John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the past 5\1/2\ years, Judge Bruce Selya has served as Board Chairman of the Lifespan hospital system, a network of five hospitals in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. After an impressive tenure, he is stepping down from that post this week. As a United States Appeals Court Judge for the First Circuit, Judge Selya already has heavy responsibilities. Nevertheless, he approached this unpaid position with great energy and determination. He has been actively engaged in the health care debates in my state. Indeed, he was one of the chief architects of the Lifespan system, helping to bring about the initial merger between Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in 1994. As Chairman, he oversaw the addition of Bradley Hospital, Newport Hospital, and Boston's New England Medical Center to the system. Together, those five hospitals offer more than 1,600 beds. In 1998, they discharged more than 60,000 patients and treated nearly 200,000 emergency room visitors. Presumably, any one or more of these facilities might have been acquired by an out-of-state hospital network, reducing them to ``satellite'' status and moving the decision-making authority out of Rhode Island. Thanks to Judge Selya's leadership and foresight, hospital decisions affecting quality of care for Rhode Islanders are still made within my state's borders. These past five years have been tumultuous times for the hospital industry, marked by changes in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and difficulties in the private health insurance market. Judge Selya recognized these challenges as they came along, and he has been responsive to them. And so, Mr. President, I want to salute Judge Selya for his long- standing commitment to quality health care for the people of Rhode Island. Bruce is a good friend and a long-time supporter, going back to before my first campaign for Governor in 1962. I look forward to continuing our close association in the years ahead.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). Most people do not realize that coastal barriers are the first line of defense protecting the mainland from major storms and hurricanes, and this extremely vulnerable area is under increasing developmental pressure. From 1960 to 1990, the population of coastal areas increased from 80 to 110 million and is projected to reach over 160 million by 2015. Continued development on and around coastal barriers place people, property and the environment at risk. To address this problem Congress passed CBRA in 1982. This extremely important legislation prohibits the Federal government from subsidizing flood insurance, and providing other financial assistance such as beach replenishment within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Nothing in CBRA prohibits development on coastal barriers, it just gets the Federal government out of the business of subsidizing risky development. The law proved to be so successful that we expanded the Coastal Barrier System in 1990 with the support of the National Taxpayers Union, the American Red Cross, Coast Alliance and Tax Payers for Common Sense, to name just a few. The 1990 Act doubled the size of the System to include coastal barriers in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Great Lakes and additional areas along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. We also allowed the inclusion of areas that are already protected for conservation purposes such as parks and refuges. Currently the System is comprised of 3 million acres and 2,500 shoreline miles. Development of these areas decreases their ability to absorb the force of storms and buffer the mainland. The devastating floods of Hurricane Floyd are a reminder of the susceptibility of coastal development to the power of nature. The Federal Emergency Management Agency reports that 10 major disaster declarations were issued for this hurricane, more than for any other single hurricane or natural disaster. In fact, 1999 sets a record for major disaster declarations-- a total of 14 in this year alone. As the number of disaster declarations has crept up steadily since the 1980's, so has the cost to taxpayers. Congress has approved on average $3.7 billion a year in supplemental disaster aid in the 1990's, compared to less than $1 billion a year in the decade prior. Homeowners know the risk of building in these highly threatened areas. Despite this taxpayers are continually being asked to rebuild homes and businesses in flood-prone areas. The National Wildlife Federation came out with a study that found that over forty percent of the damage payments from the National Flood Insurance Program go to people who have had at least one previous claim. A New Jersey auto repair shop made 31 damage claims in 15 years. At a time when climatologists believe that Floyd and other major hurricanes signal the beginning of a period of turbulent hurricane activity after three decades of relative calm, safety factors of continuing to develop coastal barrier regions must also be considered. As roadway systems have not kept up with population growth, it will become increasingly difficult to evacuate coastal areas in the face of a major storm. Beyond the economic and safety issues, another compelling reason to support the Coastal Barrier Resources Act is that it contributes to the protection of our Nation's coastal resources. Coastal barriers protect and maintain the wetlands and estuaries essential to the survival of innumerable species of fish and wildlife. Large populations of waterfowl and other migratory birds depend on the habitat protected by coastal barriers for wintering areas. Undeveloped coastal barriers also provide unique recreational opportunities, and deserve protection for present and future public enjoyment. The legislation which I am introducing today would reauthorize the Act for eight years and make some necessary changes to improve implementation. A new provision would establish a set of criteria for determining whether a coastal barrier is developed. Codifying the criteria will make it easier for homeowners, Congress and the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if an area qualifies as an undeveloped coastal barrier. The legislation would also require the Secretary of the Interior to complete a pilot project to determine the feasibility of creating digital versions of the coastal barrier system maps. Digital maps would improve the accuracy of the older coastal barrier maps, and make it easier for the Department of Interior and homeowners to determine where a structure is located. Eventually, we hope that the entire System can be accessed by the Internet. I believe that Congress should make every effort to conserve barrier islands and beaches. This legislation offers an opportunity to increase protection of coastal barriers, and at the same time, saves taxpayers money. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). Most people do not realize that coastal barriers are the first line of defense protecting the mainland from major storms and hurricanes, and this extremely vulnerable area is under increasing developmental pressure. From 1960 to 1990, the population of coastal areas increased from 80 to 110 million and is projected to reach over 160 million by 2015. Continued development on and around coastal barriers place people, property and the environment at risk. To address this problem Congress passed CBRA in 1982. This extremely important legislation prohibits the Federal government from subsidizing flood insurance, and providing other financial assistance such as beach replenishment within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Nothing in CBRA prohibits development on coastal barriers, it just gets the Federal government out of the business of subsidizing risky development. The law proved to be so successful that we expanded the Coastal Barrier System in 1990 with the support of the National Taxpayers Union, the American Red Cross, Coast Alliance and Tax Payers for Common Sense, to name just a few. The 1990 Act doubled the size of the System to include coastal barriers in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Great Lakes and additional areas along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. We also allowed the inclusion