John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it seems to me that protecting and preserving our Nation's special places, like the Blackstone Valley, is one of the Federal Government's most important functions. That is why I am so delighted that my bill to reauthorize and expand the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor was included in the omnibus parks bill that was agreed to today. There are few other areas in the country that have had as rich and diverse a history as the Blackstone Valley. For centuries, the Blackstone River has been the center of life in the valley. The Native Americans who first inhabited these shores enjoyed abundant fishing and hunting along the river. Settlers came in search of farmland and instead found that the river provided a powerful new source of energy. By the late 1700's, bustling towns appeared up and down the river. They were joined by sawmills, and in 1793, Slater's Mill, the river's first textile mill, opened, signalling the birth of the Industrial Revolution. When the Blackstone Corridor was created in 1986, it represented an entirely new approach for the National Park Service. The corridor is not at all like the typical national park, where the Federal Government owns and manages the land. Its boundaries span two States; it contains whole cities, towns, and villages; half a million people live in the Blackstone Corridor. It truly represents a partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments and communities in Rhode Island and neighboring Massachusetts. Under the umbrella of the Corridor Commission, individuals from different communities, levels of government, and walks of life are working together toward a common vision--and with impressive result. In the early 1970's, the Blackstone River, like so many rivers and lakes throughout our Nation, was in deep trouble. It was apparent that many years of pollution had wiped out much of the river's wildlife. The once polluted river has been cleaned up. A beautiful greenway for bicyclists and hikers is underway. Historic mills have been restored. National Park rangers and volunteers are giving tours and educating visitors about the valley's rich history. The Blackstone Valley area is one of Rhode Island's environmental and historical jewels. With its restoration, this area's strong sense of price and community spirit has been revitalized. All this is being done with relatively little money from the Federal Government, because every Federal dollar that goes into the corridor is leveraged many times over. I introduced S. 1374, which established the corridor, on June 27, 1985, and on November 10, 1986, the bill became law. Since then, the Rhode Island congressional delegation, and the Massachusetts delegation, have worked together each year to strengthen the corridor. Today, the corridor stretches 46 miles along the Blackstone River, from Worcester, MA to Providence, RI. The corridor encompasses 20 cities and towns over a 250,000-acre area. Efforts to interpret and preserve the valley's historical and scenic resources are coordinated by the Blackstone Corridor Commission and the National Park Service works closely with the commission, providing invaluable technical assistance and guidance. Last year, I introduced S. 601 to reauthorize the commission and expand the corridor with Senators Pell, Kennedy, and Kerry. This bill extends the life of the Blackstone Corridor Commission--which, under current law, would expire in November--for another 10 years. In addition, it adds to the corridor five new communities--three in Rhode Island and two in Massachusetts--which are culturally and historically tied to the existing corridor and contain the headwaters of the Blackstone River. This logical expansion will allow the commission to interpret and protect the region's resources in a comprehensive and unified fashion. Finally, my legislation increases the commission's annual authorization from $350,000 to $650,000, in recognition of its tremendous success and new responsibilities. The Senate Energy Committee held hearings on my bill, and it was reported out of the Commission on April 7, 1995. It was included in the omnibus parks bill and attached to the Presidio Management bill which, after some setbacks, was unanimously approved by the full Senate. Since that time, Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives have been engaged in a lengthy and difficult conference, attempting to work out the differences between the proposals. Many highly controversial provisions that would have led both to opposition in the Senate and the possibility of a veto by the President have been dropped. I commend Senate Murkowski for his efforts to accommodate the interests of so many colleagues and greatly appreciate his work to restore my version of the Blackstone Reauthorization bill. I know the House fought hard to replace my bill with the House Resources Committee proposal which would have authorized a lesser appropriation and would have extended the life of the commission for 5 years only. This would not have give the commission enough time to complete its work. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes this afternoon to discuss the Medicare Program. Restoring solvency to the U.S. Medicare Program is the greatest domestic challenge that the Congress will face when we reconvene in January 1997. The Medicare Program is in deep trouble. The latest report is entitled, ``Status of Social Security and Medicare Programs, a Summary of the 1996 Annual Reports.'' This is submitted by the trustees of the Medicare Program and the Social Security Program. I will restrict my remarks to the Medicare Program. According to this report, the hospital insurance trust fund--that is the program that pays for the hospital bills for individuals on Medicare--will run out of money by the year 2001. How far away is 2001? That is 4 years from this coming January. The trust fund is currently spending more money than it receives in revenues. Even now, more money is going out than is coming in. According to a recent report, this shortfall is increasing at a rapid rate. The trust fund lost more than $3 billion--I would like to repeat that, Mr. President--the trust fund lost more than $3 billion in the month of August, according to the Treasury Department. That was a loss twice as high as the deficit occurred in August, 1995. The Medicare part B program--what I have been discussing up to now is the part A program, the hospitalization. The part B program, which pays doctor's bills for our senior citizens, faces equally dismal fiscal problems. Unlike the hospitals' insurance program, this part of Medicare is voluntary. Retirees choose to participate. They then pay premiums into the system. And the premiums then go toward paying their doctor's bills. However, the premiums paid by the participants in the part B program fall far short of paying for the cost of the program. When the program was set up it was never designed that the premiums that the retirees pay would cover the cost of the part B program, namely the doctor's bills. It started out that the individual's premiums would pay 50 percent of the cost of the program and the other 50 percent of the cost of the program would come from the general fund of the United States, from ordinary tax and other revenues that go into the general fund. That was 50-50. Currently, by law, only a fourth of the program's costs are covered by the premiums. Twenty-five percent now is covered by the premiums that are paid by the beneficiaries. The remaining 75 percent is paid for from general tax revenues. In other words, Mr. President, we have the strange situation as follows. Income taxes paid by factory workers, or the secretary in some office, or the janitors sweeping the floors and waxing the floors, their income taxes pay 75 percent of the doctor's bills for our seniors. And this is true regardless of whether the senior is somebody living on a very modest income or a multimillionaire. So multimillionaires who are retired, on Medicare, have three-fourths of their doctor's bills paid by ordinary citizens, scrimping away, paying dutifully their income taxes. The part B expenditures have been increasing at a rapid rate for many years, and are projected to nearly triple as a share of the Nation's economy by the year 2020. In other words, these costs are escalating as part of the total expenditures in our country. They are going up and up and up. And they will triple some 25 years from now. Because the general fund pays 75 percent of these costs, as just outlined, the Medicare Program will drain an ever increasing amount of resources away from other important Federal programs. The more that goes out into this program for doctor's bills paid by the general fund, the less there is in the general fund to pay for education, and health care, Head Start programs, crime prevention, FBI, whatever it might be. Early next century, starting in 2000, just some 4 years from now, the baby-boom generation will begin to reach retirement age and, as a consequence, start to demand benefits from the Medicare Program. They will reach 65. They will want what others have. The current Medicare Program, however, will be unable to meet those demands. It is essential that we begin to reform Medicare next year. We cannot wait any longer. So the changes we put in place can be instituted over a relatively long period. The longer we wait, the harder it is to institute the reforms that are necessary under Medicare. If we make these changes starting next year, it will have two important benefits. It will allow future retirees to plan for the new system, in other words, if there are going to be changes then those about to retire can make some plans; and, second, as I mentioned before, it will provide some lead time so that the savings needed to restore solvency can be achieved. It is also imperative that any reform of the Medicare Program be done on a bipartisan basis. The political stakes are simply too high for this program to be left at one party or the other's doorsteps. We have to be in this together. All of us, Democratic and Republican Senators, are going to have to take difficult votes on Medicare if the program is going to survive. Both parties, away from the campaign trail, do now recognize the need to reduce the Medicare spending. For example, the President's last balanced budget proposal included reforms to Medicare that would have yielded $124 billion of savings over 6 years. That was the President's program, $124 billion of savings over 6 years. The final Republican plan proposed savings of $168 billion. The President's savings, $124 billion; the Republican final plan, $168 billion. Obviously, there is a figure somewhere in the middle of this range on which Republicans and Democrats can agree. There already has been put together a bipartisan plan. That was the centrist coalition balanced budget plan which Senator Breaux and I and others offered earlier this year. Some 20 of our colleagues joined with us to