John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senators Burns and Reid, for their hard work in producing this appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. Included in the bill is $18 million for phase 2 of the Strategic Maritime Research Center at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. The Naval War College boasts a long and proud tradition of excellence in military education and state-of-the-art wargaming. Unfortunately, though, the War College's library is badly undersized, and its wargaming facility is unsuited to today's technological demands. The Strategic Maritime Research Center will jointly house the college's wargaming department and library in one modern facility. This facility will help continue to provide our military with the best-educated, best-prepared officers who will be able to meet the increasingly complex national security challenges our Nation faces. It will also help us continue an important diplomatic mission, as the Naval War College very often hosts military officers from abroad who participate in a number of wargaming and educational endeavors. Again, I would like to thank Senators Burns and Reid in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am going to vote for cloture on the next vote, this vote coming up. If regulatory reform means rules that are more cost effective and based on better science and information, then I am for regulatory reform. I continue to believe that the Senate can produce a good regulatory reform bill. So I will vote for debate on this bill to go forward. Now, I do not think this bill is perfect. There are over 200 amendments pending to this bill. Some of these amendments, if enacted, would roll back the progress that has been made to protect health and the environment over the past 25 years. Every Senator will be reserving judgment on that final vote to see the final package when the day is done. In other words, this is no commitment on my part to vote for the final bill. We will see what it looks like. If cloture succeeds, I will be working to improve this bill. I have spoken to Senators Hatch and Roth about provisions that continue to cause me concern, and they have agreed with some of those concerns and promised to work with me on those items. Let me say I am grateful to the majority leader and to the Senator from Utah Mr. [Hatch] and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. [Roth] for their willingness to address the concerns that I have expressed. We have put together a package of amendments that will be offered later. They have promised support for those amendments. They will make several changes to this bill that will resolve some of my major concerns. This package of amendments will strike the provision in the bill that requires agencies to pick the least costly regulatory option. That will no longer be required. They will not be required to pick the least costly option. Instead, they are to select the option that provides the greatest net benefit. Now, this is a very significant change. This package that we are talking about makes several changes to the judicial review provisions, including deletion of the item that would have required substantial support in the record for all the facts on which the rule is based. That is deleted. The package also deletes the automatic sunset of existing rules. It scales back the large number of petitions that could be filed under the Administrative Procedure Act. These amendments will definitely improve this bill. It is time, in my judgment, to complete work on this and move on to other important business in the Senate. We have a lot before us. If we work hard, we can get a good regulatory reform bill. Mr. President, I will certainly be striving to achieve that.

Mr. CHAFEE. I understand the distinguished Senator's concerns. I recognize that his measure already has bipartisan support and the backing of a number of local government organizations. I also recognize the strong desire of the Senator from South Dakota to assist the people of Watertown. For those reasons, I intend to work with my friend from South Dakota and give his proposal full consideration in my committee.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. The Senator raises some understandable concerns regarding the imposition of civil and administrative penalties on municipalities working to comply with the Clean Water Act. As my colleague knows, my committee will soon begin consideration of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. I believe the Senator's proposed amendment is worth considering as part of the Clean Water Act. In fact, in August, I intend to hold a hearing to discuss changes to the Clean Water Act. Rather than offer the amendment to the pending legislation, I invite the Senator from South Dakota to testify at this hearing on the very issue addressed in his amendment. Further, the Senator from South Dakota has my assurance that the Environment and Public Works Committee will give his proposal full consideration during its deliberation of the Clean Water Act. Would that be satisfactory to the Senator?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think we share those concerns. We do not have any idea what will emerge from conference, and we are not sure what is going to happen to these amendments that are before us that will be taken up. So my commitment is to vote for cloture. That completes my commitment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The reason the court gave for vacating the rule was the failure of EPA to provide substantial evidence in the record to support its actions. You did not do enough, they said. The substantial evidence test does not apply to any other environmental laws, only to TSCA, and the only rule ever attempted under TSCA was overturned by the courts because EPA did not meet a test, a test that under the Johnston amendment would apply to all our environmental laws. Reading the decision, one gets the impression that even if EPA had passed the substantial evidence test, the rule would have been thrown out on other grounds. The court said that EPA had not considered a sufficient number of regulatory alternatives because it only did cost estimates on five options, not all of the possible options. The court said EPA had not satisfied the requirement that it impose the least burdensome option because it had not presented any evidence the least burdensome option was among the five considered. One could almost conclude that those who drafted the regulatory reform bill before the Senate--in other words, the Johnston substitute--did so with the Fifth Circuit Court's ruling in mind. Every hurdle that has made TSCA a useless law to protect health and environment is rolled up in this bill before us today. It applies across all of our health and our safety and our environmental statutes. No wonder the administration says it will veto the Johnston bill if it passes. Mr. President, if the Senate will be guided by the two questions Senator Glenn set out--first; will real reform occur; and, second; will environmental laws be protected or will they be undermined--only one of the two proposals before us today passes that muster. The Glenn-Chafee amendment contains a series of steps that will improve the quality and reduce the burden of Federal regulations. It does so without threatening to undermine our environmental and safety laws. The other bill may be described by Senator Johnston as a tougher reform bill. No doubt more rules will be blocked by that bill. Under that bill, it could well result that Federal regulatory agencies would be brought to a virtual standstill. That is what I am confident will happen if this bill should ever become law, which fortunately has a slim chance of occurring. But that is not the goal of regulatory reform, to have the whole regulatory process of our Federal Government brought to a halt. I am sure Senator Johnston and proponents of his bill believe setting high standards for regulations will get better rules. But in making the hurdle too high, so high that needed rules, rules that are fully justified by their benefits, can never reach the level of perfection that is demanded, they are blocked by endless rounds of review. While those on the other side may charge that the Glenn-Chafee amendment achieves only modest improvement in regulations, I fear that the underlying substitute may result in no health and environmental regulations at all. If that is the objective, fine. If the objective is we do not want any rules, and apparently we are going to pass everything in infinite detail in the laws that we pass, that is one thing, but certainly, in my judgment, that is not the best course for our Nation. I thank the Chair. Exhibit 1 Corrosion Proof Fittings, et al., petitioners, v. the Environmental Protection Agency and William K. Reilly, Administrator, respondents No. 89-4596. