Lincoln Chafee

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues my views on several items contained within this conference report. Shortly after becoming a Senator, I was named chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. One of the most important matters before our subcommittee this year is the Administration's proposed anti-drug aid package for Colombia. The conference report before the Senate today includes $1.3 billion for this plan. On February 25, I called the first hearing of my subcommittee to consider the many facets of this package. I must say that at first, I was quite skeptical of providing such a dramatic increase in anti-drug military aid to Colombia. My concerns centered on whether the United States had a comprehensive long-term strategy for this plan, whether this swift and dramatic infusion of military hardware would result in a worsening of the human rights record of the Colombian military, and whether there were assurances that these funds would not be wasted due to corruption. At our hearing, our subcommittee explored a number of questions about this plan. Key among our witnesses was Jose Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. Mr. Vivanco outlined a report he had just authored documenting the continued links between the Colombian military to the paramilitaries that have been implicated in countless human rights abuses in Colombia. He also touched on the lack of progress in prosecution in Colombia's civilian courts of military personnel accused of human rights abuses. Two months later, I chaired a meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee with the President of Colombia, Andres Pastrana. At this meeting, several members of the Committee and other interested Senators were able to discuss in depth with Mr. Pastrana our concerns about this plan. I came away from our meeting fully convinced that President Pastrana is a courageous, reform-minded leader who is committed not only to ending drug trafficking in Colombia, but also to bringing stability, ending violence, and promoting human rights there as well. I am gratified that concerns such as those raised at our subcommittee hearing and our meeting with President Pastrana received attention as the House and Senate have considered the Administration's plan. In that regard, the conference report before the Senate today includes several stringent requirements, including a series of conditions on the progress of Colombia's military in addressing human rights abuses; $29 million more than the President's request for human rights and justice programs; a requirement that the U.S. President develop a comprehensive strategy with benchmarks; and additional anti-drug funding to neighboring nations so that this problem is not simply exported out of Colombia. Although there remain numerous critics who do not support this plan, I would attest that the provisions in this bill are far better than simply appropriating the funds without condition. With these strong provisions included, I support passage of this anti-drug package for Colombia. However, let's be clear that passage of this plan today is not the end of Congress' consideration of this critical issue. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, I will closely monitor implementation of this aid package to ensure that the conditions enacted by Congress today are carried out responsibly and thoroughly by the Administration. I would also like to mention a rider inserted by the Conference Committee that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from finishing work on a proposed rule revising the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program under the Clean Water Act. The TMDL issue is an important policy matter, one with significant consequences for public use of our Nation's surface waters and for many businesses, farmers and others who will be affected by the rule. No doubt, this issue is controversial and merits careful consideration and debate. However, the TMDL provision inserted into the Military Construction and Supplemental Appropriations bill inappropriately transfers the decision regarding the TMDL rule from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. This rider is not germane to the underlying bill, was inserted into the Conference Report without any public debate, and cannot be amended. In my view, important decisions regarding environmental policy should not be made behind closed doors and out of public view. This type of backdoor legislating circumvents the legislative process of debate and amendment, and abuses the public trust. By including this language in a conference report that cannot be amended, Senators must either accept the offensive provision, or vote down an appropriations bill containing important funds for disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and national defense. Since the bill provides critical assistance to people that need help, I reluctantly support its passage.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate approved S. 148, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. I would like to thank Senator Abraham and Senator Smith for their work on this important environmental issue, and also offer my family's appreciation for Senator Abraham's kind words regarding my father. Senator John Chafee was a strong proponent of this legislation, and I am proud to follow his lead in cosponsoring this bill. Now, what is a neotropical migratory bird? Simply put, it's a bird that breeds in North America, and migrates each year to tropical habitats in Central and South America. While the name sounds technical and complicated, many of these birds are well-known and well-loved by Americans. Plovers, sandpipers, hummingbirds, woodpeckers, orioles, blackbirds, and many species of raptor and songbird are all neotropical migratory birds. Some of these birds, such as the Ruby-throated Hummingbird and the Killdeer, cover amazing distances as they travel between their summer and winter habitats. In Rhode Island, we are fortunate to be visited by many neotropical migrants including one species of hummingbird, over ten species of raptor, over 30 species of shorebirds, eight species of flycatcher, six species of thrush, and 35 species of warblers. Rhode Island's location makes it a key stopover spot for many neotropical migrants to refuel and rehydrate. In addition to an excellent location, Rhode Island has important habitat for migratory birds. Its combination of fruit-bearing shrubs and forest provide ample cover and food for these birds to take a break during their migration. The many wetlands found in the state also provide excellent areas to rehydrate, one of the most important needs on a bird's trip north or south. Even with high quality habitat still available in parts of the United States, tragically, many of these species are in real danger. The greatest human threat to neotropical migratory birds is the loss of habitat, particularly in the Caribbean and Latin America. Many neotropical migratory birds stop to rest and feed at several relatively small patches of habitat along their long migrations between continents. Destruction of these stopover areas can have a devastating impact on a species. In addition, overharvesting of timber, loss of wetlands and heavy use of pesticides exact a heavy toll on the habitats on which neotropical migrants depend. As noted in the Committee Report, 90 species of migratory birds are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and approximately 210 species in the United States are in serious decline. The challenge of protecting migratory birds is complicated by the reality that many of the most effective conservation measures must be implemented overseas. Migratory birds cross oceans, time zones, and national boundaries. Preservation of these species must involve close partnerships and cooperation with our Caribbean and South American neighbors. Senator Abraham's bill will help address the multitude of threats facing migratory birds by encouraging partnerships between private and public entities and across international boundaries to help protect and restore habitat of neotropical migrants. Importantly, there are ongoing efforts aimed at stopping the decline in migratory bird species; however, these efforts could be enhanced through better coordination and increased funding. S. 148 furthers both goals. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to facilitate the exchange of information among the various groups, and to coordinate existing conservation efforts. The bill also authorizes $25 million over five years in grants for projects to conserve neotropical migratory bird populations. Three-quarters of this funding must be used for projects in other countries to ensure that scarce resources will be focused where they are needed most. In closing, I would like to relate a story that my father used to tell about a family friend traveling in China. This fellow noticed that his surroundings there were strangely silent. Upon reflection, he attributed the ominous quiet to the total lack of birds in the environment. Apparently, in parts of China the destruction of habitat and the commercial bird market have resulted in the virtual elimination of songbirds. What a terrible loss. We must work together to prevent such tragedy from occurring in the Western Hemisphere. And, Senator Abraham's bill is a good step in the right direction. I applaud my colleagues for supporting this measure to help prevent the further decline in our neotropical migratory birds. And, I hope the President will act swiftly to enact the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as many of you know, I joined Senators Graham, Robb, Bryan, and others in introducing S. 2758, the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act of 2000 this past Tuesday. While I strongly support S. 2758 and urge my colleagues to support it, I was very troubled by the process in this Chamber last night. We talk a good game about wanting to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis. In fact, at a Centrist Coalition meeting earlier this week, many Senators from both sides of the aisle--led by the minority leader--were talking about how the two parties should be working together to produce a prescription drug bill for our Nation's seniors. However, the prescription drug amendment that we debated and voted on last night proved otherwise. It suggested that all the talk about bipartisanship is merely a facade. It was clear from the procedural wrangling that led to the vote on the Robb amendment that there is no intention by the Democratic leadership to work together to fashion a bipartisan compromise on a Medicare prescription drug bill. In fact, it is my understanding that minority leader told others not to let me--one of the author's of this bill--know about this motion ahead of time. That doesn't sound very bipartisan to me. Sadly, the amendment last night really undermines our ability to work toward a compromise to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. If we were really interested in producing a bipartisan bill that could be signed into law, we would be working together on a proposal rather than filing motions such as the one last night, which was destined to go down to partisan defeat. I had high hopes when I stood with Senators Graham, Robb, Bryan, and others on Tuesday and we announced the introduction of our Medicare Outpatient Drug Act. I had hopes that we would be able to work this bill through the legislative process, give this bill an airing at the Finance Committee, and work with Republicans and Democrats alike to fine-tune it into a product that the President could sign into law. I think most of us here would agree it is time to update the Medicare program to include a prescription drug benefit. I hear about this issue back in Rhode Island more than any other issue. The senior population in Rhode Island is the second largest in the Nation--second only to Florida. The seniors in my State constantly approach me about the high cost of their prescription drug bills. I expect most of us hear more about this issue from our constituents than any other. However, filing procedural motions that are doomed to failure is not the way to achieve this important goal. I am afraid that some on the opposite side of the aisle aren't really interested in passing a Medicare prescription drug bill this year--they would rather that we do nothing and use this issue to try to defeat some of us in the fall. Let's not hold the 39 million Medicare recipients in this country hostage to partisan politics. I believe the legislation I introduced with Senators Graham, Robb, Bryan, and others is one of the most responsible and comprehensive drug bills in Congress. And, more important, it would help relieve seniors of the growing burden of high prescription drug bills. However, while I support this legislation and regretfully voted in support of the Robb amendment last night because I am committed to passing a good prescription drug bill to help our Nation's seniors, I do not believe the exercise last night was constructive. Sadly, it was quite the opposite. I thank the Chair.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the managers of this bill, Senators McConnell and Leahy, for accepting a revised version of the amendment I submitted yesterday. This amendment addresses international debt relief. Today we are at the dawn of the new millennium--2000 is the Year of Jubilee. It is in this year that people throughout the world have been inspired by the Book of Leviticus in the Hebrew Scriptures. This book describes a Year of Jubilee, in which slaves are freed, land is returned to original owners, and debts are canceled. The Bible's teachings of the Year of Jubilee has led to a worldwide movement to have the world's wealthiest nations forgive the debt of the world's poorest nations. Great Britain, Canada, the Philippines, Australia, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Sweden, South Africa, and the United States have national campaigns in this regard. The most prominent churches and relief groups worldwide also endorse this goal. This spiritual movement in turn is helping motivate the United States and our G-7 allies to put forth the heavily indebted poor countries (``HIPC'') initiative. This groundbreaking effort will provide substantial debt relief to poor nations conditioned on making real progress towards economic growth and poverty reduction. It will also emphasize greater budget discipline within recipient countries so that scarce resources, rather than being wasted, are directed where they are needed most. Although the President requested $435 million this year for the U.S. contribution to the HIPC initiative, the appropriations bill before the Senate today provides just $75 million. The amendment I have authored expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should authorize and appropriate full funding. This amendment is cosponsored by seventeen of my colleagues, including those who have been leaders on this issue during the past several years. Cosponsors of my amendment are Senators Mack, Sarbanes, Biden, Hagel, Wellstone, Lieberman, Landrieu, Dodd, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Gordon Smith, DeWine, Lugar, Feinstein, Grams, Inouye, and Bryan. I believe it is important to draw attention to this critical issue, and would again like to thank the bill's managers for accepting my amendment. I am hopeful that in the coming weeks, we will make further progress towards full U.S. participation in the HIPC initiative. Thank you.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate debated an issue of critical importance--preventing hate crimes. Hate crimes are attacks on our very culture. What makes the United States different from places such as the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or the Middle East, civilizations which are torn apart by prejudice and hatred, is our acceptance of diversity. The image of the United States as a melting pot, where diversity flourishes, is shattered by news stories of hate related violence. Hate crimes are crimes of intimidation and violence, in which a person's civil rights are threatened because of prejudice. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, does not create a new law, nor does it federalize more crimes. Rather, it clarifies a law that has been on the books for over thirty years. Federal hate crimes protections were established as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The law sets up a backstop for states that cannot adequately prosecute these hate-based crimes. However, the current law's strict dual intent requirement that the defendant acted because of the victim's race, religion, or ethnicity and because the victim was enjoying or exercising a federally protected right, such as voting or attending public school, is far too constricting. Even the heinous dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, Texas did not qualify under current law as a federal hate crime. Never since the statute was enacted have there been more than 10 prosecutions for hate crimes in a year. The Smith-Kennedy amendment has two major components. First, it expands individuals covered by hate crimes to include sexual orientation, gender, and disability. Second, it eliminates constraints that make the current law ineffective. The federal government, with the approval of a state's Attorney General, would be empowered to prosecute crimes that cause death or bodily injury ``because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, or disability'' of the victim. According to FBI statistics, in 1996, almost two-thirds of the reported hate crimes were due to race, while 12% were based on sexual orientation. It is important that protection from hate crimes be extended to all of America's citizens. The Supreme Court has already signaled the constitutionality of hate crime statutes. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutional right of states to enact hate crimes statutes. I believe that it is now time for Congress to act. Mr. President, I cosponsored the Hate Crimes Prevention Act because it was the right thing to do. The issue here is civil rights, and as a nation we went a long way in the last century toward assuring that the civil rights of ALL Americans were not infringed upon. Let's start this new century with another step in the right direction.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, although I will vote to table this amendment, I would like to make it clear to my colleagues that I support the concept of establishment of a bipartisan commission to study U.S. policy towards Cuba. For years, an often emotional and politically charged debate on our Cuba policy has gone on here in the U.S. In such an atmosphere, it is often prudent to let a bipartisan commission take a careful look at our policy, assess how well it has worked, and make recommendations for change, if necessary. I think such a solution would be appropriate with respect to our policy towards Cuba. However, I am not convinced that this is the proper time and place to create such a commission. Indeed, under this amendment many of the commissioners would be appointed by a lame-duck President, infringing on the ability of the new President to develop his own Cuba policy. It has become increasingly clear that the 39-year U.S. trade embargo has not succeeded in effecting change in Cuba. Fidel Castro's regime remains in power, and the Cuban people continue to suffer under his brutal dictatorship and a floundering economy. I believe a bipartisan commission would be useful in taking a fresh look at the efficacy of our embargo. Now, however, is not the time to do this.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Graham, Bryan, Robb, Conrad, and Baucus in introducing the Medicare Outpatient Drug (MOD) Act of 2000 today. The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act addresses an area of great concern to our nation's seniors: the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Seniors today are facing staggering and burdensome drug prices. Studies show that the average American over 65 spends more than $700 per year on drug prescriptions. In Rhode Island, seniors pay twice as much for certain prescription drugs as the drug companies' most favored customers (for example, Medicaid and the Veteran's Administration). On average, Rhode Island seniors pay 84 percent more than prescription drug consumers in Canada or Mexico. We must update the Medicare program to include a prescription drug benefit. This bipartisan, comprehensive bill will provide universal coverage to all 39 million Medicare beneficiaries in this country. As you know, Medicare was established in 1965 at a time when prescription drugs were not widely used. These days, drug therapies have replaced overnight stays in hospitals and long convalescence in nursing facilities. In light of this, we must update the Medicare program to keep pace with these scientific and medical advances. This legislation does many things that other legislative proposals do not. First, it provides universal coverage on a voluntary basis to every Medicare-eligible individual. Second, it is based on a standard insurance model, with coinsurance, a deductible, and a defined stop- loss benefit. In other words, once a senior pays $4,000 in annual drug costs, our plan covers the rest. Third, the amount of a senior's premium would be directly related to his/her income, on a sliding scale. In other words, the lowest-income senior will receive the greatest subsidy. Conversely, the highest-income senior will receive the lowest federal subsidy. Finally, this legislation emulates market-based insurance coverage by allowing multiple ``pharmacy benefit managers'' (PBMs) to contract with Medicare to provide the pharmaceutical benefit to seniors. This would ensure competition in the delivery of this benefit, which means a better benefit and lower prices for consumers. This competition would also prevent the government from ``setting'' drug prices. In my view, price setting would weaken the ability of pharmaceutical companies to conduct valuable research and development into new drug therapies that one day may cure diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's Alzheimer's, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS. In sum, I believe our proposal to be one of the most responsible and comprehensive drug bills in Congress. It achieves these twin goals while relieving seniors of the huge burden of high drug bills. Seniors should never have to choose between filling a prescription for needed medication or buying groceries. Sadly, this is often the case today. This past April, I received a letter from an elderly couple in Rhode Island, with a list of their prescription drug expenses for 1999 enclosed. This couple spent almost $7,000 in 1999 on these prescriptions. They are living on a fixed income, and told me that their savings are being wiped out by the high cost of prescription medications. In addition, the grandmother of one of my staffers cannot afford Prilosec, which she needs to prevent nausea. She cannot hold down food without this drug. This grandmother has to get her Prilosec prescription from her daughter, who has it prescribed and then ships it to her mother. This should not be happening. Our bill will ensure that these seniors will get the prescription medications they need without having to wipe out their personal savings or resort to getting the prescription through a relative. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation and finally provide this necessary medical coverage to our nation's seniors.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Graham, Bryan, Robb, Conrad, and Baucus in introducing the Medicare Outpatient Drug (MOD) Act of 2000 today. The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act addresses an area of great concern to our nation's seniors: the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Seniors today are facing staggering and burdensome drug prices. Studies show that the average American over 65 spends more than $700 per year on drug prescriptions. In Rhode Island, seniors pay twice as much for certain prescription drugs as the drug companies' most favored customers (for example, Medicaid and the Veteran's Administration). On average, Rhode Island seniors pay 84 percent more than prescription drug consumers in Canada or Mexico. We must update the Medicare program to include a prescription drug benefit. This bipartisan, comprehensive bill will provide universal coverage to all 39 million Medicare beneficiaries in this country. As you know, Medicare was established in 1965 at a time when prescription drugs were not widely used. These days, drug therapies have replaced overnight stays in hospitals and long convalescence in nursing facilities. In light of this, we must update the Medicare program to keep pace with these scientific and medical advances. This legislation does many things that other legislative proposals do not. First, it provides universal coverage on a voluntary basis to every Medicare-eligible individual. Second, it is based on a standard insurance model, with coinsurance, a deductible, and a defined stop- loss benefit. In