submit this program with important programmatic reforms to the Medicare system. What did it do? It opened avenues for savings by allowing seniors to choose private managed care plans. And it created a new payment system to encourage the growth in the availability and accessibility of such plans. It called for slower growth in payments to hospitals, physicians, and other service providers. It called on higher income seniors to pay a greater share of the costs of the part B program. No longer, it seems to me, can a multimillionaire have the taxpayers pay for his or her doctor's bills just because he or she is on Medicare. Finally, it increased the Medicare eligibility age to conform with the increase in the Social Security eligibility age which will begin in the year 2003. Starting in 2003, the age for retirement under Social Security will go up gradually. And we increase the eligibility age for Medicare to conform with that. Together these reforms would reduce Medicare expenditures by $154 billion over the next 7 years. This was a fair and a balanced plan. I am pleased it received bipartisan support. And 46 Members of this body, 46 out of the 100 Senators, voted for that plan: 22 Republicans, 24 Democrats. Mr. President, I am delighted that it appears that we can once again next year convene our centrist coalition with the able leadership of Senator Breaux on the Democratic side, while I will be pleased to rally the Republican Members. I am convinced we can once again come forward with constructive solutions to the Medicare challenges. Mr. President, in closing I would stress this. Members of this body are now scattering to 50 different States. All of them are going to be involved in the campaigns either as candidates themselves, or as helping those from their parties in their own States. It is my earnest hope, Mr. President, that the Senators seeking reelection and, indeed, all Senators will not lock themselves into such positions that would prevent them from taking the necessary votes that are going to be required if we are going to reform the Medicare Program next year. If we do not reform this program, if no one wants to touch it because it is too much of a hot potato, if it is regarded as the third rail which nobody can touch, leave it alone, then absolute disaster will face Medicare--the Medicare Program in the future. So I again urge all my colleagues, those seeking reelection, those who are not even Senators yet but are challengers, not to get themselves into such a position that they are prevented from taking the tough votes that are required to reform the Medicare Program so that it will be there for future beneficiaries. Mr. President, I see that no one else is desiring to speak at this time and, therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say a few words on final passage of H.R. 4283, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. The threat posed by nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species was first brought to this Nation's attention in the 1980's when we witnessed the devastating effect of the zebra mussel infestation in the Great Lakes region. It was then that we learned such nuisance species are typically introduced through the ballast water exchange of vessels. Congress responded to this threat with the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990--legislation which established a program to research, prevent, and control the unintentional introduction of nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes. Clearly, the problem of nuisance species is not limited to the Great Lakes. Invasions of nonindigenous species into marine and fresh waters of the United States can have significant economic and environmental consequences. That is why the legislation approved by the Senate today goes beyond the Great Lakes region and establishes a voluntary program for ballast water management that is national in scope. Mr. President, I was deeply distressed to learn that non-native species have invaded the Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Recently, a number of invasive plant species have been discovered. Also, there is grave concern that the Japanese shore crab may have arrived. If that is the case, Rhode Island's oyster beds will be greatly disrupted. That is why the original version of this bill, H.R. 3217, was modified at my request to include an amendment authorizing the appropriation of $1 million for use by Rhode Island's Department of Environmental Management to address this problem. The pending bill, H.R. 4283, includes my amendment. These funds will allow the department to carry out research on the prevention, monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species in Narragansett Bay. It is imperative that we have a full inventory of the non-native species that have invaded the Bay. Once we have done so, we can work to manage the situation and hopefully, avoid future infestations. Mr. President, this is a good bill and I applaud the Senate for its prompt action. It is my hope that the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 will stem the tide of invasive species in our Nation's waterways.