John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on: ``Competition in the cable and video markets.''

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Indian provisions contained in the tobacco settlement between the Attorneys General and the tobacco industry.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on the Nomination of David Satcher to be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of HHS during the Session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR- 328A to examine food safety issues and recent food safety legislation proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee Special Investigation to meet on Wednesday, October 8, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on campaign financing issues.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on the creation of the first federally funded private school voucher program in the Nation. It is no accident that this new voucher program is being debated on the D.C. appropriations bill. None of us has a constituency in the District of Columbia. We can do anything to the District, and we are unaccountable to its voters for our actions. And in recent years, Congress has done quite a bit to the District of Columbia. Two years ago, in recognition of poor city management and extreme budgetary problems, Congress created a financial control board to help get the city back on its fiscal feet. Not quite a year ago, the control board announced the formation of an emergency management team for the city's schools. The elected school board was relieved of its authority. The superintendent was urged to resign, and a new team was established, which is headed by retired Gen. Julius Becton. General Becton signed on for a 3-year tour of duty in D.C. schools, yet before even a full year has passed, Congress is poised to pull the rug out from under him by creating a private school voucher plan. Supporters of private school vouchers prefer to call them school choice. But parents don't choose the schools their children will attend. Private schools select the children they will accept. This is not a luxury our public schools enjoy. Public schools are committed to providing an education to all children: To children who come to school at any time of the year, to children with disabilities, to children whose primary language is not English, to children with disciplinary problems, and to children with low IQ's. Private schools have the ability to select the smartest, the least difficult students with the fewest challenges to overcome. Supporters of the voucher plan point out that there are a number of inner-city, parochial schools that take whatever child comes to the door. There is no doubt that parochial schools have an important role to play and are doing a good job, but that does not mean that they should receive Federal funding. It does not mean that they have taken on all of the obligations of our public schools. I believe that it is wrong to provide Federal dollars to private or parochial schools to enable them to skim the best students from the public schools. Vouchers also would skim the students whose parents are involved in their child's education, leaving the public schools with the greatest challenges. Supporters of the voucher plan say District of Columbia should provide choices to parents. They say District of Columbia should have charter schools. They call for partnerships between city schools and the Smithsonian Institution. The truth is that District of Columbia has all of these things. The District has public school choice. There is a charter school program at a school not six blocks from the Capitol. Down the street there is a middle school which has entered into a partnership with the Smithsonian. D.C. public schools are the only public schools in the area that provide an all day kindergarten program, and every high school in the District is a magnet school. A lot of attention has been paid to the fact that the schools didn't open on time this year, and Congress is not without responsibility for the delay. But very little mention has been made of the rigorous standards that have been put into place in every school, here. Starting this school year, teachers, parents, and students have a clear idea of what the children should know at each grade level. Last week, students all across the District were tested in reading, math, and language arts to see what level they are at. At the end of the school year, they will be tested again, to assess their progress. The performance of teachers and principal also will be based on these assessments. The pressure is on not to let a single child slip through the cracks, and I think that is an enormous step in the right direction. Teachers and principals are turning up the heat on parents, as well. Parents of students in D.C. public schools are signing compacts, agreeing to be full participants in their child's education. They are visiting classrooms, to see first-hand what and how their children are learning. They are becoming responsible for making sure their children do their homework, and parents are being asked to check the work and sign it. They are being asked to read to their children regularly. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post, dated September 28, 1997, about back to school night at a local school be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, these are improvements that will help all of the students in the District of Columbia schools, not just 3 percent of the students. Let's support what works for all of the children, not just a handful of them. That's the point of public education. I plan to vote against the voucher plan and urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's send a clear message to General Becton and the teachers, parents, and students in D.C. schools: We support your efforts to make your local schools better for everyone. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 1997] Back to Work for Schools (By Courtland Milloy) ``Good evening,'' W. Irene Woodard, the Watkins Elementary School principal, said melodically. The parents seated before her nodded politely. ``I said, `Good evening,' '' Woodard repeated, not so sweet as before. ``When I say, `Good evening,' I expect you to sing.'' It was Back to School Night, and apparently I wasn't the only parent feeling somewhat demoralized by the delayed opening of D.C. public schools. No school for the first three weeks of September, and then, when it did start last week, some schools still had not received all of the necessary books and supplies. ``Don't look so dreary,'' said Channita Fraser, the Watkins PTA president. ``When you come to meetings, smile.'' She began to sing in Spanish, ``The more we get together, the happier we'll be.'' People like Woodard and Fraser made it hard for me to just sit and stew in my juices. The way they saw it, there was no time for sulking or complaining. Our children needed help, and they needed it fast. ``Because of the delay in the opening of school, we're going to need parental cooperation like never before,'' said Ellen Costello, who heads PTA fund-raising for Watkins. To make sure it gets the resources it needs, an abundance of candy and holiday wrapping paper must be sold. Parents with the means could make donations directly to their children's classrooms, she said. ``Last year, we raised $22,000,'' Costello told the parents. ``The money was used to fix up the school library. But more is needed to purchase copy paper and make copy machine repairs. We're also trying to get water coolers for each classroom. Remember, we live in the District of Columbia, and we don't have much money.'' That notion--that we live in the District, ergo, we don't have much money--was going to take me more than one Back to School Night to get used to. The tax bite out of my paycheck said otherwise. D.C. public schools get more than $500 million a year to educate about 78,000 students. You'd think we'd have all the amenities of an elite private school. Instead, I was told, my third-grader would be expected to take on the equivalent of a part-time job as a candy bar salesman just so his school could get money to buy supplies. But there I go being negative again. ``We had 142 students who sold something last year,'' Costello reported. ``That's only a 33 percent participation rate, and we need to raise it.'' I was particularly impressed with my child's teacher, Kimberly Sakai. She's from Hawaii. This is her first year teaching in D.C. public schools, and she has brought to the job all of the enthusiasm you'd expect of a person who doesn't know any better. ``Our class will be starting a new social studies program that focuses on D.C.,'' Sakai told parents. ``Strange how D.C. schools don't have a program that focuses exclusively on Washington. Hawaii is very big on learning about D.C. How can we bypass D.C.? We're going to get to know our community and our government and go on lots of field trips.'' Then she asked us to fork over $3 each for a subscription to a weekly children's current events magazine. More important than raising money, however, is getting parents to support their children's teachers. To that end, we all signed a ``parent contract.'' Instead of giving parents money to escape the public school system, as a school voucher would, a parent contract pledges parents to work to improve the schools that their children already attend. An exchange that occurred between a teacher and a parent at the meeting last week revealed the need for greater parental commitment. Teacher: ``Each child will have a homework folder with his or her assignments written down in it, and I expect you to check it and sign it before your child returns.'' Parent, sounding distressed: ``You aren't going to assign homework every night, are you?'' Teacher: ``I'll try not to give them homework on Fridays.'' Parent, with a sigh of relief: ``Thank you.'' That parent, judging from the way she was dressed, probably had just come from work. She might have had another full-time job as a housekeeper waiting for her when she got home. Understandably, more homework for her child meant more work for her. And yet, I would have thought that all D.C. schoolteachers--just to make up for the three-week delay-- would be piling on the homework. And I wouldn't expect them to let up on Fridays either, especially for third- and fifth- graders, whose progress is being measured against national standards for the first time this year. I could only vow that my child would have homework every night, whether his teachers assigned it or not. Somehow, the expectations for our children must be raised. ``For all of the resources and services that we have, our children are not achieving at the level that they are capable of,'' Woodard told the parents. ``We all must work harder on that. We especially need parents to enhance and extend what is going on in the classroom. ``Be sure that your children are reading a great deal of books, and be sure that they are understanding what they read.'' Sounds like homework to me.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce legislation with Senator D'Amato, chairman of the Banking Committee, to create a circulating commemorative quarter representing each of the 50 states. Last year, legislation was enacted which instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to study the feasibility of a circulating commemorative coin. That study found that there is considerable public interest in the circulating commemorative quarter and that collecting such coins would produce significant earnings. The bill that I am introducing today will implement this program. Identical legislation has been introduced in the House. As we all know, the circulating quarters in use today are Washington/ Eagle quarters, that is they have a bust of George Washington on one side and an eagle on the reverse side. Under this legislation, beginning in 1999, the Mint would strike only statehood quarters until all 50 states were represented. Only the design on the back of quarters would change. There would be no changes whatsoever to the physical size, weight, or other specifications of quarters. This uniformity is necessary to ensure that these new quarters will continue to work in vending machines, telephones, parking meters, and for other similar transactions. This program would operate for 10 years, with the Mint producing five different statehood coins per year. The order in which States will be represented is based on the order in which States ratified the Constitution and joined the Union. If a new state joins the Union during the life of the program, it will be extended in order to ensure that the new State is represented. The design for each State will be selected by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Governor, the Commission on Fine Arts, and the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. Each State will nominate a design to the Secretary. It is my hope that this proposal will spark interest in every State across our Nation. I hope that school children begin to study the history of their States in search of an appropriate individual or emblem to represent their States on the reverse side of these quarters. I hope that artists, coin collectors, historians, and scholars debate and ultimately join together to suggest an appropriate representation for their State. I know that there are a wide range of appealing options for my own State of Rhode Island. Of course there is the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson, who, like Roger Williams, dedicated her life to the principle of religious freedom and tolerance. There is the Anchor of Hope, which is our State motto and is represented on our flag. Rhode Island is the Ocean State, so a seascape would be an interesting proposal, as would be a lighthouse or a gull. I am delighted to have Senator D'Amato's support in introducing this bill. I am sure that he agrees that the point of this new program is to honor all 50 States, and to encourage an interest in the unique history of each State. This program creates a program through which we can celebrate our diverse heritage. I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S. 1222. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce legislation with Senator D'Amato, chairman of the Banking Committee, to create a circulating commemorative quarter representing each of the 50 states. Last year, legislation was enacted which instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to study the feasibility of a circulating commemorative coin. That study found that there is considerable public interest in the circulating commemorative quarter and that collecting such coins would produce significant earnings. The bill that I am introducing today will implement this program. Identical legislation has been introduced in the House. As we all know, the circulating quarters in use today are Washington/ Eagle quarters, that is they have a bust of George Washington on one side and an eagle on the reverse side. Under this legislation, beginning in 1999, the Mint would strike only statehood quarters until all 50 states were represented. Only the design on the back of quarters would change. There would be no changes whatsoever to the physical size, weight, or other specifications of quarters. This uniformity is necessary to ensure that these new quarters will continue to work in vending machines, telephones, parking meters, and for other similar transactions. This program would operate for 10 years, with the Mint producing five different statehood coins per year. The order in which States will be represented is based on the order in which States ratified the Constitution and joined the Union. If a new state joins the Union during the life of the program, it will be extended in order to ensure that the new State is represented. The design for each State will be selected by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Governor, the Commission on Fine Arts, and the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. Each State will nominate a design to the Secretary. It is my hope that this proposal will spark interest in every State across our Nation. I hope that school children begin to study the history of their States in search of an appropriate individual or emblem to represent their States on the reverse side of these quarters. I hope that artists, coin collectors, historians, and scholars debate and ultimately join together to suggest an appropriate representation for their State. I know that there are a wide range of appealing options for my own State of Rhode Island. Of course there is the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson, who, like Roger Williams, dedicated her life to the principle of religious freedom and tolerance. There is the Anchor of Hope, which is our State motto and is represented on our flag. Rhode Island is the Ocean State, so a seascape would be an interesting proposal, as would be a lighthouse or a gull. I am delighted to have Senator D'Amato's support in introducing this bill. I am sure that he agrees that the point of this new program is to honor all 50 States, and to encourage an interest in the unique history of each State. This program creates a program through which we can celebrate our diverse heritage. I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral. 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 with Senator Breaux and Senators Lieberman, Faircloth, Robb, Sarbanes, Murray, D'Amato, Murkowski, Warner, Reed, Landrieu, Graham, Mikulski, Dodd, Moynihan, and Mack to introduce the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997. Estuaries, those bays, gulfs, sounds, and inlets where fresh water meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean, provide some of the most ecologically and economically productive habitat in the world. They benefit our economy, they benefit our health, in short, they are good for the soul. More than 75 percent of the commercial fish and shellfish harvested in the United States depend on estuaries at some stage in their lifecycle. Estuaries are also home to a large percentage of the Nation's endangered and threatened species and half of its neotropical migratory birds. Moreover, the livelihood of 28 million Americans depends on estuaries and coastal regions. Regrettably, estuaries are in danger. Within the last 30 years, coastal regions have become home to more than half of the Nation's population. This population explosion has taken its toll. Fish catches are at their lowest, shellfish beds have been closed, and the economic livelihood and quality of life of our coastal communities is threatened. The increase in nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural runoff, also has made its mark. And in the Chesapeake Bay, the recent pfiesteria outbreak that has killed hundreds of fish and even harmed human health is an unfortunate example of what can happen when the balance between harmful nutrients that pollute the waters take over. The habitats estuaries provide for an extraordinary diversity of fish and wildlife are shrinking fast, jeopardizing jobs in fishing and tourism. The many values that estuaries bring to our lives could one day be gone. The future of estuary habitat need not be a gloomy one. Estuaries can be restored. A variety of efforts, ranging from school classrooms planting eel grass in a coastal inlet to the restoration of freshwater flows into an entire bay area, have brought estuaries back to life. The demands on Federal funding for estuary restoration activities exceed available resources. We therefore must make the most of limited public resources by enlisting the support of our States, communities, and the private sector. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997 will help rebuild these national treasures by focusing these limited resources on the restoration of vital estuary habitat. This bill is unique, in that it builds a renewed commitment to community-driven restoration. It is not a regulatory measure. Rather than provide mandates, it provides incentives and gives concerned citizens more of an opportunity to get involved in the effort. Also, it is flexible. Every community's approach to restoring estuaries will vary depending upon the unique needs of the particular area. What works well in Rhode Island's waters may not work in a more temperate areas like coastal California and Louisiana. The bill also creates strong and lasting partnerships between the public and private sectors, and among all levels of government. It brings together existing Federal, State, and local restoration plans, programs, and studies. To ensure that restoration efforts build on past successes and current scientific understanding, the bill encourages the development of monitoring and maintenance capabilities. Above all, this bill will benefit the environment, the economy, and the quality of life of the Nation. Estuaries are ecologically unique. The complex variety of habitats--river deltas, sea grass meadows, forested wetlands, shellfish beds, marshes, and beaches--supports a fluorishing range of wildlife and plants. Because fish and birds migrate, the health of these habitats is intertwined with the health of other ecosystems thousands of miles away. Estuaries also are perhaps the most prolific places on Earth. Economically, this bill will benefit those Americans whose livelihoods depend on coastal areas. The commercial fishing industry, which depends heavily on these areas, contributes $111 billion per year to the national economy. Tourism and recreation also stand to benefit. Finally, estuaries are essential to our quality of life. Listen to this figure: In 1993, 180 million Americans, approximately 70 percent of the population, visited estuaries to fish, swim, hunt, dive, view wildlife, hike, and learn. I urge my colleagues to support this important effort to restore the marshes, wetland and aquatic life that nourish our fish and wildlife, enhance water quality, control floods, and provide so many lasting benefits for the Nation. Before I conclude, I want to thank my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for all of his help on this issue. I also want to give a special thanks to Restore America's Estuaries and to Rhode Island Save the Bay for all of their hard work, without which this effort would not have been possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Breaux and Senators Lieberman, Faircloth, Robb, Sarbanes, Murray, D'Amato, Murkowski, Warner, Reed, Landrieu, Graham, Mikulski, Dodd, Moynihan, and Mack to introduce the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997. Estuaries, those bays, gulfs, sounds, and inlets where fresh water meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean, provide some of the most ecologically and economically productive habitat in the world. They benefit our economy, they benefit our health, in short, they are good for the soul. More than 75 percent of the commercial fish and shellfish harvested in the United States depend on estuaries at some stage in their lifecycle. Estuaries are also home to a large percentage of the Nation's endangered and threatened species and half of its neotropical migratory birds. Moreover, the livelihood of 28 million Americans depends on estuaries and coastal regions. Regrettably, estuaries are in danger. Within the last 30 years, coastal regions have become home to more than half of the Nation's population. This population explosion has taken its toll. Fish catches are at their lowest, shellfish beds have been closed, and the economic livelihood and quality of life of our coastal communities is threatened. The increase in nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural runoff, also has made its mark. And in the Chesapeake Bay, the recent pfiesteria outbreak that has killed hundreds of fish and even harmed human health is an unfortunate example of what can happen when the balance between harmful nutrients that pollute the waters take over. The habitats estuaries provide for an extraordinary diversity of fish and wildlife are shrinking fast, jeopardizing jobs in fishing and tourism. The many values that estuaries bring to our lives could one day be gone. The future of estuary habitat need not be a gloomy one. Estuaries can be restored. A variety of efforts, ranging from school classrooms planting eel grass in a coastal inlet to the restoration of freshwater flows into an entire bay area, have brought estuaries back to life. The demands on Federal funding for estuary restoration activities exceed available resources. We therefore must make the most of limited public resources by enlisting the support of our States, communities, and the private sector. