John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill has come to the Senate floor, and commend the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont for all of their hard work in authoring this important legislation. S. 955 provides increased funding for international affairs functions of our Government, a priority that has been neglected in recent years. I agree with Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who has argued that we can no longer conduct foreign policy on the cheap. Section 571 of this bill is a briefly worded but very significant restriction on U.S. military assistance. Mr. President, Indonesia is an emerging power in South Asia that has a very considerable economic relationship with the United States. I have long believed that we should fully engage the developing world not only for our own economic interests, but also so that the citizens of these nations can enjoy economic prosperity. Such economic development is the best means of enhancing long-term peace and stability. Unfortunately, though, Indonesia has yet to join the community of nations in respecting basic human rights and permitting political freedom. Indonesia's continuing repression of East Timor has dampened hope that this nation's tremendous economic success will be matched by progress on human rights and democracy. In just the past month, international human rights activists have cited the disappearance and possible torture of a number of East Timorese civilians. This news comes as the State Department has sharply criticized Indonesia's human rights record in its annual report issued in January. These events are just the latest examples of the Indonesian Government's continuing denial of fundamental rights to the people of East Timor. This past May, Indonesia held an election which was widely discredited as undemocratic. This election, which returned the ruling party to power as has been done in every election since 1971, was marred by violence that killed 200 people. Clearly, Indonesia must end its behavior that has caused so much pain and suffering among its people. Mr. President, section 571 would simply prevent United States military equipment sold or transferred to Indonesia from being used in East Timor, the site of the most egregious human rights violations committed by this government. The United States should have no part of this oppression, particularly through the provision of military equipment. I commend the managers of this bill for including this important restriction, and am hopeful that it will be enacted into law.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senators Jeffords and Kennedy, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Later this month, we will vote on funding for the Endowments, and it is my sincere hope that the Senate will show its determination to continue Federal support for the arts, as it has in years past. Although other countries have long histories of government support for cultural activities, Federal support for artists in the United States began during the Great Depression, when the WPA hired scores of writers, musicians, painters, sculptors, and other artists to work on public art projects. But that support was short lived. It wasn't until 1964 that the National Endowment for the Arts first was created. The NEA saw profound growth during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Regrettably, its funding has been reduced by about 40 percent over the past few years primarily because of a few grants that were deemed to have been obscene and inappropriate. With regard to this issue of obscene art, I believe that any such debate should be framed in terms of the overall record of the NEA, not in terms of a few grants that may have escaped appropriate scrutiny. Of the more than 100,000 grants provided by the NEA in its almost 30-year history, only a handful have been the subject of controversy. That is an excellent track record, and I do not believe that those few grants should be used as the yardstick by which the Endowment is judged. Mr President, the public's support for the NEA and NEH is very strong. In Rhode Island, we have a vigorous and growing arts community. The Rhode Island School of Design is among the most prestigious fine arts and design schools in the Nation. It attracts the most talented students and teachers who often make Rhode Island their permanent home. Many Rhode Islanders, and people in the city of Providence in particular, are enormously enthusiastic about the arts community, which has contributed greatly to our economic redevelopment efforts. The NEA and NEH support a wide array of artists, writers, actors, musicians, and other artists. During the past several weeks, I have heard from a number of Rhode Island artists. I would like to share an excerpt from a Rhode Island musician with you. Rebecca Truitt, a cellist in the Rhode Island Philharmonic, wrote to me on March 8. This is what she said: The declining state of public support for the arts in America is of great concern to me. . . . Equally critical is the possibility that our cultural agencies may fail to receive authorization for Fiscal Year 1998. Should that happen, it would be an embarrassing day for the United States, making us unique among cultured nations by eliminating the arts from our priorities. Whether all orchestras, including my orchestra, the Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra, receive funding or not, one thing is clear, the NEA has helped raise the standard of all professional performing groups in the U.S., catapulting American music and musicians to the forefront of the international music scene. Moreover, the NEA has helped to promote and sustain American jobs. Throughout my years in the Senate, I have supported funding for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Once again, I am delighted to introduce this reauthorization bill with Senators Jeffords and Kennedy.