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to note the passage of legislation I introduced with Senator Moseley-Braun to authorize the U.S. Mint to create a coin commemorating Crispus Attucks and the more than 5,000 African-American patriots who fought and died during the Revolutionary War. Our bill, S. 953, known as the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Commemorative Coin Act, was cosponsored by 63 Senators from both sides of the aisle and every region of our Nation. After approval by the Citizens' Commemorative Coin Advisory Commission, the companion bill, introduced by Representative Nancy Johnson, was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives. In 1986, Congress approved construction on the National Mall of a memorial celebrating the lives of the African-American men and women who served, fought, and died during our Nation's Revolutionary War. Ironically, many of these brave Americans never experienced the freedom and independence for which they fought. A portion of the proceeds from sales of the coin will help to pay for construction of a memorial recognizing the contribution of these brave Americans. As children in school, we all learn that Crispus Attucks was the first person to lose his life at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, but few of us learn about the valor and sacrifice of thousands of others who willingly fought to free a land that deprived them of freedom. Harriet Beecher Stowe put it this way, They served a nation which did not acknowledge them as citizens and equals * * *. It was not for their own land they fought, but for a land that enslaved them. Bravery under such circumstances, has particular beauty and merit. The vast majority of African-Americans who served in the Continental Army were from New England, and a great number were from my State of Rhode Island. In fact, in 1778, Rhode Island approved the first slave enlistment act and the Black Regiment of Rhode Island was formed. This was one of only two all African-American regiments. The other was the Bucks of America of Boston. Not only did these men serve our Nation, they served with distinction. Regrettably throughout our history, their valor has been overlooked and nearly forgotten. Men like Jack Sisson of Rhode Island, who expertly steered one of five boats involved in the daring capture of British Maj. Gen. Richard Prescott at Newport in 1777, are barely mentioned in historical reports of the incident. Jack Sisson went on to join a regiment of some 200 African-American soldiers from my State, who, at the battle of Rhode Island, held their ground against several fierce attacks by British-Hessian forces, thereby allowing 6 American brigades to retreat. With scant training, but abundant courage, the First Rhode Island Regiment inflicted casualties of 6 to 1 on the professional troops of the Redcoats. Like African-American soldiers throughout the colonies, however, the soldiers of Rhode Island's First Regiment faced tragedy as well as triumph. In May, 1781, the unit suffered a surprise attack by the British cavalry at Pines Bridge, and 40 soldiers lost their lives. Two years later, the regiment was disbanded unceremoniously in Oswego, NY. According to the historian John Harmon, the soldiers were told to find their own way home, and many died while making the trip. Further, despite the promise of freedom which had been made in order to entice them to enlist, tragically, some of the soldiers were actually re- enslaved after their return. Now, with the passage of this commemorative coin legislation, a monument honoring these forgotten patriots can be constructed on our Nation's Mall. The design for the memorial was approved recently, funds are being raised by the Patriots Foundation, and the recognition that these brave Americans deserve is near at hand. I would like to give special thanks to Chairman D'Amato and the majority leader who recognized the importance of this coin bill and took the steps necessary to enable its passage.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. First of all, I want to thank very much the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for letting me proceed. I ask that I might proceed for 8 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator will yield?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there are 13 Senators who have chosen not to run for reelection. Each one I consider a friend. With each one, I have had extremely enjoyable experiences--whether it be traveling abroad, as with Howell Heflin; working on the centrist coalition, as with Hank Brown, Bill Cohen, Nancy Kassebaum, Sam Nunn, and Al Simpson; long hours spent together on the Finance Committee with Bill Bradley and David Pryor; friendly times in this Chamber with Bennett Johnston, Paul Simon, and Jim Exon; a long time friendship that goes back over 30 years with Mark Hatfield; and working together for our State with Claiborne Pell. Claiborne Pell has been here the longest, 36 years. His splendid achievements on behalf of education will long be recognized for their benefits, not just to millions of young people, but also to our Nation. His years on the Foreign Relations Committee have been devoted to obtaining treaties to foster a long term peace. Our Nation's cultural life has been enhanced by his originating the National Endowment for the Arts. By any measure, his Senate career has been a splendid one. It is always risky to single out any individuals from a star studded group such as the 13 who are retiring, but I would like to make a few additional comments regarding six of those with whom I have worked especially close. The first five Senators I will mention were for the past 4 years in our bipartisan mainstream coalition and our bipartisan centrist coalition. We spent scores of hours together in room S-201 here in the Capitol working together to forge