John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the manager of this legislation. I rise in support of this legislation introduced by the Senator from Tennessee, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. Last week, while the Senate was in recess, I spent time in Rhode Island talking with educators about Ed-Flex. I had a group of educators from our schools come in; principally, they were principals of our schools. As a result of those conversations, I became a cosponsor of this legislation, Ed-Flex. First, it is important to point out what it is not. It is not a block grant proposal. Senator Frist's bill, which will be the next order of business, as I understand it, next week, expands a demonstration program, as he pointed out, for six States where it was created in 1994. Now, 2 years later, it is expanded from 6 to 12 States. This bill would permit all 50 States to benefit from it. Now, what is this bill? Ed-Flex allows State departments of education to apply for waivers of Federal requirements for State administrative programs. Examples of these programs are: the title I program, the Eisenhower Professional Grants Program, and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. The States must agree to waive any corresponding State regulations for these programs. If we are going to waive the Federal regulations, we are going to waive the State regulations as well. The States must have made demonstrable progress in creating and putting into place the challenging statewide content standards. In other words, States must have a place in statewide school reform, and that is what this is designed to do. One of the best examples of how Ed-Flex can benefit schools was offered by an elementary school principal in my State when I talked to him last week. He noted that for several years, his school district's emphasis had been on raising achievement in math and science. Professional development had been squarely focused on math and science, and students in his school were showing the results through increased test scores. Now he would like to be able to use the funds he receives from the Eisenhower Professional Grants Program, which is targeted to math and science--he wants to use it for professional development in reading, have his teachers become better reading teachers. Ed-Flex would allow him to do that. Absent Ed-Flex, he could not use these professional development moneys for anything except science and math. He could not use it for reading. This permits this legislation to be used with this flexibility. Since enactment of Goals 2000, States and school districts have been working hard to develop schoolwide reform plans that will improve the quality of education for all children. I believe this legislation will help give schools the needed reforms that they seek. It has, as was mentioned, strong bipartisan support. A companion bill, I understand, is moving through the House, and the President has indicated his willingness to sign it. So this is a hopeful sign for all of us, and I think it is excellent legislation. I commend it to my colleagues. I thank the Chair. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President today, I am introducing legislation which will allow the private sector to take a more active role in building and operating our nation's highway infrastructure. The Highway innovation and Cost Savings Act will allow the private sector to gain access to tax-exempt bond financing for a limited number of highway projects. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Moynihan, Warner, Bond, Graham, and Gorton have agreed to join me in this effort. In the United States, highway and bridge infrastructure is the responsibility of the government. Governments build, own, and operate public highways, roads and bridges. In many other countries, however, the private sector, and private capital, construct and operate important facilities. These countries have found that increasing the private sector's role in major highway transportation projects offers opportunities for construction cost savings and more efficient operation. They also open the door for new construction techniques and technologies. It is incumbent upon us to look at new and innovative ways to make the most of limited resources to address significant needs. To help meet the nation's infrastructure needs, we must take advantage of private sector resources by opening up avenues for the private sector to take the lead in designing, constructing, financing and operating highway facilities. A substantial barrier to private sector participation in the provision of highway infrastructure is the cost of capital. Under current Federal tax law, highways built and operated by the government can be financed using tax exempt debt, but those built and operated by the private sector, or those with substantial private sector participation, cannot. As a result, public/private partnerships in the provision of highway facilities are unlikely to materialize, despite the potential efficiencies in design, construction, and operation offered by such arrangements. To increase the amount of private sector participation in the provision of highway infrastructure, the tax code's bias against private sector participation must be addressed. The Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act creates a pilot program aimed at encouraging the private sector to help meet the transportation infrastructure needs for the 21st Century. It makes tax exempt financing available for a total of 15 highway privatization projects. The total face value of bonds that can be issued under this program is limited to 15 billion dollars. The fifteen projects authorized under the program will be selected by the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury. To qualify under this program, projects selected must: serve the general public; assist in evaluating the potential of the private sector's participation in the provision, maintenance, and operation of the highway infrastructure of the United States; be on publicly-owned rights-of-way; revert to public ownership; and, come from a state's 20- year transportation plan. These criteria ensure that the projects selected meet a state or locality's broad transportation goals. This proposal was included in the Senate's version of last year's transportation reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, it was dropped during the conference with the House. The bonds issued under this pilot program will be subject to the rules and regulations governing private activity bonds. Moreover, the bonds issued under the program will not count against a state's tax exempt volume cap. This legislation has been endorsed by Project America, a coalition dedicated to improving our nation's infrastructure, the American Consulting Engineers Council, the Bond Market Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the ITS America. I hope that this bill can be one in a series of new approaches to meeting our substantial transportation infrastructure needs and will be one of the approaches that will help us find more efficient methods to design and to build the nation's transportation infrastructure. I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text and a description of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President today, I am introducing legislation which will allow the private sector to take a more active role in building and operating our nation's highway infrastructure. The Highway innovation and Cost Savings Act will allow the private sector to gain access to tax-exempt bond financing for a limited number of highway projects. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Moynihan, Warner, Bond, Graham, and Gorton have agreed to join me in this effort. In the United States, highway and bridge infrastructure is the responsibility of the government. Governments build, own, and operate public highways, roads and bridges. In many other countries, however, the private sector, and private capital, construct and operate important facilities. These countries have found that increasing the private sector's role in major highway transportation projects offers opportunities for construction cost savings and more efficient operation. They also open the door for new construction techniques and technologies. It is incumbent upon us to look at new and innovative ways to make the most of limited resources to address significant needs. To help meet the nation's infrastructure needs, we must take advantage of private sector resources by opening up avenues for the private sector to take the lead in designing, constructing, financing and operating highway facilities. A substantial barrier to private sector participation in the provision of highway infrastructure is the cost of capital. Under current Federal tax law, highways built and operated by the government can be financed using tax exempt debt, but those built and operated by the private sector, or those with substantial private sector participation, cannot. As a result, public/private partnerships in the provision of highway facilities are unlikely to materialize, despite the potential efficiencies in design, construction, and operation offered by such arrangements. To increase the amount of private sector participation in the provision of highway infrastructure, the tax code's bias against private sector participation must be addressed. The Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act creates a pilot program aimed at encouraging the private sector to help meet the transportation infrastructure needs for the 21st Century. It makes tax exempt financing available for a total of 15 highway privatization projects. The total face value of bonds that can be issued under this program is limited to 15 billion dollars. The fifteen projects authorized under the program will be selected by the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury. To qualify under this program, projects selected must: serve the general public; assist in evaluating the potential of the private sector's participation in the provision, maintenance, and operation of the highway infrastructure of the United States; be on publicly-owned rights-of-way; revert to public ownership; and, come from a state's 20- year transportation plan. These criteria ensure that the projects selected meet a state or locality's broad transportation goals. This proposal was included in the Senate's version of last year's transportation reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, it was dropped during the conference with the House. The bonds issued under this pilot program will be subject to the rules and regulations governing private activity bonds. Moreover, the bonds issued under the program will not count against a state's tax exempt volume cap. This legislation has been endorsed by Project America, a coalition dedicated to improving our nation's infrastructure, the American Consulting Engineers Council, the Bond Market Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the ITS America. I hope that this bill can be one in a series of new approaches to meeting our substantial transportation infrastructure needs and will be one of the approaches that will help us find more efficient methods to design and to build the nation's transportation infrastructure. I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text and a description of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, Senator Durbin and I are introducing ``Permanent Brady,'' which would establish a mandatory 3 day cooling off period before the purchase of a handgun. I am under no illusion that Permanent Brady will cure the problem of handgun violence. But I do believe a waiting period helps. Prior to enactment of the Brady law, in some States, an individual could walk into a gun store and walk out with a handgun a few minutes later. Sure, the individual had to fill out a form certifying that he or she had not been convicted of a felony and is not mentally incompetent. But that form was meaningless until the police had a chance to check to see if the information provided was accurate. Now, the FBI has instituted an insta-check system, which is working well. But a permanent three-day waiting period gives local police the chance to conduct a check that could turn up information not known to the FBI. For example, local police could be aware of a restraining order against an individual for domestic violence, or could be aware of a potential gun purchaser's mental instability. A waiting period also can help prevent people temporarily under the influence of powerful emotions, drugs, or alcohol from obtaining a handgun on impulse, thereby giving them a time to ``cool off'' and reconsider before they do something rash. Last November the five-day waiting period established by the Brady Law was phased out and replaced with the NICS--National Instant Check System. Establishment of a nationwide instant background check is a good step, but I do not believe that an instant check renders a waiting period unnecessary. The bill we are introducing today would restore the waiting period.