John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I am in opposition.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I rise in opposition today to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana. I might say, these are two Senators for whom I have tremendous respect. I have worked with them. The Senator from Virginia, I think we first started our association in 1969, and the Senator from Montana, I started working with him the first year he came to the Senate, which I think was 1978, 1979, and we have been closely associated ever since. However, this amendment, which would increase outlays for transportation spending above the levels provided in the resolution before us, I find to be inconsistent with the achievement of a balanced budget by the year 2002. The Senator from Virginia just said it went beyond the bill, the so- called NEXTEA bill that goes beyond this, and that is absolutely right, but that was before we had a target from the Budget Committee. I believe strongly in the budgetary process we have set up. I voted for it, and I support it. I think we all can agree that the Nation's roads and bridges are in need of repair. No one argues with that. Transportation plays a critical role in our Nation's economy. We recognize that. In the United States, more than 12 million people, more than 11 percent of the gross national product, is involved in transportation. Earlier this year, I cosponsored a measure to increase, within the context of a unified budget, the level of transportation spending from the highway trust fund. I am pleased that the budget agreement, crafted by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey, increases the spending levels implicit in that proposal, the so- called Bond-Chafee proposal. It is $13 billion over a freeze baseline. That is pretty good. Would we like more? Sure we would. But I think it is terribly important to recognize that any proposal that boosts highway spending or transportation spending without corresponding offsets is something I personally cannot support. So, I agree with Senators Warner and Baucus that transportation spending should be increased, but not in a manner that would undermine the careful agreement reached by the Budget Committee. Do we like everything in this budget? No, but it is the best we can get. I am supporting that agreement. It seems to me we simply cannot afford to retreat from our efforts to eliminate the Federal deficit. So that, Mr. President, is the reason I cannot support this amendment that is before us today. I thank the Chair and thank the manager and thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these matters. He has worked on them, and I know his heart is in this. As always, he argues his case with vigor and considerable force.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. First of all, I am pleased to call it the Chafee- Bond proposal.

Mr. CHAFEE. What comes in this year goes out next year, and that principle is in this budget.

Mr. CHAFEE. That's right.

Mr. CHAFEE. We call it that in Rhode Island. What the Chafee-Bond proposal does is it says that what came in in the previous year--we do not deal with the interest, we do not deal with----

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the Hatch-Kennedy amendment. It is paid for by a 43-cent-per-pack increase in the Federal excise tax on cigarettes. We must do everything we can to discourage smoking and to advance good health policy. In my view, this does both. However, in doing so, I want to be very clear about my order of priorities in terms of addressing the children's health crisis in this country. If the Hatch-Kennedy amendment fails, and we do not get any additional spending for children's health initiatives above and beyond the $16.8 billion already included in this budget resolution, I intend to place all of my energies behind strengthening the very cornerstone of our Federal efforts to provide health insurance to poor children-- the Medicaid Program. My first priority will be to work in the Finance Committee to enact the Chafee-Rockefeller-Jeffords-Breaux bill which provide incentives-- not mandates--to encourage States to expand their Medicaid programs to cover all children aged 18 and under, up to 150 percent of poverty. Through this voluntary Medicaid expansion, which now has the support of a majority of the members of the Senate Finance Committee, we can strengthen the system already in place across the country to reach up to 5 million more children. This is the most cost-effective way to proceed, does not create any new entitlement programs, and is a known quantity in every State. What am I saying here? Let us strengthen the foundation before we build the building. In an environment of scarce resources, we must first work to reach the very neediest children through the Medicaid Program before we create other programs with potentially overlapping objectives. I would have a very different view if we had unlimited resources, but we do not. I would now like to recognize Senators Rockefeller and Jeffords to get an indication of their priorities.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee for their help on this amendment. The amendment before the Senate addresses the treatment of poor, elderly legal immigrants who are dependent on SSI benefits. SSI is a Federal program that provides cash assistance to those who are either elderly or disabled, and of very low income. Pursuant to last year's welfare law, legal immigrants may no longer receive SSI benefits. Those who were receiving SSI on the date the law was enacted therefore are scheduled to lose that assistance beginning on August 1 of this year, although thanks to an amendment I offered with Senator D'Amato and others to the disaster relief bill, that cutoff date likely will be pushed back to October 1. In my view, the welfare law's SSI restrictions were not only harsh, but unfair, particularly to those elderly or disabled legal immigrants who were relying on those critical benefits at the time. It seems an increasing number of Senators and Representatives agree. Therefore, this year Congress is considering proposals to revise the legal immigrant SSI restrictions. The particular proposal suggested by the budget resolution addresses immigrants' plight by exempting from the SSI ban those who are disabled and who were in the country when the bill was signed. While that is an important step toward fairness, it would mean that legal immigrants who are elderly, but not disabled, would be left out, and would lose their SSI benefits. If this proposal were enacted, the Social Security Administration would need to re-evaluate all the elderly SSI recipients to determine how many would requalify as disabled. That process would take perhaps 6 months. The question then would become the fate of these elderly recipients during the redetermination time. Would they be dropped from the program during those six months, and then be reinstated later if they requalified? Or would they be allowed to continue on the program until it was clear whether or not they would requalify? Senators Feinstein, D'Amato, DeWine, and I believe that in that situation, it makes absolutely