John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of World Population Awareness Week, which is being observed internationally this week. We are all aware of the challenges we will face in the next century regarding the world's population. According to recent projections by the United Nations, world population is expected to increase by close to 100 million people annually through the year 2015. Within 20 years, the Earth's population will have sharply increased to total 7.7 billion people. Nearly all of this increase will be in the poorest countries in the world, causing overall increases in poverty, illiteracy, environmental problems, hunger, and malnourishment, and a significant strain on the world's natural resources. If area populations continue their rapid growth, the resulting outcome could have a devastating effect on the United States, the world economy, and our planet. To avoid massive catastrophes, we must begin to reduce run-away population growth through voluntary, rational, humane means. This is the message of World Population Awareness Week, recognized internationally from October 22-29, 1995. I am proud to say that Rhode Island's Governor Lincoln Almond is one of several State Governors to proclaim World Population Awareness Week. In doing so, he asked all Rhode Islanders to join him in ``supporting the Cairo Program of Action,'' a 20-year strategy for stabilizing world population. He also called on ``all government and private organizations to do their part to implement the document.'' I support Governor Almond's proclamation and request that his proclamation be printed in the Record. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt was the first important step in the worldwide effort to arrest the huge growth in the world's population. All Americans should be proud of the integral role our delegation played in developing a set of recommendations to curb population growth. We must continue to promote international efforts to inform people about the consequences of dramatic population growth, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in supporting World Population Awareness Week. The proclamation follows: The Governor of the State of Rhode Island--Proclamation Whereas, world population is currently 5.7 billion, and increasing by nearly 100 million per year, with virtually all of this growth added to the poorest countries and regions; and Whereas, the annual increment to world population is projected to exceed 86 million through the year 2015, with three billion people, the equivalent of the entire world population as recently as 1960, reaching their reproductive years within the next generation; and Whereas, the environmental and economic impacts of this level of growth will almost certainly prevent inhabitants of poorer countries from improving their quality of life, and at the same time, affect the standard of living in more affluent regions; and Whereas, the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt, crafted a 20-year Program of Action for achieving a more equitable balance between the world's population, environment, and resources, approved by 180 nations, including the United States: Now, therefore, I, Lincoln Almond, Governor of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do hereby proclaim, October 22-29, 1995 as World Population Awareness Week. In the State of Rhode Island and call on all citizens to join with me in recognizing this important week and supporting the Cairo Program of Action and call on all governments and private organizations to do their part to implement the document.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Why do we not save time and just adopt it?

Mr. CHAFEE. I am going to stick what we have here, which is we are solely dealing with low-income individuals with disabilities. Mr. President, I tell you, when you are talking 75 percent of poverty, you are really talking about poor people. But the key thing I want to stress here is these folks are being cared for in the community very frequently by their parents. And do not think these are 6-year-olds and their parents are 35. Their parents are frequently 65 and these individuals are 40 years old. But they are being cared for in the community, because they have this safety net of Medicaid coverage that is there in case they get ill. Otherwise, I am certain that they would end up in institutions at a far greater cost to the public and all of us. So, Mr. President, I hope the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is right. It has already been adopted. Pregnant women and children up to the age of 12 and 100 percent of poverty, that is covered. And also the disabled are to be covered, but the definition of ``disabled'' was not made.

