John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Fine.

Mr. CHAFEE. OK. Because there is going to come a time when we are going to want amendments brought forward. If the Senator feels he is not quite ready, we will try and complete any negotiations. As the leader has indicated, he wants to finish this bill by the end of the week. My hope is that we can finish it tomorrow. So we will work with your folks and see if we cannot come to some conclusion at least by the time we go to work tomorrow.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota is correct, this is acceptable to this side. the amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Chafee pertaining to the introduction of S. 786 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the senior Senator from Massachusetts would yield for a question?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, here is the problem I find: We have a terrible deficit of $200 billion which every objective group says will rise to over $300 billion and close to $400 billion by the end of the century. The Republicans have come up with a program that reaches a balanced budget not next year, not the year after, but 7 years away, which seems to me that would be a reasonable timetable to arrive at a situation where we are no longer sending the bills to our children. Now, the proposal that has emerged from the Republican Budget Committee has many harsh provisions to it. When we are reducing expenditures there are going to be difficulties, as we all recognize and as the Senator has ably pointed out. It affects this, affects that, affects things I am interested in, that the Senator is interested in, that the Presiding Officer is interested in. There is not one that will not find things we do not like. The question is, what is the alternative? I do not believe the answer is to say stop giving those tax cuts to rich people, because in the Domenici budget there are no tax cuts. Never mind the rich people. There are no tax cuts at all. So he has presented a budget which I know we will all find terribly challenging and difficult and dissatisfying. What is the alternative? Maybe the answer is to increase taxes. I do not believe that we can continue on the path we are, which consists of sending the bills to our children. We live high on the hog, and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. I think that is immoral. If we do not like the proposal, what is a better one? I am not trying to put the Senator on the spot.

Mr. CHAFEE. This is a tremendous challenge we all face.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator from Nevada would let me finish.

Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate the suggestions that the Senator from Massachusetts made. Tax expenditures--I suppose he is talking about, first of all, a whole series of things. Whether we should be providing pensions, deductible pensions, or whether we are talking about in the tax expenditures, whether he is talking about depreciation. I do not find those objectionable. But never mind. It seems to me it would behoove everyone to come up with plans. That is, if the Senator and the administration do not like the Republican proposal for doing something about this balanced budget by the year 2002, which is a very reasonable goal to reach. We have no wars, times are relatively good, inflation is low, unemployment is low, relatively low, and this is the time to gun for this balanced budget amendment, balanced budget situation. But the administration has not done that. It has chosen not to do that. All right, how about the Democratic Senators doing it themselves? I would be interested to see what they come up with, because this is very, very difficult. And every step that we take, we being the Republicans who have come up with this balanced budget, we are going to be attacked. And there are going to be wonderful things to attack us on. But at least we are trying to get there. I think as a part of a sense of responsibility, if you want to call it that, that it would be wise, it would be helpful if others came up with their approach. Maybe you can do it better than we can do it. If so, three cheers, and let us hear your ideas.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is the Graham amendment?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, indeed, they have been agreed to by this side of the aisle, and we are prepared to accept them.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator, before he gets into that, would like to move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if I could present the counterargument to the Senator's proposal. The Senator is saying that it goes against his grain and his philosophical belief that a local community cannot impose so-called flow control; a local community cannot say: We are going to build an incinerator. We are going to bond it with revenue bonds, with the revenue coming from the requirement that, for everybody in this community and every business, all trash must go to this central facility. And the reason we, the town, say that, or the city says that, is because we have to pay off the bonds to pay for the facility. And the Senator finds it disturbing, and understandably so, that in this legislation we are saying, ``No, you cannot do that anymore. Oh, yes, you can do it if you have some bonds outstanding.'' Let us say the bonds have 18 years to go and that is the expected life of the facility. But beyond that, no, you cannot have this proposal. It is a little bit like, I suppose the Senator would say, Big Brother saying to the town of Lakeland, or whatever it is in Florida, whatever the town might be, ``You can't do that.'' Here is the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument says the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by our courts says you cannot do this to start with; that no way can you be able to issue these requirements that everybody in this local community must go to point A to dump the trash. You cannot have some local hauler come in and take it anyplace--to take it to Rhode Island, take it to Texas, take it someplace else, no. The Supreme Court of the United States says that it is unconstitutional to have restrictions that we provide for in this legislation. I look at it another way. Instead of saying it is difficult to comprehend why Big Brother should step in and say why you cannot have flow control or you can only have it for a limited period, instead the Congress of the United States is saying, ``Despite the fact that flow control is against the Constitution of the United States because it interferes with interstate commerce, we are still going to let you have it in order to pay off your bonds.'' So I look on it more as the Congress giving rather than the Congress taking it away.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is right.