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997 will help rebuild these national treasures by focusing these limited resources on the restoration of vital estuary habitat. This bill is unique, in that it builds a renewed commitment to community-driven restoration. It is not a regulatory measure. Rather than provide mandates, it provides incentives and gives concerned citizens more of an opportunity to get involved in the effort. Also, it is flexible. Every community's approach to restoring estuaries will vary depending upon the unique needs of the particular area. What works well in Rhode Island's waters may not work in a more temperate areas like coastal California and Louisiana. The bill also creates strong and lasting partnerships between the public and private sectors, and among all levels of government. It brings together existing Federal, State, and local restoration plans, programs, and studies. To ensure that restoration efforts build on past successes and current scientific understanding, the bill encourages the development of monitoring and maintenance capabilities. Above all, this bill will benefit the environment, the economy, and the quality of life of the Nation. Estuaries are ecologically unique. The complex variety of habitats--river deltas, sea grass meadows, forested wetlands, shellfish beds, marshes, and beaches--supports a fluorishing range of wildlife and plants. Because fish and birds migrate, the health of these habitats is intertwined with the health of other ecosystems thousands of miles away. Estuaries also are perhaps the most prolific places on Earth. Economically, this bill will benefit those Americans whose livelihoods depend on coastal areas. The commercial fishing industry, which depends heavily on these areas, contributes $111 billion per year to the national economy. Tourism and recreation also stand to benefit. Finally, estuaries are essential to our quality of life. Listen to this figure: In 1993, 180 million Americans, approximately 70 percent of the population, visited estuaries to fish, swim, hunt, dive, view wildlife, hike, and learn. I urge my colleagues to support this important effort to restore the marshes, wetland and aquatic life that nourish our fish and wildlife, enhance water quality, control floods, and provide so many lasting benefits for the Nation. Before I conclude, I want to thank my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for all of his help on this issue. I also want to give a special thanks to Restore America's Estuaries and to Rhode Island Save the Bay for all of their hard work, without which this effort would not have been possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support for Abused and Neglected Children Act, the so-called PASS Act. This legislation will make critical reforms to the Nation's child welfare and foster care system and will go a long way toward improving the lives of the hundreds of thousands of abused and neglected children across America. These are children without a safe family setting. They are children who face abuse and neglect every day of their lives. They are America's forgotten children. And, all too often, they are children without hope. This chilling picture has brought the sponsors of this bill together to take immediate action. The goals of the PASS Act are twofold: to ensure that abused and neglected children are in safe settings, and to move children more rapidly out of the foster care system and into permanent placements. While the goal of reunifying children with their biological families is laudable, we should not be encouraging States to return abused or neglected children to homes that are clearly unsafe. Regrettably, this is occurring under current law. About 500,000--half a million--abused or neglected children currently live outside their homes, either in foster care or with relatives. In Rhode Island alone, there are nearly 1,500 children who have been removed from their homes and are in foster care. The Rhode Island Department of Children and Families has an active case load of about 7,700 children who have been abused or neglected. Many of these children will be able to return to their parents, but many will not. Too often, children who cannot return to their parents wait for years in foster care before they are adopted. In today's child welfare system, it has become a lonely and tragic wait with no end. To us, that is an unacceptable way of life for any child to have to endure. The PASS Act seeks to shorten the time a child must wait to be adopted, all the while ensuring that wherever a child is placed, his or her safety and health will be the first concern. The PASS Act also contains important new financial incentives to help these children find adoptive homes. State agencies will receive bonuses for each child that is adopted, and families who open their hearts and their homes to these children will be eligible for Federal financial assistance and Medicaid coverage for the child. I believe the PASS Act is a good bipartisan, compromise package. The sponsors of this bill have worked hard to come together in support of a child welfare reform bill. And we expect this new, revised legislation to move quickly through the Senate, as the Majority Leader has indicated that adoption legislation is one of a select few priorities to be dealt with before expected adjournment in early November. But the real reason we need to move this bill is not because of legislative haste. It is because each passing day we do not act to bring hope and relief to abused and neglected children is a dark day for Congress and the Nation. Finally let me thank my friend Jay Rockefeller, who has worked so tirelessly on these issues and whose leadership was key to this bill. I also want to pay special tribute to Larry Craig--without his commitment to these children this agreement would not have been possible. I am proud of this bipartisan effort, and I hope all of my colleagues will support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Arkansas would like to say a few words. Would he? If not, I will proceed.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, every so often we are put in a difficult situation with amendments presented by somebody we have great affection and respect for, yet we are not in a position to agree with the amendment. Such is the instance here where we are now wrestling with the amendment presented by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, with whom I have had the privilege of working on the Environment Committee and who is a very valuable member of that committee. Just yesterday we worked closely on a very major piece of legislation which unanimously came out of the committee, and part of the reason it was so successful in the committee was because of the help from the Senator from Arkansas. But I must say I think he is making a mountain out of a molehill here, if you would. Maybe I ought to put it in river terms in some fashion. What occurred was in the State of the Union Address the President announced a plan to create initiatives designed to assist communities in their efforts to clean up and restore rivers and riverfront areas. Last week, he signed an Executive order creating the American heritage rivers initiative. He had previously announced that he was going to do it and had used that term, American heritage rivers. This amendment would, in my judgment, derail that designation and add a whole series of complexities to it that I will touch on in a minute. Since the announcement of this initiative in the State of the Union Address, communities along two major rivers in my State, the Blackstone River and the Woonasquatucket River, have been invigorated by the hope of gaining this designation. They have had rallies and gatherings, and I have had the privilege of attending some of those. I could not help but think, when the President announced this initiative, that he was describing an ongoing project we have in our State. It is the so-called Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor which was created by legislation that I authored some 10 years ago. In my years as Governor and first few years in the Senate, I came to view the Blackstone River as a nearly impossible problem. Many years of pollution from toxic substances had wiped out much of the wildlife along the river, and there had been terrific economic change. What once were great mills there had moved away or been abandoned and, indeed, it was a languishing situation. Once this designation was made, as a result of technical assistance and advice from the National Park Service, a modest investment of Federal funds, enormous commitment from the local communities, business people, and residents, this whole area is experiencing a renaissance. Today, community leaders from the Blackstone River Valley are sharing what they have learned with individuals from the other rivers, the Woonasquatucket, for example, and they are working together on an application for designation as an American heritage river. They want this designation. Individuals from the communities are writing the President, sharing their thoughts with him what the rivers mean to them, and we know this is a competitive situation. I must say I didn't know the whole Connecticut River was seeking it, and that is a powerful aggregation. They are favored. It goes through, I guess, three or four States--starting up on the Canadian border and coming down Vermont and New Hampshire and Connecticut, Massachusetts. However, we are very anxious that our rivers, the Blackstone and the Woonasquatucket, taking the two together, would receive this designation. The question is this Executive order. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the President's Executive order be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE. Section (d) of the Executive order says the following. I think this is important: Agencies shall act with due regard for the protection of private property provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That is what it says. There is nothing in this Executive order that interferes with the rights of individual property owners along the rivers. Nominations for this designation must come from the communities and have to be supported by a broad range of individuals. Once the designations are made, if a community finds it no longer wants to be an American heritage river, it can opt out. They are not bound into this thing. It is a very modest program. They get a designation. They get somebody from the Federal Government, one of the agencies that will help the communities along the river, do some things that will improve the quality of life along the river, make the river a more attractive entity in their lives. As I say, the Federal role in these areas is limited to supporting community-based efforts to protect and restore the rivers. So I support the President's plan to designate 10 rivers. I support the goals of the initiative which are to protect natural resources, encourage economic revitalization, and preserve historic and cultural treasures, and I vigorously support the efforts of the communities that I mentioned along the Blackstone River which is part in Massachusetts and part in Rhode Island, and the Woonasquatucket River to get this coveted designation. I would like to close, Mr. President, by touching on the Senator's amendment, but I want to underscore that applications for this designation have to come from the communities. This is not some President in Washington reaching out and saying that this river is going to be an American heritage river. It can only come about through the community seeking that designation. It has to have support from local residents. As I say, if they do not want to be in it any longer, they can get out. So for those reasons I reluctantly oppose the amendment of my distinguished colleague from Arkansas. The Senator from Arkansas read his amendment, and there are a couple of things in there that I find troublesome and I must say I am not quite sure what they mean. In the prioritization section, he says: The nominations shall be subject to the prioritization process established by the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and other applicable law. Now, it may well be, I suspect, that under the Clean Water Act the prioritization is those rivers that are what we call most unclean, if you want to use that word, or the ones that are the most polluted. This is not geared solely toward a river cleanup in the sense of pollution control. That, of course, comes under the Clean Water Act. The Senator is quite right; that is an important part of prioritization of the Clean Water Act. But this isn't the way, as I understand it, this act is to work. It isn't solely the President reaching out and saying we are going to designate the dirtiest rivers as American Heritage rivers because they need the most help. There is very little financial help from the Federal Government, totally unlike the Clean Water Act where there are massive grants, as the distinguished Senator knows, for wastewater treatment facilities, either municipal or the law, of course, forces the private companies that pollute in any fashion to clean up their act. That is not what this is designed for. It goes on--and this is the point the Senator from Connecticut was making, that the provisions in this act really add a great layer of bureaucracy and red tape on top of what is an innocent process just getting the designation. Example: Consultation With Property Owners.