John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I will be happy to respond to a question from the Senator from California.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the Senator from California is correct, the Golden Gate Bridge is eligible for additional discretionary funding from this program. I wished that the conference could have done more to earmark funding, but the earmark provided was not intended to limit any additional discretionary grants for the bridge.

Mr. CHAFEE. As the Senate considers the conference report for the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, I want to take a moment to discuss the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program that is part of this bill. The DBE program was designed to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to compete for the many billions of dollars in contracts that will flow from this legislation. The program, which has been in place since 1982, has proven both necessary to and effective in our efforts to remedy discrimination in transportation procurement markets. By reauthorizing the DBE program again this year, Congress has signaled its belief that the evidence remains clear: we need this program if we are to remove the continuing barriers confronted by minority- and women-owned businesses. Let me take a moment to share with my colleagues additional information that has come to light since the two chambers last considered the DBE program. A disparity study conducted for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and released in April found that there was a disproportionately small number of women- and minority-owned contractors participating in Colorado's transportation construction industry. The study showed that African-Americans received none of the state-funded highway construction contracts over $500,000. Hispanic firms received less than one-half of one percent (.26%), and women-owned businesses were awarded less than one-quarter of one percent (.18%). The vast majority of contracts--more than 99 percent-- went to firms owned by white men. The authors found that a significant disparity existed between what minority contractors actually received and what they might be expected to receive in the absence of discrimination. The Colorado study also demonstrated that the DBE program has worked in leveling the playing field for women- and minority-owned firms. It notes that ``only when a DBE program has been in effect, has there been any significant dollar amounts utilized with [minority-/women-owned] firms.'' The fact of the matter is that discrimination continues to plague minority- and women-owned firms in America. Congress has a strong and compelling interest in remedying this situation; and in the DBE program, we have had and will continue to have an effective tool.

Mr. CHAFEE. I want to associate myself with the remarks by my friend and colleague from Montana regarding the constitutionality of the program. This is an important matter, and I appreciate his comments. I hope our colleagues will find all of this information of interest.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 98.

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.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, may I make a unanimous consent request? I ask unanimous consent that I might follow Senator Hagel?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there are two unanimous consent requests to be made. Senator Harkin briefly has one.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from New Hampshire has a unanimous consent request to make.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me offer a few thoughts on why I believe the amendment authored by my good friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, should be rejected. Senators Tom Harkin, Bob Graham and I struggled with the liability issue when we were developing our own antitobacco bill, the so-called KIDS Act. We began our deliberations with a review of the global settlement that was reached by the 40 attorneys general from the various States. In summary, we concluded that we could not support some of the provisions of that legislation; namely, the prohibition on class action suits. The attorneys general agreed that no class action suits would be permitted and there would be a ban on punitive damages against the industry. That is what the industry got out of the negotiation with the attorneys general, amongst other things. Given the tobacco industry's behavior, how could we, the three of us working on that legislation, possibly accede to tort protections that would nullify entire categories of lawsuits, leaving injured parties high and dry? But there were balancing factors which also had to be weighed, Mr. President. The industry's consent is terribly important to the implementation of a comprehensive national tobacco policy. It is far better to have the industry at the table and agreeing. Certainly, endless litigation serves no one's interests but the lawyers. Thus, something had to be done to create a more certain environment, both for the plaintiffs and for the tobacco companies. Hence, we decided to include an annual liability cap in our bill of $8 billion; $8 billion would be paid out each year and that was it. If there were subsequent suits and judgments had been brought and earned previous thereto or subsequent, they would fall in line and collect in the ensuing years. While the structure of the cap in Senator McCain's bill is somewhat different than the cap we had in our bill, nonetheless the intent is the same. The cap in the McCain bill does not stop a single lawsuit. It doesn't prevent a single lawsuit from being brought. It doesn't stop one injured party from being able to collect. Moreover, only those tobacco companies that accept and abide by the terms of this bill will be able to obtain the financial predictability that is provided by this liability cap. In other words, the company doesn't get the cap unless it agrees to a series of requirements upon the companies or company that we believe are very important to reach a fine settlement. What are some of these? What do the tobacco companies have to do to be eligible for a so-called cap? It must sign a national protocol, a binding consent decree to assure it will abide by all terms of the McCain bill. It must agree not to delay its implementation through endless court challenges. These terms they must agree to, amongst other things, are: They must make very steep annual payments to the Federal Government. They must meet tough annual youth smoking reduction targets. In other words, there are percentages that youth smoking must go down each year. The companies have to meet those requirements. It obviously encourages them to come forward with ingenious stop-smoking efforts or cease from smoking or decline from taking up smoking. They must pay large fines if they fail to meet these goals. What they also agree to is to fundamentally alter the way the tobacco products are manufactured and distributed, and they accept the regulation of tobacco products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so-called FDA. If tobacco companies fail to abide by the terms of this bill, they are not going to be eligible for the liability cap. The liability cap is something that helps the companies reach some certitude of what their payments are going to have to be. But if they don't meet these terms, they lose the rights under the cap. If they fail to meet the annual youth smoking reduction targets by more than 20 percent in any given year, they lose the protection of the cap. If they are caught evading the antismoking provisions, they lose the protection of the cap. So this isn't some giveaway to the tobacco industry. It is a necessary trade-off to obtain a strong national tobacco control policy. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, we hope the tobacco industry will return to the table and sign the consent decrees which will accompany this bill. If the Gregg amendment is adopted, it reduces, obviously, the chances for that occurring. What is the incentive for a tobacco company to come to the table if they lose even this cap protection? If we all are for obtaining the strongest possible antitobacco policy, then we ought to vote to table this amendment; that is, the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. President Clinton supports the cap, as do many others who want a tough national policy to discourage youth smoking. Giving some predictability to tobacco companies who are willing to change the way they do business, it seems to me, is a small price to pay to get them at the table and participating in implementing these tough policies-- indeed, the advertising policies to cease certain types of advertisements and to enter into other kinds of advertisement directed toward encouraging young people to give up smoking or to deter them from taking it up in the beginning. So, Mr. President, I believe that the cap is a very worthwhile part of this McCain bill. And I urge my colleagues to reject the proposed amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill with my colleague Senator Allard. This bill represents a move towards efficient use of government funds, and support for the valuable programs carried out with those scarce funds. The bill would initially generate approximately $1 million for the Service through the sale of items derived from fish and wildlife that are currently stored by the Service. This money would be used to cover the costs of disposing of these items--which is now a financial drain on the Service--and to fund programs that loan these items to schools and Native American groups for educational and religious purposes. Each year, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) receives hundreds of thousands of items derived from fish, wildlife and plants, such as skins, furs, feathers, jewelry, etc. These items can be seized, forfeited or abandoned during enforcement of Federal wildlife laws, and they are eventually shipped to the National Wildlife Property Repository in Colorado. The Repository currently has about 150,000 items, with about 50,000 items stored elsewhere. Under current law, the Service may dispose of fish, wildlife or other items forfeited or abandoned to the U.S. government, either by loan, gift, sale or destruction. There are certain restrictions on disposal of those items. For example, items made from threatened or endangered species, marine mammals and migratory birds cannot be sold according to the laws that apply to those particular species. Revenue from the sale of forfeited items go to the Service for certain program operations; however, revenue from the sale of abandoned items go to the General Treasury, and are not available to the Service. More than 90 percent of the fish and wildlife items are abandoned, so that the Service would receive very little revenue from sales of these items. Indeed, under current law, the costs of selling these items would outweigh any revenue, so that the Service has no incentive to sell them. The Service must further expend funds for the shipment, storage and disposal of the items that it acquires. In addition, the Service will make many of these items--those that cannot be sold under law-- available for Native American religious and ceremonial purposes, educational purposes, and research, but must expend its own funds to do so. The Repository was appropriated $310,000 for operations last year. After overhead, only $61,000 was available for disposal of these items. Disposal includes two programs in particular. The first, known as Cargo for Conservation, provides wildlife specimens to schools for educational programs. Under this program, the Service has distributed almost 400 educational kits to various organizations. The second program provides eagle carcasses and parts to Native Americans for religious and ceremonial purposes. Under this program, the Service has filled almost 1,500 requests for eagles, eagle parts and other raptors in 1997 alone, although there is currently a two year backlog in filling orders for some eagle carcasses. The bill would specifically amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act in two ways. First, it would authorize the deposit of proceeds from the sale of forfeited and abandoned items into Service accounts rather than into the general treasury. Second, it would expand the use of funds received through these sales to include costs incurred by shipping, storage and disposal of these items, as well as payment of any liens on these items. I would like to note that this bill does not change existing authority with respect to items that may be sold by the Service. It does not allow the sale of items derived from threatened and endangered species, marine mammals, or migratory birds. The Service already has authority to sell certain items for which it is lawful to do so. This bill merely allows the Service to keep revenues derived from any items it sells, and to use those revenues for certain programs. This is a bill representing efficient use of government funds. At the same time, this bill is not intended to imply that the Service should sell everything that it lawfully can in order to maximize profits. It is my understanding that the Service has no intention to sell items derived from sensitive species, including those that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened. It is also my expectation that, in considering which items to sell, the Service would take into account the biological status of any species used for that item, and any implications that the sale may have for conservation efforts relating to that species. For example, any sale by the Service should not encourage new markets that may undermine protections elsewhere. Lastly, the Service should ensure that the sale of these items does not undermine enforcement efforts within the U.S. In summary, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill with Senator Allard. Our staffs have worked closely with each other and with the Administration in drafting this legislation, and I look forward to working on this bill in the future.