John Chafee

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.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman to preserve a very small but important part of the Superfund Program, EPA's brownfields economic redevelopment initiative. We all know what brownfields are--they are the abandoned plant that might be contaminated, or might not be. No one knows exactly what the problems at these sites are, so people are afraid to invest in them or redevelop them, people are afraid of liability. So rather using old industrial sites, new development flees the city and tears up our open space, greenfields. In the meantime, these old sites remain a blight and a big hole in local tax bases. EPA's brownfields economic redevelopment initiative--its brownfields program--is a Superfund success story. The brownfields initiative is a cost-effective means of ameliorating some of these unintended consequences of Superfund, especially in economically depressed urban areas. Real risk reduction is achieved when brownfields sites are cleaned up, and it is private investment money that does most of the work. The small amount of money EPA allocates to brownfields is highly leveraged. This effort includes 50 planned pilot projects across the Nation to demonstrate that we can reuse existing contaminated sites for economic development instead of undeveloped clean sites. Each of these pilot projects are awarded up to $200,000 over 2 years. These funds are used to help with the up-front investigations and evaluation that must take place before deciding on how best to clean a site. To date, EPA has awarded about 18 out of 50 planned grants. I think it's vitally important that EPA's brownfields effort continue as a high priority, and the purpose of my amendment is to make sure that this happens. What is the consequence if we fail to encourage the private sector to take on brownfields sites? Often, the sites remain abandoned or orphan--as many are--they may migrate onto the NPL or State lists for publicly funded cleanup. The Superfund bill Senator Smith is working to bring forward in the next few weeks will contain provisions to make brownfields redevelopment easier. This is a good way to spend some of the limited Superfund dollars available this year. We get real risk reduction by examining and evaluating these sites. We are learning valuable lessons at each of the pilots on how to create public and private partnerships between the Federal Government, State and local government, and the private sector to get abandoned urban eyesores back on the tax roles, producing jobs in cities like Providence. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to preserve one of the best things EPA has done on Superfund in the past several years. I commend Senator Bond, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee as well as chairman of the Committee on Small Business and the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over Superfund, for his interest in Superfund and his commitment to helping us move forward with Superfund reform this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2793 (Purpose: To provide funding for the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Program)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendments be set aside.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland and also the manager of the bill, Senator Bond, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Both have been very helpful to us as we worked our way through this amendment. I particularly am grateful to all staff who has also been very cooperative.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have an amendment that has been agreed to by the managers. I ask consent that the pending committee amendments be set aside in order to consider the committee amendment on page 143, line 17.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this deals with a pharmaceutical plant in Kalamazoo, MI, and the pretreatment requirements for that plant. We are amending the underlying language that is in the bill. This amendment has been agreed to by those involved, such as the distinguished junior Senator from Michigan and the senior Senator from Michigan, as well as the managers of the bill. Mr. President, let me set the stage for this amendment by saying a few words about the pretreatment program under the Clean Water Act, our most successful environmental law. The subject we are discussing is sewage treatment. Prior to enactment of the Clean Water Act, one of our Nation's most serious water pollution problems was the discharge of untreated sewage--domestic waste collected from homes, workplaces and other institutions-- collected by sewers and quite often discharged without treatment to lakes, rivers and streams. Untreated sewage creates a host of problems. It presents health hazards to those who would use the water for recreation or fishing. The nutrients in the sewage promote the growth of algae that robs the water of oxygen needed by the fish and other organisms living in the water. And the loading of sediments and toxic chemicals can kill birds and other wildlife depending on the aquatic environment for food and habitat. So, in 1972 we committed the Nation to solving this problem by building a series of municipal sewage treatment plants. We have invested more than $120 billion--more than $65 billion of that in Federal dollars--to build, 16,000 sewage treatment plants across the country. They remove the sludge from the water. They clarify the water before it is discharged. They kill the pathogenic organisms in the sewage that would otherwise spread disease. And they dramatically reduce the nutrient loadings. It has been a big success. For instance, you hear that