other words, once a senior pays $4,000 in annual drug costs, our plan covers the rest. Third, the amount of a senior's premium would be directly related to his/her income, on a sliding scale. In other words, the lowest-income senior will receive the greatest subsidy. Conversely, the highest-income senior will receive the lowest federal subsidy. Finally, this legislation emulates market-based insurance coverage by allowing multiple ``pharmacy benefit managers'' (PBMs) to contract with Medicare to provide the pharmaceutical benefit to seniors. This would ensure competition in the delivery of this benefit, which means a better benefit and lower prices for consumers. This competition would also prevent the government from ``setting'' drug prices. In my view, price setting would weaken the ability of pharmaceutical companies to conduct valuable research and development into new drug therapies that one day may cure diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's Alzheimer's, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS. In sum, I believe our proposal to be one of the most responsible and comprehensive drug bills in Congress. It achieves these twin goals while relieving seniors of the huge burden of high drug bills. Seniors should never have to choose between filling a prescription for needed medication or buying groceries. Sadly, this is often the case today. This past April, I received a letter from an elderly couple in Rhode Island, with a list of their prescription drug expenses for 1999 enclosed. This couple spent almost $7,000 in 1999 on these prescriptions. They are living on a fixed income, and told me that their savings are being wiped out by the high cost of prescription medications. In addition, the grandmother of one of my staffers cannot afford Prilosec, which she needs to prevent nausea. She cannot hold down food without this drug. This grandmother has to get her Prilosec prescription from her daughter, who has it prescribed and then ships it to her mother. This should not be happening. Our bill will ensure that these seniors will get the prescription medications they need without having to wipe out their personal savings or resort to getting the prescription through a relative. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation and finally provide this necessary medical coverage to our nation's seniors.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Kohl, Graham, and Lincoln in introducing the Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2000. The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2000 closes a loophole in current federal statute by expanding the eligibility of one of the most effective means of enforcing child support orders--that of intercepting the federal tax refunds of parents who are delinquent in paying their court-ordered financial support for their children. Under current law, eligibility for the federal tax refund offset program is limited to cases involving minors, parents on public assistance, or adult children who are disabled. Custodial parents of adult, non-disabled children are not assisted under the IRS tax refund intercept program, and in many cases, they must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Some of these parents have gone into debt to put their college-age children through school. The legislation we are introducing today will address this inequity by expanding the eligibility of the federal tax refund offset program to cover parents of all children, regardless of whether the child is disabled or a minor. This legislation will not create a cause of action for a custodial parent to seek additional child support. It will merely assist the custodial parent in recovering debt that is owed for a level of child support that was determined by a court. Improving our child support enforcement programs is an issue that should be of concern to us all as it remains a serious problem in the United States. According to the most recent Government statistics, there are approximately twelve million active cases in which a child support order requires a noncustodial parent to contribute to the support of his or her child. Of the $13.7 billion owed in 1998, only $6.9 billion has been collected. It is important to note that this data does not include reporting from many states, including Callifornia, New York, Florida, and Illinois. In 1998, only 23 percent of children entitled to child support through our public system received some form of payment, despite Federal and State efforts. Similar shortfalls in previous years bring the combined delinquency total to approximately $47 billion. We can fix this injustice in our Federal tax refund offset program by helping some of our most needy constituents receive the financial assistance they are owed. While the administration has been somewhat successful in using tax refunds as a tool to collect child support payments, more needs to be done. The IRS tax refund interception program has only collected one- third of tardy child support payments. The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2000 will remove the current barrier to fulfilling an individual's obligation to pay child support, while helping to provide for the future of our Nation's children. 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 Senators Kohl, Graham, and Lincoln in introducing the Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2000. The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2000 closes a loophole in current federal statute by expanding the eligibility of one of the most effective means of enforcing child support orders--that of intercepting the federal tax refunds of parents who are delinquent in paying their court-ordered financial support for their children. Under current law, eligibility for the federal tax refund offset program is limited to cases involving minors, parents on public assistance, or adult children who are disabled. Custodial parents of adult, non-disabled children are not assisted under the IRS tax refund intercept program, and in many cases, they must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Some of these parents have gone into debt to put their college-age children through school. The legislation we are introducing today will address this inequity by expanding the eligibility of the federal tax refund offset program to cover parents of all children, regardless of whether the child is disabled or a minor. This legislation will not create a cause of action for a custodial parent to seek additional child support. It will merely assist the custodial parent in recovering debt that is owed for a level of child support that was determined by a court. Improving our child support enforcement programs is an issue that should be of concern to us all as it remains a serious problem in the United States. According to the most recent Government statistics, there are approximately twelve million active cases in which a child support order requires a noncustodial parent to contribute to the support of his or her child. Of the $13.7 billion owed in 1998, only $6.9 billion has been collected. It is important to note that this data does not include reporting from many states, including Callifornia, New York, Florida, and Illinois. In 1998, only 23 percent of children entitled to child support through our public system received some form of payment, despite Federal and State efforts. Similar shortfalls in previous years bring the combined delinquency total to approximately $47 billion. We can fix this injustice in our Federal tax refund offset program by helping some of our most needy constituents receive the financial assistance they are owed. While the administration has been somewhat successful in using tax refunds as a tool to collect child support payments, more needs to be done. The IRS tax refund interception program has only collected one- third of tardy child support payments. The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2000 will remove the current barrier to fulfilling an individual's obligation to pay child support, while helping to provide for the future of our Nation's children. 