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Oct. 18, 1991. On Motion for Clarification Nov. 15, 1991. Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1991. Petition was filed for review of final rule promulgated by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Toxic Substances Control Act section prohibiting future manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of asbestos in almost all products. The Court of Appeals, Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) foreign entities lacked standing under Act to challenge rule; (2) EPA failed to give required notice to public, before conclusion of hearings, that it intended to use ``analogous exposure'' data to calculate expected benefits of product bans; and (3) EPA failed to give adequate weight to statutory language requiring it to promulgate least burdensome, reasonable regulation required to protect environment adequately. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the future manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of asbestos in almost all products. Petitioners claim that the EPA's rulemaking procedure was flawed and that the rule was not promulgated on the basis of substantial evidence. Certain petitioners and amici curiae contend that the EPA rule is invalid because it conflicts with international trade agreements and may have adverse economic effects on Canada and other foreign countries. Because the EPA failed to muster substantial evidence to support its rule, we remand this matter to the EPA for further consideration in light of this opinion. I Facts and Procedural History Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that resists fire and most solvents. Its major uses include heat- resistant insulators, cements, building materials, fireproof gloves and clothing, and motor vehicle brake linings. Asbestos is a toxic material, and occupational exposure to asbestos dust can result in mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer. The EPA began these proceedings in 1979, when it issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing its intent to explore the use of TSCA ``to reduce the risk to human health posed by exposure to asbestos.'' See 54 Fed. Reg. 29,460 (1989). While these proceedings were pending, other agencies continued their regulations of asbestos uses, in particular the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which in 1983 and 1984 involved itself with lowering standards for workplace asbestos exposure.\1\ An EPA-appointed panel reviewed over one hundred studies of asbestos and conducted several public meetings. Based upon its studies and the public comments, the EPA concluded that asbestos is a potential carcinogen at all levels of exposure, regardless of the type of asbestos or the size of the fiber. The EPA concluded in 1986 that exposure to asbestos ``poses an unreasonable risk to human health'' and thus proposed at least four regulatory options for prohibiting or restricting the use of asbestos, including a mixed ban and phase-out of asbestos over ten years; a two-stage ban of asbestos, depending upon product usage; a three-stage ban on all asbestos products leading to a total ban in ten years; and labeling of all products containing asbestos. Id at 29,460- 61. [[Page S 10199]] Over the next two years, the EPA updated its data, receiving further comments, and allowed cross-examination on the updated documents. In 1989, the EPA issued a final rule prohibiting the manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in commerce of most asbestos-containing products. Finding that asbestos constituted an unreasonable risk to health and the environment, the EPA promulgated a staged ban of most commercial uses of asbestos. The EPA estimates that this rule will save either 202 or 148 lives, depending upon whether the benefits are discounted, at a cost of approximately $450-800 million, depending upon the price of substitutes. Id. at 29,468. The rule is to take effect in three stages, depending upon the EPA's assessment of how toxic each substance is and how soon adequate substitutes will be available.\2\ The rule allows affected persons one more year at each stage to sell existing stocks of prohibited products. The rule also imposes labeling requirements on stage 2 or stage 3 products and allows for exemptions from the rule in certain cases. Section 19(a) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2618(a), grants interested parties the right to appeal a final rule promulgated under section 6(a) directly to this or any other regional circuit court of appeals. Pursuant to this section, petitioners challenge the EPA's final rule, claiming that the EPA's rulemaking procedure was flawed and that the rule was not promulgated based upon substantial evidence. Some amici curiae also contend that the rule is invalid because it conflicts with international trade agreements and may have adverse economic effects on Canada and other foreign countries. We deal with each of these contentions seriatim.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering with Senator Glenn and many of our other colleagues is a solid proposal for regulatory reform. The purpose of regulatory reform legislation is to improve the quality of the regulations that are issued by the Federal agencies. That is what we are trying for. What we want to do is to weed out the bad rules, the rules that do not make sense. We want [[Page S 10197]] the science and the economics used to design rules to be of the best quality. And we want rules with flexibility built in, to make the compliance burden as small as possible. I believe the Glenn-Chafee substitute accomplishes many reforms. Let us tick a few off. It requires a cost-benefit analysis for every major rule. It requires agencies to select the most cost effective option that achieves the goals establish by the law. It requires agencies to select regulatory options that provide the greatest flexibility for compliance and recognize the compliance difficulties faced by small businesses and towns, small towns. It requires rules with costs that are greater than the benefits to be identified before they are promulgated. It requires OMB to review the cost-benefit studies in an open process that gives access to all those with an interest. It establishes expedited procedures for Congress to review major rules before they become effective, so that poorly drawn rules with unjustified costs can be stopped. That is the 60-day review process that we have. It includes clear principles for risk assessment. It requires each agency to establish a peer review process, ensuring that the science used to make important determinations is the best available. It requires agencies to develop an agenda to review existing rules and to repeal rules that are no longer needed or that cost too much. It gives courts authority to enforce the review requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, ensuring that rules affecting small businesses and small towns recognize their compliance problems. And it requires agencies to reexamine budgetary and enforcement priorities and to modify programs to maximize the reduction in risks to health and to the environment. OK, it does all of those things. These are important steps that will improve the quality and reduce the compliance burden of Federal regulations. Some people have said, ``Oh, the Glenn-Chafee bill is just status quo. It just repeats what we have now.'' That is absolutely not so, as he have delineated in the prior points. Now, these are important steps that will improve the quality and reduce the compliance burden of Federal regulations. I am confident that these steps can be taken without undermining our environmental or health laws. But there are several other things, so-called reforms, that this bill does not have. And they are not reforms at all, they are steps backward. It does not include extensive special interest petitions to force endless rounds of review for every new and existing