Lake Erie was brought back from the dead or that the Potomac River is once again a place for recreation. That is the result of the Clean Water Act and these sewage treatment plants. One essential part of this effort under the Clean Water Act is called the pretreatment program. Sewage treatment plants receive more than domestic waste for our homes and workplaces. They also receive billions of gallons of industrial wastewater. Tens of thousands of manufacturing plants and commercial businesses dump the waste from their processes into the sewer. These industrial discharges contain hundreds of different kinds of pollutants-- industrial solvents, toxic metals, acids, caustic agents, oil and grease, and so on. Sewage treatment plants are not generally designed to handle all of these industrial chemicals. In fact, the industrial discharges can cause severe damage to sewage treatment plants. And even where the plant is not damaged by the industrial chemicals, the plant does not treat the toxics--it does not destroy them--it merely passes them through to the water or to the land where the sludge from the plant is disposed. Because of these problems with industrial waste, Congress established the pretreatment program under the Clean Water Act. It requires that industries treat their wastes before putting them into the sewer. That is why the program is called pretreatment. Pollution control equipment is installed at the industrial plant and it is operated to remove pollutants such as metals and sediment or to neutralize pollutants including acids and caustics before the wastewater is put into the sewer. This is the background for this amendment. The Clean Water Act has fostered a very successful program to treat domestic sewage. An essential part of this program is a requirement for pretreatment of industrial wastewater before it is put into the sewer and sent to the sewage treatment plant. Substantial reductions in the toxic pollution of our rivers and lakes have been achieved by the cities that operate pretreatment programs. Let me break down the argument for the pretreatment program into four points. First, the pretreatment program protects sewage treatment plants from damage by these industrial chemicals. The toxics in industrial waste can interfere with the chemical and biological processes used by the centralized sewage treatment plant. Second, because sewage treatment plants are not designed to treat many of these industrial wastes--the plant merely passes the waste along to the environment--pretreatment is required before the discharge. Treatment before the discharge is much more efficient because it occurs before the industrial waste from one plant is mixed with all the other material that goes into the sewer. At the industrial plant you have a very concentrated waste stream. Applying control equipment to that stream can remove substantially all of the toxic agents. But put that waste into the sewer untreated and mix it with millions of gallons of wastewater from homes and workplaces and it is much more difficult to remove the toxic constituents. It stands to reason that a treatment method applied to a small concentrated waste stream will be more effective and less costly than attempting to remove the same amount of material diluted in a large quantity of wastewater. Third, the pretreatment program simplifies the task we face under the Clean Water Program. It would be virtually impossible to set pollution standards for every single chemical that is discharged to the environment. To know what impact a particular chemical has on a particular waterbody is a question that may take years of study to answer--for that one chemical and one lake or stream. To know how hundreds of different industrial chemicals affect the aquatic environments receiving pollution from the 16,000 different sewage treatment plants is a challenge way beyond the best science we have today. We get around this impossible task by asking that those who discharge [[Page S 14365]] their industrial wastes to our rivers and lakes--and to the sewage treatment plants that discharge to our rivers and lakes--use the best available pollution control technology before the waste leaves their plant. And fourth, the pretreatment program establishes a uniform level of controls across the whole Nation. It is no secret that the States and cities of our country are in daily competition to attract and hold jobs. One factor in locating a new business is the regulatory climate that applies in a State or city. It is cheaper to do business where the regulations are not so strict. Prior to the Clean Water Act, many States had difficulty establishing effective pollution control programs because of their fear that business would move elsewhere. A State putting on tight controls to cleanup a lake or river faced the prospect that its employers would flee across the State line to keep production costs down. That fear was in part removed when the Clean Water Act established a uniform level of treatment required of all plants in each industry all across the Nation. Standards issued by EPA under the pretreatment program that apply to all the plants in an industry all across the country relieve some of the pressure on States that want to have good programs of their own. So, that is the background for this amendment. The pretreatment program is a very sensible part of a very successful national effort to reduce the adverse effects of sewage discharged to our lakes, rivers and estuaries. I think the Clean Water Act has been our most successful environmental law and it has succeeded because of the technology-based controls that have been put on industrial discharges through programs like the pretreatment program. Mr. President, there