John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to cosponsor the bipartisan amendment, offered by my colleague from Alaska, regarding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The amendment provides $20 million for matching grants to States under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which, for almost 30 years, had enabled small communities throughout the Nation to establish local parks, build sports fields, acquire green ways and trails, and support community gardens. The stateside program under the LWCF is a worthwhile conservation program that for too long has been without any funding at all. It has received nothing since 1995, and States have been strapped to find money for their own conservation efforts without any Federal assistance. As pressures for development and sprawl increase in many parts of the Nation, it is more important than ever to help States protect the open and green spaces that are crucial for a healthy community. And with the recent ballot initiatives to promote conservation that have been approved by voters across the Nation, States now have money available to match Federal dollars through the stateside program. It is now up to Congress to make the Federal money available. For those who criticize the program as a form of pork, let me stress that States must put up 50 percent of the money for their projects. This is not a hand- out. This is a fiscally sound program that makes land and water conservation for thousands of small communities around the country a national priority. The stateside program has been supported by mayors, county officials, governors, civic associations, outdoor recreation groups, land conservancy groups, conservation groups--the list goes on and on. I add myself to that list as a strong proponent of the LWCF, including the stateside program. The Federal Government, in my opinion, plays a vital role in assisting State and local governments establish local parks and protect open and green space. Indeed, when I was Governor of Rhode Island, I started the Green Acres Program in 1964 for this purpose, and the Federal Government matched some of the money to help get the program going. Earlier this year, Senator Leahy and I circulated a letter to our fellow Senators, asking them to support full funding for the LWCF. Thirty-six of our colleagues in the Senate endorsed that letter and signed it. What a tremendous showing of bipartisan support! I am very pleased that the managers of the bill have agreed to this amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an amendment originally offered by my colleague from Montana to prohibit the reintroduction of the grizzly bear in the Selway-Bitterroot area of Idaho and Montana. This language is being included in the managers' amendment. I strongly support reintroduction of the grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. Presently in the lower 48 States, there are only 800 to 1000 bears in scattered pockets of habitat in Idaho, Montana and Washington. Large species such as the grizzly are most vulnerable when they are limited to small populations and confined to small portions of habitat. Because grizzlies are not likely to migrate beyond the pockets in which they now exist, they are not likely to find their own way to the Selway-Bitterroot area, even though it is an area they once inhabited. The reintroduction of grizzlies in this area will greatly bolster efforts to recover grizzlies in the lower 48 States. The current proposal by the Fish and Wildlife Service establishes a Citizen Management Committee to make the primary decisions on reintroduction and management. This committee would consist of 15 members, with 7 chosen by the Governor of Idaho, 5 chosen by the Governor of Montana, one chosen by the Nez Perce Tribe, one chosen by the Chief of the Forest Service and one chosen by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The committee would have authority to establish specific recovery goals, determine areas for reintroduction, and establish land-use standards. This proposal has been developed after tremendous public involvement and outreach. Since 1992, with the formation of a citizens' group, local individuals and industries have been involved in the decisions relating to grizzly bear recovery in Idaho and Montana. Preparation of both the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements provided significant opportunity for public comment. In sum, the proposal has been developed with painstaking effort and deliberation. The result is a coalition of supporters among timber companies, ranchers, and environmental groups. Governor Racicot of Montana has long backed the reintroduction plan. While Governor Kempthorne opposes the plan, he recently stated that he wants Idaho to take a strong leadership role if the reintroduction is going to happen. Numerous newspapers in both states have endorsed the plan. Nevertheless, there continues to be opposition to the proposal among numerous local citizens, particularly within the Valley in Montana along the eastern border of the Selway-Bitterroot area. I strongly encourage both the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service to continue their outreach and education efforts, and to address the concerns of these citizens. Mr. President, you may recall that this Chamber has seen fierce opposition to the reintroduction of other species in an effort to recover them under the ESA. Specifically, we have debated reintroductions of the red wolf in North Carolina in 1995 and the gray wolf in Yellowstone in 1996. What has come of those programs? Nothing but tremendous success. Both species are close to full recovery. Both programs resulted in less livestock depredation than originally predicted. Both programs cost less to the Federal taxpayer than originally estimated. Have there been occasional problems with individual wolves? Of course. But each program had provided for such occasions, and problems were addressed efficiently and expeditiously. With the care and attention that has been poured into the grizzly bear program from not just the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service, but local citizens, industries, conservation groups and of course the States, I have no doubt that this program will also be a success. Indeed, I will venture to say that, in hindsight, we will marvel at the ability of Nature to take over the grizzly bear program--as it has with the Yellowstone gray wolves and North Carolina red wolves--and run its own course smoothly, with nothing more than a little encouragement from us. All we need to do is to provide that encouragement. I do not oppose the amendment adopted today by the managers of the bill, but that is only because it is narrowly limited to a prohibition of funds for physical relocation of bears in the Selway-Bitterroot area. The Service does not intend to relocate bears into the area before FY 2001. The language does not prohibit completion of the EIS and the Record of Decision, publication of a rulemaking under section 10(j) of the ESA, or activities to provide outreach and to set up the citizen's committee. It will not prevent activities in FY 2000 in support of reintroduction, short of physically relocating grizzlies in the area. Because the language does not prohibit what the Service would otherwise do in FY 2000, I do not oppose the language. I yield the floor. amendment no. 1587 as modified (Purpose: to establish the scientific basis for noise standards applied to the Grand Canyon National Park) At the end of Title I, add the following new section: Sec. . No funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended to implement sound thresholds or standards in the Grand Canyon National Park until 90 days after the National Park Service has provided to the Congress a report describing (1) the reasonable scientific basis for such sound thresholds or standard and (2) the peer review process used to validate such sound thresholds or standard.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this is the language that has been worked out with our side.