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, Senator Durbin and I are introducing ``Permanent Brady,'' which would establish a mandatory 3 day cooling off period before the purchase of a handgun. I am under no illusion that Permanent Brady will cure the problem of handgun violence. But I do believe a waiting period helps. Prior to enactment of the Brady law, in some States, an individual could walk into a gun store and walk out with a handgun a few minutes later. Sure, the individual had to fill out a form certifying that he or she had not been convicted of a felony and is not mentally incompetent. But that form was meaningless until the police had a chance to check to see if the information provided was accurate. Now, the FBI has instituted an insta-check system, which is working well. But a permanent three-day waiting period gives local police the chance to conduct a check that could turn up information not known to the FBI. For example, local police could be aware of a restraining order against an individual for domestic violence, or could be aware of a potential gun purchaser's mental instability. A waiting period also can help prevent people temporarily under the influence of powerful emotions, drugs, or alcohol from obtaining a handgun on impulse, thereby giving them a time to ``cool off'' and reconsider before they do something rash. Last November the five-day waiting period established by the Brady Law was phased out and replaced with the NICS--National Instant Check System. Establishment of a nationwide instant background check is a good step, but I do not believe that an instant check renders a waiting period unnecessary. The bill we are introducing today would restore the waiting period.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if this isn't an appropriate time to express our appreciation to our two leaders for guiding us through these very difficult times. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senate has been held in the grip of the impeachment trial for the past six weeks. The House has been involved in the impeachment process for the past six months, and the Nation has been divided over the actions and fate of the President for more than a year. We were not compelled to undertake this nearly unprecedented Constitutional remedy by partisanship, as some at the White House have suggested. We were driven to this point by Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton alone. Although I voted to acquit the President on the charges, I have no doubt that if I served in the House, I would have voted to impeach him. Chairman Hyde offered the White House every opportunity to defend the President, but the White House chose a different course. They chose to belittle the charges against the President by suggesting that everyone lies about sex. They chose to accuse their accusers by attacking the motives and integrity of the Judiciary Committee Republicans and by insinuating that Judge Starr is a sex-obsessed prosecutor run amok. They did not question the evidence on which the impeachment vote was based. With that evidence, the House Managers presented a powerful case against the President. As a result of their presentations, I am convinced that the President acted to circumvent the law. The notion that the President of the United States, the number one citizen of our nation, the man in whom the trust and respect of the country is meant to rest would deliberately maneuver around the laws of the land is reprehensible and should be condemned. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Papers No. 65, said: The delicacy and magnitude of a trust, which so deeply concerns the political reputation and resistance of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. President Clinton betrayed that delicate trust. The House Managers tried to restore it. In the end, the witnesses, all of whom were sympathetic to or allies of the President, provided direct evidence that failed to corroborate the House Managers' case. Removing the President from office in the face of a conflict between direct and circumstantial evidence, in my view, would be mistaken. On that basis, I voted to acquit the President. Nevertheless, the House Managers and all of the evidence left me convinced that the President acted in a way that is abominable. By voting for the censure resolution proposed by Senator Feinstein, the Senate makes clear that it does not exonerate the President.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I am pleased to be joined this morning by Senators Graham, Lieberman, Specter, Baucus, Robb and Bayh in introducing the ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999.'' In introducing our bill from last year, we are especially pleased to have Senators Robb and Bayh join us as original cosponsors. As you know, the Senate was unable to consider this important issue before the close of the 105th Congress. Nonetheless, each party developed and introduced legislation, and the House actually passed a bill proposed by the Republican majority. To encourage discussion across the aisle, this group of Senators introduced a bipartisan reform bill--the only one thus far. In crafting our legislation, we omitted or modified those provisions which were anathema to either side. Thus, for example, we excluded Medical Savings Accounts, a feature of the Senate Republican Task Force bill, because this provision is a non-starter with Democrats. Likewise, we proposed allowing injured parties to seek redress in federal court as an alternative to the state court provision in the Democratic bill because that is a non-starter with Republicans. Well, here it is, the 106th Congress. Why have the prospects brightened for legislation to improve the quality of managed care? First, voters sent a clear message on election day: they want action, not gridlock. Second, the Democrats gained five more seats in the House--the very margin by which that body rejected the ``Patient Bill of Rights'' last year. Third, both Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Lott have instructed their respective committees of jurisdiction to get down to work. Fourth, the President is anxious to begin a bipartisan dialogue. Perhaps more important than any of these developments, though, is the fact that consumers want assurances they will actually get the medical care they need, when they need it. Regrettably, many have learned this is not always the case. The opponents of reform have had a field day mischaracterizing what the managed care quality debate is about. It is not, as they allege, about erasing the gains managed care has made in bringing down costs and coordinating patient services. It is not about forcing plans to cover unnecessary, outmoded or harmful practices. Nor is it about forcing plans to pay for any service or treatment which is not a covered benefit. And, it is certainly not about giving doctors a blank check. In fact, this debate is about making sure patients get what they pay for. It's about ensuring that patients receive medically necessary care; that an objective standard and credible medical evidence are used to guide physicians and insurers in making treatment and coverage determinations; that patients' medical records and the judgments of their physicians are given due consideration; and, that managed care plans do not base their medical decisions on practice guidelines developed by industry actuaries, but rather credible, independent, scientific bodies. On a more tangible level, this legislation is about making sure that the infant suffering from chronic ear infections is fitted with drainage tubes--rather than being prescribed yet another round of ineffective antibiotics--to ameliorate the condition and prevent hearing loss. It is about making sure that the patient with a broken hip is not relegated to a wheelchair in perpetuity, but rather given the hip replacement surgery and physical therapy that prudent medical practice dictates. Make no mistake about it: Without provisions to ensure that plans are held to the objective, time-tested standard of professional medical practice, federal legislation giving patients access to an external appeals process will be nothing more than a false promise. The ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act'' would restore needed balance to our managed care system while preserving its benefits. Moreover, it would do so using the very same framework established by Congress with the enactment of the so-called Kassebaum-Kennedy law in 1996. That statute--which extends portability and guaranteed issue protections to patients--has two very important benefits. First, it applies to all privately insured Americans--not just those 48 million enrolled in self-funded ERISA plans. Second, it preserves states' rights to occupy the field if they so choose. Thus, our bill would establish a minimum floor of federal patient protections for all 161 million privately insured Americans. Yet, it would also protect state authority to go beyond this federal floor, and would preserve the good work states have already undertaken in this area. It would also encourage states which have taken little or no action to do the right thing. Despite the flurry of activity, only 15 states have adopted the most basic patient protection--an external review procedure. As the process moves ahead, we look forward to working with the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to formulate legislation which will help to restore consumer confidence in managed care, and to ensure that patients receive all medically necessary and appropriate care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in the Record: a summary of the bill, a one-page description of our enforcement provisions, a three-page document on what national health organizations say about our bill, and a white paper entitled, ``Medical Necessity: The Real Issue in the Quality Debate.''

