John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, page 67 of the committee report accompanying the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill of 1999 includes $8 million for the National Rural Water Association. In addition to the appropriation to the National Rural Water Association, the Committee notes that ``States are authorized to set aside 2 percent of the funds provided under their drinking water State revolving fund allotment.'' I ask my friend from Missouri if he and other members of the Appropriations Committee are implying that the 2 percent set aside authorized in Section 1452(g)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 is to be used for grants made to the National Rural Water Association and various regional community action organizations?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies for clarifying the report. enhanced vouchers

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for including a provision in the manager's amendment that makes it explicit that State Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund programs may continue the practice of collecting a loan service fee to help cover the cost of administering the loans and managing the revolving loan fund. Mr. President, there are approximately fourteen States that charge a loan administration fee to revolving loan fund borrowers to cover some of the costs associated with the loan transaction. As a service to the borrower, most of the States roll this fee into the loan so that it is repaid with interest over the duration of the loan. This is a tremendous help to the borrower, who is often unable to pay the fee upfront. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently objected to this practice despite the fact that it has been used since the inception of the revolving loan fund. EPA contends that this practice violates the four percent limitation on administrative fees in Title VI of the Clean Water Act. The language included in the manager's amendment will resolve this problem by allowing States to charge administrative fees regardless of whether they exceed the four percent limitation. To ensure that this practice is not abused, the fees cannot exceed an amount the Administrator of EPA deems reasonable. Mr. President, without this amendment many of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund programs would face severe financial hardship that would be detrimental to the health of the revolving loan fund program. Once again, I would like to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for including this very important amendment in their manager's package. fema

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to introduce a bill that has tremendous potential to improve management and operations of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This bill--the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act-- will supplement scarce Federal dollars with outside services and donations by local groups and individuals. I am joined by 13 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including Senators Kempthorne, Baucus, Allard, Daschle, Collins, Graham, Feinstein, Jeffords, Gordon Smith, D'Amato, DeWine, Bond, and Faircloth. The National Wildlife Refuge System consists of 93 million acres in 513 units. This is the land set aside by the Federal Government to protect fish and wildlife. The Refuge System historically has received less funding acre-for acre than its larger and older sibling, the National Park System. Despite the recent passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the refuge system remains poorly funded, and has a significant backlog of construction and maintenance projects totaling approximately $1 billion. As budgets continue to shrink, the Federal Government must look at alternative sources of funding and assistance. Volunteer services have long helped the Refuge System, and are becoming increasingly important as a means of supplement decreasing Federal dollars. Indeed, the very first refuge on Pelican Island, Florida, was staffed by volunteer wardens. Since 1982, when the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) established a formal volunteer program, the program has grown from 4,251 volunteers donating 128,440 hours of time to 25,000 volunteers donating more than one million hours in 1996. This 1996 figure represents almost 20 percent of all work done by the FWS on the Refuge System, amounting to about $11 million worth of services, compared with a cost of $1.7 million for maintaining the volunteer program. The five refuges in my own state of Rhode Island, which are managed as a single complex, provide a wonderful illustration of how important these effort are. Last year, volunteers donated 4,500 hours of service to Rhode Islands refuges. With only five full-time employers working among the five Rhode Island refuges, volunteers contributed 36 percent of all work performed on these refuges. At several of our refuges, the typical visitor often will only interact with volunteer staff. The ``National Wildlife Refuge System Vounterer and Partnership Enhancement Act'' lends must needed support to the efforts of the FWS to maintain and operate the Refuge System. This bill will accomplish four goals: (1) encourage financial contributions and donations to refuges; (2) increase opportunities and incentives for volunteers on refuges; (3) promote community partnerships with local refuges; and (4) establish a refuge education program to use refuges as ``outdoor classrooms.'' Mr. President, let me give you some of the highlights in the bill. Section 3 of the bill allows gifts and donations to be made to individual refuges without further appropriations. While this is similar to current law, the bill provides new authority for the FWS to match these gifts. This will allow refuge managers to leverage the precious few dollars over which they have discretion for operations and maintenance with money from local residents and groups. Section 4 directs the FWS to carry out a pilot project at 2 or more refuges in each region, but no more than 20 nationwide, to hire a volunteer coordinator for the refuge. This coordinator will manage and supervise the volunteers, and service as the liaison between the volunteers, the partnership organizations, and the refuge. It also establishes a Senior Volunteer Corps for individuals 50 years or older. These older citizens comprise the majority of volunteer efforts throughout the refuge system. This new Corps will recognize and foster that effort. Section 5 provides for community partner organizations to enter into agreements with the FWS to implement projects consistent with the purposes of the refuge. The projects may improve habitat, support operations, promote educational materials, or encourage donations. Non- Federal funding may be matched by the FWS. Section 6 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop guidance for education programs that promotes understanding of refuge resources, improves scientific literacy, and provides outdoor classroom experiences. It also authorizes the Secretary to develop or enhance refuge education programs based on this guidance. This bill is similar to a House bill, H.R. 1856, introduced by Congressman Saxton on June 10, 1997, and subsequently passed by the House. I have been pleased to work with Congressman Saxton on this wonderful initiative, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Baucus, Hatch, D'Amato, Conrad, Mikulski, Jeffords and Rockefeller. I am introducing legislation that extends the current Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) program for three years. The program expires at the end of this month. While it is clear that the program will not be extended before we leave for the Fourth of July recess, I hope that Congress will act quickly upon its return to make sure that this very important program is reinstated and that no gap in the availability of the credit is created. The WOTC program is a public-private partnership which encourages businesses to hire individuals on public assistance or who otherwise have life situations that make them difficult to employ. Employers who hire these individuals receive an income tax credit of as much as forty percent of the first $6,000 in wages they pay. The WOTC program was established in 1996 as a replacement for the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC). Last year, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act Congress affirmed its strong support for this program by extending it for nine months along with the other so-called ``expiring provisions.'' Unfortunately, the tax credit will expire at the end of this month before Congress will have an opportunity to extend it. The legislation we are introducing today extends the program for three years. This extension is vital to the continued success of the WOTC program. In speaking with employers who utilize the program, their biggest