Mr. CHAFEE. A question, if I might.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I object temporarily. I believe strongly that this legislation impinges in the area of jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we will be discussing that further on. I do thank Senator Shelby for the time he has given us in connection with this overlapping jurisdiction--I should not even say overlapping jurisdiction--we think is impinging upon the areas that belong within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. However, despite the fact that we have had numerous meetings--our staffs with his staff, myself to some extent with Senator Shelby--we have not been able to resolve these issues. I believe the unanimous consent request that the Senator has just propounded will solve the problem as far as moving into the major difficulty in jurisdiction I will outline later. I know the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee is here, and he also has some difficulties with the jurisdiction that has been assumed by the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Conrad and Feingold, in introducing the Fairness in Medicare Home Health Access Act of 1999. This legislation is an important step towards ensuring that our seniors retain access to medically necessary home health care services. The Fairness in Medicare Home Health Access Act contains several critical provisions, carefully designed to achieve the twin goals of controlling Medicare spending (thereby preserving and protecting the program for future beneficiaries), and ensuring that current beneficiaries continue to have access to crucial home health services. These provisions will allow the home health agencies in my state of Rhode Island, as well as agencies across the country, to continue delivering high quality, cost-effective care to our most frail seniors. Why are these provisions necessary? The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) included many important reforms to the Medicare program. As a result of these provisions, the program has been strengthened, and solvency of the trust fund extended. However, it now appears that the reductions in home health payments may be limiting access to our Medicare beneficiaries. In Rhode Island the number of beneficiaries served by Medicare home health providers has decreased by 22 percent, services provided to beneficiaries have decreased by 49 percent, and total payments to home health agencies have decreased by 47 percent. Agencies have had to lay off workers and some have even been forced to close. On October 1st, 2000, an additional 15 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursements is scheduled to take effect. I am concerned that a cut of that level could jeopardize or restrict access to care. At the same time, we must be mindful of the precarious financial situation of the Medicare program, and the limited resources available. The President has proposed restoring $7.5 billion over the next decade to those programs under Medicare which have been especially hard hit by the cost control measures included in the BBA. In his proposal, these funds would be available for changes to home health policies, as well as other components of the Medicare program which have been adversely impacted by those new policies. Therefore, while some of my colleagues have called for a repeal of the scheduled 15 percent reduction, given resource constraints, I simply do not believe that will be possible. To repeal that provision outright would cost $17.5 billion over the 10-year budget period. This restoration alone would greatly exceed the $7.5 billion the President has recommended to soften the impact of the BBA. Even in Congress, the most I've heard discussed in the way of ``BBA add-backs'' is in the range of $15 billion. Thus, while in an ideal world some may wish to spend $17.5 billion on this provision, it is clearly not possible. I believe it is critical to address the very real problems facing home health beneficiaries and agencies, but I also believe we must be realistic in our goals and expectations, and make carefully targeted adjustments to the BBA policies. For that reason I am pleased to join with Senators Conrad and Feingold in calling for a scaling-back of the scheduled reduction in home health reimbursements. Our bill would provide much-needed relief by gradually phasing-in the 15 percent reduction; for the first three years, the reduction would be limited to 10 percent. Furthermore, beneficiary access will be protected by tying the reduction to implementation of the prospective payment system (PPS). Although I am confident the prospective payment system will be implemented by October 1, 2000 as required under the BBA, in the event the deadline is not met, our provision would ensure that no further reductions occur until the PPS is fully implemented. In addition, the Conrad-Feingold-Chafee bill includes several other important provisions: An ``outlier policy'' to ensure that patients with higher than average medical costs do not face access barriers as a result of their intensive medical needs; An increase in the interim payment system per visit cost limit to 112 percent of the national median; A refinement to the consolidated billing policy by allowing durable medical equipment suppliers to continue delivering services to beneficiaries regardless of their home health status; and Elimination of the 15-minute incremental reporting requirement. The Medicare home health benefit provides vital services to our most vulnerable citizens. Patients receiving these services have lower incomes, are older, and have more serious functional impairments than the general Medicare population. The availability of home health services averts the need for even more costly institutional living arrangements for the elderly and disabled who rely upon these services. It is these patients who are harmed when home health agencies are forced to close their doors or cut back on services. It is my hope that we will pass this legislation and therefore protect the beneficiaries who need our help the most. In that regard, I will work for its incorporation into any Medicare legislation the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am a member, may consider in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Conrad and Feingold, in introducing the Fairness in Medicare Home Health Access Act of 1999. This legislation is an important step towards ensuring that our seniors retain access to medically necessary home health care services. The Fairness in Medicare Home Health Access Act contains several critical provisions, carefully designed to achieve the twin goals of controlling Medicare spending (thereby preserving and protecting the program for future beneficiaries), and ensuring that current beneficiaries continue to have access to crucial home health services. These provisions will allow the home health agencies in my state of Rhode Island, as well as agencies across the country, to continue delivering high quality, cost-effective care to our most frail seniors. Why are these provisions necessary? The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) included many important reforms to the Medicare program. As a result of these provisions, the program has been strengthened, and solvency of the trust fund extended. However, it now appears that the reductions in home health payments may be limiting access to our Medicare beneficiaries. In Rhode Island the number of beneficiaries served by Medicare home health providers has decreased by 22 percent, services provided to beneficiaries have decreased by 49 percent, and total payments to home health agencies have decreased by 47 percent. Agencies have had to lay off workers and some have even been forced to close. On October 1st, 2000, an additional 15 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursements is scheduled to take effect. I am concerned that a cut of that level could jeopardize or restrict access to care. At the same time, we must be mindful of the precarious financial situation of the Medicare program, and the limited resources available. The President has proposed restoring $7.5 billion over the next decade to those programs under Medicare which have been especially hard hit by the cost control measures included in the BBA. In his proposal, these funds would be available for changes to home health policies, as well as other components of the Medicare program which have been adversely impacted by those new policies. Therefore, while some of my colleagues have called for a repeal of the scheduled 15 percent reduction, given resource constraints, I simply do not believe that will be possible. To repeal that provision outright would cost $17.5 billion over the 10-year budget period. This restoration alone would greatly exceed the $7.5 billion the President has recommended to soften the impact of the BBA. Even in Congress, the most I've heard discussed in the way of ``BBA add-backs'' is in the range of $15 billion. Thus, while in an ideal world some may wish to spend $17.5 billion on this provision, it is clearly not possible. I believe it is critical to address the very real problems facing home health beneficiaries and agencies, but I also believe we must be realistic in our goals and expectations, and make carefully targeted adjustments to the BBA policies. For that reason I am pleased to join with Senators Conrad and Feingold in calling for a scaling-back of the scheduled reduction in home health reimbursements. Our bill would provide much-needed relief by gradually phasing-in the 15 percent reduction; for the first three years, the reduction would be limited to 10 percent. Furthermore, beneficiary access will be protected by tying the reduction to implementation of the prospective payment system (PPS). Although I am confident the prospective payment system will be implemented by October 1, 2000 as required under the BBA, in the event the deadline is not met, our provision would ensure that no further reductions occur until the PPS is