-- To ensure the protection of private property owners along the rivers proposed for nomination, all-- All, every single-- property owners holding title to land directly abutting the river shall be consulted. Now, this can go on forever, trying to find who is along the river. Are they a tenant? Do they own it? What proportion of ownership do we have? In my State, we have factories that have been abandoned. They are owned by families that have disappeared. It is very hard to trace the ownership and find out who exactly lives there and owns the property. Then we get to definition of a river community, in which the Senator says, ``For the purposes of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as used in the Executive order, the term river community' shall include all persons that own property, reside or regularly conduct business within 10 miles of the river.'' Now, I am not sure what the Senator means by that, but that is an impossible job, to bring in every person who lives within 10 miles of the river--lives there, owns property, or regularly conducts business. I don't know what that means. Suppose I am a regular attendee at a coffee shop along the river somewhere; I don't live within 10 miles, but I have lunch every day at this coffee shop. Do I fall under the term ``river community''? So for those reasons, Mr. President--and again, I would be open to explanation on this river community definition that the Senator includes--I hope that this amendment will not be accepted. Exhibit 1 Executive Order--Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage Rivers By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190), and in order to protect and restore rivers and their adjacent communities, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policies. (a) The American Heritage Rivers initiative has three objectives: natural resource and environmental protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. (b) Executive agencies (``agencies''), to the extent permitted by law and consistent with their missions and resources, shall coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources important to our history, culture, and natural heritage. (c) Agencies shall develop plans to bring increased efficiencies to existing and authorized programs with goals that are supportive of protection and restoration of communities along rivers. (d) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, agencies shall act with due regard for the protection of private property provided for by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. No new regulatory authority is created as a result of the American Heritage Rivers initiative. This initiative will not interfere with matters of State, local, and tribal government jurisdiction. (e) In furtherance of these policies, the President will designate rivers that meet certain criteria as ``American Heritage Rivers.'' (f) It is the policy of the Federal Government that communities shall nominate rivers as American Heritage Rivers and the Federal role will be solely to support community- based efforts to preserve, protect, and restore these rivers and their communities. (g) Agencies should, to the extent practicable, help identify resources in the private and nonprofit sectors to aid revitalization efforts. (h) Agencies are encouraged, to the extent permitted by law, to develop partnerships with State, local, and tribal governments and community and nongovernmental organizations. Agencies will be responsive to the diverse needs of different kinds of communities from the core of our cities to remote rural areas and shall seek to ensure that the role played by the Federal Government is complementary to the plans and work being carried out by State, local, and tribal governments. To the extent possible, Federal resources will be strategically directed to complement resources being spent by these governments. (i) Agencies shall establish a method for field offices to assess the success of the American Heritage River initiative and provide a means to recommend changes that will improve the delivery and accessibility of Federal services and programs. Agencies are directed, where appropriate, to reduce and make more flexible procedural requirements and paperwork related to providing assistance to communities along designated rivers. (j) Agencies shall commit to a policy under which they will seek to ensure that their actions have a positive effect on the natural, historic, economic, and cultural resources of American Heritage River communities. The policy will require agencies to consult with American Heritage River communities early in the planning stages of Federal actions, take into account the communities' goals and objectives and ensure that actions are compatible with the overall character of these communities. Agencies shall seek to ensure that their help for one community does not adversely affect neighboring communities. Additionally, agencies are encouraged to develop formal and informal partnerships to assist communities. Local Federal facilities, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the agencies' missions and resources, should provide public access, physical space, technical assistance, and other support for American Heritage River communities. (k) In addition to providing support to designated rivers, agencies will work together to provide information and services to all communities seeking support. Sec. 2. Process for Nominating an American Heritage River. (a) Nomination. Communities, in coordination with their State, local, or tribal governments, can nominate their river, river stretch, or river confluence for designation as an American Heritage River. When several communities are involved in the nomination of the same river, nominations will detail the coordination among the interested communities and the role each will play in the process. Individuals living outside the community may not nominate a river. (b) Selection Criteria. Nominations will be judged based on the following: (1) the characteristics of the natural, economic, agricultural, scenic, historic, cultural, or recreational resources of the river that render it distinctive or unique; (2) the effectiveness with which the community has defined its plan of action and the extent to which the plan addresses, either through planned actions or past accomplishments, all three American Heritage Rivers objectives, which are set forth in section 1(a) of this order; (3) the strength and diversity of community support for the nomination as evidenced by letters from elected officials; landowners; private citizens; businesses; and especially State, local, and tribal governments. Broad community support is essential to receiving the American Heritage River designation; and (4) willingness and capability of the community to forge partnerships and agreements to implement their plan to meet their goals and objectives. (c) Recommendation Process. The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (``CEQ'') shall develop a fair and objective procedure to obtain the views of a diverse group of experts for the purpose of making recommendations to the President as to which rivers shall be designated. These experts shall reflect a variety of viewpoints, such as those representing natural, cultural, and historic resources; scenic, environmental, and recreation interests; tourism, transportation, and economic development interests; and industries such as agriculture, hydropower, manufacturing, mining, and forest management. The Chair of the CEQ will ensure that the rivers recommended represent a variety of stream sizes, diverse geographical locations, and a wide range of settings from urban to rural and ensure that relatively pristine, successful revitalization efforts are considered as well as degraded rivers in need of restoration. (d) Designation. (1) The President will designate certain rivers as American Heritage Rivers. Based on the receipt of a sufficient number of qualified nominations, ten rivers will be designated in the first phase of the initiative. (2) The Interagency Committee provided for in section 3 of this order shall develop a process by which any community that nominates and has its river designated may have this designation terminated at its request. (3) Upon a determination by the Chair of the CEQ that a community has failed to implement its plan, the Chair may recommend to the President that a designation be revoked. The Chair shall notify the community at least 30 days prior to making such a recommendation to the President. Based on that recommendation, the President may revoke the designation. Sec. 3. Establishment of an Interagency Committee. There is hereby established the American Heritage Rivers Interagency Committee (``Committee''). The Committee shall have two co- chairs. The Chair of the CEQ shall be a permanent co-chair. The other co-chair will rotate among the heads of the agencies listed below. (a) The Committee shall be composed of the following members or their designees at the Assistant Secretary level or equivalent: (1) The Secretary of Defense; (2) The Attorney General; (3) The Secretary of the Interior; (4) The Secretary of Agriculture; (5) The Secretary of Commerce; (6) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; (7) The Secretary of Transportation; (8) The Secretary of Energy; (9) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; (10) The Chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; (11) The Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts; and; (12) The Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Chair of the CEQ may invite to participate in meetings of the Committee, representatives of other agencies, as appropriate. (b) The Committee Shall: (1) establish formal guidelines for designation as an American Heritage River; (2) periodically review the actions of agencies in support of the American Heritage Rivers; (3) report to the President on the progress, accomplishments, and effectiveness of the American Heritage Rivers initiative; and (4) perform other duties as directed by the Chair of the

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support for Abused and Neglected Children Act, the so-called PASS Act. This legislation will make critical reforms to the Nation's child welfare and foster care system and will go a long way toward improving the lives of the hundreds of thousands of abused and neglected children across America. These are children without a safe family setting. They are children who face abuse and neglect every day of their lives. They are America's forgotten children. And, all too often, they are children without hope. This chilling picture has brought the sponsors of this bill together to take immediate action. The goals of the PASS Act are twofold: to ensure that abused and neglected children are in safe settings, and to move children more rapidly out of the foster care system and into permanent placements. While the goal of reunifying children with their biological families is laudable, we should not be encouraging States to return abused or neglected children to homes that are clearly unsafe. Regrettably, this is occurring under current law. About 500,000--half a million--abused or neglected children currently live outside their homes, either in foster care or with relatives. In Rhode Island alone, there are nearly 1,500 children who have been removed from their homes and are in foster care. The Rhode Island Department of Children and Families has an active case load of about 7,700 children who have been abused or neglected. Many of these children will be able to return to their parents, but many will not. Too often, children who cannot return to their parents wait for years in foster care before they are adopted. In today's child welfare system, it has become a lonely and tragic wait with no end. To us, that is an unacceptable way of life for any child to have to endure. The PASS Act seeks to shorten the time a child must wait to be adopted, all the while ensuring that wherever a child is placed, his or her safety and health will be the first concern. The PASS Act also contains important new financial incentives to help these children find adoptive homes. State agencies will receive bonuses for each child that is adopted, and families who open their hearts and their homes to these children will be eligible for Federal financial assistance and Medicaid coverage for the child. I believe the PASS Act is a good bipartisan, compromise package. The sponsors of this bill have worked hard to come together in support of a child welfare reform bill. And we expect this new, revised legislation to move quickly through the Senate, as the Majority Leader has indicated that adoption legislation is one of a select few priorities to be dealt with before expected adjournment in early November. But the real reason we need to move this bill is not because of legislative haste. It is because each passing day we do not act to bring hope and relief to abused and neglected children is a dark day for