concern is the on again, off again nature of the credit. Participation in the program requires significant resources and time commitments on the part of the employer. The uncertainty surrounding the continuation of this program makes it very difficult for employers to make that commitment. The loss of program certainty reduces the incentive to hire those currently on public assistance. During previous breaks employers have scaled back their programs, and some have even abandoned the program altogether. Individuals hired under the WOTC program often require substantial time and effort on the part of an employer. In many instances these individuals lack even the most basic skills necessary to hold a job. Without the WOTC program there would be a strong disincentive for employers to make any effort to hire these individuals. The tax credit levels the playing field and gives these individuals an opportunity to move off the welfare rolls and take control of their futures. Thus far, nearly 300,000 people--mostly single mothers--have been hired under this program. Those eligible for the WOTC are: members of families receiving AFDC benefits; qualified veterans who are members of families receiving food stamp benefits; 18-24 years olds who are members of families receiving food stamp benefits; 18-24 year olds who live in an empowerment zone or enterprise community; summer youth (16-17 year olds) who live in an empowerment zone or enterprise community who are hired during the summer months; SSI recipients; economically disadvantaged ex-felons; and individuals with physical or mental disabilities who have been referred to employers after or while receiving rehabilitative services under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As I mentioned earlier, an employer will receive an income tax credit of forty percent of the first $6,000 in wages paid to an employee who is a member of one of these groups. Therefore, the maximum credit available is $2,400. The only exception is summer youth employees where the maximum amount of wages used to calculate the credit is $3,000. An employer can only receive this maximum credit, however, if the employee is employed for at least 400 hours. While that may sound like a short period of time, for many of these individuals, that represent a significant period of employment, perhaps longer than any job they've ever held. A smaller credit equal to 25% of the first $6,000 of wages is available to an employer in those instances where the employee works less than 400 hours. No credit is available for any employee who works less than 120 hours. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit is an important component of our efforts to make welfare reform work over the long term. It provides transitional assistance to employers who are willing to hire and take the time to train individuals before they become long-term welfare recipients and young people at high risk of going on public assistance programs. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a long-term extension of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support Senator Kempthorne and will vote to table the Reid amendment. Senator Kempthorne's provision will protect the environment while providing the Air Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base with more realistic training facilities. Please note this: The administration supports the compromise in the bill. In fact, the administration wrote the language offered by Senator Kempthorne. Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Cohen have both sent letters of support, as has the Acting Secretary of the Air Force. The compromise language ensures that our environmental laws will fully apply to Air Force activities at the Juniper Butte Range. This includes the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The concessions made by the Air Force with respect to airspace flight restrictions near the range will reduce the noise in the canyon. Instead of flights at 100 feet at any time, the flights are now restricted to 3 days per week and this raises the minimum altitudes from 100 feet to 1000 feet or 5,000 feet depending on the flight angle to the canyon. The Kempthorne amendment provision protects the environment and national security. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kempthorne.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond. The report accompanying this legislation states that the committee has included $191.4 million for three ``standard'' C-130J aircraft (in addition to funding for two other C-130J variants). The Administration's budget request included funding for one standard C- 130J for the active Air Force. Thus, the committee added two standard C-130Js to the budget. The report further states that these two standard C-130J aircraft added by this bill are designated for Reserve Component Modernization. However, the report appears not to include a designation for the requested C-130J. I would like to ask the Chairman, does the committee intend that all three of the standard C-130J aircraft in this bill--not simply the two added to the request--are designated for the Air National Guard?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, page 44 of the committee report accompanying S. 2138, the fiscal 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriation bill, includes a section on funding provided in the bill for construction of a flood control outlet at Devils Lake, North Dakota. At the end of the short section, the committee report states that, ``[i]t is expected that such circumstances would also be such that granting of a waiver under the emergency provision of the National Environmental Policy Act would be appropriate and that the provision of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty would be met.'' I am trying to understand how this report language corresponds with language in the bill for Devils Lake. As reported by the committee, pages 6 and 7 of the bill lay out a detailed set of rigorous criteria that must be met before any funds can be obligated by the Secretary for actual construction of the outlet. Two of those criteria, full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty seem to be preempted by the committee in this report. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Senator Domenici, if the committee report language in any way supercedes the bill language? Moreover, is the committee attempting to provide a waiver or some form of relief under NEPA or the Boundary Waters Treaty?

Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate my colleague's clarification. I chaired a hearing on Devils Lake before the Committee on Environment and Public Works late last year and am committed to addressing the terrible flooding problems experienced there. However, I am convinced that the people of North Dakota, Minnesota, Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers will all be served more effectively if we go about this project in the right way. To do that, we need the appropriate reviews, studies and justifications by the Army Corps of Engineers, State Department and others. In that context, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Congressional Record a January 28, 1998, Army Corps memorandum, signed by the then-Acting Assistant Secretary John H. Zirschky, that details the agency's policy on NEPA compliance and the proposed outlet at Devils Lake. I ask unanimous consent that the memorandum be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am submitting a sense of the Senate resolution to designate the third Saturday in June of every year as ``National Rivers Day.'' Rivers touch each and every one of our lives. Every State and nearly every community in the United States has a river or stream going through it. Because every American has access to rivers and streams, what we do and how we live has a profound impact on the quality of the nation's rivers. The three million miles of rivers and streams that travel through the United States have played a fundamental role in our culture and our heritage. Indeed, the health of America's rivers inextricably linked to our health as a nation. Our rivers contribute to commerce, food production and public recreation, and they enhance our well-being. Rivers also support fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife that need clean water to survive in their habitat. The settlers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were awed by our majestic rivers, curious mixtures of pristine and rugged beauty. Since colonial times, America's rivers have promoted our economic and social growth, as an energy source to spur industrialization and as a water supply resource. Regrettably, in the late 1960's, although America had grown to be the most powerful industrial nation in the world, we had failed to protect the very resources that were responsible for our success. The Hudson River was a dumping ground for fuel and other industrial waste. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland became so polluted that it caught fire. These terrible events prompted the call to reverse the trend and to clean up the nation's rivers and other waters. Today, the cleanup of our rivers and streams has led to the economic revitalization of urban centers, neighborhoods, and towns all over America. From Boston to Chicago to Washington, D.C., Americans are cleaning up their rivers and using them for recreation, boating, tourism and leisure. America's rivers continue to serve as transportation links supporting commerce and industry. Their greatest contribution to the U.S. economy, however, is the 430 billion dollars generated annually from the tourists that visit our rivers. And more than 46 million international tourists visit our rivers each year. The tide has turned significantly from the late 1960s and early 1970s, but we must continue to encourage ongoing protection and promotion of the nation's rivers. Designating the third Saturday in June of each year as ``National Rivers Day'' will inspire all Americans to get involved in the ongoing protection of our precious rivers and streams. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues the tremendous news of the success of a group of nine fifth grade students from Rhode Island. These students won the U.S. Navy's national competition to be the first group of civilians ever granted the privilege of naming a United States Navy ship. These diligent young people from Oak Lawn Elementary School in Cranston overcame extraordinary competition being selected as finalists from more than 2,000 entries from across the United States. Last Friday, Secretary of the Navy John Dalton announced the Oak Lawn students' proposal to name the Navy's next oceanographic ship the U.S.S. Bruce Heezen was the winner of this competition. Heezen was a pioneer in mapping the ocean floor who died aboard a Navy submarine taking him to look for the first time at the ocean terrain. I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to these bright students and their teacher for their great achievement. I share with their families and community in recognizing the fabulous work they did in terms of conducting extensive group research and a wide range of individual projects. I also commend them for enthusiastically sharing their discoveries and knowledge with other schools in the area to educate their fellow students.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, otherwise known as the ISTEA reauthorization legislation. This was passed by the House and Senate on May 22, and the President will sign this historic legislation into law later this afternoon. In the rush to finish the conference before the Memorial Day recess-- and I know the Chair remembers well the frantic hours that were taking place then--and during our subsequent efforts on the technical corrections bill to this overall legislation, I did not have an opportunity to speak about what was accomplished in this important bill. I also want to take this chance to thank the many people who were involved in the effort. First, a word about the legislation. It is the result of over 2 years of hard work and careful negotiation. But I think the final product is better for the extra time and effort that was put into it. This legislation builds upon the landmark achievements of the so- called first ISTEA legislation, which stands for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. That was in 1991. Senator Moynihan of New York was chairman of our committee at the time, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and was, I think it is fair to say, the principal author of that landmark legislation in 1991. Now, how is this bill historic? And how is it different from the 1991 legislation? First, and most obvious, ISTEA II, or sometimes called the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, authorizes a record amount of funding for surface transportation: almost $218 billion for highway and transit programs over the next 6 years. Of this amount, almost $174 billion will be for highways--that includes bridges, obviously--$3 billion is for highway safety programs, and $41 billion is for transit programs. Now, $205 billion of these funds are authorized from the highway trust fund, and $13 billion from the general fund. In total, the funds provided in the conference report represent a 40 percent increase over the last so-called ISTEA legislation--40 percent increase. We will provide these record funding levels in the funding guarantee within a balanced budget. I think that is terribly important to remember, Mr. President. We are not increasing the Federal deficit, despite some of the statements that have been made in the various news media. For achieving these record funding levels for the highway program, Senators Byrd, Gramm, Warner and Baucus deserve special recognition, as well as Congressmen Shuster and Oberstar from the House. All of those Members fought long and hard to ensure transportation would receive substantial increases over the original ISTEA legislation. I know that the sums in this bill are large, and the press reports sometimes imply we spent too much, but I think we have to put all this into context. The bill authorizes, indeed, $218 billion. And I must say, that is a lot of money, as we all recognize. It is over 6 years. As I said, this represents a large increase over ISTEA I of 1991. However, and I think this is an important point, only about 30 to 40 percent of the total projected spending for highways and transit by all levels of government is encompassed in this legislation. People come up to me and say, well, isn't that a lot of money to be spending on transportation--that is, highways, bridges and transit--over the 6 years? Yes, it is a lot of money, but you have to realize it only represents about 30 to 40 percent of the total projected spending that will be done. Where does the other spending come from? It comes from counties, it comes from States, it comes from cities that are doing things on their own. In addition to record authorization levels, this legislation made significant changes to the way we budget for transportation at the Federal level. This legislation changed the budgetary treatment of the highway trust fund following the model set forth in a bill first introduced by Senator Bond, which I was pleased to cosponsor and work on with him, the so-called Bond-Chafee legislation. This bill ensures that all Federal gas tax revenues deposited into the highway trust fund are spent on transportation programs. In effect, this bill reestablishes the linkage between the highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending that was envisioned when the highway trust fund was created. If future revenues to the highway trust fund increase, then under this legislation the highway spending will increase; and, of course, it works the other way, likewise. If the amount going into the highway trust fund from the various taxes-- principally the Federal tax on gasoline--decreases, then highway spending, likewise, will decrease. Now, using Congressional Budget Office projections, $198 billion of the total funding for highway and transit programs will be guaranteed under the new budget mechanism we have. Of the $198 billion, $162 billion is for highway and highway safety programs and $36 billion is for transit programs. It is important to note that this historic change which reestablishes the linkage between the trust fund moneys and trust fund spending was all accomplished within the balanced budget framework. We will keep the highway trust fund on budget as part of a unified budget and we will offset the increased spending with spending reductions in other programs. I want to thank Senator Bond for his tireless work on the so-called Bond-Chafee proposal, which provides the underlying foundation for the budget reforms we implemented in this legislation. I thank the cosponsors of the Bond-Chafee proposal for their input. I also want to thank Senator Domenici and his staff for their work throughout the year and for their help in crafting the final budget mechanism that will become law later this afternoon. I believe the original ISTEA was a landmark piece of legislation. I have said that many, many times. However, it is true that in the 1991 legislation there were some shortcomings, particularly for the so- called donor States. These were the States that put in substantially more into the trust fund than they got back. The original ISTEA established a 90 percent minimum allocation program which was intended to guarantee that each State at least got back 90 percent of what that State put into the trust fund. The problem was that it didn't work. The 90 percent only applied to some of the programs and wasn't structured mathematically to achieve its goals. The old minimum allocation calculation applied to fewer than 80 percent of the programs, leaving some States to receive