fully implemented. In addition, the Conrad-Feingold-Chafee bill includes several other important provisions: An ``outlier policy'' to ensure that patients with higher than average medical costs do not face access barriers as a result of their intensive medical needs; An increase in the interim payment system per visit cost limit to 112 percent of the national median; A refinement to the consolidated billing policy by allowing durable medical equipment suppliers to continue delivering services to beneficiaries regardless of their home health status; and Elimination of the 15-minute incremental reporting requirement. The Medicare home health benefit provides vital services to our most vulnerable citizens. Patients receiving these services have lower incomes, are older, and have more serious functional impairments than the general Medicare population. The availability of home health services averts the need for even more costly institutional living arrangements for the elderly and disabled who rely upon these services. It is these patients who are harmed when home health agencies are forced to close their doors or cut back on services. It is my hope that we will pass this legislation and therefore protect the beneficiaries who need our help the most. In that regard, I will work for its incorporation into any Medicare legislation the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am a member, may consider in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, as well as Senators Leahy and Jeffords, in introducing a bill to strengthen the environmental infrastructure of our nation, and to lay the foundation for conservation efforts for the new century. This bill--the Natural Resource Reinvestment Act of 1999 (NRRA)--will also help shape the debate now taking place in Congress on spending revenues from the oil and gas activities in the Outer Continental Shelf. Rarely are we confronted with choices that will profoundly influence the natural legacy of this nation. The current debate over OCS revenues presents us with such a choice. Let me first applaud the tremendous work already undertaken by my colleagues who have introduced legislation on this subject, particularly Senators Landrieu, Feinstein, Boxer and Graham, as well as Senators Murkowski and Bingaman, who oversee these bills in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. At the same time, there is room for additional voices on this subject. I would like to identify four basic principles that are embodied in our legislation, and that I believe should govern Congress' deliberations on spending OCS revenues. These principles hearken back to those espoused by Congress when it created the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund, the only two programs that by law are funded from OCS receipts. First, OCS revenues should be reinvested in the nation's public resources--our environmental, natural, cultural and historic resources. Second, reinvestment in public resources should be meaningful and lasting--the capital assets of our nation. Third, revenues must be distributed in an equitable manner across the nation. Fourth, the funding must be permanent. The NRRA allocates $2.5 billion in OCS receipts to three major areas: $1.35 billion to land and water and historic preservation (title I); $900 million to states for matching conservation grants (title II); and $250 million for state fish and wildlife conservation (title III). In the event that total OCS receipts falls short of $2.5 billion, each program will receive a pro-rated, percent share of the funds. The funds generally must be spent for conservation and environmental improvement activities, in keeping with the vision that revenues from development of non-renewable resources should be returned to the conservation of other natural resources. The funds are distributed to all 50 states in an equitable manner, derived from receipts from past, present and future OCS activities, but based on a formula and derived from qualified revenues that do not encourage additional OCS activity. The NRRA recognizes that the existing programs created by Congress, to be funded with revenues from OCS activities, should receive their full share before new programs funded by those revenues are created. Title I of the NRRA fulfills the promise that Congress made 35 years ago when it created the LWCF. The LWCF is authorized to receive $900 million annually from OCS revenues, but receives only a fraction of this amount in appropriations. One of the greatest conservation laws ever enacted, it provides money for Federal land and water acquisitions, and matches state dollars for local parks, beaches, gardens and other open spaces. The NRRA would fully fund the LWCF automatically, without further Congressional action. I attempted such an effort in 1988 with the American Heritage Trust Act, and nothing would please me more than to see this effort fulfilled before I leave the Senate. Created in 1976, the Historic Preservation Fund is also funded with OCS revenues, but of $150 million authorized annually, it receives roughly $45 million--30 percent. The Fund is responsible for registering more than one million historic sites across the nation, and with additional funding, restoration work can be carried out. The bill would fully fund it at $150 million. In addition, the bill provides full funding, $100 million, for the Urban Parks and Recreation Renewal Program, which supports parks and open spaces in large urban areas. Funds are also authorized for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program, which provide annual payments to local governments to compensate for the removal of newly acquired public lands from the property tax base. The NRRA seeks to improve and expand the LWCF in order to revitalize it, modernize it and bring it into the new century. Since the creation of the LWCF, the conservation needs of the country have evolved in ways that require greater flexibility and creativity than the traditional methods authorized in the original law. The NRRA establishes a new program to increase the LWCF by $200 million to support state efforts to conserve land and water of regional or national significance. The program would provide Federal funding for state and private partnerships, in order to meet nationally important land protection priorities in a way that ensures state or local control of lands and waters. This program would help conserve some of the nation's most treasured areas, such as the Great Lakes, the Everglades, the Mississippi Delta, the Northern Forest of New England, the midwestern prairie lands, and the southwestern desert. Let me cite one example of why we need this new program. With over five million acres of woodland on the auction block in Maine this past year, The Nature Conservancy negotiated an extraordinary deal that would protect 185,000 acres around the Upper St. John River, which is the largest, least developed river system east of the Mississippi River. The Nature Conservancy has already raised over $10 million in private funds for this project, and hopes to receive some of a $50 million bond which will be on the Maine ballot in the fall. The Federal government should be a partner as well. However, many folks in Maine do not want additional Federal acquisitions, so the traditional Federal LWCF program is not a possibility. Yet Maine's annual state-side LWCF allocation would be too small to handle such an expensive project. A new program could leverage the private and State dollars without requiring Federal ownership. Recognizing that priorities for protecting and conserving resources should be determined at the state and local levels, in cooperation with the Federal government and the use of Federal dollars, the bill creates a new grants program for state activities to promote conservation and improvement of environmental quality. Specifically, $900 million is apportioned among all 50 states, based on a formula using the following criteria: population, length of coastline, geographic area, and population density. This formula is based on the premise that all states share in the benefits of development of OCS resources. It also recognizes the many factors that put pressure on the nation's resources. Because the formula is not tied to OCS oil and gas production, it does not create incentives for further activity. Lastly, with a ceiling of 5 percent, and a floor of 0.5 percent, the formula ensures that no state receives a disproportionate amount. The funds can be used for clean air, clean water, cleanup of brownfields, conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, and preservation of open space and farmland. Projects must exceed standards required under existing law, be approved by the Governor after public notice and comment, and must be included in the state plan approved by a Stewardship Council comprised of Federal agency and Congressional representatives. Federal funding for projects must also be matched with at least 30 percent by non-Federal dollars. This matching requirement is extremely important in that it provides