Congress and the Nation. Finally let me thank my friend Jay Rockefeller, who has worked so tirelessly on these issues and whose leadership was key to this bill. I also want to pay special tribute to Larry Craig--without his commitment to these children this agreement would not have been possible. I am proud of this bipartisan effort, and I hope all of my colleagues will support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for years during consideration of the Interior appropriations bill, the Senate has debated the fate of the National Endowment for the Arts. Those debates have had mixed results. On one hand, NEA funding has been severely reduced. On the other hand, the NEA has made changes in its policies and operation to safeguard against providing Federal dollars to distasteful and, yes, perhaps, inappropriate projects. So, some bad and some good has come from our discussions here. Now, we are in the midst of another such debate. The House voted to eliminate funding for the NEA. It even rejected a proposal to provide $10 million in close down costs. There are Senators who support the House and have offered amendments to eliminate funding for the NEA altogether. Others would eliminate the Endowment by providing all of the appropriated dollars directly to the States in the form of block grants based on State populations. Still others would allow the Endowment to continue but would vastly diminish its role by sending the lion's share of funding to the States as block grants. Earlier this summer, I introduced legislation with Senators Jeffords and Kennedy to reauthorize both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities for 5 years. The Labor and Human Resources Committee marked up the bill and reported it from the committee on a bipartisan basis. According to our bill, 40 percent of funds would go to State arts agencies, 40 percent would be used by the Endowment to support projects of national significance, 10 percent would be for direct grants, and the remaining 10 percent would go to arts education in underserved communities. All funds appropriated beyond the current level of $99 million also would go to arts education. My colleagues might wonder: Why this emphasis on arts education? All across the Nation, arts education is being integrated into the core curriculum of schools. This integration is the result of the realization that an arts education can help students to develop better skills in analysis, problem solving, and just plain thinking. This is in addition to nurturing and developing the child's imagination and creativity. A study by the College Entrance Examination Board found that students who have studied the arts regularly outperform students who do not have an arts background on SAT exams. According to the study, students who have studied the arts for 4 years score 53 points higher on the verbal SAT exam and 35 points higher in math than do students who lack arts education. Senator Gorton recognizes the importance of continuing to fund the National Endowment for the Arts. The bill he has brought before us even provides a small increase to the NEA, from $99 to $100 million. The NEA costs each American less than 38 cents per year. My colleagues might be interested to know that a recent Lou Harris poll showed overwhelming support among the American people for arts funding, even if it meant a tax increase. For this minute investment of 38 cents per year, the American people get orchestras, chamber music ensembles, children's festivals, operas, poetry readings, concerts in the parks, music festivals, Shakespeare festivals, artists visiting schools, museum and gallery exhibits, dance troupes, and much more. For this tiny investment, local communities in rural areas far from our Nation's cultural centers are able to experience our rich artistic traditions. According to BusinessWeek magazine, the arts support 1.3 million jobs. The arts contribute $36.8 billion annually to our economy, and 6 percent of the GNP is attributable to nonprofit arts activities. In Rhode Island, we count our artists among our State's natural resources, among the resources that are contributing to a wonderful revitalization, particularly evident in Providence. We are very fortunate to be home to one of the most prestigious art schools in the Nation, Rhode Island School of Design. RISD draws young artists to Rhode Island from around the globe. Perhaps because of our State's marvelous quality of life or perhaps because of the efforts of community leaders and State officials to develop an atmosphere in which the arts can flourish, many of these fine art students stay and contribute to our community and to our economy. Let me share a few excerpts from a letter I received earlier this summer from Roger Mandle, President of RISD. Mr Mandle writes: Federal support for the arts and humanities is more than a symbolic matter, and helps to leverage strong state and local private sector support for operas, dance companies, symphonies and museums. Students of schools and colleges gain access, some for the first time, as performers or audiences for these cultural activities. Cities and towns benefit from the tourism generated by the institutions and events they sponsor. Federal inspiration to maintain and support America's cultural heritage comes at a small price to every citizen. The existence of these Endowments helps to compare ourselves favorably to other nations whose governmental support for the arts exceeds that of the United States by many times. Some critics of the NEA suggest that supporting the arts should be left up to the private sector. They contend that there is no purpose for Federal support and that the arts would do just fine without it. Mr. President, you may be interested to know that since the creation of the NEA 30 years ago, the number of nonprofit theaters has grown from 56 to more than 400; the number of orchestras has quadrupled to more than 200; the number of opera companies has grown from 27 to more than 100; the number of dance companies has increased from 30 to about 250; and today there are more than 3,000 public arts agencies in small cities and towns throughout the United States. There is no doubt in my mind that the NEA, whose budget is seven-tenths of 1 percent of federal spending, has had a sizable contribution in making the arts accessible to all Americans, rather than to an elite few. I was curious about the idea of providing block grants to the States. Surely, that would mean more money to the State arts agencies, and they would be all for it. But, of course, that is not the case at all. I asked Randall Rosenbaum, executive director of the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts, what he thought of either providing the entire appropriated amount for the NEA directly to the States in the form of block grants, or increasing the size of the State block grants by scaling back NEA grants to projects of national significance. Here is what Mr. Rosenbaum had to say: While the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts might, on appearance, benefit from such a move (we would not), the Nation as a whole would suffer immeasurably. The Federal Government's leadership in arts funding has been critical to State and local efforts to raise matching dollars from public and private sources to support the arts. Stacks of research support this point . . . More to the point, if the money is just block granted to the States, we will lose one of the most precious things the NEA has to offer, leadership in development of public policy in support of the arts. A strong federal presence through the arts endowment has changed the nature of an arts field I have worked in since 1976. Through its consensus building, policy making, and yes, financial support, I have seen more emphasis on access for all Americans to the arts. NEA-supported projects in Rhode Island ensure that everyone, from toddlers to seniors, experiences the arts on a personal level. The NEA supports the Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra, and I have heard from many of its musicians writing in strong support of continued funding. It provides funds to the Trinity Repertoire Co., to RISD and to Brown University. But it also provides funds to smaller, less well known theater and dance companies, such as ``Lydia Perez and Ensemble'' whom I was privileged to hear at a gathering in Providence in July. Ms. Perez specializes in bomba'' music. Grants have gone to the All Children's Theater Ensemble in Providence, to the Blackstone Valley Tourism Council, to the Capeverdean American Community Development Center in Pawtucket, to the Children's Museum of Rhode Island, to the Festival Ballet of Rhode Island, to the Island Arts Center in Newport, to the Ocean State Light Opera, and to literally dozens of other community arts groups. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support Senator Gorton's efforts to continue to fund the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and I support Senator Jeffords as he works to reauthorize both Endowments for 5 years. I urge my colleagues to reject efforts to eliminate the Endowments, either by cutting funding or by creating block grants to the States.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor, along with Senators Kempthorne, Baucus, and Reid, the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997, which reauthorizes the Endangered Species Act, and makes some significant improvements to the act which are long overdue. The Endangered Species Act was enacted into law in 1973 to conserve threatened and endangered species, and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA is our most important law to protect our Nation's natural resources and biological diversity, and has often been referred to as the ``crown jewel'' of environmental laws. The ESA has been instrumental in saving some of our country's most treasured species. The bald eagle and the grizzly bear have both rebounded from precariously small populations, and the Pacific grey whale and American alligator have both recovered and have been delisted. All told, almost half of the species that fall under the act's protection are either stabilized or improving. One can understand better the vital need for the ESA when one realizes what we are up against: of somewhere between 10 and 100 million species on this planet, we have discovered only some 1.4 million. Despite this bounty, loss of biological diversity is taking place at a faster rate than ever before. In 1973, Congress offered this poignant observation: ``as we homogenize the habitats in which these plants and animals evolved . . . we threaten their--and our own-- genetic heritage. The value of this genetic heritage, is quite literally, incalculable.'' It was principally for this reason that Congress passed the ESA in 1973. Controversy has surrounded the law, however, since its passage. In the mid-1970's, the law became ensnarled in a bitter fight over the construction of the $900 million Tellico Dam and the dam's impacts on the hapless snail darter. The criticism has grown significantly since 1992, when the most recent authorization of the ESA expired. Since then, funding for implementing the law has been provided through annual appropriations, which has left the future of the law on uncertain terms, and left the current working of the law subject to numerous appropriations riders, including a moratorium on the listing of species, that resulted in more than a year delay in affording protection to hundreds of species endangered with extinction. The bill we introduce today includes many reforms. The last major amendment to the ESA was in 1988, almost 10 years ago. Since then, we have developed a greater knowledge of the science of biodiversity, a greater understanding of the problems in implementing the law on private lands, and in this era of shrinking government, a greater need for improved coordination among all levels of government. Our bill takes all this into account by focusing on several key areas: emphasizing recovery as the ultimate goal; seeking to prevent further listings; improving the scientific foundation for decisions; increasing public participation and the role of States; facilitating compliance by, and providing incentives for, private landowners; and streamlining coordination among government agencies. In making these changes, our bill addresses the criticisms leveled against the ESA in recent years. These criticisms have come from all directions. The environmental community believes that the law has failed in its fundamental mission to recover species to full health, but rather leaves species teetering on the razor's edge of survival. Statistics bear this out: of the approximately 1,000 species currently listed, 41 percent are either improving in status or stabilized, but only 8 