John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do now yield back my time, and send a perfecting amendment to the desk.

Mr. CHAFEE. If I could just have 30 seconds to explain the perfecting amendment. What that does is make sure that that population that I was previously discussing, who now or in the future qualify under the present eligibility rules, will continue to be eligible for Medicaid.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield back my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. I understand I am recognized for 15 minutes. Amendment No. 4931 (Purpose: To maintain current eligibility standards for Medicaid and provide additional State flexibility)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday we voted not to reform the Medicaid Program. This is a welfare bill we are on, not a Medicaid bill. We put off any Medicaid reforms, if you would, until another day. Because of the link between welfare eligibility and Medicaid eligibility, this bill will repeal the guarantee--the word I am using is ``guarantee''--it will repeal the guarantee of Medicaid coverage for 1.5 million children age 13 through 18, and 4 million mothers. Mr. President, once again, this is not a Medicaid bill, yet we repeal existing Medicaid guarantees. Under our amendment, the amendment I am presenting, and I send to the desk now on behalf of myself, Senators Breaux, Cohen, Graham, Jeffords, Kerrey of Nebraska, Hatfield, Murray, Snowe, Lieberman, Reid, and Rockefeller.

Mr. CHAFEE. I will use up the remainder of my time. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment, as I understand it, by the Senator from Delaware says that all those individuals who are currently eligible for Medicaid would be eligible in the future even though the eligibility standards might be lowered, and thus if a new person came along, they would not be eligible for Medicaid because the cash assistance payments standard would have been lowered. Mr. President, to me that is a very impractical proposal because what you have to do is get a list of everybody who is currently, I presume, on Medicaid, who meets the eligibility standards, and then I presume that is the permanent list. If somebody comes along who is at the same level, so you have two women side by side, one who qualifies because of the existing standards and another comes along in the future who does not quite get there by whatever date this bill passes and the AFDC standards or the cash assistance standards have then been dropped, this other woman does not qualify, she and her children. She has dependent children. You might say, ``Oh, no, do not worry about those children; they are taken care of under the 100 percent poverty.'' No, they are not. That is very clear--100 percent of poverty only covers those under 13. Next year it will be 14 and 15. But a woman who has a 15-year old child comes along, with the same financial situation as her neighbor, who came in time to qualify and gets it, and the second one does not, that is not very fair. So I hope, Mr. President, when we come to vote on this second-degree amendment, as I understand it and as it has been explained, it will be rejected, and then we can get to the Chafee-Breaux amendment as originally proposed and take care of these individuals who are being knocked off--nonpregnant women and children 13 through 18. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. CHAFEE. I will just take a couple of minutes. Mr. President, it seems to me we have to make up our minds around here. Are we dealing with Medicaid reform or are we not? The ground rules were--what we did in the Finance Committee, we dealt with welfare, we dealt with Medicaid. Then we came to the floor and we dropped off the Medicaid provisions. Now what we are trying to do, it seems to me, in a back-door way, is make very severe changes in Medicaid without us considering it a Medicaid bill. If we are dealing with Medicaid we get into all kind of different things. We get into the Boland amendment and matters we dealt with in the Finance Committee. But that is not the approach. Yes, it was very clear, we are severing the two: Welfare is here, Medicaid is here; we are dropping Medicaid off and sticking with welfare. Yet in one fell swoop here, because of the eligibility standards of AFDC, or cash assistance, Medicaid goes along with it. And you have to be very, very careful then. When you have dropped the major Medicaid portions of the bill, what are you going to do about this group that loses their Medicaid coverage, the ones I am talking about? It does not do any good to say that is all right, we will take care of those on the list now. What about in the future? Are we going to let a State just drop right down on its cash assistance way below the levels they are not permitted to go now--which is May 1, 1988--and then go right down? OK, that is welfare reform. We say if they are 38 percent of poverty on May 1, 1988, if they want to go down to 15 percent of poverty, all right. That is welfare reform. But they should not, the individuals should not lose their Medicaid coverage in those changes. That is the problem with the second-degree amendment that was presented here. We will have a chance to visit more on this, I presume. I do not know what the arrangement is for Tuesday. I suppose we will go right into the votes. Maybe a minute or 2 minutes equally divided and an explanation of some type, as we have done here today. I might say, as you know all, the amendments we voted on today and were debated last evening, all were under an arrangement of no second-degree amendments. Today is different, apparently. So the chairman of the Finance Committee came forward with a second-degree amendment. Mr. President, I would like, on my time, to ask the chairman of the Finance Committee if I am correct in believing that you could end up with a situation where you have two similar individuals, let us say women on welfare currently. Let us just look ahead a year from now. Under this proposal, you could find one individual currently receiving Medicaid coverage and another individual in exactly the same position-- exactly, children the same age, earned income exactly the same, welfare benefits exactly the same. One would be entitled to Medicaid coverage and one would not be, because that second woman is not on the rolls currently? Am I correct in that? I ask the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if I am also correct in suggesting that, under the proposal of the Senator from Delaware, under his second-degree amendment, you could have a situation where the woman is on the rolls now and therefore she is Medicaid eligible. Then suppose she goes off as a result of earnings. Can that individual come back on if her earnings fall below the earnings limitation? Yes, fall below, so she would be eligible once again for cash assistance? Would she get Medicaid?