leverage for Federal dollars, and that it encourages states to use the money wisely. There are special provisions for states that have historically borne the activities in the OCS. Specifically, $300 million over five years, and $10 million annually thereafter, is provided for these states in addition to the amounts they receive under the formula. The funds may be used for OCS mitigation activities, as well as the activities enumerated above. The NRRA establishes a separate title for the conservation of fish and wildlife, to receive $250 million in OCS revenues, of which $75 million is to be spent on conservation of endangered or threatened species. Although the States are the principle stewards of our nation's fish and wildlife, their efforts to perform this role are chronically under- funded. It is high time that the Federal government assist them. And it is high time that we protect our nation's fish and wildlife before they become threatened or endangered, rather than wait until the costs and controversies are so great. At the same time, we must get a steady flow of funds for endangered and threatened species to help their recovery. The key to species conservation is, of course, protection of the habitat. Habitat protection, in turn, requires comprehensive planning and collaboration to determine which habitat is important. Many State fish and wildlife agencies already engage in comprehensive planning, and work closely with neighboring States and the Federal government. The tremendous work conducted in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley through the Partners in Flight program exemplifies what States can do when they have adequate funding. Indeed, the States have recently completed comprehensive plans for all migratory birds, and plans are underway for amphibians and reptiles. The NRRA amends the 1980 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to encourage implementation and coordination of comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation programs. The bill also places an emphasis on species that are not hunted, fished or trapped. This emphasis seeks to rectify the current imbalance in which non-game programs among all 50 states receive less than $100 million annually, while game-focused programs receive more than $1 billion annually. Less than 10 percent of state fish and wildlife funding is targeted at the conservation of 86 percent of fish and wildlife species. Three new programs are created in the bill. To promote watershed protection, the NRRA amends Title III of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow up to 10 percent of the State Revolving Loan Fund to be spent as 50 percent matching grants for open space acquisition to protect watersheds and water quality. To address transportation-related development, the NRRA amends current law to allow surface transportation and highway funding to be used for the purchase of open space and green corridors that mitigate transportation-related growth and development. Lastly, to promote the protection of farmland, the NRRA amends the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 to allow State and local conservation organizations to participate in the purchase of conservation easements for farmland protection. Almost 90 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt said that ``of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the central task of leaving this land a better land for our descendants than it is for us.'' When a rugged coastline is marred by condos, or farmland is replaced by a strip mall, or a breathtaking vista is pocked with smokestacks, we lose something very valuable, most likely for good. Our bill ensures that the tools are available to leave this land in better condition for our descendants, and remains true to the vision of Teddy Roosevelt. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this worthwhile legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, as well as Senators Leahy and Jeffords, in introducing a bill to strengthen the environmental infrastructure of our nation, and to lay the foundation for conservation efforts for the new century. This bill--the Natural Resource Reinvestment Act of 1999 (NRRA)--will also help shape the debate now taking place in Congress on spending revenues from the oil and gas activities in the Outer Continental Shelf. Rarely are we confronted with choices that will profoundly influence the natural legacy of this nation. The current debate over OCS revenues presents us with such a choice. Let me first applaud the tremendous work already undertaken by my colleagues who have introduced legislation on this subject, particularly Senators Landrieu, Feinstein, Boxer and Graham, as well as Senators Murkowski and Bingaman, who oversee these bills in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. At the same time, there is room for additional voices on this subject. I would like to identify four basic principles that are embodied in our legislation, and that I believe should govern Congress' deliberations on spending OCS revenues. These principles hearken back to those espoused by Congress when it created the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund, the only two programs that by law are funded from OCS receipts. First, OCS revenues should be reinvested in the nation's public resources--our environmental, natural, cultural and historic resources. Second, reinvestment in public resources should be meaningful and lasting--the capital assets of our nation. Third, revenues must be distributed in an equitable manner across the nation. Fourth, the funding must be permanent. The NRRA allocates $2.5 billion in OCS receipts to three major areas: $1.35 billion to land and water and historic preservation (title I); $900 million to states for matching conservation grants (title II); and $250 million for state fish and wildlife conservation (title III). In the event that total OCS receipts falls short of $2.5 billion, each program will receive a pro-rated, percent share of the funds. The funds generally must be spent for conservation and environmental improvement activities, in keeping with the vision that revenues from development of non-renewable resources should be returned to the conservation of other natural resources. The funds are distributed to all 50 states in an equitable manner, derived from receipts from past, present and future OCS activities, but based on a formula and derived from qualified revenues that do not encourage additional OCS activity. The NRRA recognizes that the existing programs created by Congress, to be funded with revenues from OCS activities, should receive their full share before new programs funded by those revenues are created. Title I of the NRRA fulfills the promise that Congress made 35 years ago when it created the LWCF. The LWCF is authorized to receive $900 million annually from OCS revenues, but receives only a fraction of this amount in appropriations. One of the greatest conservation laws ever enacted, it provides money for Federal land and water acquisitions, and matches state dollars for local parks, beaches, gardens and other open spaces. The NRRA would fully fund the LWCF automatically, without further Congressional action. I attempted such an effort in 1988 with the American Heritage Trust Act, and nothing would please me more than to see this effort fulfilled before I leave the Senate. Created in 1976, the Historic Preservation Fund is also funded with OCS revenues, but of $150 million authorized annually, it receives roughly $45 million--30 percent. The Fund is responsible for registering more than one million historic sites across the nation, and with additional funding, restoration work can be carried out. The bill would fully fund it at $150 million. In addition, the bill provides full funding, $100 million, for the Urban Parks and Recreation Renewal Program, which supports parks and open spaces in large urban areas. Funds are also authorized for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program, which provide annual payments to local governments to compensate for the removal of newly acquired public lands from the property tax base. The NRRA seeks to improve and expand the LWCF in order to revitalize it, modernize it and bring it into the new century. Since the creation of the LWCF, the conservation needs of the country have evolved in ways that require greater flexibility and creativity than the traditional methods authorized in the original law. The NRRA establishes a new program to increase the LWCF by $200 million to support state efforts to conserve land and water of regional or national significance. The program would provide Federal funding for state and private partnerships, in order to meet nationally important land protection priorities in a way that ensures state or local control of lands and waters. This program would help conserve some of the nation's most treasured areas, such as the Great Lakes, the Everglades, the Mississippi Delta, the Northern Forest of New England, the midwestern prairie lands, and the