Lincoln Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Bond of Missouri and Senator Jeffords of Vermont in introducing legislation today that addresses an issue of great concern for our States and regions--the availability of Clean Water Act Section 319 funding for development and implementation of the Phase II Storm Water Program. Stormwater runoff carries with it a host of contaminants as it runs over rooftops and lawns, parking lots and new construction sites, depositing nutrients, toxic metals, and sediments into downstream waterbodies. In many areas of the country, and particularly strongly urbanized areas, stormwater ranks high on the list of priority pollution sources impacting the water quality of our lakes, rivers, streams, and bays. As States proceed with development of the federally- mandated Phase II Storm Water Program to address critical stormwater runoff, the costs of implementing the requirements of the program are becoming a major concern for States and the municipalities. At issue is whether funds provided to States through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act may be used for the purposes of developing and implementing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Phase II Storm Water Rule that went into effect in March 2003. This issue is significant because the Phase II Program requires States to regulate stormwater discharges, which have historically been treated as nonpoint sources, as if they are point sources under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. As a result, it is possible that federally-mandated State nonpoint source control programs, which have been funded by 319 monies in the past, may have to find new funding sources even as stormwater requirements are increased. In recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency's Nonpoint Source Program has increasingly focused on impaired waters and stormwater-related concerns as the agency has moved toward a watershed- based approach. Although the Clean Water Act appears silent on the eligibility of Section 319 funding to address stormwater issues currently falling under the NPDES Program, EPA has thus far interpreted the Act to prohibit 319 funds from being used for implementation of the Phase II Storm Water Program. In recent months, a lack of clarity also exists on the use of Section 319 funding in geographic areas covered by the Phase II Program. Phase II applies to all populated areas of 1000 people or greater per square mile. In Rhode Island, nearly all of the state's impaired waters are included in Phase II areas. Given a strict EPA interpretation of the law, Section 319 funds could not be used in any of these areas. Last year, the Senate approved and the President signed into law the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act of 2002 which contains a provision providing a one-year extension, during fiscal year 2003, for states to retain flexibility in using 319 funding for addressing their stormwater concerns. We are introducing legislation today that builds upon the fiscal year 2003 fix by providing permanent authority for states to use Section 319 monies for development and implementation of the Phase II Storm Water Program. Further, the legislation clarifies that 319 monies may be used in Phase II geographic jurisdictions. The Phase II Storm Water Program is an important step toward protecting our Nation's waters from stormwater discharges, and striving for an integrated strategy in preventing, controlling, and reducing pollution entering our waterbodies. The legislation introduced today provides critical flexibility to States and municipalities as they continue to struggle financially with coming into compliance with the Phase II Program. I encourage my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and in the Senate, to join us in expeditiously approving this important legislation. Thank you.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues a story demonstrating one person's ability to protect the environment from the threat of pollution, for the benefit of wildlife and human enjoyment alike. Thirty years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, the Blackstone River has shaken off a legacy of neglect and re-emerged as a vital community asset. The water quality has improved, a bikeway is under construction, and mill buildings are being restored as apartments and condominiums. The National Park Service is promoting a new appreciation for the work and culture of the families who have made the Blackstone Valley their home. And just last week, I joined the Army Corps of Engineers in celebrating the restoration of wetlands in a floodplain that had been paved over for 50 years. So there is a great deal of activity on the banks of the Blackstone. While the Federal Government has been a major player in the river's rebirth, none of these exciting developments would have been possible without the personal commitment of Blackstone Valley residents. It is their hard work and, more importantly, their heightened vigilance and renewed sense of ownership of the river that have helped it to thrive. One such resident is Judy Hadley of Lincoln, RI a town of about 21,000 people, located on the Blackstone River. As the chair of the Lincoln Land Trust, Judy is a staunch defender of her town's remaining open spaces and a passionate advocate on behalf of the Blackstone. She is active in a number of other local organizations, including the Friends of the Blackstone River, the Blackstone River Watershed Council, and the Lincoln Tree and Trail Commission. She has organized river cleanups and educated her fellow residents about the impact that stormwater has on the Blackstone and its wildlife population. For many years, a 60-ton excavator sat abandoned on a man-made island in the river a relic of an old gravel mining operation. It was an eyesore and a potential environmental hazard. Two years ago, Judy Hadley went to work: canvassing State and Federal authorities, trying to find the best solution for this problem. No agency seemed to have the right equipment or the resources to handle such an unusual request, but Judy persisted. If she could have dismantled it herself and taken it away piece by piece, I think she would have. Fortunately, it did not come to that. Last year, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management removed more than 300 gallons of diesel fuel and other fluids from the machinery. The excavator itself was finally taken away this summer by the Army Corps via a temporary land bridge, as part of the wetland restoration project I mentioned earlier. This was a great triumph, and Judy Hadley's dedication has been cheered by many local residents. Without her persistence, the excavator would still be slowly degrading, leaving open the possibility that oil and fuel would seep out, fouling valuable marsh habitat downstream. Walkers and canoeists would still be shaking their heads at the sight of a rusting hulk across the river. But Judy refused to accept the excavator as just another part of the landscape, insisting that it be removed. In so doing, she has reminded us of the Blackstone River's great worth, as well as its vulnerability, and inspired us to be better stewards of a rediscovered resource. I know my colleagues join me in saluting Judy Hadley on this achievement.