of areas that are already protected for conservation purposes such as parks and refuges. Currently the System is comprised of 3 million acres and 2,500 shoreline miles. Development of these areas decreases their ability to absorb the force of storms and buffer the mainland. The devastating floods of Hurricane Floyd are a reminder of the susceptibility of coastal development to the power of nature. The Federal Emergency Management Agency reports that 10 major disaster declarations were issued for this hurricane, more than for any other single hurricane or natural disaster. In fact, 1999 sets a record for major disaster declarations-- a total of 14 in this year alone. As the number of disaster declarations has crept up steadily since the 1980's, so has the cost to taxpayers. Congress has approved on average $3.7 billion a year in supplemental disaster aid in the 1990's, compared to less than $1 billion a year in the decade prior. Homeowners know the risk of building in these highly threatened areas. Despite this taxpayers are continually being asked to rebuild homes and businesses in flood-prone areas. The National Wildlife Federation came out with a study that found that over forty percent of the damage payments from the National Flood Insurance Program go to people who have had at least one previous claim. A New Jersey auto repair shop made 31 damage claims in 15 years. At a time when climatologists believe that Floyd and other major hurricanes signal the beginning of a period of turbulent hurricane activity after three decades of relative calm, safety factors of continuing to develop coastal barrier regions must also be considered. As roadway systems have not kept up with population growth, it will become increasingly difficult to evacuate coastal areas in the face of a major storm. Beyond the economic and safety issues, another compelling reason to support the Coastal Barrier Resources Act is that it contributes to the protection of our Nation's coastal resources. Coastal barriers protect and maintain the wetlands and estuaries essential to the survival of innumerable species of fish and wildlife. Large populations of waterfowl and other migratory birds depend on the habitat protected by coastal barriers for wintering areas. Undeveloped coastal barriers also provide unique recreational opportunities, and deserve protection for present and future public enjoyment. The legislation which I am introducing today would reauthorize the Act for eight years and make some necessary changes to improve implementation. A new provision would establish a set of criteria for determining whether a coastal barrier is developed. Codifying the criteria will make it easier for homeowners, Congress and the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if an area qualifies as an undeveloped coastal barrier. The legislation would also require the Secretary of the Interior to complete a pilot project to determine the feasibility of creating digital versions of the coastal barrier system maps. Digital maps would improve the accuracy of the older coastal barrier maps, and make it easier for the Department of Interior and homeowners to determine where a structure is located. Eventually, we hope that the entire System can be accessed by the Internet. I believe that Congress should make every effort to conserve barrier islands and beaches. This legislation offers an opportunity to increase protection of coastal barriers, and at the same time, saves taxpayers money. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering S. 1652, legislation I have introduced with Senator Baucus and others that would name the Old Executive Office Building, OEOB, after Dwight D. Eisenhower. This bipartisan bill would honor both an architectural landmark and a great American leader. The OEOB, located at the corner of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, is a familiar sight to my colleagues. Yet its history and architectural importance may not be as well-known. Its existence grew out of the dire need for executive office space near the White House during the 19th century. After the British burned the first pair of office buildings in 1814, the State, War, and Navy Departments had to make do in cramped quarters for several years. Finally, in the late 1860s, the Grant administration proposed a new building to house those agencies, and Congress appointed a commission to select a site and an architect. The architect selected by the Commission was Alfred Mullett, the Architect of the Treasury. To the surprise of some, his winning design was not Greek Revival (like the Treasury Building), but instead French Second Empire--a style that was perhaps more flamboyant and exuberant than Washington had seen until that point, but that reflected the optimism of the post-Civil War period. Ground was broken in 1871, and seventeen years later the building was completed. Today, the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and ranks first among historic buildings in the inventory of the General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service. As planned, the building first was occupied by the State, War, and Navy Departments. For years, these Departments carried out their work there. Indeed, the building has housed 16 Secretaries of the Navy, 21 Secretaries of War, and 24 Secretaries of State. But many other prominent national leaders have carried out their work there as well: Both Presidents Roosevelt (Theodore and Franklin), as well as Presidents Taft, Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, and Bush, had offices in the OEOB before becoming President. And Vice Presidents since Lyndon Johnson have maintained offices there. Some little-known historic trivia about the building: Apparently the building once had wooden swinging doors at its doorways, but it is said they were removed after an eager staffer cannoning through the doors ran into Winston Churchill, knocking the famed cigar from his mouth. And it is said that after a slip on the stairs, Secretary of War Taft had installed the extra brass stair railings. By the way, once Taft became President, his family cow, Pauline, grazed on what is the OEOB's South Lawn. Eventually, however, the building's original tenants left, with the State Department the last to vacate in 1947. Once State moved out, and the President's staff began moving in, the OEOB lost its moniker as the ``State, War & Navy Building,'' and instead was known simply as the Executive Office Building. When a new office building was built across the street, the OEOB became the ``Old'' Executive Office Building, and that undistinguished name has remained to this day. Among those who worked in the building was a young Dwight Eisenhower. My colleagues certainly are well aware of the career of our 34th President. Born in Denison, TX, and raised in Abilene, KS, Dwight Eisenhower spent a life in public service to this country. A graduate of West Point, he had the privilege of being assigned to some of our best-known military figures: Generals Pershing, MacArthur, and Marshall. Later, at the height of his military career, he was appointed Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during WWII. He commanded the Normandy invasion, which led to the end of WWII. In peacetime, he served as president of Columbia University, and also as the head of the NATO forces in Europe. In 1952, America again called him to national service, and ``Ike'' became our 34th President. For all that he did to secure democracy and peace in this century, Dwight Eisenhower stands as one of this country's great leaders. What my colleagues may not have known is that Dwight Eisenhower had a special personal connection to the Old Executive Office Building. As chief military aide to General MacArthur (then Army Chief of Staff), a young Dwight Eisenhower worked in the OEOB from 1933-35. Later on, when he himself became Army Chief of Staff, Eisenhower again was based in the OEOB. And on January 19, 1955, the first televised presidential press conference was held by President Eisenhower on the fourth floor of the OEOB. Indeed, Susan Eisenhower tells us that her grandfather often spoke fondly of the building and his years in it. It is not surprising, therefore, that Eisenhower played a key role in the building's preservation. In the late 1950s, his Advisory Committee on