percent are actually improving. Furthermore, less than half of the listed species have approved recovery plans. Private landowners, on the other hand, believe that the ESA is fundamentally flawed in its implementation, with inflexible regulations, heavy-handed enforcement, closed-door science, and no consideration of economic costs. This, too, is largely borne out by the facts: the ESA has very few tools, other than enforcement of certain prohibitions against taking listed species, with which to protect species on private lands. This weakness in the law is heightened by the fact that more than one-third of all listed species reside entirely on private lands. Furthermore, species on private lands are faring worse than on public lands. If the ESA is to succeed in its ultimate goal of recovering species, these problems must be addressed. Our bill does just that. Most importantly, it completely overhauls the recovery planning and implementation requirements of the ESA. Previously, recovery plans were required to be prepared, but with no deadline for doing so. Once prepared, they generally sat on the shelves with no requirement or incentive to implement them. Furthermore, the scientific findings in the plans were often compromised by political and economic considerations, nor was there any requirement to actually take cost of implementation into account. This bill requires that recovery plans be completed within a specific deadline. The recovery goal must be developed by scientists, using only the best science available. While economic costs and social impacts must be taken into account, they are considered only in choosing the best method to achieve the biologically based recovery goals. Specifically, measure to achieve the recovery goal must strike an ``appropriate balance'' among three factors: The effectiveness in meeting the goal; the period of time needed to reach the goal; and the social and economic impacts. For the first time, the bill provides a requirement that Federal agencies enter into recovery implementation agreements, and also provides incentives for private persons to enter into similar agreements. These incentives include a waiver of consultation normally required under section 7 for actions that are described in sufficient detail. They also include a requirement that Federal agencies participate in the development of an agreement upon the request of a private person, so that the person will know up-front all relevant requirements in undertaking conservation actions. The bill also improves significantly the law's ability to work on private lands. Under the current law, the permit process has generally been inflexible, cumbersome, and consequently rarely used. The Clinton administration recently instituted a number of policies to encourage landowners to apply for permits in order to conduct economic activities that take listed species on their lands. As a result, the number of permits issued by the administration has increased from 14 in 1992 to more than 200 in 1997, with an additional 250 being developed. Our bill validates and expands those policies. The bill authorizes permits for multiple species, including both listed and nonlisted species, that depend on the same habitat. New biological standards for nonlisted species ensure that permitted activities do not contribute to the need to list those species in the future. In order to address the needs of small landowners, a more streamlined, less expensive permit process is established for low effect activities. Under this process,the permit can take effect automatically within a certain period, provided that there are no significant adverse comments. In addition, the bill authorizes several policies and incentives to further encourage landowners to work with the Federal Government. These policies include a no-surprises guarantee that the Government will not seek additional mitigation over time; a safe harbor policy to encourage landowners to protect lands valuable to species without risking additional liability; and a candidate conservation policy, which encourages landowners to undertake protections for species before they become endangered or threatened. The bill also establishes several new funding mechanisms for incentive-based programs, including a habitat reserve program, and a habitat conservation planning fund, which acts as a revolving loan fund. A program to provide technical assistance to landowners is also created. The bill also makes important changes to the consultation process among Federal agencies. It encourages consultations to be consolidated if they involve related actions by one agency, or they involve several agencies affecting the same species. The consultation process is streamlined by allowing the Federal agency undertaking an action to make the initial determination whether its action affects listed species, and providing an opportunity for the Fish and Wildlife Service, or, for marine species, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to comment on this determination. The Service has 60 days to object, and require a more detailed analysis that it would prepare. This process is similar to the current practice that is used by the agencies. The bill also addresses the relationship between site-specific and programmatic Federal land management actions. Several recent lawsuits enjoined numerous site-specific actions pending completion of the consultation on the overarching programmatic action. The bill explicitly recognizes that consultation is appropriate and required at both levels of decisionmaking, but ensures an orderly process for completing those consultations. In addition, the bill affords greater participation in the consultation process for any person who has sought authorization or funding from a Federal agency. The bill goes a long way in improving the scientific basis on which decisions are made. The greatest lack of knowledge is in the status and distribution of rare and declining species. This bill requires an inventory of species on Federal lands to fill this critical data gap. Listing decisions must be peer-reviewed, and petitions to list are subject to certain minimum information requirements. Enforcement actions must use scientifically valid principles to establish whether the action caused an unlawful taking of a species. In evaluating comparable data, the Secretary would be required to use peer reviewed, field tested or empirical data. As you can see, Mr. President, this bill not only reauthorizes the ESA, but it also significantly improves the ESA, in order to embrace needed reforms in the law. Numerous attempts to reauthorize the ESA have been made in recent years. The long and arduous effort culminating in today's bill began more than 18 months ago, as a bipartisan process to address the problems with the current law. When discussions stalled, Senator Kempthorne and I spurred the process forward by releasing a discussion draft, which generated hundreds of comments. Since then, we have negotiated with Senators Baucus and Reid, and the Clinton administration, to reach agreement on a bipartisan bill. Just as the original ESA was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican President, this bill to reauthorize the ESA is also a bipartisan product between a Republican Senate and a Democratic administration. To quote one of the foremost conservationists of our country, President Teddy Roosevelt, the conservation of natural resources is a question ``upon which men of all parties and all shades of opinion may be united for the common good.'' The need for a healthy environment, one large enough for all species that inhabit this planet with us, is a need that transcends politics, and I firmly believe that the bill we introduce today fulfills that need, as embodied in the original passage of the ESA. I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, Senators Kempthorne, Baucus, and Reid, for their tireless work over the months on this important legislation, and I would like to thank the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, as well as his very accomplished staff, led by Jaimie Clark, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Don Barry, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, for their willingness to work with us in negotiating a bill that they can support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor, along with Senators Kempthorne, Baucus, and Reid, the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997, which reauthorizes the Endangered Species Act, and makes some significant improvements to the act which are long overdue. The Endangered Species Act was enacted into law in 1973 to conserve threatened and endangered species, and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA is our most important law to protect our Nation's natural resources and biological diversity, and has often been referred to as the ``crown jewel'' of environmental laws. The ESA has been instrumental in saving some of our country's most treasured species. The bald eagle and the grizzly bear have both rebounded from precariously small populations, and the Pacific grey whale and American alligator have both recovered and have been delisted. All told, almost half of the species that fall under the act's protection are either stabilized or improving. One can understand better the vital need for the ESA when one realizes what we are up against: of somewhere between 10 and 100 million species on this planet, we have discovered only some 1.4 million. Despite this bounty, loss of biological diversity is taking place at a faster rate than ever before. In 1973, Congress offered this poignant observation: ``as we homogenize the habitats in which these plants and animals evolved . . . we threaten their--and our own-- genetic heritage. The value of this genetic heritage, is quite literally, incalculable.'' It was principally for this reason that Congress passed the ESA in 1973. Controversy has surrounded the law, however, since its passage. In the mid-1970's, the law became ensnarled in a bitter fight over the construction of the $900 million Tellico Dam and the dam's impacts on the hapless snail darter. The criticism has grown significantly since 1992, when the most recent authorization of the ESA expired. Since then, funding for implementing the law has been provided through annual appropriations, which has left the future of the law on uncertain terms, and left the current working of the law subject to numerous appropriations riders, including a moratorium on the listing of species, that resulted in more than a year delay in affording protection to hundreds of species endangered with extinction. The bill we introduce today includes many reforms. The last major amendment to the ESA was in 1988, almost 10 years ago. Since then, we have developed a greater knowledge of the science of biodiversity, a greater understanding of the problems in implementing the law on private lands, and in this era of shrinking government, a greater need for improved coordination among all levels of government. Our bill takes all this into account by focusing on several key areas: emphasizing recovery as the ultimate goal; seeking to prevent further listings; improving the scientific foundation for decisions; increasing public participation and the role of States; facilitating compliance by, and providing incentives for, private landowners; and streamlining coordination among government agencies. In making these changes, our bill addresses the criticisms leveled against the ESA in recent years. These criticisms have come from all directions. The environmental community believes that the law has failed in its fundamental mission to recover species to full health, but rather leaves species teetering on the razor's edge of survival. Statistics bear this out: of the approximately 1,000 species currently listed, 41 percent are either improving in status or stabilized, but only 8 percent are actually improving. Furthermore, less than half of the listed species have approved recovery plans. Private landowners, on the other hand, believe that the ESA is fundamentally flawed in its implementation, with inflexible regulations, heavy-handed enforcement, closed-door science, and no consideration of economic costs. This, too, is largely borne out by the facts: the ESA has very few tools, other than enforcement of certain prohibitions against taking listed species, with which to protect species on private lands. This weakness in the law is heightened by the fact that more than one-third of all listed species reside entirely on private lands. Furthermore, species on private lands are faring worse than on public lands. If the ESA is to succeed in its ultimate goal of recovering species, these problems must be addressed. Our bill does just that. Most importantly, it completely