John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 148, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Abraham. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. The bill would establish a program to provide financial assistance for projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean. Each autumn, some 5 billion birds from 500 species migrate between their breeding grounds in North America and tropical habitats in the Caribbean, Central and South America. These neotropical migrants--or New World tropical migrants--are birds that migrate between the biogeographic region stretching across Mexico, Central America, much of the Caribbean, and the northern part of South America. The natural challenges facing these migratory birds are profound. These challenges have been exacerbated by human-induced impacts, particularly the continuing loss of habitat in the Caribbean and Latin America. As a result, populations of migratory birds have declined generally in recent years. While there are numerous efforts underway to protect these species and their habitat, they generally focus on specific groups of migratory birds or specific regions in the Americas. One program that stands out for its success is Partners in Flight, administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Started in 1990, this program has raised more than $41 million for 480 projects for migratory bird conservation in the United States and Latin America. The program established by S. 148 is intended to support and bolster these existing efforts. It does so by creating a comprehensive program to address the varied threats facing the numerous species of migratory birds across their range. Frequently there is little, if any, coordination among existing programs, nor is there any one program that serves as a link among them. A broader, more holistic approach would strengthen existing efforts, fill the gaps between these programs, and promote new initiatives. I do not intend that this program would supplant or supersede existing efforts, nor do I expect that Federal funds for implementing S. 148 be diverted from funds going to these existing efforts. New money should go to this new program to assist neotropical migratory birds in new ways. S. 148 is identical to a bill that was approved by the Senate last year, S. 1970, but was never passed by the House. The bill is based on bipartisan negotiations with the sponsors of the bill, the House Resources Committee, the administration, and the EPW Committee. Numerous groups, including conservation groups and the forest products industry, have supported this bill. The bill allows for the Secretary to establish an advisory group, and I urge that the Secretary do so. The success of this initiative will depend on close collaboration with public and private organizations involved in the conservation of migratory birds. I am very pleased with the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it, and urge its speedy enactment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to restore funding to a program that has been dormant for too long, a program that could provide vital funding to assist small municipalities in conserving their resources. I rise today to offer an amendment to provide $200 million for funding the State-side program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bob Smith, Feingold, Leahy, Jeffords, Moynihan, Roth, Allard, Collins, and Snowe in sponsoring this amendment. The LWCF was started in 1964 to provide funds for land and water conservation through two programs: Federal land acquisitions, and Federal cost-sharing of State conservation and recreation projects. Moneys for the LWCF are derived from revenues obtained through oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. These revenues amount to $4 billion to $5 billion annually, which go into the General Treasury. Of this amount, $900 million is authorized to go specifically to LWCF. However, in recent years, only about $300 million to $350 million has been appropriated for LWCF, and since 1995, funding for the State-side program has been entirely eliminated. The principle behind the LWCF is a simple but noble one: to reinvest the revenues earned from the depletion of offshore oil and gas resources to the conservation of other natural resources. Unfortunately, the promise of the LWCF has never been fully realized because of sporadic funding. Many opportunities to conserve precious lands and to work with our State and local partners have been lost. People across the country are realizing that they cannot afford to lose more opportunities to protect the lands they consider important. The elections of November 1998 underscored the groundswell of support for these efforts. Voters approved more than 200 State and local ballot initiatives--70 percent of the total initiatives offered--to commit $7 billion for conservation and related activities. Congress should play a role in supporting these efforts, and the LWCF was created 35 years ago precisely for this purpose. The two components of the Fund--Federal acquisitions and State-side conservation--provide a perfect complement to one another in a comprehensive package. Just two weeks ago, I spearheaded efforts to encourage 37 of my Senate colleagues to cosign a letter to the Budget Committee supporting full funding for the LWCF. The State-side program, however, deserves specific attention. It is a grants program, that requires States to contribute 50 percent of the total cost of projects they wish to fund. The Federal Government matches the other 50 percent. States must prepare a comprehensive plan in order to be eligible for the funding, and they receive funds through an allocation formula. In short, the State-side program is a cost- sharing grants program, based on sound planning, with an apolitical distribution formula. What could be better? And yet Congress has not funded it since 1995. One reason it has not been funded has been a question of priorities among a long list of conservation needs. Federal land acquisition; operations and maintenance of Federal lands; and assistance to States are all important. Indeed, Mr. President, the Budget Committee explicitly recognizes this in its report for S. Con. Res. 20. However, the State-side program has suffered too long by being completely without funds. It is high time we restore some funding to this program, while recognizing that other needs still exist. My amendment does just that. In order to increase the LWCF by $200 million, of course, we need to find an offset with equivalent budget authority and outlays. This is never an easy task, but my amendment takes the funds from Function 370, relating to Commerce and Housing Credit. I believe that there are several programs within that function that can be cut to provide $200 million for LWCF. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I believe that I have 236. I believe that has been cleared.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Feinstein in introducing the Family Planning State Flexibility Act, legislation to give states the option to expand their family planning coverage under Medicaid. Family planning reduces the rate of unintended pregnancies and abortions by providing women with the knowledge and supplies necessary to time their pregnancies to protect their health and the health of their children. The importance of family planning is clear. According to a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine women who wait 18 to 23 months after delivery before conceiving their next child lower the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, including low birth weight, pre-term birth and small size for gestational age. In addition, women who wait less than six months between pregnancies are 40% more likely to have premature newborns and 30% to 40% more likely to have small babies. In addition to improving health outcomes for childbearing women and their children, family planning is cost effective. Studies have found that for every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $3 are saved in pregnancy and other related costs. This is particularly important for the Medicaid Program, which currently pays for 38% of all births in this country. Recognizing that family planning is a vital service to women, a 1972 amendment to the Medicaid statute mandated inclusion of family planning services and supplies to women who are eligible for the program. Each state is free to determine the specific services and supplies provided. It is important to note that abortions are not considered a family planner service. Congress further noted the importance of family planning services by requiring the federal government to reimburse states for 90% of their family planning expenditures. Eligible women are either those with children who have income below a threshold set by the state or those who are pregnant and have incomes up to 133% of poverty. States currently have the option to raise the income limit for pregnant women to 185% of poverty. Women who qualify for Medicaid due to pregnancy are currently eligible for family planning services for six months after delivery. Recognizing the importance of family planning beyond the six month post-partum period, many states have applied for waivers to extend their coverage period or to include additional groups of women in the program. Thirteen states are currently operating under family planning waivers. Unfortunately, the waiver process can be extremely cumbersome and time consuming, which may discourage states from applying. Our bill would allow states to expand their family planning coverage to women who earn up to 185% of poverty without having to spend the time and resources going through the waiver application process. States which are currently operating under waivers allowing for coverage of women who have higher incomes would continue using their current limit. Family planning reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions, improves the health of women and their children, reduces welfare dependency and is cost effective. I am very proud of this legislation which would provide these vital services to increased numbers of low-income women. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation and a congressional rationale be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I reiterate some of the points that the Senator from Montana just made. I don't think anybody will dispute this. The facts are as follows: In last year's Interior appropriations bill, there was a provision prohibiting the Secretary of Interior from promulgating regulations affecting commercial or subsistence fishing in Glacier Bay. As the Senator from Montana said, first of all, the Department of Interior found that provision objectionable in the appropriations bill, so they worked out with the senior Senator from Alaska a compromise that was included in the omnibus appropriations bill. In other words, this is ``deja vu all over again.'' We have been down this road. We reached a compromise, a compromise between Alaska and the Department of Interior. I really have great difficulty understanding why we are revisiting this 6 months later. I guess it isn't quite 6 months. What did the compromise do? It required the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Alaska to develop a management plan, and the Senator from Montana has just referred to that. The management plan would allow commercial fishing in the waters outside Glacier Bay and it would regulate a closed fishery within the bay. The compromise consists of this management plan. They are going to work on it together. In addition, shortly after that, in the supplemental appropriations bill, there is an increase in compensation to the fishermen as a result of the compromise. In other words, the fishermen are receiving more money as a result of the compromise--the Federal Government is paying out money. We are doing our part of the bargain. I hope that the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, will not press this amendment. There is, as I say, the groundwork for a management plan and the State of Alaska has filed notice of an intent to sue within the past 2 weeks. They are in that suit; they are going to claim ownership over the submerged lands. If they don't like the management plan that they work out, then they can go back to their suit. But I don't think we ought to be here debating this all over again just after we reopen everything. Can't we arrive at any conclusions around this place? As I say, less than 6 months ago a deal was reached with the senior Senator from Alaska. My question to the chairman of the Energy Committee is, Why don't we stick with that agreement? Indeed, as I mentioned before, the Alaska fishermen have benefited from it because there have been payments to them pursuant to the compromise that was worked out. Let me say I can totally understand the enthusiasm of the Senator from Alaska to get more. We all like more. It seems to me at some point we have to reach closure on these things. Indeed, as both of us have mentioned and referred to the compromise that seemed to settle this, the issues were exactly the same.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in last year's appropriations bill, there was language that went beyond the crabbers. It included a provision prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating regulations affecting commercial or subsistence fishing. So that was the provision in last year's bill. The Department of the Interior found those, as I mentioned, provisions objectionable, so they worked out a compromise. The compromise was meant to cover the entire rider that was involved. It wasn't meant to settle the deal.

Mr. CHAFEE. Which amendment?

Mr. CHAFEE. In other words, you exclude them?

Mr. CHAFEE. There may not be provisions for remuneration, but the provisions that you originally had last year in your rider were encompassed within the deal with Senator Stevens, and so the matter was settled as far as everybody goes, plus the admonition--I guess you can call it that--that they would reach this management plan--I don't know what has become of that--but also the State of Alaska proceeded to file suit in this thing anyway. So it seems to me that what you are proposing here is to undo something that was agreed to last year--not just in connection with the crabbers, which you mentioned, but with the total package that you had in your rider last year. And so it was settled, it seemed to me. That is all I have to say.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the resolution. I believe the danger of inaction--of doing nothing--greatly exceeds the dangers of action. What are the dangers of inaction? There are three, in my judgment. First, disintegration of instability in a key part of Europe. Second, the acceleration of existing humanitarian catastrophes, which we have all seen. Third, the unloosening of bombs that tie us to NATO, bombs that cannot easily be renewed in the days ahead when the need for NATO cooperation will be ever greater than it now is. So, for these three reasons, the dangers of inaction, I hope the resolution will be supported. I thank the leader.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Arkansas regarding the possibility of China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, I do not believe his amendment is warranted, and urge the Senate to reject it. The issue before us is the accession of China into the WTO. There is no question that China's accession into the world trading system carries important ramifications--not only for their economy, but for ours (and indeed, for those of all other WTO nations). Today, China is the world's third largest economy after the US and Japan, and the world's eleventh largest trading nation. US-China trade alone is more than $80 billion. Clearly, because of these facts, we have much to gain by bringing China into the world trading system and subjecting her to the WTO rules and regulations. At the same time, we understand that bringing China into the system also will mean some changes for our own industries. However, as long as China is brought in according to appropriate terms and conditions, I believe we have far more to gain than to lose. The China WTO accession negotiations have dragged on for 13 years now. Much of the delay is related to the periodic changes of mind by the Chinese government as to whether they really want to join or not. After all, it will mean enormous changes for them as well. At the moment, the Chinese appear very interested in concluding their accession. I believe we should take this opportunity to see what might be accomplished. That said, the United States has said repeatedly that China may enter only--and I stress, only--on ``commercially meaningful'' terms. Despite the current Chinese enthusiasm for the negotiations, if it does not lead to a ``commercially meaningful'' agreement, then the administration cannot accept it. That is a crystal clear fact. We in Congress has made clear that an agreement that is not ``commercially meaningful'' is unacceptable. USTR, Treasury, the State Department, and USDA know this. They fully understand that they will have one chance, and one chance only, to present us with an agreement. All the Chinese enthusiasm in the world cannot change that fact. Thus, I believe that the administration will not--and indeed cannot--bring home an accession agreement that does not meet those terms. The amendment before us would have Congress vote on the accession of China. Yet that is not the process that we follow for accession of new WTO members. Since 1995, 12 countries have joined the WTO. Congress has not voted on any of them. This would be a bad precedent to send. It would open a whole hornet's nest of votes on China's policies, trade or otherwise. And, given that the administration knows that a bad deal will not pass muster here, I would argue that it's just not necessary. I say to my colleagues: let's let the experts do their job. They have their guidance from Congress. The USTR team, led by our experienced and tough Special Representative Charlene Barshefsky, have been working on China accession for years, and know the issues inside out. I am confident that they won't--indeed, can't--let us down.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am curious to know what amendments might be coming up. Is there a list available we can look at? Obviously, they are not all going to be approved. It is my understanding, from what the manager said, if any amendment is objected to, then he will include that amendment in those to be tabled by voice vote?