Mr. CHAFEE. I dispute the Senator's characterization of the Congress or the Senate saying thou shalt not engage in flow control. It is not us that is saying that. The Supreme Court has said, ``You can't do it. And, indeed, if you try and do it, you are violating the Constitution.'' But the Supreme Court goes on to say, ``But if you, the Congress, want to give them that power, then you have the ability to do so.'' I do not think it is us imposing a ``thou shalt not'' on them. In effect, we are coming to their rescue. It is true, we could be a broader rescue mission than we are currently on. The Senator aptly has pointed out, all we are doing is limiting our rescue mission; all we are saying is we will rescue those towns that have already made the commitment. They had imposed flow control saying everything had to go to this central landfill or central incinerator, and we are saying you can keep it up because you issued bonds thinking the law was the way it was, you did it fairly, and along comes the Supreme Court which says it is against the Constitution. OK, we will come and help you out. That is what we are doing. We are not doing it, as the Senator is aptly saying, in perpetuity. We are not saying whatever you want to do in the towns is OK. We are limiting it. But it is not us who said no to them to start with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Absolutely.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send to the desk a bill for Senator Pell and myself. This deals with the designation of the U.S. Post Office building located on 24 Corliss Street in Providence. Under the new designation it becomes the ``Harry Kizirian Post Office Building.'' Mr. President, today Senator Pell and I are introducing legislation to name the post office at 24 Corliss Street in Providence, RI after a renowned Rhode Islander and a proud American--Harry Kizirian. Representatives Jack Reed and Patrick Kennedy are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. The Rhode Island congressional delegation is united in its desire to honor Harry Kizirian for his years of service to our State. Mr. President, just a word about Harry Kizirian. He is a celebrated citizen in our State. For many, many years he has been postmaster of our principal post office. He is a community leader. Harry Kizirian is a household name in Rhode Island because of his lifelong career in the Postal Service but, even more so, because of his involvement with and commitment to his community. He has served on the board of directors of Butler Hospital, Big Brothers of Rhode Island, the Providence Human Relations Commission, Rhode Island Blue Cross, and the Rhode Island Heart and Lung Associations. Over the years he has earned countless awards inducted into the Rhode Island Hall of Fame and received the Roger Williams Award. He served on advisory boards for Rhode Island College, Providence Heritage Commission on R.I. Medal of Honor Recipients, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Marine Corps League. Harry Kizirian is a husband, a father, a grandfather, a Postmaster to Rhode Island, and a decorated World War II hero. The lessons learned from Harry Kizirian are lessons of fortitude, valor, strength of character, and perseverance. While Harry was just a boy in school, at Mt. Pleasant High School in Providence, he went to work part-time as a postal clerk. He was 15 years old and his father had died, so Harry took responsibility for supporting his family. He did so while keeping his grades up and participating in athletics. Twenty years later, at 35, Harry was named Postmaster of Rhode Island, a position he held for more than 25 years. Like many young men at the time, Harry's job was interrupted by World War II. The day after high school graduation Harry enlisted in the Marine Corps. After going through training, he ended up with the marines that were invading Okinawa. He fought on Okinawa with the 6th Marine Division. He was awarded the Navy Cross--the second highest honor a Marine can receive--for his valor on Okinawa. What did he do for it? Harry and a group of Marines were pinned down by a Japanese machine gunner. Harry got up and ran toward the machine gun. He was shot in the legs. Despite his injuries, he pulled himself forward and eliminated the enemy position. This extraordinary act of valor sent Harry Kizirian, a teenage boy, to a hospital in Guam with the Navy Cross, a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart with a gold star. Harry Kizirian was seen by millions of Americans as the face of the war in the Pacific. Before he was injured, a news photographer captured his image, the image of a boy in battle--by that time he was the age of 19--for the cover of the New York Times Sunday Magazine. Last November, I was present when Harry was honored by his old Atwood-Bucci Detachment of the Marine Corps. The famous photograph was prominently displayed on the podium. It has been 50 years since that picture was snapped and many have glorified the war, but not Harry. Harry's message to young people, and to all of us, is that ``war is awful. There's no way to describe it. Nobody wins a war.'' After the war, Harry returned to Providence and to his job at the post office. He was a substitute clerk. By 1954 he was made foreman. He was named Assistant Superintendent during the transition from the old postal system to the turnkey mechanization system. The Providence post office on Corliss Street was the first post office in the country to use the turnkey system. The turnkey system was the first fully automated system for sorting the mail. Until that point, all of the mail was sorted by hand. The new system was not easily implemented, but once again Harry persevered. In 1961, Harry was rewarded for his hard work and dedication. He was named Postmaster of Rhode Island. What better way to honor the life and lessons of Harry Kizirian than to name the Post Office on Corliss Street for him. I am pleased to introduce this bill today with Senator Pell and hope that it will receive speedy consideration by the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service of the Governmental Affairs Committee. So it seems very fitting, Mr. President, that this post office in our capital city should be named after Harry Kizirian.