no sense to kick elderly recipients off of SSI during the redetermination period, only to reinstate many of them at a later date. However, as written, the budget resolution is silent on this point. Therefore, we worked with Senator Domenici to clarify this issue. The amendment before us would ensure that elderly recipients would be allowed to continue to receive this critical SSI assistance during the time it would take to redetermine their status. This clarification makes sure that should the proposal in the budget resolution be enacted, elderly legal immigrants will be treated with compassion and not subjected to the sudden and perhaps unwarranted loss of basic assistance. Mr. President, I want to point out that the proposal suggested by the budget resolution is an important one, but it is just one of the many that the Finance Committee may consider during the upcoming reconciliation process. As I mentioned, I believe that the budget resolution approach, as clarified by our amendment, goes a long way toward restoring fairness for vulnerable legal immigrants who were in the country and playing by the rules when the welfare law was enacted. But I must say that I am sorely disappointed that the budget resolution proposal leaves elderly legal immigrants--those who by definition have no other source of income and are too old and frail to work--out in the cold. To my view, then, the budget resolution proposal therefore addresses only part of the problem, and I intend to work with my colleagues here and in the Finance Committee toward a more comprehensive solution.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that a poem by Virginia Louise Doris be entered in the Record. Ms. Doris, distinguished poet and historian from my hometown of Warwick, RI, has written this poem to commemorate those who lost their lives in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City over 2 years ago. The poem follows: Lamentation (By Virginia Louise Doris, composed April 19, 1997) ``A Song that wanders only where an elegy sent''. de profundis We tarry, roses breathing vanished-times broken, in this green-parting glade where agonies spoken. Oh! waiting heart! shall thy pulses always beat to the serephs pause of a presence so dear, that all dove-cote lowing cadance repeat its sweet, floating, accents to thine ear? Charcoal shadows lay their twilight fingers upon a barren wall, where roses sang a climbing song, and declivous wings brushed in summer flight, each petal instill life's incense to fulfill; the roar of fate decrees a sundered cherish. in extremis In the long noon-tide of our sorrow, we questioned of the eternal morrow; we gaze in bonded awe far through the daystar's candle dimmed, or charnel tears and dust which tell our kindred roam. The beloved is keeping all, the waiting, murmuring, beloved lets nothing go, of clasp and want which tolls our famished moan, illumed by lyric cerement, spheres gush of dewy, languored, woes cascading vernal, flamy, biers of memory, the enchanted years. in nomine Oh! waiting heart! Shall thy images always keep the remembrance of lost, embroidered-time, our realm-blessed joy unrolled, to weep unstemmed amid this sable, wounded, clime? We tarry, roses breathing vanished-times beckon, in this green-parting grove where seasons reckon. in memoriam April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, the Murrah Building.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today Senators Roth, Moynihan, and I, along with others on the Finance Committee, are introducing legislation to clarify the meaning of most favored nation [MFN] trading status--a change I have advocated for some time. Over the past few years, MFN has gained notoriety as a special favor that the U.S. grants to other nations. Not true. Indeed, MFN is a misnomer if there ever was one. Rather, MFN refers to a centuries-old concept used by all trading nations--the concept that no nation shall be granted trade treatment less favorable than that granted to the most-favored-nation. In other words, no playing favorites! Every nation is to receive equal treatment when it comes to the terms of trade. Thus, the MFN concept represents the lowest common denominator of trade status. Over the centuries, this simple non-discrimination concept came to be known as most favored nation status. Frankly, that is unfortunate. That particular terminology has fostered the mistaken view that MFN is a special treatment granted only to a privileged few. Yet just the opposite is true: MFN, as the basic trading status between nations, is granted to virtually all nations with whom the U.S. trades. The exceptions can almost be counted on one hand: Serbia, Laos, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea. In sum, while the concept of MFN is sound, the term used to denote that concept is misleading and has resulted in a good deal of mischief--a fact that Senators Moynihan and I have lamented often during Senate Finance Committee hearings. It is high time that we called the MFN nondiscrimination concept by a term that more accurately represents its meaning. Therefore, today my colleagues and I are introducing this bill to amend U.S. law, where appropriate, to replace the term ``MFN'' with the term ``NTR''; normal trade relations. From this point on, we will discuss legislation and hold debate on the nondiscrimination concept using the term ``NTR'' in place of MFN. Will the concept of MFN remain the same? Yes. Are we signalling a change in domestic policy, or modifying our international obligations in any way? No. But we are making perfectly clear to everyone the true meaning and purpose of this centuries-old concept. And it is my hope that our legislation will result in a better understanding of international trade relations, both here in the Congress and in the eyes of the public. Last year, Senators Roth, Moynihan, and I introduced a virtually identical bill, again with the support of Finance Committee members. That bill sailed through the Senate unanimously, and was sent to the House of Representatives. However, the house was not able to act on the bill prior to the date of adjournment of the 104th Congress. It is my hope that by introducing this bill tody, there will be more than enough time this year to move the measure through both chambers and send it to the President for his signature. I therefore urge swift consideration of our legislation by the Senate.