a percentage share that was equal to 70 to 80 percent of their share of contributions. In other words, a program that was designed to make sure that every State got back at least 90 percent failed. Indeed, some States were left with between 70 plus up to 80 cents back on the dollars as opposed to the 90 cents. In this legislation, thanks to the leadership of Senator Warner and others in the Senate, tremendous efforts were made to guarantee that each State would get back--at least originally, we sought 92 percent. We weren't able to achieve that under the formula, but we did come up so that every State got back 90.5 cents for every dollar that State put into the trust fund, at least. So the donor States were put in far better shape than they previously had been under the old former legislation. Other members of the Environment and Public Works Committee who played a key role in achieving this result were all very, very helpful. In addition, we had Senators who were not on the committee who were very anxious about the program. Senators Abraham, Lugar, Coats, Mack, Graham, and Levin were diligent in their efforts to see that their States got back at least the 90.5 cents. Another area where ISTEA broke with the past is how priority projects, otherwise known as demonstration projects, are treated. I realize that these projects are viewed by some just like the demonstration projects of the past. However, I think the way we dealt with them in this legislation was somewhat different. First, the special projects, demonstration projects in this bill, did receive an amount of attention that was far out of proportion to their dollar significance. The high priority projects similar to those in ISTEA I only received 5 percent of the total. If you read the newspapers, you would think they were consuming 40 to 50 percent of the total. Not at all. These special projects received 5 percent of the total. In the original bill, priority projects were treated as mandatory spending, exempt from the appropriations process. In this legislation, priority projects are discretionary spending, subject to the obligation limitations in the appropriation process. Third, under the former bill, ISTEA I, priority projects were always funded at 100 percent of their authorized level. In other words, priority projects were not reduced when the total authorization went down. However, in this legislation, these projects were treated as the same as the other core projects, taking their share of any reduction caused by a shortfall in final appropriations. If the total amount goes down, the special projects go down, likewise. We made a sincere commitment to safety in this legislation, recognizing that more than 40,000 Americans die and 3 million are injured in highway crashes every single year in our country. This is a tragic effect for millions of American families. We recognized these statistics and included a variety of initiatives to address this terrible problem. We increased the Federal commitment to improve roadway safety, providing more than $6.6 billion for highway safety programs; $3.6 billion of that will be available for safety construction, efforts aimed at eliminating road hazards and improving safety at rail-highway grade crossings. We provided a little over half a billion in incentives to States to promote seatbelt use. Seatbelt usage is by far the most important step that vehicle occupants can take to protect themselves in the event of a crash. We provided half a billion in incentive programs to encourage States to adopt tough .08 blood alcohol concentration standards. This is something that Senators Lautenberg and DeWine worked very, very hard on. I want to recognize their efforts. Under the category of innovation, we recognized we must maintain the strength of the transportation system we have in place but we have to provide new tools to address new problems and supply new solutions. We have to look at ways to finance our substantial infrastructure needs, evaluating the potential of new methods to design and build infrastructure more efficiently so we have innovative financing provisions, the so-called Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act. That is a mouthful. It is also known TIFIA. I want to thank Senators Graham and Moynihan for their leadership on that important provision. As far as intelligent transportation systems go, this is a forward- looking initiative. We have to make the most efficient use of our existing highways. We provide new options for transportation planners to address safety and capacity concerns. The objective is to move more vehicles in a safer fashion over the same amount of highway that exists--not expand the highways, just move more vehicles along the existing highways in a safe fashion. The environment received great attention in our legislation, and, I might say, so did ISTEA I in 1991. But we continued that. Indeed, we increased funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. In other words, where congestion arises, we took efforts to mitigate those problems and the reflections that that congestion has upon our air quality. We boosted funding for the Transportation Enhancements Program. We increased that by 38 percent over the prior legislation of 1991. So States can use these funds for what we call transportation enhancements, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and historic or environmental preservation projects. We initiated a wetlands banking system to mitigate transportation's effect on wetlands. When we build new roads, all too often wetlands are affected. We want to promote wetlands restoration. We did that by making wetlands restoration a profitable private enterprise. We reauthorized and amended the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, which provides about $350 million annually to States throughout the Nation for sport fish restoration and boat safety programs. So these are some of the things that we did. We had environmental streamlining. We held the line on administrative expenses. We added a design-build system for contracting. Current law doesn't allow the use of the so-called design-build concept in highway construction. The design-build concept combines the design and construction phases of a highway project, allowing projects to be built faster and at less cost to the taxpayer. Mr. President, I will conclude by recognizing the tremendous efforts put forth in this legislation by the staffs and by the Department of Transportation. I want to thank Secretary Slater and Federal Highway Administrator Wykle for their time and effort on this bill and for making the full resources of the Department available to us. From the Department of Transportation, I thank specifically Jack Basso, Nadine Hamilton, Bud Wright and his staff, Tom Weeks, Bruce Swinford, Roger Mingo, Dedra Goodman, Frank Calhoun and his staff, Patricia Doersch, Bryan Grote, and David Seltzer. These individuals, particularly on the formula runs, were tremendously helpful. I thank Secretary Slater for allowing Cheryle Tucker from the Federal Highway Administration to be detailed to our committee for 16 months to help us on this. I thank all the conferees from the Environment and Public Works Committee; all 18 were conferees. I think that was very helpful to me, and I believe it worked well. These members took hours from their busy schedules to listen to summaries of what was taking place and offered suggestions. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for their efforts in getting this legislation up to the full committee. Lastly, I would like to recognize the efforts of the Senate staff who worked so long and hard. Of course, I thank every single one of them. Particularly, I recognize the work of Jimmie Powell, who was just tireless, and a series of others who did such a good job. I am going to run over the names of some of those who worked on the reauthorization that I was particularly close with. Chris Hessler; Dan Corbett, of course, who was tireless and always present; Ann Loomis; Tom Sliter; Kathy Ruffalo, with Senator Baucus; Chris Russell; Gary Smith; Tracy Henke, with Senator Bond; Jason Rupp; Doug Benevento, with Senator Allard; Abigail Kinnison with the Environment and Public Works Committee; Al Dahlberg with the Environment and Public Works Committee; Linda Willard with the Environment and Public Works Committee; Ellen Stein with Senator Warner; Chad Bradley with Senator Inhofe; Chris Jahn with Senator Thomas; Gerry Gilligan with Senator Sessions; Rick Dearborn with Senator Sessions; Arnold Kupferman with Senator Moynihan; Polly Trottenberg with Senator Moynihan; Liz O'Donoghue with Senator Lautenberg; Kirsten Beronio with Senator Lautenberg; Drew Willison with Senator Reid; Melissa White with Senator Graham; Tim Hess with Senator Graham; Joyce Rechtscheffen with Senator Lieberman; Christopher Prins with Senator Lieberman; Rob Alexander with Senator Boxer; Joshua Shenkmen with Senator Wyden; Howard Menell with the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Peggy Kuhn with the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Joe Mondello with the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Loretta Garrison with the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Bill Hoagland with the Budget Committee; Brian Riley with the Budget Committee; Austin Smythe with the Budget Committee; Mitch Warren with the Budget Committee; Ann Begeman with the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; Charlotte Casey with the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; Clyde Hart with the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; Bob Greenawalt with Senator Chafee; Ashley Miller with Senator Roth; Keith Hennessey with Senator Lott; Carl Biersak with Senator Lott; Janine Johnson with Senate Legislative Counsel; Peter Rogoff with Senator Byrd; Pam Sellers with Senator Coats; Steve McMilin with Senator Gramm; and Dave Russell with Senator Stevens. They all were tremendous, and I feel bad if I left out the names of any of them. So it goes, Mr. President, without the help of these individuals, we plain could not have gotten this legislation accomplished. So I thank every one of them. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for the next 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, over the past several days it seems to me that the Senate debate on the tobacco bill has taken a very unfortunate turn. It is a turn away from what I strongly believe are the purposes and objectives of the legislation. I want to remind my colleagues that the very name of the bill that we are dealing with is the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act. I want to accent the ``Youth Smoking Reduction Act'' portion of the title. Now, the purpose of this tobacco legislation is to fundamentally change the way tobacco products are marketed and sold in this country. Clearly, there is an epidemic sweeping the Nation. That is the rapid growth of teenage smoking and tobacco use. The Centers for Disease Control, as has been said many times on the floor, estimates that every day 3,000 young American children, teenagers, take up smoking and that one-third of these 3,000 will die prematurely because of smoking- related diseases. Thus, if you multiply that out, it is a million children a year, a million young American children under the age of 18, who join the ranks of adult smokers, and more than 300,000 of them will die prematurely. Over a 25-year period, that amounts to 8 million Americans dying early because of smoking. That is more Americans than were lost in all the major wars that our Nation has been involved with. As has been pointed out also frequently, tobacco use is the largest preventable cause of death in America today. In other words, if we want to look where can we do something about preventing deaths in our country, and should we tackle alcohol or should we tackle accidents or should we deal with illegal drugs or automobile accidents--yes, all of those are important, but none of them compares with the reduction in fatalities that would occur if we could eliminate smoking among the young people. The statistics are chilling. Tobacco-related deaths are four times the number of Americans who die every year from alcohol-related deaths. Tobacco-related deaths kill 9 times the number who die from accidental deaths and 44 times the number of Americans who die from illegal drugs. In America alone, 419,000 deaths occur as a result of tobacco-related illnesses, diseases. Nearly half a million every year in our country die from tobacco-related diseases. So, obviously, the way to prevent and discourage young people from taking up tobacco is in the beginning and doing all we can to encourage adults to cease smoking. Some of the amendments before us would take us far afield from that purpose. In other words, the objective of the exercise is to reduce teenage smoking, prevent it if possible, and to encourage adults to give up smoking. But these amendments we have before the Senate now go far afield from that. Let me begin with the drug amendment currently pending. This amendment would take $3 billion annually out of this bill to combat illegal drugs, which means we will have $3 billion less per year available for the war on tobacco. Now, we already have a war on drugs, and we are spending billions of dollars every year to combat the serious problems of illegal drugs. This may be a meritorious amendment. Maybe we should spent $3 billion more fighting drugs. But this isn't the place to do it. If there is an antidrug amendment to be brought up, bring it up as a freestanding amendment. See if the money is there somewhere to fund this initiative. If it is all that important, let's find the money for it. But it doesn't belong on this bill. Now, the next one, Mr. President, the marriage penalty tax relief proposal. Now, maybe that is a good proposal, but it has no place in this legislation. Correcting a bias in the Tax Code may make sense, but not on this bill. As the fiscal year 1999 budget process advances, we will have a chance to consider the marriage penalty. Indeed, the Senate budget resolution which we adopted here has $30 billion provided for tax cuts. That is the place where marriage penalties should go if it is that important. The budget resolution reported from the House Budget Committee calls for $100 billion in tax cuts. There is ample opportunity to do something about tax cuts and the marriage penalty. Now, I know one of the arguments for doing a tax cut in this bill is, it is enunciated they want to return some of the money that will be paid in the form of higher cigarette prices paid by smokers. It is said that the great majority of smokers are in the low-income or the middle- income group and that we ought to do something for them. Somehow that has a twist to it that isn't really sensible. I reject the argument that these individuals somehow need to be reimbursed. The fact is, because of the smoking of individuals in America, we all are paying vastly higher taxes than we ever would otherwise. We are paying higher Medicare costs, we are paying higher Medicaid costs, we are paying higher private health insurance premiums, because smokers insist on smoking, and they are the ones in whom, unfortunately, so many smoking- related illnesses occur. The fact of the matter is, smoking is a hidden tax on all taxpayers. The direct medical costs of treating smoking-related illnesses exceed $60 billion a year. We are all paying that--higher premiums on our health insurance, as I mentioned before. The current Federal excise tax on cigarettes does not begin to approach offsetting these additional costs. Thus, in my judgment, it is perfectly proper that smokers pay more than they are currently paying in taxes on cigarettes. Now, let me conclude by making a simple point. Here, the original McCain bill provided an increase in revenues of $65 billion. How is that money to be spent? It was to be spent with $26 billion going to the States. This is over 5 years--$26 billion to the States. NIH is to get $14 billion plus. In other words, cessation and prevention programs were to receive $14 billion. Agriculture, $10 billion over 5 years. This is the total; it comes to $65 billion. But now what is happening, Mr. President, is a whole series of things have been added on. Yes, the States stay at $26 billion. In comes illegal drugs, $15 billion, and marriage penalty, $15 billion. Veterans--we adopted that already--is at $3 billion, agriculture at $18 billion, public health at $14 billion, and NIH at $14 billion. In other words, the spending equalling the revenue--the revenue being $65 billion over 5 years, and suddenly it is up to $105 billion. Obviously, the traffic can't bear that. That is not what the taxes are going to produce. So something has to give. Mr. President, I remember this: There is a strong constituency for the States. Oh, yes, they want their money. The marriage penalty is very enticing and veterans has already been adopted. In agriculture, there is a strong constituency. What is going to fall out is the NIH and the public health programs. Mr. President, I think that is terribly unfortunate. And we see here what is going to lose. When we talk about health-related programs, we are talking not only about NIH, which is a separate thing, but there are cessation, prevention/education, counteradvertising, antismuggling, and youth access restrictions. Those are the things that are so important if we are truly concerned with reducing smoking amongst our young people, as the very name of this legislation provides. These are the things that will go out if we adopt these other proposals, attractive though they may be, for marriage penalty and antidrug activities. Mr. President, the point is there won't be resources for these programs that are so important. So I don't think that is where we want to be at the end of the day. I don't think we want to end up with these programs losing out because we have adopted the others. If the others are all that important--the antidrug provisions, illegal drugs, the marriage penalty relief--there will be a chance at another time to address those. But in this legislation let's stick with the objective, which is to reduce teenage smoking, prevent it from occurring in the beginning, and do all we can to encourage those who are smokers to give up that unfortunate habit. So for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the antidrug and the tax cut amendments. They are not about tobacco; they should not be in this bill. I thank the Chair. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. No. What I have been trying to do is narrow down the problems that have come up. And I had down on the list to see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. As you said, we want to get this thing done. I think we can get it done and take care of problems by explaining them or getting to them in some fashion. So I look forward to meeting with the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I join with Senators Warner and Baucus today to introduce the Administration's 1998 Water Resources Development Act by request. After 16 years of stalemate over the appropriate cost sharing of navigation, flood control, environmental restoration, and other types of water projects, the Reagan administration and Congress were able to reach agreement on the landmark Water Resource Development Act (``WRDA'') of 1986. As a part of that important compromise there was a general understanding that a two-year cycle of water project authorization bills would be established. With the exception of 1994, the administration and Congress have successfully worked together toward that end. It is time once again to continue the biennial water resources authorization cycle with a 1998 WRDA. The bill we introduce today on behalf of the administration represents an effort to identify worthwhile projects and policies in support of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. I and other members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works will conduct a thorough review of the administration's WRDA request, and the project and policy requests of individual Senators, to make sure that any bill reported to the full Senate later this year is economically and environmentally justified. Mr. President, this legislation is important to communities throughout the nation. I look forward to working closely with colleagues in the coming weeks to ensure enactment of WRDA '98.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder, if I can ask the majority leader a question.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if I can ask the majority leader, it is my understanding that there will be an effort to hot line the technical corrections on the transportation legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I would like to address the question of the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act, S. 1415, this afternoon, which the Senate is resuming consideration of today. This is a very important bill, and I know the occupant of the Chair shares my concerns with this legislation and a concern that it be passed. This seeks to address a serious problem--tobacco use among our young people. Both conservatives and liberals fault this legislation. Some say it is not strong enough; some say it goes too far. I think it strikes an appropriate balance and merits our support. It is not a perfect bill, but I don't think we should let perfection be the enemy of the good. By striving constantly for what each of us wants in the perfect bill, we won't end up with anything. I am concerned about that. Madam President, if one counts the Mondays and Fridays as part of each working week, there are only 68 legislative days remaining in this congressional session before we adjourn for the midterm elections in the fall. Sixty-eight days is not very long. Time is of the essence if we are going to enact a comprehensive tobacco bill this year. I certainly believe Congress should enact such legislation. Thus, I am hopeful that, following a vigorous and healthy debate, the Senate will pass the McCain bill and send it along to the House. Given all the disinformation circulating about this legislation--most of it, I might say, initiated by the tobacco industry--I would like to take a few moments of the Senate's time to review the bidding as to why we are considering national tobacco legislation at this time. The opponents of S. 1415, the so-called McCain bill, would have us believe that this legislation is a case of tax and spend liberalism gone wild, that this bill is an excessive response to a relatively minor social problem--that of tobacco use among the young people--and that an antitobacco media campaign is all we need, that is an adequate response. Well, for years the tobacco industry sought to discredit studies which linked smoking to cancer and other diseases. Then the industry told us that nicotine was not addictive. Now the industry says it doesn't target kids with any advertising or marketing programs and that this legislation is just another opportunity--the McCain legislation--for Washington to increase taxes on the U.S. public. Let's look at the facts. There is indisputable consensus within the public health community that tobacco use constitutes the single most preventable cause of death in this country. In other words, of all the possibilities of reducing deaths in our country, including better exercise, reduction in fat consumption, conducting what we might call a healthful life, all of those things put together aren't as effective in improving the health of the United States of America as giving up smoking would be. In other words, it is the single most preventable cause of death. Who says that? Is it I, Senator Chafee from Rhode Island? Not at all. It is the Centers for Disease Control. Here is a chart. This chart says tobacco kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, illegal drugs, and fires combined. In other words, all the effort we go to in this country to lecture people to use seat belts in order to reduce automobile accidents or fatalities and injuries from automobile accidents, and all we do about counseling in connection with suicides, and the money we pour into AIDS prevention and attempted cures, and homicides, and the battle against illegal drugs and fires, and all we do to prevent fires from occurring in households, and the lectures on alcohol--if you put all of those together, tobacco kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, illegal drugs, and fires combined. So if we are serious about doing something about improving the health of Americans, we should try to make every effort to entice Americans not to take up smoking and, if they are smokers, to cease smoking. Here are the figures: Tobacco kills 418,000 Americans every year by tobacco-related diseases; alcohol is 105,000; about one-fourth of the deaths result from tobacco and fires, 4,300; illegal drugs, 9,000; and so forth. So you add them all together, and they don't amount to the figures that are causing the deaths resulting from tobacco-related diseases. Where is the problem? The problem lies in that every day it is estimated in the United States of America 3,000 children and young people start smoking in schoolyards, or wherever it might be, in our country. Every day, 3,000 youngsters take up smoking, and one-third of these will die prematurely as a result of that habit. In other words, if they smoke, the chances are that about 33 percent will die prematurely because of the habit of smoking. Each year, 1 million additional children--3,000 a day times 365 gets you very close to 1 million--1 million additional children become smokers. What we are aiming for in this legislation is to prevent that and reduce the number of children who take up smoking. There are those who say, ``Oh, well, tobacco use is a matter of personal choice.'' But is this true when you are talking about young people, impressionable children, 14, 15, 16, 17, in their teens? Ninety percent of those who take up smoking do so before the age of 18. In other words, if you can get someone by the age of 18 without having taken up smoking, the chances are excellent that individual will not become a smoker. Ninety percent of smokers have taken it up before the age of 18. Children obviously don't possess the same level of maturity as adults. They can't be expected to make the most thoughtful decisions on this life-and-death matter of smoking. Sometimes it is the ``cool'' thing to do, apparently. But the tobacco industry itself, in its own words--here is the internal document from R.J. Reynolds. ``If a man''--or woman--``has never smoked by the age of 18, the odds are three-to-one he never will.'' If you haven't smoked by 18, the chances are pretty good that you won't smoke ever--``three-to-one.'' By