overhauls the recovery planning and implementation requirements of the ESA. Previously, recovery plans were required to be prepared, but with no deadline for doing so. Once prepared, they generally sat on the shelves with no requirement or incentive to implement them. Furthermore, the scientific findings in the plans were often compromised by political and economic considerations, nor was there any requirement to actually take cost of implementation into account. This bill requires that recovery plans be completed within a specific deadline. The recovery goal must be developed by scientists, using only the best science available. While economic costs and social impacts must be taken into account, they are considered only in choosing the best method to achieve the biologically based recovery goals. Specifically, measure to achieve the recovery goal must strike an ``appropriate balance'' among three factors: The effectiveness in meeting the goal; the period of time needed to reach the goal; and the social and economic impacts. For the first time, the bill provides a requirement that Federal agencies enter into recovery implementation agreements, and also provides incentives for private persons to enter into similar agreements. These incentives include a waiver of consultation normally required under section 7 for actions that are described in sufficient detail. They also include a requirement that Federal agencies participate in the development of an agreement upon the request of a private person, so that the person will know up-front all relevant requirements in undertaking conservation actions. The bill also improves significantly the law's ability to work on private lands. Under the current law, the permit process has generally been inflexible, cumbersome, and consequently rarely used. The Clinton administration recently instituted a number of policies to encourage landowners to apply for permits in order to conduct economic activities that take listed species on their lands. As a result, the number of permits issued by the administration has increased from 14 in 1992 to more than 200 in 1997, with an additional 250 being developed. Our bill validates and expands those policies. The bill authorizes permits for multiple species, including both listed and nonlisted species, that depend on the same habitat. New biological standards for nonlisted species ensure that permitted activities do not contribute to the need to list those species in the future. In order to address the needs of small landowners, a more streamlined, less expensive permit process is established for low effect activities. Under this process,the permit can take effect automatically within a certain period, provided that there are no significant adverse comments. In addition, the bill authorizes several policies and incentives to further encourage landowners to work with the Federal Government. These policies include a no-surprises guarantee that the Government will not seek additional mitigation over time; a safe harbor policy to encourage landowners to protect lands valuable to species without risking additional liability; and a candidate conservation policy, which encourages landowners to undertake protections for species before they become endangered or threatened. The bill also establishes several new funding mechanisms for incentive-based programs, including a habitat reserve program, and a habitat conservation planning fund, which acts as a revolving loan fund. A program to provide technical assistance to landowners is also created. The bill also makes important changes to the consultation process among Federal agencies. It encourages consultations to be consolidated if they involve related actions by one agency, or they involve several agencies affecting the same species. The consultation process is streamlined by allowing the Federal agency undertaking an action to make the initial determination whether its action affects listed species, and providing an opportunity for the Fish and Wildlife Service, or, for marine species, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to comment on this determination. The Service has 60 days to object, and require a more detailed analysis that it would prepare. This process is similar to the current practice that is used by the agencies. The bill also addresses the relationship between site-specific and programmatic Federal land management actions. Several recent lawsuits enjoined numerous site-specific actions pending completion of the consultation on the overarching programmatic action. The bill explicitly recognizes that consultation is appropriate and required at both levels of decisionmaking, but ensures an orderly process for completing those consultations. In addition, the bill affords greater participation in the consultation process for any person who has sought authorization or funding from a Federal agency. The bill goes a long way in improving the scientific basis on which decisions are made. The greatest lack of knowledge is in the status and distribution of rare and declining species. This bill requires an inventory of species on Federal lands to fill this critical data gap. Listing decisions must be peer-reviewed, and petitions to list are subject to certain minimum information requirements. Enforcement actions must use scientifically valid principles to establish whether the action caused an unlawful taking of a species. In evaluating comparable data, the Secretary would be required to use peer reviewed, field tested or empirical data. As you can see, Mr. President, this bill not only reauthorizes the ESA, but it also significantly improves the ESA, in order to embrace needed reforms in the law. Numerous attempts to reauthorize the ESA have been made in recent years. The long and arduous effort culminating in today's bill began more than 18 months ago, as a bipartisan process to address the problems with the current law. When discussions stalled, Senator Kempthorne and I spurred the process forward by releasing a discussion draft, which generated hundreds of comments. Since then, we have negotiated with Senators Baucus and Reid, and the Clinton administration, to reach agreement on a bipartisan bill. Just as the original ESA was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican President, this bill to reauthorize the ESA is also a bipartisan product between a Republican Senate and a Democratic administration. To quote one of the foremost conservationists of our country, President Teddy Roosevelt, the conservation of natural resources is a question ``upon which men of all parties and all shades of opinion may be united for the common good.'' The need for a healthy environment, one large enough for all species that inhabit this planet with us, is a need that transcends politics, and I firmly believe that the bill we introduce today fulfills that need, as embodied in the original passage of the ESA. I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, Senators Kempthorne, Baucus, and Reid, for their tireless work over the months on this important legislation, and I would like to thank the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, as well as his very accomplished staff, led by Jaimie Clark, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Don Barry, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, for their willingness to work with us in negotiating a bill that they can support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Intermodal Transportation Act of 1997, a comprehensive, 6-year measure to reauthorize the Nation's Federal aid-highway, highway safety, and other surface transportation programs. I am particularly pleased to be doing so with 10 of my colleagues from the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, Senators Bond, Thomas, Kempthorne, Reid, Graham, Smith, Allard, Inhofe; as well as Senators Dorgan, Harkin, and Grassley. As you can tell from the list of names I just read, this bill truly represents a consensus effort, with cosponsors from all regions of the country and from both sides of the aisle. This legislation is the product of well over a year of hard work and careful negotiation. Some say that it has taken a long time to get to this point, but we had three very different proposals--all commendable--to coalesce into one unified plan that we can rally around. We also could not put together a serious proposal before we knew the amount of money we had for transportation under the budget agreement. The result of these efforts, the Intermodal Transportation Act of 1997 [ITA], provides $145 billion over the next 6 years to keep our Nation's transportation system up and running. This bill preserves and builds upon the laudable goals of ISTEA--intermodalism and efficiency. More important, it does so in a manner that: First, stays within a balanced budget; second, enhances highway and driver safety; and finally, protects the environment. First, I want to stress that the Intermodal Transportation Act is fiscally responsible and fiscally innovative. In my view, the most important aspect of this bill is that it works within the context of a balanced budget. This is essential. On America's highways, you get to where you are going by staying within the lines and playing by the rules. That should be our guide when it comes to the budget as well. To maximize limited Federal funds, strategic investment in transportation is critical. Forty years ago, it made sense for the Nation to build an interstate highway system. Today, however, we must be more creative. Simply building more roads and highways is no longer a workable solution. We must carefully plan and allocate our limited resources. The bill before us includes a number of innovative ways to finance our formidable transportation needs. It establishes a federal credit assistance program for surface transportation. The provision is identical to S. 986, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which I introduced in the Senate earlier this year. This new program leverages limited Federal funds by allowing up to a $10 billion Federal line-of-credit for transportation projects, at a cost to the Federal budget of just over $500 million. The bill also provides tools, such as the State Infrastructure Bank Program, to enable States to make the most of their transportation dollars. Second, this legislation substantially increases the Federal commitment to safety. I am very concerned about the safety of our Nation's highways, and I am particularly alarmed by the escalating incidence of highway motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. In the United States alone, there are more than 40,000 fatalities and 3.5 million automobile crashes every year. Between 1992 and 1995, the average highway fatality rate increased by more than 2,000 lives, while the annual injury rate increased by over 380,000. We must work vigorously to reverse this trend, and this bill will help us do so. The funds set-aside for safety programs such as hazard elimination and railway-highway crossings under this bill totals $690 million dollars per year, almost a 55-percent increase over the current level. Often, it is a safety belt that can make the difference between saving a life and becoming another tragic statistic. The bill establishes a new State safety belt incentive program, rewarding those States that increase their seat belt use rate or take other measures to promote seat belt use. It provides an average of $83 million per year from the highway trust fund to pay for the new incentives program. The ITA establishes a new program that, through economic sanctions, encourages States to enact laws and minimum penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders. The bill also establishes a new border infrastructure and safety program to address safety concerns that have resulted from NAFTA, such as deteriorating roads and bridges in our border States. I can assure you that safety is an uncompromising priority of the legislation before us. Third, the Intermodal Transportation Act upholds ISTEA's strong commitment to preserving and protecting our environment. As valuable as transportation is to our society through the movement of goods and people, it takes a heavy toll on the Nation's air, land, and water. The costs of air pollution that can be attributed to cars and trucks range from $30 to $200 billion per year. Passenger cars alone account for almost 30 percent of the Nation's total oil consumption. ISTEA provided States and localities with tools to cope with the growing demands on our transportation system and the corresponding strain on our environment. I am proud that the bill before us increases funding for ISTEA's key programs to offset transportation's impact on the environment. The bill before us provides an average of $1.18 billion per year over the