is a rider in this bill that would exempt some industrial dischargers in the city of Kalamazoo from the requirements of the pretreatment program in the Clean Water Act. The Kalamazoo sewage treatment plant is designed to achieve advanced treatment and to handle some of the wastes that are sent to it by industrial facilities. Because of this advanced capacity, it may be that some industry waste streams in Kalamazoo can be handled at the sewage treatment plant and without the need for pretreatment at the industrial facility. The purpose of the rider is to reduce compliance costs by waiving redundant treatment requirements. I am concerned, however, on two points which I have addressed in the amendment that is now the pending business. My amendment would not eliminate the exemption. But it would tighten it up in these two ways. First, it would only allow exemptions in Kalamazoo for pharmaceutical plants already located there. If the Senate adopted my amendment we would not be providing an exemption for all of the industrial facilities in Kalamazoo. Second, the amendment would require EPA to determine that treatment by the Kalamazoo sewage plant is truly effective as the national standard. The exemption would be conditioned on a finding that the total loading of all pollutants to the environment through the air, surface water, ground water and to agricultural and residential lands would not be greater under the exemption than it would be if the pharmaceutical plant complied with the national standard. With respect to determining compliance, the State of Michigan should assume that the Kalamazoo plant is operating at discharge levels consistent with the technology requirements and other requirements of the law including water quality based limitations incorporated into the permit. Any removals achieved beyond this level are available to offset the reductions that would otherwise have been achieved by the pharmaceutical plant. If the argument made for this rider is correct--that the Kalamazoo treatment plant protects the environment with respect to the wastes from industrial sources as well as any national regulation could--well then, the pharmaceutical plant could get its exemption. If that showing cannot be made, then the pretreatment program that will apply to all of the rest of the pharmaceutical industry, would apply in this case, too. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment beginning on page 143, line 17, be the pending amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the ranking member and the manager of the bill for their consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. I do so ask.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment would modify one of the environmental riders on this appropriations bill. The appropriations bill precludes the Environmental Protection Agency from taking final action to set a standard for arsenic under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This delay is presumably justified because some uncertainties in the science on the cancer-causing effects of arsenic. My amendment would continue the delay imposed by the rider for a standard to deal with the cancer threat from arsenic, but it would allow EPA to go forward and revise the standard to protect against the other adverse health effects of arsenic. Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance frequently found in drinking water, especially in water supplies from ground water sources. Arsenic causes several adverse health effects, the most important of which are vascular diseases and skin cancer. Arsenic has been known to be a cause of cancer by ingestion since 1887 because it was sold in patent medicines. Ironically, many of these medicines were intended to treat skin diseases. Using arsenic as a medicine proved that arsenic itself causes skin cancer. The other major health problem caused by arsenic is a weakening of the vascular system--the vessels that circulate blood in our bodies. Arsenic is currently regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and has been regulated by the Federal Government beginning long before there was an EPA. The current drinking water standard, established by the Public Health Service after World War II, is 50 parts per billion. That standard was set to address the vascular diseases, but was not designed to address the cancer risk. The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required the arsenic standard to be rewritten and to address the cancer risk. EPA was directed to establish a new arsenic standard by 1989. For cancer- causing substances such as arsenic, the goal in the Safe Drinking Water Act is to eliminate all exposure--to reach zero, if we can. But most often that is not a practical reality. Instead, the standard is set based on the treatment technologies that large drinking water systems can afford. With technology available today, it is possible to reduce the concentration of arsenic in drinking water from the current 50 parts per billion to levels below 10 parts per billion. However, some have argued that arsenic may not be a typical cancer- causing substance and ought not to be regulated in the typical way. According to this argument, there may be a safe threshold for arsenic. In other words, it may be that the first bit of arsenic one consumes will not increase a person's cancer risk. It may be that some higher concentration must be reached before the cancer effect takes hold. Drinking arsenic below this level would not increase risk because the body would slough it off before it reached the target organs. If there is such a threshold--and depending where it is--a standard at less than 10 parts per billion--even though we could achieve it--might