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senators Jeffords and Kennedy, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Later this month, we will vote on funding for the Endowments, and it is my sincere hope that the Senate will show its determination to continue Federal support for the arts, as it has in years past. Although other countries have long histories of government support for cultural activities, Federal support for artists in the United States began during the Great Depression, when the WPA hired scores of writers, musicians, painters, sculptors, and other artists to work on public art projects. But that support was short lived. It wasn't until 1964 that the National Endowment for the Arts first was created. The NEA saw profound growth during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Regrettably, its funding has been reduced by about 40 percent over the past few years primarily because of a few grants that were deemed to have been obscene and inappropriate. With regard to this issue of obscene art, I believe that any such debate should be framed in terms of the overall record of the NEA, not in terms of a few grants that may have escaped appropriate scrutiny. Of the more than 100,000 grants provided by the NEA in its almost 30-year history, only a handful have been the subject of controversy. That is an excellent track record, and I do not believe that those few grants should be used as the yardstick by which the Endowment is judged. Mr President, the public's support for the NEA and NEH is very strong. In Rhode Island, we have a vigorous and growing arts community. The Rhode Island School of Design is among the most prestigious fine arts and design schools in the Nation. It attracts the most talented students and teachers who often make Rhode Island their permanent home. Many Rhode Islanders, and people in the city of Providence in particular, are enormously enthusiastic about the arts community, which has contributed greatly to our economic redevelopment efforts. The NEA and NEH support a wide array of artists, writers, actors, musicians, and other artists. During the past several weeks, I have heard from a number of Rhode Island artists. I would like to share an excerpt from a Rhode Island musician with you. Rebecca Truitt, a cellist in the Rhode Island Philharmonic, wrote to me on March 8. This is what she said: The declining state of public support for the arts in America is of great concern to me. . . . Equally critical is the possibility that our cultural agencies may fail to receive authorization for Fiscal Year 1998. Should that happen, it would be an embarrassing day for the United States, making us unique among cultured nations by eliminating the arts from our priorities. Whether all orchestras, including my orchestra, the Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra, receive funding or not, one thing is clear, the NEA has helped raise the standard of all professional performing groups in the U.S., catapulting American music and musicians to the forefront of the international music scene. Moreover, the NEA has helped to promote and sustain American jobs. Throughout my years in the Senate, I have supported funding for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Once again, I am delighted to introduce this reauthorization bill with Senators Jeffords and Kennedy.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr President, in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I introduce today the Disaster Streamlining and Costs Reduction Act of 1997, on behalf of the administration. This bill amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act with the goal of reducing the costs of disaster relief and emergency assistance provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. This legislation was submitted to the Senate on June 30, 1997, by FEMA Director James L. Witt. Submission of the bill fulfills, albeit late, a directive included in the FY 1997 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. In that act, the distinguished Appropriations subcommittee chairman, Senator Bond, and his ranking member, Senator Mikulski, directed FEMA to propose methods of reducing the skyrocketing costs of Federal disaster relief aid. I commend Senators Bond, Mikulski and other Appropriations Committee members for their initiative. As my colleagues are well aware, the Stafford Act is designed to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from disasters. In recent years, this assistance has grown increasingly expensive and has resulted in the reduction of annual funding levels for other Government programs which must compete directly with it. I believe that the cause for the dramatic increase in disaster spending is at least two-fold. First, we are witnessing a period when more and more of our population is being affected by natural and man- made disasters. This might be due to what some say is an increase in the frequency of violent storms--coupled with the fact that a growing proportion of our citizens reside in coastal and riverine regions, causing them to be more vulnerable to floods. Second, it is apparent that implementation of the Stafford Act could be conducted in a more fiscally sound manner. Are too many facilities or entities eligible for Federal disaster assistance? Is there mismanagement of grant moneys? Is there too much red tape at FEMA? These are the questions that have been asked. This legislation purports to address both of these broad items believed by many to have contributed to increased disaster spending. To lessen risk to populations and structures, the administration's