John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President I am pleased to be here today with my distinguished colleagues to offer my support for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. This bipartisan legislation addresses one of the most important global environmental issues today--the protection and preservation of tropical rain forests. Since 1950 the world has lost as much as half of its tropical forests, and the destruction is continuing unabated. The most comprehensive survey of global deforestation estimated that, last year alone, we lost more than 30 million acres of tropical rain forest--an area the size of the State of Washington. This is a devastating loss because of the potential biological impacts deforestation can have both regionally and globally. Tropical forests contain the world's richest stores of biological diversity, and their health is essential for life on Earth. Scientists estimate that more than 50 percent of the Earth's terrestrial biological diversity is contained within these forests, which account for less than 2 percent of the planet's land surface. Almost 40 percent of all terrestrial plants and at least 25 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species are endemic to these areas. Many of these species are found only in a small area of the forests. And as the forests are destroyed, Mr. President, the species are permanently lost through extinction. Tropical forests also function as carbon ``sinks,'' storing greenhouse gasses that could otherwise contribute to global climate change. While there are still many scientific uncertainties related to climate change, it is undeniable that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising rapidly. A significant number of scientists believe that humans have already influenced our global climate. In order to lessen the risks associated with this change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather conditions, and higher average temperatures, it is important that the United States join with other nations to take preventative action. Protecting our tropical rain forests, and thus preserving their vital function of reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is one such action. Many of the world's tropical forests are located in developing countries that, since the international debt crisis of the 1970s, have been unable to repay loans to foreign lenders. These countries are in need of hard currency, and to come up with cash, they have resorted to exploiting their natural resources with little regard for environmental planning. Vast areas of tropical forests are destroyed each year for logging, agriculture and livestock operations. This trend will continue as debt continues to mount. Mr. President, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act will help turn the tide against this deforestation. This legislation builds upon President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, or EAI. EAI created a system by which Latin American and Carribean governments could restructure some of their official debt to the United States, while channeling local currency into funds to support environmental and child development programs. Using so-called ``debt-for-nature swaps,'' EAI restructured bilateral debt to provide $154 million to environmental trust funds in Latin America. Under these swaps, a nation's debt is modified, rescheduled, or written off, in return for the borrower nation's commitment of its own currency towards local conservation. The legislation before us today would extend the debt-for-nature mechanism of the EAI to the protection of significant tropical forests in lower and middle income countries throughout the world, not just those in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act will authorize $325 million over three years to be used for debt-for-nature swaps with developing countries that have forests with the greatest biodiversity and the highest risk of threat. S. 1758 assists countries with tropical forests that are globally outstanding in terms of their biodiversity, and applies to any lesser developed country with tropical forests and qualified U.S. debt. The authorized amount would be used to compensate the Treasury Department for any revenues lost due to the restructuring of outstanding debt. The legislation gives the President authority to reduce debt owed to the United States as a result of any credit extended through specific loan programs. In exchange, the developing countries would establish funds in their local currency to preserve and restore tropical forests. To ensure accountability, funds shall be administered and overseen by U.S. Government officials, environmental nongovernmental organizations active in the beneficiary country, and scientific or academic organizations. To qualify for assistance, countries must meet the criteria established by Congress under EAI, including that the government must be democratically elected, has not provided support for acts of international terrorism, is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics control matters, and does not participate in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Mr. President, I believe this is an important bill that will go a long way in helping protect some of the world's most ecologically sensitive and vital areas. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act promotes debt reduction, investment reforms, community based conservation and sustainable use of the environment. In addition, it stretches limited Federal dollars making an effective use of international environmental assistance. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to support S. 1758.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I believe it is my time, is it not, Madam President?