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today Senators Roth, Moynihan, and I, along with others on the Finance Committee, are introducing legislation to clarify the meaning of most favored nation [MFN] trading status--a change I have advocated for some time. Over the past few years, MFN has gained notoriety as a special favor that the U.S. grants to other nations. Not true. Indeed, MFN is a misnomer if there ever was one. Rather, MFN refers to a centuries-old concept used by all trading nations--the concept that no nation shall be granted trade treatment less favorable than that granted to the most-favored-nation. In other words, no playing favorites! Every nation is to receive equal treatment when it comes to the terms of trade. Thus, the MFN concept represents the lowest common denominator of trade status. Over the centuries, this simple non-discrimination concept came to be known as most favored nation status. Frankly, that is unfortunate. That particular terminology has fostered the mistaken view that MFN is a special treatment granted only to a privileged few. Yet just the opposite is true: MFN, as the basic trading status between nations, is granted to virtually all nations with whom the U.S. trades. The exceptions can almost be counted on one hand: Serbia, Laos, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea. In sum, while the concept of MFN is sound, the term used to denote that concept is misleading and has resulted in a good deal of mischief--a fact that Senators Moynihan and I have lamented often during Senate Finance Committee hearings. It is high time that we called the MFN nondiscrimination concept by a term that more accurately represents its meaning. Therefore, today my colleagues and I are introducing this bill to amend U.S. law, where appropriate, to replace the term ``MFN'' with the term ``NTR''; normal trade relations. From this point on, we will discuss legislation and hold debate on the nondiscrimination concept using the term ``NTR'' in place of MFN. Will the concept of MFN remain the same? Yes. Are we signalling a change in domestic policy, or modifying our international obligations in any way? No. But we are making perfectly clear to everyone the true meaning and purpose of this centuries-old concept. And it is my hope that our legislation will result in a better understanding of international trade relations, both here in the Congress and in the eyes of the public. Last year, Senators Roth, Moynihan, and I introduced a virtually identical bill, again with the support of Finance Committee members. That bill sailed through the Senate unanimously, and was sent to the House of Representatives. However, the house was not able to act on the bill prior to the date of adjournment of the 104th Congress. It is my hope that by introducing this bill tody, there will be more than enough time this year to move the measure through both chambers and send it to the President for his signature. I therefore urge swift consideration of our legislation by the Senate.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Baucus to introduce legislation authorizing the President to extend most-favored- nation, or normal trading relations, status to China on a permanent basis. Since 1989, Congress has engaged in an annual, and very public, debate about the extension of MFN to China. These debates have been highly charged. But over the years, the repetition of this debate has carried a heavy price tag, with little to no positive results to show for it. In fact, the constant debate as to whether or not the United States should continue normal trade relations with China has come at great expense to the overall health of the bilateral relationship between these two great and powerful nations. And that, in turn, has had real-- and negative--repercussions for the United States, its citizens, and even the Chinese people themselves. We need to look toward a day where this annual MFN rollercoaster will be replaced by a stable, long-term economic foundation between these two superpowers. It is toward that end that we are introducing this legislation. conditioning mfn in order to influence china's behavior has not worked China has received MFN treatment every year since 1980. In 1989, however, after the brutal suppression of demonstrators at Tiananmen Square, some legislators proposed trying to influence Chinese behavior by threatening to revoke China's MFN status, starting this cycle of highly charged--and often political--debates. But is MFN an effective tool for influencing Chinese behavior, as those legislators hoped? No. We saw that all too clearly in 1993, when President Clinton attempted to condition further renewal upon improvements in human rights. Were there improvements during that time? No. Finally, in 1994 the President came to the conclusion that retaining MFN, rather than threatening its removal, ``offers us the best opportunity to lay the basis for long-term sustainable progress in human rights, and for the advancement of our other interests with China.'' It is clear that revoking MFN is not an effective tool for promoting change in China--a fact other nations recognized long ago. Therefore, we should begin removing MFN entirely from the debate, and eventually render it permanent. annual mfn debate overall has not been productive for the united states-china relationship Not only is MFN status a poor tool for spurring change in China, but the annual debate itself has contributed to poor United States-China relations. By focusing solely on the renewal of MFN, we in the United States have found ourselves distracted from the larger, critically important issues involving the United States-China bilateral relationship. Indeed, I believe that for the past 8 years, the ability of the two nations to work together productively has been partly paralyzed by the ongoing MFN debate. Progress on important matters--both those in which we and China have a common interest, such as stability in Asia, and those in which our two nations do not see eye to eye--such as international involvement in human rights--has not been helped by the continuing controversy over MFN. The Chinese, who, as history has shown, tend to react negatively to public confrontation, have been less open to working with the United States to address issues of common concern. The United States, which must continue to deal with China as an emerging superpower, has been forced on the defensive when dealing with the Chinese. This state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. We need to move toward removing MFN as a factor in our already complicated and complex bilateral relationship with China if we want to stabilize that relationship and make progress on issues that matter to the American public. Too much else is at stake--for both nations. the stability of the united states-china relationship is important for americans--and for the chinese people Why is a stable United States-China relationship important for Americans? For a number of reasons. First, Americans traditionally have worked to promote democratic ideals around the globe. As a society, we have an interest in encouraging such ideals as respect for human rights in other nations. A solid, stable relationship with the Chinese can, over time, bring such improvements to pass--with great benefit for the Chinese people. Second, American have a vested interest in promoting international security. Securing nuclear nonproliferation and defusing regional conflicts overseas mean a great deal to the overall well-being of Americans and their families. If we want to see these goals advanced, we must work with China, an emerging superpower. Third, and very importantly, Americans have a direct economic tie to the Chinese economy. We now export some $12 billion worth of goods to China--exports that include plastic packaging systems made by the 125 employees at Marshall & Williams Co. in Providence, Rhode Island. And we import nearly