Mr. CHAFEE. That is not the testimony that we had before the Finance Committee. The testimony we had was very clear that the Medicaid situation is a big factor, not just for the adult, but for the children likewise. It affects people's behavior.

Mr. CHAFEE. What we are talking about here are two different standards. Let's say under current law, somebody is eligible for AFDC. Automatically that individual gets Medicaid. In the welfare reform bill that we have before us, we are saying to the States, ``You're not bound by that May 1988 level. You can go below that, if you want.'' OK, that is fine, we all agree with that. That is what we voted on. But let's say the May 1988 levels were in the State 50 percent of the poverty level, and the State decides, ``We're going to get tougher on welfare eligibility. We're going to make it so you can't get it if you are above 38 percent of the poverty level.'' Under the Roth proposal, he is saying, ``That is right, you drop it down, but if you are currently receiving Medicaid at the 50 percent level, that is all right, forget the 38 percent, you are taken care of.'' What I am saying is that that person who now is covered is going to be very, very reluctant to get off Medicaid and take a job, because that person cannot get back on, according to the information I received from the manager of the bill.

Mr. CHAFEE. I am ready to yield my time back, if the manager of the bill is ready to yield his back.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if we could get some indication, while the managers are here, of what is going to transpire for the remainder of the evening, perhaps tomorrow.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thought this was an amendment they were going to accept.

Mr. CHAFEE. If it is going to be accepted, how much debate is there going to be on the other side? Can you take 10 minutes?

Mr. CHAFEE. May I ask the leader a question, please?

Mr. CHAFEE. I have an amendment which is up near the top of the list. I greatly prefer if I did not have to debate that tonight. I will be perfectly prepared to debate it after we have completed our rollcalls tomorrow.