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself, Senator Moynihan, and Senator Kyl, which would permit the full value deduction for gifts of appreciated stock to private foundations. Since 1984, donors have been allowed to deduct the full fair market value of certain gifts and publicly traded stock given to private foundations. In other words, if an individual has a private foundation that he has set up, and he has some stock--in General Electric, for example, that has appreciated substantially--when he makes a gift of that stock to the foundation, and General Electric, say, is trading at 58, that the full value of that stock, namely each share at the present value of 58, is a deductible contribution by the donor. Clearly, if an individual made such a contribution to Yale University or to the United Way, whatever it was, the full value of the stock would be a deductible contribution. And the question here is, what about now, the contribution of that stock to a private foundation? Up until January 31, 1994--in other words last January--December 31--it has been possible to get a full deduction for the contribution of stock to a private foundation. Unfortunately, on that date, the action which provided for the full deductibility terminated. It sunsetted. Mr. President, I would like to stress that private foundations are nonprofit organizations. They support charitable activity. They have to do that or they are not allowed an exemption. They provide support for making grants to other nonprofit agencies. In other words, sometimes a private foundation has the capacity to make a charitable contribution itself to the United Way or Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club or whatever it might be. They provide support for such things as scholarships and disaster relief. Also, they make grants to individuals. Now, foundations are created by endowments, money given by individuals or by families or by corporations. They make grants and operate programs with the income earned from investing the endowments. Since most foundations have permanent endowments, they do not have to raise funds each year from the public in order to continue their work. Most functions, charitable activities every year have to go out and raise money so they are reluctant to get into long-term commitments, but foundations such as the Ford Foundation with a substantial amount of money that they know is there--realizing the income is going to be there next year, they are not dependent upon annual donations--act as the research and development arm of our society. In a 1965 Report on Private Foundations, the Treasury Department recognized the special nature of foundations by describing them as ``uniquely qualified to initiate thought and action, experiment with new and untried ventures, dissent from prevailing attitudes, and act quickly and flexibly.'' Indeed, foundations reflect the innovative spirit of the individuals and corporations that endow them. There are more than 30,000 private foundations in America today that provide over $10 billion annually to support innumerable projects, large and small. Among other things, they help the poor and disadvantaged, advance scientific and medical research, and strengthen the American educational system. Let me give you a few examples of some of the medical advances that have occurred as a result of the financial assistance provided by private foundations: The polio vaccine developed by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 after the Sarah Scaife Foundation provided him with the money he needed to establish and equip his virus laboratory. With the help of the Commonwealth Fund, Dr. Papanicolaou discovered in 1923 that cervical cancer could be diagnosed before a woman presented any symptoms. That breakthrough led to the basic and now routine diagnostic technique known as the Pap smear. In 1951 Dr. Max Theiler received the Nobel prize in medicine for his work in developing the yellow fever vaccine. That effort was the direct result of a 30-year, all-out commitment by the Rockefeller Foundation to eradicate this disease. But, Mr. President, private foundations have been involved in many more aspects of our daily lives than simply funding medical advances. Dr. John V.N. Dorr was an engineer in the early 1950's. He speculated that many accidents occurring on our Nation's highways during inclement weather were the result of drivers hugging the white lines painted in the middle of the road. Dorr believed that if similar lines were painted on the shoulder side of the road, lives could be saved. Dorr convinced transportation engineers in Westchester County, NY, to test his theory along a particularly treacherous stretch of highway. The dropoff in accidents along this part of the road was dramatic, and Dr. Dorr used his own foundation to publicize the demonstration's results nationally. Today, although State funds are now used to paint white lines on the shoulder side of the Nation's highways, every person traveling in a motor vehicle is indebted to Dorr and his foundation for implementing this life-saving discovery. As these examples indicate, private foundations provide a great many benefits to our society. By permanently extending this tax incentive, we can continue to encourage individuals to dedicate a substantial portion of their wealth to public, rather than private purposes. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the leader would yield to a question. I heard the ominous words ``a very brief Memorial Day recess.'' What does that mean?