not make sense, if our only concern is the cancer risk. Unfortunately, there has not been sufficient study to answer this question about a threshold. Recent studies from Taiwan suggest that there is not a threshold and that the cancer risk from drinking water at the current 50 parts per billion standard is quite high. If those studies are correct 2 in each 100 people drinking arsenic-laden water at the current federal standard would be expected to develop skin cancer. On the other hand, many other scientists have attacked weaknesses in the Taiwan study and argued that it cannot be relied upon to determine whether there is a threshold or not. Resolving this scientific dispute about the potential cancer-causing properties of arsenic can be done. A gathering of scientists that occurred last spring produced a research plan that would result in a definitive answer. The study would take a period of a few years to complete and would cost about $15 million. Mr. President, I have brought this amendment to the floor of the Senate to make a simple point. We have a responsibility to the American people to make sure these studies get done and are completed as soon as possible. We have delayed too long. There is a great deal of disagreement in this body and across the country today about the proper role of the Federal Government in ensuring that our drinking water is safe. But one thing everybody agrees on is that the Federal Government has a responsibility to conduct the research necessary to determine the potential adverse effects of [[Page S 14249]] the contaminants that occur in our drinking water. It would not make sense for every state or every city to conduct its own drinking water research program. That is a job for the Federal Government. But we have not been doing it. We invest next to nothing in drinking water research in these appropriations bills each year. A recent briefing by EPA's Office of Research and Development indicated that less than $5 million per year is being spent to investigate the adverse health effects of drinking water contaminants. Arsenic is a perfect example of this failing. It has been known to cause skin cancer in humans since before 1900. It has been regulated-- but not to prevent cancer from drinking water --by the Federal Government for decades. In 1986, Congress passed a law requiring that the arsenic standard be revised and that the revision address the cancer risk. The new standard was due in 1989. But nothing was done. EPA took no action to revise the standard. Finally, in 1993 EPA was sued by a public interest group to force the Agency to issue the cancer standard. In response to the suit, EPA appeared in court and asked for more time, because the research had not been done. Now, this appropriations bill comes before us and provides EPA with the extension they have been seeking. This extension would not be necessary, if the appropriations bills adopted in previous years had provided the small amount of research money for the needed research. Tens of thousands of Americans are consuming arsenic in their drinking water at levels that may be a threat to their health. This is not new information. But we are not ready to take action to protect public health, because we have delayed and delayed and delayed in making the small investment in research that is necessary to arrive at a sound public policy regarding arsenic in drinking water. Recent studies on the noncancer health effects of arsenic indicate that the current 50-part-per-billion standard may not even prevent the other arsenic-related diseases. One approach might be to immediately revise the arsenic standard for drinking water based on these other effects, press ahead full speed on the cancer research, and revise the standard--if needed--to reflect the cancer risk when that research is completed. That is an approach that we will consider when the Senate takes up the bill to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. My amendment today sets the stage for this debate. Instead of prohibiting a revision of the standard for arsenic altogether, under my amendment EPA would just be prohibited from issuing a standard for the cancer effects. They might revise the standard based on the data for other health effects. My amendment does not require EPA to issue a standard. And it does not pre-judge the issue of whether the standard should be tightened to prevent vascular diseases. We would want all the studies on those effects thoroughly reviewed by the Science Advisory Board and others before a standard-setting effort was begun. But it would not be blocked. That is the point. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the manager of the bill and believe that it is agreeable to him. I want to commend Senator Bond for including $1 million in this bill for research on the cancer-causing effects of arsenic. That is a start. And we appreciate it. I am sure that we can count on him to see this research program through to the end, now that it has been initiated. So, Mr. President, my amendment lets the prohibition that is in the basic bill dealing with cancer-causing substances, cancer threats remain, but lets EPA go forward with revising the standards to protect against, as I say, other adverse health effects. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its acceptance. Mr. President, I would like to say that I have discussed this amendment with the managers of the bill and the ranking member. I believe it is agreeable to them. I commend Senator Bond for including $1 million in this bill for research on the cancer-causing effects of arsenic. That is a start. We appreciate it. I hope we can count on him--and I know we can--to see this research program through to the end.