next 6 years for the CMAQ, or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Program. That's an 18-percent increase over the current funding levels for transit improvements, shared ride services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, to help fight air pollution. Highway construction can be a destructive impact on a community and its surrounding environment. To redress some of the damage highways have done in the past, the bill increases funding for enhancement activities to $552 million per year, a 24-percent increase over the current law. Enhancement money can be used for a variety of projects, such as billboard removal, historic preservation, and the Rails-to- Trails Program. We must recognize that caring for our precious natural heritage and expanding transportation infrastructure can go hand in hand. The bill establishes a new wetlands restoration pilot program. The purpose of the program is to fund projects to offset the loss or degradation of wetlands resulting from Federal-aid transportation projects. It also establishes a new pilot program to integrate transportation, development and the environment, and to preserve communities. When it was enacted in 1991, ISTEA expanded the focus of national policy, transforming what was once simply a highway program into a surface transportation program, dedicated to the mobility of passengers and goods. And it recognized, for the first time, that the individual transportation modes function best as a cohesive and interrelated system. Admittedly, the transition from old policies and practices to those embodied in ISTEA has not always been easy. The two complaints we have heard time and again from the States are that ISTEA's program structure is too complicated and its formulas are not fair. The bill before us will carry forward ISTEA's strengths but it also will correct ISTEA's weaknesses, and provide a responsive transportation program to take us into the next century. The Intermodal Transportation Act addresses the concerns of the States by making the program easier to understand and by providing real flexibility to States and localities. It reduces the number of ISTEA program categories from 5 to 3, and it includes more than 20 improvements to reduce the redtape involved in carrying out transportation projects. The bill also expands the eligibility of NHS and surface transportation funds to passenger rail, such as AMTRAK, and intelligent transportation systems. Moreover, the Intermodal Transportation Act significantly reforms the ISTEA funding formulas to balance the diverse needs of the various regions of the Nation. It guarantees 90 cents back for every dollar a State contributes to the highway trust fund. Fortynine of the fifty States share in the growth of the overall program. The bill also recognizes the diversity and uniqueness of the country and all of its transportation needs. By making the surface transportation program more responsive to all regions of the country, this bill will ensure that the laudable goals of the original ISTEA--intermodalism and efficiency--are upheld. Finding the right solutions to address all of our needs requires strategic and comprehensive approaches to transportation policy. Before I conclude, I want to give a special thanks to Senators Warner and Baucus for their hard work and determination in developing this legislation. It has not been easy, and we still have a long way to go. But I look forward to working with the other members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and all Members of the Senate, as well as the House leadership, to enact a bill this year that will take the Nation's transportation system into the 21st century.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Intermodal Transportation Act of 1997, a comprehensive, 6-year measure to reauthorize the Nation's Federal aid-highway, highway safety, and other surface transportation programs. I am particularly pleased to be doing so with 10 of my colleagues from the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, Senators Bond, Thomas, Kempthorne, Reid, Graham, Smith, Allard, Inhofe; as well as Senators Dorgan, Harkin, and Grassley. As you can tell from the list of names I just read, this bill truly represents a consensus effort, with cosponsors from all regions of the country and from both sides of the aisle. This legislation is the product of well over a year of hard work and careful negotiation. Some say that it has taken a long time to get to this point, but we had three very different proposals--all commendable--to coalesce into one unified plan that we can rally around. We also could not put together a serious proposal before we knew the amount of money we had for transportation under the budget agreement. The result of these efforts, the Intermodal Transportation Act of 1997 [ITA], provides $145 billion over the next 6 years to keep our Nation's transportation system up and running. This bill preserves and builds upon the laudable goals of ISTEA--intermodalism and efficiency. More important, it does so in a manner that: First, stays within a balanced budget; second, enhances highway and driver safety; and finally, protects the environment. First, I want to stress that the Intermodal Transportation Act is fiscally responsible and fiscally innovative. In my view, the most important aspect of this bill is that it works within the context of a balanced budget. This is essential. On America's highways, you get to where you are going by staying within the lines and playing by the rules. That should be our guide when it comes to the budget as well. To maximize limited Federal funds, strategic investment in transportation is critical. Forty years ago, it made sense for the Nation to build an interstate highway system. Today, however, we must be more creative. Simply building more roads and highways is no longer a workable solution. We must carefully plan and allocate our limited resources. The bill before us includes a number of innovative ways to finance our formidable transportation needs. It establishes a federal credit assistance program for surface transportation. The provision is identical to S. 986, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which I introduced in the Senate earlier this year. This new program leverages limited Federal funds by allowing up to a $10 billion Federal line-of-credit for transportation projects, at a cost to the Federal budget of just over $500 million. The bill also provides tools, such as the State Infrastructure Bank Program, to enable States to make the most of their transportation dollars. Second, this legislation substantially increases the Federal commitment to safety. I am very concerned about the safety of our Nation's highways, and I am particularly alarmed by the escalating incidence of highway motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. In the United States alone, there are more than 40,000 fatalities and 3.5 million automobile crashes every year. Between 1992 and 1995, the average highway fatality rate increased by more than 2,000 lives, while the annual injury rate increased by over 380,000. We must work vigorously to reverse this trend, and this bill will help us do so. The funds set-aside for safety programs such as hazard elimination and railway-highway crossings under this bill totals $690 million dollars per year, almost a 55-percent increase over the current level. Often, it is a safety belt that can make the difference between saving a life and becoming another tragic statistic. The bill establishes a new State safety belt incentive program, rewarding those States that increase their seat belt use rate or take other measures to promote seat belt use. It provides an average of $83 million per year from the highway trust fund to pay for the new incentives program. The ITA establishes a new program that, through economic sanctions, encourages States to enact laws and minimum penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders. The bill also establishes a new border infrastructure and safety program to address safety concerns that have resulted from NAFTA, such as deteriorating roads and bridges in our border States. I can assure you that safety is an uncompromising priority of the legislation before us. Third, the Intermodal Transportation Act upholds ISTEA's strong commitment to preserving and protecting our environment. As valuable as transportation is to our society through the movement of goods and people, it takes a heavy toll on the Nation's air, land, and water. The costs of air pollution that can be attributed to cars and trucks range from $30 to $200 billion per year. Passenger cars alone account for almost 30 percent of the Nation's total oil consumption. ISTEA provided States and localities with tools to cope with the growing demands on our transportation system and the corresponding strain on our environment. I am proud that the bill before us increases funding for ISTEA's key programs to offset transportation's impact on the environment. The bill before us provides an average of $1.18 billion per year over the next 6 years for the CMAQ, or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Program. That's an 18-percent increase over the current funding levels for transit improvements, shared ride services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, to help fight air pollution. Highway construction can be a destructive impact on a community and its surrounding environment. To redress some of the damage highways have done in the past, the bill increases funding for enhancement activities to $552 million per year, a 24-percent increase over the current law. Enhancement money can be used for a variety of projects, such as billboard removal, historic preservation, and the Rails-to- Trails Program. We must recognize that caring for our precious natural heritage and expanding transportation infrastructure can go hand in hand. The bill establishes a new wetlands restoration pilot program. The purpose of the program is to fund projects to offset the loss or degradation of wetlands resulting from Federal-aid transportation projects. It also establishes a new pilot program to integrate transportation, development and the environment, and to preserve communities. When it was enacted in 1991, ISTEA expanded the focus of national policy, transforming what was once simply a highway program into a surface transportation program, dedicated to the mobility of passengers and goods. And it recognized, for the first time, that the individual transportation modes function best as a cohesive and interrelated system. Admittedly, the transition from old policies and practices to those embodied in ISTEA has not always been easy. The two complaints we have heard time and again from the States are that ISTEA's program structure is too complicated and its formulas are not fair. The bill before us will carry forward ISTEA's strengths but it also will correct ISTEA's weaknesses, and provide a responsive transportation program to take us into the next century. The Intermodal Transportation Act addresses the concerns of the States by making the program easier to understand and by providing real flexibility to States and localities. It reduces the number of ISTEA program categories from 5 to 3, and it includes more than 20 improvements to reduce the redtape involved in carrying out transportation projects. The bill also expands the eligibility of NHS and surface transportation funds to passenger rail, such as AMTRAK, and intelligent transportation systems. Moreover, the Intermodal Transportation Act significantly reforms the ISTEA funding formulas to balance the diverse needs of the various regions of the Nation. It guarantees 90 cents back for every dollar a State contributes to the highway trust fund. Fortynine of the fifty States share in the growth of the overall program. The bill also recognizes the diversity and uniqueness of the country and all of its transportation needs. By making the surface transportation program more responsive to all regions of the country, this bill will ensure that the laudable goals of the original ISTEA--intermodalism and efficiency--are upheld. Finding the right solutions to address all of our needs requires strategic and comprehensive approaches to transportation policy. Before I conclude, I want to give a special thanks to Senators Warner and Baucus for their hard work and determination in developing this legislation. It has not been easy, and we still have a long way to go. But I look forward to working with the other members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and all Members of the Senate, as well as the House leadership, to enact a bill this year that will take the Nation's transportation system into the 21st century.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.