John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I see the distinguished Democratic Senator from Delaware here. I want to say everything he said was exactly right. It was an overwhelming vote on the floor to permit the States to give money to Amtrak, that this was the ultimate of flexibility, which is the big war cry around this place. But we have discovered when it comes to flexibility, there is a great deal of flexibility in interpreting what is flexible. There was no movement in the House on this. It was very, very--they were adamant. All I can say is I think what this country needs is a transportation trust fund, not a highway trust fund. I know that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is going to speak in a few minutes, and I believe he has thoughts in the same manner. But clearly we have to do something about Amtrak. We cannot just make the cuts that the distinguished Senator from New Jersey was talking about, $137 million. As the Senator from Delaware said, every railroad transportation system in the world is subsidized, and for us to think that we can get away without subsidizing Amtrak is nonsense. However, we would not have a bill here today if we hung to our position that was voted here on the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE. The understanding of the Senator from Missouri is correct. The word ``construct'' is to be read very broadly to include the types of projects the Senator have just described.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the Democratic leader. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of the conference report to accompany S. 440 occur at 1:15 p.m. today, with paragraph 4 of rule XII waived; and further, that immediately following that vote, notwithstanding receipt of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2491, that the time consumed then be counted against the statutory time limit provided for in the conference report and each statement only occur as time is yielded by the managers or their designees.

Mr. CHAFEE. Three from you.

Mr. CHAFEE. I have 5 minutes. Why do we not give him----

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to say to the distinguished Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee, that I agree with everything he said. I think that it was terribly unfortunate that we could not get the House to budge. This was an absolute immovable position that they had. I hope that we can set up this Amtrak trust fund. Frankly, as I said before, I would like to see a national transportation fund instead of a highway trust fund. Amtrak deserves every bit of support we can give, for all the reasons that the distinguished Senator from Delaware so ably set forth. Mr. President, we are going to vote at 1:15. I suggest the absence of a quorum at this time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have the remainder of Senator Lautenberg's time.

Mr. CHAFEE. I do. We spent a lot of time with the highway administrator and with his folks. We believe that what we have written into the law now is exactly the way the situation is interpreted currently.

Mr. CHAFEE. I regret that this legislation repeals several Federal safety requirements, including the speed limit and the motorcycle helmet requirement and weakens certain truck safety requirements. Why did that come about? It came about because we had votes in the Chamber of this Senate by some substantial majorities. The body spoke and said they wanted these safety requirements in the hands of the States rather than in the Federal Government--the speed limits on the highways, the requirement that we presently have that motorcyclists wear helmets or that the States will lose some funds. All of that has been turned back to the States. And so now they are responsible for the health and safety of the public traveling on our transportation system. I certainly hope that the States will exercise extreme caution when using these new authorities. The conference agreement directs the Department of Transportation to collect data and report to Congress regarding the costs of deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes in those States that raise the speed limit or change their motorcycle helmet laws. The Department of Transportation collects important safety data and it is more important than ever that this data is collected and analyzed so that information is available to determine the impact of the repeal of the Federal speed limit and motorcycle helmet laws. The Federal safety laws were repealed on the basis of State's rights. I am certain that State officials are concerned for the safety of the residents of their States. I hope the States that have good safety laws will keep them, and that those who do not will pass effective safety laws recognizing the tremendous benefits of these laws in saving lives and reducing costs. Finally, I very much regret that we were not able to include the Senate provision which passed by an overwhelming vote of 64 to 36 regarding Amtrak. The NHS bill passed by the Senate would have permitted Governors to use some of their highway money for Amtrak if they desired to do so. It was completely voluntary and would have given the Governors additional flexibility to sue their transportation funds within their own States on Amtrak service. Millions of people around the country rely on the transportation service that Amtrak provides. I believe the flexibility that the Senate provision provided should have been given to the Governors and would have benefited our country's transportation system. Mr. President, Senator Warner will be managing this bill with me. He has done such a splendid job in connection with this legislation. So I would like to turn the podium over to Senator Warner at this time. Exhibit 1 November 13, 1995. Hon. Robert Dole, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Dole: We are writing to respectfully request your assistance on a matter of great importance to our States--the implementation of the Clean Air Act. We agree that all Americans want and deserve clean air and that the goals of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are commendable. Unfortunately, EPA's implementation of the Act has been particularly burdensome to our States, especially in the area of inspection and maintenance (I/M). Without legislative changes by the Congress in this area, our States will be faced with sanctions, including the withholding of highway money, over the course of the next year to year and a half. EPA has a bias in favor of bureaucratic test-only programs in granting only 50 percent credit for test-and-repair I/M programs. Rather than encouraging States to develop innovative, creative and effective I/M programs, EPA is forcing States into a one-size-fits-all-program by virtue of its arbitrary 50 percent reduction in emissions credit for test-and-repair programs. States need the flexibility to design effective I/M programs that meets the unique needs of their citizens while meeting the goals of improved air quality. The federal government should set the goals; the States should have the flexibility to meet those goals in a way that makes sense for their citizens. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that the congressional authorizing committees will have enough time this session to complete action on legislation addressing implementation problems with the Clean Air Act. Because our States face the threat of sanctions by the end of next year, it is critical that Congress address the I/M issue this session on any appropriate legislative vehicle. Specifically, our States support language which satisfactorily addresses the EPA bias in granting only 50 percent credit for test-and-repair I/M programs and places the burden of proof on EPA to document any alleged shortcomings it perceives in a test-and-repair I/M program. States need the opportunity to get their proposed emissions inspection programs up and running. If, once in place, the real-world data proves that a program is insufficient, then EPA could require that the State submit a new plan. States should not, however, be prevented from implementing their proposals on the basis of an arbitrary formula. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, George Allen, Governor of Virginia. Pete Wilson, Governor of California. George W. Bush, Governor of Texas. Tom Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania. George F. Pataki, Governor of New York. Exhibit 2 Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, November 2, 1995. Subject: Authority of the Department of Transportation to prevent abuses of 23 U.S.C. 131. From: Deputy Chief Counsel. To: Rodney E. Slater, Administrator. FHWA has indicated to three States that proposed legislative or administrative actions are inconsistent with 23 U.S.C. Sec. 131(s). In each case, the State was considering a statute or administrative action which would have removed from their scenic byways all commercial and industrial areas. The blanket exemption of commercial and industrial areas required no judgment about the scenic quality of excluded segments. In each case, we based our action on our general authority to prevent outright circumvention of the requirements of the Highway Beautification Act (HBA). In our judgment, nothing in the language proposed by Senator Warner, either on October 26, or more recently, would impair our authority to prevent such action in the future. For clarity of reference, both draft proposals are attached. The Department of Transportation has asserted its authority to prevent deliberate circumventions of the requirements of the HBA since 1971. At that time, we asserted our authority to challenge strip zoning undertaken solely to allow for the erection of billboards. We did so in the face of a specific clause in 23 U.S.C. Sec. 131(d) asserting that States have full authority under their zoning laws to zone areas for commercial and industrial purposes, and that State action must be accepted for such purposes. Our standards for adequate zoning, which specifically prohibits zoning solely to allow outdoor advertising, are contained in our regulations at 23 C.F.R. Sec. 750.708, promulgated in 1975. We have also asserted our general authority to prevent abusive practices on any number of occasions. As early as 1976, the General Counsel prepared an extensive legal opinion to this effect. Our authority to fashion appropriate remedies to accomplish the HBA purposes has been upheld by the Courts on several occasions. See, for example, South Dakota v. Volpe, 353 F. Supp. 335 (D.S.D. 1973), and South Dakota v. Adams, 587 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1978). Looking at the language proposed in the two drafts being considered by Senator Warner, we note that the general prohibition of new signs (except those allowed by Sec. 131(c)) adjacent to scenic byways on the Interstate or primary system is unchanged in either version. In each case, a qualifying sentence is added which would permit states to exclude from a state designated scenic byway those sections it determines not to be scenic. This language, in itself, contains the basis for exclusions. While it is clear in adopting such an amendment Congress would allocate considerable discretion to the States in making determinations about whether a particular section of highway is or is not scenic under State law, it is not a blanket exclusion. This is similar to the provisions of the provision of Sec. 131(d) mentioned above. In both cases, the Department would continue to have the authority to prevent actions which plainly are not related to the purpose of the legislative exemption. Thus, we can now prevent abusive zoning practices, and we will continue to be able to prevent inappropriate exclusions of scenic segments of a scenic byway. The language which provides both the purpose of the exemption and the scope of State discretion is the same in both versions proposed by Senator Warner. It must be noted that even under Sec. 131(s) in its current form, the provision to prevent the erection of new signs applies only to Interstate and Federal aid primary highways that are on State designated scenic byways. No definition or limitation as to what is a State scenic byway is contained in the law. Implicit in its formulation, however, is a reliance on State law definitions. In spite of this implication, we have asserted our authority to prevent abusive interpretations of or amendments to State law in how the State scenic byway program should operate under Sec. 131(s). The ability to intervene to prevent potentially abusive State actions, as we did in Louisiana, Tennessee, or New Mexico, is unchanged under either proposed amendment. These amendments neither add to nor detract from our current ability to generally prohibit abusive practices which have as their purpose the circumvention of the HBA, rather than legitimate exclusions of non-scenic segments of a State designated scenic byway. Edward V.A. Kussy.