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I am pleased to be joined this morning by Senators Graham, Lieberman, Specter, Baucus, Robb and Bayh in introducing the ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999.'' In introducing our bill from last year, we are especially pleased to have Senators Robb and Bayh join us as original cosponsors. As you know, the Senate was unable to consider this important issue before the close of the 105th Congress. Nonetheless, each party developed and introduced legislation, and the House actually passed a bill proposed by the Republican majority. To encourage discussion across the aisle, this group of Senators introduced a bipartisan reform bill--the only one thus far. In crafting our legislation, we omitted or modified those provisions which were anathema to either side. Thus, for example, we excluded Medical Savings Accounts, a feature of the Senate Republican Task Force bill, because this provision is a non-starter with Democrats. Likewise, we proposed allowing injured parties to seek redress in federal court as an alternative to the state court provision in the Democratic bill because that is a non-starter with Republicans. Well, here it is, the 106th Congress. Why have the prospects brightened for legislation to improve the quality of managed care? First, voters sent a clear message on election day: they want action, not gridlock. Second, the Democrats gained five more seats in the House--the very margin by which that body rejected the ``Patient Bill of Rights'' last year. Third, both Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Lott have instructed their respective committees of jurisdiction to get down to work. Fourth, the President is anxious to begin a bipartisan dialogue. Perhaps more important than any of these developments, though, is the fact that consumers want assurances they will actually get the medical care they need, when they need it. Regrettably, many have learned this is not always the case. The opponents of reform have had a field day mischaracterizing what the managed care quality debate is about. It is not, as they allege, about erasing the gains managed care has made in bringing down costs and coordinating patient services. It is not about forcing plans to cover unnecessary, outmoded or harmful practices. Nor is it about forcing plans to pay for any service or treatment which is not a covered benefit. And, it is certainly not about giving doctors a blank check. In fact, this debate is about making sure patients get what they pay for. It's about ensuring that patients receive medically necessary care; that an objective standard and credible medical evidence are used to guide physicians and insurers in making treatment and coverage determinations; that patients' medical records and the judgments of their physicians are given due consideration; and, that managed care plans do not base their medical decisions on practice guidelines developed by industry actuaries, but rather credible, independent, scientific bodies. On a more tangible level, this legislation is about making sure that the infant suffering from chronic ear infections is fitted with drainage tubes--rather than being prescribed yet another round of ineffective antibiotics--to ameliorate the condition and prevent hearing loss. It is about making sure that the patient with a broken hip is not relegated to a wheelchair in perpetuity, but rather given the hip replacement surgery and physical therapy that prudent medical practice dictates. Make no mistake about it: Without provisions to ensure that plans are held to the objective, time-tested standard of professional medical practice, federal legislation giving patients access to an external appeals process will be nothing more than a false promise. The ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act'' would restore needed balance to our managed care system while preserving its benefits. Moreover, it would do so using the very same framework established by Congress with the enactment of the so-called Kassebaum-Kennedy law in 1996. That statute--which extends portability and guaranteed issue protections to patients--has two very important benefits. First, it applies to all privately insured Americans--not just those 48 million enrolled in self-funded ERISA plans. Second, it preserves states' rights to occupy the field if they so choose. Thus, our bill would establish a minimum floor of federal patient protections for all 161 million privately insured Americans. Yet, it would also protect state authority to go beyond this federal floor, and would preserve the good work states have already undertaken in this area. It would also encourage states which have taken little or no action to do the right thing. Despite the flurry of activity, only 15 states have adopted the most basic patient protection--an external review procedure. As the process moves ahead, we look forward to working with the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to formulate legislation which will help to restore consumer confidence in managed care, and to ensure that patients receive all medically necessary and appropriate care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in the Record: a summary of the bill, a one-page description of our enforcement provisions, a three-page document on what national health organizations say about our bill, and a white paper entitled, ``Medical Necessity: The Real Issue in the Quality Debate.''

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there are over 6000 contaminated sites across the country waiting to be cleaned up under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These sites include active industrial facilities, unused urban lots well suited for redevelopment, and many other sites that have contaminated soil or groundwater. No one disputes that these sites should be cleaned up. But RCRA itself, and certain regulations implementing RCRA, are making it difficult--and unnecessarily costly--to get these sites cleaned up. As a result, cleanups at many sites are delayed for years and, in a number of cases, not performed at all. The waste remains in place, untreated and untouched. This is an issue where legislative action can both improve the environment and save money. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report in late 1997 that identified three key requirements under RCRA that pose barriers to cleanups. The GAO concluded EPA's land disposal restrictions, minimum technological requirements for disposal facilities, and permitting requirements, when applied to remediation waste, can significantly increase the cost of a cleanup action and even act as an incentive for parties to abandon cleanups altogether. Tailoring these requirements to address the specific characteristics of remediation waste would eliminate this incentive, facilitating the actual cleanup of thousands of sites, and, according to GAO's estimate, save up $2 billion a year without negatively impacting human health or the environment. This is an environmental problem that we can and should address. And it is one that we can resolve in a bipartisan manner. During the 105th Congress, the Majority Leader, Senator Bob Smith, and I worked with our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Administration, and interested parties to reform RCRA to remove the major regulatory obstacles that currently impede the timely remediation of many contaminated sites. There was a broad consensus that changes needed to be made to make RCRA work better to clean up sites in an environmentally protective manner more quickly and more cost effectively. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before we were able to reach agreement on specific legislation. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulations, including the recently finalized ``Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Contaminated Media,'' to address some of the regulatory burdens that we sought to eliminate through legislation. I applaud the Agency for its efforts. I believe, however, that there is still a need for legislation in this area to complete the reform the EPA has started. Therefore, I intend to make RCRA remediation waste legislation a priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee this year. Building on the progress that we made in the last Congress, I believe we can draft a bill early this year that will address the remaining regulatory obstacles that exist to achieving environmentally protective and cost effective remediations. I look forward to working, under Senator Lott's leadership, on a bipartisan basis, with all parties interested in RCRA reform. I know that Senator Smith, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment, shares my commitment to reforming RCRA. This is an issue on which everyone agrees--reform is necessary, and it can be done in a way that will save money without posing a threat to human health or the environment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in accordance with the rules of the Senate, I ask that the rules of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, adopted by the committee January 20, 1999, be printed in the Record. The rules follow:

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Abraham. The bill would establish a program to provide financial assistance for projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. An identical bill, which I also cosponsored, was approved by the Senate during the last Congress, but failed in the House for reasons unrelated to the bill. Each autumn, some 5 billion birds from 500 species migrate between their breeding grounds in North America and tropical habitats in the Caribbean, Central and South America. These neotropical migrants--or New World tropical migrants--are birds that migrate between the biogeographic region stretching across Mexico, Central America, much of the Caribbean, and the northern part of South America. The natural challenges facing these migratory birds are profound. These challenges have been exacerbated by human-induced impacts, particularly the continuing loss of habitat in the Caribbean and Latin America. As a result, populations of migratory birds have declined generally in recent years. While there are numerous efforts underway to protect these species and their habitat, they generally focus on specific groups of migratory birds or specific regions in the Americas. There is a need for a more comprehensive program to address the varied and significant threats facing the numerous species of migratory birds across their range. Frequently there is little, if any, coordination among the existing programs, nor is there any one program that serves as a link among them. A broader, more holistic approach would bolster existing conservation efforts and programs, fill the gaps between these programs, and promote new initiatives. The bill we are introducing today encompasses this new approach. It mandates a program to promote voluntary, collaborative partnerships among Federal, State, and private organizations. The Federal share can be no more than 33 percent. The non-Federal share for projects in the U.S. must be paid in cash, while in projects outside the U.S., the non- Federal share may be entirely in-kind contributions. The Secretary of the Interior may establish an advisory group to assist in implementing the legislation. The success of this initiative will depend on close coordination with public and private organizations involved in the conservation of migratory birds. The bill authorizes up to $8 million annually for appropriations, of which no less than 50 percent can be spent for projects outside the U.S. I believe that this bill is a much needed initiative that will fill a great void in conservation of our nation's wildlife. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct. The version of H.R. 2204 that first passed the House last year included a section that made a change to the Clean Water Act to clarify liability concerns of the oil spill response industry. The Senate-passed H.R. 2204 on Monday, October 12, 1998, but it did not include the provision. The House amendment that is now before the Senate includes this provision in section 411(b).

Mr. CHAFEE. The intent of this provision is to make it clear that discharges incidental to mechanical removal authorized by the President are not themselves separate and distinct acts of discharge within the meaning of the Clean Water Act. Our purpose is that persons, such as cleanup contractors, whose sole connection to discharges is cleanup or removal, will not be held responsible for unavoidable inconsequential discharges which are a function only of available response technology. For example, mechanical removal activities such as the ``decanting'' or separation of water from recovered oil usually involve the return of excess water into the response area. Since mechanical removal devices do not operate with 100% efficiency, some oil from the original discharge is entrained with the return water flow to the water body being mechanically cleaned. Section 411(b) is not intended to alter the liability of responsible parties in any fashion. It is not intended to enable a responsible party to attribute any portion of the oil originally spilled to a subsequent release incident to the mechanical oil removal process. In other words, this provision is not intended to alter Congress' intent as expressed in section 311(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act. It is limited solely to actions approved by the President in accordance with Clean Water Act section 311(c). In addition, this provision does not alter in any way the penalty calculation set forth in this section.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the nomination of Margaret E. Curran as U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island. I wholeheartedly support Ms. Curran's nomination and appreciate its speedy consideration by the Judiciary Committee. It certainly is noteworthy that Ms. Curran will be the first woman to serve as U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island in the more than two hundred years that this position has existed. Ms. Curran has served as Interim U.S. Attorney since May. She has proven herself to be a thoughtful, competent, and qualified federal prosecutor. I have every confidence that she will continue to do a fine job as the chief federal law enforcement office in Rhode Island. An editorial in the Providence Journal said of Ms. Curran: ``She has shown herself to have capacious qualities of leadership, intellectual rigor, and good humor,'' qualities that will serve her well as U.S. Attorney. Ms. Curran has twelve years of experience as a federal prosecutor. She has earned wide regard from the legal community in Rhode Island. And she enjoys resounding support from Governor Lincoln Almond, who, for twenty years, held the position she will assume. Meg Curran is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and received a Master of Science Degree in anthropology from Purdue University. In 1983, she received her Law Degree from the University of Connecticut, where she served as editor-in-chief of the Connecticut Law Review. Before serving in the U.S. Attorney's office, Ms. Curran was clerk to the Honorable Bruce M. Selya, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and for the Honorable Thomas J. Meskill, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She is a member of the Rhode Island Bar Association, serves on the Federal Branch-Bar Committee, as well as the Roger Williams American Inn of Court, the First Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, and the American Law Institute. Also, Ms. Curran is professor of advanced criminal law at Roger Williams University Law School in Rhode Island. I am delighted that the Senate is prepared to confirm Margaret Ellen Curran as U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, we expect it would. The situation the Senator describes is exactly the type of situation that we would expect could be addressed by EDA. In fact, I would direct the senator's attention to the bill's new Section 2(a)(1), which specifically references areas that are affected by Federal actions. The language notes as possible distressed areas those that suffer dislocation as a result of ``certain Federal actions (including environmental requirements that result in the removal of economic activities from a locality).''