Mr. CHAFEE. Should we wait around here?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will provide life-saving treatment to women who have been diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. I am very proud of this legislation and want to thank everyone who worked so hard to put this bill together. I want to take just a few minutes to explain what this legislation does. In 1990 Congress created a program, run by the Centers for Disease Control, to provide breast and cervical cancer screening for low- income, uninsured women. This program is run in all 50 states and is tremendously successful. The CDC screens more than 500,000 women ever year, detecting more than 3,000 cases of breast cancer and 350 cases of cervical cancer. The problem comes about when these women try to get treatment for the cancer. They are uninsured, and are not eligible for either Medicaid or Medicare. They must rely on volunteers and charitable providers to find treatment services. Treatment for many is delayed, and many do not receive the crucial follow-up care. Some never receive treatment and others are left with huge medical bills they cannot pay. The legislation we are introducing today provides a simple solution to this problem. It gives states the option to provide those women, many of whom are mothers of young children, who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer under the CDC's screening program to obtain treatment through the medicaid program. The coverage would continue until the treatment and follow-up visits are completed. This is a modest, low-cost solution to a life or death problem. It costs less than $60 million per year to provide this critical treatment. I hope very much that we will be able to pass this bill this year. I ask that the legislation be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, all across America, in the small towns and great cities of this country, our heritage as a nation--the physical evidence of our past--is at risk. In virtually every corner of this land, homes in which grandparents and parents grew up, communities and neighborhoods that nurtured vibrant families, schools that were good places to learn and churches and synagogues that were filled on days of prayer, have suffered the ravages of abandonment and decay. In the decade from 1980 to 1990, Chicago lost 41,000 housing units through abandonment, Philadelphia 10,000 and St. Louis 7,000. The story in our older small communities has been the same, and the trend continues. It is important to understand that it is not just buildings that we are losing. It is the sense of our past, the vitality of our communities and the shared values of those precious places. We need not stand hopelessly by as passive witnesses to the loss of these irreplaceable historic resources. We can act, and to that end I am introducing today the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Breaux. This legislation is patterned after the existing Historic Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit. That legislation has been enormously successful in stimulating private investment in the rehabilitation of buildings of historic importance all across the country. Through its use we have been able to save and re-use a rich and diverse array of historic buildings: landmarks such as Union Station right here in Washington, DC, the Fox River Mills, a mixed use project that was once a derelict paper mill in Appleton, WI, and the Rosa True School, an eight-unit low and moderate income rental project in an historic school building in Portland, ME. In my own state of Rhode Island, federal tax incentives stimulated the rehabilitation and commercial reuse of more than three hundred historic properties. The properties saved include the Hotel Manisses on Block Island, the former Valley Falls Mills complex in Central Falls, and the Honan Block in Woonsocket. The legislation that I am introducing builds on the familiar structure of the existing tax credit, but with a different focus and a more modest scope and cost. It is designed to empower the one major constituency that has been barred from using the existing credit-- homeowners. Only those persons who rehabilitate or purchase a newly rehabilitated home and occupy it as their principal residence would be entitled to this new credit. There would be no passive losses, no tax shelters and no syndications under this bill. Like the existing investment credit, the bill would provide a credit to homeowners equal to 20 percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures made on an eligible building which is used as a principal residence by the owner. Eligible buildings are those individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or on a nationally certified state or local historic register, or are contributing buildings in national, state or local historic districts. As is the case with the existing credit, the rehabilitation work would have to be performed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, although the bill clarifies that such Standards should be interpreted in a manner that takes into consideration economic and technical feasibility. The bill also allows lower income homebuyers, who may not have sufficient federal income tax liability to use a tax credit, to convert the credit to mortgage assistance. The legislation would permit such persons to receive an Historic Rehabilitation Mortgage Credit Certificate which they can use with their work bank to obtain a lower interest rate on their mortgage or to lower the amount of their downpayment. The credit would be available for condominiums and coops, as well as single-family buildings. If a building is rehabilitated by a developer for resale, the credit would pass through to the homeowner. One goal of the bill is to provide incentives for middle- and upper- income families to return to older towns and cities. Therefore, the bill does not limit the tax benefits on the basis of income. However, it does impose a cap of $40,000 on the amount of credit which may be taken for a principal residence. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will make ownership of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for homebuyers of modest incomes. It will encourage more affluent families to claim a stake in older towns and neighborhoods. It affords fiscally stressed cities and towns a way to put abandoned buildings back on the tax rolls, while strengthening their income and sales tax bases. It offers developers, realtors, and homebuilders a new realm of economic opportunity in revitalizing decaying buildings. In addition to preserving our heritage, extending this credit will provide an important supplemental benefit--it will boost the economy. Every dollar of federal investment in historic rehabilitation leverages many more from the private sector. Rhode Island, for example, has used the credit to leverage $252 million in private investment. This investment has created more than 10,000 jobs and $187 million in wages. An increasing concern to many mayors, country executives and governors is the issue of urban sprawl. Wherein new housing is constructed on nearby farmland, older housing stock is abandoned. This legislation encourages the rehabilitation of that housing stock and will help curb urban sprawl. The American dream of owning one's own home is a powerful force. This bill can help it come true for those who are prepared to make a personal commitment to join in the rescue of our priceless heritage. By their actions they can help to revitalize decaying resources of historic importance, create jobs and stimulate economic development, and restore to our older towns and cities a lost sense of purpose and community. I ask that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record. The summary follows: The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act--Summary Purpose. To provide homeownership incentives and opportunities through the rehabilitation of older buildings in historic districts. Rate of Credit. 