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill with my colleague Senator Allard. This bill represents a move towards efficient use of government funds, and support for the valuable programs carried out with those scarce funds. The bill would initially generate approximately $1 million for the Service through the sale of items derived from fish and wildlife that are currently stored by the Service. This money would be used to cover the costs of disposing of these items--which is now a financial drain on the Service--and to fund programs that loan these items to schools and Native American groups for educational and religious purposes. Each year, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) receives hundreds of thousands of items derived from fish, wildlife and plants, such as skins, furs, feathers, jewelry, etc. These items can be seized, forfeited or abandoned during enforcement of Federal wildlife laws, and they are eventually shipped to the National Wildlife Property Repository in Colorado. The Repository currently has about 150,000 items, with about 50,000 items stored elsewhere. Under current law, the Service may dispose of fish, wildlife or other items forfeited or abandoned to the U.S. government, either by loan, gift, sale or destruction. There are certain restrictions on disposal of those items. For example, items made from threatened or endangered species, marine mammals and migratory birds cannot be sold according to the laws that apply to those particular species. Revenue from the sale of forfeited items go to the Service for certain program operations; however, revenue from the sale of abandoned items go to the General Treasury, and are not available to the Service. More than 90 percent of the fish and wildlife items are abandoned, so that the Service would receive very little revenue from sales of these items. Indeed, under current law, the costs of selling these items would outweigh any revenue, so that the Service has no incentive to sell them. The Service must further expend funds for the shipment, storage and disposal of the items that it acquires. In addition, the Service will make many of these items--those that cannot be sold under law-- available for Native American religious and ceremonial purposes, educational purposes, and research, but must expend its own funds to do so. The Repository was appropriated $310,000 for operations last year. After overhead, only $61,000 was available for disposal of these items. Disposal includes two programs in particular. The first, known as Cargo for Conservation, provides wildlife specimens to schools for educational programs. Under this program, the Service has distributed almost 400 educational kits to various organizations. The second program provides eagle carcasses and parts to Native Americans for religious and ceremonial purposes. Under this program, the Service has filled almost 1,500 requests for eagles, eagle parts and other raptors in 1997 alone, although there is currently a two year backlog in filling orders for some eagle carcasses. The bill would specifically amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act in two ways. First, it would authorize the deposit of proceeds from the sale of forfeited and abandoned items into Service accounts rather than into the general treasury. Second, it would expand the use of funds received through these sales to include costs incurred by shipping, storage and disposal of these items, as well as payment of any liens on these items. I would like to note that this bill does not change existing authority with respect to items that may be sold by the Service. It does not allow the sale of items derived from threatened and endangered species, marine mammals, or migratory birds. The Service already has authority to sell certain items for which it is lawful to do so. This bill merely allows the Service to keep revenues derived from any items it sells, and to use those revenues for certain programs. This is a bill representing efficient use of government funds. At the same time, this bill is not intended to imply that the Service should sell everything that it lawfully can in order to maximize profits. It is my understanding that the Service has no intention to sell items derived from sensitive species, including those that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened. It is also my expectation that, in considering which items to sell, the Service would take into account the biological status of any species used for that item, and any implications that the sale may have for conservation efforts relating to that species. For example, any sale by the Service should not encourage new markets that may undermine protections elsewhere. Lastly, the Service should ensure that the sale of these items does not undermine enforcement efforts within the U.S. In summary, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill with Senator Allard. Our staffs have worked closely with each other and with the Administration in drafting this legislation, and I look forward to working on this bill in the future.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act of 1984. This legislation makes important changes in the Foundation's charter, changes that I believe will allow the Foundation to build on its fine record of providing funding for conservation of our nation's fish, wildlife, and plant resources. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 1984, to bring together diverse groups to engage in conservation projects across America and, in some cases, around the world. Since its inception, the Foundation has made more than 2,300 grants totaling over $270 million. This is an impressive record of accomplishment. The Foundation has pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name just a few. Mr. President, the Foundation has funded these programs by raising private funds to match federal appropriations on at least a 2 to 1 basis. During this time of fiscal constraint this is an impressive record of leveraging federal dollars. Moreover, all of the Foundation's operating costs are raised privately, which means that federal and private dollars given for conservation is spent only on conservation projects. I am proud to count myself as one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In 1984, I, along with my colleagues Senators Howard Baker, George Mitchell, and John Breaux, saw the need to create a private, nonprofit group that could build public- private partnerships and consensus, where previously there had only been acrimony and, many times, contentious litigation. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has more than fulfilled the hopes of its original sponsors. It has helped to bring solutions to some difficult natural resource problems and is becoming widely recognized for its innovative approach to solving environmental problems. For example, when Atlantic salmon neared extinction in the U.S. due to overharvest in Greenland, the Foundation and its partners bought Greenland salmon quotas. I and many others in Congress want the Foundation to continue its important conservation efforts. So, today I am introducing amendments to the Foundation's charter that will allow it to do just that. Mr. President, this legislation is quite simple. It makes three key changes to current law. First, the bill would expand the Foundation's governing Board of Directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will allow a greater number of those with a strong interest in conservation to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's activities. The bill's second key feature authorizes the Foundation to work with other agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, in addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. President, it is my view that the Foundation should continue to provide valuable assistance to government agencies within the Departments of the Interior and Commerce that may be faced with conservation issues. Finally, it would reauthorize appropriations to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce through 2003. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation I introduce today will produce real conservation benefits and I strongly urge my colleagues to give the bill their support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here today to support this important amendment offered by Senators Kennedy, Graham, Harkin, and others. I have worked closely with Senators Bob Graham and Tom Harkin for the past several months on the issue of a comprehensive tobacco bill. We came to one inescapable conclusion, which has been voiced by the Senator from North Dakota and a host of others this afternoon: A steep increase in the price of tobacco products over a short time is the single most important thing we can do to reduce tobacco use among children, or to deter them from taking up smoking. How did we come to this conclusion? Well, Mr. President, we listened to the experts. Who are the experts? They are economists, public health researchers, and even tobacco industry officials. They have all concluded that price increases dramatically reduce smoking among children. When I say experts, who am I talking about? Mr. President, there are plenty to choose from. The Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Cancer Institute, U.S. Department of Treasury, and U.S. Surgeon General have all documented the fact that increases in tobacco prices have been shown to decrease tobacco use among children. Furthermore, Mr. President, economists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Michigan, among others, have found a strong relationship between cigarette prices and youth smoking. Cigarette prices go up, youth smoking declines; cigarette prices go down, youth smoking increases. These institutions that I ticked off are hardly fly-by-night institutions. If we doubt the expertise of these groups, why don't we take a look and see what the tobacco industry has said. I know the Senator from North Dakota has some quotes from the tobacco industry. I would like to supplement those with others. In 1981, the Philip Morris documents show that company officials said the following: ``Since youth and young adult price elasticity are much larger than adult price elasticity''--in other words, the relationship between price going up, consumption down; price down, consumption up; those are what we call elasticities--``while adult smokers account for the bulk of cigarette sales, a substantial excise increase would substantially reduce smoking participation by young new smokers, but leave industry sales largely unchanged.'' In other words, it is the young people who decline. The old people, it does not affect them. That is a Philip Morris official saying that. Mr. President, the evidence is clear. The most effective thing we can do to prevent our children from taking that first deadly cigarette is to increase the price quickly and steeply. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kennedy amendment. I thank the Chair. I thank the floor managers.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act of 1984. This legislation makes important changes in the Foundation's charter, changes that I believe will allow the Foundation to build on its fine record of providing funding for conservation of our nation's fish, wildlife, and plant resources. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 1984, to bring together diverse groups to engage in conservation projects across America and, in some cases, around the world. Since its inception, the Foundation has made more than 2,300 grants totaling over $270 million. This is an impressive record of accomplishment. The Foundation has pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name just a few. Mr. President, the Foundation has funded these programs by raising private funds to match federal appropriations on at least a 2 to 1 basis. During this time of fiscal constraint this is an impressive record of leveraging federal dollars. Moreover, all of the Foundation's operating costs are raised privately, which means that federal and private dollars given for conservation is spent only on conservation projects. I am proud to count myself as one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In 1984, I, along with my colleagues Senators Howard Baker, George Mitchell, and John Breaux, saw the need to create a private, nonprofit group that could build public- private partnerships and consensus, where previously there had only been acrimony and, many times, contentious litigation. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has more than fulfilled the hopes of its original sponsors. It has helped to bring solutions to some difficult natural resource problems and is becoming widely recognized for its innovative approach to solving environmental problems. For example, when Atlantic salmon neared extinction in the U.S. due to overharvest in Greenland, the Foundation and its partners bought Greenland salmon quotas. I and many others in Congress want the Foundation to continue its important conservation efforts. So, today I am introducing amendments to the Foundation's charter that will allow it to do just that. Mr. President, this legislation is quite simple. It makes three key changes to current law. First, the bill would expand the Foundation's governing Board of Directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will allow a greater number of those with a strong interest in conservation to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's activities. The bill's second key feature authorizes the Foundation to work with other agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, in addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. President, it is my view that the Foundation should continue to provide valuable assistance to government agencies within the Departments of the Interior and Commerce that may be faced with conservation issues. Finally, it would reauthorize appropriations to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce through 2003. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation I introduce today will produce real conservation benefits and I strongly urge my colleagues to give the bill their support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation regarding one small aspect of the national tobacco debate. This bill addresses the problem of second-hand smoke, also known as Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS for short. It is my hope that the ideas contained in this bill can be incorporated into any tobacco legislation acted on by the Senate. The Committee on Environment and Public Works recently held a hearing on ETS at which we learned that the principal victims of second-hand smoke are children who live with smokers. Tobacco smoke has devastating consequences for children under 18 months of age. Annually, up to 15,000 infants are hospitalized for lung infections caused by ETS such as bronchitis and pneumonia. These severe lung infections claim the lives of hundreds of children each year. Second-hand smoke is also responsible for less severe lung infections in 300,000 infants, 26,000 new cases of asthma among children, millions of middle ear infections, and roughly half the cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). These preventable illnesses, but 40 percent of children in one multi-State study were found to be routinely exposed to tobacco smoke. The bill I am introducing today would assign some of the funds collected under any national tobacco settlement