Lincoln Chafee

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Harkin and Bob Graham in introducing the Kids Deserve Freedom From Tobacco Act of 2000, which would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco. This legislation is a common-sense and bipartisan approach to ensure that tobacco products do not get into the hands of minors, especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate tobacco products. The Supreme Court's recent decision is disappointing. This judgment, while following the letter of the law, will cause unnecessary harm to millions of people unless Congress acts quickly to stem its affects. We must ensure that the FDA regulations are enacted into law. Not only does tobacco pose a significant risk to the individual smoker, but it reaps a high cost from the American public. The widespread use of tobacco is eating away at our society's physical and financial health. Tobacco's physical toll in deaths and diseases is well-documented. However, the financial weight that tobacco places on America's overburdened health care system is often overlooked. As the single most preventable cause of premature death, disease and disability facing our nation, tobacco use is also the single biggest preventable expense to our nation's health care system. America's publicly financed health care system has also suffered. Nearly half the costs of treating tobacco related illnesses-- approximately $25 billion in 1993, according to the Centers for Disease Control--fall to state and federal governments through such programs as Medicare and Medicaid. This unnecessary fiscal burden has hit the health care industry hard, increasing the cost of health care, while driving millions into the ranks of the uninsured. As Congress struggles to pull the Medicare program back from the brink of insolvency, it is clear that the huge costs of the preventable illnesses caused by tobacco need to be addressed. We have a clear choice: attack the problem of preventable disease, or place a greater burden on our already financially strapped health care system. The Supreme Court did not argue the scientific evidence: nicotine is a drug and cigarettes are drug delivery devices. Nicotine is addictive, it lures children, kills adults, and drives up our nation's health care costs. In fact, the Court's majority opinion admitted that tobacco use was ``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.'' The only thing the FDA lacks, they said, was explicit authority to regulate tobacco products. Fine! Today, we propose to give them that authority. This bipartisan measure will abide by the intent of the Court's ruling by granting the FDA explicit authority to regulate these deadly and addictive products as it does for all other drugs. Congress cannot afford to wait. The three thousand children who get hooked on tobacco each day cannot afford to wait. Our overburdened health care system cannot afford to wait. I hope my colleagues in both Houses of Congress will come together in a bipartisan spirit to grant the FDA authority to stop the spread of the tobacco contagion.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am sending amendment No. 2944 to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. L. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by a bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Senators Mikulski, Snowe, and Grassley, in offering this amendment. In 1990, Congress passed legislation to authorize the Centers for Disease Control to pay for screening tests to detect breast and cervical cancer on low-income and uninsured women. Regrettably, this legislation did not authorize the treatment for those screening tests tragically indicating cancer. I cannot believe any legislator would not want to correct this omission. Diagnosis without treatment is leaving women with the life- threatening disease nowhere to turn. Screening must be coupled with treatment to reduce mortality. Specifically, the sense of the Senate mirrors legislation introduced by Senator John Chafee which would give States the option to provide treatment through the Medicaid program for women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer under the CDC screening program. I truly believe this is a corrective measure. Yes, this program costs $315 million over 5 years. However, the House included funding for this program in its budget 2 weeks ago, and the House leadership has committed to a vote on this bill by Mother's Day, May 14. This is not a permanent entitlement. Women would only be eligible for Medicaid during the duration of treatment. The coverage would continue only until the treatment and followup visits are completed. Without Medicaid coverage, we are leaving these women to an unreliable, fragile, and deteriorating system of charity care where they are often unable to get the treatment they need. Only about 6,200 women nationwide would be eligible for Medicaid under this legislation. This small investment stands to save lives for low-income and uninsured women with breast and cervical cancer all over America. Since we have already made the commitment in Congress to diagnose these women, we owe it to them to provide followup treatment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. We must finish the job we started in 1990 by filling this gap in a vital Federal program.

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I voted against the amendment offered by Senator Robb, which would use the tax code to provide assistance to school districts to build and renovate school facilities. There is no doubt that many states and local school districts need help to address the dilapidated conditions of their schools. However, I do not believe that the approach presented by Senator Robb, which has been repeatedly defeated by the Senate, is the best solution. Earlier this year, I was pleased to cosponsor legislation known as BRICKS--the Building, Renovating, and Constructing Schools Act--which Senator Snowe introduced. Senator Snowe's bill authorizes the use of $20 billion for school construction and repairs. She pays for her proposal by borrowing from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). According to the Snowe proposal, states would receive funds only at the request of the Governor. They would be distributed in accordance with the formula prescribed under Title I, which provides federal assistance to the lowest achieving, low income students. I believe this is a far better approach with potential for bipartisan support. Mr. President, it will be regrettable if the outcome of the vote on the Robb amendment prevents a vote on an amendment by the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. I am an original cosponsor of the Reed amendment which simply expresses the sense of the Senate that gun safety provisions approved by the Senate last year should be brought before the Senate for final action. As a cosponsor of the Reed amendment and a strong supporter of gun safety laws, particularly those which are intended to keep guns out of the hands of children, my vote against the Robb amendment should in no way be considered a vote against the Reed amendment.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Roth's amendment to the budget resolution, and I thank the Senator for his leadership on matters relating to the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. The purpose and rationale behind the Roth amendment is simple: We should not include revenue assumptions in the budget based on oil development that will not, and should not, occur. Such faulty assumptions make poor fiscal policy and poor environmental policy. The Arctic Refuge is a national treasure. I support Senator Roth's efforts to designate the area as wilderness, and I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor to the Roth wilderness bill. The crux of this debate is on our values, our legacy, and what we want to pass on to future generations. Senator Baucus mentioned the Serengeti National Park in Africa, an area immortalized in the human imagination for its beauty and majesty. This amazing park exists because previous generations had the foresight to preserve and protect this area from development. As Senator Baucus said, the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is referred to as the ``American Serengeti.'' And like its counterpart in Africa, this area deserves to be protected for us, our children, and our grandchildren. In 1980, in recognition of the area's immense environmental value, as Senator Roth said, Congress formally established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At that time, and after much debate and deliberation, Congress made the wise decision to prohibit drilling in the Coastal Plain pending further review. Now, only a short 20 years later, efforts are underway to open this area to development. I urge my colleagues to resist these efforts, to look past our short term needs, and designate the area as wilderness for future generations. The very definition of a ``refuge'' means an area of sanctuary, shelter and protection. In the case of our wildlife refuges, this means protecting nature from drilling, road construction, combustion engines and all of the other harmful effects of human beings and their machines. A large portion of the Alaskan North Slope is already open to oil exploration or drilling; we should not subject ANWR to the same fate. Some have voiced concern at our increasing dependence on foreign oil, and our lack of a coherent national energy policy. I share these concerns, and agree completely that our country must take steps to improve our energy security. But the solution to our energy problems does not lie underneath the coastal plain of ANWR, and drilling there cannot become our energy policy. Remember, by definition, a refuge is a place providing protection or shelter--it is a haven, a sanctuary--we must make sure that ANWR remains a haven, a sanctuary. I thank my colleagues for their consideration, and I respectfully urge them to support the Roth amendment.