four times as much--$46 billion--from China--imports that include toys for children. Not only do families across the United States buy those toys, but the 1,600 workers at Hasbro in Pawtucket, RI, rely on those sales to keep their company strong and their jobs in place. Clearly, there is much to do to address the enormous trade imbalance between our two nations. But notwithstanding that imbalance, the current level of the United States/China economic interaction is so significant that if it were disrupted, the negative repercussions for our own economy would be staggering. In sum, we have many important challenges facing us that require a steady, stable United States/China relationship. Whether it is nuclear non-proliferation, adherence to human rights, security around the globe, protection of intellectual property, or the transition of Hong Kong, we must continue to work with the Chinese, using the tools of diplomacy and of laws that are tailored to those purposes. PERMANENT MFN WILL BE ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE AS CHINA ENTERS THE GLOBAL

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Baucus to introduce legislation authorizing the President to extend most-favored- nation, or normal trading relations, status to China on a permanent basis. Since 1989, Congress has engaged in an annual, and very public, debate about the extension of MFN to China. These debates have been highly charged. But over the years, the repetition of this debate has carried a heavy price tag, with little to no positive results to show for it. In fact, the constant debate as to whether or not the United States should continue normal trade relations with China has come at great expense to the overall health of the bilateral relationship between these two great and powerful nations. And that, in turn, has had real-- and negative--repercussions for the United States, its citizens, and even the Chinese people themselves. We need to look toward a day where this annual MFN rollercoaster will be replaced by a stable, long-term economic foundation between these two superpowers. It is toward that end that we are introducing this legislation. conditioning mfn in order to influence china's behavior has not worked China has received MFN treatment every year since 1980. In 1989, however, after the brutal suppression of demonstrators at Tiananmen Square, some legislators proposed trying to influence Chinese behavior by threatening to revoke China's MFN status, starting this cycle of highly charged--and often political--debates. But is MFN an effective tool for influencing Chinese behavior, as those legislators hoped? No. We saw that all too clearly in 1993, when President Clinton attempted to condition further renewal upon improvements in human rights. Were there improvements during that time? No. Finally, in 1994 the President came to the conclusion that retaining MFN, rather than threatening its removal, ``offers us the best opportunity to lay the basis for long-term sustainable progress in human rights, and for the advancement of our other interests with China.'' It is clear that revoking MFN is not an effective tool for promoting change in China--a fact other nations recognized long ago. Therefore, we should begin removing MFN entirely from the debate, and eventually render it permanent. annual mfn debate overall has not been productive for the united states-china relationship Not only is MFN status a poor tool for spurring change in China, but the annual debate itself has contributed to poor United States-China relations. By focusing solely on the renewal of MFN, we in the United States have found ourselves distracted from the larger, critically important issues involving the United States-China bilateral relationship. Indeed, I believe that for the past 8 years, the ability of the two nations to work together productively has been partly paralyzed by the ongoing MFN debate. Progress on important matters--both those in which we and China have a common interest, such as stability in Asia, and those in which our two nations do not see eye to eye--such as international involvement in human rights--has not been helped by the continuing controversy over MFN. The Chinese, who, as history has shown, tend to react negatively to public confrontation, have been less open to working with the United States to address issues of common concern. The United States, which must continue to deal with China as an emerging superpower, has been forced on the defensive when dealing with the Chinese. This state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. We need to move toward removing MFN as a factor in our already complicated and complex bilateral relationship with China if we want to stabilize that relationship and make progress on issues that matter to the American public. Too much else is at stake--for both nations. the stability of the united states-china relationship is important for americans--and for the chinese people Why is a stable United States-China relationship important for Americans? For a number of reasons. First, Americans traditionally have worked to promote democratic ideals around the globe. As a society, we have an interest in encouraging such ideals as respect for human rights in other nations. A solid, stable relationship with the Chinese can, over time, bring such improvements to pass--with great benefit for the Chinese people. Second, American have a vested interest in promoting international security. Securing nuclear nonproliferation and defusing regional conflicts overseas mean a great deal to the overall well-being of Americans and their families. If we want to see these goals advanced, we must work with China, an emerging superpower. Third, and very importantly, Americans have a direct economic tie to the Chinese economy. We now export some $12 billion worth of goods to China--exports that include plastic packaging systems made by the 125 employees at Marshall & Williams Co. in Providence, Rhode Island. And we import nearly four times as much--$46 billion--from China--imports that include toys for children. Not only do families across the United States buy those toys, but the 1,600 workers at Hasbro in Pawtucket, RI, rely on those sales to keep their company strong and their jobs in place. Clearly, there is much to do to address the enormous trade imbalance between our two nations. But notwithstanding that imbalance, the current level of the United States/China economic interaction is so significant that if it were disrupted, the negative repercussions for our own economy would be staggering. In sum, we have many important challenges facing us that require a steady, stable United States/China relationship. Whether it is nuclear non-proliferation, adherence to human rights, security around the globe, protection of intellectual property, or the transition of Hong Kong, we must continue to work with the Chinese, using the tools of diplomacy and of laws that are tailored to those purposes. PERMANENT MFN WILL BE ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE AS CHINA ENTERS THE GLOBAL

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. You have 15 minutes equally divided.