southwestern desert. Let me cite one example of why we need this new program. With over five million acres of woodland on the auction block in Maine this past year, The Nature Conservancy negotiated an extraordinary deal that would protect 185,000 acres around the Upper St. John River, which is the largest, least developed river system east of the Mississippi River. The Nature Conservancy has already raised over $10 million in private funds for this project, and hopes to receive some of a $50 million bond which will be on the Maine ballot in the fall. The Federal government should be a partner as well. However, many folks in Maine do not want additional Federal acquisitions, so the traditional Federal LWCF program is not a possibility. Yet Maine's annual state-side LWCF allocation would be too small to handle such an expensive project. A new program could leverage the private and State dollars without requiring Federal ownership. Recognizing that priorities for protecting and conserving resources should be determined at the state and local levels, in cooperation with the Federal government and the use of Federal dollars, the bill creates a new grants program for state activities to promote conservation and improvement of environmental quality. Specifically, $900 million is apportioned among all 50 states, based on a formula using the following criteria: population, length of coastline, geographic area, and population density. This formula is based on the premise that all states share in the benefits of development of OCS resources. It also recognizes the many factors that put pressure on the nation's resources. Because the formula is not tied to OCS oil and gas production, it does not create incentives for further activity. Lastly, with a ceiling of 5 percent, and a floor of 0.5 percent, the formula ensures that no state receives a disproportionate amount. The funds can be used for clean air, clean water, cleanup of brownfields, conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, and preservation of open space and farmland. Projects must exceed standards required under existing law, be approved by the Governor after public notice and comment, and must be included in the state plan approved by a Stewardship Council comprised of Federal agency and Congressional representatives. Federal funding for projects must also be matched with at least 30 percent by non-Federal dollars. This matching requirement is extremely important in that it provides leverage for Federal dollars, and that it encourages states to use the money wisely. There are special provisions for states that have historically borne the activities in the OCS. Specifically, $300 million over five years, and $10 million annually thereafter, is provided for these states in addition to the amounts they receive under the formula. The funds may be used for OCS mitigation activities, as well as the activities enumerated above. The NRRA establishes a separate title for the conservation of fish and wildlife, to receive $250 million in OCS revenues, of which $75 million is to be spent on conservation of endangered or threatened species. Although the States are the principle stewards of our nation's fish and wildlife, their efforts to perform this role are chronically under- funded. It is high time that the Federal government assist them. And it is high time that we protect our nation's fish and wildlife before they become threatened or endangered, rather than wait until the costs and controversies are so great. At the same time, we must get a steady flow of funds for endangered and threatened species to help their recovery. The key to species conservation is, of course, protection of the habitat. Habitat protection, in turn, requires comprehensive planning and collaboration to determine which habitat is important. Many State fish and wildlife agencies already engage in comprehensive planning, and work closely with neighboring States and the Federal government. The tremendous work conducted in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley through the Partners in Flight program exemplifies what States can do when they have adequate funding. Indeed, the States have recently completed comprehensive plans for all migratory birds, and plans are underway for amphibians and reptiles. The NRRA amends the 1980 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to encourage implementation and coordination of comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation programs. The bill also places an emphasis on species that are not hunted, fished or trapped. This emphasis seeks to rectify the current imbalance in which non-game programs among all 50 states receive less than $100 million annually, while game-focused programs receive more than $1 billion annually. Less than 10 percent of state fish and wildlife funding is targeted at the conservation of 86 percent of fish and wildlife species. Three new programs are created in the bill. To promote watershed protection, the NRRA amends Title III of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow up to 10 percent of the State Revolving Loan Fund to be spent as 50 percent matching grants for open space acquisition to protect watersheds and water quality. To address transportation-related development, the NRRA amends current law to allow surface transportation and highway funding to be used for the purchase of open space and green corridors that mitigate transportation-related growth and development. Lastly, to promote the protection of farmland, the NRRA amends the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 to allow State and local conservation organizations to participate in the purchase of conservation easements for farmland protection. Almost 90 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt said that ``of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the central task of leaving this land a better land for our descendants than it is for us.'' When a rugged coastline is marred by condos, or farmland is replaced by a strip mall, or a breathtaking vista is pocked with smokestacks, we lose something very valuable, most likely for good. Our bill ensures that the tools are available to leave this land in better condition for our descendants, and remains true to the vision of Teddy Roosevelt. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this worthwhile legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1999. This bill is based on S. 1090, the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999, a bill that I introduced, along with Senators Smith and Lott, earlier this year. Last year, the Committee reported a comprehensive Superfund bill to the Senate. However, gaining a consensus on a comprehensive bill was not possible last year, and the bill was not called up. The most controversial issues were cleanup standards, paying ``polluters,'' and natural resource damages. In S. 1090, we narrowed the scope of the bill greatly to get relief now for many parties--small businesses, local governments, municipal solid waste contributors--and we did it fairly, while strengthening the role of the states. Our goal was always to report a bill that enjoyed wide support. Unfortunately, Senator Smith and I were not able to move S. 1090 out of the committee. We spent several months negotiating with members on both sides of the aisle. The bill that Senator Smith and I introduce today serves as a record of our progress in trying to craft a broadly- supported Superfund reform bill. The bill contains numerous changes from S. 1090. Some changes were made prior to the markup. Others are based on amendments filed for the markup, and others in response to negotiations over the last week. Our bills retains the key features of S. 1090. The Brownfields title will provide $100 million in grants for state, tribal and local governments to identify, assess and redevelop Brownfields sites. It protects prospective purchasers of contaminated sites, innocent owners of properties adjacent to the source of contamination, and innocent property owners who exercised due diligence upon purchase. The bill exempts recyclers, small businesses, contributors of very small amounts of hazardous waste, and contributors of small amounts of municipal solid waste. The bill limits the liability of larger generators or transporters of municipal solid waste. The bill limits the liability of larger generators or transporters of municipal solid waste, as well as owners or operators of co-disposal landfills where municipal solid waste is disposed. The bill limits the liability of so- called de minimis parties--generally one percent contributors or less-- as well as municipalities and small businesses with a limited ability to pay. Importantly, this liability relief is provided fairly. EPA is directed to pay for the shares of exempted parties from a $200 million annual orphan share instead of merely shifting the liability onto the remaining nonexempt parties. Importantly, responsible parties still must proceed with the cleanup if $200 million is insufficient to cover all orphan shares