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a pair of bills to enhance the pace and effectiveness of brownfields redevelopment throughout the country. The first bill, entitled the ``State and Local Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2000'', will authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to remediate and restore brownfield sites owned by state and local governments. The second bill, S. 2334, which I introduce with Senator Jeffords, will expand coverage of the federal brownfields tax incentive and extend it for an additional six years. I also am adding my name as a co-sponsor to the ``Small Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999'', S. 1408, authored by Senator Jeffords. Along with these initiatives, I am announcing my intention to develop broader legislation to remove barriers to the redevelopment and restoration of brownfields. Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used commercial or industrial properties at which development or expansion is hindered by the presence, or potential presence of hazardous substantives. Countless numbers of brownfield sites blight our communities, pose health and environmental hazards, erode our cities' tax base, and contribute to urban sprawl. In fact, in 210 cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, an estimated 21,000 brownfields sites covering more than 81,000 acres were identified. But, we stand to reap enormous economic, environmental, and social benefits with the successful redevelopment of brownfield sites. The redevelopment of brownfields capitalizes on existing infrastructure, creates a robust tax base for local governments, attracts new businesses and jobs, mitigates urban sprawl, and reduces the environmental and health risks to communities. Yet, many of these contaminated sites sit abandoned because of the presence of hazardous substances. Developers that would otherwise restore these properties choose not to for fear of becoming tangled in liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, commonly referred to as Superfund. I believe it is critical that Congress take action to ensure that the federal government provides funding and incentives to recycle our nation's contaminated land, remove barriers to development, and ally perceived fears associated with Superfund liability. The bills I am introducing today are a step toward resolving those concerns. Let me take a moment to take a moment to explain each one. The first bill I am introducing today is the ``State and Local Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2000.'' This legislation would authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to establish and implement a program to assist state, regional, and local governments in the remediation and restoration of brownfields sites tied to the quality, conservation, and sustainable use of the nation's waterways and watershed ecosystems. Additionally, this bill would provide authority to the Corps to conduct site characterization and planning, site design and construction, environmental restoration, and preparation for site development on brownfields sites owned by state, regional, or local governments. When selecting these projects, the Corps must consider whether the project would improve public health and safety, encourage sustainable economic and environmental redevelopment in areas serviced by existing infrasture, and help cure or expand parks, greenways, or other recreational property. Activities by the Corps would be contingent upon a 35 percent match in cash or in-kind contribution by the state, regional, or local government. The bill limits the Corps to spending $3,250,000 on an individual site. However, the Secretary of the Army could increase the cap to $5,000,000 if he determines that the size of the site or the level of contamination warrants additional funds. To carry out the provisions of this Act, the bill authorizes annual appropriations of $100 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. I believe this bill would make a significant, positive contribution to the revitalization of our communities. Recently, I toured two sites along the banks of the Woonasquatucket River in Providence. At the turn of the century these sites housed a woollen mill and a lace and braid factory. They have been abandoned, but debris and contamination soils remain. They also threaten the river and the children that inevitably explore these abandoned properties. City officials and local residents have a wonderful vision for the cleanup of these sites that would create a bike path and a park along the Woonasquatucket River. This effort is integral to the success of the Woonasquatucket River Greenway Project, a public-private initiative to increase recreational and green space in low-income neighborhoods, thereby promoting economic reinvestment in the area. Despite selection of this project as a federal Brownfields Showcase Community and contributions totaling over $1 million by the City and State, the community is unable to complete remediation activities. And, because the area is intended for use as a local park and will not generate an income stream, the community cannot utilize a loan. In the meantime, the area remains an eyesore. This bill would revitalize the neighborhoods surrounding the Woonasquatucket River, as well as many other projects around the country. The Army Corps of Engineers is not new to brownfields redevelopment. The Corps currently conducts pre-remedial activities at brownfields sites for EPA on a fee-for-service basis. However, current law precludes it from carrying out the necessary cleanup activities. In addition, the Corps is limited to conducting activities for which EPA will provide reimbursement. I believe that EPA's brownfields budget is inadequate to complete the task at hand. My bill will address these deficiencies and spur revitalization at many sites. The second bill (S. 2334), which I am introducing with Senator Jeffords addresses two key deficiencies in current law. It would expand the definition of a targeted area to include any brownfield site located within a metropolitan statistical area making the current tax incentives more useful; and extending it for an additional six years. Under current law, parties that remediate brownfields sites in targeted areas are eligible to expense, or deduct, the costs of environmental restoration in the year the costs are incurred. A targeted area is any population census tract with a poverty rate of more than 20 percent, any empowerment zone or enterprise community, or any site deemed to an EPA pilot project before February 1, 1997. This tax incentive is scheduled to expire at the end of 2001. The vast underutilization of the existing tax incentive highlights the need for a re-examination of the goals we are pursuing. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment, I have heard complaints that parties eager to utilize the existing federal tax incentive have not done so for one of two reasons. The first reason is the limitation on the areas covered by the incentive. Unless the project constitutes an early EPA pilot project or lies within an impoverished community, the tax incentive does not apply. In addition, the tax incentive expires frequently, which creates uncertainty. Let me provide an example. Let us assume that a party is willing to purchase contaminated land and clean it up in order to redevelop the property. However, a party may be unable to make the acquisition and complete the remediation within one calendar year. Uncertain as to whether the tax incentive will be reinstated in the next year may discourage the party from taking on the risk. To address this issue, the bill extends the tax incentive until the end of calendar year 2007. I believe that this will provide certainty to those who see the wisdom in redeveloping these untapped properties of value. In addition, I am pleased to add my name as co-sponsor to the Small Business Brownfield Redevelopment Act of 1999 (S. 1408) offered by Senators Jeffords, Moynihan, Schumer, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Leahy. This bill is an important component of my vision for brownfields redevelopment throughout the nation. S. 1408 provides $50 million to the Small Business Administration to finance projects that assist qualified small businesses, or prospective small business owners, in carrying out site assessment and cleanup activities at brownfields sites. I believe that this bill will assist small businesses in Rhode Island and the country cleanup brownfield sites. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that brownfields are a critical national issue, because abandoned or underused properties dot every community, large and small. The bills I have introduced and co- sponsored today are critical components of the bigger picture, but we can do more. To complement these initiatives, I am announcing today that I intend to work on legislation to provide funding through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for assessment and cleanup of brownfields, and clarify liability to encourage the transfer of property. I would also like to provide assurances that while we work to facilitate state cleanup programs, EPA will take action at a brownfields site when necessary to protect human health and the environment. As I have studied CERCLA and Rhode Island's Superfund sites, I have heard from many people of all political stripes that brownfields legislation can be achieved on a bipartisan basis. They have urged us to address the issues as soon as possible. I have visited brownfields sites in Rhode Island and have seen the potential that exists to revitalize our communities if we can provide sufficient funding, clarify liability issues, and remove other barriers to redevelopment. I am hopeful that if we work in a bipartisan manner, we will be successful in passing brownfields legislation that the President can sign this year.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a pair of bills to enhance the pace and effectiveness of brownfields redevelopment throughout the country. The first bill, entitled the ``State and Local Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2000'', will authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to remediate and restore brownfield sites owned by state and local governments. The second bill, S. 2334, which I introduce with Senator Jeffords, will expand coverage of the federal brownfields tax incentive and extend it for an additional six years. I also am adding my name as a co-sponsor to the ``Small Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999'', S. 1408, authored by Senator Jeffords. Along with these initiatives, I am announcing my intention to develop broader legislation to remove barriers to the redevelopment and restoration of brownfields. Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used commercial or industrial properties at which development or expansion is hindered by the presence, or potential presence of hazardous substantives. Countless numbers of brownfield sites blight our communities, pose health and environmental hazards, erode our cities' tax base, and contribute to urban sprawl. In fact, in 210 cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, an estimated 21,000 brownfields sites covering more than 81,000 acres were identified. But, we stand to reap enormous economic, environmental, and social benefits with the successful redevelopment of brownfield sites. The redevelopment of brownfields capitalizes on existing infrastructure, creates a robust tax base for local governments, attracts new businesses and jobs, mitigates urban sprawl, and reduces the environmental and health risks to communities. Yet, many of these contaminated sites sit abandoned because of the presence of hazardous substances. Developers that would otherwise restore these properties choose not to for fear of becoming tangled in liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, commonly referred to as Superfund. I believe it is critical that Congress take action to ensure that the federal government provides funding and incentives to recycle our nation's contaminated land, remove barriers to development, and ally perceived fears associated with Superfund liability. The bills I am introducing today are a step toward resolving those concerns. Let me take a moment to take a moment to explain each one. The first bill I am introducing today is the ``State and Local Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2000.'' This legislation would authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to establish and implement a program to assist state, regional, and local governments in the remediation and restoration of brownfields sites tied to the quality, conservation, and sustainable use of the nation's waterways and watershed ecosystems. Additionally, this bill would provide authority to the Corps to conduct site characterization and planning, site design and construction, environmental restoration, and preparation for site development on brownfields sites owned by state, regional, or local governments. When selecting these projects, the Corps must consider whether the project would improve public health and safety, encourage sustainable economic and environmental redevelopment in areas serviced by existing infrasture, and help cure or expand parks, greenways, or other recreational property. Activities by the Corps would be contingent upon a 35 percent match in cash or in-kind contribution by the state, regional, or local government. The bill limits the Corps to spending $3,250,000 on an individual site. However, the Secretary of the Army could increase the cap to $5,000,000 if he determines that the size of the site or the level of contamination warrants additional funds. To carry out the provisions of this Act, the bill authorizes annual appropriations of $100 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. I believe this bill would make a significant, positive contribution to the revitalization of our communities. Recently, I toured two sites along the banks of the Woonasquatucket River in Providence. At the turn of the century these sites housed a woollen mill and a lace and braid factory. They have been abandoned, but debris and contamination soils remain. They also threaten the river and the children that inevitably explore these abandoned properties. City officials and local residents have a wonderful vision for the cleanup of these sites that would create a bike path and a park along the Woonasquatucket River. This effort is integral to the success of the Woonasquatucket River Greenway Project, a public-private initiative to increase recreational and green space in low-income neighborhoods, thereby promoting economic reinvestment in the area. Despite selection of this project as a federal Brownfields Showcase Community and contributions totaling over $1 million by the City and State, the community is unable to complete remediation activities. And, because the area is intended for use as a local park and will not generate an income stream, the community cannot utilize a loan. In the meantime, the area remains an eyesore. This bill would revitalize the neighborhoods surrounding the Woonasquatucket River, as well as many other projects around the country. The Army Corps of Engineers is not new to brownfields redevelopment. The Corps currently conducts pre-remedial activities at brownfields sites for EPA on a fee-for-service basis. However, current law precludes it from carrying out the necessary cleanup activities. In addition, the Corps is limited to conducting activities for which EPA will provide reimbursement. I believe that EPA's brownfields budget is inadequate to complete the task at hand. My bill will address these deficiencies and spur revitalization at many sites. The second bill (S. 2334), which I am introducing with Senator Jeffords addresses two key deficiencies in current law. It would expand the definition of a targeted area to include any brownfield site located within a metropolitan statistical area making the current tax incentives more useful; and extending it for an additional six years. Under current law, parties that remediate brownfields sites in targeted areas are eligible to expense, or deduct, the costs of environmental restoration in the year the costs are incurred. A targeted area is any population census tract with a poverty rate of more than 20 percent, any empowerment zone or enterprise community, or any site deemed to an EPA pilot project before February 1, 1997. This tax incentive is scheduled to expire at the end of 2001. The vast underutilization of the existing tax incentive highlights the need for a re-examination of the goals we are pursuing. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment, I have heard complaints that parties eager to utilize the existing federal tax incentive have not done so for one of two reasons. The first reason is the limitation on the areas covered by the incentive. Unless the project constitutes an early EPA pilot project or lies within an impoverished community, the tax incentive does not apply. In addition, the tax incentive expires frequently, which creates uncertainty. Let me provide an example. Let us assume that a party is willing to purchase contaminated land and clean it up in order to redevelop the property. However, a party may be unable to make the acquisition and complete the remediation within one calendar year. Uncertain as to whether the tax incentive will be reinstated in the next year may discourage the party from taking on the risk. To address this issue, the bill extends the tax incentive until the end of calendar year 2007. I believe that this will provide certainty to those who see the wisdom in redeveloping these untapped properties of value. In addition, I am pleased to add my name as co-sponsor to the Small Business Brownfield Redevelopment Act of 1999 (S. 1408) offered by Senators Jeffords, Moynihan, Schumer, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Leahy. This bill is an important component of my vision for brownfields redevelopment throughout the nation. S. 1408 provides $50 million to the Small Business Administration to finance projects that assist qualified small businesses, or prospective small business owners, in carrying out site assessment and cleanup activities at brownfields sites. I believe that this bill will assist small businesses in Rhode Island and the country cleanup brownfield sites. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that brownfields are a critical national issue, because abandoned or underused properties dot every community, large and small. The bills I have introduced and co- sponsored today are critical components of the bigger picture, but we can do more. To complement these initiatives, I am announcing today that I intend to work on legislation to provide funding through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for assessment and cleanup of brownfields, and clarify liability to encourage the transfer of property. I would also like to provide assurances that while we work to facilitate state cleanup programs, EPA will take action at a brownfields site when necessary to protect human health and the environment. As I have studied CERCLA and Rhode Island's Superfund sites, I have heard from many people of all political stripes that brownfields legislation can be achieved on a bipartisan basis. They have urged us to address the issues as soon as possible. I have visited brownfields sites in Rhode Island and have seen the potential that exists to revitalize our communities if we can provide sufficient funding, clarify liability issues, and remove other barriers to redevelopment. I am hopeful that if we work in a bipartisan manner, we will be successful in passing brownfields legislation that the President can sign this year.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 835, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. Senator John H. Chafee was the sponsor of this bill; indeed, it was one of his top environmental priorities this Congress. Like the many supporters of this bill, I believe this legislation is needed to turn the tide and start restoring the valuable estuarine habitats that are literally disappearing along our Nation's coasts. I hope all of my colleagues in the House and Senate will join me in working towards its timely enactment. I would like to briefly discuss the importance of estuaries to the hundreds of different animals that live in or near these waterbodies. Estuaries are defined as waterbodies where the river's current meets the sea's tide. These waterbodies are truly unique areas where life thrives. The food chain begins in estuaries, and many of them produce more harvestable human food per acre than the best Mid-western farmland. An astonishing variety of life, including animals as diverse as lobsters, whooping cranes, manatees, salmon, otters, bald eagles, and sea turtles all depend on estuaries for their survival. The San Francisco Bay area alone is home to approximately 255 bird species, 81 mammal species, 30 reptile species and 14 amphibian species. And we cannot forget the importance of estuaries to the human species. As you look around the country--some of our most beloved cities: Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco, New York, Seattle--are located alongside estuaries. While some may disagree, I would have to strongly argue that the most precious estuary is Narragansett Bay, located in my home State of Rhode Island. Rhode Island is ``the Ocean State;'' The anchor adorns our State flag; and we have an official State shell, the Quahog. And, we are known for our sailing, seafood and beaches. Tourism, fishing and other bay-related businesses fuel the regional economy. As a Rhode Islander, it is clear that our welfare depends on a clean, healthy, and productive bay. The bottom line is that we are not doing enough for these valuable resources. The combination of development and pollution in our coastal areas has resulted in a widespread decline in estuary habitat. Estuaries are national treasures, and they deserve a national effort to protect and restore them. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act answers the growing challenge of estuary restoration. It sets a goal of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010. This bill emphasizes the crucial ingredients of successful habitat restoration projects: effective coordination among different levels of government; continued investment by public and private sector partners; and, most importantly, active participation by local communities. Some of the key provisions of the bill are: a $315 million authorization over 5 years for habitat restoration projects; creation of a council to help develop a national strategy for habitat restoration; and a cost-sharing requirement to help leverage Federal dollars. S. 835 also promotes ongoing restoration efforts by reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Long Island Sound Estuary Program. And, the bill makes a significant and necessary change in the EPA's National Estuary Program. Up until now, the 28 designated estuaries of national significance--including Narragansett Bay--could only use Federal funds to develop conservation and management plans. This bill amends the program to allow NEP grants to be used to implement the conservation measures included in those plans, and it doubles the authorization for the National Estuary Program. Indeed, a central theme of this legislation is the need to carry out projects within existing plans and get moving with on-the-ground restoration activities. Responding effectively to the growing threats to our bays, sounds and other coastal waters presents a tremendous challenge: Federal resources are scarce, the need is great, and the pressure on these areas is intensifying. Yet, I am encouraged by the enormous support--at the local, State and Federal levels--for taking action to arrest the deterioration of our estuaries, and to reverse the trend through restoration projects. And, these restoration projects do work. Simply by storing the flow of saltwater to a marsh, or dredging a salt pond to its original depth, we allow nature a chance to revive and flourish. As the former Mayor of Warwick, RI, I have experienced first hand the complexity of restoring estuary habitat degraded by pollution. The City of Warwick surrounds Greenwich Bay, which contains some of the most productive shellfish beds in Rhode Island. In 1992, bacterial contamination closed the entire area to shell fishing. My city responded with the Greenwich Bay Initiative, an ongoing effort to restore the estuary. With help from the State, the Federal Government and the private sector, we rehabilitated sewer systems, installed marina pump-out stations, reduced agricultural runoff and acquired sensitive land for open space conservation. A lot of progress has been made towards restoring the health of the Greenwich Bay, but considerable work remains to be done. The challenge of estuary restoration is even greater at the national level. With the aid of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, we can revive our most precious and productive estuary resources. When you consider this bill, please remember that the beginnings of the food chain that sustain life on Earth dwell in the marshes and tidal pools that we seek to protect. I hope my colleagues will support this important bill.