bill establishes new hazard mitigation authorities. The bill also reduces the number of public and private nonprofit facilities eligible for aid. Finally, the bill includes various management reforms to streamline the delivery of emergency assistance. I have given this legislation a preliminary review and find that much in it makes a great deal of sense. Other elements may be problematic. But this is just the first step. This proposal will receive careful scrutiny in the Committee on Environment and Public Works and most likely will be modified several times after we have had a chance to receive input from the States and from disaster relief experts from across the country. This is a serious issue involving the lives and property of millions of Americans. It also involves billions of taxpayer dollars. While the Congress must address these FEMA cost issues swiftly, we must also preserve the central mission of the Stafford Act. Toward that end, I look forward to conducting hearings on this bill in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. With the help of Senator Bond, who is also a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, who chairs the relevant subcommittee, and other members, I am confident that we will be able to produce effective reform legislation in timely fashion. I also look forward to working closely with Director Witt and the administration and commend them for their proposal. With that, Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Sikes Act was enacted by Congress in 1960 to provide enhanced stewardship of fish and wildlife and other natural resources on military installations. It was named for Congressman Bob Sikes of Florida. The act seeks to capitalize on the enormous potential for natural resource conservation on military lands. The Department of Defense controls nearly 25 million acres of land and water at approximately 900 military installations in the United States, and the National Guard oversees an additional 1 million acres on 80 sites. These lands serve as home to approximately 100 endangered or threatened species and countless other fish and wildlife resources. The Sikes Act was last amended in 1986, and authorization expired in 1993. Since then, several attempts to reauthorize the act have been made, and although Congress has been close several times, all have failed. We now have a golden opportunity to amend and reauthorize the Sikes Act, in S. 936, the bill to authorize the Department of Defense. Two weeks ago, an agreement was reached among the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, the International Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the two House committees with jurisdiction over the Sikes Act. The White House approved the agreement the following day. The amendment that I am introducing, together with Senator Baucus and Senator Kempthorne, is virtually identical to the House version, which passed in the House as part of H.R. 1119, the Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment to the Sikes Act will greatly improve the current law. In its current form, the Sikes Act authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into cooperative plans with the Secretary of the Interior and the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency for the conservation of fish and wildlife on military lands. Over the 37 years of the Sikes Act, cooperation under the act has improved fish and wildlife management on military bases. For example, wetlands associated with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that are on military bases have been restored under a recent initiative by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Defense. Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, and Elgin Air Force base in Florida, have undertaken efforts to protect the redcockaded woodpecker. Fisheries assessments are taking place on both coasts, including Brunswick Naval air station in Maine and a submarine base in Washington. While these examples illustrate how cooperation can improve natural resource management, more can and should be done. Only 250 agreements exist, and many of these are outdated. In addition, many agreements provide only for minimal cooperation among parties, rather than affirmative management of the resources. Another 200 agreements are currently being developed. The amendment that Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and I are introducing would infuse new vigor into implementation of the Sikes Act. Specifically, it would require the Secretary of each military department to develop a natural resource management plan for each of its military installations, unless there is an absence of significant natural resources on the base. The plan would be prepared by the Secretary in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency. The plan must be consistent with the use of military lands to ensure the preparedness of the military, and cannot result in any net loss in the capability of the military installation to support the military mission of the installation. With those caveats, the plan must also provide for the management and conservation of natural resources. This language accommodates the interests of the State and Federal wildlife agencies as well as the needs of the military. While the agreement was negotiated on the House side, I would like to make several observations regarding the differences between the current law and this agreement. The most important change in the law, of course, is that development of the natural resources management plans would become mandatory. In practical terms however, this provision would better conform to and encourage the current practice of the military, which already has a policy of developing these plans. An equally important