20% credit for expenditures to rehabilitate or purchase a newly-rehabilitated eligible home and occupy it as a principal residence. Eligible Buildings. Eligible buildings would be buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a nationally certified state or local register, and contributing buildings in national, state or local historic districts. Maximum Credit: Minimum Expenditures. The amount of the credit would be limited to $40,000 for each principal residence. The amount of qualified rehabilitation expenditures would be required to exceed the greater of $5,000 or the adjusted tax basis of the building (excluding the land). At least five percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures would have to be spent on the exterior of the building. Carry-Forward: Recapture. Any unused amounts of credit would be carried forward until fully exhausted. In the event the taxpayer failed to maintain his or her principal residence in the building for five years, the credit would be subject to ratable recapture. Historic Rehabilitation Mortgage Credit Certificates. Lower income taxpayers, who may not have sufficient Federal Income Tax liability to make effective use of a homeownership credit would be able to convert the credit into a mortgage credit certificate which can be used to obtain an interest rate reduction on his or her home mortgage loan. For homes purchased in distressed areas, the credit certificate could be used to lower an individual's downpayment. In many distressed neighborhoods, the cost of rehabilitating a home and bringing it to market significantly exceeds the value at which the property is appraised by the mortgage lender. This gap imposes a significant burden on a potential homeowner because the required downpayment exceeds his or her means. The legislation permits the mortgage credit certificate to be used to reduce the buyer's down payment, rather than to reduce the interest rate, in order to close this gap. This provision is limited to historic districts which qualify as targeted under the existing Mortgage Revenue Bond program or are located in enterprise or empowerment zones.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will provide life-saving treatment to women who have been diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. I am very proud of this legislation and want to thank everyone who worked so hard to put this bill together. I want to take just a few minutes to explain what this legislation does. In 1990 Congress created a program, run by the Centers for Disease Control, to provide breast and cervical cancer screening for low- income, uninsured women. This program is run in all 50 states and is tremendously successful. The CDC screens more than 500,000 women ever year, detecting more than 3,000 cases of breast cancer and 350 cases of cervical cancer. The problem comes about when these women try to get treatment for the cancer. They are uninsured, and are not eligible for either Medicaid or Medicare. They must rely on volunteers and charitable providers to find treatment services. Treatment for many is delayed, and many do not receive the crucial follow-up care. Some never receive treatment and others are left with huge medical bills they cannot pay. The legislation we are introducing today provides a simple solution to this problem. It gives states the option to provide those women, many of whom are mothers of young children, who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer under the CDC's screening program to obtain treatment through the medicaid program. The coverage would continue until the treatment and follow-up visits are completed. This is a modest, low-cost solution to a life or death problem. It costs less than $60 million per year to provide this critical treatment. I hope very much that we will be able to pass this bill this year. I ask that the legislation be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, all across America, in the small towns and great cities of this country, our heritage as a nation--the physical evidence of our past--is at risk. In virtually every corner of this land, homes in which grandparents and parents grew up, communities and neighborhoods that nurtured vibrant families, schools that were good places to learn and churches and synagogues that were filled on days of prayer, have suffered the ravages of abandonment and decay. In the decade from 1980 to 1990, Chicago lost 41,000 housing units through abandonment, Philadelphia 10,000 and St. Louis 7,000. The story in our older small communities has been the same, and the trend continues. It is important to understand that it is not just buildings that we are losing. It is the sense of our past, the vitality of our communities and the shared values of those precious places. We need not stand hopelessly by as passive witnesses to the loss of these irreplaceable historic resources. We can act, and to that end I am introducing today the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Breaux. This legislation is patterned after the existing Historic Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit. That legislation has been enormously successful in stimulating private investment in the rehabilitation of buildings of historic importance all across the country. Through its use we have been able to save and re-use a rich and diverse array of historic buildings: landmarks such as Union Station right here in Washington, DC, the Fox River Mills, a mixed use project that was once a derelict paper mill in Appleton, WI, and the Rosa True School, an eight-unit low and moderate income rental project in an historic school building in Portland, ME. In my own state of Rhode Island, federal tax incentives stimulated the rehabilitation and commercial reuse of more than three hundred historic properties. The properties saved include the Hotel Manisses on Block Island, the former Valley Falls Mills complex in Central Falls, and the Honan Block in Woonsocket. The legislation that I am introducing builds on the familiar structure of the existing tax credit, but with a different focus and a more modest scope and cost. It is designed to empower the one major constituency that has been barred from using the existing credit-- homeowners. Only those persons who rehabilitate or purchase a newly rehabilitated home and occupy it as their principal residence would be entitled to this new credit. There would be no passive losses, no tax shelters and no syndications under this bill. Like the existing investment credit, the bill would provide a credit to homeowners equal to 20 percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures made on an eligible building which is used as a principal residence by the owner. Eligible buildings are those individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or on a nationally certified state or local historic register, or are contributing buildings in national, state or local historic districts. As is the case with the existing credit, the rehabilitation work would have to be performed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, although the bill clarifies that such Standards should be interpreted in a manner that takes into consideration economic and technical feasibility. The bill also allows lower income homebuyers, who may not have sufficient federal income tax liability to use a tax credit, to convert the credit to mortgage assistance. The legislation would permit such persons to receive an Historic Rehabilitation Mortgage Credit Certificate which they can use with their work bank to obtain a lower interest rate on their mortgage or to lower the amount of their downpayment. The credit would be available for condominiums and coops, as well as single-family buildings. If a building is rehabilitated by a developer for resale, the credit would pass through to the homeowner. One goal of the bill is to provide incentives for middle- and upper- income families to return to older towns and cities. Therefore, the bill does not limit the tax benefits on the basis of income. However, it does impose a cap of $40,000 on the amount of credit which may be taken for a principal residence. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will make ownership of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for homebuyers of modest incomes. It will encourage more affluent families to claim a stake in older towns and neighborhoods. It affords fiscally stressed cities and towns a way to put abandoned buildings back on the tax rolls, while strengthening their income and sales tax bases. It offers developers, realtors, and homebuilders a new realm of economic opportunity in revitalizing decaying buildings. In addition to preserving our heritage, extending this credit will provide an important supplemental benefit--it will boost the economy. Every dollar of federal investment in historic rehabilitation leverages many more from the private sector. Rhode Island, for example, has used the credit to leverage $252 million in private investment. This investment has created more than 10,000 jobs and $187 million in wages. An increasing concern to many mayors, country executives and governors is the issue of urban sprawl. Wherein new housing is constructed on nearby farmland, older housing stock is abandoned. This legislation encourages the rehabilitation of that housing stock and will help curb urban sprawl. The American dream of owning one's own home is a powerful force. This bill can help it come true for those who are prepared to make a personal commitment to join in the rescue of our priceless heritage. By their actions they can help to revitalize decaying resources of historic importance, create jobs and stimulate economic development, and restore to our older towns and cities a lost sense of purpose and community. I ask that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record. The summary follows: The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act--Summary Purpose. To provide homeownership incentives and opportunities through the rehabilitation of older buildings in historic districts. Rate of Credit. 20% credit for expenditures to rehabilitate or purchase a newly-rehabilitated eligible home and occupy it as a principal residence. Eligible Buildings. Eligible buildings would be buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a nationally certified state or local register, and contributing buildings in national, state or local historic districts. Maximum Credit: Minimum Expenditures. The amount of the credit would be limited to $40,000 for each principal residence. The amount of qualified rehabilitation expenditures would be required to exceed the greater of $5,000 or the adjusted tax basis of the building (excluding the land). At least five percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures would have to be spent on the exterior of the building. Carry-Forward: Recapture. Any unused amounts of credit would be carried forward until fully exhausted. In the event the taxpayer failed to maintain his or her principal residence in the building for five years, the credit would be subject to ratable recapture. Historic Rehabilitation Mortgage Credit Certificates. Lower income taxpayers, who may not have sufficient Federal Income Tax liability to make effective use of a homeownership credit would be able to convert the credit into a mortgage credit certificate which can be used to obtain an interest rate reduction on his or her home mortgage loan. For homes purchased in distressed areas, the credit certificate could be used to lower an individual's downpayment. In many distressed neighborhoods, the cost of rehabilitating a home and bringing it to market significantly exceeds the value at which the property is appraised by the mortgage lender. This gap imposes a significant burden on a potential homeowner because the required downpayment exceeds his or her means. The legislation permits the mortgage credit certificate to be used to reduce the buyer's down payment, rather than to reduce the interest rate, in order to close this gap. This provision is limited to historic districts which qualify as targeted under the existing Mortgage Revenue Bond program or are located in enterprise or empowerment zones.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Daschle and Edwards and the other cosponsors of this resolution commending our friend and colleague Bob Kerrey on the 30th anniversary of the events giving rise to his receiving the Medal of Honor. During my tenure as Secretary of the Navy, I had the honor and privilege of working with a great many brave men and women--citizens of all stripes who were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to serve their country. One especially courageous naval officer was Lieutenant (j.g.) Joseph Robert Kerrey. Thirty years ago last Sunday in Vietnam, Bob Kerrey lead a SEAL team mission aimed at capturing certain Viet Cong leaders. While leading this dangerous mission, he was badly wounded as a grenade exploded at his feet. Despite suffering massive injuries from this explosion and being in a state of near-unconsciousness, Lieutenant Kerrey did not give up. He continued to lead his men, ordering them to secure and defend an extraction site. For his heroism in combat, Lieutenant Kerrey was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. And just what is this award? It is the highest award for valor in action that can be bestowed upon a member of the armed forces. The Medal of Honor was created in the days of the Civil War through legislation sponsored by Senator James Grimes, chairman of the Senate Naval Committee, with the support of Navy Secretary Gideon Wells and President Abraham Lincoln. At that time, although serving in the military was required of all men, it had become clear that some servicemembers went ``above and beyond the call of duty.'' So, the first two hundred medals were presented to those who distinguished themselves in the Civil War by their gallantry in action and other qualities. Less than thirty-five hundred medals have been authorized to date, and just 158 are living today. One of those 158 living recipients is a colleague of ours here in the Senate--a colleague I will surely miss upon my retirement. I think all Senators, and indeed all Americans, ought to take this moment to recognize Bob Kerrey's heroic action on that day in 1969, when he displayed immense bravery in the face of overwhelming adversity. Today--thirty years later--Bob Kerrey continues to exhibit the kind of dedication and honor that earned him the Medal of Honor. Just one example of Senator Kerrey's distinction as a Senator is the countless hours he had devoted to curbing the politically popular entitlement programs that have contributed so greatly to our staggering national debt. Taking on this issue isn't the easiest thing for an elected official to do--it is a task fraught with political danger. But Bob Kerrey knows that it's the right thing to do for our nation, and that is why he continues to persevere. My colleagues here today will provide numerous other examples of Bob Kerry's accomplishments as a U.S. Senator. Given his heroism during my tenure as Navy Secretary, these accomplishments come as no surprise. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, and thank Senators Daschle and Edwards for their leadership in bringing it to the Senate floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Caring for Children Act, legislation to help all families with their child care needs. I want to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to put this bill together. Senator Hatch, who was a leader in the development of the child care block grant, and is always a stalwart supporter of children. Senator Snowe, who has worked on this issue for many years. Senator Roberts, who has taken an active interest in this issue. Senator Specter, who made an enormous contribution to the development of this bill. And Senators Susan Collins and Thad Cochran, who we are very fortunate to have on our child care proposal. Our proposal is straightforward and far-reaching. It makes the current child care credit more equitable for lower and middle income families. And, for the first time, makes the credit available to families where one parent stays at home to care for the children. That is a critical step and an important change for families across America. Raising children in today's world is a true challenge. In many families, both parents must work in order to support the family. Often, the child care expenses consume all or most of one parent's income. How often do we hear the refrain, particularly from women, that after they pay for day care, there is little or nothing left of their wages. Another common complaint is from parents who desperately want to stay home and raise their children themselves--especially in those very critical, early years of childhood--but who simply cannot afford to forgo that second income. The legislation we are introducing today responds to both of these concerns. We believe that parents should make their own decisions about who is going to care for their children. The government and the Tax Code should not be promoting one choice over another. By making more of the existing child care tax credit available to lower and middle