Mr. CHAFEE. As changed by the welfare bill.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, is this the proper time to ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. CHAFEE. I do so. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank everyone. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. It is my time, Mr. President. I believe I am on my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what I would like to do this afternoon, briefly, is to address the so-called part B premium situation. It seems to me, in all of this political maneuvering around here, the Democratic Party has overlooked the unfairness that is occurring in the part B premium. What is the part B premium? The part B premium is an insurance program that those on Medicare take out if they wish. When Medicare was set up, under the part B proposal the Federal Government was going to pay half the cost of the premium, and the insured was going to pay the other half. But over the years that has deteriorated so now, currently, the insured is paying 31.5 percent. Not 50 percent of the premium, but 31.5 percent. Do we change that? No, we do not change that at all. That remains constant at 31.5. I do not know how anybody could complain about that. You get 100 percent of the premium and you only pay 31.5 percent for it. We then go on to say, wait a minute, this is costing the Federal Government a lot of money. It is costing the Federal Government $42 billion a year to subsidize that part B premium, the other 69 percent. So we say, is it not fair for the richer people to pay more of that premium? So that is what we provide. We provide for individuals with $50,000 of income--this is not some pauper, this is an individual with $50,000 of income--or a couple with $75,000 of income, that they will then start paying more of that premium than 31.5 percent. Apparently they do not think that is fair. I think it is eminently fair. Why should some jewelry worker in the city of Providence have his or her wages deducted and go into the general Treasury and come out to pay some wealthy person's premium under part B of Medicare? But does that person at $50,000, or $75,000 a couple, have to pay all the premium? The answer is no, they do not. They just start paying more than the 3l.5 percent. When do they start paying the full part of the premium? When the individual reaches $100,000 and the couple reaches $150,000. So, Mr. President, this is a very fair program. By the way, if the person does not want that insurance, they do not have to take it. It is an optional program. I do not know. Apparently, over on the other side they think it is wonderful that the Federal Government subsidizes these insurance programs. Jack Kent Cooke, the owner of the Redskins, is having 70 percent of his doctors' bills paid for by some worker, somebody who cleans up the halls or works in a restaurant. I do not think that is fair. I think the program that the Republicans have submitted in connection with Medicare is an eminently fair program, and, Mr. President, I urge its support in this Chamber. I think there is no need for this recommittal motion whatsoever.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Illinois would answer a question.

Mr. CHAFEE. Maybe I could have 5 minutes off the bill, if I might.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator from Illinois is objecting to the affluent testing of the part B premiums.

Mr. CHAFEE. Let me just say this. As the Senator knows, we both worked together in the Finance Committee on the Medicare matters. To say that the Republicans are doubling the premiums on part B is an inaccurate statement, if I may say so to the Senator. We maintain the percentage that an individual pays under the part B premium at exactly the same amount that is there now, the same amount that was there under a Democratic administration and under us. It is 31.5 percent. Now, if the predictions show that the costs of the premiums are going up, that has nothing to do with Republicans being in charge. That is a fact of costs of health care. But to say it is a Republican fault is a charge that I think is a very unfortunate one to make. I say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois that what we have done on the Medicare Program is justified. Have there been some deductibles increased? Yes, there have. But the part B premium remains at exactly the same percentage that exists now. And if the distinguished Senator from Illinois objects to the affluence testing, then she is on a different course than I am and I think most of the American public.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Illinois is a member of the Finance Committee. So she is familiar with some of these items, obviously. But I heard her say that under the Republican measure the Medicare part B premiums are going to double. What is her source of information for that? What is she basing that on?

Mr. CHAFEE. All right. Now, I would just say this, that those premiums she is discussing would go up no matter which administration and under whose program you are talking about.