approved by Congress to a state grant program to educate parents about the dangers of smoking in the home. The statistics I just recited are not widely known by parents. Once aware of the profound risk ETS poses for their child, most parents will go to great lengths to protect their child, and I believe that even includes parents who smoke. With the grant funds from this bill, States could provide information about ETS to pediatricians and other child care professionals for distribution to parents. States also could develop advertising aimed at parents. We only need to arm parents with information. They will do the rest. This bill has a few other provisions. It affirmatively states that there is no federal preemption of State or local efforts to address ETS. It would ban smoking on international flights that originate or terminate in the United States. It also would extend and codify the President's Executive Order banning smoking in federal buildings. My good friend, Senator Warner, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, is working to ban smoking from the public areas of the Senate. I applaud this effort and encourage my colleagues to support it. My legislation would complement his efforts in other federal buildings. This bill does not address the question of smoking in private workplaces. Up to 3,000 adults die each year from lung cancer caused by ETS. Because of this statistic, some have argued that the federal government should ban smoking in nearly every building in the nation. Most legislative proposals on this issue would subject every dress shop and church hall in the nation to federal smoking regulations. Ironically, most of those bills exempt bars and restaurants and other places where smoking can be common. That means they ignore the few places where employees faced a substantial threat from ETS while regulating every other workplace. I believe that there is a more efficient way to address workplaces with dangerous levels of ETS. We should allow State and local governments to take the lead on this matter, but we also should help them to solve the problem. Some towns and States have taken action already. We can encourage more of them to do so by expanding the grant program described in my bill to reward States that reduce dangerous levels of ETS in the workplace. Incentive grants would allow States to tailor their solutions to address local concerns. Some States could seek a gradual ban while others may establish protective ventilation standards. Any rule that requires changing a habit as deeply ingrained as smoking will be met with resistance. In contrast to a federal one-size- fits-all approach, State and local efforts can be tailored more easily to local concerns, and will, therefore, be more effective. I did not address smoking in the workplace in my bill because I hope to work with other interested members to develop language that will be supportable on both sides of the aisle. Such a provision must both avoid rigid federal mandates and provide real incentives for States to address those workplaces with dangerous levels of ETS. I will continue to work with interested parties in an effort to devise such a provision. In the meantime, I wanted to offer the balance of my proposal for the Senate's consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation regarding one small aspect of the national tobacco debate. This bill addresses the problem of second-hand smoke, also known as Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS for short. It is my hope that the ideas contained in this bill can be incorporated into any tobacco legislation acted on by the Senate. The Committee on Environment and Public Works recently held a hearing on ETS at which we learned that the principal victims of second-hand smoke are children who live with smokers. Tobacco smoke has devastating consequences for children under 18 months of age. Annually, up to 15,000 infants are hospitalized for lung infections caused by ETS such as bronchitis and pneumonia. These severe lung infections claim the lives of hundreds of children each year. Second-hand smoke is also responsible for less severe lung infections in 300,000 infants, 26,000 new cases of asthma among children, millions of middle ear infections, and roughly half the cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). These preventable illnesses, but 40 percent of children in one multi-State study were found to be routinely exposed to tobacco smoke. The bill I am introducing today would assign some of the funds collected under any national tobacco settlement approved by Congress to a state grant program to educate parents about the dangers of smoking in the home. The statistics I just recited are not widely known by parents. Once aware of the profound risk ETS poses for their child, most parents will go to great lengths to protect their child, and I believe that even includes parents who smoke. With the grant funds from this bill, States could provide information about ETS to pediatricians and other child care professionals for distribution to parents. States also could develop advertising aimed at parents. We only need to arm parents with information. They will do the rest. This bill has a few other provisions. It affirmatively states that there is no federal preemption of State or local efforts to address ETS. It would ban smoking on international flights that originate or terminate in the United States. It also would extend and codify the President's Executive Order banning smoking in federal buildings. My good friend, Senator Warner, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, is working to ban smoking from the public areas of the Senate. I applaud this effort and encourage my colleagues to support it. My legislation would complement his efforts in other federal buildings. This bill does not address the question of smoking in private workplaces. Up to 3,000 adults die each year from lung cancer caused by ETS. Because of this statistic, some have argued that the federal government should ban smoking in nearly every building in the nation. Most legislative proposals on this issue would subject every dress shop and church hall in the nation to federal smoking regulations. Ironically, most of those bills exempt bars and restaurants and other places where smoking can be common. That means they ignore the few places where employees faced a substantial threat from ETS while regulating every other workplace. I believe that there is a more efficient way to address workplaces with dangerous levels of ETS. We should allow State and local governments to take the lead on this matter, but we also should help them to solve the problem. Some towns and States have taken action already. We can encourage more of them to do so by expanding the grant program described in my bill to reward States that reduce dangerous levels of ETS in the workplace. Incentive grants would allow States to tailor their solutions to address local concerns. Some States could seek a gradual ban while others may establish protective ventilation standards. Any rule that requires changing a habit as deeply ingrained as smoking will be met with resistance. In contrast to a federal one-size- fits-all approach, State and local efforts can be tailored more easily to local concerns, and will, therefore, be more effective. I did not address smoking in the workplace in my bill because I hope to work with other interested