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 would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a Rhode Island hero. Mr. President, Lieutenant General John Bruce Blount was just given an Honorary Doctorate Degree from his alma mater, the University of Rhode Island. A former star athlete, a decorated war hero of two wars, Korea and Vietnam, and a man who helped end the Army-McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, Rhode Islanders were happy to welcome him home. The Providence Journal ran this article, ``Hometown Hero Blount to be Honored at URI Graduation,'' about him. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the article be inserted in the Record. The article follows: [From the Providence Journal] Hometown Hero Blount To Be Honored at URI Graduation (By David Henley) Kingston--A favorite son will be returning soon. A decorated hero of two wars, a former star athlete who set the still-standing high school basketball record for points scored in a game over half a century ago and a man who helped end the Army-McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, Lt. Gen. John Bruce Blount will return to the University of Rhode Island in a few weeks to pick up his latest recognition. Blount will be one of four recipients of honorary doctorate degrees from his alma mater at the school's 114th commencement May 20. ``I'm 50 years away from Kingston, but this is a real thrill,'' Blount said Monday from his home in Columbia, S.C. ``My whole family is coming in, from Carolina, Florida, Detroit. I've always maintained my connections back home, and I knew people were trying to do this, but I guess the planets were just in the right alignment.'' Blount, known as Bruce, is something of a local legend, both at the university and at South Kingstown High school, where he was a student when he scored his record-setting 66 points. The team then played at the St. Francis Parish Hall on High Street; the games lasted only 32 minutes and there were no three-point shots then. His military career has been written about many times. As the only URI alumnus to achieve the rank of three-star general, Blount's service in Korea and Vietnam earned him dozens of medals and decorations, including the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Korean Chung Mu Distinguished Service Medal and a Purple Heart when he was injured in combat on Korea's Old Baldy. Blount became nationally famous when he stood his ground under questioning at the McCarthy hearings, earning praise even from Sen. Joseph McCarthy himself, and later produced photographic evidence discrediting the senator by proving he had doctored evidence. But to many of his own generation, and to his elders, he is probably best remembered as just a kid with a basketball under one arm hitchhiking back and forth between Peace Dale and Kingston. Blount's family first moved into South County during the Depression, according to his brother Frank, a retired schoolteacher living on Great Island. The boys' father, Joseph Blount, an insurance salesman from Illinois who had met his Rhode Island bride while both served in the Navy in World War I, came to the area looking for work, which he found in local restaurants. Eventually Joe Blount opened Joe's Diner in Peace Dale, where Patsy's Package Store is now, and a second restaurant next to the Wakefield Diner on Main Street. But Loretta Blount had bigger plans for her children. ``My mother knew she wanted her children to go to college, so she moved us out of Peace Dale and out to Kingston, just to be near the campus, when I was about 7,'' Bruce Blount said. ``She financed the house by renting rooms out to college kids. When I finally started at the university myself, I was the only kid who actually was farther away from campus in my frat house than I was at home.'' Joe Blount contined in the restaurant business, opening the original Ram's Den in the house next to the family home on Upper College Road. ``I can remember getting up with my dad at about 4 in the morning and going down and getting the fires going,'' the general said. ``He'd get the baking started for the day. By the time I was 10 I was making the bacon and eggs, putting them up for people. Basically, I was a short-order cook.'' By that time he also had become a favorite of the school's basketball team, and particularly of its coach, Frank Keaney, another local legend. In fact the whole family was more or less adopted by the university community, to hear the sons tell it. One day, Frank Blount remembers, Keaney came in to see Joe Blount with an idea. It seems he had a team that needed to work to eat, but needed flexibility for practice and games; Joe hired them all as waiters, cooks and dishwashers. When they were playing he tended not to have that much business anyway. Loretta opened a soda shop at Lippitt Hall and worked as a switchboard operator, the same job she had had in the Navy. She became friends with each of the university's presidents over the years, and for years it was a tradition for the president to stop the commencement march to walk over and shake hands with Loretta Blount. ``She loved that,'' Frank remembered. ``I started out as waterboy for the team, and later I was the mascot,'' Bruce Blount said. ``I grew up knowing more older men, and more athletes, than I knew of kids my own age. ``Back then we didn't just walk around in sneakers, you had regular street shoes, and coach wouldn't let me on the floor with them on. So I would stand in the corners during practice, and when the ball came to me, instead of tossing them back in I would just put them up. I developed a really different sort of shooting style, but I could hit from almost anywhere.'' Once he started high school, Blount found himself constantly traveling between gyms, from URI's Rodman Hall to St. Francis and the Old Fagan's Hall in Peace Dale, the South Kingstown team's alternate gym. With his gym bag over his shoulder and a basketball under his arm, Blount became a familiar sight on Kingstown Road. ``I could get around better than anybody without a car,'' he said. That famous basketball career could have led Blount away from Kingston but didn't. Despite being recruited by schools like Brown and Harvard, Blount knew he wanted to attend URI, then called Rhode Island State. ``There was never any question,'' he said. ``I was absolutely enthralled with the idea of playing for Rhode Island, and Coach Keaney was an idol to me.'' On his way to collecting more than 1,000 points in his college career, Blount also acted as captain of both the basketball and baseball teams. But he also found time to begin what would be his ultimate career. As an ROTC cadet, Blount became cadet colonel in his senior year and was commissioned in the regular Army as a second lieutenant in the Infantry when he graduated in 1950. Starting out as a training officer in the 4th Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne, he was made platoon commander in Korea the next year, then company executive officer, then company commander in the 45th Infantry. He was selected as aide-de-camp by Maj. Gen. C.E. Ryan, commander of the Korean Military Advisory Group, and returned to the states with Ryan after his injury. Since then he has worked his way up the ranks, spending time as a staff officer at the Pentagon, in the Southern Command in the Canal Zone and as commander of the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry, 1st Air Cavalry in Vietnam. In 1969 he was made secretary of the U.S. Army Infantry School in Fort Benning, Ga., and in 1971 was assigned to the European Command, eventually serving as community commander of the American Military Community in Wurzburg, Germany. Finally, in 1983, he was promoted to lieutenant general and made chief of staff of the NATO Allied Forces South Command, consisting of units from Greece, Turkey, Italy the United Kingdom and the United States. ``I always followed Bruce, did whatever he did, only not as well,'' said little brother Frank Friday. ``When he was in the NATO command, I thought that was a big deal. But I had the most fun when he was on the general's staff at Dix when he was stationed there. Whenever my company needed anything, they would come to me and I would call up, say, the motor pool and tell them I needed a Jeep. They'd ask who I was and I would say, `This is Lieutenant Blount' in my best command voice and get whatever it was I needed. ``Of course it only lasted about a month before everybody figured out there were two Lieutenant Blounts on base, but we would begin to laugh our heads off whenever I told him what I was doing.'' ``For the longest time in my life I was `Bruce Blount's brother,' '' he said. ``And to this day I am very proud of that.''