Mr. CHAFEE. I am pleased to say that the conference report now before the Senate makes the specific changes in the inspection and maintenance program that the Governors recommend. First, the bill prevents EPA from requiring any State to use the expensive testing technology. Second, EPA is barred from applying an automatic 50-percent discount to the decentralized, test-and-repair programs that some States have adopted. And third, the bill allows States to develop innovative programs based on their own estimates of the emissions reductions that will result. As the Governors suggest, the conference report allows these innovative approaches to be put into effect on an interim basis to determine whether they work. If they do, the States can get permanent approval. If not, States will be required to make adjustments to assure that the emissions reductions needed to reach health standards will be achieved. This conference report gives the States a green light to develop programs that will work for their citizens. But it also requires that the States prove that the programs are working before permanent approval is granted. This conference report addresses all of the issues raised by the Governors in their letter. We have discussed this legislation with EPA and based on those discussions, we are confident that these changes to the program are workable and will provide a sound-basis for enhanced inspection and maintenance programs. This legislation resolves the problems with inspection and maintenance that the States have raised and should move us rapidly to the day when vehicle testing is an even more effective way to reduce air pollution in the Nation's urban areas. I am pleased that this legislation continues the ban on new billboards on scenic byways. The conference agreement codifies the Department of Transportation's implementation of the law which prohibits new billboards on scenic byways in scenic areas. Consistent with Congress' intent in passing ISTEA, the Department of Transportation has prohibited new billboard construction along scenic byways on the interstate and primary systems. In some unusual circumstances, a scenic byway may pass through a heavily industrial or commercial area which does not possess any scenic, cultural, historical, natural, archaeological, or recreational characteristics. In such cases, the Secretary may continue to permit the States to segment those areas out of the designation and to allow new billboards in those undesignated areas. Where segments are proposed for exclusion, the Secretary has the responsibility to examine these exclusions to ensure that exclusions are, in fact, made on a reasonable basis. The Secretary of Transportation continues to have the authority to prevent the circumvention of the requirements of section 131(s) and section 1047 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The Secretary has used his authority and intervened in the past when States have proposed actions that evade the Federal law banning billboards on scenic byways. The Secretary continues to have this authority and has the responsibility to exercise it in those cases where the States are not complying with the billboard ban on scenic byways. The Secretary's authority is described in a legal memorandum from the deputy chief counsel to the Federal Highway Administrator. I ask unanimous consent that this memorandum be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask the distinguished Senator from Washington --first, I concur in everything he said about the speed limit. As he remembers, I fought to preserve those speed limits on the floor here. There were overwhelming votes against this, as the Senator recalls--I think something like 66-32. We got nowhere. I would just like to, if I might, ascertain from the Senator what he was saying about weakening billboard controls. I did not quite understand that.

Mr. CHAFEE. And the Senator has the time.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the hour of 1:15 having arrived, I believe, according to the prior agreement, we commence the vote on the National Highway System conference report. Am I correct?

Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to include members of the Democratic staff likewise. I know Senator Baucus will touch on that, but we appreciate everyone.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. If I might have 1 more minute?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first I want to say I listened to the Members of the Democratic side speak this afternoon and, with the exception of the Senator from Nebraska, I have not heard one of them step up to the plate and try to do something about the deficits the country is facing. Yes, they attack everything we have done, every proposal we have, but they have not offered a single proposal of their own to address what I believe is the most serious domestic problem facing this Nation of ours, which is the continuing deficits. True, there is a lot of mileage in being against it and they are experts at it. The word ``shame'' was used by the Senator from Massachusetts about the approach we have taken. I say shame to those on that side who criticize but offer no alternatives. With few exceptions, there is little willingness on that side of the aisle to tangle with this desperate problem that our country faces. Mr. President, I believe that we truly do face a historic choice: to put our Nation on a path to a balanced budget by passing this Balanced Budget Act, or to continue business as usual, borrowing from our children and grandchildren to meet current Federal obligations. This is the first time, Mr. President, in my 19 years in the Senate that we have had the opportunity to vote on a balanced budget. Yes, we have made attempts in the past to reduce the deficit. We had the Gramm- Rudman plan, firewalls, all kinds of approaches, but never have we had the political courage in both branches to make the tough choices to produce a balanced budget. Whether one agrees with this legislation or not, it clearly represents a bold and a decisive step. Those courageous enough to vote for it deserve kudos, particularly in the House of Representatives, where they face the voters every 2 years. As a Senator, as a parent, as a grandparent and as a concerned citizen, Mr. President, I have come to believe, as I mentioned before, that the deficit is the most pressing domestic problem our Nation faces. We cannot continue on this reckless course of spending more than we take in. Individuals and families, obviously, have to live within their budgets. So should our national Government. Now, the Federal deficit is literally snowballing downhill, totally out of control. In 1980, we had a national debt of $1 trillion. This amount was amassed over a period of 200 years, from the inception of the Republic. Yet from 1980 to the present--just 15 years, we have run up $4 trillion more--four times what it took us 200 years to accumulate. So now our national debt has reached almost $5 trillion. Absent decisive action, we are looking at annual deficits continuing out into the future of $200 billion a year. In other words, every 5 years we will add another $1 trillion of debt to the bill we are sending to future generations of Americans to pay. Interest alone, never mind paying down that principal, is the third largest expenditure in the Federal budget. The largest is Social Security, the second largest is defense, the third largest is interest on the debt. Mr. President, $235 billion a year. That is nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars that will not be available for better education, better schools, more help to college students, disease prevention, improved health, better housing, and more environmental protection. This staggering debt burden prevents us from making those expenditures, and obviously the $235 billion this year will go up every year. Thus, I am committed to reaching a balanced budget within a specified time period, and the Balanced Budget Act will accomplish that objective within 7 years, by the year 2002. [[Page S 17248]] Whether one agrees with all of the provisions of this or not, there is another very important reason to vote for the Balanced Budget Act. It will get us beyond the current budget impasse and on to direct negotiations with the President. As far as I am concerned, the sooner we get to the negotiating table with the administration, the better. We need to get beyond the finger pointing and on to negotiations. We must get past this veto--which everyone agrees is going to take place--and on to constructive, bipartisan dialog with the White House, and congressional Democrats, to balance this Federal budget within 7 years. Now, a new forecast was conducted at the University of Rhode Island indicating that my State is still languishing in the doldrums of a protracted recession. At best, the recovery we have experienced over the past several years has been uneven and anemic. This continued stagnation is sapping the vitality of my State and dashing the hopes of many of its citizens. We need to get this entire economy moving--from one end of the country to the other--and balancing the budget is the single most important step we can take to make this country prosper. This is not me saying this. This is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Alan Greenspan, and a host of economists that testified before the Finance Committee earlier this year. The very action of enacting legislation to put us on the path to a balanced budget, with annual deficits on a downward trend, would provide an almost immediate reduction in short and long-term interest rates. This, in turn, would do several things. It would free up capital to fuel growth, increase demand for goods and services, and increase employment in our country. For consumers, the cost of financing a college education for their children, buying an automobile, or financing a home, would all come down in response to falling interest rates. For businesses, the cost of borrowing capital would become more affordable, enabling them to expand, and to