change to the law would be that preparation and implementation of the plans would be the responsibility of the Secretary of the appropriate military department, rather than the Secretary of Defense. Extensive discussions last year revolved around attempts to agree on a dispute resolution process in the event that the Department of Defense, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State fish and wildlife agency could not agree on the development of a particular plan. The balance struck in the current agreement between the requirement to prepare the plans, and the discretion afforded the Secretary of the individual military department regarding the content of each plan, seems to me to be a good one. Greater specificity would be provided for the contents of the plans, which are to provide for, among other things and to the extent appropriate, fish and wildlife management and habitat enhancement, establishment of management goals and objectives, and sustainable use by the public. The amendment also provides for an opportunity for the public to comment on individual plans, as well as a review of each military installation by the Secretary of the appropriate military department to determine whether new plans should be prepared or existing plans should be modified. In addition, the amendment would also require annual reports by the Secretaries of Defense and the Interior regarding funding for implementation of the Sikes Act. The Department of Defense currently spends approximately $5 million for developing plans under the Sikes Act, but there are few cost estimates for State fish and wildlife agencies, as well as for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Thus, these annual reports should provide valuable information. The amendment also seeks to encourage cooperative agreements for the funding of management and conservation measures without specifying particular cost sharing or matching requirements. I would note that there is one substantive change between the House language and this amendment. This change was negotiated between the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Armed Services, and approved by all interested parties, including the Departments of Defense and the Interior, and the International Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Specifically, the deadline for completing the natural resource management plans is extended from 2 to 3 years from the date of the initial report to Congress, which itself is required 1 year from the date of enactment. This change should enable the Department of Defense to complete the plans consistent with its own internal time frames, without unnecessarily missing any statutory deadlines. I would note that jurisdiction of the Sikes Act, since its passage in 1960, has always rested with the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Bills to amend and reauthorize the act, including one that was introduced in the 103d Congress containing substantive revisions similar to the revisions in this amendment, have all been referred to that committee. The fact that reauthorization of the Sikes Act is being done through the DOD authorization bill represents the fortuitous circumstance that after more than 1 year of debate, agreement happened to be reached by all parties at this particular time in this particular context. I do not expect that this circumstance would alter jurisdiction over the Sikes Act in the future. Nevertheless, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has always worked cooperatively on that portion of the Sikes Act pertaining to military installations in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. In closing, Mr. President, I believe that this amendment will improve the Sikes Act significantly, and represents a major achievement in environmental law in this Congress. The speed with which this legislation has moved in this Congress understates its importance both for the agenda of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and for efforts to conserve natural resources nationwide. I would especially like to thank both the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senator Inhofe, and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and manager of the bill, Senator Thurmond, for their cooperation and efforts in facilitating approval of this amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I strongly support the provisions within this bill establishing a Rail Trust Fund, and oppose this point of order. Let me first state my view that these provisions do not violate the spirit of the Byrd rule, which is intended to prevent unrelated authorization bills from being brought into the reconciliation process. Section 702 of this bill, which establishes an Intercity Passenger Rail Fund, is primarily tax legislation, which most certainly belongs on legislation entitled ``The Tax Fairness Bill''. Establishment of a trust fund is a critical element in providing passenger rail with a stable, predictable source of revenue so that Amtrak can achieve financial viability and effectively serve millions of Americans. It is certainly no secret that Amtrak is in serious financial trouble. Earlier this year, the GAO continued a regular series of warnings in testifying to the Finance Committee on the precarious financial condition of the railroad. Amtrak President Tom Downs also confirmed to us that his railroad is in difficult shape. A number of States and communities have already felt the brunt of the railroad's financial predicament as often vital rail service has been discontinued. There are several factors contributing to Amtrak's condition, but primarily it is a result of outdated laws governing Amtrak's operation, as well as inadequate and inconsistent support from the Federal Government. Whatever