the age of 24, if you can hold off and not smoke at the age of 24, the odds ``are 20-to-one'' that that individual you will not take up smoking. That is where we want to concentrate our efforts--on these young people in their early teens--and carry it up through the age of 24 when the chances are very, very good that an individual will not take up smoking. But the key group is 18 or younger. Is there an epidemic of smoking amongst young people? You bet your life there is. In my home State, where I never thought there was a particular abundance of smoking--it is not going like going to China, where everybody seems to be smoking. That doesn't seem to be true in my State. Yet the Centers for Disease Control say that 37 percent of high school children--I am not talking about high school seniors; I am talking about high school children; that would be the 12th, 11th, and 10th, and in some instances the 9th grade--smoke. That is more than 70,000 teen smokers in our State. We have 1 million people in our State, and 70,000 teen smokers, one-third of these high school students, will lose their lives prematurely because of this unhealthy habit. Here is a graph that shows the increase in the rates of smoking among high school seniors. Now we are talking seniors. It is remarkable. It went along pretty steadily at about 30 percent. Then in 1982 it even dipped down to about 27 percent. ] Then it shot up starting at about 1991, up until the middle 30s nationally. What has caused all of this? One of the things, obviously, that has caused it is the action of advertising to these young people, whether it is the Marlboro man, or Joe Camel, or whatever it is. All the advertising from the tobacco companies has been oriented toward inducing the young people to take up smoking. It is the ``in thing.'' They want to make it the ``in thing.'' The tobacco companies clearly do. One of the ironies of the opposition of the tobacco companies to the McCain bill is the suggestion that this bill was somehow dreamed up by a bunch of Washington bureaucrats. The fact of the matter is that most of the provisions in this bill have their origins in the global settlement the industry entered into with the 40 States' attorneys general last June. In other words, about a year ago the tobacco industry entered into a deal with 40 of the attorneys general from our 50 States. In that, they made a whole series of concessions. It had nothing to do with Washington, DC, or Washington bureaucrats, or tax-and-spend liberals in the U.S. Congress. It was all initiated and agreed to by the tobacco companies and the attorneys general. Let's tackle some of the things that came up in that agreement. What about the idea of a per-pack tax on cigarettes to discourage teenagers from smoking? In other words, what is the idea of increasing the tax, or fee, if you will, on each package of cigarettes that is sold in order to discourage teenagers from taking up smoking? Tobacco companies signed on to a 65-cents-per-pack increase during the settlement negotiations. Sixty-five cents they agreed to. That had nothing to do with Washington, DC. That was out in the hinterlands, out in the States, working with the tobacco companies and the attorneys general. What about financial penalties on the tobacco companies for failure to meet the annual youth smoking reduction target? This is the so- called look-back provision. If there isn't a reduction of x percent-- this is written out in the contract, in the deal--if those reductions aren't achieved by 40 percent or 50 percent, whatever it might be, by such and such number of years, then the tobacco companies will have to pay an additional penalty. That is the so-called look-back provision at the end. At the end of 5 years of this deal, you look back and see if there has been this percentage reduction in teenage smoking. Where did that come from? Out of the bureaucrats in Washington? Not at all. The tobacco companies agreed to this during the settlement with the attorneys general. What about advertising and marketing restrictions? The industry signed off on that. What about receipts from those new taxes to fund public health programs such as counteradvertising, cessation of smoking efforts, community-based antismoking programs, and all of these things that we are now thinking are wise to reduce smoking in the United States--not just to get people to not take it up in the beginning, to help those who are smoking cease that very dangerous habit? Where did that come from? Did that come from Washington bureaucrats? Not at all. The industry agreed to it in their dealings with the attorneys general. The fact is, the McCain legislation is based largely on the negotiations which produced the so-called global settlement, comprehensive settlement, last June. Given the American public's distaste for new taxes, it is not surprising that the tobacco industry has seized upon the $1.10 increase in the price for a pack of cigarettes and has used this as a rallying cry of opposition. Let's understand this. Who is going to pay this tax? Only people who smoke. If they give up smoking, they won't pay the tax. Anybody who says they don't like the tax, quit smoking and they won't have to pay a nickel of it. Obviously, smokers are free to go on smoking. But I think we all ought to understand that all of us are paying when there are smokers in our society. Why are they paying? Because one-third of those smokers are going to suffer very severe sickness and illness as a result of their smoking. And the direct health care costs--in other words, whether Medicaid, Medicare, or other forms of assistance to those who smoke, or are suffering from smoking-related illnesses--are paid for by all of us in society. It costs $60 billion a year to care for those individuals. And when you take the lost productivity and the disability payments, it is estimated that smoking-related illnesses are causing American taxpayers over $100 billion a year. Now, even for somebody from Washington, $100 billion is a lot of money. That is what these tobacco-caused illnesses are costing the taxpayers in the United States. Madam President, I urge Members of this body and the public also to look closely at the facts I have enunciated here and not to be dissuaded from doing the right thing, not to be dissuaded by this blitz from the tobacco industry and the lobbying that is taking place. S. 1415, the McCain bill, is a comprehensive bill, it is a good bill and addresses a very serious problem in our country. The time for action on it is now, and I hope my colleagues will support efforts to pass the legislation. Madam President, seeing no one else wishing to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have charts here and we will make them available for anybody who wishes to see them. I know that most of the Senators' staffs have been briefed already today on this. Those Senators who have not, we certainly would be delighted to meet with them and go over this chart and give them a copy. I think that is the way to do business. It is true that the report is not yet before us, and that was understood when we commenced this discussion, with the idea to save as much time as we could. The report will be along. Certainly, it is a massive report. People are going to have difficulty absorbing it, but those are the time exigencies we are working under at this time. Mr. President, pursuant to what the majority leader said, at this time I will discuss the philosophy behind this legislation and some of the difficulties that we encountered as we proceeded. The philosophy we had in this legislation was to repeat what took place, as far as the general philosophical approach in ISTEA I, which passed in 1991. Now, in 1991, the first time, we passed a measure that was truly a transportation bill rather than solely a highway bill. In other words, the philosophy in 1991 was to do the best we could to devise a system to move people and goods from point A to point B in the most efficient and safe manner. So, as I say, it was more than just a highway bill; it was a transportation bill. Mr. President, so thus we have this legislation, which deals not solely with highways, as I said, it deals substantially with mass transit. Likewise, indeed, it encourages what they call ``intermodalism,'' which is the blending of various methods of transportation. That is where the ``I'' comes from in Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. That is where the original ISTEA acronym came from. We believe we followed out that philosophy in connection with this legislation, which sometimes we call ISTEA II. Mr. President, we then came to the always-difficult part of determining how to divide up the funds. You have a limited amount of funds, and how do you divide them? So we have a formula that is worked out. In that formula, you take into account vehicle miles traveled, number of lanes, mile lanes in the State, you take into account bridge problems, and a host of other