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Snowe in introducing the Medicaid DSH Preservation Act of 2000. This legislation will freeze Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reductions at Fiscal Year 2000 levels, thereby mitigating the forthcoming reductions in Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002. This bill will also provide a growth rate adjustment to help compensate for the increases in the cost of providing care to the most needy and indigent patients. In addition to the Medicare payment reductions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), federal payments to the Medicaid DSH program were also reduced by $10.4 billion over 5 years, with these reductions being absorbed by States and our Nation's vulnerable safety net hospitals. Medicaid DSH payments help reimburse hospitals' costs of treating Medicaid patients, particularly those with complex medical needs. These payments also make it possible for communities to care for the uninsured--a population that is projected to increase considerably during the next few years. The impact of these financial pressures was not fully anticipated at the time the BBA was enacted. Other Financial pressures such as declining Medicaid enrollment have had a significant impact on these safety net hospitals, thereby adding to the rapidly rising number of Americans without health insurance. At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate continues to climb above 44 million, it makes little sense to be reducing much-needed Medicaid DSH payments to our nation's safety net hospitals. Hospitals in Rhode Island will absorb $400 million in reductions as a result of changes made to the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the BBA. Ten out of fourteen hospitals in my State had operating losses in 1999. After the BBA was enacted, it was predicted that cuts in federal Medicare and Medicaid payments would cost hospitals in Rhode Island $220 million over 5 years; however, this estimate has proven to be about $180 million off the mark. Every other State is experiencing similar problems. Since the BBA was signed into law, the American Hospital Association commissioned a study by the Lewin Group, which estimated that there would be $71 billion less paid to hospitals nationwide over 5 years. The original estimate of the impact of the BBA was $18 billion. While the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 provided some relief to our Nation's financially strapped hospitals, that relief was targeted to the Medicare program. Clearly, more needs to be done to keep our vulnerable safety net hospitals from continuing on this downward spiral. This legislation we are introducing today represents a commonsense compromise that will help prevent the further erosion of our Nation's safety net hospitals and the long-term viability of our country's health care system. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Snowe in introducing the Medicaid DSH Preservation Act of 2000. This legislation will freeze Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reductions at Fiscal Year 2000 levels, thereby mitigating the forthcoming reductions in Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002. This bill will also provide a growth rate adjustment to help compensate for the increases in the cost of providing care to the most needy and indigent patients. In addition to the Medicare payment reductions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), federal payments to the Medicaid DSH program were also reduced by $10.4 billion over 5 years, with these reductions being absorbed by States and our Nation's vulnerable safety net hospitals. Medicaid DSH payments help reimburse hospitals' costs of treating Medicaid patients, particularly those with complex medical needs. These payments also make it possible for communities to care for the uninsured--a population that is projected to increase considerably during the next few years. The impact of these financial pressures was not fully anticipated at the time the BBA was enacted. Other Financial pressures such as declining Medicaid enrollment have had a significant impact on these safety net hospitals, thereby adding to the rapidly rising number of Americans without health insurance. At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate continues to climb above 44 million, it makes little sense to be reducing much-needed Medicaid DSH payments to our nation's safety net hospitals. Hospitals in Rhode Island will absorb $400 million in reductions as a result of changes made to the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the BBA. Ten out of fourteen hospitals in my State had operating losses in 1999. After the BBA was enacted, it was predicted that cuts in federal Medicare and Medicaid payments would cost hospitals in Rhode Island $220 million over 5 years; however, this estimate has proven to be about $180 million off the mark. Every other State is experiencing similar problems. Since the BBA was signed into law, the American Hospital Association commissioned a study by the Lewin Group, which estimated that there would be $71 billion less paid to hospitals nationwide over 5 years. The original estimate of the impact of the BBA was $18 billion. While the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 provided some relief to our Nation's financially strapped hospitals, that relief was targeted to the Medicare program. Clearly, more needs to be done to keep our vulnerable safety net hospitals from continuing on this downward spiral. This legislation we are introducing today represents a commonsense compromise that will help prevent the further erosion of our Nation's safety net hospitals and the long-term viability of our country's health care system. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Harry Reid in introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2000. This bill would establish research centers that would be the first in the nation to specifically study the environmental factors that may be related to the development of breast cancer. The lack of agreement within the scientific community and among breast cancer advocates on this question highlights the need for further study. It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2000 will enable us to conduct more conclusive and comprehensive research to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. Before we can find the answers, we must determine the right questions we should be asking. While more research is being conducted into the relationship between breast cancer and the environment, there are still several issues that must be resolved to make this research more effective. There is no known cause of breast cancer.--There is little agreement in the scientific community on how the environment affects breast cancer. While studies have been conducted on the links between environmental factors like pesticides, diet, and electromagnetic fields, no consensus has been reached. There are other factors that have not yet been studied that could provide valuable information. While there is much speculation, it is clear that the relationship between environmental exposures and breast cancer is poorly understood. There are challenges in conducting environmental research.-- Identifying links between environmental factors and breast cancer is difficult. Laboratory experiments and cluster analyses, such as those in Long Island, New York, cannot reveal whether an environmental exposure increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Epidemiological studies must be designed carefully because environmental exposures are difficult to measure. Coordination between the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).