Mr. CHAFEE. Section 301(a) sets the basic eligibility requirements for economically distressed areas. These criteria are intended to ensure that EDA assistance is targeted to truly distressed communities. The third criterion, which you mention, is intended to allow the necessary flexibility to address other situations of serious distress that, for a number of reasons, may not fulfill the first two criteria but that clearly would be considered by the Secretary and Congress as deserving of assistance. Thus, the bill before us provides the Secretary with sufficient flexibility in this regard.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1222 the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1998. This bill is the culmination of efforts by Senators Breaux, Faircloth, Sarbanes, Torricelli, and myself to address the serious problems facing our Nation's estuaries. I would like to thank each of my colleagues for their diligent work. I would also like to express my appreciation toward the 26 cosponsors who also support the bill. Such strong bipartisan support is a testament to the extent and severity of the problems facing estuaries, and the need for action to restore estuary habitat. I believe that in order to understand the necessity of this bill, one has to realize the immense value of estuaries and estuary habitat. Estuaries are formed by the mixing of salt water from the ocean and fresh water from rivers and streams. Commonly known as bays, lagoons, and sounds, these water bodies and their surrounding wetlands provide some of the most ecologically and economically productive habitat in the world. Many different plants, waterfowl, fish and wildlife make their home in estuaries. In fact, more than half of the neo-tropical migratory birds in the United States and a large number of endangered and threatened species depend upon estuaries for their survival. This high productivity also gives estuaries great economic importance. 75 percent of the commercial fish and shellfish catch and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish catch are dependent upon estuaries for their survival. The commercial industry contributes $111 billion per year to the national economy. Tourism is another key segment of the economy supported by estuaries. In 1993, 180 million Americans, approximately 70 percent of the U.S. population, visited estuaries to fish, swim, hunt, dive, view wildlife, bike, and learn. In total, approximately 28 million jobs are generated by commercial fishing tourism, and other industries based near estuaries and other coastal waters. The wetlands, marshlands, and grasslands that surround estuaries also provide important help and safety benefits. These areas improve water quality by filtering terrestrial pollutants before they can contaminate shellfish beds and coastal waters. Doctor J. Easly, a natural resource economist at North Carolina State University, calculates that one acre of tidal estuary has the pollutant filtering and removal capabilities of a $115,000 waste treatment plant. Flooding is serious problem facing many communities around the nation. Estuary habitat not only cleans the water, but can also store large volumes of water and minimize the damage caused by flooding. Finally, esturine wetlands and barrier islands also serve as buffer zones for coastal areas, reducing erosion and storm damage. While these biological, economic, health and safety benefits help to illustrate the immense value of estuary habitat, I still believe they fail to provide a complete picture. Estuaries have a spiritual and symbolic importance, demonstrated by the close connection between neighboring communities and the bays and sounds. The executive director of the Providence Rhode Island Save the Bay Inc., H. Curtis Spalding, captured this feeling when he testified that: Narragansett Bay is our home. Even if we live miles from its shores, it is part of what makes Rhode Island special. The bay is our life line, it nourishes our environment, strengthens our economy, enhances our leisure time, and protects our children's future. Tragically, this life line is unraveling. Commercial and residential development are resulting in the physical destruction of many estuaries from dredging, draining, bulldozing and paving. Invasive, alien plant species have displaced native plants and overgrown estuary systems. Restricted tidal flow and freshwater diversions interfere with tidal action, impairing the natural cleansing of the bay and harming important fisheries. Elevated levels of toxics have also been detected in estuary sediments, water, and animals. Many of these substances undergo ``bioaccumulation,'' a process by which toxics from the environment become concentrated in the tissue of living animals. Bioaccumulation of toxics into seafood can pose a serious risk to human health. Nutrient pollution from a variety of sources disrupts aquatic life by contributing to an overabundance of algae, lox oxygen levels, and massive fish kills. Disease causing microorganisms from animal and human waste contaminate productive shellfish beds and recreational beach waters, necessitating shellfish bed and beach closings. A recent and ominous development is the transformation of naturally occurring microorganisms from benign to toxic forms. A specific example is Pfiesteria piscicida. Massive fish kills in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina have been traced to the emergence of a new, predatory form of Pfiesteria. This new form actively injects toxins into fish and may have the potential to harm human health. The impact of these problems on Narragansett Bay is painfully apparent. Eel grass beds have declined from thousands of acres to roughly 100 acres. Salt marsh acreage has been reduced by half, and all of the remaining marshland needs some level of restoration. Fish runs, the freshwater rivers and streams needed by many fish to reproduce, have been reduced to 15 out of the original 50. In 1996, 36,000 acres of shellfish beds were permanently closed or harvest restricted due to pathogen contamination. These declines in habitat have contributed to the near collapse of many Narragansett Bay fisheries in the past 20 years, and the loss of millions of dollars in revenue. The problems facing Narragansett Bay are not unique to Rhode Island. The decline of estuaries is a national tragedy. According to the EPA's National Water Quality Inventory, 38 percent of the surveyed estuarine square miles are impaired for one or more uses. From colonial times to the present, over 55 million acres of coastal wetlands in the continental United States have been destroyed. Recent population growth in coastal areas has resulted in extensive loss of estuary habitat. San Francisco Bay in California has lost 95 percent of its original tidal wetlands, and Galveston Bay in Texas has lost 85 percent of its original sea grass meadows. Almost half of the U.S. population now lives in coastal areas, and the rate of population growth in coastal areas is three times that of noncoastal areas. As America's coastal population increases, so will the pressures placed upon coastal waters and estuaries. In response to the grave threats facing our estuaries, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1998 seeks to both preserve and restore these ecological treasures. The bill sets a national goal to restore one million acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010. In support of this goal, $315 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 will be authorized to carry out estuary habitat restoration projects. Given the large scope of our mission, simply handing out money will not solve the problem. We must maximize the environmental benefit obtained from each dollar spent. By emphasizing coordination, cooperation and implementation, the bill ensures that we make the most out of limited Federal resources. The key to the efficient use of funds is improved coordination. The bill establishes an interagency Collaborative Council to facilitate coordination between Federal, State, and local programs. The council will be composed of the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Corps of Engineers, the Under Secretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Army Corps of Engineers, due to its expertise in engineering and management, will chair the council. The council, in consultation with State, tribal, and local governments as well as nongovernmental entities, will develop a national strategy for habitat restoration. One of the primary goals of this strategy will be to prevent overlap between programs and insure the efficient utilization of resources. The Collaborative Council will also disperse funds to assist community groups and other non-Federal entities in developing and implementing estuary restoration projects. Applicants will be required to obtain approval of State or local agencies, where such approval is appropriate, to prevent conflict with local and regional management strategies. The Collaborative Council will select estuary habitat restoration projects to receive Federal funding. The criteria used to select projects will encourage and emphasize several factors. Priority will be given to the projects implementing approved Federal estuary management restoration plans, and projects with monitoring plans to ensure that restoration goals are achieved and sources of pollution that would otherwise re-impair the restored habitat are addressed. The Council will also consider the quantity and quality of habitat restored in relation to the economic cost of the project. In order to maximize the benefit of limited Federal resources, and encourage partnerships between Federal and non-Federal entities, the act will establish a Federal cost-sharing requirement. The Federal portion of a restoration project will not exceed 65 percent of the total costs, and priority will be given to applications that minimize the Federal contribution to the project. The cost-sharing provision of the act will preserve the essential role of the Federal Government in supporting estuary restoration, while highlighting the importance of regional and local involvement. Successful restoration efforts depend upon cooperation between public and private sectors. By distributing the costs of conservation and restoration, the act will reaffirm the importance of States, tribes, local communities, and concerned parties in preserving their natural heritage and resources. Monitoring and evaluation is a key provision of the bill. The Under Secretary of Oceans and Atmosphere will maintain a data base of restoration projects to ensure that available information will be continually incorporated into habitat restoration projects. In addition to maintaining a database, the Council will publish a report to Congress detailing the progress made under the act. This report will allow for an assessment of the successes and failures of current management strategies, with the goal of continually improving restoration efforts. This legislation will also amend the National Estuary Program provision of the Clean Water Act to emphasize implementation and action as well as planning. The National Estuary Program was established by the 1988 amendments to the Clean Water Act. The program is an important partnership among Federal, State, and local governments to protect estuaries of national significance threatened by pollution. Under the program, governors work with the EPA to designate areas as a National Estuaries. Federal money is then provided to State and local governments to develop comprehensive conservation and management plans. To date, 28 conservation plans have been prepared for designated estuaries. While this program has achieved remarkable results, the law currently restricts EPA to only funding the development of plans, not their implementation. This bill will amend the National Estuary Program to allow the EPA to support both the development and implementation of conservation plans, and will authorize $25 million for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. It is important to note that while the Federal Government will increase its support for this valuable program, the primary responsibility for the implementation of conservation plans will rest with State and local governments. Key provisions of the bill will also continue and expand existing programs. The Chesapeake Bay Program has become a model for other estuary restoration and protection programs around the world. EPA`s Chesapeake Bay Program office will continue its leadership and technology transfer to other groups participating in the National Estuary Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program commits States in the bay and the Federal Government to reducing the level of nutrients in the bay and addressing other key issues in natural resources, water quality, population growth, and public access. The bill will authorize $30 million for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 to help achieve these goals. The money will be distributed as implementation grants to signatory jurisdictions, and as technical assistance grants to nonprofit private organizations and individuals, State, and local governments, and interstate agencies. Signatory jurisdictions will also be required to update, expand, and begin implementing their tributary specific management strategies. EPA will also be provided with new authority to ensure that Federal facilities in the watershed participate in the Chesapeake Bay Program and contribute to local efforts to restore and protect the bay. Another positive change in the program will be the addition of the Chesapeake Bay gateways and watertrails network. The network will consist of important natural, cultural, historical and recreational resources linked together in a manner that enhances public education and access to the bay. The act will authorize $3 million for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 in matching grants for bay conservation and restoration. The Department of the Interior, in cooperation with the EPA, will identify ecologically or culturally significant areas of the bay and designate these resources as Chesapeake Bay gateway sites. These agencies will then work in partnership with State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties, to conserve and restore these sites. The act also will continue to support is the effort to restore the Long Island Sound. A comprehensive conservation and management plan has already been developed for this important ecological resource. Over the next 15 years, the Long Island sound conservation plan calls for a reduction in the amount of nutrients reaching the sound by 60 percent. The plan also sets a goal of restoring 2,000 acres of coastal habitat and 100 miles of river used by migratory fishes. In support of these important efforts, the act will authorize $10 million for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 to implement this plan. Finally, this bill will address the threat that pfiesteria piscicida poses to the Nation's waterways. The first toxic outbreak occurred in North Carolina in the late 1980's. In recent years, toxic outbreaks have occurred in tributaries leading into the Chesapeake Bay. The act will authorize $5 million for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to establish an interagency research program for the eradication or control of pfiesteria and other aquatic toxins. When evaluating this bill, I believe it is important to focus on what the bill does, and does not, do. The bill does not impose mandates. The bill does not create more regulations. And the bill does not require the Federal Government to foot the entire bill for estuary restoration. What the bill does is provide incentives for States, tribes, local governments, and other interested parties to enter into partnerships with the Federal Government for environmental preservation. This bill builds upon years of planning and focuses on action and implementation at the local level, by encouraging communities and individuals to become involved in estuary restoration. In short, the bill is a simple and direct approach to preserving and restoring some of our Nation's most valuable natural resources. By passing this legislation, we are making a responsible investment in our Nation's natural and economic future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the managers of the 1998 Coast Guard Authorization Act for their help in addressing an issue of great importance in Rhode Island: the safety of the tug and barge industry. The managers' amendment to the Coast Guard Authorization Act that passed the Senate on Monday included a provision that will strengthen the regulation of transportation of petroleum by barges in the waters of the Northeast. I appreciate the cooperation of Commerce Committee Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings, Subcommittee Chairwoman Snowe, and Ranking Member Kerry for incorporating my provision into the bill. I especially want to thank the cosponsor of the provision, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, for his support. We have worked closely on this issue for several years. Senator Dodd of Connecticut also lent his support to the effort. In order to understand why the Chaffee-Lieberman provisions are necessary, you must go back to the 1996 disaster when the tug Scandia and barge North Cape grounded on the coast of Rhode Island. After the accident, the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, reported a bill to improve towing vessel safety, and important elements of the bill were included in the 1996 Coast Guard Authorization Act. My intent in enacting 1996 provisions was to improve safety in the towing industry so as to prevent a repetition of a disaster like the 1996 Scandia/North Cape spill in Block Island Sound. In October, 1997 the Coast Guard issued rules to implement the 1996 towing vessel legislation. I and others concluded that the proposed rules might not prevent a repetition of the Scandia/North Cape disaster and asked the Coast Guard to reconsider. The Coast Guard is now reworking the rules and expect to issue an interim final national rule on anchoring and barge retrieval systems in November 1998. They will repropose fire suppression regulations in January 1999. Senator Lieberman and I also were concerned that the proposed rules did not implement the recommendations of the Regional Risk Assessment Team or ``RRAT,'' which forged a remarkable consensus among Coast Guard District One, the States, the environmental community, and the regulated industry on rules, to improve safety and reduce risks in the waters of the Northeast States. The team was assembled by the Marine Safety Office in the First Coast Guard District shortly after the North Cape spill. The RRAT met for six months and, in February 1997, delivered a report with extensive regulatory recommendations. Regulations were proposed in the following areas: vessel manning, anchors and barge retrieval systems, voyage planning, navigation safety equipment aboard towing vessels, enhanced communications, vessel traffic schemes and exclusion zones, lightering activities, tug escorts, and crew fatigue. The report was signed by the RRAT Steering Committee members: the Chief of the Marine Safety Division of the First Coast Guard District, the American Waterway Operators (on behalf of the regulated industry), Save the Bay (on behalf of environmental organizations), and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (on behalf of states participating in the RRAT). The Coast Guard was deeply involved in the RRAT process. The First Coast Guard District facilitated RRAT meetings, prepared the agendas and minutes, and lent other administrative support to the effort. In June 1997, the First Coast Guard District also forwarded its plan to implement the RRAT recommendations to Coast Guard Headquarters. It was the expectation of the state, environmental, and industry RRAT participants that the RRAT recommendations for regional regulations would be included as a part of the rulemaking to implement the towing vessel safety provisions in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996. This was a reasonable expectation based upon the level of Coast Guard involvement in the development of the consensus RRAT recommendations, which were then endorsed by the Coast Guard Officer charged with marine safety in the RRAT study area. Unfortunately, the regulations proposed by the Coast Guard in October 1997, did not incorporate the RRAT's recommendations for regional regulations. It also rejected specific RRAT recommendations on anchor and emergency retrieval provisions. Subsequent inquiry by Senator Lieberman and myself revealed that the Coast Guard did not have any future plan to issue the RRAT's recommended regulations. This decision by the Coast Guard was simply not acceptable. In April 1998, Senator Lieberman and I asked that the Coast Guard immediately issue the regional regulations. This same request was made by many others in New England, including States environmental departments, regional and local environmental organizations, and private citizens in written comments, and at an April 9, 1998, hearing in Newport, Rhode Island. To its great credit, the Coast Guard has reevaluated its initial rejection of regional regulations. The Coast Guard has embraced the RRAT recommendations, and has been making admirable progress of implementing the RRAT report. I am pleased to report that the Coast Guard will publish a proposed regional regulation in the Federal Register today. Because of its proactive reponse to the concerns that Senator Lieberman and I raised, the Coast Guard is in position to meet the aggressive deadlines in the Chafee-Lieberman provision in this year's Coast Guard bill. The Chafee-Lieberman provision, section 311 of the managers' amendment to H.R. 2204, directs the Coast Guard to issue regulations for towing and barge safety for the waters of the Northeast, including Long Island Sound. Section 311 directs the Coast Guard to give full consideration to each of the regulatory recommendations made by the RRAT and explain in detail if any recommendation is not adopted. Section 311 directly addresses anchoring and barge retrieval systems on a regional basis only. It is my understanding the Coast Guard is planning to issue a nationwide national interim final regulation on the anchor requirement by the end of November 1998. The amendment gives the Coast Guard the discretion to forego a regional requirement if the national requirement for anchoring and barge retrieval are no less stringent than those required for the waters of the Northeast. Though not a part of the Chafee-Lieberman provision adopted in H.R. 2204, I wish to address the issue of fire suppression systems on tugboats. The fire on board the Scandia was the critical link in the chain of events that led to the grounding of the barge North Cape and the resultant oil spill. It is my view that the October 1997 proposed rules badly missed the mark on this issue. The Coast Guard proposal did not require a fire suppression system that would flood the engine room with a gas to extinguish a serious fire. This is a fatal defect in the proposed rule, and is inconsistent with the 1996 Coast Guard Authorization Act. The Coast Guard's October 1997 proposal inferred a mandate ``to prevent casualties involving barges which are the result of a loss of propulsion of the towing vessel.'' The 1996 Coast Guard Authorization Act's actual mandate is quite explicit: ``The Secretary shall require * * * the use of a fire suppression system or other measures to provide adequate assurance that fires on board towing vessels can be suppressed under reasonably foreseeable circumstances.'' This is a clear mandate that onboard equipment be able to suppress reasonably foreseeable fires such as occurred on the Scandia. The 1996 statute reflects Congress' judgment that the preferred alternative is to suppress