create new jobs. Now, Mr. President, I do not agree with every aspect of this massive bill. I say without hesitation or regret that I fought the good fight on a number of issues about which I care deeply, with some success and some failures. However, when the goal is as important as securing the economic future of our Nation, as I believe it is, one works to advance the process despite any misgivings one might have. That said, I would like to offer a few of my own thoughts to those who will have the difficult task of negotiating a final agreement with the administration once this bill is vetoed. When the negotiations convene in early December, I am confident an agreement can be reached if both sides come to the table in good faith. Here are my suggestions for them. At a time when we are trying to balance the budget, I believe tax cuts are difficult to justify. I, personally, am against any the tax cuts. However, if we are to have some tax reductions, they should not become effective until substantial progress has been made toward reaching our goal of a balanced budget by the year 2002. Both sides have proposed tax cuts. The administration rails against our tax cut proposal but, indeed, the President has also proposed tax cuts totaling more than $100 billion. I believe both sides should defer the implementation of any tax cuts. Second, congressional Republicans are exactly right in taking significant steps to control the future growth of Medicare. The long- term financial problems facing this program must be addressed in a forthright manner. The President and congressional Democrats must step up to the plate on this issue. By the way, I hope everybody saw the editorial in yesterday's Washington Post, hardly a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, which excoriated the Democrats for their failure to face up to this issue of Medicare. The President and the congressional Democrats are equally to blame for failing to offer real solutions to the problems confronting the Medicare program. We Republicans believe in income-testing, requiring wealthier citizens to pay more for Medicare, as well as other entitlement programs. In addition, steps must be taken to conform Medicare administration and management with modern insurance practices. Moreover, we should give seniors more choices, such as choosing an HMO, or Preferred Provider Organization. I strongly believe we should not reduce Part B premiums because doing so would require additional tax dollars, further increasing the deficit of our Nation. In this regard, the Republican budget plan keeps the premiums at exactly the same percentage that they are today, 31.5 percent. Republicans are right in insisting upon a fixed timetable of 7 years to reach a balanced budget. We have repeatedly promised fiscal discipline and repeatedly failed to deliver it. So, when people suggest, oh, you can do it in 9 years, in 10 years, or 15 years-- beware. Let us set an early date. I believe 7 years is a reasonable one. That is not tomorrow, that is not the year after next. Within 7 years--by 2002--we ought to be able to deliver a balanced budget. We are in peacetime. There is no war. There is relative prosperity. We ought to be able to balance the budget in 7 years. Severing the individual entitlement and turning the Medicaid program over to the States as a block grant causes me grave concerns, and could end up costing our health care system a lot more than the present program. A per capita cap on the Federal entitlement and much greater State flexibility are the appropriate solutions to the problems confronting this program. I also question the wisdom of trying to find such a high level of savings from Medicaid. Next, the Senate welfare reform bill was a sound package which won significant bipartisan support, and I hope the result which emerges from negotiations----

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I have carefully reviewed the proposed amendment and concur that it is a purely technical project deauthorization which involves no expenditure of funds. As such, I give my consent to the request of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry]. I would ask, however, that if any changes are made to this amendment, I be consulted before any final action is taken in a conference with the House.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Let me add that I have appreciated the cooperative manner in which we have been able to work together on this amendment and I commend him, as well as Senator Stevens, for their fine work on the amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. The pending amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill clarifies the financial responsibility requirements for offshore facilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or ``OPA-90.'' Issues related to such requirements lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. As Chairman of that Committee, I join Senator Stevens as a co-sponsor of the amendment. I also want to take a moment to provide the background of the amendment and to explain the understanding on which it is based. Earlier this year Senator Breaux introduced a bill, S. 33, that addresses the matters contained in this amendment and was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Although we did not hold a formal hearing on the bill, efforts to amend OPA-90 to clarify its offshore facility financial responsibility requirements have been ongoing for several months. The House included such an amendment in its version of the Coast Guard reauthorization bill, H.R. 1361. Upon being received in the Senate, H.R. 1361 was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Recognizing and respecting the fact that OPA-90's financial responsibility requirements are within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation declined to include an amendment to such requirements in the Coast Guard reauthorization bill it reported, S. 1004. Instead, the