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a story demonstrating one person's ability to protect the environment from the threat of pollution, for the benefit of wildlife and human enjoyment, alike. Thirty years after the passage of the Clean Water act, the Blackstone river has shaken off a legacy of neglect and re-emerged as a vital community asset. The water quality has improved, a bikeway is under construction, and mill buildings are being restored as apartments and condominiums. The National Park Service is promoting a new appreciation for the work and culture of the families who have made the Blackstone Valley their home. And just last week, I joined the Army Corps of Engineers in celebrating the restoration of wetlands in a floodplain that had been paved over for 50 years. So there is a great deal of activity on the banks of the Blackstone. While the federal government has been a major player in the river's rebirth, none of these exciting developments would have been possible without the personal commitment of Blackstone Valley residents. It is their hard work and, more importantly, their heightened vigilance and renewed sense of ownership of the river, that have helped it to thrive. Once such resident is Judy Hadley of Lincoln, RI--a town of about 21,000 people, located on the Blackstone River. As the chair of the Lincoln Land Trust, Judy is a staunch defender of her town's remaining open spaces and a passionate advocate on behalf of the Blackstone. She is active a number of other local organizations, including the Friends of the Blackstone River, the Blackstone River Watershed Council, and the Lincoln Tree and trail Commission. She has organized river cleanups and educated her fellow residents about the impact that stormwater has on the Blackstone and its wildlife population. For many years, a 60-ton excavator sat abandoned on a manmade island in the river--a relic of an old gravel mining operation. It was an eyesore and a potential environment hazard. Two years ago, Judy Hadley went to work: canvassing State and Federal authorities, trying to find the best solution for this problem. No agency seemed to have the right equipment or the resources to handle such an unusual request, but Judy persisted. If she could have dismantled it herself and taken it away piece by piece, I think she would have. Fortunately, Mr. President, it did not come to that. Last year, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management removed more than 300 gallons of diesel fuel and other fluids from the machinery. The excavator itself was finally taken away this summer by the Army Corps via a temporary land bridge, as part of the wetland restoration project that I mentioned earlier.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am proud today to honor the Rhode Island Council on Residential Programs for Children and Youth, RICORP, for 25 years of service to 1,250 of Rhode Island's most needy children. RICORP developed training programs for childcare workers in Rhode Island throughout the 1980s and by 2000, the council had established training certification programs for childcare workers, supervisors and clinicians. In 2001, RICORP collaborated with the Community College of Rhode Island to develop a college curriculum in ``Children's Residential Programming'' and in September of 2002 the program became a reality. RICORP has also advanced legislation in the Rhode Island General Assembly in 2000 to give contracted providers rate increases in fiscal year 2001 and 2002. Additionally they lobbied for initiatives to improve the lives of children in care, such as the Higher Education Assistance Grant enacted in 1999. This grant gave youth in out-of-home placement free tuition if they attended one of the State colleges. These are just a few examples of RICORP's contributions toward improving the lives of needy children in the State of Rhode Island. I join all Rhode Islanders in congratulating RICORP on its 25th anniversary.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate takes up legislation to implement important free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Through the tireless efforts of President Bush's forward-looking Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, the U.S. has signed trade pacts that will strengthen relations with two of our best friends worldwide: Chile and Singapore. Congress ought to do our part so the people of all three nations can realize the benefits of these agreements. I commend President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick their hard work in negotiating these agreements, and for upholding the principle that economic engagement worldwide works for the betterment of all the world's people. Like most of our friends and neighbors throughout the world, the United States faces serious economic challenges, particularly as we strive to work our way out of a period of recession and growing budget deficits. One means, and certainly not the only one, of strengthening our own economy while lifting others around the world, is to lower trade barriers and open markets. The promotion of free trade has characterized economic relations among the nations of the world during recent years. Our competitors in Europe, Asia and Latin America have sealed deals on about one hundred and thirty preferential trade compacts, some within our own hemisphere. Yet the U.S. is party to only three of these agreements--NAFTA and respective free trade agreements with Israel and Jordan. I was astounded to learn that the European Union now exports more to South America than the United States. Congress would do the American people an injustice if we allowed the U.S. to continue to be left behind as the force of free trade go on benefiting others around the world. Free trade, rather than imposing U.S. values and robbing peoples of their culture, creates new economic opportunities and helps raise the standard of living for millions of people. Our experience with NAFTA, for example, shows how profoundly this agreement has boosted exports and created jobs. Indeed, U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico were up almost 170 percent in NAFTA's first eight years, well above the overall U.S. increase. For Mexico, the news is also positive, as the NAFTA- related export boom was responsible for more than half the 3.5 million jobs created there since 1995. Free trade is also a successful poverty reduction tool. Consider this: since 1987, 140 million people in the trade-dependent economies of East Asia have been removed from he ranks of abject poverty. On the other hand, economically isolated South Asia and much of Africa experienced an increase in poverty during the 1990s. But the economic potential of regional and bilateral free trade agreements tell only part of the story. It is my view that strengthening economic bonds between the U.S. and developing nations will concurrently strengthen and encourage the forces of political reform as well. The experience of Mexico is illustrative. Most observers give at least some credit to NAFTA for encouraging Mexico's political maturity, which saw the peaceful replacement of a political party that had a 70- year lock on that nation's presidency. Future free trade initiatives in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East could encourage the kind of dramatic political gains that, in recent decades, have transformed many of the world's nations from authoritarian regimes into functioning democracies. Trade in goods and services between Chile and the U.S. is growing and today amounts to more than $8 billion. Under this FTA with Chile, more than 85 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products becomes tariff-free immediately, with most remaining tariffs eliminated within four years. Enactment of this agreement will improve an already strong U.S. relationship with a nation that has overcome a legacy of political division. Chile's military coup and resulting dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s has today been replaced by a functioning, outward- looking democracy. And it is not surprising that Chile's commitment to free trade has taken place concurrently with its political reconciliation and growth. The Singapore free trade agreement is the first U.S. FTA with an Asian nation and could spur future similar initiatives in that important region of the world. It will strengthen an already strong economic relationship with America's 12th largest trading partner by guaranteeing zero tariffs immediately on all U.S. goods entering Singapore. The $40 billion in two-way trade in goods and services between the U.S. and Singapore will surely increase through this FTA. And both of these agreements do far more than simply encourage additional free trade. Like our free trade agreement with Jordan, these agreements with Chile and Singapore include strong provisions related to labor and the environment. Under them, all three countries agree to: One, support International Labor Organization (ILO) core labor standards and internationally recognized worker's rights and, two, effectively enforce their own labor laws in the trade-related matters. Penalties for violations are $15 million annually, with failure to pay leading potentially to