Mr. CHAFEE. Let me finish, if I might. I have here a letter, dated July 10, as I was saying just before the Senator from Utah came in. This is not some musty letter I dragged out of the files from a couple of years ago. This was written 3 days ago. In it, it says: We believe the proposed legislation, including the proposed technical amendments [i.e. those you have been referring to] would fundamentally interfere with the preemptive traditional and historic rights. And who signed it? Well, the Governor George Voinovich, chairman, National Governors' Association; Richard Finan, president, Ohio State Senate and president, National Conference of State Legislatures; Randy Johnson, president, National Association of Counties; Councilmember Brian O'Neill of Philadelphia, president, National League of Cities; and then, of course the mayor of Salt Lake City. Here is her signature, Deedee Corradini. I am sure she is a very able, intelligent, and fine lady, and an excellent administrator. So she directs this to all Senators. I am sure the Senator has received a copy. Now, Madam President, let me just say this. In each of our cities and each of our States, we have a system for resolving zoning problems, for example. The way it works in my State--it might be entirely different in the State of the Presiding Officer or the State of the principal proponent of this legislation--if my property is zoned residential and I want to put a gas station next to my house and I think that would be a real winner, I could make a lot of money from that gas station--now it is true that 30 other houses on the plat might not like it, but I like it, so I go before, in our State, I go before the zoning board of review. I go before the zoning board. I would seek a variance. I presume I might well be turned down. Then I go to the zoning board of appeals. In other words, I take the second step. Now, under this legislation, if I took that first step before the zoning board and was turned down and then I went to the zoning board of appeals, I wouldn't even have to wait for a decision. All I have to do is go before that, take that second step--in other words, one appeal-- and then I can say, ``This is taking too long,'' and ``I want to go into the Federal court,'' and I can go into the Federal court. Then the Federal court, under this legislation, takes up the matter. I just don't think that is what we want. So many times on the floor of this Senate we inveigh, all of us have, against one size fits all. Yet that is exactly what we are doing here. We are saying, no, no, no, we don't like your system that you have in Maine, in Bangor, the way they are handling these appeals. We will let that person go into that Federal court and there is no incentive to negotiate, to come up with a compromise. When it is done on a city level or town level, as it is in my State, having the zoning board say, can't you people work this out, a gas station, that sounds like a little much, but talk with your neighbors and see what they say. Perhaps in some other area you can work this out, but we want to negotiate. That is not true when you get this thing in the Federal court. They then come down with a decision and they direct the zoning board--issue a permit for such and such. Is that really what we want? I find this an astonishing proposal. I certainly hope that we are not going to get in this situation where powers that--200 years, these powers have resided in the local communities. Because somebody said, ``Oh, they take too long, we don't like those long delays, so we are going to make it so you can go into the Federal court.'' Well, apparently the people who live there don't think it is taking too long or they would change it. We are not helpless in our local communities, and wherever one is, whether it is each Greenwich, RI, or Ellsworth, ME, the people don't like the situation, they can change it. That is perfectly possible. What the law is saying, we don't like the way you are doing things down there, you are taking too long, so we will have those activist Federal judges that we have heard Senators on the floor inveigh against so often--I certainly hope that this cloture will not be invoked on this matter. I might say, this issue isn't whether private property owners should be protected or whether private property owners are entitled to just compensation if their property is taken for public use. The fifth amendment already provides for that. You can get into the Federal court under the present system. You don't need this legislation. You have to permit the case to ripen. That is what the courts have been saying. In other words, exhaust your remedies on the local level before you can go into the Federal courts. I greatly hope, as I said before, that for the sake of the locals and those who believe that powers should be at the local level, that a system that has been in place for the past 200 years is not arbitrarily changed as is proposed by this legislation here. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there has been considerable discussion this afternoon about compensation and takings and so forth, but what this really is all about is, are we going to permit the local authorities to have the powers that they have had in the past to deal with local zoning matters and matters similarly associated therewith. What the proponents of this legislation are saying is that we don't want that, we don't want to have a situation whereby you must exhaust your local remedies. Even though that is recognized to apply in the fourth amendment where we are dealing with unlawful searches and seizures, for example--and there the courts have said you have to exhaust your local remedies--here is what they are also saying in connection with these so-called property rights under the fifth amendment. For some peculiar reason that I haven't quite been able to fathom here, those people who have long been stalwarts of the local authority and the powers of the locals--local elected officials, for example--are suddenly saying, ``No, no, no, you don't know how to do this; we're a lot smarter than you are; we're Federal officials, we live inside the beltway, this is where we make our decisions and we're going to tell you how to run these matters on your local level.'' Even though the