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the Telephone Pioneers of America. This tremendous volunteer organization has provided 40 years of volunteer labor service to the repair of talking-book machines for the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Since 1960, the Pioneers have provided over $70 million worth of volunteer labor and have repaired nearly 2 million machines. More than a half-million blind and physically disabled individuals benefit from this outstanding volunteer repair service. In Rhode Island alone, Pioneers have volunteered 27,186 hours and repaired 17,146 machines since 1986. The Pioneers are a good-will organization of a million people. This international organization is led by President Irene Chavira of U.S. West, Senior Vice President, Harold Burlingame of AT&T, and Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer James Gadd of Bell South. The organization is further supported by countless special people who make up the association, headquarters advisory board, and sponsoring companies. Concerning the talking-book program itself, there are 1,500 Pioneer men and women who work on talking-book repair. They consist of volunteer personnel from AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, Lucent Technologies, Southwestern Bell Corporation, SBC, Communications, Inc., and U.S. West. They are ably supported by their Pioneer Vice Presidents and are also ably assisted by regional coordinators. Through the generosity of the sponsoring companies, talking-book repair Pioneers are provided facilities in which they repair the equipment. Further, they are provided funding for tools, while the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped provides testing equipment and parts for necessary repairs. The Pioneer organization also ensures talking-book coordinator leadership, including administrative support, management support for the program, and funding for travel to training and for recognition events. The talking-book machines provided by the National Library Services to blind and visually impaired Americans are nothing less than a lifeline. Profound vision loss and blindness can seem like an insurmountable obstacle to what most of us take for granted, reading. We live in the information age, but for blind and visually impaired individuals, most information would be out of reach if it were not for the availability of specially designed talking-book machines. With talking-book machines, and other forms of assistive technology, blind boys and girls, men and women are reading for pleasure, for academic achievement, and for professional advancement. Volunteerism is one of the greatest of all American virtues, and most who given their time for the benefit of others, do so without hope of fanfare. The Telephone Pioneers of America truly have sounded a clarion call for all other volunteer organizations to follow by responding to those in need, and I commend them for it.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. I rise today to introduce the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000 together with Senator Lautenberg, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and Senator Baucus. We are introducing this bill today because we support legislation that will expedite cleanup of our nation's hazardous waste sites. We support economic development in our neighborhoods and job creation in our cities. We also support invigorating our urban cores and bolstering local governments. Mr. President, we are introducing this legislation today because, if enacted, it has the potential to fulfill these objectives, which are important to me and I believe to every Senator. Brownfields are typically older commercial or industrial properties at which development is hindered by the presence--or even the potential presence--of hazardous substances. 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, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has estimated that more than 450,000 brownfield sites exist nationwide. 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, reduces the environmental and health risks to communities, and preserves community character. This can truly be a victory for everyone. While everyone agrees that brownfield sites should be cleaned up, presently there are many problems that prevent us from cleaning up these sites. Let me address the problems and how our legislation poses solutions. Problem: There is not enough funding to address the large number of brownfield sites that exist. Solution: The bill authorizes $150 million per year to state and local governments to perform assessments and cleanup at brownfield sites. It also authorizes $50 million per year to establish and enhance State brownfield programs. Problem: Communities that strive to clean up sites, such as Riverside Mills alongside the Woonasquatucket River in Providence, in order to turn them into greenspace, cannot since there will be no future income stream to repay a loan. Solution: The bill will allow EPA to issue grants to state and local governments to clean up sites that will be converted into parks or open space. Problem: People who bought brownfield sites and did not cause the contamination could be liable under Superfund. Solution: The bill clarifies that innocent landowners, that act appropriately, are not responsible for paying cleanup costs. Problem: Developers that want to purchase brownfield sites may be liable for future cleanup costs. Solution: The bill encourages developers to purchase and develop brownfield sites by exempting from liability prospective purchasers that do not cause or worsen the contamination at a site. Problem: Superfund liability issues prevent development of areas near contaminated sites. Solution: The bill includes an exemption from Superfund liability for contiguous property owners. Problem: Investors do not clean up brownfield sites because for fear that EPA will ``second-guess'' their actions. Solution: The bill offers finality by precluding EPA from taking an action at a site being addressed under a state cleanup program unless there is an ``imminent and substantial endangerment'' to public health or the environment, and additional work needs to be done. I am proud to introduce this bill with my esteemed colleagues from the Environment and Public Works Committee. The fact that this bill is sponsored by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Superfund Subcommittee and the Environment and Public Works Committee speaks very highly for the bipartisan efforts to achieve consensus on this issue. A factor critical to the success of this legislation, will be continued bipartisanship. We must continue to reach across the aisle; we must continue to find common ground; and we must continue to work cooperatively to move this legislation. I urge all Senators to support this legislation, which can--and should--be enacted this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on June 16th, family, friends and colleagues will gather to honor Richard W. Cannon, who has served the Social Security Administration for 39 years, and is retiring as District Manager of the Providence, RI office. Mr. Cannon has demonstrated an exemplary record of service to New England and the Social Security Administration (SSA). He began his career with SSA as a Claims Representative in the Pawtucket, RI office in September, 1961. He quickly rose through the ranks, receiving promotions to field Representative, Operations Supervisor, Branch Manager, Assistant District Manager, and finally to District Manager by 1976. He has held the position of District Manager for 24 years in three offices: New London, CT; Cambridge, MA; and since May 1987, Providence. Not only has Rhode Island benefited from Richard's services, but regions across the country have as well. He served stints in Social Security Administration offices in New York, California, and Hawaii, But, it has been our good fortune that he continues to return to his home state of Rhode Island. He has shared his knowledge and expertise not only with his office colleagues, but with members of the Rhode Island Federal Executive Council, which he led as chairman for two years, and the New England Social Security Managers Association, where he also held office. Lest we think that Richard's life was dedicated solely to the Social Security Administration, he also enjoys the outdoors. I have it on good authority that he can often be seen leaving his home in Snug Harbor to cruise the waters of Narrangansett Bay, hoping to entice a fish or two to join him in his boat. As Richard prepares for his private life away from the duties of his terribly demanding job, I want to congratulate and thank him for all that he has given to the Social Security Administration and his community.