Mr. CHAFEE. Is there any suggestion how long the Byrd amendment might take?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to report after much debate and negotiation, my distinguished colleagues--Senator Kempthorne, Senator Reid, Senator Baucus, Senator Craig--and I have reached an agreement on language relating to the Endangered Species Act requirements for emergency flood control activities. I want to also say that the administration was a big help in this agreement. They were in on our negotiations. Our amendment will ensure that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act will not impede actions to address emergency situations. It removes any uncertainty that the emergency procedures in the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations shall apply in those situations, and it resolves several ambiguities and procedures. It is a significant resolution that will not only expedite the passage of the Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act--the main bill we are on here--but it also represents a promising step in our ongoing efforts to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act itself. Briefly, I will touch on that. This, in my judgment, represents a significant step forward on the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act which we are now working on in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and especially in the subcommittee headed by Senator Kempthorne, with Senator Reid being the ranking member. I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue. We took a lot of time. I especially want to thank Senator Kempthorne and Senator Reid because of the hard work that they applied in bridging the differences between the original Craig amendment and the Reid amendment. I also want to thank the senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, who was very, very helpful in reaching this final accord. Everybody gave a little bit of something. That is why we are here today. Mr. President, the floods that have devastated much of the Midwestern and Western United States have been a tragedy of immeasurable dimensions, both financially and emotionally for all of the affected communities. The Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act will provide desperately needed funds to continue the rebuilding process in those communities. It should be passed without any controversial riders that will slow its progress and threaten a veto. No one can disagree with the absolute need to ensure that flood damage is minimized and that emergency flood response measures can go forward without unnecessary impediments. Nothing should compromise our efforts to save lives and homes in times of emergencies, catastrophic events and other disasters. These efforts must include measures to response adequately to threats to health and safety as well measures to repair damaged flood control projects quickly and efficiently. At the same time, there is a belief that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act do not allow for such exigencies, and that the act is inflexible and unworkable. This is a mistaken belief. The ESA itself and its implementing regulations explicitly allow for emergency actions to proceed without delay. Only after the emergency would the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service formally review the action to determine its effects on endangered or threatened species, and whether such action requires any mitigation. The FWS recently issued a policy for emergency flood control actions that expounds on these emergency provisions and gives them specific application to parts of California. The FWS has not only agreed to emergency procedures upon request by the Federal action agency, but it has invited action agencies to use the emergency provisions of the law. Mr. President, let me set the record straight: The Administration-- both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service-- believe that these policies and procedures have addressed the needs of the emergencies adequately. These provisions indicated that the ESA itself has the flexibility to address emergency situations, so that a full exemption from the ESA is not required. To argue otherwise is just not accurate. Upon careful review of the anecdotes that abound, it has not been demonstrated that the ESA has impeded emergency response efforts. But just as emergency flood control activities are to be carried out without impediments, it is equally important to recognize that such activities can have long-term impacts on the environment, including fish and wildlife and their habitat. Merely because an action must be taken to address an emergency does not mean that it has no effects on wildlife, or that those effects need not be considered subsequent to the emergency. When necessary and appropriate, the impacts of these activities on our natural resources should be mitigated. Indeed, Congress has explicitly required such mitigation in the Army Corps of Engineer's own authorities, such as the Water Resources Development Act. The ESA, in turn, contains its own requirements with respect to endangered and threatened wildlife. Specifically, section 7(a)(2) requires that each Federal agency ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species, and section 7(b)(4) requires that FWS or NMFS specify reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impacts of any taking of such species. The fact that mitigation is required both in the corps' statutory authority and in the ESA underscores the dual purpose of mitigation: Not only is it important for protection of wildlife, it is also important for effective management of the flood plain. Effective flood plain management requires adoption of measures to reduce flood damage, as well as measures to reduce future susceptibility to floods. These measures go hand in hand with protection of the flood plain resources themselves. Mitigation is thus an important component of flood control that cannot be ignored. Yesterday, the House of Representatives debated and defeated the original version of H.R. 478, a bill that provided a sweeping exemption of all operations, maintenance, repair, and restoration of flood control facilities. While this exemption ostensibly was intended to address emergency situations, one does not have to read between the lines to see that H.R. 478 would have exempted all actions relating to flood control facilities from the ESA, even without any emergency situation. That bill was nothing more than a transparent attempt to use the ESA as a scapegoat for natural disasters and thus exempt a broad category of activities from the law, in perpetuity, under the guise of an emergency. I strongly oppose the terms of that bill, as well as similar bills or amendments in either the House or Senate. By contrast, my distinguished colleagues--Senators Kempthorne, Craig, Baucus, and Reid--and I have negotiated an amendment to S. 672, with involvement by the administration, that is narrowly tailored to remove any uncertainty that the emergency procedures under the ESA shall apply in emergency situations. Let me repeat: The emergency procedures of the ESA shall