Supreme Court recognizes that, yes, there can be no taking of private property without just compensation, they are saying that, first, you must exhaust your local remedies, you must let this what they call ``ripen.'' We have gotten adjusted to that. For over 200 years, this is the way this system has worked. But, ``No, no,'' say the proponents of this legislation, ``that's not fast enough. Your local officials really don't know how to do this. What they are doing is they are holding up matters too long.'' It is true that you, the local voters, for example, from your town or your city, your county, wherever it might be, you are tolerant of this, you are satisfied with the way the system works. But we are in Washington, DC. And we say, ``No, we don't like that. We're going to change it for you. And, yes, your mayors can come to us and your Governors can come to us and your local legislators. We're going to dismiss you. We don't care what you want, we're going to tell you how to do this. We're pretty smart here in the U.S. Government, and we're going to straighten this thing out. No, we don't have to bother having any hearings. We'll tinker with this and change it all around and bring it to the floor. That's all right.'' As the senior Senator from Vermont has pointed out, there has not been 30 seconds of hearings on this bill we have before us, but they say that is all right because we are all very, very smart around here and we know what is best. And so we are saying to the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the president of the National Association of Counties, the president of the National League of Cities, and the vice chairman of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and so forth, this is the way we are going to do it. We are going to say, ``You don't have to exhaust your remedies.'' All you have to do in my State--I am not familiar how it works in every State; I know how it works in my State--if you want to make a dramatic change in zoning where you live, you want to put a multifamily structure up in a single family development, you say, ``I'm going to go to the zoning board.'' And you ask permission for this. And if the zoning board says no, then you file with the zoning board of review. And that is all you have to do. You do not have to do anything else. You do not have to go through that. And you do not have to take the steps and go to the State district court. Bang, you can go into Federal court. And there some federally appointed judge is going to tell you just how to straighten this thing out. He is going to tell you what to do, not your local officials, not your elected members of the zoning board or the zoning board of review. Not your mayor--he has nothing to do with this. It is going to be a federally appointed judge. And we have heard all --I do not know how many times on this floor we have heard about the dangers of activist Federal judges. And so we are going to have an activist Federal judge tell us what to do in East Greenwich, RI, or wherever it might be. Mr. President, I do not think that is right. I can see why they avoided having a hearing on this final bill, because it would have been trash. And it came out on practically a straight party-line vote. It indicates the lack of support for this legislation. Mr. President, I want to make one more point. When we have these things come up, a zoning request on the local level, there is great effort made to compromise it, to negotiate it in some fashion. ``All right. You want to fill in a wetland? No, you can't fill in that wetland. There's a place where you can work out a situation, restore a wetland just right up the road. And this is the way we will work it out.'' That is what local officials do. They know they are living there. They are dealing with their neighbors and people they know. They are not some Federal judge from some distant place who comes into town riding the circuit every now and then and says, ``This is the way it's going to be.'' But the problem is, you do not have that negotiation, that attempt to compromise, that attempt to work these matters out. I also might say, this has a very, very chilling effect on the local officials, because if the local officials are in a situation where they know they can be jerked into the Federal court--they make a decision on whether it is the preservation of a wetland or the preservation of the zoning, the one-acre zoning, whatever it might be--they are going to be very leery of making a decision against the wishes of the home builders, for example. Why are the home builders so enthusiastic about this legislation? Are they trying to preserve the environment or preserve some open space or do what is best for the community? Well, it is totally understandable. They are looking after their own interests. That is what they want. So, Mr. President, they are going to be going right into the Federal court. They have plenty of money. If I come from a relatively small town, and my little town is jerked into the Federal court--and we have a city solicitor--the town solicitor, who isn't paid much, if he is going to start going to Federal court and have to answer to every request for a change in the zoning, it is going to be a big bill that he is going to submit to this town. Mr. President, I certainly hope that this so-called Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998, which is going to come before us in a half an hour on a question of cloture--I certainly hope that everybody will vote against cloture. I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for letting me speak. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Madam President. I want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont for permitting me to proceed. Madam President, I oppose the motion to proceed to consider S. 2271, the so-called Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. Quite simply, S. 2271 is a bad bill and we should not be spending any further time on this legislation, in my judgment. The bill would put Federal courts in the position of second-guessing local land management decisions. It would make it significantly more difficult for State and local governments to implement zoning restrictions, preserve neighborhoods, or protect environmentally sensitive areas. Madam President, this bill is opposed by virtually every national organization representing State and local governments--the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, amongst others. The Nation's largest environmental groups are also strongly opposed to this legislation. I might say, Madam President, if anybody wonders whether this is an environmental vote, it is. And I know that many around here say that the environmentalists are not very fair in their scoring. Well, here they have given clear notice that this is an item that resonates deeply with them. They are strongly opposed to this legislation, the environmental groups. The administration is strongly opposed. The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the EPA and the Chairwoman of the Council on Environmental Quality--all of them oppose this. Madam President, I do not know whether these letters have been put in the Record previously, but I would just like to read, if I might--I wish the Senator from Utah were here, but perhaps he will be back. But I am going to just read, if I might, a couple of these letters. This is from the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors. This is dated July 10, 1998. This isn't some old letter we dragged out; this is dated July 10--3 days ago. To all Senators: On behalf of the nation's governors, state legislators, and local elected officials, we are writing to express our strong opposition to S. 2271, the ``Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998.'' We believe the proposed legislation, including the proposed technical amendments, would fundamentally interfere with and preempt the traditional and historic rights and responsibilities of state and local governments and would mandate significant new unfunded costs for all state and local taxpayers. State and local elected officials are as deeply committed to protecting private property rights as are members of Congress. A review of the most recent proposed revisions to the legislation-- Your legislation, I say to Senator Hatch. I thought you might be interested in what the Governors and others have to say about it. They say your most recent revisions: . . . do not address our fundamental problems with the bill. We continue to believe that S. 2271 goes far beyond its stated objectives. If passed, the bill would undermine state and local government authority over land use and regulatory decisions by allowing developers and property owners to take their grievances directly to federal court, circumventing legal remedies on the state and local level. Such an ``end run'' around the processes established by our state law runs counter to the foundations of federalism . . . The bill preempts the traditional systems for resolving local zoning, land use, and regulatory disputes; it creates a disincentive for developers to negotiate with localities in order to reach mutually agreeable solutions; and it puts federal judges . . . Imagine this: the Federal Government, Federal judges, the very group we are so warned about frequently on this floor. And what is more, they are labeled frequently as activist Federal judges. Suddenly we are putting them in charge. I am shocked by this.

Mr. CHAFEE. Let me finish and I will give you a chance. I know the Senator from Utah is deeply concerned about these activist Federal judges. That is why I find it sort of out of character----

Mr. CHAFEE. For him to want to turn these matters over from the locals to the activist Federal judges, to the courts. The framers of the Constitution never intended Federal courts to be the first resort in resolving community disputes between local governments and private parties. This letter is signed by--well, who do we have here?--by the mayor of Salt Lake City.

Mr. CHAFEE. Deedee Corradini, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. No, my understanding is that the intent of this section is to prevent the dollar amount of the minimum guarantee from growing out of proportion far beyond that which the conferees anticipate. The intent of the Congress is that no State will receive less than a 90.5 percent rate of return on their gas tax contributions to the highway trust fund, of the funds distributed to the States which are covered by the minimum guarantee provision.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, the conference report before the Senate includes the TEA 21, that is the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st century, which some call the ISTEA II Restoration Act. It includes a technical corrections measure to that bill. The technical correction measure, which is part of the legislation before us, remedies errors made in H.R. 2400, which was the surface transportation bill we passed just before the Memorial Day recess. As everyone knows, just before we went out on that break for Memorial Day, there was a great desire to complete the legislation before us. We completed negotiations on Thursday evening and delivered a very complex bill that had over 900 pages the first thing on Friday morning. In other words, we completed the negotiations on Thursday night, and by the next morning we had a bill of over 900 pages before us. Inevitably, some errors were made. We have before us legislation to correct those errors. I emphasize this is just a technical corrections bill. Many Members have come to us in the ensuing days suggesting new items or changes that they wanted to be made because they felt in the original legislation they did not obtain them. But we resisted all such requests. This bill merely carries out the agreements of that conference on H.R. 2400. I will refer to it sometimes by the number. That is the original transportation legislation that we passed. The technical corrections in the legislation before us have been developed jointly by the House and the Senate conferees, with valuable input from the U.S. Department of Transportation. I think it is important to note this legislation before us does not change the formula allocations agreed to in the conference. The technical changes in this legislation relate to apportionments. Those that exist are made to ensure that the legislative instructions to the Department of Transportation on the formula will produce an apportionment to the States just as we agreed upon. In other