--NCI and NIEHS are the two institutes in the NIH that fund most of the research related to breast cancer and the environment; however, comprehensive information specific to environmental effects on breast cancer is not currently available. This legislation would establish eight Centers of Excellence to study these potential links. These ``Breast Cancer Environmental Research Centers'' would provide for multidisciplinary research among basic, clinical, epidemiological and behavioral scientists interested in establishing outstanding, state-of-the-art research programs addressing potential links between the environment and breast cancer. The NIEHS would award grants based on a competitive peer-review process. This legislation would require each Center to collaborate with community organizations in the area, including those that represent women with breast cancer. The bill would authorize $30 million for the next five years for these grants. ``Genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger,'' as Ken Olden, the Director of NIEHS, frequently says. Many scientists believe that certain groups of women have genetic variations that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures. We need to step back and gather evidence before we come to conclusions--that is the purpose of this bill. People are hungry for information, and there is a lot of inconclusive data out there, some of which has no scientific merit whatsoever. We have the opportunity through this legislation to gather legitimate and comprehensive data from premier research institutions across the nation. According to the American Cancer Society, each year 800 women in Rhode Island are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 200 women in my state will die of this terrible disease this year. We owe it to these women who are diagnosed with this life-threatening disease to provide them with answers for the first time. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Harry Reid in introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2000. This bill would establish research centers that would be the first in the nation to specifically study the environmental factors that may be related to the development of breast cancer. The lack of agreement within the scientific community and among breast cancer advocates on this question highlights the need for further study. It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2000 will enable us to conduct more conclusive and comprehensive research to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. Before we can find the answers, we must determine the right questions we should be asking. While more research is being conducted into the relationship between breast cancer and the environment, there are still several issues that must be resolved to make this research more effective. There is no known cause of breast cancer.--There is little agreement in the scientific community on how the environment affects breast cancer. While studies have been conducted on the links between environmental factors like pesticides, diet, and electromagnetic fields, no consensus has been reached. There are other factors that have not yet been studied that could provide valuable information. While there is much speculation, it is clear that the relationship between environmental exposures and breast cancer is poorly understood. There are challenges in conducting environmental research.-- Identifying links between environmental factors and breast cancer is difficult. Laboratory experiments and cluster analyses, such as those in Long Island, New York, cannot reveal whether an environmental exposure increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Epidemiological studies must be designed carefully because environmental exposures are difficult to measure. Coordination between the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).--NCI and NIEHS are the two institutes in the NIH that fund most of the research related to breast cancer and the environment; however, comprehensive information specific to environmental effects on breast cancer is not currently available. This legislation would establish eight Centers of Excellence to study these potential links. These ``Breast Cancer Environmental Research Centers'' would provide for multidisciplinary research among basic, clinical, epidemiological and behavioral scientists interested in establishing outstanding, state-of-the-art research programs addressing potential links between the environment and breast cancer. The NIEHS would award grants based on a competitive peer-review process. This legislation would require each Center to collaborate with community organizations in the area, including those that represent women with breast cancer. The bill would authorize $30 million for the next five years for these grants. ``Genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger,'' as Ken Olden, the Director of NIEHS, frequently says. Many scientists believe that certain groups of women have genetic variations that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures. We need to step back and gather evidence before we come to conclusions--that is the purpose of this bill. People are hungry for information, and there is a lot of inconclusive data out there, some of which has no scientific merit whatsoever. We have the opportunity through this legislation to gather legitimate and comprehensive data from premier research institutions across the nation. According to the American Cancer Society, each year 800 women in Rhode Island are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 200 women in my state will die of this terrible disease this year. We owe it to these women who are diagnosed with this life-threatening disease to provide them with answers for the first time. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. This bill will do away with the Social Security earnings test for those individuals between the ages of 65 to 69. The earnings test has proved to be a disincentive for able and healthy senior citizens to be a productive part of the workforce. On March 1, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 5 by a vote of 422-0. Moreover, the administration has expressed its support for the bill. While I believe the amendment offered by Senator Kerrey had merit, attaching it to this bill would have delayed enactment of this important legislation. Therefore, it is my belief that we should pass this bill immediately and send it to the President for his approval.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday was the tenth annual National Sportsmanship Day--a day designated to promote ethics, integrity, and character in athletics. I am pleased to say that National Sportsmanship Day was a creation of Mr. Daniel E. Doyle, Jr., Executive Director of the Institute for International Sport at the University of Rhode Island. This year, over 12,000 schools in all 50 states and more than 100 countries participated in National Sportsmanship Day. This is remarkable, since ten years ago this program only existed in Rhode Island Elementary Schools! Yesterday, the Institute held a day-long live internet chat room in which athletes, coaches, journalists, students, and educators engaged in discussions of sportsmanship issues, such as trash-talking, ``winning at all costs,'' professional athletes as role models, and behavior of fans. I believe that the Institute's work in addressing the issues of character and sportsmanship, and its ability to foster good dialogue among our young people is significant. As part of the Day's celebration, the Institute selected Sports Ethics Fellows who have demonstrated ``highly ethical behavior in athletics and society.'' Past recipients have included: Kirby Puckett, former Minnesota Twins outfielder and 10-time All Star; Joan Benoit Samuelson, gold medalist in the first women's Olympic marathon in 1984; and Joe Paterno, longtime head football coach at Penn State University. This year, the Institute honored 10 individuals including Grant Hill, five-time All-Star with the Detroit Pistons, and former All-American at Duke; Jennifer Rizzotti, head women's basketball coach, University of Hartford, and member of the WNBA Houston Comets; Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator/linebackers coach, Penn State University, PA; and Mark Newlen, former member of the University of Virginia basketball team (1973-77) and presently physical education teacher and coach at the Collegiate School, Richmond, VA. This year, the Institute has found another avenue to promote understanding and good character for youngsters. A new program called ``The No Swear Zone'' has been instituted to curb the use of profanity in elementary, middle and high school sports, as well as at the college level. In order for a school's athletic team to become a member of ``The No Swear Zone,'' it must pledge to stop the use of profanity in practice and in games. I am very proud that National Sportsmanship Day was initiated in Rhode Island, and I applaud the students and teachers who participated in this inspiring day. Likewise, I congratulate all of those at the University of Rhode Island's Institute for International Sport, whose hard work and dedication over the last ten years have made this program so successful. Mr. President, I ask that the winning essays from this year's contest be printed in the Record. The essays follow: Always Try Your Hardest, Be