the cause, I think we can all agree that Amtrak simply cannot continue to operate under the status quo. Amtrak's financial predicament has resulted in calls to end all Federal support for intercity passenger rail--there are those who would just throw up our hands in frustration and walk away. Mr. President, I am one who does not question the need for a Federal investment in passenger rail. The absence of passenger rail would clog our highways and airports--an additional 7,500 fully-booked 757's, or hundreds of thousands of cars, would be needed between Washington, DC, and New York every year. All major industrialized nations provide subsidies to passenger rail, usually to a greater extent than our Government's support for Amtrak. In fact, Amtrak covers more of its operating costs--an estimated 84 percent--than any other passenger railroad in the world. Nonetheless, Amtrak operates the only mode of transportation in the United States which does not have a dedicated source of funding. So the question before the Senate today is how best to provide needed Federal support for Amtrak's critical capital investment needs. After years of congressional hearings, GAO reports and strategic plans, I and many of my colleagues have concluded that dedicating a portion of the Federal gas tax to a Rail Trust Fund is the most appropriate and reliable means of ensuring that passenger rail can continue to meet America's transportation needs. Such a solution provides passenger rail with the same type of Federal support for capital improvements that other modes of transportation have enjoyed for years. This bill's creation of an Intercity Passenger Rail Fund financed by one-half cent of the gas tax, coupled with the needed operating reforms contained within the Amtrak authorization bill introduced by the Senator from Texas, will allow Amtrak to operate more like a business, end its reliance on Federal operating subsidies, and thus better serve America's transportation needs. At least for the 3\1/2\ years that this Trust Fund is financed, we will start on the path to financial stability and end the annual financial roller coaster to which Amtrak is subjected. It would also avoid a catastrophic shutdown of Amtrak, which has recently been estimated to cost upwards of $5 billion dollars. Mr. President, Amtrak has presented to Congress a responsible 6-year strategic business plan which outlines how financial viability will be restored to the railroad. Amtrak's President Tom Downs deserves our praise for the monumental efforts he has undertaken to turn things around at his company. Congress should do its part and join him by providing a relatively modest Federal investment in passenger rail. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. CHAFEE. I want to thank Senator Roth for his commitment to expeditiously find a solution to this problem. let us not forget about the u.s. citizens of puerto rico

Mr. CHAFEE. Senator Roth, as I know you are aware, because of the 1990 and 1993 Reconciliation Acts, our important freight railroads are forced to pay a 5.55 cents per gallon fuel tax into the General Treasury for deficit reduction. All other modes of transportation-- highway, air, water--only pay 4.3 cents per gallon for this purpose. This is an obvious inequity. While reducing the Federal budget deficit is an important goal, if the transportation industry is to be singled out, the burden of achieving a balanced budget should be shared equally among all modes of transportation. I am particularly concerned because S. 949 would transfer the deficit reduction taxes paid by highway users, including truckers which compete with the railroads, into the Highway Trust Fund. Placing additional highway deficit reduction fuel taxes into the Highway Trust Fund for highway improvements would exacerbate the already inequitable situation, placing the railroad industry at an even more unfair competitive disadvantage. In essence, the railroads would continue to contribute to deficit reduction, while their competitors would instead contribute to their own infrastructure. The House has similarly proposed putting the aviation fuel taxes into the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund for airport infrastructure improvements as part of its tax reconciliation legislation. This injustice against America's railroads must be remedied at our earliest opportunity. I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee if he would be willing to seek a solution to this railroad deficit reduction fuel tax problem during the conference with the House on tax reconciliation legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on June 26, 1997, by the President of the United States. Tax Convention with South Africa (Treaty Document No. 105-9). I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Friday, June 27. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 949, the Tax Fairness Relief Act, and under the previous order the Senate will begin a series of votes on or in relation to the pending amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to each vote, and, lastly, with regard to any amendment offered, following the reporting of the amendment the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate amendment to H.R. 2015 be printed as passed.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow at 9 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of S. 949, the Tax Relief Act of 1997 and begin another lengthy series of rollcall votes. Following the disposition of the pending amendments, additional amendments may be offered. However, it is hoped that Members will refrain from offering amendments so that the Senate may complete action on this bill at a reasonable time on Friday.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to contribute regarding the work that the Senator from West Virginia did. But for the groundwork he laid in connection with what type of benefits there would be, what kind of assurances there would be for these children, I don't think we would be where we are. So I want to pay tribute to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 520, As Amended