rule, risk assessment, and enforcement action taken by an agency. That is what Senator Levin was talking about. It does not direct agencies to pick the least costly action a statute allows. Under the least cost approach an agency can not go for a slightly more expensive approach that will produce many more benefits. You are locked in at the lowest cost, and that is not good. It does not allow Federal judges to second-guess the complex data, assumptions, and calculations that are developed through risk assessment to support a rule. The judges cannot go fishing back into all of that. It does not automatically sunset existing rules because an agency did not have the resources to carry out a review ordered by a court. It does not waste millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars on studies and assessments and lawsuits for minor rules. And it does not delay for months, even years, needed and justifiable rules to protect health and safety and the environment while endless rounds of review are conducted to ensure that rules meet a standard of near perfection. Senator Glenn has many times suggested a two-part test for the Senate to use in comparing these two bills. I recommend to my colleagues that they pay attention to these two points. First, would the bill produce better rules, rules that are more cost effective and have a foundation in good science and economics? Second, does the bill threaten to undermine the health, safety and environmental protection that has been achieved by the laws we have enacted over the past 25 years? We want reform without a rollback. That is the test. The Glenn-Chafee amendment passes that test. It incorporates all the significant reforms that the Senate adopted in 1982 when we considered, on this floor, S. 1080. That was a splendid piece of legislation. It was acclaimed by all as a thoroughgoing reform. In addition to the provisions of cost-benefit analysis and congressional veto that were included in S. 1080, the Glenn-Chafee amendment has new principles for risk assessment, an agenda to review existing regulations and steps to realign priorities based on risk. It goes well beyond S. 1080. S. 1080 was adopted on the floor of this Senate 93 to nothing. I suspect the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana voted for it. He certainly did not vote against it. Maybe he was not present, but he has a good attendance record so I suspect he voted for that bill. It was good enough in 1982. The Glenn-Chafee amendment would catch poorly drawn or costly rules. Cost-benefit analysis is required of major rules. Courts can enforce this requirement. OMB is to oversee the preparation of these cost- benefit studies. The information on the costs and benefits of each rule will be sent to Congress, lay over there for 60 days before a rule becomes effective. Congress can veto the rule. From the debate on this issue it appears that Congress may well receive between 500 and 1,000 rules every year under this congressional review process. If even a small minority of the Members of this body want reconsideration of a particular rule, it will be easy enough to ensure that a vote on the resolution occurs. Now, I am currently serving as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I have some concern about the workload that this so-called reform will create, having coming before us between 500 and 1,000 rules every year. But this is real reform. I expect we will be voting on many resolutions and many times will force agencies to reconsider their rules. If a bad rule gets through, we will have no one to blame but ourselves here in Congress; we let it happen. We can stop bad rules under the reform provisions that are contained in the Glenn- Chafee amendment. Once Congress has this veto mechanism in place, judicial review will become less important as a method to weed out bad rules. Courts will be reluctant to overturn a rule that has been issued by the executive branch and cleared in an expedited fashion in Congress. The Glenn-Chafee amendment will bring significant changes to the regulatory process. I do not think the underlying Johnston substitute passes the two-part test that Senator Glenn has outlined. I am concerned that it may prevent timely action to protect human health and safety and the environment. I know that is not what the authors intended, but I believe it will have this result. The reforms are so far-reaching they could paralyze the Federal agencies. That is what Senator Levin has been talking about. It is very difficult to issue a significant rule to protect human health or the environment even under the procedures in place today. With the new hurdles erected by the substitute, S. 343, it could well become impossible to get a rule enacted. Now, Mr. President, last week the senior Senator from Illinois described the experience his State had with cost-benefit analysis. Illinois passed a law in 1978 with cost-benefit provisions similar to those in this Johnston substitute. The Illinois law did not work. It was repealed. Everybody in Illinois that had any experience with their cost-benefit law will tell you it just plain does not work. You do not have to go to Illinois to learn about the experience with cost-benefit analysis. We had that experience here with the Federal law. We have one environmental law, the Toxic Substances Control Act. This is called TSCA. That contains many of the same procedures that are set forth in the underlying substitute. So we have been down this road before. Now, Yogi Berra said you can see a lot by looking, and you can see a lot by looking. We can learn a lot from this so-called TSCA experience. The lawyers who wrote this bill that is before us now, the Johnston substitute, must have used this TSCA experience and the TSCA law as a model. TSCA is [[Page S 10198]] a cost-benefit statute. To issue a rule under TSCA, EPA must determine that the benefits of the rule justify the costs. Under TSCA, EPA is required to impose the least burdensome regulation, just like the Johnston bill does. TSCA requires that all of the available regulatory options be considered to determine which is the least burdensome. Now, this is an important illustration, Mr. President. We have been down this road before. We have something actually before us that is nearly exactly the same as the Johnston substitute, the so-called Toxic Substances Control Act. How did it work? EPA, under this TSCA bill, is required to produce substantial evidence in the record to support its rulemaking determination. That is what the Johnston substitute requires. Now, when it was enacted in 1976, many in Congress claimed that TSCA would become the most powerful of all the environmental statutes. It appears to authorize EPA to regulate virtually any chemical in commerce, for any adverse effect, in any environmental medium, in products and in the workplace. TSCA was to be the law that integrated all our environmental goals under one umbrella. However, TSCA has been a disaster. EPA has only attempted one major regulatory action since TSCA was passed nearly 20 years ago. EPA worked on that one rule for 10 years. It reviewed hundreds of health studies, spent millions of dollars reviewing the comments and the data from the industries to be regulated. The rule was issued after 10 years, and it was immediately challenged in court under the special judicial review standards that apply to TSCA, which are the same standards that would be imposed on all laws under the Johnston amendment. So we have been down this track. Now, what happens? The rule was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the opinion of the court be printed in the Record after my comments this morning.