Mr. CHAFEE. Fine.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, although I generally oppose legislative riders on appropriations bills, I want to say that I support this amendment by my colleagues from Alaska. The city of Fairbanks has made extraordinary progress against the carbon monoxide nonattainment situation. In 1977, Fairbanks experienced nearly 100 days--100 days--in 1 year when carbon monoxide levels exceeded the health standard. Last year, the city of Fairbanks only had 5 days when those standards were exceeded. There is no question but what the city of Fairbanks has done an extraordinarily good job. It is a tribute to the [[Page S 14247]] city and I might say it is also attribute, Mr. President, to the efficacy of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is working. Fairbanks is currently classified as a moderate nonattainment area. If it does not fully meet the standard by the end of this year, Fairbanks will be reclassified as a serious nonattainment area. Reclassification would trigger a series of additional requirements under the Clean Air Act--including transportation control measures-- that may not be necessary to reach this standard. Fairbanks believes that it can meet the standard without the imposition of these expensive additional measures. Because of the dramatic progress that has already been made, I think it is reasonable to extend the deadline in this case. The Senators from Alaska have stated that they will not seek another extension on an appropriation bill in the future. As to oxygenated fuels, some States have experienced complaints in cities where MTBE has been used as an additive. But MTBE is not the only additive available. Ethanol, grain alcohol, can also be used as an oxygenate. Everything we know about air pollution tells us that burning alcohol presents less pollution concern than burning gasoline, the fuel the alcohol replaces. So, there are alternatives for Fairbanks if it cannot reach attainment using existing measures. In fact, Anchorage, AK, used ethanol as a fuel additive last year and recorded its first year ever with no exceedances of the carbon monoxide standard. This experience has been repeated all across the country. When we passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments more than 40 cities were in nonattainment for carbon monoxide. Today that number is less than 10 and much of the credit goes to the oxygenated fuels program in the Clean Air Act. Mr. President, we all look forward to the day when every American city can boast of healthy air. Fairbanks has made great strides already and will reach that goal soon. In light of its accomplishments, I think we can provide the city with some flexibility. Mr. President, I have the assurance of the two Senators from Alaska that this is the last time they will be in for this exception. I am supportive of it and commend them and commend the city of Fairbanks.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if I might add that when we passed the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, more than 40 cities were in nonattainment for carbon monoxide. Today that number is less than 10. Much of the credit goes to the oxygenated fuels program as well as other steps taken by the various cities. So I think we can look forward to the day when every American city can boast clean air. Fairbanks, as I mentioned, has made great progress and we believe will reach the goal of complete attainment soon. In light of those accomplishments, I think we should provide Fairbanks with some flexibility, and I am happy to support this amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. I want to offer my support for Senator Mikulski's amendment. I was a skeptic of this program when it was first proposed. It sounded too expensive, and the concept of stripended service seemed incongruous with voluntarism. That was before I had a chance to see the positive impact of this program on the ground in my own State of Rhode Island. Young people from all walks of life have gone into a number of communities to help clean up neighborhoods, improve the literacy of inner city school children, and to improve public safety and the environment. Let me give you an example of what we are finding in Rhode Island. Two years ago, Marilyn Concepcion was a high school dropout. Getting that far was an accmplisment; no one in her family had ever gone beyond the sixth grade. This 19-year-old woman joined Rhode Island City Year, an AmeriCorps program, to earn her GED certificate. With training from the City Year staff, Concepcion began to tutor and mentor a group of first graders. She taught them to read, taught English as a second language, gave them insight into the value of learing, the importance of an education. Some of these children had never been given the type of encouragement that Marilyn Concepcion provided. The short-term impact Marilyn Concepcion had on these children's lives has been measurable. They pay attention more in school, their self-esteem has been increased. But the real impact, the most concrete effect on their lives may not be felt for another 10 to 12 years, when these children become members of the work force or go onto college. Spurred by the positive influence she'd had on her students, Marilyn Concepcion decided she wanted to go to college. She applied to, and was accepted by, Brown University. She became the first recipient of Brown's offer to match the $4,700 AmeriCorps educational award--a challenge grant program just announced by a number of universities and colleges in our State. If this is the kind of results we are obtaining with only 1 year of experience, I think it is only fair that we let this program continue for some period of time to better evaluate its performance.