members to develop language that will be supportable on both sides of the aisle. Such a provision must both avoid rigid federal mandates and provide real incentives for States to address those workplaces with dangerous levels of ETS. I will continue to work with interested parties in an effort to devise such a provision. In the meantime, I wanted to offer the balance of my proposal for the Senate's consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of our Finance Committee for yielding me some time on this matter. I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. This amendment offers the Senate an alternative to the Finance Committee's plan to pay for the tax relief provided in the IRS reform bill, but the reality is that the Kerrey amendment would prevent meaningful Superfund reform. The amendment, I believe strongly, should be rejected. I oppose this amendment, obviously, but let me tell you what I do support. I support reimposition of the Superfund taxes. I also support reasonable Superfund reform. We will need to reimpose the three Superfund taxes--namely, the corporate environmental income tax, the excise taxes on crude oil and the excise tax on chemical feedstock--to provide the revenue to pay for a fairer Superfund Program. Why do I keep talking about Superfund? Mr. President, the Committee on Environment and Public Works reported a Superfund bill to the floor 6 weeks ago. Just yesterday, the committee received CBO's estimate on the bill. As we expected, we will need to reimpose the Superfund taxes in order to pay for the Superfund reforms and the Superfund reauthorization. In other words, if we gobble up this money now in connection with the IRS reforms, the money won't be there for the Superfund bill which we are moving along now and which has used in the past these very funds; in other words, these are Superfund taxes. The Kerrey amendment, if adopted, would prevent meaningful reform of the Superfund Program. I could discuss at length the numerous problems that plague Superfund. There is no question it has a lot of difficulties. I am prepared to explain the solutions we propose in our comprehensive Superfund bill that is on the floor now, but it is not necessary to do that today. While the Environment and Public Works Committee reported our Superfund bill on an 11-to-7 vote--there are 18 members of our committee, 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats--the bill was reported out in really a nearly partisan vote by 11 to 7 with only one Democratic Senator in support. However, there is bipartisan consensus that the Superfund has to be reformed. There wasn't, obviously, agreement with the way the Republicans on the committee wanted to proceed, but, nonetheless, there is agreement that the Superfund legislation needs to be reformed. Indeed, I see the ranking member of the committee now, and he devoted many hours of his time to this effort for reform. He also knows it will be necessary to offset the spending in any Superfund reform by reimposing these Superfund taxes. This was the case when Senator Baucus chaired the committee and reported a Superfund bill in 1994, and it still remains the case today. If we are going to have Superfund reform, we are going to need these moneys that now are apparently being seized or attempting to be seized by Senator Kerrey to use for this other purpose; namely, the IRS changes. The Kerrey amendment would preclude any meaningful reform of the Superfund Program. In other words, how are we going to pay for the thing? We wouldn't be able to if this Kerrey amendment is adopted. The real issue before us is whether the Senate wants to abandon Superfund reform. If we do, then go ahead and vote for the Kerrey amendment. If you don't, if you want Superfund to take place and do something about the brownfields redevelopment, for example, we have to have these moneys. There aren't other revenues around that we can use. The Kerrey amendment would preempt reform. The amendment would frustrate any Superfund reform efforts. I believe it is bad public policy to take these taxes and use them to pay for tax relief in the absence of Superfund reform. Mr. President, I strongly hope this amendment will be rejected and that we can all agree we are saving these Superfund taxes. They will have to be reimposed at sometime when we get a reauthorization of the Superfund legislation, but let's save them for that purpose, the purpose they have been used for in the past and the purpose I believe they should be used for in the future. I thank the Chair, and I urge my colleagues to support the Roth amendment and to reject the Kerrey amendment. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Authorization Act. I am introducing this bill at the request of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Joining me as cosponsors of the bill are the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Senators Warner and Baucus. The concept of a national center for the performing arts originated during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. President Eisenhower envisioned a national cultural center in the nation's capital, and in 1958, with the support of Congress, he signed into law the National Cultural Center Act, which established the Center as an independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian Institution. Following the death of President Kennedy, the Congress in 1964 renamed the Center in honor of the late president. The Kennedy Center was opened to the public in September 1971. The response was overwhelming--so much so that the Center's Board of Trustees requested help from Congress in maintaining and operating the Center, for the benefit of the millions of visitors. In 1972, Congress authorized the National Park Service to provide maintenance, security, and other services necessary to maintain the facility. For the next two decades, the Park Service received federal appropriations for the maintenance and operation of the Presidential monument. In the early part of this decade, however, it became clear that the Kennedy Center facility--which had not seen comprehensive capital repair since its opening--had deteriorated significantly due to both age and intensive public use. Those repairs that had taken place--such as the 1977 repair of the leaking roof--were undertaken in response to threatening conditions. The Board of Trustees, with the support of the Park Service, therefore set out to achieve a more effective long-term approach to management of the facility, with one entity responsible for both the care of the physical plant and the staging of performance activities. In 1994, therefore, Congress approved and the President signed the John F. Kennedy Center Act Amendments (Public Law 103-279). That Act authorized the transfer of all capital repair, operations, and maintenance of the facility from the Park Service to the Board of Trustees. The Act also directed the Board to develop a comprehensive, multi- year plan for the restoration and ongoing maintenance of the Kennedy Center. In 1995, the Board delivered the Comprehensive Building Plan, which set forth a long-term, two-stage program for the remediation of substandard building conditions, as well as continuous maintenance for the future. Phase I, scheduled for Fiscal Years 1995 through 1998, has concluded successfully. During this time, several major projects were completed, including the installation of a new, energy-efficient