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for permitting me to go for 2 minutes. I would like to make a couple of points. One of the major objections to the Johnston bill is the so-called judicial review. We have dealt with the language of the Johnston bill and judicial review before. What is the language that is so objectionable? It is in section F. It says, ``The reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action findings or conclusions found to be without substantial support in the rulemaking file viewed as a whole.'' That is complicated. But it is a very high standard to meet. It is very, very difficult. And what it means for those who are implementing the rule--any of the agencies, whether it is EPA or whatever it is--it is very hard for them to have a rule that cannot be thrown out by the courts under this definition. We have done this before. In 1982, Senator Bumpers had an amendment that came out of the committee when we were doing regulatory reform in that year, which had exactly the same language that we--I and others on this side--are objecting to, and that Senator Hatch and others put into this bill. So we had a Republican administration. We had a Republican Senate, and that group--the administration and the Republican Senate-- vigorously objected to the language that was in that bill, the so- called ``Bumpers language,'' which is exactly the same as the Hatch language today. So Senator Bumpers came up with an amendment. He changed that objectionable language. And the Vice President of the United States, on February 23, 1982, George Bush, wrote the letter. Dear Dale: We have received your proposed amendments to S. 1080 and the explanation of those amendments. We believe that these changes, as explained by what would be legislative history, are significant improvements. On and on he goes. So the language that I am objecting to, and others who will not support cloture tonight, is the exact same language that a Republican administration, that a Republican Senate, objected to in 1982. It was objectionable then, it is just as objectionable now. I do hope that cloture will not prevail. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the managers of the bill a question. I would like to make about a 5-minute statement. If you are in the midst of some procedure here, I am reluctant to interrupt it.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in 1987, under the leadership of our President--who was President? Ronald Reagan was President in 1987--the Environmental Protection Agency convinced the rest of the world to sign onto a treaty known as the Montreal Protocol. That treaty called for a reduction in the production and use of chemicals that scientist predicted and stated were destroying the stratospheric ozone layer. The stratospheric ozone layer is Earth's shield against harmful ultraviolet radiation. What is the harm with that? Why do we care about ultraviolet radiation? Well, ultraviolet radiation comes in through these holes made in the ozone layer as a result of chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons. This was first discovered in the mid-1980's, over Antarctica. Scientists told us that there was a class of ozone- destroying chemicals, such as methyl chloroform and CFC's, as I previously mentioned. As a result of the hole in the ozone layer, the ultraviolet radiation came through without being screened, and that is the principal cause of skin cancers in our society today. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol called for a 50-percent reduction in the production and use of these chemicals by the signatories to the protocol. In 1990, under the leadership of another Republican President, President Bush, the protocol was amended, and Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and part of that required a complete elimination of these chemicals. A number of groups opposed those regulatory efforts. They said it was unnecessary. They said it could not be done, that it would cost too much. What has been the result? As reported in today's newspaper, one of the chief threats to Earth's protective ozone layer has begun to diminish. The concentration of CFC's in the atmosphere is just about at its peak. In other words, when we stop sending up the CFC's, it does not stop just like that, because those that were released years before are winding their way up into the stratosphere. But because of the efforts we took in the mid-1980's, those that we released at the time have just about completed their journey, and we have cut off the supply, and the number of CFC's going into the stratosphere is beginning to diminish. The concentration is just about at its peak and should start to diminish shortly. The concentration of methyl chloroform peaked in 1990 and has been falling ever since. I have here a quote by James Elkins of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, CO. ``This is good news for the atmosphere. * * * We're starting to see the first real benefits of regulation.'' Mr. President, the point of highlighting this good news story is to show that sometimes we get it right. All environmental laws and regulations are not the demons some would have us believe. I am certain that the good news of today would not have been possible if the pending bill had been in effect at the time of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. If this law that we are debating today had been in effect at that time, the first thing we would have spent years doing would be a risk assessment and a cost-benefit analysis. When all of that was completed, because of the judicial review provisions in this statute before the Senate, this act would be on appeal after appeal after appeal. What we accomplished in 1987 we never would have done. Mr. President, I wish to draw people's attention to, first, that regulations do produce some good effect; second, to point out some of the problems that are incipient in the act before the Senate. Amendment No. 1539, as Modified

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, during consideration of this regulatory reform bill, we have heard a litany of horror stories about silly regulations, costly regulations, and useless regulations. Many of these stories have focused on rules and laws that are designed to protect the environment. It must be remembered, however, that tales of environmental excess do not present the complete story. I have spoken many times about the tremendous progress we have made in cleaning up our environment over the past 25 years. I think the last 25 years, starting in about 1970, 1972, those were the glory years of environmental legislation. As a result of that legislation, our Nation is far cleaner in its waters and in the air, and far ahead in the preservation of endangered species than we otherwise would have been. In just about every instance, that progress can be attributed directly to environmental rules and regulations and laws that were passed. Surely, there are examples of overly rigid applications of specific rules. But there is no doubt that the world is a better place today precisely because we have stepped in and forced industry to clean up its act. In today's Washington Post, on page A3, there is a good news, pro- environmental success story. It is a story about environmental ``regulation''--that word that everybody seems to rebel against around here. The headline reads, ``A Threat to Ozone Layer Diminishes.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the story from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, in introducing legislation imposing a 2-year moratorium on the collection of the boat diesel fuel tax. this tax has caused diesel fuel shortages across this country. The Omnibus budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 changed the collection point for the excise tax on diesel fuel. Imposition of the tax was moved from the producer or importer to the terminal rack--the place in the distribution chain where fuel retailers, for example, service stations and boat docks, get their fuel. This change made collecting the diesel fuel tax similar to the system used for gasoline taxes. The intent in making this change was to improve taxpayer compliance and assist the Internal Revenue Service with administering the diesel fuel tax. Mr. President, collection the tax at the terminal rack works well for gasoline because all of the uses of that fuel are taxable. That is not true for diesel fuel. Home heating oil, which is essentially diesel fuel, is not taxable. Also, diesel fuel used by commercial boaters is not subject to the tax. Together with moving the collection point of the tax, a dyeing scheme was set up to differentiate diesel fuel on which tax has been paid from fuel which has not been taxes. Dyeing is an important enforcement tool because of the variety of uses of diesel fuel. Mr. President, I fully support efforts to increase compliance with our tax laws. However, in administering our tax laws, we must be aware of the problems we create. Let me give you a real life example of the problem this tax has created. Diesel fuel powers many types of boats, the vast majority being commercial boats--such as fishing vessels. Diesel