Presidential Office Space recommended that the building be torn down and replaced with an expensive modern office building. White House historian and scholar William Seale reports that the architect in charge tried to persuade President Eisenhower, who recently had suffered a heart attack, that a new building would not have as many stairs to climb. ``Nonsense,'' said the President, ``My doctors require that I climb so many steps a day for the good of my heart!'' The tide turned at that point, and the building was saved. Designating the Old Executive Office Building as the Dwight D. Eisenhower Office Building would be a fitting honor to a great American leader in war and in peace, and a fitting recognition of a grand American building. For that reason, this naming is supported by Stephen Ambrose, the well-known Eisenhower biographer; William Seale, the author of the White House Historical Association's history of the White House; Senator Bob Dole, World War II veteran and distinguished public servant; and the Eisenhower family. It is no wonder that S. 1652 has garnered strong and bipartisan support. Let me extend my appreciation to the Senate leadership for setting aside this day to consider S. 1652. I look forward to its passage by the Senate today, and its ultimate enactment by Congress this year. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that letters from Stephen Ambrose, William Seale, and Bob Dole, and an editorial by Jim O'Connell, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate took two very important votes with regard to the question of how to reform the manner in which elections for federal office are financed. These votes provided the Senate two very different paths in which to accomplish this goal. As my colleagues are aware, a majority of Senators in this body clearly believe that the current system is in need of reform. Progress has been made in previous years in two important areas: in the substance of the issue and in gaining greater Congressional support for reform. Nevertheless, I believe that the paramount goals of any true effort of reform must be to reduce the perception that special interest money exerts undue influence on elected officials, and to address the blatant electioneering disguised as issue advocacy. These two components must be a part of any proposal forming the basis of Senate debate. The original McCain-Feingold legislation (S. 26) offered this base, and that is why I supported and cosponsored the bill. In the past two years, the Senate has voted five different times to invoke cloture on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform proposal. I supported each of these motions because of my belief that the Senate needed to begin the process of debating the merits of the bill. I also voted for cloture on the paycheck protection proposal because I believed that it was an opportunity for the Senate to level the playing field on the pending debate. Now, what is the playing field about which I speak? I believe that the Senate should keep its eye on the overall objective of limiting the explosion of unregulated spending which has diminished the role of the candidate and heightened the role of not only the political parties, but of outside groups who have a direct impact on federal elections without any accountability to the public. Let me now take a moment to explain my reasons for supporting cloture on the Daschle amendment to S. 1593 and for opposing cloture on the Reid amendment to the Daschle amendment. I voted for cloture on the Daschle substitute amendment to the scaled-down McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill because it would have provided the Senate with a better starting point than we have had in previous years. While it was not a perfect version of a campaign finance reform bill, it offered the Senate the opportunity to debate and to amend a comprehensive and level bill, similar to the version recently approved by the House of Representatives. On the other hand, I voted against cloture on the Reid amendment because I believe this approach would restrict the political parties without acknowledging the skyrocketing impact of outside groups on the political process. The Reid amendment, which was almost identical to the scaled-down version of the McCain-Feingold bill (S. 1593), in my view, did not go far enough to address this important issue. I am troubled by the prospect that non-party activities would remain unregulated while the parties would be restrained. This could make a flawed system even more unbalanced. I admire the work Senators McCain and Feingold have done in raising awareness of the problems of our campaign finance system. I fully intend to continue working with them, as well as the other supporters of campaign finance reform, to develop a comprehensive approach in this matter. The Senate had the opportunity to make this important change in the current fundraising system by invoking cloture on the Daschle amendment. I will continue to support campaign finance reform measures that follow this approach. In addition, I intend not to support the Majority Leader's motion to proceed to S. 1692, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban bill at this time. My vote for cloture on the Daschle amendment was based on the belief that debate on this issue should move forward and the reform process should begin. The Daschle amendment provides the Senate with this opportunity for a meaningful debate on the bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I call to the attention of my colleagues the battle for the America's Cup, which begins this week in the Hauraki Gulf off Aukland, New Zealand. Five American and six international challengers are competing for the right to face Team New Zealand in races beginning next February. This competition, which promises to be a long, hard-fought affair, gives me an opportunity to share with my fellow Senators some thoughts on Rhode Island's celebrated history in yachting. It began in London in 1851, when the America's Cup was designed and crafted as a trophy for a race around the Isle of Wight. The cup was named after the yacht America which first won the trophy by beating the British yachts at Cowes. Yacht racing had only recently begun in North America at the time; John Cox Stevens had founded the New York Yacht Club in 1844 and in 1851 was still its first Commodore. But yacht racing was not so new in Britain, where forms of yachting had been a sport for about 250 years. In the mid-1850's, Britannia ruled the waves in all respects, and it would never have occurred to them that an American outfit could challenge their yachting dominance. In 1857, John Stevens decided that the cup would be better in the hands of the New York Yacht Club for safekeeping and for organizing challenges. The cup, which graced the halls of the New York Yacht Club, became known as the America's Cup and this has continued for 145 years. Until 1983, the New York Yacht Club successfully defended the cup in races off Newport, Rhode Island, a venue which deservedly has come to be considered one of the sailing capitals of the world. During these years, a great many Rhode Islanders stood out and earned outstanding reputations in this sport. Most notably, Nathanael Greene Herreshoff, ``The Wizard of Bristol,'' joined his visually impaired brother in the manufacture of boats and went on to design six successful America's Cup defenders--Vigilant (in 1893), Defender (1895), Columbia (1899 and 1901), Reliance (1903) and Resolute (1920). In addition, the celebrated sailmaker and designer Ted Hood had more to do with the development of the America's Cup from the 1950's to the 1970's than any other person. Hood also won the Cup, helming Courageous in 1974. Today, Hood's shipyard and many others in Rhode Island continue this proud tradition in the sailing world and have made the state's boatbuilding industry second to none. The east shore of Narragansett Bay has 13 boatyards representing some of yachting's most famous labels. In the words of one expert, ``people across the world think of quality boats when they think of Rhode Island.'' Combined with tourism from recreational boating, the state's marine industry generates about $1.2 billion annually and employees about 6,000 workers. Rhode Island yards built boats for three America's Cup syndicates