heating and cooling system, replacement of the leaking roof and roof terrace, and the major renovation of the Concert Hall. Phase II is scheduled to take place over the next eleven fiscal years, through Fiscal Year 2009. This stage will involve the massive ``Center Block'' project, during which the Opera House will be overhauled, as well as projects to make improvements to the plaza, improve accessibility to the theaters, install fire and other safety technology, and make a host of other repairs designed to ensure that the facility meets life safety standards. That brings us to the legislation I am introducing today. For the major Phase II projects to get underway, Congress must revise the 1994 Act to authorize appropriate funding for the next several fiscal years. The bill I am introducing today authorizes significant funding levels for the next eleven fiscal years for maintenance as well as capital repair work. Over the next several weeks, I and other members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works intend to review carefully the planned repair activities and the authorization request. The Kennedy Center is a living Presidential memorial and a national monument, and as such demands a high standard of maintenance and upkeep. As an ex-officio member of the Board, and Chairman of the authorizing Committee, I am dedicated to the appropriate restoration and preservation of the facility, which millions of Americans have enjoyed for more than a quarter of a century. Nevertheless, it is Congress' duty on behalf of the taxpayers to scrutinize this request closely. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, the Administration, and the Kennedy Center Board to ensure that we allocate federal resources in an effective and responsible manner.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this morning here in Washington, Dr. John E. Sirmalis, Commander of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) in Newport, Rhode Island, is receiving the Distinguished Executive Award. Vice President Gore will take part in this ceremony. Having worked with John Sirmalis for many years, I can say with certainty that he is a most worthy recipient of this prestigious award. Dr. Sirmalis has served our nation and our Navy admirably during a distinguished career. Widely recognized as the Navy's foremost authority on undersea weapons systems, Dr. Sirmalis has helped bring about improvements in methodologies for developing and testing undersea warfare (USW) systems and components. In particular, John has implemented a program to identify submarine technology opportunities for the year 2010, leading the Navy to shift its focus from traditional antisubmarine warfare to find responses to new and more complex military threats. Dr. Sirmalis' outstanding work at NUWC/Newport has contributed to the evolution of a facility that is widely recognized as a center of excellence within the Navy and the Department of Defense (DoD). NUWC has consistently sustained a high level of technical productivity, as it has become a leader in the use of commercial-off-the-shelf components and open system architecture. These attributes are today more important than ever at a Defense Department that is greatly constrained by tight budgets. It was certainly no surprise to me that during the defense base realignment and closure (BRAC) process, NUWC/Newport was designated one of the Navy's four principal research ``mega-centers.'' I look forward to NUWC/Newport continuing to maintain its important contribution to our national security under the leadership of Dr. Sirmalis. So my heartiest congratulations to John Sirmalis on receiving the Distinguished Executive Award. All Americans are well-served by the outstanding performance of this genuine public servant.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I express my sincere gratitude to the manager of the bill, Senator Stevens, and to the chair of the Subcommittee on Interior, Senator Gorton. Yesterday, I raised with them an issue of concern regarding amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, a program under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, that the conferees were considering. These amendment would have adjusted the boundaries of several units currently in the System in Florida, and they are quite controversial. Senator Stevens and Senator Gorton were both very gracious and accommodating to my concerns. They chose not to include the amendments, and instead included language in the report stating that the managers will work with the committees of jurisdiction to explore the possibility of a legislative remedy in the context of future appropriations bill or other legislative vehicle. I very must appreciate this collaborative approach. Again, I express my sincere thanks to my esteemed colleagues, Senators Stevens and Gorton.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on May 2nd, twenty outstanding students from Central Falls High School in Rhode Island will visit Washington to compete in the national finals of the ``We The People . . . The Citizen And The Constitution'' program. In fact, this is the second time that the Central Falls High School team has won the statewide competition! For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with it, the ``We The People . . . The Citizen And The Constitution'' program is among the most extensive educational programs in the country focusing on citizenship. The program was developed specifically to ensure that young people understand the history and philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students are given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on historical and contemporary constitutional issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We The People . . . The Citizen And The Constitution'' program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history. It is heartwarming to see young Rhode Islanders taking such an active and participatory interest in public affairs. I am very proud of Rodolfo Alvarez, Paula Arango, Viviana Blandon, Liana Breton, Angela Cano, Elizabeth Carmona, Jessica Carmona, Nicole Duguay, Arabella Garzon, Jennifer Kelley, Suzanne Krupka, Kathleen Lopes, Gina Matuszek, Nicole Mercado, Richard Oliveira, Patricia Pina, Shelly Rua, Amanda Ryfa, Giovann Restrepo, Melisa Sylvestre, and Melissa Weber for making it to the national finals. I applaud this terrific group of young men and women for their hard work and perseverance. Also, Mr, President, I want to congratulate Bert Brousseau, a fine teacher who deserves so much credit for guiding the Central Falls High School team to the national finals. On Tuesday, April 7th I was pleased to visit the Central Falls winners. I couldn't resist giving them a spontaneous oral quiz. I am happy to report that they responded to my questions superbly! Congratulations to Mr. Brousseau and his students for what they have already achieved, and best of luck in the final competition. These students, with the guidance of Mr. Brousseau, have learned what our nation is all about and what countless men and women have fought and died to protect. No matter what the outcome of the contest is, they have each earned the greatest prize of all: Knowledge.