John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. And I went away distressed. So now we will have an opportunity in this bill, as the majority leader has made it clear the way we will proceed, and I look forward, as we get into this, that he will support a bill that will accomplish the goals of the Nation in the context of all the other demands that are placed upon the budget of the United States. I will conclude by stressing once again that we have an increase in this bill this year, ISTEA II, over the past, of 20 percent when the other discretionary accounts are frozen. In other words, the nondefense items and the nonentitlement items are all frozen--whether you are talking Head Start, school lunches, the school programs, the health programs; they are frozen--and we get a 20 percent increase, which is pretty good, for this program. I thank the Chair. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to say there is nobody I enjoy dueling with more on this floor than the Senator from West Virginia. We have been against each other on some rare issues. We have been together on many issues.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 20 minutes, and then at the conclusion, following the time reserved for the Senator from West Virginia, that Senator Bond be recognized to proceed with the measure that was originally planned.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last Monday several Senators came to the floor to express their concern because the Senate has failed to pass a reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation programs. Senator Byrd was on the floor again Tuesday and indeed has been on the floor today, Thursday, on this same subject. As Senators and the American people listen to these expressions of concern, I hope they will keep the bigger picture in mind. First, why hasn't the Senate passed an ISTEA II bill that would reauthorize our highway and transit programs? Well, it isn't for lack of trying, Mr. President. That bill was before the Senate for a period of more than 2 weeks at the close of the session last year. But Senate consideration of the bill was blocked by a filibuster, a filibuster that was supported by some of the very Senators who now complain about lack of action. The majority leader filed four--not one, not two, not three, but four--cloture petitions to force action on the bill. I voted for cloture each and every time. Almost all the Members on this side of the aisle voted for cloture each and every time. But on the other side of the aisle we did not get much support for acting on ISTEA; in fact, we did not get any support. Considering that, Senators who now come to the floor demanding action on this bill used the procedural rules of the Senate to block action just a few short weeks ago. They voted to block ISTEA four times, as I say. Not once, not twice, not three, but four times they blocked action on proceeding to ISTEA. On four separate occasions, when these Senators could have used their power as voting Members of this body to help the majority leader move this vital legislation forward, they voted no. They would not help. If they believe ISTEA is a vital bill, why didn't they help? With their help we could have completed Senate action last year. Last Monday, one Senator even said that Congress is ``derelict in its duty'' because it has not acted on the ISTEA reauthorization. Now, ``derelict in its duty'' is a pretty strong statement. Well, who is it that has been derelict? It has not been the majority leader. He forced four cloture votes on this bill. I did everything I could to move the bill forward. I was ready then. I am ready now. If dereliction of duty is a fair charge, I suppose it is a charge most appropriately aimed at those Senators who voted against cloture on this bill four separate times. There is a record. Anyone can look up and see who those Senators were. Now, my second point goes to the schedule for completing action on ISTEA. The Senators who spoke Monday and Tuesday were talking as if Senate action is all that is needed to wrap this matter up now. They went on at great length about how the States need early Senate action so the States can plan for the coming construction season. These Senators expressed great frustration on behalf of the States because any further delay will greatly complicate the work of the States. Well, I am sympathetic to the plight of our State transportation departments because this bill has been delayed. I wish we were at the end of the day and the States had the bottom-line allotments they need for their planning, but as everybody knows, Senate action on this bill is only a very small step in a long traveling process. The House has to do a bill. That bill is likely to be very different from the Senate bill