Mr. CHAFEE. If the premiums are going up--and who knows what the costs are going to be out there because we do not set forth a dollar amount, as the distinguished Senator knows. We stay at exactly the same percentage. And if health care costs should go down, then the premiums will go down. If health care costs go up, then the premiums go up. To blame that on the Republicans and on our Medicare program is just a charge that I believe is highly unfair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I fully recognize that Israel is one of the most strategic and important allies of the United States--the only working democracy in the Middle East. We should never waver in our support for a nation that has been militarily threatened by its neighbors since its founding over 40 years ago. But I also strongly support the peace process that Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and the Palestine Liberation Organization began over 2 years ago. A glimmer of hope has emerged in recent years that the longstanding hostilities that have fueled conflict in this volatile region of the world may soon come to an end. It is imperative that the United States stand firmly behind the efforts of Israel and the Palestinians to reach agreement on the many disagreements that have divided these peoples for so long. In announcing its accord on Jericho and the Gaza Strip 2 years ago, Israel and the PLO also agreed to negotiate the permanent status of Jerusalem beginning next year. The United States has stood firmly--and indeed has been a leader--behind negotiations on these and other unresolved issues that are aimed at achieving long-term peace. I certainly recognize that Israel declared Jerusalem to be its capital in 1950. However, since 1967 the United States has called for a negotiated resolution of Jerusalem's status, a position restated by the September 1993 agreement between Israel and the PLO. I am convinced that the question of when we construct our Embassy in Israel should be left to the President and the State Department. Having Congress dictate to the State Department a construction schedule for our Embassy would surely disrupt and possibly derail the ongoing Mideast peace process, a most sensitive diplomatic effort. Although the administration is given a national security waiver in the compromise version of this legislation, there is still no guarantee that the Embassy move could be waived if the peace process is halted. That is why the State Department remains opposed to this bill. Because of my support for the Mideast peace process and executive branch authority on foreign policy, I will vote against S. 1322.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, later in the evening or possibly tomorrow the Senate will approve H.R. 1606, a bill to name the post office at 24 Corliss Street in Providence, RI after a renowned Rhode Islander and a proud American--Harry Kizirian. Senator Pell and I introduced the bill earlier this year, and Representatives Jack Reed and Patrick Kennedy introduced identical legislation in the House of Representatives, which also has been approved. I greatly appreciate the help of Senator Stevens, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service, in helping to obtain approval of our proposal in an expeditious manner. Harry Kizirian is a household name in Rhode Island because of his lifelong career in the Postal Service but, even more so, because of his involvement with and commitment to his community. He has served on the board of directors of Butler Hospital, Big Brothers of Rhode Island, the Providence [[Page S 15504]] Human Relations Commission, Rhode Island Blue Cross, and the Rhode Island Heart and Lung Associations. Over the years he has earned countless awards and citations for his community involvement. He was inducted into the Rhode Island Hall of Fame and received the Roger Williams Award. He served on advisory boards for Rhode Island College, Providence Heritage Commission on R.I. Medal of Honor Recipients, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Marine Corps League. The lessons learned from Harry Kizirian are lessons of fortitude, valor, strength of character, and perseverance. While Harry was just a boy in school, at Mt. Pleasant High School in Providence, he went to work part time as a postal clerk. He was 15 years old and his father had died, so Harry took responsibility for supporting his family. He did so while keeping his grades up and participating in athletics. Twenty years later, at 35, Harry was named postmaster of Rhode Island, a position he held for more than 25 years. Like many young men at the time, Harry's job was interrupted by World War II. The day after high school graduation Harry enlisted in the Marine Corps. He fought on Okinawa with the 6th Marine Division. He was awarded the Navy Cross--the second highest honor a marine can receive-- for his valor on Okinawa. Harry and a group of marines were pinned down by a Japanese machine gunner. Harry got up and ran toward the machine gun. He was shot in the legs. Despite his injuries, he pulled himself forward and eliminated the enemy position. This extraordinary act of valor sent Harry Kizirian, a teenage boy, to a hospital in Guam with the Navy Cross, a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart with a gold star. Harry Kizirian was seen by millions of Americans as the face of the war in the Pacific. Before he was injured, a news photographer captured his image, the image of a boy in battle, for the cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine. Last