factors, and that becomes the formula. When you run something like that, you frequently end up with difficulties. Not everything comes out just the way you want it. So we made adjustments to the best of our ability. One of the points that was cardinal in our approach on this legislation was that all the donor States--that is, the States putting in more than they get back--should at least receive-- originally, we strived for 91 cents back on the dollar. In other words, every dollar a donor State put in, the effort was made to get 91 cents back because, in ISTEA I, we have a series of States who received back 88 cents, or even less than that in some instances. Now, when you try to bring States up from below 90 cents or 88 cents, wherever it might be--for example, California, under ISTEA, was at 89 cents. You would think just bringing California up 3 cents for every dollar put in would be a simple thing. Well, mechanically, it is; but cost-wise, it is very expensive. So despite our sincere efforts to get everybody 91 cents back on the dollars contributed, the best we could do was 90.5 cents. Therefore, if you look down the list of those receiving moneys, you will find there is no State below the 90.5, and that is a very, very significant achievement. Now, do we have some States who are getting back more than a dollar? Of course, we do. Those are the donee States. But we believe that, taking into consideration all the factors, we ended up with a fair deal. The average increase that was received across the country was 43 percent. That is the increase over ISTEA I. In some instances, States go to more than that. Alabama is at 60.6 cents in increase, for example. Some States were less. But that is what comes about when you strive to reach as much fairness as possible. Let me say, there are frequently distorting factors that get into these equations. What would be an example of a distorting factor? A distorting factor would be a State that had received very, very significant additional amounts in a prior year--that is, when the formula was worked out under ISTEA I. Pursuant to that, that State received either a monstrous amount of projects, or very significant amounts of other moneys coming from various sources that distorted the picture of that State, so that you could not take that State with the very high additional amounts that it had received through projects, grants, project moneys, and expect to get a 40-percent increase on top of it. So that accounts, in some instances, for the fact that some States would be considerably lower than the 43-percent increase over ISTEA I. So, Mr. President, I am prepared to talk with anybody about this. As I say, I think many staffs have been briefed. We have tried to keep certainly the conferees from the Environment and Public Works Committee briefed as we went along. We had a whole series of meetings to try to keep them briefed. It is true that when you do negotiations like this, you don't have 65 people from each side in the room. There has to be a limited number of negotiators in order to get moving along. We were fortunate in our negotiations. We always included, every step of the way, the ranking member and representatives from his side of the aisle. Likewise, I was tremendously assisted in this by the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this subject. That is, the Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Warner of Virginia. It so happened that the ranking member of the full committee is also the ranking member on that Infrastructure Subcommittee. So that Senator Baucus was, in fact, wearing two hats. Mr. President, I think the result is not everything all our way. No; it isn't. But that is what happens when you get into negotiations. One of the things I am very glad about is that some of the language that was in the House bill was not accepted. In other words, it was dropped. Of course, there are some things that we had that were likewise dropped. But some of the provisions--for example, the so- called ``mid-cost correction''--which would reopen this whole subject in 3 years we felt was not constructive. To go through all of this another 3 years from now would not be something we would countenance. Mr. President, I am glad to yield to the distinguished ranking member and have him address his remarks to what we have been undertaking.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation reducing the excise tax on vaccines from seventy-five cents to twenty- five cents per dose. I am introducing this bill along with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Breaux, Mack and Rockefeller as well as Senators Daschle, Murkowski, Cochran, Inouye, Lugar, Bumpers, Frist, and Santorum. Vaccines are a modern miracle--preventing disease and illness often for a lifetime with just a few doses. Vaccines have virtually eliminated the scourge of smallpox in the world. Polio as a wild virus has been eliminated in the western hemisphere. Measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus and hepatitis vaccines have saved thousands of lives. Technology in vaccines is on the brink of preventing other diseases ranging from Lyme disease to widespread rotavirus in the third world. Unfortunately, there is a small minority of children whose systems cannot handle vaccines and become injured. Recognizing this problem and acknowledging that childhood vaccination is required, Congress in 1986 set up a Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund into which federal excise taxes are paid. This modified no-fault system allows parents of vaccine-injured children to receive compensation for their children if the vaccine is covered by the fund. Childhood vaccines recommended by the federal government for routine use in children are covered (1) once approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, (2) added to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), and (3) included on the list of vaccines on which the tax is imposed by Congress. When the trust fund was established there was no experience with what claims would commit to and what the size of the tax should be. Estimates were made and different tax levels were established for each vaccine. By 1993, it was apparent that the tax levels were far too high and a surplus was building up in the fund. Today that surplus totals 1.2 billion dollars. The Ways and Means and Finance Committees directed the Administration to study the system and develop a proposal that solves the overfunding problem. A consensus proposal was drafted and signed on to by all sectors of the public health community--physicians, manufacturers, parent's groups and health departments. That plan called for a new flat tax of 51 cents per antigen (or disease). But even this new rate was far more than was necessary to fund the system. For example, the guardian of the fund, the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, recommended 25 cents per antigen even when the surplus was half its level today. Last year, as part of the balanced budget bill, Congress established a single rate tax structure but did so at a level of seventy-five cents per dose. The seventy-five cents per dose amount was chosen to satisfy the revenue neutrality goals of the overall bill. Congress did not solve the overfunding problem and the result was that while some vaccine taxes were reduced dramatically, others were increased. Three new vaccines were added to the program at the seventy-five cents per dose rate. At the beginning of this year, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund had a balance of 1.2 billion dollars. If you assumed that future outlays from the fund would be twice as large as the fund's average over the past eight years, it would take more than 20 years to exhaust the assets in the trust fund, even if no excise tax revenues were collected from this date forward. Stated another way, the interest earned on the trust fund assets is more than enough to pay annual claims and administrative cost. As with many other trust funds within the federal budget, these taxes are being used for other federal spending. This proposal will also provide significant benefits to the states. When states purchase vaccines they pay the excise tax. Our bill would save the States $52 million annually. For my home state of Rhode Island, that would amount to 353,000 dollars annually. By lowering these taxes we can lower health care costs to vaccine recipients and providers while saving states and the federal government the money they now pay in excise taxes when they buy vaccines. This proposal is supported by physicians, state health departments, manufacturers and parental groups. Most significantly, the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) which Congress created to make recommendations on changes to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, strongly supports this proposal. I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important health initiative.