so, therefore, we have to resolve the differences in conference and then bring the bill back for passage in the respective bodies. Any State that did any planning based solely on a Senate-passed bill would be making a great mistake. Frankly, they cannot make any plans until the entire process is completed. Now, everyone knows that the House has made a very firm decision to postpone action on this transportation legislation, so-called ISTEA reauthorization, until the budget resolution for fiscal year 1999 is completed. That is a fact. The House has said that. Even if we passed ISTEA II in the Senate this afternoon, we would not speed up the process one iota. Even if we passed it last year when some of us were here on the floor ready to take action we would still be forced to wait for the House to complete its work. As I look at the calendar, the House is making the task facing the States more difficult. But we cannot change the calendar by voting on this bill today on the floor of the Senate. So what is really going on here, Mr. President? Why would Senators who voted to block action on this bill just a few weeks ago now come to the floor demanding action today? Why would Senators who know that we have to wait for the budget resolution to be completed before the House will act speak as if the Senate is ``dithering and dallying and delaying'' on this bill? The real issue, Mr. President, is how much money are we going to spend on the highway program. That is the real question. The Senators who are clamoring for action now are the sponsors of a big amendment to dramatically increase Federal highway spending. They want the bill to come up now because they want their amendment for highway spending to be considered now in a budgetary vacuum with no other priorities competing for the dollars they would like to spend on highways. A week ago, the President of the United States delivered his State of the Union Address. Perhaps the most memorable line in that speech was his call to use any future budget surpluses for ``Social Security First.'' If there is a surplus--and at this point everybody should keep in mind it is a projected surplus; the dollars have not actually come in yet--the President said Congress should not spend the money and Congress should not cut taxes; rather, we should use the surplus to shore up the Social Security system so that it can go on meeting the retirement needs of all Americans well into the next century. Those Senators who are calling for action on the highway bill now are not exactly in the President's camp when it comes to Social Security first. They might be called the ``Highway First" crowd. They want the Senate to take up the highway bill so that they can put a big proportion of the potential surplus into more highway spending before anybody else, including Social Security, can lay claim to that projected budget surplus. ``Highways First,'' that is their motto. I must say, I find their arguments astonishing, especially when they are expressed by the Senator from Texas. It comes down to this. ``The Government has a surplus. We must spend the surplus. To do otherwise would break a solemn oath we made to the American people.'' Now, the surplus that the Senator from Texas most frequently mentions in the context of the highway bill is one that will result because of action taken last year to put the revenue from the 4.3-cent gasoline tax imposed in 1993, that was passed to reduce the deficit--and the vote, as has been pointed out today, was to transfer that--into the highway trust fund. In 1993, when the Democratic Party still controlled the Congress, gasoline taxes were increased by 4.3 cents per gallon with the revenue going to the general fund to reduce the deficit. The Senate Republicans all voted against that tax increase in 1993. But last year, with the Republicans in charge, the revenue from that tax increase was transferred into the highway trust fund from the deficit reduction area where it was before. And now we are asked to spend it. Now, the notion--this is something I really want to stress --the notion that anybody promised the American people to spend that 4.3 cents on highway construction is preposterous. It is just the opposite. The American people were promised that that 4.3-cent increase would be used to bring down the deficit, not to increase spending programs. Now that the deficit is under control, the Senator from Texas has led the charge to transfer the revenue from that tax to the highway trust fund. As a result, the highway trust fund is projected to run a big surplus in the future. And without even a blush, the Senator from Texas says we are bound by a solemn commitment to prevent that surplus. Pour it into highway spending whether it is needed or not--tax and spend. Never was there a more open