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is a very important measure that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is advancing here this evening. What we are doing is, as he mentioned, our very best to care for the maximum number of low-income children with health care. There is a prescribed or suggested package of benefits that includes eyeglasses and hearing aids for these children from very, very low- income families. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I want to commend the chairman of the Finance Committee, the distinguished Senator from Utah, and, of course, the ranking member, Senator Moynihan, for everything they have done to advance this proposal.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon to urge support for the tax bill reported out of the Finance Committee last week, and the bill that is before us today. Obviously I am not referring to the substitute, I am talking to the basic bill that came out of the Finance Committee with the support of 18 members in that committee. That vote, 18 to 2 in the committee, more than anything else is a clear indication of the bipartisan process in which the chairman of the Finance Committee crafted the legislation. Others have talked about the major provisions of this bill, all of which are extremely important. I would just like to touch on some lesser known provisions, if I might, briefly. The bill before us includes a permanent extension of the orphan drug credit. This provision encourages drug companies to conduct clinical research on rare, what they call orphan diseases, diseases that do not occur very often and thus there is not a large market for the drugs that are produced to care for that particular situation. Drug companies are reluctant to risk the investment or research dollars with such a small patient population, as, for example, exists for cystic fibrosis or hemophilia or Lou Gehrig's disease or Tourette's syndrome. This bill encourages and provides tax credits for those drug companies that spend the research money in these particular areas. The bill also includes an extension of the work opportunity tax credit, which is an important tool to encourage businesses to hire individuals on public assistance. We passed, last year, the Welfare Reform Act. We want opportunities for those coming off welfare to find a job. The work opportunity tax credit does this. Currently, under the law, it is required that the individual work 400 hours in a job before the tax credit is available to his employer. Under this legislation, the 400 hours is reduced to 120 hours--with a reduced credit, but nonetheless something that will encourage employers to hire these individuals. Another provision that is included in this particular section says that the work opportunity tax credit extends to disabled individuals, those receiving SSI benefits. This is a separate group from those coming off from welfare. Another provision in the bill, which I think is very significant, small though it is, is the estate tax incentive for the preservation of open space. America is losing 4 square miles a day to development, 4 square miles. In my State, over 11,000 acres of farmland have been lost to development since 1974. It is a small State. Think of that, 11,000 acres gone to development from farmland. What this does is provide that those individuals who currently, if they keep their open spaces, are subject to stiff estate taxes--thus either they have to go into development to pay the taxes or, when they have to, sell it to developers--this provides a lower estate tax for land, as long as the owner is willing to keep the land undeveloped in perpetuity. In other words, he has to sign a conservation easement, keeping the land open in perpetuity, so there will be some open spaces around our major cities, places where there can be habitat for wildlife and plants and fish. This is a very, very significant piece, this section that is in the bill, that Senator Roth was good enough to give us leadership on. Mr. President, I yield to the chairman the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The hour is late. I hope everybody will stick by their assigned 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, before he starts, I wonder if I might just make a point. As I understand it, each Senator has 8 minutes, is that correct?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. On behalf of Senator Nickles, I send a modification of his amendment No. 551 to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be so modified.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct. Through the efforts of Senator Boxer, I have become aware of the need for border infrastructure investment and of her own legislation which has been referred to our committee. The Transportation Finance and Innovation Act embraces the innovative finance objectives of the Boxer bill. Border crossing facilities and multi-State trade corridors are clearly eligible and the selection criteria specifically includes those projects which promote international commerce. This bill will enable United States manufacturers to deliver their goods to domestic and foreign markets in a more timely, and cost-effective manner.

Mr. CHAFEE. I will be pleased to yield to a question from my California colleague.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I will be pleased to yield to a question from my California colleague.