legislation first on health care and then on the budget. Ever since Bill Cohen came to the Senate, he and I have exchanged views on legislation. I've listened especially careful to his thoughts on national defense and matters pertaining to the aging. It has been a joyful relationship and his penetrating appraisal of senatorial actions has been a continuous leavening to some tiring sessions that we have had. Above all, I will remember his willingness to take difficult votes in attempting to put our fiscal house in order. As do all Senators, I have tremendous respect and affection for Nancy Kassebaum. That quiet manner and lovely smile hides a spine of steel. She takes courageous positions and sticks by them. She was always there when challenging budget votes had to be taken. Al Simpson is noted for his humor, occasionally earthy and always pertinent. But, never should we forget the difficult subjects he has dealt with, forged into legislation, brought to the floor and achieved passage. Whether it be immigration, veterans affairs or Medicare matters, Al Simpson has the courage to tackle the tough issues. Likewise, Hank Brown has dealt with these budgetary matters that, if unrestrained, will bankrupt our country and leave no Medicare, and a Social Security System that is a shambles. His constant cheerfulness and quiet determination will be greatly missed. The final retiree from our centrist group is Sam Nunn. Everyone knows of Sam as a defense expert, whether it's ICBM's or troop numbers in NATO, he is the leading expert. But his courageous efforts to control the Federal budget should receive equal billing. Like the other members of the centrist group, he was willing to take the tough votes. He has been a giant in this Senate. Finally, to longtime friend, Mark Hatfield, a special farewell. Calm, determined, devoid of side or slickness, always courageous, willing to withstand tremendous pressure if his principles were under attack; he stands as a model Senator. All 13 of these Senators will be greatly missed and our Nation will be hard pressed to replace them with their equals. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. And, would the chairman further agree, in determining the fiduciary's liability, the language is meant to apply to the value of the assets after any improvement due to any cleanup activity which may be undertaken? In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is the intent of this entire provision to create incentives for cleanup and the productive reuse of contaminated properties.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I was pleased to see that the House of Representatives incorporated the Small Business Administration authorization bill into the omnibus appropriation bill. This is important legislation. Before we go to final passage of the appropriation bill, I wonder if I could get the distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, to comment on a proposal I have, related to small business development centers.

Mr. CHAFEE. Most definitely. One of the key services offered by the export assistance centers is access to a system called the International Trade Data Network. The ITDN works as follows. A small businessperson will come into an export assistance center, anxious to learn how to export a particular product. And by logging on to this system, the individual can find out what countries are interested in that product with a just few simple keystrokes. As I understand it, a small businessperson can even get information about potential contracts. Unfortunately, under the contract arrangement, it is impossible to connect to that computer network at the SBDC. Instead, the individual must find the closest export assistance center, and develop a relationship with an entirely different staff, in order to learn what international trade opportunities might be available. The ITDN has proven to be a very successful tool for opening foreign trade markets. In my view, therefore, small businesses in Rhode Island and States across the country stand to benefit greatly from better access to it. Now, my preference would have been to offer this proposal as an amendment to the SBA authorization bill. I understand, however, that the chairman and the members of the committee would like more time to mull over the idea before signing on to it. In that case, I wonder if the chairman would be willing to consider including the SBDC proposal in next year's bill?

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator for his willingness to examine this matter further, and look forward to working with him on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, under the terms of the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996, the liability of a fiduciary cannot exceed the assets held in its fiduciary capacity.

Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would just like to emphasize that this is the second World Scholar Athlete Games that have been held by the Institute of International Sport at URI. The first games were held in 1993, the Institute for International Sport at the University of Rhode Island conducted the World Scholar Athlete Games with 1,600 students from 108 countries and all 50 States participating. Through these games friendships were formed and understanding was developed between boys and girls who would otherwise never have crossed paths. I believe, and I am certain that Senator Pell agrees, that through this form of interaction bridges between diverse populations are built.

