John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution. 37, submitted earlier today by Senator Exon.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 2539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I did not know the Senator was----

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota is next. And my question to the Chair is, whether--I ask unanimous consent that I might follow the Senator from Minnesota when he has completed, and speak as in morning business for 10 minutes. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Senator Breaux and I were going to have a little colloquy for 10, 15 minutes, so we would just as soon follow the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CHAFEE. Which Senator from Rhode Island?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about H.R. 2099, the VA--HUD appropriations conference report. I want to commend the distinguished ranking member and the distinguished manager of the bill for their efforts in reaching an agreement on this measure. The conferees had to make some tough choices, and I am pleased that they listened to the American people and decided to drop the controversial environmental riders in the House-passed bill. I am also delighted that the conference report provides the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] with a higher level of funding than either the House or Senate bills. Although the conferees eliminated most of the objectionable legislative riders, I am still troubled by two key provisions in the conference report. First of all, the conferees have decided to maintain the rider in the Senate bill that bars EPA from using any fiscal year 1996 funds to implement section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. Since its enactment in 1972, section 404 of the Clean Water Act has played an integral role in the progress we have made toward achieving the act's central objective, which is ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to prohibit a disposal of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters, including wetlands, if such a disposal would have an unacceptable adverse effect on certain especially important resources. The rider in the conference report would preclude EPA from ensuring against unacceptable adverse effects on these valuable resources for a full year. An article written by John Cushman in Tuesday's edition of the New York Times is especially instructive: It points out the many of the unknown adverse consequences this rider could have for our most valuable wetlands resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article printed in the December 12, 1995, New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, to those who say that EPA's 404(c) authority reflects a significant waste of government resources, I point to the fact that the agency has used this authority only 12 times during the past 23 years. One of these instances occurred in Attleboro, MA. A developer's plan to build a large shopping mall at a site called Sweeden's Swamp in Attleboro would have destroyed 45 acres of wetlands. Had EPA not stepped in to prevent the permit from going forward, the area would have lost a rich habitat for many birds, mammals, and amphibians. Mr. President, we simply cannot afford to relinquish the protection of critical natural resources afforded by 404(c). I am also deeply concerned with the conferees' decision to provide only $12 million for the Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund--a full 50 percent less than both the administration's request and the House approved figure of $24 million. The Montreal Protocol, approved in 1987 during the Reagan administration, addresses the damaging effect of chlorofluorocarbons--of CFC's--on the ozone layer. A statement made by President Reagan on April 5, 1988, demonstrates the significance of the program: The Montreal Protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and effects. The protocol is the result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement. The treaty, now ratified by 150 nations, represents a consensus on the dangers of ozone depletion and provides for the eventual ban of CFC production. We later agreed to amendments to strengthen the ban in 1990, as part of the Clean Air Act, and again, in 1992, under the terms of the Montreal Protocol. Throughout this effort there were those who called the ozone hole and the destruction of the ozone by CFC's a myth. However, several weeks ago, our actions were vindicated beyond question when the three scientists who first alerted us to the possibility that CFC's were destroying the ozone layer were awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry. During the debate on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, I sponsored an amendment, along with Senator Jeffords and Senator Bingaman, that would have given the Administrator the discretion to spend more than the $12 million now available under the conference report for the Montreal Protocol Fund. Although the amendment was approved by the Senate, it was not retained in conference. I must say I am disappointed. If our goal here is to encourage EPA to be mindful of good science, risk assessment, and management of scarce resources, then I cannot think of a more necessary endeavor than their efforts to reverse the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the Dole-McCain resolution which authorizes the participation of U.S. military forces in what is known as the I-For, the NATO implementation force. The purpose of this is to monitor the peace agreement in