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have an amendment which is acceptable by both sides dealing with arsenic in the safe drinking water. We have discussed this with the staffs. What I want to do is present that right after the Stevens amendment, and if it is acceptable, if I had 4 minutes equally divided----

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, every single Member of this Senate, and indeed members of the Republican Party, should be extremely proud of the Montreal Protocol. Why? Because it was signed under the administration of Ronald Reagan. This is what President Reagan said on April 5, 1988, about the Montreal Protocol: The Montreal Protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem. I am going to come back to that in a minute, because often it is said, only spend your money on domestic problems. But ozone depletion cannot be solved just by the United States alone. ``It is a global problem,'' as President Reagan said, ``both in terms of its causes and its effects. The Protocol is a result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement,'' said Ronald Reagan, and he was absolutely right. With respect to the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund, how does the money come about and who contributes? Let us just take what is happening right now. The United States is supposed to contribute $38 million a year to this international fund. Where does it come from? Because of funding shortfalls in previous years, the State Department requested $27 million and the EPA requested $24 million. That is a total of $51 million for fiscal year 1996. The amounts in excess of the $38 million cap were requested to make up for past years. In other words, the request is up some. The point I am making is it is split between the State Department and the EPA. Who else contributes? There are 40 other nations that are contributing. The United States puts in a total of $38 million. Japan puts in $22 million, Germany $16 million, United Kingdom $9 million, Canada $5 million, and so forth. I am advised that the contributions to the multilateral fund have been at a higher rate--85 percent of the assessed amounts are contributed. This is the highest of any known U.N. trust funds. So it is working. I would just like to point out a quote from the July 14, 1994, journal of Science. That is the name of the journal. It published the findings of an international group of scientists who concluded that ``methyl chloroform, one of the chief threats to the Earth's protective ozone layer, has begun to diminish. Other researchers confirm the finding, first reported 2 years ago, that chlorofluorocarbons, CFC's, have almost stopped increasing in the atmosphere.'' You might say why have they not stopped completely? You have had this Montreal Protocol since 1987. The facts are, it takes a significant amount of time for the CFC's to go from the Earth up into the stratosphere where they do their damage. So, if we can stabilize--if our reports show they are stabilizing in the atmosphere, that means the efforts we have made to reduce the emissions are working and pretty soon the destruction of the ozone layer will go into a rapid decline from the activities that are taking place now. So, we can congratulate ourselves. Here is something that has worked. I want to just say how happy I am that we have worked out this agreement this evening; that both the distinguished ranking member and distinguished manager of the bill, the senior Senator from Missouri, have accepted these proposals. I am particularly interested in the Montreal Protocol side of it, having been connected with it for some years. Again, it is my view that the Republicans can pat themselves on the back for this measure, because it occurred under a Republican administration with a Republican President leading the way. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for his efforts in connection with this this evening. I am glad we have reached a compromise and that the amendment of the Senator from Vermont has been accepted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter to me from the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy dated September 19, 1995, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if I might, I would just like to make a couple of comments on this. It is my understanding the distinguished floor manager is prepared to accept this?

Mr. CHAFEE. I commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for accepting this. Let me just say a couple of words, if I might, about the Montreal Protocol.