November, I was present when Harry was honored by his old Atwood-Bucci Detachment of the Marine Corps. The famous photograph was prominently displayed on the podium. After the war, Harry returned to Providence and to his job at the post office. He was a substitute clerk. By 1954 he was made foreman. He was named assistant superintendent during the transition from the old postal system to the turnkey mechanization system. The Providence post office on Corliss Street was the first post office in the country to use the turnkey system. The turnkey system was the first fully automated system for sorting the mail. Until that point, all of the mail was sorted by hand. The new system was not easily implemented, but once again Harry rose to the challenge. In 1961, Harry was rewarded for his hard work and dedication. He was named postmaster of Rhode Island. What better way to honor the life and lessons of Harry Kizirian than to name the post office of Corliss Street for him. I am delighted that the Senate has voted unanimously to name our historic post office in Providence ``The Harry Kizirian Post Office Building.'' Again, many thanks to Senators Stevens and Pryor for their help.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to introduce this bill to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. Enacting this legislation is a high priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee. The bipartisan agreement that supports this bill gives us a great chance to achieve that goal. We all agree that reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act is necessary. Public health protection has been strengthened by the many new standards that have been issued over the past few years. But the pace of standard setting and the costs of new treatment and monitoring requirements have been a strain for water suppliers, especially smaller communities. This bill includes many provisions to ease the burden. There is the new grant program for drinking water revolving loan funds that President Clinton first recommended. States are authorized to reduce monitoring costs by developing their own testing requirements tailored to conditions in their region. Under this bill, States may also grant variances to the small systems that cannot afford to comply with the national standard. That's reform, but we're not rolling back health protection which is now provided. No existing standard will be weakened. And the bill includes many new initiatives that will keep the national program moving forward. In addition to the SRF grants, there are new programs to prevent pollution of source waters used for drinking water supply. There is a program to develop technical capacity at small systems. The bill pushes hard for more and better science, including a research program to determine whether some groups like children or pregnant women or people with particular illnesses are more likely to experience adverse effects from drinking water contaminants. EPA will continue to review new contaminants and to make decisions on the need for national standards. I want to thank each of my colleagues for the hard work they have put in on this bill. The star of this performance has been Senator Kempthorne. He has spent months going over every detail of the legislation. And Senator Baucus blazed the trail for us last year with his bill that passed the Senate with almost unanimous support. My thank you also extends to the Water Office at EPA and to the coalition of State and local drinking water organizations that have worked so long and hard on this bill. Their expertise has been available at every step and has been very helpful. I look forward to quick action by the committee and by the Senate on this bipartisan bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to introduce this bill to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. Enacting this legislation is a high priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee. The bipartisan agreement that supports this bill gives us a great chance to achieve that goal. We all agree that reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act is necessary. Public health protection has been strengthened by the many new standards that have been issued over the past few years. But the pace of standard setting and the costs of new treatment and monitoring requirements have been a strain for water suppliers, especially smaller communities. This bill includes many provisions to ease the burden. There is the new grant program for drinking water revolving loan funds that President Clinton first recommended. States are authorized to reduce monitoring costs by developing their own testing requirements tailored to conditions in their region. Under this bill, States may also grant variances to the small systems that cannot afford to comply with the national standard. That's reform, but we're not rolling back health protection which is now provided. No existing standard will be weakened. And the bill includes many new initiatives that will keep the national program moving forward. In addition to the SRF grants, there are new programs to prevent pollution of source waters used for drinking water supply. There is a program to develop technical capacity at small systems. The bill pushes hard for more and better science, including a research program to determine whether some groups like children or pregnant women or people with particular illnesses are more likely to experience adverse effects from drinking water contaminants. EPA will continue