in 1995 and two more this year. One of the American challengers is of particular interest to me and to my constituents in Rhode Island. Young America, a two-boat syndicate put forward by the New York Yacht Club, is one of the strongest challengers in these races. The club has stated its intent to bring America's Cup back to Newport, Rhode Island if--or should I say ``when`'--it dethrones Team New Zealand next March. Many, many Rhode Islanders eagerly look forward to the return of this great tradition to Newport, where it had such an outstanding record of success for one hundred and thirty-two years. Young America's president, John Marshall, has been long involved with world-class sailing. Marshall won a bronze medal at the 1972 Olympics, and has been involved with eight America's Cups since 1974. Marshall is a former president of and serves on the Board of Directors for North Sails, the largest sailmaker in the United States. Young America is skippered by Ed Baid, who played a key role in winning the 1995 America's Cup as coach, trial horse skipper and sparring partner for Team New Zealand. Baird was the 1995 World Champion of Match Race Sailing and placed second at the Worlds in 1997, 1996 and 1993. He is the only American to ever reach No. 1 in the World. The 1995 Rolex U.S. Yachtsman of the Year, Baird is a multiple world champion. Let me also pay tribute to the several Rhode Islanders that have been named to the Young America team. They include Newport sailors Ed Adams, Tom Burnham, Jamie Gale, Jerry Kirby, Tony Rey and Joan Touchette. The shore support and technical team includes Stewart Wiley of Portsmouth; Ken Bordin, Steve Connett, Matthew Gurl and Bernie Roeder of Newport; Wolfgang Chamberlain of Bristol; and Michael Spiller of Jamestown. Young America's two boats were built by Bristol, Rhode Island's Eric Goetz shipyard, recognized as one of the world's foremost manufacturers of racing sailboats. I had the pleasure of visiting and touring the Goetz shipyard last April, and was greatly impressed with what I saw. Goetz has built seven America's Cup contenders for the last two series of America's Cup races--including boats commissioned by competing U.S. racing teams. This year's boats, which cost about $3 million each, are the product of a first-rate team of technicians and employ the most modern design and technology. Included is a keel developed by one of Rhode Island's most storied companies, Browne & Sharpe Manufacturing. The competitors in New Zealand are no doubt fixated on the technological advancements being introduced by Young America. Three sets of round robin races begin this week and end on December 14. The challenger semifinals and finals take place next January 2 through February 4 to determine which syndicate will face the defending New Zealanders. The Finals of this grueling competition do not end until March 4. So I hope all Senators can take a moment today to recognize the commencement of one of the world's most prestigious sporting traditions, the America's Cup. I wish good luck to all eleven competitors, but particularly to the Young America syndicate. For many of my state's enthusiasts, it has been a long sixteen years waiting for this moment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. So we will still vote at 4 on DOD?

Mr. CHAFEE. Does this unanimous consent request change that?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we are going to vote at 4, is my understanding.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, CTBT, a treaty which I believe is in our national security interests. Although it appears regrettably that the required votes of two-thirds of the Senate do not exist at this point, I nonetheless hope that as many of my colleagues as possible will vote to ratify this treaty since we cannot procedurally seem to be able to set the treaty aside. Since 1992, the United States has abided by a unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. Despite the absence of testing during these past 7 years, our nuclear weapons stockpile has been maintained, our nuclear deterrent has remained formidable, and our national security has not been threatened. Because our nuclear arsenal remains safe and reliable today, the United States has no plans to test these weapons any time soon. Also during these past 7 years of our moratorium on nuclear testing, the United States negotiated and signed the CTBT. We signed this treaty recognizing that discouraging other nuclear powers and would-be nuclear powers from testing these weapons would lessen the unthinkable possibility that the nuclear option would ever be employed. In fact, halting advancement in nuclear weapons development and limiting the number of nuclear-capable military states, locks in a status quo in which the United States has an enormous military advantage. This treaty makes the United States militarily stronger, not weaker. One of the wisest aspects of the CTBT is its requirement that all of the world's 44 nuclear capable nations ratify the treaty for it to enter into force. This means that North Korea, Iran, and others that pose the greatest potential threat to the United States and our allies must join us in being a party to this treaty before the United States relinquishes the option of nuclear testing. Another strong aspect of the CTBT is that it is accompanied by 6 critical safeguards that the Joint Chiefs of Staff insisted upon before agreeing to support it. I would note that the sixth and most significant to these safeguards is included in the resolution which is before us today. It requires the United States to withdraw from the CTBT under the supreme national interests clause if the Secretaries of Energy and Defense cannot certify the reliability of our nuclear arsenal. This safeguard gives Americans the assurance that they will continue to be protected by a robust and credible and nuclear deterrent under the CTBT. I believe this treaty is very much in the interests of the United States. It will help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide, while ensuring a huge U.S. advantage in nuclear weaponry that has deterred would-be aggressors for many years. I urge my colleagues to support ratification of this treaty.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr President, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the plight of our nation's farmers. Now, one might ask, what is a Senator from Rhode Island doing speaking about farming? Isn't that usually handled by Members from the Midwest? Well, Mr. President, that is not the case. Farming is alive at our nearly 700 farms in Rhode Island. However, these same family farmers in Rhode Island and those across the nation are looking to Congress for some much needed help in the wake of this summer's horrible weather conditions. Today, the Senate will be asked to vote on final passage of the conference report on the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill. This bill is just one of the thirteen spending bills which Congress must approve and the President must sign before the beginning of the new fiscal year. This is a major bill which funds many important farming and environmental programs. However, I must reluctantly vote against final passage of this report for two reasons. During the debate on the bill earlier this year, farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic were in the middle of what would become one of the worst droughts in the history of this region. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that Rhode Island experienced its driest growing season in 105 years of recordkeeping. As a result, crop damages were widespread. According to the Farm Service Agency in my state, crop losses ranged from 35 percent to an astounding 100 percent. These losses created a terrible financial burden on the farmers in Rhode Island, as well as the entire state economy. In response to these problems, as well as those experienced by farmers across the country, the Senate approved a $7.4 billion emergency relief package, and I was glad to support it. In the House, no such funding existed. However, as the difficulties worsened and the need for additional funding was necessary, I was committed to making sure that our family farms in Rhode Island would not be left out of the pot. To that end, I pressed for direct assistance to specifically address drought damage in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. As everyone knows the 1999 drought knew no state barriers or boundaries. Senators from both sides of the aisle knew that making this a partisan issue would not make federal assistance for our farmers come any quicker. We needed to help our farmers and farming families to start the process of rebuilding for new crops and a new season. In the end, an additional $1.2 billion was allocated for assistance to farmers across the country who have incurred losses for crops harvested or intended to be planted or harvested in 1999. The key word in that sentence is ``across the country.'' In the Northeast and Mid- Atlantic alone, damage assessments range from $2 to $2.5 billion. However, this additional money will not go directly to those farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic that need it the most. Instead, the money will be available to all farmers who have suffered from flooding, Hurricane Floyd, and the drought. This certainly is not sufficient funding for our region's family farmers. I also must vote against this conference report because of its failure to include language that extends the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. This is an issue that has the support of a majority of the Senators in this body. In fact, during debate on the agriculture spending bill, a majority of Senators--53 to be exact--voted to end a filibuster on the dairy compact issue. As many of my colleagues know, the Compact was a state-generated response to the decline in the New England dairy industry over the last decade. In the early 1990s, all six New England states approved identical legislation to enter into the Compact. Congress approved the Compact as part of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill. Due to the unique nature of fluid milk, it must be worked quickly through the processing chain and get to store shelves within days of its production. Due to these conditions, dairy farmers are at a distinct disadvantage when bargaining for a price for their product. As a result, the minimum farm price fluctuated wildly over time. The Compact corrected this problem and leveled the playing field at no cost to the American taxpayer. How can one be against that? I am heartened by the consistent efforts of my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Specter, and Leahy among others to keep these dairy farmers in mind throughout the debate on the bill and in conference. Although we were not successful, the issue will not go away. The dairy compact issue will be revisited and the voice of the majority of Senators will be heard. I thank the chair for this time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act of 1984. This legislation makes important changes in the Foundation's charter, changes that I believe will allow the Foundation to build on its fine record of providing funding for conservation of our Nation's fish, wildlife, and plant resources. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 1984, to bring together diverse groups to engage in conservation projects across America and, in some cases, around the world. Since its inception, the Foundation has made more than 3,400 grants totaling over $435 million. This is an impressive record of accomplishment. The Foundation has pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name just a few. Mr. President, the Foundation has funded these programs by raising private funds to match Federal appropriations on at least a 2 to 1 basis. During this time of fiscal constraint this is an impressive record of leveraging Federal dollars. Moreover, all of the Foundation's operating costs are raised privately, which means that Federal and private dollars given for conservation is spent only on conservation projects. I am proud to count myself as one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In 1984, I, along with my colleagues Senators Howard Baker, George Mitchell, and John Breaux, saw the need to create a private, nonprofit group that could build public- private partnerships and consensus, where previously there had only been acrimony and, many times, contentious litigation. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has more than fulfilled the hopes of its original sponsors. It has helped to bring solutions to some difficult natural resource problems and is becoming widely recognized for its innovative approach to solving environmental problems. For example, when Atlantic salmon neared extinction in the United States due to overharvest in Greenland, the Foundation and its partners bought Greenland salmon quotas. I and many others in Congress want the Foundation to continue its important conservation efforts. So, today I am introducing amendments to the Foundation's charter that will allow it to do just that. Mr. President, this legislation is quite simple. It makes three key changes to current law. First, the bill would expand the Foundation's governing board of directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will allow a greater number of those with a strong interest in conservation to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's activities. The bill's second key feature authorizes the Foundation to work with other agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, in addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. President, it is my view that the Foundation should continue to provide valuable assistance to government agencies within the Departments of the Interior and Commerce that may be faced with conservation issues. Finally, it would reauthorize appropriations to the Departments of the Interior and the Department of Commerce through 2004. Mr. President, last year this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but unfortunately the House was unable to duplicate our efforts. I believe that this legislation will produce real conservation benefits and I strongly urge my colleagues to once again give the bill their support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act of 1984. This legislation makes important changes in the Foundation's charter, changes that I believe will allow the Foundation to build on its fine record of providing funding for conservation of our Nation's fish, wildlife, and plant resources. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 1984, to bring together diverse groups to engage in conservation projects across America and, in some cases, around the world. Since its inception, the Foundation has made more than 3,400 grants totaling over $435 million. This is an impressive record of accomplishment. The Foundation has pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name just a few. Mr. President, the Foundation has funded these programs by raising private funds to match Federal appropriations on at least a 2 to 1 basis. During this time of fiscal constraint this is an impressive record of leveraging Federal dollars. Moreover, all of the Foundation's operating costs are raised privately, which means that Federal and private dollars given for conservation is spent only on conservation projects. I am proud to count myself as one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In 1984, I, along with my colleagues Senators Howard Baker, George Mitchell, and John Breaux, saw the need to create a private, nonprofit group that could build public- private partnerships and consensus, where previously there had only been acrimony and, many times, contentious litigation. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has more than fulfilled the hopes of its original sponsors. It has helped to bring solutions to some difficult natural resource problems and is becoming widely recognized for its innovative approach to solving environmental problems. For example, when Atlantic salmon neared extinction in the United States due to overharvest in Greenland, the Foundation and its partners bought Greenland salmon quotas. I and many others in Congress want the Foundation to continue its important conservation efforts. So, today I am introducing amendments to the Foundation's charter that will allow it to do just that. Mr. President, this legislation is quite simple. It makes three key changes to current law. First, the bill would expand the Foundation's governing board of directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will allow a greater number of those with a strong interest in conservation to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's activities. The bill's second key feature authorizes the Foundation to work with other agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, in addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. President, it is my view that the Foundation should continue to provide valuable assistance to government agencies within the Departments of the Interior and Commerce that may be faced with conservation issues. Finally, it would reauthorize appropriations to the Departments of the Interior and the Department of Commerce through 2004. Mr. President, last year this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but unfortunately the House was unable to duplicate our efforts. I believe that this legislation will produce real conservation benefits and I strongly urge my colleagues to once again give the bill their support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to express my thanks to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and also to the managers of the bill for accepting this amendment. Once in a while, we pass some legislation that really works. With the Montreal Protocol, we have an example of that. The Montreal Protocol has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Congress and public support across the country. As our colleagues well remember, it was President Reagan who negotiated and signed the Protocol in 1987. Since that time, many strengthening amendments have been adopted and ratified during the administrations of both President Bush and President Clinton. One of the most effective provisions of the protocol is an international fund that provides assistance to developing nations to aid their phaseout of ozone depleting substances. This is not a U.S. aid program. It is an international fund supported by 35 countries. It has assisted projects to reduce ozone use in 120 developing countries. Mr. President, I can tell the Senate that the Montreal Protocol Fund is a very cost effective program because the U.S. General Accounting Office audited the program in 1997 and gave it high praise. GAO had only one recommendation to make to improve its performance and that recommendation has since been implemented. I would note that the U.S. business community also strongly supports this program. Quite often the assistance provided by the fund is used by developing nations to buy our technology to reduce CFC use. So, there is no question that this program works and has been highly successful. The only issue is whether there is room for the U.S. contribution in this budget. We have pledged approximately $39 million for this coming year. There is $27 million in the foreign operations appropriation. Which means that we need an additional $12 million to honor our commitment. The amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts would provide that $12 million from EPA's budget. This follows a long tradition of paying for part of our contribution from State Department funds and part of our contribution through the EPA budget. Can EPA afford $12 million for this purpose? We know that the budget is tight this year. But it is not so tight that we need to entirely eliminate this expenditure. In fact, I would note that this bill provides EPA $116 million more than the President requested. As the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has said many times here on the floor, this bill is still a work in progress. I am confident that the very able managers of the bill can find room for the Montreal Protocol Fund in a budget for EPA that provides $116 million more than the President's request for the coming year. We have our differences here in the Senate over environmental policy. But everyone has to admit that the international program to protect the stratospheric ozone layer negotiated by President Reagan has been a tremendous success. The work is not quite done. CFCs are not entirely out of our economy. In fact, the U.S. remains the third largest user of CFCs. But we are well on the way to a CFC-free world. And this program, the Montreal Protocol Fund, has been a very important part of the effort. It deserves our continued support. We have been able to curb the CFCs. We are on a downward glidepath, not only among those nations that signed the Montreal Protocol, but the international fund is supported by 35 countries. We have also reached out to reduce the CFC use in 120 developing countries. The CFCs are extremely dangerous substances in the destruction of the ozone layer. We are gradually eliminating them. This is a step forward. This amendment takes from the total EPA budget some $12 million, which is then added to the $27 million in the foreign operations appropriations so that we then meet our commitment of $39 million for this international fund, which is the contribution of the United States. It is not the United States alone, as I mentioned before; we have some 35 other countries that are contributing.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for offering this amendment. I am a cosponsor of the amendment. The Montreal Protocol has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Congress and public support across the country. As our colleagues will remember, it was President Reagan who negotiated and signed the Protocol in 1987. Since that time, many strengthening amendments have been adopted and ratified during the administrations of both President Bush and President Clinton. One of the most effective provisions of the protocol is an international fund that provides assistance to developing nations to aid their phaseout of ozone depleting substances. This is not a U.S. aid program. It is an international fund supported by 35 countries. It has assisted projects to reduce ozone use in 120 developing countries. Mr. President, I can tell the Senate that the Montreal Protocol Fund is a very cost effective program because the U.S. General Accounting Office audited the program in 1997 and gave it high praise. GAO had only one recommendation to make to improve its performance and that recommendation has since been implemented. I would note that the U.S. business community also strongly supports this program. Quite often the assistance provided by the fund is used by developing nations to buy our technology to reduce CFC use. So, there is no question that this program works and has been highly successful. The only issue is whether there is room for the U.S. contribution in this budget. We have pledged approximately $39 million for this coming year. There is $27 million in the Foreign Operations appropriation. Which means that we need an additional $12 million to honor our commitment. The amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts would provide that $12 million from EPA's budget. This follows a long tradition of paying for part of our contribution from State Department funds and part of our contribution through the EPA budget. Can EPA afford $12 million for this purpose. We know that the budget is tight this year. But it is not so tight that we need to entirely eliminate this expenditure. In fact, I would note that this bill provides EPA $116 million more than the President requested. As the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has said many times here on the floor, this bill is still a work in progress. I am confident that the very able managers of the bill can find room for the Montreal Protocol Fund in a budget for EPA that provides $116 million more than the President's request for the coming year. We have our differences here in the Senate over environmental policy. But everyone has to admit that the international program to protect the stratospheric ozone layer negotiated by President Reagan has been a tremendous success. The work is not quite done. CFCs are not entirely out of our economy. In fact, the U.S. remains the third largest user of CFCs. But we are well on the way to a CFC-free world. And this program, the Montreal Protocol Fund, has been a very important part of the effort. It deserves our continued support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I certainly agree with my colleague from New Hampshire that if this toxicity data is out there and available, then every effort should be made to collect it, verify its relevance to this program, and use it. There is no reason to order duplicative and wasteful testing. But I do hope this can be done in an efficient manner. The collection of this information should not slow down the progress of this program seeking basic toxicity data on the 2,800 chemicals most widely used in the United States. The claim has been made that 90 percent of these chemicals lack full toxicity data and 40 percent have no toxicity data. However, if this data already exists, then let's get it. We need to fill in these data gaps. Finally, even though the EPA has begun to show some willingness to respond to suggestions from stakeholders, I believe that the HPV program would benefit from a hearing in Senator Smith's subcommittee.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator. bethune-cookman