a fire quickly enough so that damage is limited and propulsive power can be restored if interrupted due to fire fighting efforts. A fixed fire suppression system is an option that any vessel master would desire if faced with an engine room fire that could not be controlled by other means. The proposed regulations used vessel size as a principal criterion, while failing to consider adequately any differential requirements based on the ``characteristics, methods of operation, and nature of service'' as required by the law, which intentionally omitted size from the list of factors to consider. Not all towing vessels are the same when considering the imposition of a requirement for a fixed flooding fire suppression system. Specifically, tugboats like the Scandia which tow barges on the East Coast of the United States, are essentially seagoing vessels with sealable watertight doors and port holes. Tow boats operating on rivers and inland waterways are not designed for the same type of service. On these inland vessels, engine rooms may be located on the main deck, and they may have conventional doors and windows. The proposed Coast Guard rule correctly noted that, looking at towing vessels as a whole, certain types of vessels are ``constructed with engine rooms that would not be sufficiently air tight'' to be able to use a system that floods the space with a gas to extinguish an out-of-control blaze. This is certainly true in the case of inland tow boats. Tug boats designed for ocean service such as the Scandia, if they are operated in a prudent and seamanlike manner, do have the requisite water and air tightness to use a fixed flooding fire suppression system to good advantage. Congress specifically required that the proposed regulations account for the variations within the commercial towing fleet. My preference was to simply mandate a fire suppression system for ocean-going tugboats in this year's Coast Guard bill. After hearing the concerns raised by the Coast Guard and colleagues on the Commerce Committee, I will not pursue fire suppression changes this year. I look forward to the Coast Guard's new proposal on fire suppression, which is due for publication in January 1999. I expect it will be a marked improvement over the flawed October 1997 proposal. In closing, I again thank my colleagues on the Commerce Committee for accommodating my concerns on this issue. I also want to thank the Coast Guard. They could have waited until section 311 became law before starting on the regional regulations. Instead, the Coast Guard, by proposing the regional regulations this very day, has accelerated the date when the Northeast will have the protection it deserves. Finally, I thank my long-time collaborator on oil spill issues, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, for his steadfast support in this effort.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that this package of fish and wildlife bills is being considered by the Senate today. It is a package that combines some very popular bills with some wonderful conservation initiatives approved by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. It represents an effort on the part of both the Senate and the House to quickly move these bills in the waning days of the 105th Congress. I would like to enumerate the components of this package. The first item is H.R. 2863, a bill that amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with respect to offenses relating to the baiting of migratory birds. This bill was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee on Friday, October 2. I am including an amendment that makes two changes to the bill, as it was reported out of the EPW Committee. The first change is to increase the penalty under section 6(a) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from $10,000 to $15,000. This change is not intended to affect the classification of the offense, which is currently a class B misdemeanor. Indeed, in United States v. Clavette, the ninth circuit held that the fine may be as much as $25,000 and still be considered a class B misdemeanor. The second change is to eliminate the higher penalty for persons who violate section 3(b) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in connection with guiding, outfitting, or providing other service in exchange for money or other consideration. The intent of this provision was to discourage commercial operations from engaging in baiting in order to spur their business. However, the language in the reported bill was extremely broad. In addition, some existing laws, such as the Lacey Act, already provide that commercial operations may be subject to higher penalties. In lieu of the higher penalty for commercial operations, the amendment that I offer today provides a higher penalty for persons who violate section 3(b)(2) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Section 3(b)(2) prohibits the placement of bait on or adjacent to an area for the purpose of causing, inducing, or allowing any person to take or attempt to take any migratory game bird by the aid of baiting on or over the baited area. This penalty would entail fines under title 28 of the United States Code, or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. Baiting would thus be a class A misdemeanor. The purpose of this higher penalty is to send a strong message to the public that baiting is a serious offense. Mr. President, these changes have been discussed with Senator Breaux's staff, House Resources Committee staff, the administration, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and have met with the approval of all interested parties. I believe that this amendment improves the bill as passed by the committee. The second item included in the package is S. 2317, which makes several changes to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. First, it removes three areas from the Refuge System that have lost the habitat value that led to their being incorporated into the Refuge System. Second, it changes the name of the Klamath Forest National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon to the Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The current name leads visitors to believe that it is a national forest, causing confusion over what activities are permitted. Finally, it reduces the penalty for unintentional violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Currently, all violations of the act are class A misdemeanors, regardless of whether or not it was an intentional violation. Unintentional violations will now be a class B misdemeanor. The third item included in the package is S. 361, sponsored by Senator Jeffords and approved by the Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 22, 1998. This item prohibits the import, export and trade in products that contain, or that are labeled or advertised as containing, rhino and tiger parts, in an effort to reduce the supply and demand of those products in the United States. It requires a public outreach program in the United States to complement the prohibitions. Lastly, it reauthorizes the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act through 2002. As a related matter, I would like to note that even as Congress reaffirms and strengthens the laws for the conservation of rhinos and tigers, funding for implementation of these laws is woefully inadequate. This year--the Year of the Tiger--the administration requested only $400,000 for implementing the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The Act is authorized to be appropriated up to $10 million annually. I strongly urge the administration, for fiscal year 2000, to request funding commensurate with the dire situation facing rhinos, and particularly tigers, in the wild. The fourth item included in the package is S. 1677, the Wetlands and Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1998. This bill reauthorizes the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)--a law that has played a central role in the conservation of wetlands habitat across the continent. I introduced the bill last February, and have been joined by 58 of my colleagues from 42 States in sponsoring S. 1677. There are 35 Republican cosponsors and 23 Democrat cosponsors. This tremendous showing of bipartisan support is a tribute to one of the great success stories in wildlife conservation. The fifth item in the package includes provisions relating to protection of the Chesapeake Bay, and the research of pfiesteria. Mr. President, this package contains some very popular bills and very worthwhile conservation programs. It represents the fruits of many months of work by both the House Resources Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In particular, I would like to thank Chairman Don Young and his staff, Harry Burroughs, for their cooperation on these bills, and in putting together this package. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the report by the Congressional Budget Office for the bill, H.R. 2863, as approved by the Committee on Environment and Public Works, be printed in the Record. When the Committee filed its report on the bill, CBO had not yet completed its analysis, so it was not included. I would now like it to be part of the public record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Mack and Lieberman today to introduce the Credit for Early Action Act of 1998. This bipartisan legislation is designed to encourage voluntary, meaningful, and early efforts by industry to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a bill to address the threat of global climate change. Before I get into the details of this legislative proposal, let me spend a few moments discussing the science of climate change. Human influence on the global climate in an extraordinarily complex matter that has undergone more than a century of research. Indeed, in an 1896 lecture delivered to the Stockholm Physics Society by the Nobel Prize-winning chemist, Svante Arrhenius, it was predicted that large increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) would result in a corresponding warming of the globe. Professor Arrhenius was the first to predict that large increases in CO2 would result in a warming of the globe. What have the world's scientists told us at different intervals over the last one hundred years, since Mr. Arrhenius identified the warming effects of CO2? In 1924, a U.S. physicist speculated that industrial activity would double atmospheric CO2 in five hundred years, around the year 2424. Current projections, however, call for a doubling sometime before 2050--some four hundred years earlier than predicted just seventy years ago! In 1957, scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography reported for the first time that much of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is not absorbed by the oceans as some had argued, leaving significant amounts in the atmosphere. They are said to have called carbon dioxide emissions ``a large-scale geophysical experiment'' with the Earth's climate. In 1967, the first reliable computer simulation calculated that global average temperatures may increase by more than four degrees Fahrenheit when atmospheric CO2 levels are double that of preindustrial times. In 1985, a conference sponsored by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the International Council of Scientific Unions forged a consensus of the international scientific community on the issue of climate change. The conference report warned that some future warming appears inevitable due to past emissions, regardless of future actions, and recommended consideration of a global treaty to address climate change. In 1987, an ice core from Antarctica, analyzed by French and Russian scientists, revealed an extremely close correlation between CO2 and temperature going back more than one hundred thousand years. In 1990, an appeal signed by forty-nine Novel prize winners and seven hundred members of the National Academy of Science stated, ``There