to review new contaminants and to make decisions on the need for national standards. I want to thank each of my colleagues for the hard work they have put in on this bill. The star of this performance has been Senator Kempthorne. He has spent months going over every detail of the legislation. And Senator Baucus blazed the trail for us last year with his bill that passed the Senate with almost unanimous support. My thank you also extends to the Water Office at EPA and to the coalition of State and local drinking water organizations that have worked so long and hard on this bill. Their expertise has been available at every step and has been very helpful. I look forward to quick action by the committee and by the Senate on this bipartisan bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senate received from the House today H.R. 436, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. The bill would amend the Oil Production Act of 1990, or OPA-90. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has exclusive jurisdiction over OPA-90, I support the Senate's passage of H.R. 436 by unanimous consent without delay. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the time the committee reported the bill that became OPA-90, I am well acquainted with the statute. As many of us will recall, the Congress enacted OPA-90 in the aftermath of the catastrophic Exxon Valdez oilspill in Prince William Sound, AK. One of the key elements of OPA-90 requires all vessels to demonstrate a certain minimum level of financial responsibility to cover the costs of cleanup and damages in the event of an oilspill. The intent behind this requirement is to ensure that an entity that discharges oil into our natural environment pay for the costs and damages arising from the spill--not the U.S. taxpayer. This intent remains sound and should continue to inform the application of the statute. In passing OPA-90, however, Congress did not intend to abandon the use of common sense. As the act currently stands, there is no distinction made in the financial responsibility requirements for oil- carrying vessels, regardless of the kind of oil being carried. Therefore, a vessel carrying sunflower oil is held to the same requirements under OPA-90 as a carrier of deep crude. H.R. 436 simply recognizes that vegetable oils and animal fats are different from petroleum oils. Most important, they are different in ways that make it less likely that a spill of vegetable oil or animal fat will cause the same kind of environmental damage as would a petroleum oil spill. For example, vegetable oils and animal fats contain none of the toxic components of petroleum oil. This is not to suggest that a spill of vegetable oil or animal fat will have no adverse environmental impacts. Experience has shown to the contrary, especially in the case of the Blue Earth River spill in Minnesota in the mid-1960's. Here it is important to note that H.R. 436 would not provide an exemption for carriers of vegetable oil or animal fats. They still would be subject to a mandatory minimum financial responsibility requirement under OPA-90. Thus, H.R. 436 will lend more rationality to the application of OPA- 90 while maintaining the fundamental integrity of the act's purpose and approach. I commend my colleagues in the House for recognizing an opportunity to improve the implementation of an environmental statute. Finally, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, let me say that I appreciate the willingness of all Senators to expedite action on this bill. Without unanimous consent, H.R. 436 would have been referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. My review of the bill has convinced me that it is a straightforward, commonsense piece of legislation on which committee hearings are unnecessary and to which I can lend my support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, Superfund is broken, and today the Environment and Public Works Committee is putting forward a plan that will fix it. Senator Bob Smith and his staff on the Superfund subcommittee have produced a remarkable reform package, one deserving of widespread support. I want to make it clear to everyone that Superfund reform will be a priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee for the rest of this year, and we will move to mark up this bill and bring it to the floor as quickly as possible. Superfund's troubled history and problems are news to no one, but fixing Superfund's plainly evident problems--too much litigation, not enough cleanup, inefficient use of scarce resources, blighted cities-- has eluded us now for more than 5 years, as one interest group after another sought their vision of a ``perfect'' reform. No plan is perfect, but his bill that Senator Smith and his staff prepared, with the help of my staff, is a tremendous improvement over the status quo. It is all the more remarkable for what it achieves in an era of tightly constrained budgets. This is real reform for Superfund that we can afford. This bill will: Streamline the cleanup process by eliminating overlapping studies of contaminated sites. Require EPA to consider the future use of resources when it decides how clean a site must be. Why clean up a site that will be a parking lot to the same level as a day care center? Let the States take as much of the Superfund Program as they want or can handle. Address the Brownfields problem by providing grants and loans to States for voluntary cleanup programs, and assessment of contamination levels at these sites. We also protect