Mr. CHAFEE. As far as the time agreement, I am perfectly prepared to agree to 30 minutes. I do not know what the Senator from Delaware would say, but I am agreeable to 30 minutes equally divided.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record supplemental budgetary estimates on Calendar Number 466, S. 1730, the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Improvement Act of 1996. Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act requires that a statement of the cost of a reported bill be included in the report. When the Committee on Environment and Public Works filed the report to S. 1730 on June 26, 1996, we included only a portion of the estimated impact of the bill. CBO had not completed the estimated impact at the time of filing. I am pleased to report that the cost statements to be included in today's Record complete the CBO estimate for S. 1730. The estimates follow: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, July 17, 1996. Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed mandate cost statements for S. 1730, the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Improvement Act, as reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 26, 1996. CBO transmitted its estimate of the impact of S. 1730 on the federal budget on June 26, 1996. Enactment of S. 1730 would impose both intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). The costs of the mandates would not exceed the respective $50 million and $100 million annual thresholds. If you wish further details on these estimates, we will be pleased to provide them. Sincerely, James L. Blum (For June E. O'Neill). Congressional Budget Office Estimated Cost of Intergovernmental Mandates, July 17, 1996 1. Bill number: S. 1730. 2. Bill title: The Oil Spill Prevention and Response Improvement Act. 3. Bill status: As reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 26, 1996. 4. Bill purpose: The bill would amend federal law dealing with oil pollution by: imposing new operational, structural, and safety requirements on tanker and towing vessels; allowing more funds to be spent out of the emergency fund of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and limiting the liability of certain tanker vessels that have double hulls and are responsible for oil spills. 5. Intergovernmental mandates contained in bill: Vessel Requirements. The bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to incorporate additional measures in three sets of rules being proposed by the Coast Guard. The rules deal with navigational equipment for towing vessels and operational and structural requirements for tanker vessels that have a single hull and weigh more than 5,000 gross tons. These requirements are intergovernmental mandates because a small fraction of these vessels, less than 2 percent, are owned by state, local, and tribal governments. Under-Keel Clearance. S.1730 would preempt the authority of captains of ports to establish minimum under-keel clearances in their ports by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to establish minimum under-keel clearances for each port. This preemption constitutes an intergovernmental mandate because ports are owned by state and local governments or their subsidiaries. However, this preemption might occur under current law. The Coast Guard is about to issue a final rule regarding structural and operational measures for tanker vessels that have a single hull and weigh more than 5,000 gross tons. The Coast Guard's proposed rule would prohibit vessels with an under-keel clearance of less than 0.5 meters from entering or exiting a port without the approval of the captain of the port. 6. Estimated direct costs of mandates to State, local, and tribal governments: (a) Is the $50 Million Threshold Exceeded? No. (b) Total Direct Costs of Mandates: The new requirements on tanker and towing vessels owned by state, local, or tribal governments would have a negligible effect on their budgets. Preempting the authority of port captains to establish a minimum under-keel clearance for their ports would have no direct impact on the budgets of ports. (c) Estimate of Necessary Budget Authority: Not applicable. 7. Basis of estimate: Vessel Requirements. S. 1730 would modify three rulemakings that the Coast Guard is currently carrying out. If the final rules are not in place by the dates specified in the bill (all of which are in the next six months), S. 1730 would require that the proposed rules be in effect until the final rules are put in place. Based on information provided by the Coast Guard, CBO expects that all the final rules will be in place by the deadlines specified in the bill or by October 1, 1996, the assumed enactment date of the bill. Enactment of S. 1730 should therefore not result in the rules being imposed earlier than they would otherwise be imposed under current law. If the Coast Guard does not meet the deadlines, however, the shipping industry would face about $15 million per month in additional costs because it would have to comply with the proposed rules at an earlier date than would occur under current law. Vessels owned by state, local, and tribal governments would bear a small fraction of these costs. The bill would also require the Coast Guard to add additional requirements to its final rules, such as fire suppression equipment on towing vessels and safety measures for single-hull barges. CBO estimates that the up-front costs for the shipping industry as a whole would be no more than $18 million and annual operational costs would be minimal. Because less than 2 percent of these vessels are owned by state, local, and tribal governments, the cost of these intergovernmental mandates would be negligible. Under-Keel Clearance. Preempting the authority of port captains to establish a minimum under-keel clearance for their ports would have no direct impact on the budgets of ports. Ports could experience indirect costs, however; these costs are discussed below in the section titled ``Other Impacts On State, Local, and Tribal Governments.'' 8. Appropriation or other federal financial assistance provided in bill to cover mandate costs: None. 9. Other impacts on State, local, and tribal governments: Under-Keel Clearance. The current proposed rule for tanker vessels includes a minimum under-keel clearance that would apply uniformly to all ports. Because the shipping industry and port authorities have objected to a national standard, it is unclear whether the final rule will set a minimum under- keel clearance. The bill would settle the dispute by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to establish a separate minimum clearance for each port. CBO has no basis for predicting whether these standards would be more or less stringent than the standards that would be established under current law. If the clearance requirements are less stringent than the requirement under current law, ports would not incur additional costs. If the clearance requirements are more stringent, ports could choose to increase their under-keel clearance and could face additional costs for activities such as dredging in order to avoid losing business to deeper ports. Because the enforceable duty would be imposed on operators of vessels, not on ports, such costs would be considered an indirect effect of a mandate. Spending from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). CBO estimates that federal direct spending from the emergency fund of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) would increase by $40 million (from $20 million to $60 million) in fiscal year 1997 and by $45 million (from $15 million to $60 million) annually thereafter. These increases would result from broadening how the funds can be used and by increasing the overall cap on direct spending from $50 million to $60 million. (Even though the current annual cap is $50 million, we expect that spending from the emergency fund will be between $15 million and $20 million annually under current law.) CBO expects that some of these additional funds would go to the states. States currently have the legal and operational responsibility to cap idle oil wells. This bill would allow emergency funds from the OSLTF to pay for some of these costs, but the states would have to pay at least half. In addition, some of the costs associated with oil spills that are often paid for by states, including the full cost of assessing damages to natural resources and mitigating ecological injuries, would now be an eligible use of OSLTF emergency funds. Limit on Oil Spill Liability. Current law caps the liability of parties who are responsible for oil spills. However, the cap does not apply to cases where federal safety, construction, or operating regulations are violated. S. 1730 would extend the liability cap to these cases if the tanker involved has a double hull. State, local, and tribal governments are often the recipients of awards from liability claims. Because the bill would expand the cases to which the liability cap applies, state, local, and tribal governments may receive smaller awards in future liability cases. 