is broad agreement within the scientific community that amplification of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by the buildup of various gases introduced by human activity has the potential to produce dramatic changes in climate . . . only by taking action now can be ensure that future generations will not be put at risk.'' Also in 1990, seven hundred and forty-seven participants from one hundred sixteen countries took part in the Second world Climate Conference. The conference statement reported that, ``. . . if the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations is not limited, the predicted climate change would place stresses on natural and social systems unprecedented in the past ten thousand years.'' Finally, Mr. President, in 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the consensus of climate scientists worldwide, concluded that ``. . . the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.'' This last development is significant, because the overwhelming majority of climate scientists concluded, for the first time, that man is influencing the global climate system. That conclusion, while controversial in some quarters, was endorsed unanimously by the governments of the ninety-six countries involved in the panel's efforts. Are these forecasted outcomes a certainty? They are not. The predictions of climate change are indeed based on numerous variables. Although scientists are improving the state of their knowledge at a rapid pace, we still have a lot to learn about the role of the sun, clouds and oceans, for example. The question is, will we ever have absolute certainty? Will we ever be able to eliminate all of the variables? The overwhelming majority of independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies indicate that we do not have such a luxury. By the time we finally attain absolute certainty, it would likely take centuries to reverse atmospheric damage and oceanic warming. Mr. President, I am not alone in this thinking. There are an increasing number of business leaders in our country who have arrived at the same conclusion that we need to act swiftly. In a ``dear colleague'' letter sent out this week under my signature, I repeated a remarkable statement issued by an impressive group of companies that have joined with the newly established Pew Center on Climate Change. American Electric Power, Boeing, BP America, Enron, Lockheed Martin, 3M, Sun, United Technologies, Toyota, Weyerhaeuser, and several others said that, ``we accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences.'' The legislation to be introduced today by Senator Mack, Senator Lieberman and I proposes an exciting framework that would appropriately recognize real and immediate action to combat climate change. While the climate debate will indeed continue over the next few years, we strongly believe that there is a voluntary, incentive-based approach which can be implemented now. Congressional approval of this approach, which the three of us and others will work for early next year, will provide the certainty necessary to encourage companies to move forward with practical, near-term emission reductions. Specifically, this legislation would provide a mechanism by which the President can enter into binding greenhouse gas reduction agreements with entities operating in the United States. Once executed, these agreements will provide credits for voluntary greenhouse gas reductions effected by those entities before 2008, or whenever we might have an imposition of any domestic or international emission reduction requirements. Importantly, this program is designed to work within the framework of whatever greenhouse gas control requirement may eventually become applicable within the United States. The credits would be usable beginning in the first five-year budget period (2008-2012) under the Kyoto Protocol, if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified. If the Protocol is not ratified, and we end up with a domestic program to regulate or otherwise control greenhouse gas emissions, the credits would be usable in that program. This sort of approach makes sense for a wide variety of reasons. Encouraging early reductions can begin to slow the rate of buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, helping to minimize the potential environmental risks of continued warming. Given the longevity of many climate gases, which continue to trap heat in the atmosphere for a century or more, it just makes sense to encourage practical actions now. By guaranteeing companies credit for voluntary early reductions, the bill would allow companies to protect themselves against the potential for steep reduction requirements or excessive costs in the future. For companies that want to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, providing credit for action now adds years to any potential compliance schedule, allowing companies to spread costs over broader time periods. A focus on early reductions can help stimulate the American search for strategies an technologies that are needed worldwide. Development of such strategies and technologies can improve American competitiveness in the $300 billion dollar global environmental marketplace. This ``credit'' program may also make the greenhouse gas reductions achieved before regulations are in place financially valuable to the companies who make such reductions. Given the likely inclusion of market based approaches to any eventual domestic regulatory requirements, similar to the successful acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act, credit earned could be traded or sold to help other companies manage their own reduction efforts. Under a ``no credit'' approach, the status quo, it is more likely that early reduction companies will be penalized if greenhouse gas reductions are ultimately required, because their competitors who wait to reduce will get credit for later reductions. Such a ``no credit'' approach could even create perverse incentives to delay investments until emissions reductions would be credited. In anticipation of a potential global emissions market, decisions re being made now by entrepreneurial companies and countries. For example, Russia and Japan have already concluded a trade of greenhouse gas emission credits. Private companies such as Niagara-Mohawk and Canada- based Suncor are moving forward with cross-boundary trades. Aggressive global energy companies, such as British Petroleum, AEP, and PacifiCorp are already implementing agreements in Central and South America--sequestering carbon and developing credits against emissions--by protecting rain forests. Mr. President, America can and should reward companies that take such positive steps to position themselves, and the US, for the environmental and economic future. On the international side, passage by the U.S. Congress of a program to help stimulate early action will be clear example of American leadership and responsibility. Developing countries currently argue that nations such as the United States, with huge advantages in quality of life and dramatically higher per capita emissions of green house gases, should take a leadership role in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And they argue that developing countries should not be asked to take steps until the U.S. begins to move forward. This bill can work directly to change that situation, therefore removing a barrier to essential developing country progress. There it is, Mr. President. We are here today because we believe that climate change presents a serious threat. We believe it makes sense to get started now. And, as many leading American companies do, we believe that there are sensible, fair and voluntary methods to get on the right track. We encourage our colleagues to use the time between now and next January to review this legislation carefully. We are open to suggestions. Most importantly, we are looking for others to join us in this effort.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Mack and Lieberman today to introduce the Credit for Early Action Act of 1998. This bipartisan legislation is designed to encourage voluntary, meaningful, and early efforts by industry to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a bill to address the threat of global climate change. Before I get into the details of this legislative proposal, let me spend a few moments discussing the science of climate change. Human influence on the global climate in an extraordinarily complex matter that has undergone more than a century of research. Indeed, in an 1896 lecture delivered to the Stockholm Physics Society by the Nobel Prize-winning chemist, Svante Arrhenius, it was predicted that large increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) would result in a corresponding warming of the globe. Professor Arrhenius was the first to predict that large increases in CO2 would result in a warming of the globe. What have the world's scientists told us at different intervals over the last one hundred years, since Mr. Arrhenius identified the warming effects of CO2? In 1924, a U.S. physicist speculated that industrial activity would double atmospheric CO2 in five hundred years, around the year 2424. Current projections, however, call for a doubling sometime before 2050--some four hundred years earlier than predicted just seventy years ago! In 1957, scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography reported for the first time that much of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is not absorbed by the oceans as some had argued, leaving significant amounts in the atmosphere. They are said to have called carbon dioxide emissions ``a large-scale geophysical experiment'' with the Earth's climate. In 1967, the first reliable computer simulation calculated that global average temperatures may increase by more than four degrees Fahrenheit when atmospheric CO2 levels are double that of preindustrial times. In 1985, a conference sponsored by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the International Council of Scientific Unions forged a consensus of the international scientific community on the issue of climate change. The conference report warned that some future warming appears inevitable due to past emissions, regardless of future actions, and recommended consideration of a global treaty to address climate change. In 1987, an ice core from Antarctica, analyzed by French and Russian scientists, revealed an extremely close correlation between CO2 and temperature going back more than one hundred thousand years. In 1990, an appeal signed by forty-nine Novel prize winners and seven hundred members of the National Academy of Science stated, ``There is broad agreement within the scientific community that amplification of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by the buildup of various gases introduced by human activity has the potential to produce dramatic changes in climate . . . only by taking action now can be ensure that future generations will not be put at risk.'' Also in 1990, seven hundred and forty-seven participants from one hundred sixteen countries took part in the Second world Climate Conference. The conference statement reported that, ``. . . if the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations is not limited, the predicted climate change would place stresses on natural and social systems unprecedented in the past ten thousand years.'' Finally, Mr. President, in 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the consensus of climate scientists worldwide, concluded that ``. . . the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.'' This last development is significant, because the overwhelming majority of climate scientists concluded, for the first time, that man is influencing the global climate system. That conclusion, while controversial in some quarters, was endorsed unanimously by the governments of the ninety-six countries involved in the panel's