income families, and making it available also to families where one parent stays at home, we are sending the message that the choice is yours, and we support your choice. Our bill makes several changes to the existing dependent care tax credit. First, the maximum credit percentage is increased from 30 percent to 50 percent to provide more benefits to those most in need. Second, the income level at which the maximum credit begins to be reduced is moved from $10,000 to $30,000, so that more lower-income families will qualify for the maximum amount of assistance. Third, we propose to completely phase out the credit for wealthier families. Finally, families where one spouse stays at home to care for the children will be eligible for a credit similar to the one they would receive if both parents were working outside the home and the child was in daycare. We also acknowledge that we cannot solve the entire child care problem through the Tax Code alone. Many low-income families do not have taxable income, and therefore cannot benefit from a tax credit. The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides critical funding to help these lower-income families--and I have been a strong supporter of the program. Recognizing the critical role CCDBG plays in subsidizing daycare for low-income families in the states, our proposal doubles the block grant over a five-year period. Of course, the problem with child care is not limited to just affordability. Many parents cannot find an available child care slot. Our proposal addresses this issue of accessibility by providing a tax credit to businesses to build or renovate on or near-site child care centers for their employees. Finally, there is the issue of quality daycare. Parents cannot be productive in the workplace if they are constantly worrying about the health and safety of their children in daycare. We have all read the horrifying stories in the newspapers about daycare facilities that are unsafe or unsanitary, about the poor record of enforcement of standards in many states. While we acknowledge that the federal government should not be setting standards for daycare providers, we do believe the states should set at least minimum health and safety standards and enforce them rigorously. Our legislation beefs up this enforcement by rewarding states with a good enforcement record and penalizing those with poor records. I am very proud of this legislation, and proud that this group was able to come together and produce this initiative. Child care is a problem that must be solved, and we are committed to doing that. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to find workable, affordable solutions for all families. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Caring for Children Act, legislation to help all families with their child care needs. I want to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to put this bill together. Senator Hatch, who was a leader in the development of the child care block grant, and is always a stalwart supporter of children. Senator Snowe, who has worked on this issue for many years. Senator Roberts, who has taken an active interest in this issue. Senator Specter, who made an enormous contribution to the development of this bill. And Senators Susan Collins and Thad Cochran, who we are very fortunate to have on our child care proposal. Our proposal is straightforward and far-reaching. It makes the current child care credit more equitable for lower and middle income families. And, for the first time, makes the credit available to families where one parent stays at home to care for the children. That is a critical step and an important change for families across America. Raising children in today's world is a true challenge. In many families, both parents must work in order to support the family. Often, the child care expenses consume all or most of one parent's income. How often do we hear the refrain, particularly from women, that after they pay for day care, there is little or nothing left of their wages. Another common complaint is from parents who desperately want to stay home and raise their children themselves--especially in those very critical, early years of childhood--but who simply cannot afford to forgo that second income. The legislation we are introducing today responds to both of these concerns. We believe that parents should make their own decisions about who is going to care for their children. The government and the Tax Code should not be promoting one choice over another. By making more of the existing child care tax credit available to lower and middle income families, and making it available also to families where one parent stays at home, we are sending the message that the choice is yours, and we support your choice. Our bill makes several changes to the existing dependent care tax credit. First, the maximum credit percentage is increased from 30 percent to 50 percent to provide more benefits to those most in need. Second, the income level at which the maximum credit begins to be reduced is moved from $10,000 to $30,000, so that more lower-income families will qualify for the maximum amount of assistance. Third, we propose to completely phase out the credit for wealthier families. Finally, families where one spouse stays at home to care for the children will be eligible for a credit similar to the one they would receive if both parents were working outside the home and the child was in daycare. We also acknowledge that we cannot solve the entire child care problem through the Tax Code alone. Many low-income families do not have taxable income, and therefore cannot benefit from a tax credit. The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides critical funding to help these lower-income families--and I have been a strong supporter of the program. Recognizing the critical role CCDBG plays in subsidizing daycare for low-income families in the states, our proposal doubles the block grant over a five-year period. Of course, the problem with child care is not limited to just affordability. Many parents cannot find an available child care slot. Our proposal addresses this issue of accessibility by providing a tax credit to businesses to build or renovate on or near-site child care centers for their employees. Finally, there is the issue of quality daycare. Parents cannot be productive in the workplace if they are constantly worrying about the health and safety of their children in daycare. We have all read the horrifying stories in the newspapers about daycare facilities that are unsafe or unsanitary, about the poor record of enforcement of standards in many states. While we acknowledge that the federal government should not be setting standards for daycare providers, we do believe the states should set at least minimum health and safety standards and enforce them rigorously. Our legislation beefs up this enforcement by rewarding states with a good enforcement record and penalizing those with poor records. I am very proud of this legislation, and proud that this group was able to come together and produce this initiative. Child care is a problem that must be solved, and we are committed to doing that. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to find workable, affordable solutions for all families. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, at the administration's request, I am introducing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999. This bill is designed to promote pre-disaster mitigation and streamline the operations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Last year, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has oversight over FEMA, considered S. 2361, legislation authored by Senators Inhofe and Graham that was based in part on the administration's 1997 proposal. While S. 2361 was reported by the committee, it was not considered by the Senate before it adjourned last November. I believe it makes sense for Congress and FEMA to pay attention to pre-disaster mitigation efforts--i.e., the steps that can be taken before a disaster strikes. It also makes sense for us to ensure that FEMA's operations are streamlined so that the administering of disaster relief proceeds as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Taking these steps not only would be easier on the budget, but also would help prevent needless human suffering. It is my hope that working with the administration, we will be able to craft legislation that will accomplish our goals. I look forward to working with my colleagues and administration officials toward that end. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, at the administration's request, I am introducing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999. This bill is designed to promote pre-disaster mitigation and streamline the operations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Last year, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has oversight over FEMA, considered S. 2361, legislation authored by Senators Inhofe and Graham that was based in part on the administration's 1997 proposal. While S. 2361 was reported by the committee, it was not considered by the Senate before it adjourned last November. I believe it makes sense for Congress and FEMA to pay attention to pre-disaster mitigation efforts--i.e., the steps that can be taken before a disaster strikes. It also makes sense for us to ensure that FEMA's operations are streamlined so that the administering of disaster relief proceeds as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Taking these steps not only would be easier on the budget, but also would help prevent needless human suffering. It is my hope that working with the administration, we will be able to craft legislation that will accomplish our goals. I look forward to working with my colleagues and administration officials toward that end. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Mack, Lieberman, Warner, Moynihan, and a host of others to introduce the Credit for Voluntary Reductions Act of 1999. This bipartisan legislation addresses a major disincentive that is preventing voluntary, cost-effective, and near-term actions by U.S. entities to reduce the threat of global climate change. In a word, this disincentive is uncertainty. Let me explain. There is growing certainty in the international scientific community, and indeed within our own business community, that human actions may eventually cause harmful disturbances to our global climate system. Unfortunately, no one in the business world or the Congress knows for sure what, if anything, might be done in the future to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Will the 1997 Kyoto Protocol ever be ratified and implemented in the United States? Many, particularly here on Capitol Hill, believe not. If the Kyoto Protocol is never implemented, will something else replace it? More persons than not think this is a real possibility. Will the United States ever reach the point where greenhouse gas mitigation is legally required? Observers on all sides of this debate, irrespective of their preference, will concede that there is a reasonable probability of future government regulation in one form or another. Or, at least there is no guarantee that mandatory action will never be imposed. But when might such government requirements take effect? How would they be designed? Finally, who will be subjected to them? What emission sources might be exempted? No one can answer these questions definitively. And such inquiries will likely go unanswered for a considerable amount of time into the future. While the Credit for Voluntary Reductions legislation does not introduce, encourage, or suggest in any way the need for a regulatory program--the fact remains that none of us can predict what will happen scientifically or politically on the climate change issue over the next several years or decades. In the face of this policy uncertainty, it is easy to understand why many corporate leaders and small businessmen alike are reluctant to take big steps--even if certain voluntary actions improve their bottom line. Business leaders, with history as their guide, are worried that their own government will discount or not credit these good, but voluntary deeds under some potential, future regulatory regime. They fear that, after all is said and done, they will have been forced to spend twice as much to control pollutants as their laggard competitors. In the face of this uncertainty, business may be inclined to wait to reduce emissions until after the diplomatic, political, and regulatory dust has cleared. Meanwhile, billions more tons of greenhouse gases are released by man into the atmosphere every year--and important, cost-effective opportunities to reduce emissions may be lost. It is this uncertainty, this regulatory and financial risk, that our legislation is intended to diminish. The proposal clears the way for voluntary projects that otherwise might not go forward. It is designed to reduce the current uncertainty and risk faced by potentially regulated entities to the government. This legislation gets the government out of the way so that the marketplace may determine new and cost-effective ways to do business while emitting less. How does the legislation work? We authorize the President to enter into greenhouse gas reduction agreements with entities operating in the United States. Once executed, these agreements will provide credits for voluntary greenhouse gas reductions and sequestration achieved by domestic entities over the voluntary period. Because we do not know when, if ever, the U.S. will impose emission reductions, we do not know the duration of the actual voluntary period. The bill does, however, establish a 10-year sunset on the voluntary crediting period. An entity earns one-for-one credit if it reduces its aggregate emissions from U.S. sources below the applicable baseline for the duration of the voluntary period. On the sequestration side, the entity could offset emissions, and potentially earn credits thereby, if it increases its net sequestration above the applicable sequestration baseline during the voluntary period. While I expect a great deal of debate on the establishment of baselines, and likely some significant changes, we wanted to initiate the debate by establishing a baseline that uses recent historical emissions data. In the bill as introduced, we suggest an averaged baseline made up by actual emission levels from 1996 through 1998. Mr. President, while I have an open mind on how we establish baselines or other performance measurements in this measure, I want to be clear that I will insist on a benchmark that is fair for business and that is environmentally sound. Clearly, we will be required to deal with continued business growth in this bill. That is, how to achieve clear environmental gains under this voluntary approach while still crediting the good deeds of growing and changing industries. There are other key issues, important details, that we will need to pin down in the coming weeks. To ensure the economic and environmental integrity of this program, it is incumbent upon us to require that the government credits are issued for verifiable and legitimate actions that contribute to climate stabilization. If a credit represents a ton of greenhouse gases in some future marketplace, or as an offset to some future regulatory obligation, than it must be a ton reduced or sequestered, not a phantom thereof. We will also be careful to establish a system that recognizes past activities, that is, climate mitigation projects that have occurred since the early 1990's, that clearly can be shown to be measurable emission reduction or sequestration actions. The recognition of both overseas and sequestration activities also present some unique challenges if we are to maintain a true environmental program that happens to be voluntary. But the development of carbon sinks and overseas emission reduction projects also provide tremendous opportunities to address potential climate change in a cost- effective and whole way. If we are going to meet the challenges before us on global change, we will do so with all of the tools that science tells us are available. Mr. President, I could not be more pleased that we have been able to establish both business and environmental allies for this cause. Leading companies from the electric utility sector, a number of petroleum and natural gas companies, important automakers, agriculture, the cement makers, aluminum, chemicals, forestry, and other energy intensive industries recognize what is at stake here and are working with us to represent their interests. Many of them are also making great strides to benefit the global environment and they should be appropriately recognized. One important area that we will need to spend some time on is the