fuel sold to commercial boaters is exempt from the tax, but the same fuel used in a recreational boat is taxable. Under the current collection scheme, fuel sold to the recreational boater must be clear because tax has been paid on that fuel. Fuel sold to the commercial boater must be dyed to show that no tax has been paid. Under no circumstances may dyed fuel be sold to someone who is subject to the tax, even if the retailer collects the tax and remits it to the Federal Government. The obvious problem created by this arrangement is that a marina or dock that services both commercial and recreational boaters must have two separate storage tanks to service these customers. It may not be economically feasible to install a new tank, and often it is physically impossible to do so. The marina has few options available to it to get around this problem. One solution is to buy dyed fuel for its commercial boaters and forfeit the pleasure boat business. An alternative is to buy undyed--taxed--fuel, pass the tax on to all of its customers and leave it to those who are exempt from the tax to apply for a refund. Commonly cash flow problems associated with this second option cause undue economic hardship for commercial boaters. The anecdotal evidence suggests that marinas simply are dropping their recreational boat fuel business, because sales to commercial boaters dominate the market. It is this reality of the marketplace that has sent recreational boaters scrambling to find fuel. The legislation introduced by Senator Breaux and me imposes a 2-year moratorium on the collection of the boat diesel excise tax. It also requires the Treasury Department to study the various options for collecting the tax and to report its findings to the Ways and Means and Finance Committees. In performing this study, Treasury is specifically instructed to consult with boat owners and diesel fuel retailers. It is our hope that this study will identify ways to modify the current collection system in a way that will ensure compliance without creating the problems boaters are facing today. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Alaska very much for permitting me to proceed, and indeed giving me his podium. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Glenn and Senator Levin and a bipartisan group of cosponsors to put this alternative before the Senate. First, I want to say something about the pedigree of this amendment we are proposing. It is the bill which was reported unanimously by the Governmental Affairs Committee 15 to nothing. There are other regulatory reform bills before this body. One was reported from a committee on a straight party line vote, Republicans voting one way, the Democrats voting the other. Another was discharged by unanimous consent when the committee could not agree on a procedure for a markup. In other words, there is tremendous dissention within the committee. But this amendment that we are offering is based on the bill that has the support of all the Republicans, and all of the Democrats on the Governmental Affairs Committee. There is another point to be made about the history of this amendment. Back in 1982, the Senate passed a regulatory reform bill on a vote of 94 to 0. It is pretty rare that you get a vote like that around here, 94 to 0. A regulatory reform bill was passed just 15 years ago. Many of the issues that were discussed here on the floor over the past few days were all addressed by that bill; issues such as the role of cost-benefit analysis, judicial review, and setting agency priorities. I invite Members to go back and read that bill. They will find that it has more in common with the amendment that Senator Glenn and I are presenting than it has in common with the underlying substitute. There was no supermandate in 1982. Cost-benefit analysis did not override other law. There was no prohibition on issuing a rule unless the agency could demonstrate that the benefits justified the cost. Cost-benefit studies were required. Yes; just as they are in this amendment that Senator Glenn and I are presenting. Agencies were asked to determine whether the benefits of a rule justified the cost. But the bill that the Senate adopted unanimously in 1982 did not set cost benefit as the ultimate test that a rule had to pass. That is one of the problems with the bill that we are amending here today. On judicial review, the 1982 bill specifically precluded judicial review of the substance of cost-benefit studies. The agencies were required to perform them. Yes. They were. But the court challenges to the methods and the assumptions, or the underlying data, could not be used to overturn a rule. This is consistent with judicial review in the provisions we have in the Glenn-Chafee amendment. Mr. President, the Senate has been down this road before. In 1982 it unanimously adopted a regulatory reform bill. Members ought to read that bill. They will find that the Glenn-Chafee amendment is cut from the same cloth. This year, one committee of the Senate unanimously reported a regulatory reform bill, and that is the Glenn-Chafee amendment. In addition to the cost-benefit and judicial review benefits, there are other important differences that we will outline in the debate on Monday. I look forward to a spirited discussion. I wish to thank the Chair and thank the managers of the bill for permitting me to proceed. I thank the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if those Senators have completed their discussion? I would like to proceed for a few minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the regulatory reform bill now pending before the Senate would, if enacted, bring sweeping changes to the regulations that protect the health and safety of the American people and of our natural environment. What am I talking about? Let us take a look at this cost-benefit analysis business. Perhaps the most important feature of this bill is the new role for cost-benefit analysis in evaluating health, safety and environmental rules. Under S. 343, which is the bill before us, the Dole-Johnston bill, every major rule issued by a Federal agency must be accompanied by a study setting forth the costs that will be imposed by the rule and the benefits that will be experienced when the rule is fully implemented. In other words, you figure the costs on one side and figure the benefits on the other. This is not exactly a new development. That has been required by Executive order since the beginning of President Reagan's administration. There are, however, two new twists to this, in this legislation. First, there is a prohibition on the issuance of any rule, unless the Federal agency can certify that the benefits of the rule justify the costs. And, second, the opportunity exists for extensive court review of the scientific and economic studies that form the basis for the agency's certification. In other words, there are two new features in this bill. We have had cost-benefit analysis in the past. But this requires it. In other words, there can be no issuance of any rule unless the agency, the Federal agency, can certify that the benefits justify the costs. Second, we have in this legislation this extensive judicial review. The cost-benefit analysis becomes a gate through which all of our health and environmental policies must pass. And the gate will be guarded by a host of litigants in Federal courts all across our land. They will spend millions of dollars on legal challenges to prevent new rules from becoming effective. This is a big departure from the existing situation that we now have in our country. Although cost-benefit analysis is now a useful tool in writing regulations, it is important to remember that most health and environmental policies are not based on a strict cost-benefit calculus. Other values are also important in setting national goals. In some laws, the instruction to the agency is to protect public health and to set a standard that ensures that no adverse health effect will result from pollution. Some of our laws are based on the principle of conservation. Agencies are directed to take whatever action is necessary to save a species, an endangered species, for example, or to save a wild area from development or exploitation. In many cases our laws require the use of best available pollution control technology. This is sometimes referred to as BAT, best available technology. Our science and engineering is too limited to know