apply in emergency situations. This would not require either an exemption nor an amendment to the current law. Our amendment does not contain language that could be misconstrued to create emergencies when none exist. Our amendment considers emergency situations to be those natural events that cause an imminent threat to human lives and property. Our amendment applies to emergencies that occurred in 1996 or at any time during 1997. We are including 1996 to ensure that flood control facilities damaged in last year's floods can be repaired expeditiously, to address emergencies that might arise this year. There is no sunset provision in our amendment, because of this inherent temporal limitation to emergencies only in 1996 and 1997. Our amendment effectively codifies the current practice of the administration to defer formal consultation until after the emergency is over. This practice provides that the Federal agency taking the emergency action will consult informally with either FWS or NMFS at any time prior to or during the emergency. This informal consultation can be nothing more than a phone call between the agencies. More importantly, our amendment resolves several ambiguities as to application of the existing emergency provisions. First, it makes clear that it is the Federal action agency that will have the discretion to determine whether an emergency exists. Second, it clarifies that the actions to which this provision applies are repairs as needed to respond to an emergency causing an imminent threat to human lives and property, until that threat has been abated. This is consistent with the description of emergency actions in the statute and regulations of the Army Corps of Engineers. The corps considers emergency activities to include flood emergency preparation, flood fighting and rescue operations, postflood response, and emergency repair and restoration of flood control works. These measures are designed to meet an imminent flood threat, while permanent rehabilitation of flood control works are considered separately. Our amendment includes those emergency measures, and does not include routine maintenance and operations that would otherwise require ESA consultation. Third, it makes clear that repairs can include both preventive and remedial measures to restore the project to a condition to remove an imminent threat to human lives and property. Lastly, the amendment would require that reasonable and prudent measures be related both in nature and extent to the effect of the action. The current law requires that reasonable and prudent measures must not alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of the action and may involve only minor changes. This requirement makes sense for proposed actions that have yet to be taken. However, it does not apply well to actions already taken, such as those necessary to address emergencies. There have been instances where FWS has specified measures that the action agency feels go too far, but about which the agency can do nothing because its action has already been completed. Our amendment would ensure that reasonable and prudent measures specified for an action already taken or currently in progress will be similar in scope to measures that may be required for proposed actions. It is important to note that the measures must be related to the effects of the action on listed species, not to the cost or nature of the action itself. Furthermore, by including this requirement, we do not prohibit any particular type of reasonable and prudent measure, such as offsite mitigation. Mr. President, Senator Kempthorne and I have been working diligently together to reauthorize the ESA. We issued a discussion draft for reauthorization in late January 1997, and we have since been negotiating with the minority members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the administration. My strong preference is to avoid any amendments relating to the ESA in this, or any other, appropriations bill. The proper context in which to discuss whether the ESA needs to address emergency situations better, and how the ESA should define reasonable and prudent measures, is our reauthorization process, not here. My other goal is to avoid a contentious debate on the ESA when we are trying to pass an appropriations bill expeditiously, and when we are trying also to reauthorize the ESA itself expeditiously. I believe that our amendment accomplishes both of those goals. In sum, our amendment will ensure that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act will not impede actions to address emergency situations. It removes any uncertainty that the emergency procedures in the ESA and its implementing regulations shall apply in those situations, and it further resolves several ambiguities in those procedures. It is a significant resolution that will not only expedite passage of the Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, but also represents a promising step in our ongoing efforts to reauthorize the ESA itself. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank my colleagues for their hard work in this issue, especially Senator Kempthorne, who worked tirelessly with me to bridge the differences between the original Craig amendment and the Reid amendment. The amendment on which we agree today is based on an amendment filed by Senator Kempthorne. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by Senators Warner and Graham. I want to emphasize that the situation before us today is not a new one. It started in 1994, when the Department of Treasury made a clerical error in determining the amount of money going out to the States from the highway trust fund. This accounting error changed the distribution of highway funds in 1996 and 1997. In late July of last year, during consideration of the Department of Transportation Appropriations bill, Senator Baucus and I tried to fix this error. Our amendment would have required that the funds be distributed as if the accounting error had never happened. We thought this was an honest and fair way to deal with this problem. Unfortunately, this amendment was strongly opposed by some of our colleagues even though it was a fair and even-handed solution to a technical accounting error. As most of my colleagues are aware, votes on highway funds are often determined according to how each Senator thinks his or her individual State fares, and the vote last year was no different. Since last July, the Departments of Treasury and Transportation have corrected the error. That should have been the end of the story, but, for some reason, the President has requested an additional $318 million to compensate the 24 States that would have received additional funds had the error been left in place. I think it is unfortunate that the administration, which made the accounting error in the first place, has reopened this issue, by seeking a supplemental appropriation. This issue has been needlessly divisive and, in seeking to have it both ways, the administration's decision has reopened old wounds. The Appropriations Committee has included not only the administration's request, but also $139 million to fully compensate States