in a given year. The bill also requires EPA to perform an impartial fair-share allocation at Superfund NPL sites and to give all parties an opportunity to settle for their allocated amount. Allocation is preceded by a period for EPA-directed alternative dispute resolution. Parties that do not participate or settle remain liable to Superfund's underlying liability provisions, which remain unchanged. The bill starts the process of bringing the National Priority List cleanup program to an orderly end. EPA notes that cleanup is complete or underway at more than 90 percent of the sites on the current NPL. EPA is cleaning up the sites at a rate of 85 per year, but it has listed only an average of about 26 sites per year. Last year, the General Accounting Office surveyed the states and EPA about the approximately 3,000 sites identified as possible National Priority List sites, but not yet listed. Only 232 of these sites were identified by either EPA, a state, or both, as likely to be listed on the NPL. The Superfund NPL cleanup program is closer to the end of its mission than to the beginning. The authorized funding levels in the bill, which decrease during the five-year authorization period, are consistent with the expected decrease in Superfund's workload. The ramp-down of the NPL cleanup program has important implications for state cleanup programs. The bill provides $100 million per year for state cleanup programs. Therefore, the bill requires EPA to plan how it will proceed at the 3,000 sites still awaiting a decision regarding NPL listing. Further, under our bill, new listings on the National Priority List must be approved by the Governor of the affected state. What is most important, the bill provides finality at sites cleaned up in state cleanup programs unless a state asks for help, fails to take action, or a true emergency is present. We know that the vast majority of sites not already listed on the NPL will be cleaned up by the states, not EPA. A strong finality provision will give greater confidence to prospective developers that state cleanup decisions will not be second-guessed by EPA. I would note that the bill includes new safeguards, not present in S.1090 as-introduced, to ensure a robust federal safety net if a state fails to meet its obligations. How does this bill differ from S. 1090? In preparation for the markup, members filed several amendments that Senator Smith and I plan to accept. Senator Bond filed several amendments to improve the brownfields provisions and protect law enforcement activities from Superfund liability. Senator Thomas filed an amendment to clarify the liability of common carriers and railroad spur track owners. Senator Inhofe filed an amendment to encourage the recycling of used oil, and another to improve the state cleanup program provisions. Senator Smith and I filed an amendment to study the costs of the Superfund program over the next ten years. All of these amendments are included in the new bill. Senator Smith and I have also included an amendment that we filed containing narrow provisions in two areas not originally addressed in S.1090: natural resource damages, and remedy. We offered the language in our negotiations in order to try to accommodate the concerns of Republicans members who felt that the scope of the bill was too narrow. We felt these provisions would solve most of the concerns that were raised without completely reopening the debates on NRD and remedy. The new remedy provisions would accomplish three things. First, it makes improvements to the system of identifying and applying the applicable relevant and appropriate requirements of other federal and state laws in Superfund cleanups. Second, the existing statutory preference for permanent remedies that use treatment is replaced by a preference limited to so-called ``hot spots.'' This comports with EPA's current practice, where 70% of all cleanup plans include containment instead of removal of the hazardous substance. Finally, new provisions establish procedures for the use of facility-specific risk assessments and the use of science in decision-making. This provision was closely modeled on the recent Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment. The new natural resource damages provision makes four significant changes to the NRD program. First, it provides a clear statement as to what costs a responsible party will be required to bear under a natural resource damage claim. A responsible party will be liable for only for the reasonable costs of restoring the resource--that is for reinstating the human uses and environmental functions of the resource. Second, it would eliminate recovery for any damages based on the nonuse values associated with an injured resource. Proponents of nonuse damages have argued that these damages are an important element of recovery in cases where a resource like the Grand Canyon is injured or destroyed. Our provision addresses this issue more directly. Instead, it recognizes that certain resources, such as endangered species, or wilderness areas, or certain national monuments are truly unique and therefore warrant special consideration. The language provides that where a unique resource has been damaged and is irreplaceable, the trustees may seek enhanced or expedited restoration. Third, it set parameters for determining whether the costs associated with a restoration measure are reasonable. Under this bill, the reasonableness of the costs will be determined based on four factors: technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, the time period in which recovery will be achieved; and whether the response action or natural recovery will reinstate the uses of a resource in a reasonable period of time. This provision is not intended to require a cost-benefit analysis. However, it is intended to require that trustees select cost- effective restoration measures. Fourth, it clarifies the prohibition against double recovery. It would protect responsible parties against claims under section 107(f) if damages have already been recovered for the same injury to the same resource under CERCLA, State or Tribal law. It is clear that we have moved a long way to try to reach an accommodation on both the right and the left. Perhaps this new bill can serve as the rallying-point if prospects for Superfund improve later in the Congress. In closing, I want to thank Senator Smith for his efforts on Superfund over the years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1999. This bill is based on S. 1090, the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999, a bill that I introduced, along with Senators Smith and Lott, earlier this year. Last year, the Committee reported a comprehensive Superfund bill to the Senate. However, gaining a consensus on a comprehensive bill was not possible last year, and the bill was not called up. The most controversial issues were cleanup standards, paying ``polluters,'' and natural resource damages. In S. 1090, we narrowed the scope of the bill greatly to get relief now for many parties--small businesses, local governments, municipal solid waste contributors--and we did it fairly, while strengthening the role of the states. Our goal was always to report a bill that enjoyed wide support. Unfortunately, Senator Smith and I were not able to move S. 1090 out of the committee. We spent several months negotiating with members on both sides of the aisle. The bill that Senator Smith and I introduce today serves as a record of our progress in trying to craft a broadly- supported Superfund reform bill. The bill contains numerous changes from S. 1090. Some changes were made prior to the markup. Others are based on amendments filed for the markup, and others in response to negotiations over the last week. Our bills retains the key features of S. 1090. The Brownfields title will provide $100 million in grants for state, tribal and local governments to identify, assess and redevelop Brownfields sites. It protects prospective purchasers of contaminated sites, innocent owners of properties adjacent to the source of contamination, and innocent property owners who exercised due diligence upon purchase. The bill exempts recyclers, small businesses, contributors of very small amounts of hazardous waste, and contributors of small amounts of municipal solid waste. The bill limits the liability of larger generators or transporters of municipal solid waste. The bill limits the liability of larger generators or transporters of municipal solid waste, as well as owners or operators of co-disposal landfills where municipal solid waste is disposed. The bill limits the liability of so- called de minimis parties--generally one percent contributors or less-- as well as municipalities and small businesses with a limited ability to pay. Importantly, this liability relief is provided fairly. EPA is directed to pay for the shares of exempted parties from a $200 million annual orphan share instead of merely shifting the liability onto the remaining nonexempt parties. Importantly, responsible parties still must proceed with