Bosnia. The Dayton peace agreement and this NATO deployment represents, in my judgment, the only opportunity to achieve a long-term peace in Bosnia and with it a more stable Europe. That is a very important point, Mr. President--a more stable Europe, which is a matter of profound interest to the United States. The Senate's vote on the Dole resolution involves the question of what role the United States should play in Europe and throughout the world as we approach the 21st century. Let us just take a brief look into history, if we might. It was an assassination in the Balkans, in Sarajevo itself, that triggered World War I, a conflict into which the United States was reluctantly drawn. Indeed, we stayed out of it for nearly 3 years. At the conclusion of that devastating war, the United States made a very conscious decision, and that was to withdraw from any involvement in European security affairs. From 1919 until 1942, the United States remained aloof from Europe, even though World War II raged for 2\1/2\ years during that period. Yet, inevitably, we were dragged into that war, the most costly of all wars in terms of lives and treasures. We have now learned that the United States, the world's lone superpower and the undisputed leader of the NATO alliance, simply cannot withdraw from European security matters, nor should we. Our active engagement in Europe for the past 50 years since the end of World War II has brought enormous benefits to us, to the Europeans, and to the world at large. Western Europe has enjoyed peace, it has enjoyed freedom, it has enjoyed democracy, and it has enjoyed economic success ever since the end of that war. This has largely been due to U.S. leadership in NATO. Our leadership has assisted in bringing about the fall of communism and the liberation of Eastern Europe. But despite these successes, Europe today is not free of war and bloodshed and instability. We need to look no further than the war that has raged in the Balkans for the past 3 years. Others have spoken about it, and sometimes we forget these statistics: 250,000 people have lost their lives in that conflict, and more than 2 million people have been displaced or are refugees. This war has the potential to spill over into the rest of Europe. The history which I just touched on has taught that maintaining a free, democratic and peaceful Europe is very much in our interests, in our security interests, and deployment of the NATO force in which the United States provides one-third--not one-half, not two-thirds, but one-third--of the troops will help ensure the type of Europe we want: A Europe that is free, that is Democratic, and that is peaceful. I would ask, Mr. President, those who oppose this deployment to answer this question. If we, as part of NATO, cannot lead an effort to try and end the war in Bosnia, then why should we be members of NATO? Let us forget the whole thing, at least our participation in it. It seems to me that helping to end destabilizing military conflicts inside the borders of Europe such as Bosnia represents is the type of responsibility NATO should undertake in the post-cold-war world. May I remind my colleagues that the implementation force includes many non-NATO forces--not just the NATO forces, but others--that share our interest in securing peace in the Balkans. Those opposing this resolution, the Dole resolution, also argue that U.S. troops will be at a risk of being drawn into nonmilitary activities and may also suffer needless casualties. To this I say, take a look at the Dayton peace agreement. Unlike some recent failures--we have had them in this Nation, particularly if you think of Somalia--where United States military roles were not entirely clear, the Bosnian deployment plan and the administration's pledges are very specific about what our troops will and will not do. I am reassured by this part of the written statements. In addition to its own self-protection, the mission of our force is to oversee and enforce implementation of the military aspects of this peace agreement. Now, what are we talking about? We are talking about cessation of hostilities, withdrawal to agreed lines, creation of a zone of separation, return of troops and weapons to their encampments. Civilian authority such as the United Nations, not our troops, will be responsible for many of the nonmilitary aspects that are envisioned by the agreement. Now, what are we talking about there? Overseeing elections, conducting humanitarian missions, helping civilians move about, acting as local police forces. You can be sure that Congress and the American people are going to be watching carefully. We are going to be monitoring this to see that our troops do not engage in any activities for which we are not responsible. I do not want to suggest, Mr. President, that sending United States military forces to Bosnia is without risk. Regrettably, we may well suffer casualties, as is often the case in military operations such as in the Balkans. But please remember that the United States and the 25 other nations are sending a force totaling 60,000 ground troops, forgetting those that are in the air or on the waters. This is an overwhelming numerical advantage over any group or faction that would challenge our authority. I would also point out that unlike former United Nations peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, we will be completely prepared to defend ourselves. This is a mission in which if we are shot at, we are going to reply with bullets and shells. Mr. President, the rest of the world looks to the United States to be a leader in promoting peace and democracy, and this is certainly the case in the Balkans where the three signatories have authorized our intervention. If a United States-led NATO force can help secure peace in Bosnia, it will make an enormous contribution to world security. On the other hand, Mr. President, if we abdicate our responsibilities to our NATO allies, it will send a clear and I believe very troubling signal that the United States has once again retreated into Fortress America. It will show that we are not there when a difficult job has to be done. That is not a signal we can afford to send. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the deployment of United States troops to Bosnia and to vote for the Dole-McCain resolution. I further would urge a vote against the Hutchison amendment, which, in my judgment, sends a very confusing message. It says, on the one hand, to our troops, we do not think you should be in Bosnia, but nevertheless we support you. I do not think that is the kind of message I, for one, would like to receive if I were risking my life or on a mission of this nature in Bosnia. The message, again, seems to say we are for you, but you should not be there. I do not find that a message of much comfort or encouragement, in my judgment. So therefore, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues would support the Dole-McCain amendment. I thank the Chair. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Senator Inhofe and I have switched off, so I am taking the place of Senator Inhofe. I will follow Senator Biden.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, H.R. 325 makes amendments to the Clean Air Act to fix a provision that has not worked. The 1990 Amendments required each State with a severe ozone nonattainment problem to adopt measures that would increase vehicle occupancy rates during the rush hour. Businesses and other organizations employing more than 100 people in nine major metropolitan regions were expected to encourage carpooling and the use of mass transit to reduce the number of vehicles travleing to and from work each day. This provision of the 1990 Amendments was modeled on a program that was being implemented in Los Angeles. As more and more employers have relocated to the deep suburbs where mass transit is impractical and have built large parking facilities for their workers, metropolitan areas have experienced a dramatic increase in the number of cars on the road and the distances that commuters travel to their jobs. This increase in trips and miles traveled has, to some extent, offset dramatic gains in emissions reduction that have been achieved through catalytic converters and other pollution control devices on automobiles. The employer trip reduction program was intended to address this troublesome side of the air quality problem. But evidence accumulated since the 1990 Amendments were enacted indicates that ridesharing programs are not a cost-effective option in the short-term to control air pollution. The effort necessary to convince commuters to get out of their cars and into carpools or buses or trains is quite expensive compared to other steps that would achieve the same emissions reductions in the short-term. It may be that over a very long period, a requirement like this would convince major employers to make locational decisions that encourage the use of transit and other ridesharing options. But in the short-run, the emissions reductions achieved do not justify the great difficulties that would be experienced by the States and by employers to carry out the trip reduction program. This requirement of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments has engendered much opposition in the legislatures of the several States that are subject to. EPA made it clear earlier this year that the Agency would not aggressively enforce the requirements. And even in Los Angeles, the program that served as a model for the 1990 federal program has been discontinued. All seem to agree that this is a measure that should not be mandated. H.R. 325 does not entirely repeal the employer trip reduction program. It makes it voluntary with the States. It will remain as potential avenue for emissions reductions for the States that choose to use it. And the bill does not rollback the Clean Air Act in any sense. All States will continue to bear an obligation to achieve healthy air quality by the same deadlines that are currently in the law. The bill makes clear that States that choose not to carry out the trip reduction program must find equivalent emissions reductions from other sources. Madam President, we have a responsibility to act quickly to fix Federal programs, such as this one, that have proved unworkable. So, I have urged that the Senate act on this bill immediately and send it to the President without further delay. I would note that the National Highway System bill that the President recently signed corrected problems with EPA regulations for the vehicle inspection and maintenance program under the Clean Air Act. Where legitimate problems with implementation of the Clean Air Act have been discovered, we are moving to correct them.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Let us take the situation, we have got two flag burnings taking place outside of a convention hall. One we have a bearded, untidy protester that is burning a flag. The other we have a Boy Scout in uniform, and he is burning the flag, shall we say, in accordance with the handbook. He is burning the flag in a dignified fashion. What happens? Could you help me out?