words, the only changes we made in this legislation, so-called technical corrections, are to take care of things that were left out inadvertently or to clarify an intent that was there and clearly recognized in order to carry out that intent. This bill also corrects drafting errors relating to veterans' smoking-related disability benefits. This is to what the Senator from West Virginia was referring. The provisions of H.R. 2400 were intended merely to reverse a recent decision by the general counsel of the Veterans' Administration, which decision had not yet been implemented. It is very important to remember that. We have been advised that the bill may be interpreted to deny benefits to some veterans who were eligible for benefits prior to the general counsel's decision. In other words, it has come to our attention there may be situations that have arisen that, as a result of the language as we drew it, denied benefits to some veterans who were receiving them. What we meant to do was to reverse the general counsel's decision as it might apply to future applicants in an entirely new category of benefits opened by the general counsel. And with this technical corrections bill, we reach that objective. There was an article in the Washington Post several weeks ago that has caused serious concern. That article suggested that Congress had declared smoking ``willful misconduct'' by America's veterans. That was just plain wrong. That statement in the Washington Post, that we included smoking as ``willful misconduct'' by American veterans, gave great offense to some. I want everyone to know that was an incorrect reading of the legislation. Section 1110 of title 38, which is the existing law and has nothing to do with the transportation legislation, entitled veterans to compensation if they are disabled by service-related illness or injury. There are two exceptions to this entitlement in current law. The first exception is ``willful misconduct.'' A veteran cannot get disability compensation if the illness or injury results from willful misconduct. That is the law. It has been the law a long time. The second exception denies benefits if the illness or injury resulted from alcohol or drugs. These two exceptions are in the current law. That is where they are. Now, H.R. 2400, the transportation legislation, added a third exception. It would have denied benefits where the illness results from smoking. This did not make smoking willful misconduct. This was a third exception to the provision that entitles a veteran to disability benefits. The first was willful misconduct, the second was alcohol or drugs, and the third was smoking related. From where did we get that language? That was suggested by the Senate legislative counsel as the most straightforward means to reverse the great opening of benefits under the general counsel's decision. This language had the unintended consequence of denying benefits to some veterans who would have qualified prior to the decision. This bill drops the language suggested by the Senate legislative counsel. We just got away from all that language that we had in there and returned to the language which was suggested by the administration, which reverses the general counsel's decision as it might apply to future applicants. No veteran now entitled to benefits as a result of adjudication, or who has applied for such benefits, will be affected. This bill makes the following changes to the veterans subtitle: One, it clarifies that veterans who file claims for smoking-related benefits are grandfathered. That filing isn't going to be eliminated. Second, it makes clear that those active-duty service personnel who contracted a smoking-related illness while in the service continue to qualify for disability compensation. We don't change that. Third, we ensure that survivors and their dependents will receive a 20-percent increase in education assistance benefits. Madam President, we prepared a summary of this technical corrections bill, and I ask unanimous consent that this summary be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE. I also point out, Madam President, that we voted on the underlying veterans issue three times in this Senate. Each time it has approved the action that we took here. home heating oil pilot program The Department of Transportation Secretary has been given new authority under section 4007, of the newly passed Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), for waivers, exemptions and pilot programs. Therefore, section 1221(j), the home heating oil pilot program is redundant and no longer necessary. Striking this pilot program is not intended to suggest that a home heating oil pilot program should not be conducted. On the contrary, because of the unique seasonal nature of the heating oil industry, it is essential that a pilot program be implemented on or before December 1, to be valuable the following winter. The home heating oil pilot program was first authorized in section 346 of the National Highway System Designation of 1995. However, this pilot program was never fully implemented by the Department of Transportation. Exhibit 1 House/Senate Joint Summary of Technical Corrections to Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century This legislation: (1) restories provisions agreed to by the conferees; (2) makes technical corrections to provisions included in H.R. 2400; and (3) eliminates duplicative program authorizations. This legislation does not change the formula allocations contained in the Conference Report to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The following is a section by section description of provisions included in the TEA-21 Restoration Act: Section 9001 Short Title Section 9002 Authorization and Program Subtitle Adjusts funding levels for high priority projects to conform with list in the conference report and to correct other errors. Adjusts funding levels for Highway Use Tax Evasion projects to allow for implementation of the Excise Fuel Tracking System. Corrects the obligation limitation levels for mathematical consistency and conforms obligation limitation treatment to current practice for research programs. Makes other conforming and technical changes such as renumbering sections and correcting cross reference. Section 9003 