not worked out by January 12, well, then have another. But meanwhile I just know everybody who is involved is trying to reach a settlement on this budget. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. I want to join.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we spent many months negotiating the contents of the Senate welfare bill, which was approved 87-12, with overwhelming bipartisan support. I believe that measure, which the President indicated he would sign, was a tremendous victory for all parties. Regrettably, the final conference agreement strays in several respects from the Senate-passed welfare reform bill. As a consequence, President Clinton has indicated he will veto this legislation. Today I voted to send the conference report to the President because, while far from perfect, this legislation is still better than current law, which only encourages and perpetuates dependency. For example, this bill provide for time-limited benefits, so that individuals know they must make every effort to become self-sufficient by a date certain. It also includes much stronger child support enforcement mechanisms to require parents to assume financial responsibility for the children they bring into this world. Importantly, it also gives the States needed flexibility to develop innovative programs to help their citizens break the cycle of dependency associated with the present welfare system. However, I am still not satisfied with this legislation, and continue to believe it can be improved, and intend to work toward that end following the President's veto. The areas in which I will seek improvement are as follows: afdc eligibility for medicaid The conference agreement severs the link between AFDC eligibility and Medicaid. Under this provision, which was not included in either the House or Senate version of the legislation, States would no longer be required to provide Medicaid coverage to millions of AFDC eligible women and their children over the age of 13. Only those women who are pregnant and on AFDC, and children under the age of 13, would be guaranteed Medicaid coverage. While I am pleased that the conference report retains Medicaid eligibility for foster care and adoption assistance children, eliminating mandatory Medicaid coverage for other AFDC beneficiaries is counterproductive. This provision is troubling and should be dropped. children's supplemental security income (ssi) This program took a big bite in the Senate bill. A more restrictive definition of disability was adopted to ensure that only those children who are truly disabled qualify for cash assistance. On top of this, the conference agreement adds a new two-tiered system of eligibility which will result in a 25-percent reduction in SSI benefits for 65 percent of the children on the program. The distinctions in this two-tiered program are arbitrary and make no practical difference to a family where one parent must give up his or her job to remain at home with a severely disabled child. This provision should be modified. foster care While I am pleased that the conference agreement maintains the Federal entitlement for foster children and adoption assistance--a position which I strongly supported--this bill would block grant and cut funding for the administrative and preplacement costs associated with these programs. These costs, which represent nearly half the cost of the overall program, are far from purely administrative. They cover such critical services as licensing and recruitment of foster homes and foster parents, services needed to remove children from abusive and unsafe homes, monitoring children in out-of-home placements, and court expenses to qualify special-needs children for adoption. These provisions need to be improved. child care The final conference agreement provides reduced funding for child care and drops Federal health and safety standards in the Child Care and Development Block Grant [CCDBG]--two significant and troubling changes from the Senate-passed bill. Given the enormous importance of child care to the success of welfare reform, these provisions should be reexamined. legal immigrants While I was able to secure some improvements on the treatment of legal immigrants in the conference report, the final bill still goes well beyond the Senate-passed bill. The tough new eligibility restrictions for Federal programs that this legislation would impose upon legal immigrants are excessive and should be further modified.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Could I ask a question? The Senator from Nevada, how long does he think he might be?

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAFEE. I will follow the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CHAFEE. How long might people be?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for the kind comments. It was a joint leadership. He was kind enough to say it was my leadership. No, no, it was the joint leadership in which we shared the responsibilities and the effort together, Senator Breaux and I, and we certainly had wonderful support from everybody involved. Mr. President, the agreement that we submitted today in the press conference and have outlined here on the floor was remarkable for this fact: Everybody agreed on every point. Now, that does not mean we started that way, but when we finished people did not say, ``Well, I am for points 1 through 4 but include me out on points 5, 6 and 7. But I am there for points 8, 9, and 10.'' Everybody signed on for all of the points. That was tough. It was tough for the Democrats to go to the $140,000 tax cut; it was tough for the Republicans to agree on the Medicare cut. We think we could have done better on the Medicare cut. We do not use the word ``cut''; ``reduction in the rate of increase.'' In order to reach an agreement we all compromised. I think it was a wonderful effort, and along with the Senator from Louisiana, I commend it to our colleagues and hope they take a good look at it.