how to achieve an absolutely safe level, so we say to those engaged in activities that may cause pollution, ``Do the best you can to limit the impact on others, or on nature.'' But that is not the theory of this bill. The purpose of this bill brings an end to that philosophy of ``do the best you can.'' The report of the Judiciary Committee says it very well. The Judiciary Committee says, ``The proper philosophy for environmental law is summed up in this question: Is it worth it in dollars and cents?'' That is on page 71 of the Judiciary Committee report. ``Is this action worth it in dollars and cents.'' That is a new philosophy. No longer is the question asked, ``What is safe? What is the best we can do to preserve our natural heritage?'' Those may have been the principles that formed our environmental policies over the last quarter of a century, ever since 1972, but now we are being told that policy is too expensive. We should pay only as much as we are going to get back. Is it worth it in dollars and cents? That is the new philosophy that is in this bill. This, it seems to me, this cost-benefit approach--everything in dollars and cents--ought to appeal to the man described by Oscar Wilde in the last century. Oscar Wilde described somebody as being the following: He knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Is it worth it? It may seem like a commonsense test that should apply to all regulations. But it falls well short of the envision that has been the foundation of our environmental laws for the past quarter of a century. Much of our current environmental law is based on the common law concept of nuisance. Simply stated it is this: People have a right to be free from injury caused by the activities of another. Under common law, going back to the 16th century, each property owner has the private right of action to abate or to receive compensation for a nuisance imposed by a neighbor. This is a property right. One type of nuisance frequently addressed in common law courts was the matter of foul odors created by some activity such as keeping livestock or operating a slaughterhouse. In fact, the first nuisance case involved odors caused by pigs kept in the alleys of London. The common law courts took action to prevent these nuisances such as noxious odors because one person has no right to act in ways that infringe on the property rights of another. Under the common law, public officials could also bring action to prevent a nuisance that affected the whole community. As our society became more industrialized, more complex, the potential injuries caused by pollution became more far reaching and subtle. The ability of common law to abate and redress injuries effectively was undermined. [[Page S 9684]] So it was not the old question of your neighbor suddenly bringing a whole lot of pigs on his property, and you are downwind causing your property to become of less value because of the noxious odors. That is the simple case. But it became much more complex as society became more complex. General pollution control regulations, imposed first by the States and then by the Federal Government, have been established as the more efficient alternative, and have largely superseded the role of common law remedies in protecting our rights to be free from pollution. For example, the concern for air pollution that started under common law as a complaint against these noxious odors I just described have been transformed into a concern for the serious health affects that may be caused by air pollution. Today, we have the Clean Air Act that sets Federal standards for smog and carbon monoxide and lead. The foundation of these laws is, in part, the belief that we have a right to live free from threats to human health caused by the actions of others. The underlying principle has been retained. One person engaging in private activities does not have the right to impose injuries on another or the community at large. That principle is the source of many standards that instruct agencies to reduce pollution to levels that are safe or at which no adverse public health effects will occur. The right to be free from pollution is compromised by this bill, S. 343. This bill imposes a cost-benefit test on regulations to control pollution. The theory behind the cost-benefit analysis is your neighbor has a right to pollute as long as the damage to you is less costly than the cost of pollution control devices are to the neighbor. In other words, if you are damaged less than the cost you can impose on him to stop this pollution, he does not have to install the pollution control. Yes. You suffer. But that is tough luck. Let us suppose a large manufacturing firm locates a new plant in the community. The company's owner admits that the plant will release pollution into the air and water of the community. They also admit that, depending on the level of pollution control required, the pollution may cause illness or even death among the neighboring residents. How much pollution control should the plant be required to install? One way to answer that question is to set limits on the pollution so that there will be no adverse effects on the health or on the community as a whole. Another answer is that the plant should be required to use the best available technology to control the pollution. We may not know precisely what is safe or at what levels or by what routes people will be exposed to the solution. So we ask the owners of the plant. We do not ask them. We tell them. That is the way it works now--to make the investment in the best pollution control equipment they can afford, to do the best we can. That is how the law works now. But that is not how this new law works as proposed. Under the cost-benefit approach there would be a limit on how much we could ask that plant to do to clean up its pollution. The limit would be determined by putting a price tag on the adverse effects of the pollution. How many people get sick? What is the cost for their medical care? How many days are they off from work or home from school because of illness? What is it worth to be able to fish in a stream that flows near the plant and to enjoy outdoor exercise in that town on a clear summer day free from smog and pollution? Under the cost-benefit approach, pollution control is only required if it costs less than the medical care for those stricken. If the medical care is higher and you are doing more damage and causing more sickness than the cost of the equipment, then you have to put the equipment on. But if the equipment cost is higher than the cost of the sickness, you do not have to put it on. A stream is not cleaned up unless the recreational business or commercial fisheries that use the stream are worth more than the investment in the pollution control equipment. Some people may get sick. Some people miss work or school. A fisherman may lose his job. A boat house may close down. But that is all OK under this bill because the alternative--asking the factory to do its best to reduce the pollution--would cost too much, would cost more than the losses suffered by the neighbors. To me this is an outrage. I mean have you ever heard anything like this? It is all right to cause pollution. You do not have to stop it as long as the cost of the equipment to stop it would be greater than the cost of the sickness you are causing to your neighbors and those downwind and the others in the area. This is a very different ethic than that which guides our current policies. It abandons the principles of safety and conservation and doing the best we can. It abandons the notion of the right to be free from pollution that is the basis of our current laws. All of this is coming from a Senate that is saying we protect private property. We want people to be paid when there are takings. Indeed, this is a bill that comes over from the House that says if the cost of endangered species and having that and protecting the endangered species is more than 30 percent of your land, you have to be compensated because that is a taking. But it is all right to take somebody's health. You do not bother with that. Somehow everything has gone crazy around this place. This bill would allow your neighbor to take your property rights unless the Government can prove that the adverse effects you suffer are worth more than the cost that would be imposed for the pollution equipment. I want to make it clear that it is not the information