suspension of benefits. These agreements also do not forget the need to ensure protection of the environment. Under them, parties are to ensure that their domestic environmental laws provide for high levels of environmental protection and are effectively enforced. Parties must also strive to continue to improve their environmental laws. Finally, the agreements make clear that it is inappropriate to weaken or reduce domestic environmental protections in order to encourage trade or investment. These environmental provisions are not just words: they are obligations enforced through each agreement's dispute settlement procedures. Approval of these two FTAs today is an important early step in implementing a bold free-trade agenda. Other such agreements with a great many other nations are either being negotiated or are under consideration. I am hopeful that today's strong vote in Congress will encourage increased U.S. economic engagement and bring about additional market-opening, job-creating free trade agreements. I urge all of my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce the POPs, LRTAP POPs, and PIC Implementation Act of 2003, along with Senator Jeffords. This legislation implements the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP POPs), and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC). With advice and consent by the Senate and with passage of this legislation, the United States will appropriately become an active participant in these important international agreements. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are highly toxic and cause adverse health effects, including cancer, reproductive disorders, and immune system disruptions. POPs may not break down for years or decades, can travel long distances through air and water, and are known to bioaccumulate in living organisms. PCBs, DDT, and dioxin are examples of POPs. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants seeks to globally eliminate or severely restrict the production and use of 12 of the most dangerous pesticides and industrial chemicals, ensure the environmentally sound management of POPs waste, and prevent the emergence of new chemicals with POPs-like characteristics. To date, there are 151 signatories and 33 Parties to the Convention. The legislation we are introducing today implements the key provision of the POPs Convention which allows additional chemicals to be added to the Convention. The bill amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to create a process by which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would consider regulating a newly listed chemical to the POPs Convention or to the LRTAP POPs Protocol. Beginning 1 year after a chemical is added by the international body, any person may petition the Administrator to commence a rulemaking if one has not been commenced. Providing mechanism to include additional chemicals at a future date, with opportunities for public involvement, ensures that the United States will fully implement the POPs Convention. This bill includes two titles: the first title amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the second title amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Senator Jeffords and I have worked exclusively to forge a compromise on the first title amending TSCA. The second title amending FIFRA will be considered by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The language in this bill amending FIFRA is intended to serve as a place holder until the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has the opportunity to consider that title. It does not represent a compromise on that title. I believe that this adding mechanism includes appropriate checks and balances, and requires the Environmental Protection Agency to balance the relevant factors when determining how to regulate a newly-listed chemical. While different parties would craft these provisions differently if starting with a clean slate, I believe that this legislation represents a solid compromise that will allow the United States to fulfill its obligations when Governor Whitman signed the POPs treaty, and will engage the United States as a leading member of the international community regarding toxic substances.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce the POPs, LRTAP POPs, and PIC Implementation Act of 2003, along with Senator Jeffords. This legislation implements the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP POPs), and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC). With advice and consent by the Senate and with passage of this legislation, the United States will appropriately become an active participant in these important international agreements. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are highly toxic and cause adverse health effects, including cancer, reproductive disorders, and immune system disruptions. POPs may not break down for years or decades, can travel long distances through air and water, and are known to bioaccumulate in living organisms. PCBs, DDT, and dioxin are examples of POPs. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants seeks to globally eliminate or severely restrict the production and use of 12 of the most dangerous pesticides and industrial chemicals, ensure the environmentally sound management of POPs waste, and prevent the emergence of new chemicals with POPs-like characteristics. To date, there are 151 signatories and 33 Parties to the Convention. The legislation we are introducing today implements the key provision of the POPs Convention which allows additional chemicals to be added to the Convention. The bill amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to create a process by which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would consider regulating a newly listed chemical to the POPs Convention or to the LRTAP POPs Protocol. Beginning 1 year after a chemical is added by the international body, any person may petition the Administrator to commence a rulemaking if one has not been commenced. Providing mechanism to include additional chemicals at a future date, with opportunities for public involvement, ensures that the United States will fully implement the POPs Convention. This bill includes two titles: the first title amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the second title amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Senator Jeffords and I have worked exclusively to forge a compromise on the first title amending TSCA. The second title amending FIFRA will be considered by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The language in this bill amending FIFRA is intended to serve as a place holder until the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has the opportunity to consider that title. It does not represent a compromise on that title. I believe that this adding mechanism includes appropriate checks and balances, and requires the Environmental Protection Agency to balance the relevant factors when determining how to regulate a newly-listed chemical. While different parties would craft these provisions differently if starting with a clean slate, I believe that this legislation represents a solid compromise that will allow the United States to fulfill its obligations when Governor Whitman signed the POPs treaty, and will engage the United States as a leading member of the international community regarding toxic substances.