Mr. CHAFEE. First of all, I thank the Senator from Nevada for permitting us to go ahead of him. That was very gracious. This morning, a bipartisan group of Senators--19 in all--unveiled a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002, using CBO, Congressional Budget Office, numbers. The group, which Senator Breaux and I had convened several weeks ago--actually, we had our first meeting in October--includes, as I say, so far, 19 Senators. That is without going out and seeking new Members. It is just those who have come to us and want to join in this effort. We are all united in this belief, Mr. President: It is absolutely essential that this Nation have a balanced budget by the year 2002, and that it will be impossible to achieve that budget unless those on both sides of the aisle are prepared to compromise. This is the essence of the effort of this group of Republicans and Democrats who are getting together for a common objective. The Senate bipartisan balanced budget plan is a huge step forward on the path to this budget agreement. It represents, I might say, Mr. President, the first truly bipartisan proposal to balance the budget. There are other groups in the House that are working, but they do not include Members of both sides. It was made possible, this agreement, only because both sides were willing to compromise on some very strongly held beliefs. We did this for the good of this country of ours. This is especially true with the compromising aspects with respect to the issues of Medicare and tax cuts. I am grateful to the Democrats in our group for their willingness to go with the CBO numbers. They agreed to that before it became accepted by the White House. This was a big step for the Democratic Members of our group. Now, undoubtedly, this plan will cause consternation on the Democratic side with number, and on the Republican side with some. But we are committed to reaching this balanced budget, free of gimmickry, and we are doing it for the welfare of future generations, for our children and our grandchildren. To those who disagree with our numbers, let me say this, Mr. President, and to those who think they can do a better job: Go to it. We welcome their efforts. All I ask is they do it with a bipartisan group, not just one group from one side and one group from the other. Sure, we can come out on the Republican side with a massive tax cut and tremendous slashes in Medicare, for example. But try that on the Democratic side and see how it goes. So the essence of this was that we had Members from both sides. Mr. President, this plan is intended to demonstrate to the negotiators on both sides that, one, it is essential to compromise and, two, that it can be done. It is a doable task. No one should throw up their hands in despair and say the sides are too far apart. What did we do? There were significant steps taken to control the growth of Medicare and other entitlements. Our plan calls for Medicare savings of $154 billion, with a strong commitment from everybody in the group that the part B premiums stay at 31.5 percent, with affluence testing for those above the regular brackets, and also means testing for those who are in the lower-income areas--and they might well qualify for paying less than 31.5 percent. We have agreed to conform the retirement age for Medicare with that of Social Security--namely, age 67. This is something that is going to take place in the future and will not contribute any dollars to the 7- year plan. But we feel it is critical to include this needed long-term entitlement reform. On Medicaid, we have savings of $67 billion. Underlying this number is a view that we should preserve the Federal entitlement for our most vulnerable citizens, while, at the same time, we provided the States with broad flexibility to administer the program. This is, again, not going to make everybody happy, but it was something that we all agreed to. We have agreed to $130 billion in tax cuts. We did not delineate how the tax cuts would be. We left that to the negotiators. We did not say X amount for capital gains cuts or Y amount for a child tax credit. We have chosen to reduce the CPI, Consumer Price Index, by .5 percent, which gives us $110 billion in additional savings. Frankly, we did this because we have had all kinds of testimony before the Finance Committee, which stated that the present CPI is a flawed measurement and should be adjusted actually beyond the .5 percent. It should be as high as .7 percent, or indeed some economists say as high as 2 percent. We also included $58 billion in savings under welfare, which assumes the Senate-passed welfare reform bill. On discretionary reductions, we came in slightly below the so-called hard freeze--namely, no increase for inflation over the 7-year period. Finally, Mr. President, we support the immediate adoption of a clean continuing resolution, on a short-term basis, until sometime next week, to get people back to work and get these budget negotiations back on track. Mr. President, this is not a perfect plan, and it is not offered in the sense that we are budget negotiators. It is an illustration that a responsible balanced budget agreement using CBO numbers is doable. I hope it will help our negotiators as they go about the difficult task of securing a final budget accord. Mr. President, I am delighted to be joined here on the floor with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, who was absolutely crucial in all these negotiations that we had. I yield the floor to him.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the conference report or the concurrent resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.