the cleanup if $200 million is insufficient to cover all orphan shares in a given year. The bill also requires EPA to perform an impartial fair-share allocation at Superfund NPL sites and to give all parties an opportunity to settle for their allocated amount. Allocation is preceded by a period for EPA-directed alternative dispute resolution. Parties that do not participate or settle remain liable to Superfund's underlying liability provisions, which remain unchanged. The bill starts the process of bringing the National Priority List cleanup program to an orderly end. EPA notes that cleanup is complete or underway at more than 90 percent of the sites on the current NPL. EPA is cleaning up the sites at a rate of 85 per year, but it has listed only an average of about 26 sites per year. Last year, the General Accounting Office surveyed the states and EPA about the approximately 3,000 sites identified as possible National Priority List sites, but not yet listed. Only 232 of these sites were identified by either EPA, a state, or both, as likely to be listed on the NPL. The Superfund NPL cleanup program is closer to the end of its mission than to the beginning. The authorized funding levels in the bill, which decrease during the five-year authorization period, are consistent with the expected decrease in Superfund's workload. The ramp-down of the NPL cleanup program has important implications for state cleanup programs. The bill provides $100 million per year for state cleanup programs. Therefore, the bill requires EPA to plan how it will proceed at the 3,000 sites still awaiting a decision regarding NPL listing. Further, under our bill, new listings on the National Priority List must be approved by the Governor of the affected state. What is most important, the bill provides finality at sites cleaned up in state cleanup programs unless a state asks for help, fails to take action, or a true emergency is present. We know that the vast majority of sites not already listed on the NPL will be cleaned up by the states, not EPA. A strong finality provision will give greater confidence to prospective developers that state cleanup decisions will not be second-guessed by EPA. I would note that the bill includes new safeguards, not present in S.1090 as-introduced, to ensure a robust federal safety net if a state fails to meet its obligations. How does this bill differ from S. 1090? In preparation for the markup, members filed several amendments that Senator Smith and I plan to accept. Senator Bond filed several amendments to improve the brownfields provisions and protect law enforcement activities from Superfund liability. Senator Thomas filed an amendment to clarify the liability of common carriers and railroad spur track owners. Senator Inhofe filed an amendment to encourage the recycling of used oil, and another to improve the state cleanup program provisions. Senator Smith and I filed an amendment to study the costs of the Superfund program over the next ten years. All of these amendments are included in the new bill. Senator Smith and I have also included an amendment that we filed containing narrow provisions in two areas not originally addressed in S.1090: natural resource damages, and remedy. We offered the language in our negotiations in order to try to accommodate the concerns of Republicans members who felt that the scope of the bill was too narrow. We felt these provisions would solve most of the concerns that were raised without completely reopening the debates on NRD and remedy. The new remedy provisions would accomplish three things. First, it makes improvements to the system of identifying and applying the applicable relevant and appropriate requirements of other federal and state laws in Superfund cleanups. Second, the existing statutory preference for permanent remedies that use treatment is replaced by a preference limited to so-called ``hot spots.'' This comports with EPA's current practice, where 70% of all cleanup plans include containment instead of removal of the hazardous substance. Finally, new provisions establish procedures for the use of facility-specific risk assessments and the use of science in decision-making. This provision was closely modeled on the recent Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment. The new natural resource damages provision makes four significant changes to the NRD program. First, it provides a clear statement as to what costs a responsible party will be required to bear under a natural resource damage claim. A responsible party will be liable for only for the reasonable costs of restoring the resource--that is for reinstating the human uses and environmental functions of the resource. Second, it would eliminate recovery for any damages based on the nonuse values associated with an injured resource. Proponents of nonuse damages have argued that these damages are an important element of recovery in cases where a resource like the Grand Canyon is injured or destroyed. Our provision addresses this issue more directly. Instead, it recognizes that certain resources, such as endangered species, or wilderness areas, or certain national monuments are truly unique and therefore warrant special consideration. The language provides that where a unique resource has been damaged and is irreplaceable, the trustees may seek enhanced or expedited restoration. Third, it set parameters for determining whether the costs associated with a restoration measure are reasonable. Under this bill, the reasonableness of the costs will be determined based on four factors: technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, the time period in which recovery will be achieved; and whether the response action or natural recovery will reinstate the uses of a resource in a reasonable period of time. This provision is not intended to require a cost-benefit analysis. However, it is intended to require that trustees select cost- effective restoration measures. Fourth, it clarifies the prohibition against double recovery. It would protect responsible parties against claims under section 107(f) if damages have already been recovered for the same injury to the same resource under CERCLA, State or Tribal law. It is clear that we have moved a long way to try to reach an accommodation on both the right and the left. Perhaps this new bill can serve as the rallying-point if prospects for Superfund improve later in the Congress. In closing, I want to thank Senator Smith for his efforts on Superfund over the years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act contains many provisions which I support, as well as some which I would not vote for if considered on their own merits. Let me just highlight some of the more commendable provisions in the bill which I hope will be included in any final tax legislation the President may sign: I am pleased the bill includes reforms to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This tax was never intended to apply to families, nor to be triggered by the number of exemptions they might claim. In the health care area, this bill includes some important changes. First, it provides a health insurance deduction to individuals whose employers provide no subsidy, regardless of whether or not the individual itemizes. In addition to this deduction, the bill includes a similar deduction for the purchase of long-term care insurance that will help aging Americans pay for the care they need. This bill includes a number of provisions which would strengthen retirement security, both by encouraging more private savings and by reforming and simplifying our pension laws. These reforms would eliminate many of the administrative burdens which discourage businesses from offering their employees pensions, and would also provide for higher contribution limits. The bill includes a repeal of the 4.3 cent per gallon diesel fuel excise tax which railroads (including Amtrak) and inland barge operators have been required to pay toward deficit reduction. This change would enable these modes of transportation to compete more effectively by reducing their costs. By making the Dependent Care Tax Credit available to more families, this bill would help to make child care affordable for more families. In addition, the bill includes a provision to extend the adoption tax credit and to strengthen the credit for the adoption of special needs children. The bill proposes to extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, a program I have long championed, which encourages employers to hire and train disadvantaged and unskilled workers. The marriage penalty relief provisions in the bill are aimed at moderate income families and those eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The bill also includes provisions which will improve the deductibility of student loan interest, and which will help families save for college. The bill includes an expansion in the conservation easement rules to encourage more Americans to donate land for the preservation of open spaces. The bill also contains a deduction to encourage the restoration of