that did not receive their share of 1996 funds because the error was not corrected until 1997. In addition, the Committee has included $475 million for 31 States to bring their 1997 limitation up to 1996 levels. While I disagree with the decision to include the $318 million requested in the first place, I believe that the committee's inclusion of additional funds reflects the fairest compromise available to make all States whole. The proponents of the amendment before us argue that the additional funds included by the Appropriations Committee contradict ISTEA formulas, giving an unfair advantage to 29 States. When the shoe was on the other foot and we argued that it was unfair for some States to receive a benefit from a bureaucratic error, our argument fell on deaf ears. Mr. President, this claim of unfairness today rings hollow. The additional funds provided by the Appropriations Committee hardly gives an unfair advantage to 29 States. In fact, the only States that actually receive additional funds in 1997, when compared to 1996, are the so-called donor States that are offering the amendment before us today. Mr. President, this is an issue that, in my opinion, was resolved after the administration initially fixed its error last December. Unfortunately, the administration has reopened this complicated issue. The Appropriations Committee has developed a fair solution to a difficult problem and they should be congratulated. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. While we are focused on the distribution of funds to the States I would like to say a few words about the formulas in the context of ISTEA reauthorization. I realize that some Members of this body believe that the current formulas that distribute highway funds are neither fair nor appropriate. Many Members argue that various factors, such as interstate highway mileage, State population, highway trust fund contributions, and the number of deficient bridges should be given greater weight or importance in the distribution formula. I think we can all agree that we have a long and difficult task before us in determining the appropriate formula for the next ISTEA. I therefore urge my colleagues to make every effort to work with, rather than against, one another in crafting a fair distribution formula that benefits the States and the national system alike. Thank you.

Mr. CHAFEE. Could I say to the distinguished chairman, the manager of the bill, on the Reid amendment we have an agreement, and we can move rather quickly on that, if you want to get one more thing taken care of.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, might we have order, please? It is very difficult to hear.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator D'Amato for his work on this amendment which will mean so much to so many people who he has well described as being the frailest in our society. I also pay tribute to Senator Feinstein with whom I have worked on a program similar to this for the long-term solution, as she pointed out. It may well be that we will turn to that when we start the new fiscal year. I also want to salute Senator DeWine, who is not on the floor at this moment. I hope he will be here soon. But I wanted to pay tribute to him because he has worked very hard on it. Mr. President, I would like to extend my thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Alaska, and the distinguished ranking member of that committee, the Senator from West Virginia, who have agreed to accept this amendment. I am very appreciative of that. I am speaking on behalf of 3,750 legal immigrants--legal immigrants-- in my State who would face the loss of these SSI benefits but for the passage of this legislation, which I hope will be accepted in the House likewise. That group of 3,750 Rhode Island seniors, as the Senator from New York has described, fits in that typical pattern of 18 percent being over 85 and so forth. Mr. President, this is a good amendment. What it does, it gets us through the remainder of this fiscal year and gives us a little breathing time. Mr. President, as you know, in the underlying bill there is a block grant of $125 million. This replaces that. I think that is wise because a block grant would cause a lot of problems in its distribution, trying to set up a new system to get the money out. The continuation of the existing system of the SSI benefits is, I believe strongly, the right way to go. So this is an occasion where I think we can all celebrate a little bit. I was strongly supportive of the welfare reform bill that we passed last year. I believe in it. I think it is working. At the time when we foresaw the difficulties that were going to come up under this particular group, I supported legislation to take care of them. That did not pass. I believe it was the legislation of the Senator from the State of California. It did not pass. But now we are attacking that problem. As I mentioned before, I think it is coming out in a very satisfactory way. So I want to thank the Chair. And, again, I do want to point out that Senator DeWine is deeply interested in this, as is Senator Specter. Senator DeWine may be on the floor a little later. I want to extend my appreciation to his work on this and also to the leadership of both parties in the Senate for permitting this to be accepted. Thank you very much.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Alabama is correct. After numerous conversations with GSA officials, and after receiving the GSA letter my colleague referred to, I have confirmed that the $6 million included in last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act is necessary and appropriate for the courthouse project in Montgomery. Indeed, the additional $6 million will not cause this project to exceed its GSA benchmark cost. As such, I have no objection to GSA obligating these funds and encourage the agency to move expeditiously on this project. Mr. President, let me make it clear that absent the extraordinary circumstances faced by this project, I would insist upon authorizing the additional money through the committee resolution process, in accordance with the 1959 Public Buildings Act. As the Senator from Alabama mentioned at the outset, this project has already incurred cost increases as the result of delayed construction starts. A GSA budgeting error on Montgomery has yielded inflationary cost increases of $2.6 million. In addition, the project recently suffered a bid bust which threatens to delay construction further unless additional funds are provided expeditiously. This project must proceed as soon as possible to prevent further wasteful expenses.