Encouraging (By Katie McGwin, a fifth grader at Quidnesset Elementary School North Kingstown, RI) To be a good sport means to be kind to others, play fairly, never cheat, try your hardest and be responsible. You can be kind to others by saying encouraging words such as ``You can do it!'' and ``You tried your hardest! Maybe next time.'' These simple words can convince people that they really can do it and they tried their hardest and next time they will do it well. You can play fairly by following the rules and never cheating. You can try your hardest by being the best you can be. You can be responsible by keeping track of your things, doing chores, cleaning up after yourself, taking care of your pets, bringing your homework into school and many other things. I try my hardest in my dance class. I do well, but I think I could try harder. I show my responsibility by keeping track of my things, doing chores and bringing my homework into school. I sometimes encourage people. I always play fairly and I never cheat. I am showing that I am a good sport. I do well in school and I do well at home. Some people do not show sportsmanship. Those are the people who do not care about the rules of the game. They do not show responsibility. Those are the people who are not kind to others. They do not cheer people on. They think that they are the winners and the other team is just there to lose. Losing can be tough. I've been there, too. Don't get too discouraged. The truth might be that your team will win next time. So keep trying. You may have different ways of being a good sport. It doesn't matter what you do to be a good sport; it matters that you are a good sport. Remember this: Always keep trying!

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this week the Senate has debated legislation which is designed, in part, to encourage families to invest in tax exempt savings accounts. Funds from these ``education savings accounts'' could be used for a variety of activities related to the education of children, including for tuition and fees at private and religious schools. I opposed this bill because I do not believe that the federal government should divert funds, in this case more than 2 billion dollars, to private and parochial education. Such a move would be a fundamental change in the federal role in education, a change I believe is misguided. Ninety percent of American children attend public schools. Rather than divert federal dollars to private and parochial schools, I believe the federal government has a responsibility to assist states and local school districts work to improve education for all children, especially children in poverty and children with disabilities. During this debate, a variety of amendments were offered. Senator Dodd proposed an amendment that would eliminate the proposed ``education saving accounts'' and target its funds to increasing federal funding for special education. I commend my Republican colleagues for increasing IDEA--Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--funding in fiscal year 2000 by 25 percent over fiscal year 1998 and 13 percent over fiscal year 1999. Nevertheless, the federal commitment to special education falls far short of what local districts need. Senator Robb offered an amendment that would have made the funds available for school construction bonds. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Robb about the need to assist states and local school districts as they attempt to repair, modernize, and construct school facilities. However, I believe that there is a far better way to accomplish this goal. At the end of the last session, Senator Snowe introduced S.1992, the Building, Renovating, and Constructing Kids' Schools, BRICKS, Act. BRICKS would provide states with low interest loans to help defray the enormous costs associated with modernizing school facilities. I urge my colleagues to look closely at Senator Snowe's excellent proposal. Finally, there have been a number of worthwhile amendments designed to improve public education. Ironically, as the Senate has been debating the Affordable Education Act, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has been attempting to mark-up legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I voted against many of these amendments simply because I believe they should be considered in the context of the ESEA rather than in a piecemeal fashion on a bill the President is certain to veto. Improving and supporting education is the issue of greatest interest to most Americans. I look forward to working with Chairman Jeffords on a strong ESEA reauthorization bill.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Lugar, Lautenberg, and Durbin today in introducing the Smoker's Right to Know and Truth in Labeling Act, which would require comprehensive and prominent labeling of cigarettes. This legislation is a commonsense and bipartisan approach to give every American a chance to make an informed decision about tobacco use. According to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly one in five deaths annually are attributed to tobacco use, making it the single most preventable cause of premature death, disease and disability facing our nation. In fact, more Americans die each year from tobacco use than from AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car accidents, murders, suicides, and fires combined. America's children are most at risk. Despite all we know about the effects of tobacco, each day, 3,000 kids become regular smokers. Of these, 1,000 will eventually die from tobacco-related illnesses. Almost 90 percent of current adult smokers began at or before age 18. Rhode Island--which already has one of the highest rates of teen smoking in the nation--has recently seen another increase in teen smoking. Today, over 37 percent of Rhode Island's high school kids smoke cigarettes. Over 23,000 Rhode Island kids under age 18 will die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses. Tobacco manufacturers say that tobacco use is a matter of choice. They argue that adults, with the full knowledge of the consequences, have the right to choose to smoke. I agree. But I also believe that individuals who choose to smoke should be making informed decisions. The Smoker's Right to Know and Truth in Tobacco Labelling Act would ensure that tobacco users understand the consequences of the choice they are making. With comprehensive labelling of cigarette packs, adults and especially minors, will know the dangers that cigarettes pose to their health and the health of their loved ones. This legislation follows on the recent example set by Canada, which passed tough labelling guidelines that have worked as a strong disincentive to beginning this deadly habit. Under the legislation we are introducing today, there will be no mistake about the life- threatening health effects of tobacco products. As the father of three young children, I have a personal stake in helping to pass legislation to ensure that our kids do not develop this deadly habit. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will join us in passing this important, common-sense legislation.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Lugar, Lautenberg, and Durbin today in introducing the Smoker's Right to Know and Truth in Labeling Act, which would require comprehensive and prominent labeling of cigarettes. This legislation is a commonsense and bipartisan approach to give every American a chance to make an informed decision about tobacco use. According to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly one in five deaths annually are attributed to tobacco use, making it the single most preventable cause of premature death, disease and disability facing our nation. In fact, more Americans die each year from tobacco use than from AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car accidents, murders, suicides, and fires combined. America's children are most at risk. Despite all we know about the effects of tobacco, each day, 3,000 kids become regular smokers. Of these, 1,000 will eventually die from tobacco-related illnesses. Almost 90 percent of current adult smokers began at or before age 18. Rhode Island--which already has one of the highest rates of teen smoking in the nation--has recently seen another increase in teen smoking. Today, over 37 percent of Rhode Island's high school kids smoke cigarettes. Over 23,000 Rhode Island kids under age 18 will die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses. Tobacco manufacturers say that tobacco use is a matter of choice. They argue that adults, with the full knowledge of the consequences, have the right to choose to smoke. I agree. But I also believe that individuals who choose to smoke should be making informed decisions. The Smoker's Right to Know and Truth in Tobacco Labelling Act would ensure that tobacco users understand the consequences of the choice they are making. With comprehensive labelling of cigarette packs, adults and especially minors, will know the dangers that cigarettes pose to their health and the health of their loved ones. This legislation follows on the recent example set by Canada, which passed tough labelling guidelines that have worked as a strong disincentive to beginning this deadly habit. Under the legislation we are introducing today, there will be no mistake about the life- threatening health effects of tobacco products. As the father of three young children, I have a personal stake in helping to pass legislation to ensure that our kids do not develop this deadly habit. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will join us in passing this important, common-sense legislation.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, clinics that provide family planning services and counseling as well as abortions are engaged in an honest, law-abiding activity. These services enable women to exercise their right to make reasoned and informed decisions about their reproductive futures. Yet, given the escalating culture of violence surrounding these clinics, abortion providers and clinic workers risk their lives coming to work each day. In my own state of Rhode Island, I have heard troubling reports of clinic violence from people such as Pablo Rodriguez M.D., medical director of Planned Parenthood Rhode Island. Although Congress has made strides to stem clinic violence by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), this statute has not been a panacea. While FACE empowered those victimized by clinic violence to sue, many plaintiffs found liable in civil court for clinic violence seek refuge under our nation's bankruptcy law to avoid paying the financial penalties levied against them. Providing women's health services is legal; clinic violence is not. I believe we must do anything we can to discourage these horrible acts of violence. Senator Schumer's amendment closes a loophole that allows perpetrators of clinic violence to escape the consequences of their actions. The bankruptcy code was intended to provide a fresh start for honest debtors, not those who have violated the law and endangered innocent lives. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Senator Schumer's amendment.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I also wish to commend my colleagues from New England for all of their hard work on this issue. Senators Jeffords, Specter, Leahy, and others all have worked diligently to protect the dairy farmers in our region. I thank them for their efforts. As my colleagues know, the Northeast Dairy Compact was approved by Congress in 1996 as a part of the Freedom to Farm bill. It was implemented after the Secretary of Agriculture found that there was a ``compelling public interest'' for its creation. A state-generated response to the decline in the New England dairy industry over the last decade, the Dairy Compact has preserved local milk supplies for the Northeast. In 1978, there were 6,439 dairy farms in New England. By 1992, the number of dairy farms fell to 3,974. During this same time, the number of dairy farms in my home state fell from 93 to 41--a 60 percent decrease. As I stand here today, there are only 30 dairy farms remaining. 93 to 30. This certainly is an alarming number. Why is this alarming? Dairy farms are the essence of New England-- independent and hard working--the very symbol of our region. They are not in far away rural areas such as those in other parts of the country. Most are close to fast growing areas which are ripe for development. It would be very easy for any one of our local dairy farmers to sell their land to area developers and settle for an easier lifestyle. In New England, we value the contributions of our dairy farmers. As areas feel the pressure of population growth, and the resulting stress on the environment, it becomes more and more important to support dairy farming and the benefits we all reap from their existence. We do not want to see them disappear. To have them extinguished from the New England countryside would be the equivalent of the Liberty Bell leaving Pennsylvania, the Statue of Liberty leaving New York, and Mount Rushmore being torn down for townhomes in South Dakota. The Northeast Dairy Compact works. It is only fitting that we are here today to extend its existence. To do otherwise would jeopardize the progress that has been made to preserve our lands and the farming economy in New England. Again, I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the floor.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, although I have only recently joined the Senate and did not have the privilege of working on this bill, I am honored to rise as a cosponsor of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to the memory of my late father than approving this legislation renamed in his honor. I thank the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor so soon after my father's passing. And I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the others who led the effort: Senators Rockefeller, Collins, Snowe, Jeffords, Moynihan, Bond, and others. Along with my father, your efforts will provide assistance to one of our nation's most vulnerable groups: older children in the foster care program. Currently, Independent Living Programs for older foster children end at their 18th birthday, abandoning these teens in the middle of a critical transition period from adolescence to adulthood. Sadly, these young people are left to negotiate the rough waters of adulthood without vital health and mental health resources and critical life- skills. However, this legislation will cushion a usually abrupt transition by funding Independent Living Programs for foster children through their 21st birthday. It also provides states the option to extend health and mental health care benefits to these youngsters until age 21 under the Medicaid Program and specifies a minimum grant of $500,000 for smaller states like Rhode Island to provide such benefits. Before he died, my father learned first-hand of the need for this legislation when several older foster care children who had ``aged- out'' of the system testified before his Finance Subcommittee. These youngsters told moving stories; sleeping outdoors, eating out of dumpsters, and accepting the charity of their teachers to pay for medical bills became their harsh reality because they were too old to remain in an Independent Living Program or a foster family. As a result, many of his Senate colleagues and First Lady Hillary Clinton cheered him on in his efforts to enact this legislation. Indeed, ensuring that the most vulnerable members of our society retained basic human dignity guided my father's actions during his years of public service. Bipartisanship was also a watchword he live by. This bill encompasses both of these noble qualities and I know he would be honored by the passage of this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 367, I voted ``aye.'' It was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. It would in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, one of my constituents, Mrs. Virginia Doris of Warwick, Rhode Island, recently sent my late father a poem she had written as a tribute to the veterans of World War II. I understand that he agreed to insert her poem in the Congressional Record in time for Veterans Day. I was honored when Mrs. Doris asked me to carry out that task in his place. Before I do so, I would like to take a brief moment to alert my colleagues to Mrs. Doris's own contribution to the war effort. During World War II, 23,000 Oerlikon-Gazda 20mm anti-aircraft guns were manufactured in my home state of Rhode Island. Originally produced in Switzerland, these guns were critical to the Allied campaign--nearly every ship in the fleet carried them by the end of the war. And Virginia Doris was right in the thick of this arms production effort, working long hours in the drafting room of the Oerlikon-Gazda command center, located in downtown Providence. In a 1990 interview with the Providence-Journal, Mrs. Doris described her years at the center ``as this marvelous period in my life.'' Equipped with what she refers to as her ``turbo persona,'' Mrs. Doris was a valued and trusted member of the Oerlikon-Gazda team. I ask unanimous consent, Mrs. Doris's poem, ``Ode to Comrades-In- Arms: World War II,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. L. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. L. Chafee and Mr. Jeffords pertaining to the introduction of S. 1891 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')