provided by the cost-benefit analysis that concerns me. I think that all regulatory options should be rigorously analyzed and the options selected should put a premium on efficiency and flexibility and good science. We want all of these things. The cost benefit studies that have been done under the Executive orders as exist now under President Reagan and others have provided a useful tool, a tool to improve the quality of the regulations. I have sponsored, along with Senator Glenn, a bill that would require cost- benefit analyses and risk assessment for all major rules. The information generated by these studies is quite helpful to the agencies. It is quite another matter to say that any polluter can go to court and challenge a rule because it imposes more costs on his activities than the benefits that are realized by the neighbors. Under this bill, S. 343, you say you cannot make me put that pollution control equipment on because, yes, I am causing bad health downstream to my neighbors, but that is all right because the cost of their missing school or missing work or the old people suffering from asthma, we put a price on that, and the price of that is less than the cost of my equipment that I have to put on so I do not have to put it on. That is the new philosophy that is in this legislation. Mr. President, here is the second general point. I am concerned about the explosion in litigation that will result if this bill is enacted. All of us are saying we do not like the proliferation of legal challenges that are coming up in different legislation. We want to stop that. This bill is a lawyer's employment act. This bill ought to be applauded by every member of the bar association, every student in law school because this represents potential work. There is a case to be made for regulatory reform. I am for that. Senator Glenn is for that. All of us in this Chamber are for that. We have limited resources to spend on environmental protection. It is essential that we spend those resources wisely. More science, better risk assessment, peer review, all of these, if done right, will do a better job protecting health and natural resources. The regulatory reform bill now pending will not result in smarter or more cost- effective environmental laws and regulations. Rather, it will cause regulatory gridlock. It will entangle agencies in a web of procedures and paperwork and endless rounds of review and make the implementation of our environmental laws nearly impossible. This bill would substantially increase the number and complexity of court challenges to environmental regulations. There are nearly a dozen new ways to get a regulation before court under this bill even before the final action has been taken. This bill would result in lawsuits. Is there a Senator who believes that more lawsuits will lead to [[Page S 9685]] better regulation? The Federal courts are not the place to decide questions of science and economics that will be assigned under this bill. Congress, because we are upset about the cost of health and environmental regulations, is impatient, is too impatient to wait for a statute-by-statute review of its own enactments. It is us and the laws that we have passed which have resulted in all these rules. What we ought to do is look at these laws and examine the rules under them. But we should not turn everything into a judicial review that goes up to our courts. Mr. President, no doubt we will hear many horror stories about environmental regulations while this bill is being debated. And many have been paraded already. But we ought not to lose sight of the big picture. These laws have worked. They have improved the quality of life for all Americans. Let me give you some examples. In a period that has seen significant growth in population, significant growth in industrial activity and in automobile travel, we have more than held our own against the most difficult air pollution problems. Between 1975 and 1990--that is a 15-year period--the total vehicle miles traveled in the United States increased by 70 percent. It went from 1.3 trillion miles to 2.2 trillion miles driven in a year--a 70-percent increase in mileage driven in the United States in 15 years. In that same period, the vehicle emissions of hydrocarbons, which is one of the pollutants that cause smog, were cut nearly in half. Up went mileage by 70 percent, pollutants, emissions of hydrocarbons dropped by nearly 50 percent, from 10 million tons to 5.5 million tons a year. Now, that just did not happen. That did not come about because industry wanted to do it. It came about because of Government regulation. We required the automobile industry to produce a car that would reduce emissions by 90 percent, and they did it. Just since 1990, in only 5 years, between now and 1990, the number of areas in violation of the carbon monoxide standard in this country have dropped from 40 areas to less than 10. Since the mid-1970's, lead in the air is down by 98 percent. The amount of lead in the air has decreased by 98 percent-- 98 percent. Why do we care about this? Because lead in the air affects the developmental capacity of children growing up in congested urban areas. These are the most vulnerable Americans. And who are they? They are low-income areas, they are poor children who live there, and we have cut the lead in those areas by 98 percent. If this bill had been in place during that time, EPA Administrator Carol Browner has said that we could not have achieved those reductions in lead in gasoline. That marvelous accomplishment that we are so proud of could not have been achieved with a strict cost-benefit analysis. The Clean Water Act is probably our most successful environmental law. In the late 1960's, the Nation was stunned when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire. A river caught fire. That shows you the condition of our rivers and lakes and streams in the latter part of the 1960's. Our waters were being used as open sewers--the Potomac, absolutely foul. In responding to this problem, Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 and set some very ambitious goals including the elimination of all discharges to surface waters by 1985. Well, we did not meet that goal of 1985, but we have made a lot of progress since the Cuyahoga River caught fire in the 1960's. When we began this effort under the Clean Water Act, more than two-thirds of our lakes, rivers and streams in the United States of America failed to meet the clean water standards. With these 20 years of effort behind us, some of our most polluted waters--Lake Erie, the Potomac River, Narragansett Bay in my own State--have made remarkable recoveries. Today, those streams and lakes and bays are fishable and swimmable. On the international scene, the United States has led the way as the world has faced up to the threat of ozone depletion. Each new development in our scientific understanding of chlorofluorocarbons and their impact on the ozone layer has confirmed the wisdom of the Montreal Protocol, the global agreement to ban production of CFC's that was signed by a Republican President in 1987, President Reagan. Since the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, populations of whooping cranes, brown pelicans, and peregrine falcons have come back from near extinction. The bald eagle is ready to be moved from the endangered to the threatened list. Both the California gray whale and the American alligator have recovered to the point they have been removed from the endangered list altogether. Now, what does all this mean to us? The American people can be proud of the accomplishments that have been made under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and our other environmental laws over the past quarter of a century, and the American people are proud of this. And when asked, most often they say that we have not been tough enough on water pollution and air pollution. They want us to do more. They want Government to work better. But they want it to continue working for the health and environmental goals that have been achieved and are being achieved in our country today. The American people cherish their right to their property and the right to pass it on to their children free from pollution. So I think, Mr. President, we have a lot to be proud of that we have achieved under the existing laws. I certainly hope we do not get involved with this cost-benefit business and this plethora of lawsuits that would result from this legislation. I wish to thank the Chair. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. No. I wanted to proceed. I did not want to intervene with something if they were just about concluding.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I join with several of my colleagues in paying tribute to the outgoing chairman of the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Mr. James D. Wolfensohn. As many in the Senate are aware, Mr. Wolfensohn is leaving the Kennedy Center to become chairman of the World Bank. The Kennedy Center, a national monument and living memorial, could not have been blessed with a more talented and resourceful steward than James Wolfensohn. Mr. Wolfensohn came to the center more than 5 years ago with superb credentials and many remarkable accomplishments--so it is no surprise at all that he leaves the institution in far better condition than it was when he arrived. As the Washington Post editorialized on June 5, 1995, The Kennedy Center went looking for a new chairman in 1989 who could straighten out a place burdened with debts, artistic confusion and a wobbly relationship with its own trustees. Five years later, all those things have changed for the better--in large measure because of the man the trustees tapped--investment banker and former Carnegie Hall chairman James Wolfensohn. Mr. President, I could not agree more with this assessment. In fact, I'd like to identify another area that Mr. Wolfensohn has worked hard on for the betterment of the Kennedy Center and numerous communities across the country--education and outreach. One of Mr. Wolfensohn's proudest achievements is the Kennedy Center's enhanced series of arts education programs. Under James Wolfensohn's leadership, the Kennedy Center is now making use of cutting-edge computer and telecommunications technology by working with the National Endowment for the Arts, the Education Department, teachers, schools, and parents across the Nation to establish an interactive arts information network. This and other computer-based projects will now link schoolchildren and adults alike to the enriching study and performance of fine arts. Locally, Kennedy Center staff and performing artists have increased their exposure to public schools in and around Washington, DC, by helping to integrate arts into the curriculum and by conducting more than 200 special performances for children and students. These are but a few examples of the Kennedy Center's desire to play a role [[Page S 9344]] in the continuing effort to improve education. I want to credit Mr. Wolfensohn for placing such a high priority on the education side of the center's existence. Mr. President, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have come to be familiar with another Wolfensohn project-- reversing the decay and neglect of the Kennedy Center building. I am convinced that many in the Senate and around the country would be alarmed to know of this facility's physical condition. The Kennedy Center has welcomed more than 70 million people since it was opened in 1971. It is terrific that so many people from around the world have had the opportunity to visit the site--but much wear and tear has resulted. Many of the structure's mechanical systems have existed beyond their useful life--and have been rendered primitive by advancements in technology. In addition, numerous interior and exterior furnishments have fallen into severe disrepair. Why has this happened? In large part, because of an unclear division of responsibility. Until last year, the Park Service split responsibility with the Kennedy Center Board for operations, repairs, maintenance, and security. Now, as a result of Mr. Wolfensohn's 4-year efforts, the Kennedy Center Act Amendments of 1994 assigns these responsibilities and federal funding directly to the board of trustees. This legislation will now give the people closest to the problems, the board of trustees, the opportunity to solve them. This sensible allocation of duties would not have been possible without the diligence of James Wolfensohn. So, Mr. President, I would like to thank James D. Wolfensohn for his many contributions. From reconciling a debt--to expanding education programs--to attracting new world-class performing artists--Mr. Wolfensohn has been a tremendous Kennedy Center chairman. I wish him well in his new position at the World Bank and hope that he is able to continue an involvement with the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 240, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which the Senate approved today. This proposal has been introduced by Senators Domenici and Dodd year after year without ever reaching the full Senate for consideration. Finally, this year, the Senate debated and approved securities reform without substantial changes to the Domenici-Dodd bill, as reported by the Banking Committee. Our's has become an increasingly litigious society. Opportunistic lawyers are prepared to spring into action with the least provocation. In the case of securities fraud suits, this class of attorneys claims to have the interests of small investors in mind, but the level of compensation they exact compared with the compensation received by their clients tells quite a different story. As many as 300 securities fraud suits are filed annually. An astonishing 93 percent of these suits are resolved out of court, with an average settlement of more than $8 million each. It is no accident that so many of these suits are settled out of court. That is one of the major problems addressed by S. 240. Under current law, every defendant can be found jointly and severally liable--or liable for the entire settlement cost--regardless of the extent of the defendant's involvement. It has become the practice of some lawyers to name as many deep pocket defendants as possible. Frequently, the fear of being held 100 percent responsible and the enormous cost of diverting substantial resources to defending against these suits leads these defendants to settle. S. 240 applies proportionate liability, enabling the court to determine the extent of a defendant's involvement and determining liability on the basis of that involvement. S. 240 seeks to reduce abusive practices by prohibiting brokers or dealers from receiving a referral fee from attorneys seeking clients for class action suits; giving the court authority to determine whether a conflict of interest exists if an attorney is also a shareholder; and, by prohibiting funds discharged by the SEC from being used for attorneys' fees. It seeks to limit frivolous lawsuits by eliminating professional plaintiffs, prohibiting attorneys' fees from exceeding a reasonable percentage of damages awarded, and giving courts the authority to appoint lead plaintiff on the basis of greatest financial loss rather than continuing the practice of naming lead attorneys based on who filed the suit first. I believe that we have approved a bill that will benefit shareholders and corporations alike. Shareholders will have more information on which to base their investments and corporations will be able to operate in an environment free of meritless lawsuits. I commend Senators Domenici and Dodd for proposing this worthwhile legislation and Chairman D'Amato for moving it so swiftly through the legislative process.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the conference report be considered and adopted, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and a statement by Senator Packwood be included in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 483 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. I stand admonished. I thank the Senator from California for her kindness in letting me proceed as we did. Otherwise, I would have been here, hanging upon every word of her amendment, but that might have taken me past important appointments at home. So I thank the lovely lady from California. I count it fortunate that she is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, where she does distinguished service, and has ever since she has been in the Senate. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, and the floor manager of the bill, the honorable Senator from New York.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, submitted earlier today by Senator Packwood.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill very much for permitting us to proceed like this.