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S. 674 along with Senator Rockefeller and others. I ask that the text of bill S. 674 be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to introduce legislation to provide health insurance for millions of children who are not currently covered. Before I talk about the bill, let me take a moment to thank all of the members of the bipartisan coalition who have worked so hard to put this legislation together. Senator Rockefeller, the lead Democratic cosponsor and my colleague on the Finance Committee, deserves very special mention in this regard. Senator Rockefeller has worked for many, many years on these issues and I am personally grateful for all his leadership and hard work in this endeavor. He is a true hero when it comes to America's children. There are currently 10 million children in this country who do not have health insurance. Many of these children live in families where one or both parents are working but do not have employee coverage and earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Others, though eligible, simply fall through the cracks, while still others lose eligibility because of age-based restrictions. This is a tragic problem and our proposal tries to provide real solutions. The Chafee-Rockefeller proposal offers the States additional Federal matching funds if they choose to provide Medicaid coverage to all children up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. It is a completely voluntary program--we hope that all States will participate, but we leave that decision to the Governors. States, like Rhode Island, that are already providing coverage at these levels will immediately begin to get additional Federal matching funds once they have provided the 1-year continuous coverage. Our bill also provides grant funds for States to use for outreach to the 3 million children who are eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. I believe that the Medicaid Program is the best avenue to reach these uninsured children. Expansions in the Medicaid Program over the years have done wonders in increasing coverage for children and pregnant women. We also have to keep an eye on cost, and Medicaid is an inexpensive way to cover children--while half of Medicaid beneficiaries are children, children only account for 15 percent of overall Medicaid spending. And Medicaid is a program that already exists, so we don't have to create a new program or a new bureaucracy. In short, Medicaid works and works well. By encouraging States to provide Medicaid coverage to all children under 18 up to 150 percent of poverty, our proposal also tries to fix one of the program's problems: under the current Medicaid program a child's eligibility depends not only on family income, but also on age. Let me illustrate this for you: a 6-year-old girl lives in a family of four whose annual income is $21,000. That little girl gets Medicaid because Federal law requires that all children 6 and under be covered up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. On her seventh birthday, that little girl doesn't get much of a birthday present--she loses her Medicaid coverage because Federal law only requires that children between the ages of 7 and 13 be covered up to 100 percent of poverty, and her family's income level is slightly above that level. Her 4-year-old brother, however, keeps his Medicaid coverage, at least for the next 2 years. How bizarre that there are two children in the same family and one gets coverage because he's under 6 and the other doesn't because she's older than 6. Our proposal would give States the option to continue Medicaid coverage for both children until they are 18. So, I am very pleased to introduce this legislation today along with this distinguished bipartisan group of Senators. I look forward to working together toward the goal of getting critical health care coverage to these children.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to introduce legislation to provide health insurance for millions of children who are not currently covered. Before I talk about the bill, let me take a moment to thank all of the members of the bipartisan coalition who have worked so hard to put this legislation together. Senator Rockefeller, the lead Democratic cosponsor and my colleague on the Finance Committee, deserves very special mention in this regard. Senator Rockefeller has worked for many, many years on these issues and I am personally grateful for all his leadership and hard work in this endeavor. He is a true hero when it comes to America's children. There are currently 10 million children in this country who do not have health insurance. Many of these children live in families where one or both parents are working but do not have employee coverage and earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Others, though eligible, simply fall through the cracks, while still others lose eligibility because of age-based restrictions. This is a tragic problem and our proposal tries to provide real solutions. The Chafee-Rockefeller proposal offers the States additional Federal matching funds if they choose to provide Medicaid coverage to all children up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. It is a completely voluntary program--we hope that all States will participate, but we leave that decision to the Governors. States, like Rhode Island, that are already providing coverage at these levels will immediately begin to get additional Federal matching funds once they have provided the 1-year continuous coverage. Our bill also provides grant funds for States to use for outreach to the 3 million children who are eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. I believe that the Medicaid Program is the best avenue to reach these uninsured children. Expansions in the Medicaid Program over the years have done wonders in increasing coverage for children and pregnant women. We also have to keep an eye on cost, and Medicaid is an inexpensive way to cover children--while half of Medicaid beneficiaries are children, children only account for 15 percent of overall Medicaid spending. And Medicaid is a program that already exists, so we don't have to create a new program or a new bureaucracy. In short, Medicaid works and works well. By encouraging States to provide Medicaid coverage to all children under 18 up to 150 percent of poverty, our proposal also tries to fix one of the program's problems: under the current Medicaid program a child's eligibility depends not only on family income, but also on age. Let me illustrate this for you: a 6-year-old girl lives in a family of four whose annual income is $21,000. That little girl gets Medicaid because Federal law requires that all children 6 and under be covered up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. On her seventh birthday, that little girl doesn't get much of a birthday present--she loses her Medicaid coverage because Federal law only requires that children between the ages of 7 and 13 be covered up to 100 percent of poverty, and her family's income level is slightly above that level. Her 4-year-old brother, however, keeps his Medicaid coverage, at least for the next 2 years. How bizarre that there are two children in the same family and one gets coverage because he's under 6 and the other doesn't because she's older than 6. Our proposal would give States the option to continue Medicaid coverage for both children until they are 18. So, I am very pleased to introduce this legislation today along with this distinguished bipartisan group of Senators. I look forward to working together toward the goal of getting critical health care coverage to these children.