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on May 6th, twenty-five outstanding students from Central Falls High School in Rhode Island visited Washington to compete in the national finals of the ``We The People . . . The Citizen And The Constitution'' program. This is the third time that the Central Falls High School team has won the statewide competition, and I would like to commend their achievement. The ``We The People . . . The Citizen And the Constitution'' program focuses on teaching our nation's students about the history, philosophy, and meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as increasing civic participation. The national finals competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. I am very proud of Francisco Araujo, Sean Brislin, Andrzej Budzyna, Delia Buffington, Eloisa Dellagiovanna, Rachel Dittell, Renee Dittell, Matthew Doucett, Ricky Ferreira, Hipolito Fontes, Michelle Fontes, Sonia Gaitan, Jennifer Golenia, Joshua Lapan, Celia Marques, Edward Pare, Kassandra Reveron, Helen Reyes, Kathleen Roach, Amy Rodrigues, Anthony Rodrigues, Jennifer Savard, Cassie Tripp, Monica Vicente, and Leslie Viera for making it to the national finals. I applaud this terrific group of young men and women for their hard work and perseverance. Also, Mr. President, I want to congratulate Jeffry Schanck, a fine teacher who deserves so much credit for guiding the Central Falls High School team to the national finals. Mr. President, it is encouraging to see young Rhode Islanders participating in the ``We The People . . . The Citizen And the Constitution'' program. They have learned that the Constitution is not just a piece of paper, but a living document that all Americans should cherish. It gives me great hope for the future of Rhode Island and our nation.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. and will begin consideration of S. 2603, the legislative branch appropriations bill. It is hoped that an agreement regarding debate time and amendments can be made so that a vote on final passage can be scheduled for this afternoon. Under a previous consent agreement, there are 40 minutes remaining on FEC nominees Brad Smith and Danny McDonald. Votes on those nominations, as well as the judicial nominations debated yesterday, are expected to be stacked this afternoon. Senators will be notified as those votes are scheduled. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to H. Con. Res. 290, the Budget Resolution for FY 2001 Conference Report that the Senate is voting on today. I feel it is important to note that despite my opposition, I have deep and abiding respect for Budget Committee Chairman Domenici and recognize and appreciate the hard work, expertise, and excellent leadership that he has displayed in the Senate's consideration of the federal budget. There is much to praise in Chairman Domenici's budget. Increased funding for education and defense. A reserve fund of $40 billion for a prescription drug benefit. Provisions to do away with budgetary gimmicks. A Social Security Lock-Box. But, there is just too much money set aside for tax cuts, and not enough for paying down the debt. While I support some targeted tax cuts, such as the low-income housing tax credit, and marriage penalty relief, I believe that $150 billion over five years in tax cuts is too much. Instead, I believe it makes more sense to pay down the debt. The federal debt--currently $5.7 trillion, with interest costs of over $200 billion per year, or almost 12 percent of annual federal outlays--represents a huge burden that should not be passed on to our children and to our grandchildren. Not only is this massive debt a problem, but by paying down the debt we would free up more than $200 billion per year. That money eventually could be used to ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare; to increase funding for education, specifically, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); needed infrastructure and environmental improvements; and to provide for tax relief. Let me take a few moments to explain a number of my votes from last week during the Senate's consideration of the Budget Resolution. I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Conrad that would have reduced the tax cuts in the Budget Resolution from $150 billion over five years to $75 billion for tax cuts and $75 billion for debt relief. I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Voinovich that would have struck all tax relief from the Budget Resolution so that it may be used for debt relief. Believing that the approach taken by Senator Lautenberg was more fiscally responsible, I voted in favor of his amendment because it contained only $59 billion in tax cuts and provided for more debt relief. Finally, I voted against the Budget Resolution as it was reported from Committee because it contained a too high level of tax cuts and not enough debt relief. All of us who have had to pay interest--be it on our house, car, credit card, or other payment--know that these costs are painful. We need to apply the same fiscal discipline here in Congress that we apply at home. To pay out 12 percent of our revenues annually on interest costs rather than on education, needed infrastructure construction and improvements, and to ensure the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs, seems to me to be a poor investment of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, in an effort to encourage fiscal discipline and responsibility, I am casting my vote against the Budget Resolution Conference Report.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Bryan, Thompson, and Sarbanes in introducing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Preservation Act of 2000. This legislation addresses what I believe to be an unintended consequence of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), which created the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide health insurance coverage to millions of our nation's uninsured children. Specifically, the BBA called for states to enroll 2.5 million uninsured children in SCHIP within three years of enactment of the bill. According to the Health Care Financing Administration, states enrolled 1.98 million children in SCHIP in 1999. While this represents an increase in states' enrollment efforts, we need to ensure that the federal government is financially committed to this program, and thus to providing health insurance to our nation's children. SCHIP was designed to allow states to spend each year's allotment over a three-year period; if a state began its program in 1998, it has until the end of 2000 to spend its 1998 allotment. The legislation we are introducing today will extend this year's looming deadline through the end of Fiscal Year 2002, thus allowing states to keep their unexpended SCHIP allotments for up to a total of five years. Many states have had difficulties conducting outreach and enrolling SCHIP- eligible children. We must not penalize states that need more time to identify and enroll children in this important program. Without this bill, the result--whether intended or unintended--would be a potential reduction of up to $4 billion for children's health programs throughout the country. A reduction of this magnitude would undermine many critical programs that provide quality health coverage to needy children. It may also inhibit the ability of states to provide services for children already enrolled in SCHIP, as well as encouraging some states to scale back on outreach and enrollment efforts. For example, under current statute, Rhode Island will lose approximately $8 million annually starting in Fiscal Year 2001. This loss will undermine the efforts of the state to target and enroll every child who is eligible for SCHIP in Rhode Island. Reductions in SCHIP allotments to states will mean that SCHIP-eligible children who are not yet enrolled in the program may continue to go without health insurance. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the number of children without health insurance increased from 9.8 million children in 1995 to 11.1 million children in 1998. This increase in the uninsured rate occurred in spite of the enactment of SCHIP in 1997. We must not allow this trend to continue. States need to be able to tap into their unexpended SCHIP funds to continue their outreach and enrollment efforts. At a time when our nation's uninsured rate continues to climb above 44 million, it makes little sense to be reducing these much needed SCHIP payments to states that are desperately trying to reach out to and enroll these vulnerable and needy children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 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 Senators Bryan, Thompson, and Sarbanes in introducing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Preservation Act of 2000. This legislation addresses what I believe to be an unintended consequence of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), which created the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide health insurance coverage to millions of our nation's uninsured children. Specifically, the BBA called for states to enroll 2.5 million uninsured children in SCHIP within three years of enactment of the bill. According to the Health Care Financing Administration, states enrolled 1.98 million children in SCHIP in 1999. While this represents an increase in states' enrollment efforts, we need to ensure that the federal government is financially committed to this program, and thus to providing health insurance to our nation's children. SCHIP was designed to allow states to spend each year's allotment over a three-year period; if a state began its program in 1998, it has until the end of 2000 to spend its 1998 allotment. The legislation we are introducing today will extend this year's looming deadline through the end of Fiscal Year 2002, thus allowing states to keep their unexpended SCHIP allotments for up to a total of five years. Many states have had difficulties conducting outreach and enrolling SCHIP- eligible children. We must not penalize states that need more time to identify and enroll children in this important program. Without this bill, the result--whether intended or unintended--would be a potential reduction of up to $4 billion for children's health programs throughout the country. A reduction of this magnitude would undermine many critical programs that provide quality health coverage to needy children. It may also inhibit the ability of states to provide services for children already enrolled in SCHIP, as well as encouraging some states to scale back on outreach and enrollment efforts. For example, under current statute, Rhode Island will lose approximately $8 million annually starting in Fiscal Year 2001. This loss will undermine the efforts of the state to target and enroll every child who is eligible for SCHIP in Rhode Island. Reductions in SCHIP allotments to states will mean that SCHIP-eligible children who are not yet enrolled in the program may continue to go without health insurance. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the number of children without health insurance increased from 9.8 million children in 1995 to 11.1 million children in 1998. This increase in the uninsured rate occurred in spite of the enactment of SCHIP in 1997. We must not allow this trend to continue. States need to be able to tap into their unexpended SCHIP funds to continue their outreach and enrollment efforts. At a time when our nation's uninsured rate continues to climb above 44 million, it makes little sense to be reducing these much needed SCHIP payments to states that are desperately trying to reach out to and enroll these vulnerable and needy children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, it is a great pleasure to welcome the President of Colombia to the Senate of the United States. I have been listening with rapt attention. He has been trying to explain to us his hopes for the future. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. L. CHAFEE

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Jeffords, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and a bipartisan group of Senators in offering this amendment which reaches the goal of fully-funding IDEA--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--within five years. IDEA was first enacted in 1975 and authorizes funding, mostly in the form of state grants, to assist states in paying for educational services for disabled young people from 3-21. It requires states which provide public education, also to provide a ``free, appropriate public education'' to this population. Prior to enactment, an estimated 2 million young people either were not receiving any public educational services, or the services they were receiving were inadequate. A number of judicial decisions held that it was unconstitutional for States which provide public education to withhold services from a specific group--the disabled. As a result, States felt compelled to provide educational services to individuals with disabilities and sought help to do so at the Federal level. The Federal Government responded by enacting IDEA. This important protection for young people with disabilites suggests that the Federal Government will pay for up to 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for these students. Regrettably, despite Republican efforts to increase IDEA funding each year for the past several years, we have fallen far short of that goal. Also, Senator Domenici has included a significant increase for IDEA in this Budget Resolution that is before us, and I commend him for his effort to address this problem. But I believe we must do even more. I would like to read the lead paragraph from an article that appeared in the Providence Journal yesterday on this subject. Headline: ``Special-ed costs soaring, board is told.'' Dateline: Warwick--I was Mayor of Warwick for seven years and am very familiar with its funding needs: The school committee was told last night that the system's special education costs, already a heavy burden for schools throughout the state, are continuing to grow and that there will be less federal money around to help pay for it next year. Already at 20 percent of the city's education budget, the article went on to say, special education is the fastest growing cost for the school district. It's important to remember that typically school costs are borne by property taxpayers. If we want to help the taxpayers, we should be helping the property taxpayers. This is a message that will resonate back home. Of course, this situation isn't unique to Warwick or a problem just in Rhode Island. I would venture to say that there probably isn't a Senator in this Chamber who hasn't heard from his state's school boards about the spiraling costs of special education. Now, Senator Jeffords has crafted an amendment which will bring Federal funding for special education up to the promised 40 percent level within five years. This is an amendment in which I believe wholeheartedly, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 73, I voted aye. It was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, since it would in no way change the outcome of the the vote.

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.