product manufacturing sector. I recognize that appliance, air conditioning, and many product manufacturers believe that credits must be available for their voluntary improvements in energy efficiency and other actions which directly and indirectly reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation is perhaps not as clear as it needs to be on this important issue and I intend to work closely with these growing industries and other interested parties to address it. Our environmental allies recognize that there is an important opportunity here to achieve constructive, cost-effective, and voluntary strategies to address the threat of global climate change. Many of them recognize that our legislation is designed to offer a platform to diverse interests, including those with clashing objectives, for moving forward to support an initiative through which businesses can serve their own economic self-interest while bringing about environmental improvement. Mr. President, the legislation we are offering today includes very few revisions from the voluntary credits bill (S. 2617) that we introduced last October. This is not because we think we have the perfect document--not at all. We need to go through the process--hold hearings, continue to meet with industry and the environmental community, have discussions with Senate colleagues--before we make any significant revisions. But we will continue to do those things, and we will make improvements to this important legislation. While I have strong beliefs on the science of climate change and find some significant merits in the Kyoto Protocol--this legislation is completely agnostic on both. The fact is, this bill creates an ``escrow account'' for any U.S. entity that has made up its own mind to do things to earn emission credits--nothing more and nothing less with respect to ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol or any other international or domestic regulatory program. The issue of global climate change is serious business. While the international and domestic processes play out over the next period of years, let us move forward with sensible, cost-effective, voluntary incentives. What is the alternative? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. Finally, I encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at this initiative, to talk with their constituents, and to consider working with us to improve and advance good, bipartisan, and voluntary legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am honored to cosponsor the resolution honoring Mo Udall, introduced by Senator McCain. Mo Udall was one of those rare figures who defines description. A great statesman, a forceful environmentalist, a civil rights champion, a talented humorist, writer, athlete, and a wonderful family man--he was all those things and more. Mo Udall was larger than life, and will forever live beyond his life with a legacy that is woven into the fabric of our nation. On protection of our natural resources, Mo was a true pioneer. He fought for environmental causes long before they became popular. His first bills to protect Arizona lands came in his early days as a Representative. He saw a need to protect the land for its intrinsic value, and for its reflection of our own values as a society. He was a visionary. It took years of his tremendous dedication and his omnipresent wit before his vision took hold, but what a vision it was. One hundred million acres of lands in Alaska are preserved through the Alaska Lands Act of 1980. One million acres of land in Arizona are preserved through the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. Against great odds and after several Presidential vetoes, strip-mining laws were reformed in 1977. Nuclear waste management was vastly improved in 1982. Mo Udall was the author of each of these initiatives, which are only the highlights of an illustrious career. Mo Udall was a pioneer in other ways. He quit his law firm upon joining the House in 1961, not the usual practice in those days. He was one of the first Congressmen to disclose his personal finances, before it was required. He organized introductory sessions for freshman Congressmen, shedding light and humor on the arcane ways of Congress, and fighting to reform some of those ways. He championed the rights of Native Americans, supporting their efforts to protect their lands, families and welfare. His integrity and honesty were untouchable. When he was right on an issue, he was gracious about it, and when he was wrong on an issue, he was honest about it. Mo Udall's legacy survives in many ways. As a tribute to his 30 years of public service, Congress created the Morris K. Udall Foundation in 1991, which provides scholarships for Native American students, and the mediation of environmental disputes. Mo always attempted to balance the often conflicting desires of conservationists and developers, as he did in writing legislation for the Central Arizona Project. I could not think of a better celebration of his career than the creation of this Foundation. Just last November, Mo saw a new generation of Udalls take up the torch of civic service. His son Mark and nephew Tom each won a seat in the House. But the torch is carried not only by his relatives. Part of Mo Udall's legacy--the humor, wit, dedication to public service, civility, and honesty--lives within each of us, and the greatest tribute we can make to Mo is affirm that legacy, carry it with us through our careers, and pass it on to the next generation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join other members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in introducing the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This measure, similar to water resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1996, is comprised of water resources project and study authorizations and policy modifications for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. The bill we are proposing today is virtually identical to legislation that was approved unanimously by the Senate last October. That measure, S. 2131, was sent to the House late in the previous Congress and, despite and best efforts of our colleagues in the other body, went no further. As such, it is our desire to advance this year's bill as expeditiously as possible. We have carefully reviewed each item within the bill and have included those that are consistent with the committee's traditional authorization criteria. 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, President Reagan signed into law 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. This legislation, only slightly modified from last year's Senate- passed bill, authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct some 36 projects for flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration. The bill also modifies 43 existing Army Corps projects and authorizes 29 project studies. In total, this bill authorizes an estimated federal cost of 2.1 billion dollars. The only significant changes in this year's version are that we have extracted projects authorized in the FT99 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Mr. President, this legislation includes other project-specific and general provisions related to Army Corps operations. Among them are two provisions sought by Senator Bond and others to enhance the environment along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. We have also included a modified version of the Administration's so-called Challenge 21 initiative to encourage more non-structural flood control and environmental projects. In addition, we are recommending that the cost- sharing formula be changed for maintenance of future shoreline protection projects. Finally, Mr. President, I want to indicate that we have encouraged our colleagues in the House of Representatives to try to resolve their differences on the proposed Sacramento, California, flood control project. It seems to me that there are legitimate concerns and issues on both sides, but I am optimistic that they will reach an agreement. I stand ready to do whatever I can to facilitate a successful resolution. 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. I ask for the cooperation of colleagues so that we can swiftly complete this unfinished business from 1998. It would be my strong desire to complete action on this bill within the next several weeks so that we can prepare for WRDA 2000.