efforts. Are these forecasted outcomes a certainty? They are not. The predictions of climate change are indeed based on numerous variables. Although scientists are improving the state of their knowledge at a rapid pace, we still have a lot to learn about the role of the sun, clouds and oceans, for example. The question is, will we ever have absolute certainty? Will we ever be able to eliminate all of the variables? The overwhelming majority of independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies indicate that we do not have such a luxury. By the time we finally attain absolute certainty, it would likely take centuries to reverse atmospheric damage and oceanic warming. Mr. President, I am not alone in this thinking. There are an increasing number of business leaders in our country who have arrived at the same conclusion that we need to act swiftly. In a ``dear colleague'' letter sent out this week under my signature, I repeated a remarkable statement issued by an impressive group of companies that have joined with the newly established Pew Center on Climate Change. American Electric Power, Boeing, BP America, Enron, Lockheed Martin, 3M, Sun, United Technologies, Toyota, Weyerhaeuser, and several others said that, ``we accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences.'' The legislation to be introduced today by Senator Mack, Senator Lieberman and I proposes an exciting framework that would appropriately recognize real and immediate action to combat climate change. While the climate debate will indeed continue over the next few years, we strongly believe that there is a voluntary, incentive-based approach which can be implemented now. Congressional approval of this approach, which the three of us and others will work for early next year, will provide the certainty necessary to encourage companies to move forward with practical, near-term emission reductions. Specifically, this legislation would provide a mechanism by which the President can enter into binding greenhouse gas reduction agreements with entities operating in the United States. Once executed, these agreements will provide credits for voluntary greenhouse gas reductions effected by those entities before 2008, or whenever we might have an imposition of any domestic or international emission reduction requirements. Importantly, this program is designed to work within the framework of whatever greenhouse gas control requirement may eventually become applicable within the United States. The credits would be usable beginning in the first five-year budget period (2008-2012) under the Kyoto Protocol, if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified. If the Protocol is not ratified, and we end up with a domestic program to regulate or otherwise control greenhouse gas emissions, the credits would be usable in that program. This sort of approach makes sense for a wide variety of reasons. Encouraging early reductions can begin to slow the rate of buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, helping to minimize the potential environmental risks of continued warming. Given the longevity of many climate gases, which continue to trap heat in the atmosphere for a century or more, it just makes sense to encourage practical actions now. By guaranteeing companies credit for voluntary early reductions, the bill would allow companies to protect themselves against the potential for steep reduction requirements or excessive costs in the future. For companies that want to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, providing credit for action now adds years to any potential compliance schedule, allowing companies to spread costs over broader time periods. A focus on early reductions can help stimulate the American search for strategies an technologies that are needed worldwide. Development of such strategies and technologies can improve American competitiveness in the $300 billion dollar global environmental marketplace. This ``credit'' program may also make the greenhouse gas reductions achieved before regulations are in place financially valuable to the companies who make such reductions. Given the likely inclusion of market based approaches to any eventual domestic regulatory requirements, similar to the successful acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act, credit earned could be traded or sold to help other companies manage their own reduction efforts. Under a ``no credit'' approach, the status quo, it is more likely that early reduction companies will be penalized if greenhouse gas reductions are ultimately required, because their competitors who wait to reduce will get credit for later reductions. Such a ``no credit'' approach could even create perverse incentives to delay investments until emissions reductions would be credited. In anticipation of a potential global emissions market, decisions re being made now by entrepreneurial companies and countries. For example, Russia and Japan have already concluded a trade of greenhouse gas emission credits. Private companies such as Niagara-Mohawk and Canada- based Suncor are moving forward with cross-boundary trades. Aggressive global energy companies, such as British Petroleum, AEP, and PacifiCorp are already implementing agreements in Central and South America--sequestering carbon and developing credits against emissions--by protecting rain forests. Mr. President, America can and should reward companies that take such positive steps to position themselves, and the US, for the environmental and economic future. On the international side, passage by the U.S. Congress of a program to help stimulate early action will be clear example of American leadership and responsibility. Developing countries currently argue that nations such as the United States, with huge advantages in quality of life and dramatically higher per capita emissions of green house gases, should take a leadership role in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And they argue that developing countries should not be asked to take steps until the U.S. begins to move forward. This bill can work directly to change that situation, therefore removing a barrier to essential developing country progress. There it is, Mr. President. We are here today because we believe that climate change presents a serious threat. We believe it makes sense to get started now. And, as many leading American companies do, we believe that there are sensible, fair and voluntary methods to get on the right track. We encourage our colleagues to use the time between now and next January to review this legislation carefully. We are open to suggestions. Most importantly, we are looking for others to join us in this effort.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Joseph Pinga, a community leader who passed away on September 1st, in West Warwick, Rhode Island. Mr. Pinga was best known for his community giving and his vigilance that helped to reform the West Warwick town government. Mr. Pinga served honorably in the U.S. Navy and worked to establish his business, Westcott Baking Company, of which he was the owner and operator for over forty years. In this capacity, Mr. Pinga was regarded not only as a local pioneer, but also as a defender of rights for small business owners. In fact, in 1978, Time Magazine recognized Joe's perseverance in an article about his struggle with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Joseph Pinga certainly was a believer in community involvement. Numerous charitable organizations could always count on Mr. Pinga's generosity without ever requesting any public acknowledgement. In addition, Joe ran for mayor of West Warwick in 1990 and was a member of the local Elks Lodge. Mr. President, I join with all Rhode Islanders in extending to Mr. Pinga's family our sympathy and best wishes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, for her herculean efforts in developing this legislation. She has worked tirelessly with other Senators, the House, and numerous stakeholders, including industry groups and environmental groups alike. The bill she introduces today reflects her tremendous dedication to this issue. I also applaud Senator Landrieu's efforts to shape this legislation into a significant conservation initiative. Her legislation includes two titles devoted to environmental protection--title II for funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and title III for funding non-game species protection by the States, known as Teaming with Wildlife. These worthwhile programs have not received the attention or funding they deserve on their own, and the inclusion in this legislation gives them an opportunity to fulfill their potential. In particular, the LWCF was created in 1964 with the principle that revenues from a resource extraction activity--offshore oil drilling-- should be reinvested in the acquisition and protection of other natural resources with lasting value. Senator Landrieu's bill remains true to this principle. S. 2566 is a major piece of legislation, with much promise. It deserves careful consideration. I intend to give the bill this consideration during recess. I intend to consult with different groups here, and with constituents in my home state of Rhode Island. Some groups have raised concerns that this bill will encourage offshore drilling, despite the Senator's strong statement that this bill is ``drilling-neutral.'' I would like to reach my own conclusion on this score. Different interest groups have made suggestions to improve the provisions in all three titles, and I would like to explore those as well during recess. Senator Landrieu has expressed a genuine openness to consider new ideas, and a genuine willingness to incorporate good ideas into her legislation. I look forward to working with my colleague from Louisiana during the coming months on this initiative, and again, I wholeheartedly congratulate her on how far she has come already.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, next month a very special school will be celebrating its 20th anniversary. On November 15th, 1978, the Ruth and Max Alperian Schechter Day School in Providence, Rhode Island opened its doors to ten students. Today, its classrooms are filled with over 230 students, and it is one of the fastest growing Jewish institutions in Rhode Island. The Ruth and Max Alperian Schechter Day School is a state accredited, egalitarian, conservative Jewish Day School serving children from kindergarten through grade eight. In addition to having a fine reputation for providing its students with a well-rounded education, the Alperian Schechter Day School also focuses on academic growth, ethical values, and Jewish identity. Its academic programs are both rich and challenging in general and Judaic studies. Recognizing that a partnership with parents is essential to the education of our youngsters, the Alperian Schechter Day School continues to promote open communication with families. As a community of learners, the entire school body works together to create a community of successful, well-rounded members while encouraging continued learning and increased participation in school activities. In fact, students from the Alperian Schechter Day School continue to build on their education, even after graduating. As academic advisors work with families and students to ensure future success, Alperian Schechter Day School graduates have gone on to attend a variety of colleges and universities including, Yale University, Harvard University, University of Rhode Island, Georgetown University, Rhode Island School of Design, and many, many other fine institutions of higher learning. In addition, students have had the opportunity to serve as interns in our nation's capital, build houses with Habitat for Humanity, and work with disabled children. In closing, I want to congratulate the Ruth and Max Alperian Schechter Day School on its 20th Anniversary and hope for its continued success in providing academic excellence to our youngsters.