potential investors, innocent landowners and lenders so that entrepreneurs will step forward and be able to secure financing. Eliminate the unfairness of Joint & Several liability by having the fund, and not other parties, pay the share of those parties who cannot be found or are bankrupt. Provide significant relief to small waste contributors, usually small business, with an expanded de micromis exemption, and expedited, fair de minimis settlements. Make restoration the goal of natural resource damages recovery, not speculative punitive damages. Relieve as much of the pain as we can afford on retroactive liability, through the use of a tax credit for costs associated with liability for things people did, legally, before Superfund was enacted in 1980. On this point, I know Senator Smith wanted to do more, but the facts of the budget frustrated his attempts. I want to salute him. He took the best run at it he could, and then came forward, at some personal political risk, with this fiscally credible plan. Some will charge that the use of tax credits to relieve some of the unfairness of retroactive liability is corporate welfare. Any such charge about this tax credit proposal is merit-less, as the tax credits are tightly tied to the existing Superfund taxes. In this proposal, the tax credit is fully funded by the Superfund taxes that these corporations pay. It does not come out of general tax revenues. I would point out that, for the past several years, Superfund tax revenues have far outrun Superfund's annual appropriation, resulting in a Superfund trust fund balance of over $3 billion. I would also add that there is something fundamentally unfair about holding people liable for acts that were legal when they occurred. This credit helps to relieve some of that unfairness. I want to issue an invitation, and a warning, to all those out there who will say, ``This does not go far enough,'' or ``This is too much.'' First, the invitation. This bill is a work in progress. There will be a hearing on it before a markup, so make your views and suggestions known--but move with alacrity, because we will take this up in the committee as soon as we possibly can. Senator Smith's staff and my staff are ready to work with you on this. Second, the warning. If we fail, everyone loses. There is no longer a status quo for Superfund--just look at the cut the program took $1.33 billion down to $1 billion in both the Senate and House versions of the EPA appropriations bill. Unless we pass a new Superfund law, we are looking at a $1 billion program, with even less in 1997 and beyond, probably with the existing taxes reauthorized. This will be the lose/ lose scenario: PRP's, and their insurers, lose. If you thought Enforcement First was bad, wait until Enforcement Only. The existing litigation machine rolls on. EPA, without many resources, runs the program by issuing section 106 orders, or suing a handful of parties for cost recovery. EPA and all the agencies getting money from Superfund lose as the program slowly contacts, losing the expertise we want to keep on technical issues, until all that is left is a handful of lawyers to write those section 106 orders. Protection of human health and the environment loses, because the pace of Federally funded cleanup slows down in the face of declining budgets until the Federal Superfund becomes Enforcement Only. People paying Superfund taxes lose. Their taxes will probably get extended, but only two-thirds of those taxes will go to Superfund cleanup this year, and less in the future. And corporations paying Superfund taxes can still get sued by EPA or other PRP's. They will pay twice. So I end with a call for common sense and realistic expectations. When you make suggestions to improve this bill, please furnish us with an estimate of how much it will cost, where the money will come from, and how we can spend the money given the budget caps and firewalls. I want to assure all the members of the committee, and the Senate, that we will work to accommodate their concerns as we move forward on this bill. This is not a perfect bill, but neither Senator Smith nor I plan to repeat last year's so-called delicate balance [[Page S 14738]] Superfund bill, a deal made off the Hill that was so fragile that could not be changed without the deal falling apart. Some members of the committee have expressed concerns with some provisions in the bill as introduced. Senator Kempthorne has expressed concern about the impact of Superfund on dry cleaners. Senator Warner is concerned about the potential impact on recycling operations, and in how the States and Federal Government will control the costs of federal facility cleanups. Senator Inhofe would like to see more protection for acts that occurred in the distant past. I will continue to work with Senator Smith on issues of concern to me, including groundwater and natural resource damage provisions. I know that other members of the Committee have other concerns as well. We will work to resolve these concerns as we move forward. This bill is no fragil compromise, and we will work within the budget constraints that we must all live with to get the best bill we can. Again, I want to commend Senator Smith and his staff for putting this complex bill together and bringing it quickly forward to this point. We have been working together on this since the start of the Congress, and today is an important milestone. It will not be easy to meet the goal we share--passage this year--but it will not be for lack of a continued team effort on this committee.