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2003 today. The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2003 closes a loophole in current Federal statute by expanding the eligibility of one of the most effective means of enforcing child support orders--that of intercepting the Federal tax refunds of parents who are delinquent in paying their court-ordered financial support for their children. Under current law, eligibility for the Federal tax refund offset program is limited to cases involving minors, parents on public assistance, or adult children who are disabled. Custodial parents of adult, non-disabled children are not assisted under the IRS tax refund intercept program, and in many cases, they must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Some of these parents have gone into debt to put their college-age children through school. The legislation I am introducing today will address this inequity by expanding the eligibility of the Federal tax refund offset program to cover parents of all children, regardless of whether the child is disabled or a minor. This legislation will not create a cause of action for a custodial parent to seek additional child support. It will merely assist the custodial parent in recovering debt that is owed for a level of child support that was determined by a court. Improving our child support enforcement programs is an issue that should be of concern to us all as it remains a serious problem in the United States. According to the most recent government statistics, there are approximately seventeen million active cases in which a child support order requires a noncustodial parent to contribute to the support of his or her child. Of the almost $25 billion owed in 2001, only $14 billion has been collected. In 1998, only 23 percent of children entitled to child support through our public system received some form of payment, despite Federal and State efforts. Similar shortfalls in previous years bring the combined delinquency total to approximately $88 billion. We can fix this injustice in our federal tax refund offset program by helping some of our most needy constituents receive the financial assistance they are owed. While previous Administrations have been somewhat successful in using tax refunds as a tool to collect child support payments, more needs to be done. The IRS tax refund interception program has only collected one-third of tardy child support payments. The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2003 will remove the current barrier to fulfilling an individual's obligation to pay child support, while helping to provide for the future of our nation's children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2003 today. The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2003 closes a loophole in current Federal statute by expanding the eligibility of one of the most effective means of enforcing child support orders--that of intercepting the Federal tax refunds of parents who are delinquent in paying their court-ordered financial support for their children. Under current law, eligibility for the Federal tax refund offset program is limited to cases involving minors, parents on public assistance, or adult children who are disabled. Custodial parents of adult, non-disabled children are not assisted under the IRS tax refund intercept program, and in many cases, they must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Some of these parents have gone into debt to put their college-age children through school. The legislation I am introducing today will address this inequity by expanding the eligibility of the Federal tax refund offset program to cover parents of all children, regardless of whether the child is disabled or a minor. This legislation will not create a cause of action for a custodial parent to seek additional child support. It will merely assist the custodial parent in recovering debt that is owed for a level of child support that was determined by a court. Improving our child support enforcement programs is an issue that should be of concern to us all as it remains a serious problem in the United States. According to the most recent government statistics, there are approximately seventeen million active cases in which a child support order requires a noncustodial parent to contribute to the support of his or her child. Of the almost $25 billion owed in 2001, only $14 billion has been collected. In 1998, only 23 percent of children entitled to child support through our public system received some form of payment, despite Federal and State efforts. Similar shortfalls in previous years bring the combined delinquency total to approximately $88 billion. We can fix this injustice in our federal tax refund offset program by helping some of our most needy constituents receive the financial assistance they are owed. While previous Administrations have been somewhat successful in using tax refunds as a tool to collect child support payments, more needs to be done. The IRS tax refund interception program has only collected one-third of tardy child support payments. The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Interception Act of 2003 will remove the current barrier to fulfilling an individual's obligation to pay child support, while helping to provide for the future of our nation's children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Feinstein in introducing the Family Planning State Empowerment Act of 2003. This legislation would provide States with a mechanism to improve the health of low-income women and families by allowing States to expand family planning services to additional women under the Medicaid program. The Federal Government currently reimburses States for 90 percent of their expenditures for family planning services under Medicaid, due to the importance of these for low-income women. This reimbursement rate is higher than for most other health care services. Generally, women may qualify for Medicaid services, including family planning, in one of two ways: they have children and an income level below a threshold set by the State, ranging from 15 to 86 percent of the Federal poverty level; or they are pregnant and have incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level, federal law allows states to raise this income eligibility level to 185 percent, if they desire. If a woman qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically eligible for family planning services for sixty days following delivery. After those sixty days, the woman's Medicaid eligibility expires. If States want to provide Medicaid family planning services to additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the Federal Government for a so-called ``1115'' waiver. These waivers allow States to establish demonstration projects in order to test new approaches to health care delivery in a manner that is budget-neutral to the Federal Government. To date, these waivers have enabled eighteen States to expand access to family planning services. Most of these waivers allow states to extend family planning to women beyond the sixty-day post-partum period. This allows many women to increase the length of time between births, which has significant health benefits for women and their children. For this reason, an Institute of Medicine report recommended that Medicaid should cover family planning services for two years following a delivery. Some of the waivers allow States to provide family planning to women based solely on income, regardless of whether they qualify for Medicaid due to pregnancy or children. In general, States have used the same income eligibility levels that apply to pregnant women, 133 percent or 185 percent of the poverty level, creating continuity for both family planning and prenatal care services. These expanded services also help states reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion. My State of Rhode Island was one of the first States to obtain one of these waivers, and has had great success with it in terms of preventing unintended pregnancies and improving public health in general. Rhode Island's waiver has averted 1,443 pregnancies from August 1994 through 1997, resulting in a savings to the state of $14.3 million. In addition, Rhode Island's waiver has assisted low-income women with spacing-out their births. The number of low-income women in Rhode Island with short inter-birth intervals, becoming pregnant within 18 months of having given birth, dropped from 41 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 1999. The gap between Medicaid recipients and privately insured women was 11 percent in 1993, compared with only 1 percent--almost negligible--in 1999. As these statistics show, these waivers are extremely valuable and serve as a huge asset to the women's health, not only to my constituents but to constituents in the thirteen other states who currently benefit from these waivers. Unfortunately, the waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time consuming, taking up to three years for States to receive approval from the federal government. This may discourage States from applying for family planning waivers, or at the very least, delay them from providing important services to women. Our bill would rectify this problem by allowing States to extend family planning services through Medicaid without going through the waiver process. Eliminating the waiver requirement will facilitate State innovation and provide assistance to more low-income women. This bill will allow States to provide family planning services to women with incomes up to 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. For low-income, post-partum women, States will no longer be limited to providing them with only sixty days of family planning assistance. States may also provide family planning for up to one year to women who lose Medicaid-eligibility because of income. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Feinstein in introducing the Family Planning State Empowerment Act of 2003. This legislation would provide States with a mechanism to improve the health of low-income women and families by allowing States to expand family planning services to additional women under the Medicaid program. The Federal Government currently reimburses States for 90 percent of their expenditures for family planning services under Medicaid, due to the importance of these for low-income women. This reimbursement rate is higher than for most other health care services. Generally, women may qualify for Medicaid services, including family planning, in one of two ways: they have children and an income level below a threshold set by the State, ranging from 15 to 86 percent of the Federal poverty level; or they are pregnant and have incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level, federal law allows states to raise this income eligibility level to 185 percent, if they desire. If a woman qualifies because of pregnancy, she is automatically eligible for family planning services for sixty days following delivery. After those sixty days, the woman's Medicaid eligibility expires. If States want to provide Medicaid family planning services to additional populations of low-income women, they must apply to the Federal Government for a so-called ``1115'' waiver. These waivers allow States to establish demonstration projects in order to test new approaches to health care delivery in a manner that is budget-neutral to the Federal Government. To date, these waivers have enabled eighteen States to expand access to family planning services. Most of these waivers allow states to extend family planning to women beyond the sixty-day post-partum period. This allows many women to increase the length of time between births, which has significant health benefits for women and their children. For this reason, an Institute of Medicine report recommended that Medicaid should cover family planning services for two years following a delivery. Some of the waivers allow States to provide family planning to women based solely on income, regardless of whether they qualify for Medicaid due to pregnancy or children. In general, States have used the same income eligibility levels that apply to pregnant women, 133 percent or 185 percent of the poverty level, creating continuity for both family planning and prenatal care services. These expanded services also help states reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion. My State of Rhode Island was one of the first States to obtain one of these waivers, and has had great success with it in terms of preventing unintended pregnancies and improving public health in general. Rhode Island's waiver has averted 1,443 pregnancies from August 1994 through 1997, resulting in a savings to the state of $14.3 million. In addition, Rhode Island's waiver has assisted low-income women with spacing-out their births. The number of low-income women in Rhode Island with short inter-birth intervals, becoming pregnant within 18 months of having given birth, dropped from 41 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 1999. The gap between Medicaid recipients and privately insured women was 11 percent in 1993, compared with only 1 percent--almost negligible--in 1999. As these statistics show, these waivers are extremely valuable and serve as a huge asset to the women's health, not only to my constituents but to constituents in the thirteen other states who currently benefit from these waivers. Unfortunately, the waiver process is extremely cumbersome and time consuming, taking up to three years for States to receive approval from the federal government. This may discourage States from applying for family planning waivers, or at the very least, delay them from providing important services to women. Our bill would rectify this problem by allowing States to extend family planning services through Medicaid without going through the waiver process. Eliminating the waiver requirement will facilitate State innovation and provide assistance to more low-income women. This bill will allow States to provide family planning services to women with incomes up to 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. For low-income, post-partum women, States will no longer be limited to providing them with only sixty days of family planning assistance. States may also provide family planning for up to one year to women who lose Medicaid-eligibility because of income. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, earlier this week, I voted in favor of invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 11, the Patients First Act of 2003. My vote was not an endorsement of S. 11 as it was introduced in the Senate. In fact, I have concerns about various aspects of the bill--including the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages--and I anticipate supporting amendments to S. 11 if the Senate has an opportunity to fully debate this legislation. However, I do believe that reform of the medical liability system should be part of a comprehensive response to surging medical malpractice premiums that endanger Americans' access to quality medical care by causing doctors to leave certain communities or cease practicing medicine altogether. For this reason, I voted for cloture on S. 11 in an effort to move the debate forward. I commend Senator Feinstein of California for working with the majority leader to craft a bipartisan proposal for reform, and I am hopeful that they will revive their discussions in the near future.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I join with Senator Feinstein, Senator Nickles, and others in presenting this amendment this evening. I believe this income-related Part B premium for only the wealthiest of seniors, a little over 1 percent of the entire Medicare population, is necessary to sustain the long-term solvency of the Medicare Program. I wish to make just three points on this issue. First, as Senator Feinstein has said, previous Congresses have worked on this issue. In 1997, the Senate voted 70 to 30 to do exactly what we are doing here, and most of those Senators are still here today. Second, many of these seniors can afford this added premium. Most seniors, it is safe to say, who are making over $100,000 a year have already paid off their mortgages. They have paid off their loans. They have educated their children. They can afford these higher premiums which would go from only $1,400 a year to $2,800 a year, at the most, depending on the income they make. So seniors who are making $100,000 at the most will pay only $1,400 a year, and those making $200,000 will pay $2,800 a year. I do not think that is too much to ask to help keep this program solvent. Finally, if we do not do this today, some other Congress is going to do it. In 1997, the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare was created to resolve the long-term insolvency facing the system. That was in 1997 and it was known as the Breaux-Frist Commission. They did not report their work to Congress. They fell short of the votes necessary to report their work to Congress. However, it is interesting to note that one of the reasons they failed to get the votes to report to Congress was the President at the time, President Clinton, called for putting aside 15 percent of budget surpluses the next 15 years to pay down the debt and to shore up Medicare. Fifteen years of budget surpluses--when will we see those again?