Mr. CHAFEE. Suppose he chose to? He is a good Boy Scout. He is going for a Star badge. So he is burning it in a dignified fashion.

Mr. CHAFEE. Such as burning the flag?

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator would be good enough to help me. What would be an example of desecration of the flag?

Mr. CHAFEE. Would the Senator help me? Do we have a very serious problem here? What brings this statute to the floor, this need for a constitutional amendment?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I can only assume the Senator from Utah was being facetious when he started suggesting that murder is no different from the burning of the flag. I also would point out, as I am sure the Senator from Utah knows being a constitutional scholar, that the equal protection amendment expanded freedoms in the United States. It did not limit freedoms; it expanded them. Whereas this amendment is a limitation on the freedom of expression, and there is a whale of a difference right there. So, Mr. President, it is my great hope that this constitutional amendment will be rejected.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do find it interesting that at this time, particularly in this Senate, where the idea of States rights is in such complete sway and we must give the States control over Medicaid, the welfare, and whatever it might be, suddenly there is a reverse of course here in connection with this amendment, the amendment having been presented, in which it was either the Federal Government or the 50 States, has now, in the last 24 hours before the vote arises, been changed to eliminate the States having the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. Mr. President, it seems to me that we have a lot of things we ought to be doing around this place. What are some of them? Well, I think we all recognize our education system in the United States needs some attention. I think we are all concerned about the recent peace agreement in Bosnia, whether we should commit our troops or whether we should not commit our troops. We are all worried about the budget, how to balance it, what to do, what programs to increase, what programs to reduce. This is a matter of major concern to Americans. I believe our health care system is deserving of all the attention we can give to it. Each of these measures--and there are others we can think of--are deserving of the hard work and attention of this body. Now, is flag burning an offensive act? Of course, it is; we all recognize that. And rightfully Americans are upset by it. But it seems to me that if we value the freedoms that define us as Americans, we will refrain from taking an action like this to amend our Constitution. I just want to read two letters, one from a Boy Scout in Rhode Island, who wrote me on this subject: Dear Mr. Chafee: I am a Boy Scout of troop 1 East Greenwich, and I am a member of the civil air patrol. I am writing to say that I am against amending the Constitution to prohibit burning the flag as a protest. I think this because, in this country, you have the right to protest peacefully. Burning the flag may be offensive. But if everything offensive were to be outlawed, then this country would not be as free as it is today. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stewart Fields. I would like to read another statement, by James Warner, a decorated marine who was held by the North Vietnamese as a prisoner of war for 5\1/2\ years. He wrote about his experiences and about the extraordinary power of the idea of freedom. This is what he said: I did not appreciate this power before I was a prisoner of war. I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. ``There,'' the officer said, ``people in your country protest against your cause; that proves that you are wrong.'' ``No,'' I said, ``that proves I am right. In my country, we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us.'' The officer was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his foot onto the table and screamed at me to ``shut up.'' While he was ranting, I was astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I have not forgotten that look nor the satisfaction that I felt at using his tool, the picture of the burning of the flag, against him. Mr. President, for those various reasons, trivializing of the Constitution, taking this document that provides the great freedoms that we all live by and putting in a provision about burning the flag-- that is not the way we deal with the Constitution of the United States. What is next--that you have to stand at attention when they sing the Star Spangled Banner? Mr. President, we have plenty of work to do around this body, and there are matters that ought to take our time, and we should not be spending it like this. We are dealing with a subject that is hardly an epidemic in the United States--45 instances in 6 years. Yet, we go to all this trouble to enact a constitutional amendment for it. Mr. President, you cannot mandate respect or pride in the flag. I think it is far better to act from motives of love and respect than out of obedience. So I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment put forth by the Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Or was it a hearing on the language previous to his changing it here?

Mr. CHAFEE. Has there been a hearing on the amendment as the Senator is now presenting it to this body?

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator will be good enough to respond to the specific question.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to join the majority leader in that tribute to Julian Grayson. It was my privilege to know him, as it was true of all the rest of the Senators here, Democrats and Republicans who have had the tremendous help of Julian Grayson, no matter whether we were at our caucus lunches or at the dining room downstairs. We are going to miss him. He certainly served this Senate and everybody in this Senate with great efficiency and respect and obvious enjoyment.