10. Previous CBO estimate: None. 11. Estimate prepared by: John Patterson. 12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I will say to the Senators from Wisconsin that I will give the House Fox River provision my strong consideration in conference, and will continue to work with them to find the most appropriate way to address the pressing contamination problems of the Fox River.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise to join with the Senator from Oregon in expressing my understanding of the vital importance of the Columbia River Channel deepening project. I have also expressed to my colleague my willingness to help keep review of the project moving ahead as swiftly as possible in the years ahead. I will do all that I can to urge the Corps of Engineers to complete its feasibility study on schedule so that Congress can address the merits of this project without any delay. I have given that commitment to my colleagues from Oregon and I am happy to repeat it during this debate today.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider 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 and policy modifications 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. Since that time, additional project and policy requests have been presented to the committee. Some have come from our Senate colleagues-- many have come from the administration. We have carefully reviewed each such request and include those that are consistent with the committee's criteria in the manager's amendment being considered along with S. 640 today. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here to discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the committee to judge project authorization requests. On November 17, 1986, almost 10 years ago, President Reagan 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, 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 a project? Is a project 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 each and every project included here for authorization. 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. Since 1993, the committee has received more than 250 project and study requests totaling an estimated $6.5 billion. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct 32 projects for flood control, port development, inland navigation, storm damage reduction and environmental restoration. The bill also modifies 39 existing Army Corps projects, authorizes 27 project studies, and eliminates portions of 15 projects from consideration for future funding. Also included are other project-specific and general provisions related to Army Corps operations. Among them is a provision to authorize borrowing authority in amounts sufficient to cover the full costs of modernizing the Washington Aqueduct water treatment facility. In total, this bill authorizes an estimated Federal cost of $3.3 billion. Mr. President, S. 640 contains important policy changes. 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 Federal channels. 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 provision, 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. 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 provision included in this bill 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. Also included here is a provision which addresses the administration's proposal to discontinue Army Corps involvement with shore protection projects. The provision amends existing law to specifically include beach protection, restoration and renourishment among shoreline protection activities traditionally performed by the Army Corps. I plan to work with Senators Mack, Bradley, and others to build on this provision as S. 640 advances. Mr. President, this legislation includes Everglades restoration provisions. On June 11 of this year, the administration submitted its proposal to restore and protect the Everglades. While I join Senators Mack, Graham and many others in support of Army Corps efforts to reverse damage done to this important natural resource, I was unable to support certain elements of the administration's proposal. In particular, I am unable to endorse a blanket authorization for future projects needed to restore water flows and water quality. It is not responsible to leap blindly into this important initiative, by authorizing unlimited funding, without knowing what the overall costs will be. Instead, we have provided an expedited process for project development, consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, that will preserve the current momentum for restoration. I look forward to working with the Florida delegation and the administration on this initiative as the bill advances. Finally, Mr. President, let me state clearly that a provision submitted by the administration to modify cost-sharing for the construction of flood control projects has not been included. In summary, the administration has proposed that the current cost- sharing ratio of 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal be changed to an even 50-50 cost-share. This proposal has been made for budgetary reasons. However, we have not been presented with any estimates on resulting budget savings in the outyears. We do not know how much money, if any, this proposal would save in the long run. Moreover, we do not know what impact this cost-sharing change would have on the flood control program. While I support the general notion of increasing non-Federal involvement for these types of projects, I cannot support this significant change to the 1986 act without knowing the long-range effects. 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, our flood control levees and 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 bill.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski for their kind remarks and express my agreement that we should utilize the correct numbers for this and all other projects. As such, I will look favorably upon the necessary modification to this project authorization during conference with the House of Representatives.

Mr. CHAFEE. Indeed. I would, however, like to work carefully with the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Domenici, as his subcommittee had jurisdiction over the original language that mandated the restructuring plan.

Mr. CHAFEE. I have indeed seen a draft of the Army corps restructuring plan. I believe it is true that the restructuring plan involves closure of the North Central Division Office.

Mr. CHAFEE. Indeed, you both have been diligent in that regard. I have been reluctant to include the proposed amendment here because I believe it is a matter better dealt with on the relevant appropriations legislation. It is my understanding, however, that there are plans to include similar language in the House version of the WRDA bill.