and shut case of the ``tax and spend'' fever. The clamor we have heard over the past few days to do ISTEA now is all about spending the surplus. And who is going to be first at the trough? It is not about dereliction of duty. Senators who voted four times to block the bill just a few weeks ago are in no position now to suggest that the Senate is shirking its duty. And it is not about when this bill will ultimately be concluded. I wish it were done already. It is a burden, as anybody knows. No one knows better than some of the Senators on the floor today what it is like to manage a complicated, contentious piece of legislation such as the surface transportation legislation. I wish that we could have accelerated the schedule by acting here in the Senate today. Unfortunately, we are not in control of the calendar. The House has decided, as I said before, to wait until the budget resolution has been completed. What these Senators really want for the Senate is to vote on their amendment to spend more on highways before any other priorities can make a claim on this potential surplus. ``Highways First,'' as I say, is their motto. I know there are many Members of this body who believe we should spend more on highways, maybe not ``Highways First,'' not take it all, but some more. For those Senators, I would make three quick points. First, the bill reported by the committee--the committee I am chairman of that brought the bill to the floor--dramatically increases highway spending. It is up over 20 percent over ISTEA I. It is up $25 billion over the 6-year period. In the context of the balanced budget amendment reached last year, that essentially freezes discretionary spending over the next 5 years. And here is a program that gets a 20 percent increase. Thus, no one can argue that we did not do very well in connection with this piece of legislation. As a second point, if Senators believe that even more is needed, they will have the opportunity to make that case when the Senate considers the budget resolution in March. The committee-reported bill tracks the spending levels given to us in the budget resolution last year. We have followed our instructions in and abided by the budget that this Senate adopted, and the ink is hardly dry on it. It was only signed by the President I believe in July. If the Senate changes course and wants to increase spending in the budget resolution for next year, then I would assume an amendment to ISTEA II to carry out that instruction would be adopted. Third, Senators should be careful about the sequence of these decisions. I believe that many Senators have signed on to the so-called Byrd-Gramm amendment without fully understanding all the subtleties. It does authorize massive amounts of additional spending, but it also restructures who has first claim to the funds that are actually appropriated. The Byrd-Gramm amendment increases the share of the pie going to 13 Appalachian Regional Commission States and to a trade corridor program that would benefit a few States, such as Texas. Their portion of the pie gets bigger. But if the pie itself does not grow because there is no room in the budget for larger appropriations, the net effect will be that all the other States will go down. In other words, they are locked in at this increased amount for the Appalachian Regional Commission States and this corridor dealing with the so-called NAFTA demands. That is locked in under the proposal that they have. And if we do not increase the overall spending, then theirs stays up there and it comes out of the portion allocated to all the other States. A Senator voting for Byrd-Gramm now because he or she wants to increase highway spending authorization could actually cause his or her State to lose highway dollars if subsequent budget decisions do not provide for increased highway appropriations. So I urge everyone to be cautious on this matter. All these considerations have persuaded me that the wisest course is the one that Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, has urged. Let's make the spending decisions in the context of the entire budget. I'm ready to go with ISTEA II now. I am more committed to getting ISTEA done than any other Member of this body. I want it completed, but I am willing to stand down for the time being because I believe the Senate will make better public policy if it considers highway spending in the context of the entire budget rather than in the vacuum of these early days of the session, as the highways first group has been urging. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the 1998 United States Olympic Team will soon depart for Nagano, Japan for the 18th Winter Olympic Games. I know I join my colleagues in saluting the American men and women who have worked so hard to compete at this highest level of international competition. I rise today to salute a son of Rhode Island, Ron Wilson, who will serve as head coach of the American Men's Hockey team. Hockey is not a sport in Rhode Island, it is a passion. That passion enabled Ron Wilson to achieve All-Star status at East Providence High School, and two-time All-American honors at Providence College, where, as a senior, he led the nation in scoring. His college coach, coincidentally, is also a Rhode Islander. Then-coach Lou Lamoriello is now president of the New Jersey Devils and will also serve as general manager of the U.S. Olympic Men's Hockey team. Ron Wilson went on to a successful professional playing career in the National Hockey League and Europe. Today, he is the very successful coach of the local entry in the National Hockey League, the Washington Capitals. He is well equipped to lead our team next month in Japan, having successfully coached the U.S. Team in the 1996 World Cup to a major upset of Canada to win that prestigious competition. The victory was the biggest win for the United States since the 1980 Winter Olympics. Hockey is, as I said, a passion in Rhode Island. Indeed, Coach Wilson will look down his bench and see three other Rhode Islanders on his team - Bryan Berard, Keith Carney, and Matthew Schneider. And the U.S. Women's Hockey team will include a majority of players who played their high school or college hockey in Rhode Island. The Nagano Games will soon begin, and I extend the heartiest best wishes for success to Coach Wilson, his fellow Rhode Islanders, and all Americans wearing our uniform.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise to recognize two extraordinary groups of young people in my home state of Rhode Island. These individuals of the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts have distinguished themselves as leaders in their communities. Since Baden Powell founded the Boy Scouts in 1910 and Juliette Gordon Low established the Girl Scouts in 1912, many youth have chosen to make new friends, develop leadership skills, assist their communities, and explore new ideas by participating in these two fine organizations. In a world where it is sometimes said that role models no longer exist, these young men and women are shining examples to their peers. The skills they have learned while camping, doing service work, and within their individual groups, are the skills they will need to help the world become a better place. In order to attain the Eagle Scout award, Boy Scouts must earn 21 merit badges, complete a service project in their community, hold a number of leadership positions in their troop, and finally, pass an oral-administered exam which can last for several hours. The Silver Award is given to Girl Scouts in junior high school after the completion of a service project. The highest honor in Senior Girl Scouting is the Gold Award, which is earned at the culmination of a major service project. We also owe thanks to the Scouts' parents and families, their leaders, and the organizations themselves which have guided these young people, and helped them achieve so much. Without this worldwide network of adults teaching children and serving as role models, scouting would not exist. These adults turn the young boy and girls of today into the men and women of tomorrow who will lead us through the 21st Century. Mr. President, it is a privilege to submit to you the list of outstanding young men and women who have earned these awards. I ask that this list of future leaders be printed in the Congressional Record. The List Follows: 1997 Girl Scout Silver Award Recipients barrington, ri Carly DeWitt; Adina Downing; Lauren Lubrano; Rachel Sockut; Caitlin Wood; Kelly Josephson. bristol, ri Eliza Burnham; Beth Chianese; Pamela Raposa. charlestown, ri Jessica Furmanick; Amber MacDonald. cranston, ri Melissa Chalek; Nicole Hopkins; Melissa Lau; Courtney O'Hara; Emily Shumchenia. east greenwich, ri Mary Ellen Hoban; Sarah Longenbaker. exeter, ri Jessica George; Julie Jette; Danielle Lima; Kara Littlefield; Erin Sherman; Erica Steckert. hope, ri Courtney Mckenna. hopkinton, ri Marissa Cherenzia. johnston, ri Andreana Paolella. kingston, ri Martha Bibb. middletown, ri Jaclyn Richardson. narragansett, ri Megan Dyer. n. scituate, ri Katyanne Klitz. n. smithfield, ri Amy Cavedon; Rebecca Corriveau; Nicole White. pawtucket, ri April Silva; Tammy Tenney; Julee Thomas. portsmouth, ri Kali Crocker. providence, ri Meghan Brown; Elizabeth Frutchey; Emily Markovits. rehoboth, ma Meghan Thibeault. riverside, ri Amy Amerantes; Laurie Bone; Eliza Holtzman; Rochonda Ives; Christine Lowell; Meagan Orris; Andrea Salvo. rumford, ri Melissa Perry; Michelle Perry. smithfield, ri Carey Stipe. tiverton, ri Patricia Byrne; Li Erin Probasco; Kristen