Restorations to General Provisions Subtitle Restores the National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation program. Restores the Substitute Project for the Barney Circle Freeway, Washington, D.C. Restores Fiscal, Administrative and Other Amendments included in both House and Senate bills. Removes section 1211(j) regarding winter home heating oil delivery. Makes technical corrections to section 1211, Amendments to Prior Surface Transportation laws and section 1212, Miscellaneous Provisions. Clarifies program funding categories for Puerto Rico and continues current law penalties for Puerto Rico for non- compliance with the federal minimum drinking age requirements. Clarifies that contract authority is authorized for provisions contained in section 1215, Designated Transportation Enhancement Activities. Modifies Sec. 1217(j) to allow for effective implementation of this subsection. Modifies Magnetic Levitation Deployment Program to clarify eligibility of low-speed magnetic levitation technologies. Corrects reference to Special Olympics. Section 9004 Restorations to Program Streamlining and Flexibility Subtitle Restores Discretionary Grant Selection Criteria provisions. Conforms Environmental Streamlining provisions to include mass transit projects. Section 9005 Restorations to Safety Subtitle Restores the Open Container Law safety program. Restores the Minimum Penalties for Repeat Offenders for Driving while Intoxicated program. Section 9006 Elimination of Duplicate Provisions Eliminates duplicate provisions for San Mateo County, California, the Value Pricing Pilot Program, and National Defense Highways Outside the United States Restores the Minnesota Transportation History Network provision. Section 9007 Highway Finance Updates the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program to begin in 1999 rather than in 1998. Conforms the credit levels in the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation program to agreed upon distribution levels of budget authority. Section 9008 High Priority Projects Technical Corrections Makes technical corrections, description changes and previously agreed upon additions to high priority projects. Section 9009 Federal Transit Administration programs Makes corrections to transit planning provisions to conform to provisions in title 23. Clarifies eligibility of clean diesel under clean fuels program. Makes technical corrections to section 5309 and clarifies the Secretary's full funding grant agreement authority. Funds University Transportation Centers authorized under title 5. Restores requirement that transit grantees accept non- disputed audits of other government agencies when awarding contracts. Makes corrections to the authorizations for planning, University Transportation Centers, the National Transit Institute and the additional amounts for new starts. Makes technical corrections, description changes, and previously agreed upon additions to new starts projects. Makes technical corrections to the access to jobs and reverse commute programs. Corrects funding level for the Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program and makes other technical corrections. Makes technical corrections to study on transit in national parks. Makes corrections to obligation limitation levels. Section 9010 Motor Carrier Safety Technical Correction Conforms section references for the Motor Carrier Safety program. Section 9011 Restorations to Research Title Adjusts authorization levels for university transportation centers to conform with modifications made in the Transit title in section 9. Restores eligibility of Intelligent Transportation System activities for innovative financing. Corrects drafting errors to 5116 (e) and (f). Makes technical and conforming changes to university research provisions. Corrects references to the Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Corrects drafting errors to Fundamental Properties of Asphalts and Modified Asphalts research program. Section 9012 Automobile Safety and Information Corrects reference to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Makes conforming changes to provisions in Subtitle D of Title VII. Section 903 Technical Corrections Regarding Subtitle A of Title VIII. Makes corrections to offsetting adjustments for discretionary spending limits. Makes other technical and conforming changes to Title VIII. Section 9014 Corrections to Veterans Subtitle The TEA-21 Restoration Act corrects drafting errors to Sec. 8201. The provision included in the Conference Report on TEA-21 to use the Veterans smoking-related disability benefits for transportation was drafted incorrectly and had the unintended consequence of identifying smoking as an act of ``willful misconduct'' by veterans. The provision in the TEA-21 Restoration Act corrects any reference to smoking as an act of ``willful misconduct'' by veterans. This provision also clarifies that veterans who have filed claims for smoking-related benefits are grandfathered. The provision also makes clear that those active-duty service personnel who contract a smoking-related illness while in service continue to qualify for disability compensation. Another correction in this bill relates to ensuring that survivors and their dependents will receive a 20% increase in education assistance benefits. Section 9015 Technical Corrections Regarding Title IX Makes technical corrections to the Revenue title. Section 9016 Effective Date Provides for the effective date of this act to conform with the effective date of TEA-21. maglev deployment program

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, that is my understanding and that is indeed what the committee intended in passing this program.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I will enter into a colloquy with the senior Senator from Florida to clarify a provision in the TEA 21 legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. No. I would like to press forward with the----