--to shore up Medicare. Because the Breaux-Frist plan did not include that, they did not get the votes necessary. Mr. President, now is the time to adopt this amendment. If we do not adopt it, future Congresses will have to wrestle with this dilemma. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill. The Graham amendment relating to the Outer Continental Shelf is currently pending. Under a previous agreement, there will be up to 90 minutes of debate prior to the vote on or in relation to the amendment. Therefore, the first vote will occur at approximately 11 a.m. In addition to the Graham amendment, the Senate will consider other amendments to the Energy bill, and Members should expect rollcall votes throughout the day. It is also possible that the Senate will be able to consider the FAA reauthorization later today. We will notify Members if that becomes available. Also, the Senate may consider additional nominations on the Executive Calendar. We will be working to schedule votes on the nominations that can be cleared.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Girl Scouts in Rhode Island who have received the Silver and Gold Awards for 2002. I praise all of the hard work the girls have done throughout the year to receive their respective awards. Mr. Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest and most prestigious award a girl can earn in girl scouting. A girl who has earned the Girl Scout Gold Award can look forward to greater access to college scholarships, paid internships, and community awards. I ask that the list of the girls receiving the awards be printed in the Record. The list follows. Gold Award Recipients Allison Arden, Erin Blackbird, Stephanie Bobola, Laura Cochran, Rachel Cooper, Marie De Noia, Jillian Dean, Kellie Deschene, Mary Dolan, Feliscia Facenda, Amanda Fandetti, Sarah Gautreau, Milena Gianfrancesco, and Melissa Gibb. Allison Gibbs, Rachel Glidden, Heather Hopkins, Kimberly McCarthy, Meghan McDermott, Maria Ousterhout, Jessica Piemonte, Brittany Rousseau, Martha Seeger, Brittany Smith, Meredith Uhl, Clara Weinstock, April Whiting, and Stacia Wierzbicki. Silver Award Recipients Jenna Alessandro, Danielle Almeida, Ludovica Almeida, Whitney Anderson, Heather Arzoomanian, Lauren Asermely, Amanda Ayrassran, Ashley Badeau, Rebecca Bessette, Lauren Bray, Caroline Canning, Sara Caron, Julie Correia, Gina Cosimano, Meagan Covino, Kara Creelman, Katherine Crossley, Amanda Crough, Shaina Curran, Jacqueline Cyr, Brenna De Cotis, and Justine De Cotis. Danielle Dube, Katie Flynn, Lauren Gainor, Sarah Gardner, Christa Gignac, Julie Gillard, Kristen Girard, Jennifer Gregson, Julie Hall, Rebecca Hamel, Nicole Henderson, Lee Ann Hennessey, Hannah Hughes, Cailiin Humphreys, Alex Innocenti, Meaghan Kennedy, Alexandra Klara, Keeley Klitz, Elizabeth Kubiak, Emily Lonardo, Christina Lorenzo, and Sarah Lozy. Jessica Martin, Lauren McCormick, Molly McKeen, Kasie McMahon, Peggy McQuaid, Amanda Mitchell, Ashley Mitchell, Ashley Mogayzel, Danielle Morin, Danielle Mott, Amy Mullen, Miranda Nero, Shaina O'Malley, Diana Otto, Lauren Palmer, Brianna Petty, Hanna Phelan, Ashley Pincins, Stephanie Pitassi, Brittany Pope, Allison Powell, and Amanda Ricci. Genie Rudolph, Lauren Ruggieri, Laura Saltzman, Kara Schnabel, Amanda Shurtleff, Katelyn Singleton, Molly Smith, Kirsten Stickel, Katherine Swiczewicz, Molly Tierney, Andrea Tomasso, Lauren Turgeon, Marissa Varin, Kayla Wall, Christina Washington, Kayla Wilcox, Katie Williams, Jessica Woolmington, Taylor Woolmington, Amanda Wordell, Jessika Wordell.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. There is not an elected official in the United States who does not want to cut taxes. The good ones only do it responsibly.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we are debating a bill called the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003. Two years ago this same month, we debated and passed a bill called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Whatever these bills are called, they add to the deficits.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Harry Reid and others in introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003. This bill would establish research centers that would be the first in the Nation to specifically study the environmental factors that may be related to the development of breast cancer. The lack of agreement within the scientific community and among breast cancer advocates on this question highlights the need for further study. It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003 will enable us to conduct more conclusive and comprehensive research to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. Before we can find the answers, we must determine the right questions we should be asking. While more research is being conducted into the relationship between breast cancer and the environment, there are still several issues that must be resolved to make this research more effective. They are as follows: There is no known cause of breast cancer. There is little agreement in the scientific community on how the environment affects breast cancer. While studies have been conducted on the links between environmental factors like pesticides, diet, and electromagnetic fields, no consensus has been reached. There are other factors that have not yet been studied that could provide valuable information. While there is much speculation, it is clear that the relationship between environmental exposures and breast cancer is poorly understood. There are challenges in conducting environmental research. Identifying linkages is difficult. Laboratory experiments and cluster analyses, such as those in Long Island, New York, cannot reveal whether an environmental exposure increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Epidemiological studies must be designed carefully, because environmental exposures are difficult to measure. Coordination between the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, needs to occur. NCI and NIEHS are the two institutes in the NIH that fund most of the research related to breast cancer and the environment; however, comprehensive information is not currently available. This legislation would establish eight Centers of Excellence to study these potential links. These ``Breast Cancer Environmental Research Centers'' would provide for multi-disciplinary research among basic, clinical, epidemiological and behavioral scientists interested in establishing outstanding, state-of-the-art research programs addressing potential links between the environment and breast cancer. The NIEHS would award grants based on a competitive peer-review process. This legislation would require each Center to collaborate with community organizations in the area, including those that represent women with breast cancer. The bill would authorize $30 million for the next five years for these grants. ``Genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger,'' as Ken Olden, the Director of NIEHS, frequently says. Many scientists believe that certain groups of women have genetic variations that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures. We need to step back and gather evidence before we come to conclusions--that is the purpose of this bill. People are hungry for information, and there is a lot of inconclusive data out there, some of which has no scientific merit whatsoever. We have the opportunity through this legislation to gather legitimate and comprehensive data from premier research institutions across the nation. According to the American Cancer Society, each year 800 women in Rhode Island are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 200 women in my state will die of this terrible disease this year. We owe it to these women who are diagnosed with this life-threatening disease to provide them with answers for the first time. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Harry Reid and others in introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003. This bill would establish research centers that would be the first in the Nation to specifically study the environmental factors that may be related to the development of breast cancer. The lack of agreement within the scientific community and among breast cancer advocates on this question highlights the need for further study. It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003 will enable us to conduct more conclusive and comprehensive research to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. Before we can find the answers, we must determine the right questions we should be asking. While more research is being conducted into the relationship between breast cancer and the environment, there are still several issues that must be resolved to make this research more effective. They are as follows: There is no known cause of breast cancer. There is little agreement in the scientific community on how the environment affects breast cancer. While studies have been conducted on the links between environmental factors like pesticides, diet, and electromagnetic fields, no consensus has been reached. There are other factors that have not yet been studied that could provide valuable information. While there is much speculation, it is clear that the relationship between environmental exposures and breast cancer is poorly understood. There are challenges in conducting environmental research. Identifying linkages is difficult. Laboratory experiments and cluster analyses, such as those in Long Island, New York, cannot reveal whether an environmental exposure increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Epidemiological studies must be designed carefully, because environmental exposures are difficult to measure. Coordination between the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, needs to occur. NCI and NIEHS are the two institutes in the NIH that fund most of the research related to breast cancer and the environment; however, comprehensive information is not currently available. This legislation would establish eight Centers of Excellence to study these potential links. These ``Breast Cancer Environmental Research Centers'' would provide for multi-disciplinary research among basic, clinical, epidemiological and behavioral scientists interested in establishing outstanding, state-of-the-art research programs addressing potential links between the environment and breast cancer. The NIEHS would award grants based on a competitive peer-review process. This legislation would require each Center to collaborate with community organizations in the area, including those that represent women with breast cancer. The bill would authorize $30 million for the next five years for these grants. ``Genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger,'' as Ken Olden, the Director of NIEHS, frequently says. Many scientists believe that certain groups of women have genetic variations that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures. We need to step back and gather evidence before we come to conclusions--that is the purpose of this bill. People are hungry for information, and there is a lot of inconclusive data out there, some of which has no scientific merit whatsoever. We have the opportunity through this legislation to gather legitimate and comprehensive data from premier research institutions across the nation. According to the American Cancer Society, each year 800 women in Rhode Island are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 200 women in my state will die of this terrible disease this year. We owe it to these women who are diagnosed with this life-threatening disease to provide them with answers for the first time. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a man for whom I had the utmost respect. One of the first times I was presiding in the Senate, Senator Moynihan was speaking from the floor. What he had to say and the way he said it made a lasting impression on me. The next day I asked for a copy of the statement and have kept it in my desk ever since. Senator Moynihan began: ``Mr. President, it is agreed that I will begin these brief remarks in order that our chairman might conclude the debate and proceed to the vote which I think has every prospect of being prodigious in its majority.'' He continued to explain one of the most complicated and difficult issues that we will deal with here in the Senate in a clear and concise manner. ``In very short order, I would simply like to recapitulate the four simple steps which will put Social Security on an actuarially sound basis for the next 75 years. They are: 1. Provide for an accurate cost-of-living adjustment. In 1996, the Boskin Commission originally estimated that the CPI overstates changes in the cost-of-living by 1.1 percentage points; now they say it is 0.8 of a percentage point; 2. Normal taxation of benefits; 3. Extend coverage to all newly hired State and local workers; 4. Increase the length of the computation period from 35 to 38 years.'' I don't know if this is the answer, but I will always refer to it when the topic of Social Security comes up. He laid out a plan with professorial clarity and a complete grasp of the issue. Whether you agreed or disagreed with Senator Moynihan, you had to appreciate his style. Although I did not have a close working relationship with Senator Moynihan, I am truly impressed with the depth and breadth of his career achievements. From his pioneering work on Social Security reform, his almost encyclopedic knowledge of fiscal policy, to his championing of environmental and transportation issues, Senator Moynihan was the kind of Senator worth emulating. I also admired his ability to always look at the long view of the steps taken today and their impact on future generations. Senator Moynihan had an unwavering commitment to care for all people in need and was willing to cross party lines to accomplish his goals. His work as advisor to Presidents of both parties is testament to the high regard that official Washington had for his intellect and integrity. As a dear friend of my father's for over 25 years, my strongest sense of the Senator comes from hearing my dad speak of Senator Moynihan with reverence and true admiration. Upon my father's passing, Senator Moynihan included an excerpt from a wonderful poem by W.B. Yeats, ``The Municipal Gallery Revisited,'' in his tribute. Those kind words were a great comfort to our family. In the words of another poem by the poet W.B. Yeats: The man is gone guided ye, unweary, through the long bitter way, Ye by the waves that close in our sad nation, Be full of sudden fears, The man is gone who from this lonely station --Has moulded the hard year . . . Mourn--and then onward, there is no returning He guides ye from the tomb; His memory is a tall pillar, burning Before the gloom Our Nation will mourn, but Senator Moynihan would insist that we move on. On behalf of my mother and the Chafee family, we send our sincere condolences to Liz and all her family.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper today to introduce the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003. Congress needs to advance four-pollutant legislation that offers the best chance for broad bipartisan support, and I believe this bill meets that test. The testimony received through hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee over the past several years has clearly outlined the need for controlling the major emissions from power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide--while at the same time recognizing the added costs of these new controls. We know through experience that we will only be successful at passing legislation if we find middle ground. The parameters of this debate have been established. Some will say this bill doesn't go far enough in some respects. Others will say the legislation goes too far, especially as it pertains to the mandatory control of carbon dioxide emissions. However, the relationship of fossil fuels to global warming is clear and scientifically validated. The ``U.S. Climate Action Report 2002'' released by the administration last May tells us we need to take real actions to address the problem. The longer we wait, the harder this problem will be to solve. The Rio Convention is a perfect example of why waiting is not reasonable. In 1992, we agreed to voluntarily reduce harmful emissions to 1990 levels. It didn't happen. Now, in 2003 we are told that reductions to 1990 levels will stall the economy. If we wait much longer before taking any action, imagine how much harder it will be to achieve real reductions without harming the economy. The legislation we are introducing today would achieve significant reductions in a more cost effective way than other proposals. For sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, we will establish emissions caps that are superior to reductions that will be achieved under the existing Clean Air Act. In addition, for the first time, we will ensure real reductions of carbon dioxide emissions are achieved. By 2013, the utility sector will be required to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 2001 levels. This proposal will allow the United States to address carbon pollution for the first time and, when compared to a three-pollutant bill, at very small incremental costs. I believe that the Carper-Chafee bill offers a real opportunity to break the stalemate that exists today and begin an honest debate that will eventually lead to enactment of strong legislation. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues as we move forward to pass a bill that enjoys the broadest support and adequately addresses the serious health, environmental, and economic issues facing the Nation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper today to introduce the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003. Congress needs to advance four-pollutant legislation that offers the best chance for broad bipartisan support, and I believe this bill meets that test. The testimony received through hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee over the past several years has clearly outlined the need for controlling the major emissions from power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide--while at the same time recognizing the added costs of these new controls. We know through experience that we will only be successful at passing legislation if we find middle ground. The parameters of this debate have been established. Some will say this bill doesn't go far enough in some respects. Others will say the legislation goes too far, especially as it pertains to the mandatory control of carbon dioxide emissions. However, the relationship of fossil fuels to global warming is clear and scientifically validated. The ``U.S. Climate Action Report 2002'' released by the administration last May tells us we need to take real actions to address the problem. The longer we wait, the harder this problem will be to solve. The Rio Convention is a perfect example of why waiting is not reasonable. In 1992, we agreed to voluntarily reduce harmful emissions to 1990 levels. It didn't happen. Now, in 2003 we are told that reductions to 1990 levels will stall the economy. If we wait much longer before taking any action, imagine how much harder it will be to achieve real reductions without harming the economy. The legislation we are introducing today would achieve significant reductions in a more cost effective way than other proposals. For sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, we will establish emissions caps that are superior to reductions that will be achieved under the existing Clean Air Act. In addition, for the first time, we will ensure real reductions of carbon dioxide emissions are achieved. By 2013, the utility sector will be required to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 2001 levels. This proposal will allow the United States to address carbon pollution for the first time and, when compared to a three-pollutant bill, at very small incremental costs. I believe that the Carper-Chafee bill offers a real opportunity to break the stalemate that exists today and begin an honest debate that will eventually lead to enactment of strong legislation. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues as we move forward to pass a bill that enjoys the broadest support and adequately addresses the serious health, environmental, and economic issues facing the Nation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I accepted an offer last August to go to ANWR, to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Since I have been here for 3 years, I have heard a lot of debate about it, and I assumed I heard a lot of exaggeration also. I wanted to go myself and so I accepted the invitation. I took a bush plane from Fairbanks over the Brooks Range, as you see here. The Brooks Range is very desolate, almost devoid of any sign of life, any sign of vegetation. It is quite a trip over the Brooks Range. As we cleared that mountainous terrain, stretching out before the Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort Sea, was the most gorgeous grasslands, the last thing I expected to see that far north. We banked around with our bush plane and you can see here where we landed. As we banked in for a landing, scurrying through the brush was a big, brown, cinnamon-colored beast, a grizzly bear. We got out of our plane and immediately were covered with tremendous amounts of mosquitoes. It was quite an experience. We pulled the nets on our hats over our heads and set up our tents, which we can see here. We had some chow and then that night it snowed. We came on the Brooks Range earlier, and they had no snow on them, but the snow came that night. Thankfully, we never saw another mosquito, so we had the great experience of having mosquitoes but then had 2 days--3 days in order to hike around the area. Every day we would hike for as much as 4 or 5 hours, then come in for lunch, and go out and hike for the afternoon another 4 or 5 hours. In August, it is just as light at 3 in the afternoon as it is at 3 in the morning, so it is quite an experience that far up. I will have to say, Senator Stevens, this is the most beautiful place. I have been in 49 out of 50 States. The only one I have not been in is Hawaii. This is the most beautiful place I have ever been.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. I will conclude in that direction. Not only did we see the grizzly bears and one caribou--the caribou migration had gone through, but we did see one caribou--but we saw all kinds of life: Ground squirrels, prairie chickens--I think they call them ptarmigan. We also saw all sorts of birds and saw also the signs of life--musk ox droppings. We didn't see musk ox, but we saw the droppings all over the place. So obviously they had been there. All kinds of caribou droppings were everywhere you went. What a surprise it was to go this far north and see such beautiful country. It is like the plains of Wyoming or Montana. And it was a great surprise to me. So all the environmentalists who talk about it being the Serengeti of America, they are right. This is unique. It is special. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment for that reason. On the trip, we then had an opportunity to go to Prudhoe Bay. And what a change it is, as you go west from the 1002 area, which is where we were camping, to Prudhoe Bay. Before we leave the 1002 area, here we are, as shown on this picture. There I am, my wife Stephanie, the small band of us up there braving the elements, experiencing the 1002 area. When we went to Prudhoe Bay, it was a change in the topography. It gets much more pockmarked with water. It is a lot different from what we saw here in ANWR. And it seems more suitable for man's incursion and for drilling as you get closer to Prudhoe Bay. We landed in Prudhoe Bay. We went to the hotel, which was a collection, really, of trailers put together. And the proprietor of the hotel at Prudhoe Bay said: Be careful. There is a grizzly bear in town. His name is Toby. When you walk around, just be careful. You never know. You don't want to surprise him and have him attack you. So just keep your wits about you. We had a great tour of Prudhoe Bay. And after we left and came back to the States, about 2 months later, I saw, in the New York Times, a little filler article, that Toby was getting into the inn where we were staying and they had to put him down. So it made the New York Times, Toby getting into the inn and having to be put down. But the point is, there should be places for the Tobys of the world. And then there are other places where we should drill. And, obviously, they are incompatible. No one wanted to harm Toby, but it just came to that.