historic residential properties. I would have preferred that the credit, as included in the Senate bill, had prevailed rather than the deduction, but this is a good start. Importantly, some of the income tax rate reductions contained in the bill are made contingent upon progress toward debt retirement. Failing such progress, up to $200 billion of tax cuts would not take place. While I will vote for this measure to keep the process moving toward an expected presidential veto and final budget negotiations with the White House, I would much prefer a smaller bill, such as the $500 billion bipartisan compromise plan which I--along with Senators Breaux, Jeffords and Kerrey--pressed during Finance Committee and floor deliberations on the tax bill. Because of the uncertainty of projecting budget surpluses over a ten- year period, and given all of the other priorities we face, I am simply not comfortable with an $800 billion tax cut. In my judgment, cutting taxes is only one of several important priorities toward which our budget surplus should be directed. Others include reducing the national debt; modernizing Medicare and adding a prescription drug benefit; strengthening Social Security for the long-term; and, ensuring adequate funding on an annual basis for important discretionary programs. Clearly, there are provisions I had trouble with. The bill includes a provision to encourage the establishment of Individual Education Savings Accounts to subsidize the cost of private school tuition for children in grades K-12. This bill would redirect revenues from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund to the Superfund program. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I strongly opposed inclusion of this provision. Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 20 to 18 percent for individuals, as this bill proposes, seems unnecessary because this rate reduction was scheduled to happen in the near future. In sum, Mr. President, I am hopeful that negotiations between Congress and the Administration will begin in earnest after the President vetoes this bill in September. In my judgment, in addition to providing needed tax relief, those negotiations should also produce other critical benefits, including provisions to reduce our national debt, strengthen Medicare, and to fund discretionary programs.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. It is the Committee's intent to urge the Corps and the National Marine Fisheries Service to complete their ESA consultation expeditiously so that a cost share adjustment can be considered by the Committee in a timely manner.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator's understanding is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would be happy to answer any questions the Senator may have.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. The senior Senator from Georgia is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. He has headed many of these conferences. I particularly recall some of the transportation conferences he has headed in which he did landmark work. Having kind words coming from him and praises is doubly important to me. I greatly appreciate them. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the conference report to accompany S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This measure, similar to water resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1992, is comprised of water resources project and study authorizations, as well as important policy initiatives, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. This bill was introduced by Senator Warner at the beginning of this year. In previous years, the Senator from Virginia had been the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Senate. In that role he guided a similar bill through the Senate during the previous Congress. We are very grateful for his hard work on this legislation and sticking with the project considering the new demands on his time as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Unfortunately, the House was unable to pass a companion measure last year because of a dispute over flood control and water supply in the State of California. So, this WRDA bill is somewhat overdue. This year, S. 507 was adopted unanimously by the Senate on April 19, 1999. On April 29 of this year, the House of Representatives adopted its version of the legislation by a vote of 418 to 6. Since that time, we have worked together with our colleagues from the House of Representatives and the administration to reach bipartisan agreement on a sensible compromise measure. Because of the numerous differences between the Senate- and House-passed bills, completion of this conference report has required many hours of negotiation. To ensure that the items contained in this legislation are responsive to the nation's most pressing water infrastructure and environmental needs, we have adhered to a set of criteria established in previous water resources law. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here to discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to determine the merit of proposed projects, project studies and policy directives. In 1986 Congress enacted and President Reagan signed a Water Resources Development Act that broke new ground. Importantly, the 1986 Act marked an end to the sixteen-year deadlock between Congress and the executive branch regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works program. In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps and non-federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which federal involvement is appropriate and warranted. Each flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, or other project requires a local cost share that is applied uniformly across the nation. Second, projects are not authorized until various reports and studies have been completed to assure that the projects are justified from economic, engineering and environmental perspectives. Third, projects must fit within the traditional mission of the civil works program of the Army Corps. That mission includes flood control, improvements to navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental restoration. These are the precepts that we have applied to the provisions contained in the pending conference report. Although there are special circumstances that justify exceptions to every rule, I believe that this bill does a good job of adhering to the fundamental purposes and principles of the WRDA program. Water resources legislation has been enacted on a biennial basis since 1986, with the exception of 1994. The bill we are bringing back from conference today includes scores of projects with a total federal authorization of approximately $4.3 billion. Importantly, more than $1.5 billion of this amount will go toward environmental mitigation and restoration and water cleanup projects for sewage discharges, stormwater retention, and the control of combined sewer overflows. A bill like this takes hard work by many parties. I would like to salute our Senate conferees, Senators Smith, Baucus, Moynihan, Voinovich, and Boxer. As I said earlier, Senator Warner has been the key player on this bill as its author, manager and member of the conference committee. Senate staff playing a key role on this bill included Ann Loomis for Senator Warner and JoEllen Darcy for Senator Baucus. On my staff, first Dan Delich and, after he left us, Abigail Kinnison and Chelsea Henderson, have worked many long hours to make this bill possible. On the House side, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman Shuster, and committee members, Congressman Oberstar and Congressman Boehlert deserve high praise for their work. We thank them very much for the spirit of compromise they brought to the conference and for their efforts to complete this task before the recess. I am pleased to bring this conference report to the Senate. I trust that those who every day depend on the fine work of the Corps of Engineers to protect their lives and their livelihoods will benefit greatly from the legislative work that has been done.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 507.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the majority leader for moving this legislation along, and I thank all concerned.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the conference report be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is very cut-and-dried. What we say in this substitute is give us a chance. We have a committee. In September, as chairman of the committee--and the chairman of the subcommittee is here--we promise the Senator to hold, very early in September, as soon as we can get proper witnesses, a hearing on this subject. It is an important subject. I recognize that to California it is very important, and it is important to other States, likewise. I think that is the proper way to go. It is a complicated subject and it involves not just MTBE; it involves the oxygenates that come from corn. That is the way I recommend we proceed.