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, at this time I move to table Senator Murray's appeal of the ruling of the Chair. And I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, at the proper time I will move to table the appeal of the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, but I want to let people debate on this. Obviously, a motion to table is not debatable, so I am not going to raise the motion to table until everybody has had a chance to have his or her say here. Mr. President, I would make a correction, if I might, to what I understood the Senator from Washington was saying. She seemed to indicate that this technical corrections measure that is included within the IRS reform--she indicates it takes $17 billion from veterans. I argue, of course, whether there is any taking from veterans at all, period. But the important point is that the technical corrections measure is strictly a technical corrections measure. The $17 billion that the Senator from Washington is referring to was a provision that was in the conference report on H.R. 2400--in other words, the conference report on the transportation legislation which I like to call ISTEA II. That was adopted by the Senate here, 88 to 5. That is where we handled that particular measure. Then we came to the technical corrections, and there, those technical corrections indeed do deal strictly with technicalities. As perhaps some will recall, we finished that bill on a Thursday evening; we finished the negotiations with the House of Representatives. Everybody was anxious to get off on the Memorial Day recess, and the staff and all worked all night long and came forward with the so-called H.R. 2400, the ISTEA II, if you would, on Friday, the day after we negotiated late into the evening. There we voted on the printed version, which was, to the best of our ability, correct. But there were technical mistakes in it. At the time, we recognized that there would be. But there is nothing, no technical mistake about the money that, through a general counsel's opinion, had been going to the veterans. That was taken care of, in the legislation that we voted on, on that Friday. And this technical corrections measure has nothing to do with that. So I am not quite sure why the distinguished Senator from Washington refers to this technical correction measure as taking $17 billion from veterans. It just plain does not do that. We believe that the technical corrections that are included in the IRS reform bill are strictly technical and noncontroversial. By the way, I didn't flesh out the part about what a monstrous job this was, not only finishing it on that Thursday evening, the negotiations and voting on the bill, but it is a 900-page bill. It presented tremendous challenges, and inevitably some errors were made. This technical corrections bill which has been developed jointly by us--the Senate and the House conferees, with some input from the U.S. Department of Transportation--is truly a technical corrections measure. It doesn't do anything with formula allocations. It is true that this veterans thing gets very, very confusing. The general counsel of the Veterans' Administration came forward with a decision that would have greatly enlarged the benefits that were available to those who had smoking-related illnesses. By the way, that never truly went into effect. There were some who made applications for grants or benefits under it. But to the best of my knowledge, I don't believe anybody actually received benefits. Their requests were being considered. The administration itself realized that this went way beyond anything they were intending, and the administration itself pulled back from that general counsel's decision and reversed it. We--that is the Senate of the United States, the Congress--went along with that reversal and used those funds that would otherwise have been available for general purposes for this transportation legislation. Mr. President, I think it is a mistake to suggest that this technical corrections measure is anything other than what it is labeled, a technical corrections measure that covers some of the problems that were raised as a result of the haste that we were under with this massive legislation when we were trying to recess for the Memorial Day recess. I don't know whether there is further debate to take place on this. I am not trying to cut people off peremptorily. If the Senator from Washington has further comments, I will give her an opportunity to speak if she wishes. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Certainly.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from New Mexico is absolutely correct: Set aside the big expansion of the program that took place as a result of the general counsel's opinion. Set that aside. There were some veterans receiving benefits under other programs that were related to smoking disability problems that occurred while they were on active duty. Inadvertently, the language in the original legislation--that is the ISTEA conference report--eliminated some of those benefits. This technical corrections bill that we have before us will straighten that out and restore those benefits. In an odd way, should the Senator from Washington prevail and this technical corrections measure be eliminated in some fashion, it will result in a failure to cure a problem that has arisen inadvertently.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do want to stress, once again, as I said before, that killing the technical corrections bill is not going to restore any $17 billion. The technical corrections bill has nothing to do with that. It does not mention it, does not involve it at all. That was all taken care of in the conference report. Indeed, we voted three times on that measure. We voted on the whole matter of the $17 billion being used in connection with the ISTEA II legislation. We voted on it twice in connection with the budget, and we voted on it once when we did the conference report here. So, Mr. President, I do want to stress that should Senator Murray's appeal of the ruling of the Chair be successful, the entire IRS reform bill would effectively die. And so I urge my colleagues to uphold the ruling of the Chair. I now move to table Senator Murray's appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.

Mr. CHAFEE. My understanding is there are no House conferees. The conference has been dissolved.

Mr. CHAFEE. Well, it is a complicated way of proceeding, but it is my understanding that this would actually kill the IRS reform.

Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.