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to express my opposition to the measure we are about to vote on, H.R. 1757, the State Department Authorization conference report. Despite the fact that this bill contains many provisions which I support, such as a wide-ranging reform package that would ensure U.S. payment of dues to the United Nations, the entire measure is overshadowed by an egregious and misguided abortion provision included at the insistence of those who oppose abortion rights. This provision would prohibit foreign organizations from receiving U.S. family planning funds if that organization, with its own funds, provides legal abortion services or advocates on abortion issues in its own country. Such providers, for example, would lose their U.S. funds if they discussed at a conference that more than 20 percent of all maternal deaths throughout Latin America and the Caribbean are due to illegal abortion. In my view, this provision is a thinly-veiled attempt to further erode our commitment to international family planning programs. I must say, Mr. President, I am always perplexed by those who oppose family planning and also oppose abortion. Study after study has shown that lack of family planning leads to more unintended pregnancies which leads to more abortions. Consider two countries: Russia has very little contraception available, and abortion is the primary method of birth control. The average Russian woman has at least four abortions in her lifetime! Alternatively, Hungary has made family planning services more widely available and the abortion rate has dropped dramatically. The impact these family planning programs have on the health and well-being of women and children around the world cannot be denied. But there is another issue here that should not be overlooked--the important role population programs play in sustaining the global environment. The earth now supports 5.7 billion human beings. In thirty years it is estimated the world's population will be 8.3 billion. We are growing by 86 million people per year. It is expected that 90 percent of this increase will be in the developing world. India has to feed an additional 16 million people per year. And so many of these people are children--forty percent of the population of the average less-developed nation is under the age of 15. Mr. President, the United States plays a critical role in providing family planning services abroad. I feel strongly that we should continue our leadership role in this area. It is both humane and environmentally sound. This conference report contains provisions that would gut our commitment to international family planning, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998 with my distinguished colleague from Maine. I want to applaud Senator Collins' efforts to correct a provision in the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 which has had the effect of penalizing those home health agencies that have taken the lead in becoming more cost-efficient over the last several years. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998 will help avert the potentially devastating effect of the Interim Payment System (IPS), established by the Balanced Budget Act, on many home health agencies in Rhode Island, and throughout the country. The IPS for Medicare home health services that was established by the BBA bases its reimbursement in large part on agency-specific costs during fiscal year 1994. Consequently, home health agencies that had already been implementing cost-efficient practices at that time, like many agencies in Rhode Island were doing, are now finding their reimbursements greatly reduced. Home health agencies in my home state have told me that this decreased reimbursement, in addition to being unfair, might lead to reductions in critical health services that currently enable elderly patients to maintain their dignity and quality of life. These agencies also have pointed out that this interim payment system may well result in a loss of jobs in the home health industry. I am greatly troubled by the thought that the IPS now in effect may well put into financial jeopardy those Rhode Island home health agencies that have been working diligently to heed our appeal to deliver cost-efficient services. The impact of this payment system on one of Rhode Island's most vulnerable populations, the infirm elderly, is unpredictable and potentially devastating. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998 bases Medicare reimbursement for home health services primarily on national costs during the baseline year rather than agency-specific costs. Consequently, the most efficient home health agencies will not be placed at financial disadvantage. This is a matter of economic necessity--we will never be able to maintain the financial security of the Medicare program unless we encourage everyone involved in the system to help make it work. This bill is budget-neutral and will not increase overall Medicare expenditures. The legislation is a big step forward in our goal of a cost-efficient and reliable health care system for our older citizens. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998 with my distinguished colleague from Maine. I want to applaud Senator Collins' efforts to correct a provision in the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 which has had the effect of penalizing those home health agencies that have taken the lead in becoming more cost-efficient over the last several years. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998 will help avert the potentially devastating effect of the Interim Payment System (IPS), established by the Balanced Budget Act, on many home health agencies in Rhode Island, and throughout the country. The IPS for Medicare home health services that was established by the BBA bases its reimbursement in large part on agency-specific costs during fiscal year 1994. Consequently, home health agencies that had already been implementing cost-efficient practices at that time, like many agencies in Rhode Island were doing, are now finding their reimbursements greatly reduced. Home health agencies in my home state have told me that this decreased reimbursement, in addition to being unfair, might lead to reductions in critical health services that currently enable elderly patients to maintain their dignity and quality of life. These agencies also have pointed out that this interim payment system may well result in a loss of jobs in the home health industry. I am greatly troubled by the thought that the IPS now in effect may well put into financial jeopardy those Rhode Island home health agencies that have been working diligently to heed our appeal to deliver cost-efficient services. The impact of this payment system on one of Rhode Island's most vulnerable populations, the infirm elderly, is unpredictable and potentially devastating. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998 bases Medicare reimbursement for home health services primarily on national costs during the baseline year rather than agency-specific costs. Consequently, the most efficient home health agencies will not be placed at financial disadvantage. This is a matter of economic necessity--we will never be able to maintain the financial security of the Medicare program unless we encourage everyone involved in the system to help make it work. This bill is budget-neutral and will not increase overall Medicare expenditures. The legislation is a big step forward in our goal of a cost-efficient and reliable health care system for our older citizens. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998.