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, pages 78 and 79 of the fiscal year 2000 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill and page 83 of the accompanying Committee Report contain language regarding implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. During the debate on this appropriation last year, we agreed that EPA should not use appropriated funds for the purpose of issuing regulations to implement the Kyoto Protocol, unless and until such treaty is ratified by the United States. We also agreed that our intent was not to interfere with important and on-going voluntary energy conservation and climate change related programs and initiatives--such as the Climate Challenge program, Green Lights, Energy Star, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. These programs have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by increasing energy efficiency across a broad range of domestic industrial sectors. These programs make sense for other reasons as well, including saving consumers and businesses money, creating export opportunities, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and addressing local air pollution problems. I ask the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Bond, whether the language in the bill and the report this year maintain the agreement that we reached last year on this issue?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if I understand this correctly, what will happen now is there will be a period of 2 hours on DOD?

Mr. CHAFEE. So we go to third reading.

Mr. CHAFEE. How about on this Transportation legislation?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in support of the Gorton-Feinstein sense-of-the-Senate resolution which would allow the Department of Transportation to evaluate and update the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. For the past four legislative sessions, a rider has been attached to the transportation bills to prevent evaluations of CAFE. This year, 31 Senators signed a letter to President Clinton urging him to support their efforts to increase CAFE standards. We are not here today to raise the standards but merely to allow the Department of Transportation to consider the potential benefits and costs of existing or future CAFE standards. CAFE standards were originally enacted in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s and were adopted in 1975 to reduce oil consumption. Currently the standard for new passenger cars is 27.5 miles per gallon and for light trucks is 20.7 miles per gallon. CAFE standards have had the effect of making cars and trucks more energy efficient than they would have been without the standards. As such, energy efficiency, decreased oil consumption, and global climate change are intertwined. Global climate change is an issue that has been quite contentious in international and domestic circles alike, however, the undeniable scientific truth exists that the burning of fossil fuels and emissions from mobile sources results in the emission of numerous greenhouse gases: the major contributor being carbon dioxide. A study on the impacts of CAFE has the potential to lessen the impact of automobile emissions into the environment based on the directly proportional relationship of a cars' miles per gallon and the amount of carbon dioxide emissions produced. The Department of Energy reported in 1997 that transportation accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption and comprises about one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The increase in sales of less fuel efficient SUVs and light trucks has and will continue to result in growing energy consumption and related emissions in the transportation sector. CAFE standards are regarded by many as an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. The bottom line today is that the emissions of greenhouse gases must be reduced. We must develop industrial practices and means of transportation which are less dependent on fossile fuels. Allowing a reevaluation of CAFE standards is one way to start.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in light of the discussion today about weather, indeed, the Appropriations Committee has gotten into the authorization area, let's just take a look at what has happened to this bill, what the major changes are. There are some very substantial changes in this bill to TEA 21. What we are talking about is the additional money that is coming in. In that case, the additional money totals $1.5 billion. About $150 million of that has been set aside--has been in the past and would be, but for this legislation--for a series of programs that we thought were necessary--indeed, the whole Senate did, and the Congress did--for the good of our Nation. So what are we talking about? We are talking about is that Indian reservation roads don't get a nickel. They don't get a nickel from the additional moneys under the proposal of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation: Public land roads, not a nickel; park roads, not a nickel; refuge roads in our wildlife refuges, where we have had testimony that the roads are just in atrocious condition, desperately need money; the national corridor planning of the border infrastructure, where there is a lineup of trucks under NAFTA trying to come into the country, and we set aside money to give them some assistance; ferry boats and terminals, $2 million they would get from the funds but for the amendment of the Subcommittee on Transportation. So there is no question but that there are major changes in this legislation by the Appropriations Committee, getting deeply into the territory where we spent months trying to work out a compromise in the authorization committee. It is my understanding that all who wished to speak have spoken on this. I now raise a point of order that the provision which begins on page 21, line 1, through line 11 on page 22, of the language added by the committee-reported bill is legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of rule XVI. I ask my colleagues to stand with me and put a stop to the destructive practice of including legislation on appropriations measures.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am extremely concerned about a provision in the Shelby amendment to H.R. 2084, the so-called Department of Transportation appropriations bill. This provision I am referring to is located on page 21, line 1, through page 22, line 11, of the committee- reported bill. It would reopen the distribution of funds agreed to in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, which is the so- called TEA 21. TEA 21 provides a process for distributing any additional gas tax receipts beyond those that were projected to be received when TEA 21 was passed. In other words, we made an estimate of what the funds would be, but we expected we might receive less than our anticipated receipts. The appropriations bill, as it stands, would change that process--in other words, the way the anticipated surplus or losses would be distributed. It is my view that the distribution of the highway trust fund moneys should not be revisited in annual appropriations bills. As Members know, the dollars affected by this amendment are those that have come in because, as I said, gas tax receipts were higher than projected when we passed TEA 21. How much higher were they? They were about $1.5 billion higher than projected. We anticipated that actual