Mr. CHAFEE. The second World Scholar Athlete Games will be held during the summer of 1997. Through a partnership between the ``Sister Cities International'' and the Institute for International Sport along with others, 2,200 students from 125 countries are expected to participate. parents as teachers program

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over oil pollution issues, I am pleased to report that S. 1004 contains a number of important improvements to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA. These improvements represent several solid steps forward in our ongoing efforts to prevent oil spills from occurring in our Nation's waters and to better respond to the oil spills that do occur. I convened the Environment and Public Works Committee for a series of hearings to address oil pollution issues earlier this year in response to a number of major oil spills. The spill of greatest interest to me, as you might imagine, happened just off the coast of my home State of Rhode Island on January 19 of this year. It occurred when a tug boat had a fire in rough seas and eventually lost control of the barge it was towing, which was carrying millions of gallons of home heating oil. The sad outcome was that the barge, the North Cape, ran aground and spilled some 800,000 gallons of oil into Block Island Sound. The economic and environmental harm to my State from the spill was extensive. Thousands of lobster carcasses washed up on our shores, hundreds of birds were left dead or severely injured, and many who rely upon the sea for their livelihood in the area were financially hurt, some seriously. The committee held a total of three hearings. The first of these was held in Rhode Island so we could hear and learn from the people most directly affected by the spill. In our hearings we learned that, overall, OPA is working pretty well. The clear consensus of all witnesses who testified during our hearings is that OPA is a valuable piece of legislation that has helped to produce faster and more effective spill responses throughout the last 6 years. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in the Act. On the prevention side, for example, OPA can, and should, be strengthened so that we can avoid having to respond to an oil spill at all. The recent spills have only served to underscore the need for more effective prevention measures. We also learned that our oil spill response capabilities can, and should, be honed. As a result, on May 7, I, along with Senators Lieberman and Lautenberg, introduced S. 1730, the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Improvement Act. Senator Pell also eventually became a cosponsor. As its name implies, the bill has two major purposes: First, to prevent oil spills from occurring; and second, to provide for a more effective response to the oil spills that do occur. On June 20, the Committee on Environment and Public Works voted 17 to 0 to report S. 1730. I am extremely gratified that the majority of the provisions and issues addressed in S. 1730 as reported are contained in the conference report before us today. Let me now explain what these provisions are and the intent underlying them.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the intent here is to ensure that the costs associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir be shared between the non-Federal project sponsor and the Federal Government. The cost of the provision of interim flood protection to the citizens of Sacramento is to be shared.

Mr. CHAFEE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. CHAFEE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the intent here is to include the habitat restoration work as part of the authorized project. Studies which have been completed by the Secretary for the habitat restoration should be put to use. Similarly, appropriations approved by Congress for the project should be made available to avoid unnecessary delay.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would agree with the Senator that the intent of Congress is to compensate these landowners, as necessary, for damages due to the operation of the Garrison Dam using the current fair market fee value of the land. The Secretary shall value the land using current fair market rates as if the land has not been affected by rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding, and would compensate the landowners based on this price assessment. The Secretary should not value this land at the pre-project rate.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Missouri is correct. The project priorities are clear.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the conference report to accompany S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This measure, similar to water resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992, is comprised of water resources project and study authorizations, as well as important policy initiatives, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. S. 640 was introduced on March 28, 1995, and was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee to the full Senate on November 9, 1995. The measure was adopted unanimously by the Senate on July 11, 1996. On July 30 of this year, the House of Representatives adopted its version of the legislation. Since that time, we have worked together with our colleagues from the House of Representatives and the administration to reach bipartisan agreement on a sensible compromise measure. Because of the numerous differences between the Senate- and House-passed bills, completion of this conference report has required countless hours of negotiation. To ensure that the items contained in this legislation are responsive to the Nation's most pressing water infrastructure and environmental needs, we have adhered to a set of criteria established in previous water resources law. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here to discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the conference committee to determine the merit of proposed projects, project studies, and policy directives. On November 17, 1986, almost 10 years ago, under President Reagan, we enacted the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Importantly, the 1986 act marked an end to the 16-year deadlock between Congress and the executive branch regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works Program. In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 act resolved longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps and non-Federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which Federal involvement is appropriate and warranted. The criteria used to develop the legislation before us are consistent with the reforms and procedures established in the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Is a project for flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, or some other purpose cost-shared in a manner consistent with the 1986 act? Have all of the requisite reports and studies on economic, engineering, and environmental feasibility been completed for major projects? Are the projects and policy initiatives consistent with the traditional and appropriate mission of the Army Corps? Should the Federal Government be involved? These, Mr. President, are the fundamental questions that we have applied to the provisions contained in the pending conference report. As I noted at the outset, water resources legislation has been enacted on a biennial basis since 1986, with the exception of 1994. As such, we have a 4-year backlog of projects reviewed by the Army Corps and submitted to Congress for authorization. The measure before us authorizes 33 flood control, environmental restoration, inland navigation, and harbor projects which have received a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers. Fourteen other water resources projects are included for authorization, contingent upon the Congress receiving a favorable Chief's report by December 31 of this year. The estimated Federal cost of this bill is $3.8 billion. I would like to note that almost one-fourth of the cost of this bill, or an estimated $890 million, is specifically dedicated to environmental restoration and protection. In terms of projects, programs and policies, this is far and away the most environmentally significant Water Resources Development Act to have been assembled by the Congress. What are some of the important new policy and program initiatives included in the bill? First, we have included a provision proposed by the administration to clarify the cost-sharing for dredged material disposal associated with the operation and maintenance of harbors. Currently, Federal and non-Federal responsibilities for construction of dredged material disposal facilities vary from project to project, depending on when the project was authorized, and the method or site selected for disposal. For some projects, the costs of providing dredged material disposal facilities are all Federal. For others, the non-Federal sponsor bears the entire cost of constructing disposal facilities. This arrangement is inequitable for numerous ports. In addition, the failure to identify economically and environmentally acceptable disposal options has reduced operations and increased cargo costs in many port cities. Regrettably, this is the case for the Port of Providence in Rhode Island. Under this bill, the costs of constructing dredged material disposal facilities will be shared in accordance with the cost-sharing formulas established for general navigation features by section 101(a) of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act. This would apply to all methods of dredged material disposal including open water, upland and confined. This provision will allow ports like the one in Providence to compete on an equal footing. We have also expanded section 1135 of the 1986 act in this bill. Currently, section 1135 authorizes the Secretary of the Army to review the structure and operation of existing projects for possible modifications--at the project itself--which will improve the quality of the environment. The 1986 act authorizes a $5 million Federal cost- sharing cap for each such project and a $25 million annual cap for the entire program. The revision included here does not increase the existing dollar limits. Instead, it authorizes the Secretary to implement small fish and wildlife habitat restoration projects in cooperation with non- Federal interests in those situations where mitigation is required off of project lands. Third, we have included a provision to shift certain dam safety responsibilities from the Army Corps to the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. This change, proposed by Senator Bond and supported by the two agencies, authorizes a total of $22 million over 5 years for FEMA to conduct dam safety inspections and to provide technical assistance to the States. Next, a provision has been included to address the administration's proposal to discontinue Army Corps involvement in shore protection projects. The provision directs continued beach and shoreline protection, restoration and renourishment activities which are economically justified. I want to credit Senators Mack and Bradley, in particular, for their efforts on this matter. Mr. President, this legislation includes landmark Everglades restoration provisions. On June 11 of this year, the administration submitted its plan to restore and protect the Everglades. The conferees have worked closely with the Florida delegation to modify and improve the administration's proposal to reverse damage done to this critical natural resource. The provision we have agreed to would: expedite the Corps study process for future restoration activities; formally establish the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force; authorize $75 million for the implementation of critical projects through fiscal year 1999; and authorize important modifications to the existing Canal-51 and Canal- 111 projects. Mr. President, I would like to highlight an important cost-sharing reform made necessary by current budget circumstances. The non-Federal share for flood control projects has been increased from the current 25 percent to 35 percent. The fact of the matter is that Corps of Engineers's construction dollars are increasingly scarce. In order to meet the very real flood control needs across the nation, we are forced to require greater participation by non-Federal project sponsors. Importantly, the bill also includes prudent, yet meaningful ability-to-pay eligibility reforms for poor areas. Also provided here is a pilot program to demonstrate the benefits of privatizing the management of wastewater treatment plants through long- term lease arrangements. Over the past 25 years, Congress has made a considerable investment in protecting water quality by working with States and cities to ensure the proper treatment and disinfection of domestic sewage. Federal appropriations exceeding $65 billion under the Clean Water Act and $10 billion through the Department of Agriculture have supported grants and loans for the construction of sewage treatment plants. But in recent years, the flow of