chairman of the full Committee, Senator Pressler, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, Senator Stevens, wrote to ask for my cooperation and assistance in crafting an offshore OPA-90 amendment that could be offered upon consideration of S. 1004 on the Senate floor. Seventeen Senators, including four members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, also sent me a letter urging me to work with the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to achieve the same result. In response, I agreed to work with the leadership of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in an effort to forge an amendment that would accommodate the request of my colleagues. All work was done in consultation with the ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Baucus. The product of that cooperative labor is the amendment before the Senate at this time. Also resulting from our negotiations with the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is an agreement that will ensure continued recognition of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works as S. 1004 and H.R. 1361 move forward. It is especially important given the abbreviated process that I have agreed to follow with respect to the OPA-90 amendment. Our agreement provides that, upon passage of S. 1004 and H.R. 1361 by the Senate, the Committee on Environment and Public Works will conduct any negotiations or discussions with the House of Representatives on any OPA-90 issues within the Committee's jurisdiction, including all issues addressed in the pending Senate amendment. If these negotiations or discussions fail to resolve any differences that may exist between the two Chambers on such issues, the Committee on Environment and Public Works will be the source of conferees on all OPA-90 issues under the Committee's jurisdiction, including all issues addressed in the pending Senate amendment. In the spirit in which the pending amendment was developed, members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works engaged in any such negotiations or conference will consult with members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In conclusion, I simply would ask my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, if what I have just stated comports with his understanding of our agreement.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, November 17, 1995, at 9 a.m. to hold a hearing on H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senators Stevens and Breaux to implement the Panama Declaration. A dozen countries, several major environmental organizations, the administration, and Senators on both sides of the aisle have come together in support of this effort. If we are going to sustain our renewable resources, and particularly our marine resources, we need to take a comprehensive ecosystem approach toward resource use. After all, management of a single species does not always produce benefits for the entire ecosystem. It is important that we seek to reduce bycatch of other marine species, such as sharks, sea turtles, and billfish, while we minimize our impact on dolphins. That is why this bill is about more than just tuna and dolphins. This bill includes changes in current law that will have a positive impact on numerous species in the marine environment. The Declaration that this bill would implement will commit the United States and a number of cosignatory nations to conserving the valuable marine life in the eastern Pacific. Moreover, by doing so on a multilateral basis, many of the ongoing international disputes over tuna may effectively be resolved. Such strong and sound international efforts are therefore welcome. This legislation represents an important opportunity for all parties interested in marine resources to work together toward our common goal: effective conservation of dolphin and other marine species in the eastern Pacific ecosystem. I urge my colleagues to take the time to examine this legislation, and offer comments and suggestions. We have the chance to fashion a long-term solution to the question of marine mammal conservation, and it is my hope that this bill will serve as the vehicle toward that end.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senators Stevens and Breaux to implement the Panama Declaration. A dozen countries, several major environmental organizations, the administration, and Senators on both sides of the aisle have come together in support of this effort. If we are going to sustain our renewable resources, and particularly our marine resources, we need to take a comprehensive ecosystem approach toward resource use. After all, management of a single species does not always produce benefits for the entire ecosystem. It is important that we seek to reduce bycatch of other marine species, such as sharks, sea turtles, and billfish, while we minimize our impact on dolphins. That is why this bill is about more than just tuna and dolphins. This bill includes changes in current law that will have a positive impact on numerous species in the marine environment. The Declaration that this bill would implement will commit the United States and a number of cosignatory nations to conserving the valuable marine life in the eastern Pacific. Moreover, by doing so on a multilateral basis, many of the ongoing international disputes over tuna may effectively be resolved. Such strong and sound international efforts are therefore welcome. This legislation represents an important opportunity for all parties interested in marine resources to work together toward our common goal: effective conservation of dolphin and other marine species in the eastern Pacific ecosystem. I urge my colleagues to take the time to examine this legislation, and offer comments and suggestions. We have the chance to fashion a long-term solution to the question of marine mammal conservation, and it is my hope that this bill will serve as the vehicle toward that end.