receipts might be different--as I said before, higher or lower than projected receipts. Therefore, TEA 21 says that a surplus, or a shortfall, should be distributed evenly across all the programs funded by TEA 21; in other words, in accordance with the formulas that existed in TEA 21. It is good news that receipts are ahead of projections and that we have a surplus rather than a shortfall to distribute. But our colleagues should remember that when the administration discovered--who am I referring to? I am talking about the administration--there was a surplus, the administration tried to set aside the TEA 21 formula, as is being attempted under this appropriations bill, except that when the administration was dealing with it, the list of programs which would have benefited from the end run that President Clinton proposed in his budget is quite different. The President wanted to increase the moneys for transit and to spend more money fighting environmental problems such as air pollution and urban sprawl. In other words, he got way out beyond what we were thinking about. The day President Clinton's budget proposal came to Congress, I joined with Congressman Bud Shuster, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, in strong objection to any change in the TEA 21 formula. I would like to personally spend more money on transit and air quality and other items that would have benefitted from the President's proposal. As my colleagues can easily understand, these things are more important to Rhode Island than more dollars for highway construction. But I went on record the very day the President made his proposal strongly opposing any change in the TEA 21 formula. Senator Shelby is proposing to ignore TEA 21 in the same way, but his priorities are quite different. He wants all the money to go to the States for highway construction. This is my point. Both the appropriations subcommittee and the President wanted to do different things with this money. When this bill leaves here, we have to remember that it will go to conference. I presume there will be some dickering between some members of the conference and the administration to produce a bill the President can sign. If the Senate endorses this proposed change to the formula, we will be opening the door to a deal on the allocation of this money-- some of it for the President's priorities, some for the appropriators' priorities. We can't really know what is going to come out of the conference once we get into that kind of action. If you vote with the appropriations subcommittee, you are giving them permission to ignore the TEA 21 formula. But that is not the end of the story. Your vote will merely trigger a real struggle between the conference committee and the White House, the administration, on the reallocation of these funds. Let's suppose you are a Senator from a Western State that benefits from the public lands highway programs, which we have taken care of as we have in the past. That is in the original TEA 21 bill. These are programs that might very well be shortchanged if we set aside the formula. The programs that provide additional funds to States with large amounts of Federal land--and there are three or four of them-- would get their fair share of the surplus if we stick with TEA 21. But these programs weren't on the list of programs that would have been winners under the President's end run. There are 100 percent losers under the proposal presented by the appropriations subcommittee. So if the Federal lands highway programs are important to your State, where do you stand? If you vote with the appropriations subcommittee to set aside TEA 21, you have no idea how your State will fare until the conference people come back from the meeting at the White House that produces an agreement on this bill. That agreement will reallocate this $1.5 billion, in part, to meet the priorities of the President and, in part, to address the priorities of the appropriators. If their actions to date are any guide, the Federal lands programs will not get a dollar of this surplus. I can make the same point about any number of other programs. By the way, let me read off a list of the programs that have been eliminated under the appropriations subcommittee, and that is from the additional moneys that come in. In all fairness, they haven't touched the moneys that are there. They have left those alone. The additional $1.5 billion I previously referred to would be chopped up, and about $150 million of that would have gone for these programs that are on this list, which are totally eliminated from the additional receipts: Indian reservation roads; public lands; park roads; refuge roads; national corridor planning and border infrastructure, which would be principally along the Mexico-Texas border; ferry boats and terminals, principally for Alaska. Now, if you think TEA 21 is grossly unfair and ignores the special needs, such as Federal lands that affect your State, I suppose it makes sense to take a chance that the President and the appropriators will do a better job. But you have another choice. You can support the allocation made in TEA 21. If you stick with TEA 21, you know exactly what to expect. These surplus dollars will be allocated across the entire transportation program in the same proportion as enacted by TEA 21. The special programs that benefit your State will get their fair share of the surplus, just as they get a fair share of the base authorization under TEA 21. Let me discuss the particulars of why I believe this provision is legislation on an appropriations bill and should not be included in an appropriations act. The provision in question begins with the phrase: ``Notwithstanding Public Law 105-178, or any other provision of law. . . .'' That phrase has long been recognized as legislative in nature. The effect of this provision is to overturn section 110 of title 23, which provides for the apportionment of contract authority from the highway trust fund. Now, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has jurisdiction over the apportionment of contract authority from the highway trust fund. The Committee on Appropriations only has jurisdiction to impose an obligation limitation on the total amount of funds used. In other words, they have a role to play and we have a role to play--we being the Committee on Environment and Public Works. In the House appropriations bill, there is no similar provision apportioning contract authority from the highway trust fund. Therefore, the Senate provision in question is not germane to the House appropriations bill. I realize the Committee on Appropriations will likely raise the defense of germaneness to my point of order, which I intend to propose. Although the Appropriations subcommittee may be successful in identifying some provisions to which this provision could conceivably be germane, I can assure my colleagues that there is no similar provision in the House bill that changes the distribution of these additional gas tax receipts. If the Senate agrees with the defense of germaneness, it will be saying that almost anything is germane to an appropriations bill, thereby undercutting the intent of rule XVI to limit legislation on appropriations bills. I urge my colleagues to vote no against the defense of germaneness should the managers raise this as a defense against the point of order which it is my intent to propose. Mr. President, I have to say that I am disturbed. As you can tell from my description, this is clearly an authorizing provision. It was less than 2 months ago that the majority of this body came together and said the time had come to stop including authorization language on appropriations bills. The ink has barely dried on that resolution, and here we are rewriting the rules of the Senate. So at the proper time it is my intent to raise a point of order that the provision which begins on page 21, line 1, through page 22, line 11, of the committee-reported bill is legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of rule XVI. I ask my colleagues to stand with me and put a stop to the destructive practice of including legislation on appropriations measures. That will be my intent. Of course, I don't make that proposal right now because there are others who are prepared to speak. I look forward to hearing their comments. I thank the Chair.