funds from the Federal level has slowed while needs at the local level have increased. The most recent survey by EPA indicates that the cost to build and maintain needed sewage collection and treatment facilities across the country exceeds $130 billion. We can't close that gap with Federal tax dollars and local governments are hard-pressed to keep up. One source of funds that remains virtually untapped is private financing and operation of these facilities. Although many cities are receiving their drinking water from privately owned utilities, this is a much rarer occurrence for the ownership and operation of sewage treatment plants. To encourage privatization, as it is sometimes called, President Bush issued an Executive order establishing a Federal policy for the sale of sewage plants now owned by cities to entities in the private sector. A policy change is necessary, because the law now requires that any Federal assistance received to build the plant must be repaid from the proceeds of the sale. The Executive order requires that only the undepreciated value of the grant be repaid. However, sales are not the only means to encourage private investment in these facilities. Another option is a long-term lease. This approach may be more advantageous than a sale because sewage plants that remain in the ownership of municipal government agencies are subject to less stringent pollution control regulations than those that are owned by private entities. There has only been one outright sale under the Executive order, but several communities including Wilmington, DE, and Cranston, RI, are looking at long-term lease arrangements. To encourage this approach, the conference report provides that the requirement to repay grants that applies under the Clean Water Act and the Executive order in the case of a sale would not apply to leases if two conditions are met. First, the municipal agency must retain ownership of the facility. And second, EPA must determine that the lease furthers the purposes and objectives of the Clean Water Act. Our principal aim here is to assure that privatization does not lead to disinvestment. When the Federal Government provided the grant to build the plant, we required the city to collect rates sufficient to maintain the plant and keep it in good working order. The law and the Executive order also require that the consumer charges supporting maintenance and reinvestment be imposed in a fair and reasonable way. The administrator is to look to these and other requirements of the Clean Water Act to ensure that privatization does not undermine the purposes for which the grant and loan programs to finance the construction of sewage treatment plants were first enacted. Mr. President, nothing in this legislation directs EPA to approve any particular lease arrangement. As I have said, the city of Cranston in my home State has developed what I believe to be an excellent proposal. Mayor Traficante is to be commended on the innovative approach that he is taking to hold down the costs of municipal government for the people of his city. Cranston has worked closely with EPA to develop the details of its lease and we very much appreciate the assistance that EPA has provided. There has been a question on whether Cranston would be required to repay part of its grant in the event the lease is completed. This legislation would answer that question, but only if EPA determines that lease arrangement serves the purposes and objectives of the Clean Water Act. Again, Mr. President, in the area of environmental protection, one of the most difficult water quality problems is the discharge of untreated sewage into rivers, lakes, and estuaries from combined sanitary and stormwater sewers. Sewage treatment plants are designed to handle all of the wastewater generated by a community during dry weather periods. But for the 1,200 communities that have systems with connections between the stormwater and domestic sewage pipes, large storm events can overwhelm the capacity of the treatment works and lead to discharges of untreated wastewater. This problem is one of the most significant unresolved issues in water quality today. We have this problem in Rhode Island. The intermittent discharges from our combined sewer overflows have led to closures of swimming beaches and shellfishing beds. Rhode Island is well on the way to correcting the problem, but it will be an expensive undertaking. In fact, the solution--a planned underground tunnel to hold stormwater runoff until it can be treated--is the biggest public construction project ever planned for the State, with expected costs exceeding $450 million. The bill includes an authorization of modest Federal assistance to Rhode Island to solve this problem and to pay for the water quality mandate imposed by the Federal Clean Water Act. Mr. President, this legislation is vitally important for countless States and communities across the country. For economic and life-safety reasons, we must maintain our harbors, ports and inland waterways, flood control levees, shorelines, and the environment. Despite the fact that this package represents a 4-year backlog of project authorizations, it is consistent with the overall funding levels authorized in previous water resources measures. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to just a handful of the many individuals responsible for this important legislation. First, I would like to thank Senators Warner, Smith, Baucus, and Moynihan for their hard work as conferees. Likewise, we could not have reached agreement this year without the efforts of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster, his ranking minority member, Jim Oberstar, Representative Sherwood Boehlert, and their excellent staff. We have worked closely with the administration, Mr. President, and I want to recognize the valuable input of Assistant Secretary Martin Lancaster. Secretary Lancaster and his team, including Deputy Assistant Secretary Mike Davis, Jim Rausch, Gary Campbell, Milton Reider, Bill Schmidtz, John Anderson, Susan Bond, and others have aided us immeasurably. Finally, I want to thank the Senate staff who have worked so hard on this bill. On Senator Baucus's staff, I extend my appreciation to Jo- Ellen Darcy and Tom Sliter. On the Republican side, I want to thank staff members Ann Loomis, Chris Russell, Steve Shimberg, Linda Jordan, Stephanie Brewster, Dan Delich and Senate legislative counsel, Janine Johnson. I again urge the adoption of the conference report and yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

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