Zeiser. wakefield, ri Erin Barry; Jacquelyn Bertrand; Kelly Dolan; Allison Fagan; Leah Garvey; Caitlin Higgins; Cassandra Meyer; Erica Sweitzer. warren, ri Jennifer Potvin; Lauren Swift. warwick, ri Dawn Armitage; Melanie Carrazzo; Stephanie Demirjian; Bonnie-Marie Dufresne; Jeniece Fairbairn; Tiasa Loignon; Katie Marseglia; Maegan McCauley; Shannon McCormick; Ann O'Donnell; Jessica Rice. west greenwich, ri Tarsha Bellville; Melissa Breene; Allyson Hawley; Nina Lennon; Megin Longway; Tricia Parkinson; Holly Tift. west warwick, ri Amy Lancellotta; Nicole Petrarca. westerly, ri Samantha Blanck; Leigh Hanson; Sara McGrath; Alexandra Mochetti; Amy Parise. wood river junction, ri Laura Brusseau 1997 Girl Scout Gold Award Recipients Barrington, RI Amanda Macomber. Cranston, RI Sara Carnevale; Louise Humphrey; Stacey Lehrer. Cumberland, RI Kerri Ayo; Sarah Billington; Jennifer Bonner; Amanda Condon; Kerry Donaldson; Shannon Goodwillie; Catherine Jones; Kelly McElroy; Kristen O'Neill; Nikki Parness; Rebecca Silverman; Marcy Trocina; Gina Zollo. Pawtucket, RI Christal Desmarais. Peace Dale, RI Bethany Lardaro. Portsmouth, RI Emily Lyons; Rebecca Richard. Riverside, RI Stephanie Santos. Warwick, RI Sarah Walsh. West Kingston, RI Jennifer Perkins. 1997 Boy Scout Eagle Award Recipients ashaway, ri Michael J. Rodehorst. blackstone, ma Stephen N. Briggs; Joshua Dean Brown; Joel C. Norwood. bradford, ma Brendon R. Dowler. chepachet, ri Jesse M. Andrews; Jesse George Chace; Douglas J. Coyne. coventry, ri Donald E. Kirton, Jr.; Mark LaBossiere; Jeffrye M. Southland; Timothy Trafford. cranston, ri Jason C. Hudson; Brian H. Johnson; Brian J. Leahy; Robert J. Markelewicz, Jr. Christopher Paolella. davisville, ri Timothy D. Alfonso; Kyle R. Deschene. foster, ri John-Paul Bettencourt; Joshua D. Lusignan; Steven C. Otto. glocester, ma Timothy S. Coupe. greene, ri Edward C. Morgan. greenville, ri Joshua Dean Brown; Ian Karl Mueller. east greenwich, ri Eric R. Cocozza; Chad Eric Hyland; Brian M. Lehrman; David K. Zielinski. hope valley, ri Matthew J. Morey. johnston, ri Daniel J. Puleo; Paul R. Puleo. kingston, ri Andrew S. Palm; John W. Tarasevich. north kingstown, ri Biran A. Norton. pawcatuck, ct William G. Nicholas; Eric Sayles Thavenet; John T. Lowell; Antonio K. Palumbo; John Powers. providence, ri Michael J. Bastan; Christopher E. Budz; Ype Harmen Dekoe; Michael P. Gilbane. scituate, ri James C. Bear. north scituate, ri Jason P. Bonin. seekonk, ma Paul A. Armstrong, Jr.; Evan M. Griffith; Walter E. Horton; Joel C. Norwood; Tyler A. Scott; Matthew A. Sluter. slatersville, ri Kevin H. Burr. north smithfield, ri Timothy A. Saurette. wakefield, ri Travis W. Ringler. Warwick, ri Benjamin Keir Blackman; Matthew R. Bradbury; Kevin T. Brooks; John A. Candido; Howard J. Cardoza; Dennis R. Coffey; Nicholas J. Hanson; P. William Mortimer, Jr.; Evan W. Pearce; Gregory Paul Stowe; Joseph E. Ulbin; Brian Zartarian. west warwick, ri Paul J. Gauvin; David F. Lombardo; Jonathan Lyttle; Michael Parenteau; Michael D. Roch; Eric Scott Parkinson. westerly, ri Richard O.W. Morgan. west greenwich, ri James E. Pendlebury. woonsocket, ri David Isaac Brown; Nathaniel Ray Moretti.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on January 31st, friends and colleagues will gather to honor Michael S. Pinto, who has served Middletown public schools for 36 years, and is retiring as Superintendent. Michael Pinto built his career in Rhode Island, just as he received his education in our state. He received degrees from Providence College and Rhode Island College, and pursued additional studies at the University of Rhode Island, Brown University, and Salve Regina University. For seven years, Superintendent Pinto worked with students as a classroom teacher, then as Supervising Principal for sixteen years. He served as both Coordinator of Elementary Education and Assistant Superintendent before being appointed as Superintendent of Middletown Schools in 1994. Michael has amassed an impressive record of public service. His work in the Middletown public school system is well known. But, he has also been involved with the Easter Seals Society, the YMCA, the Middletown Lions Club, the Rhode Island Senate Drug Advisory Committee, and many other worthy organizations. Mr. President, no one has worked harder or has shown more persistence on behalf of the Impact Aid program than Michael Pinto! Barely a month goes by without a letter from Superintendent Pinto reaching my desk, advocating the Impact Aid program and its importance in Middletown schools. Recently, a Newport Daily News article described Superintendent Pinto as an easy-going and amiable administrator.'' In fact, in the spirit of true compromise for the good of education and the community, Superintendent Pinto has said, ``[I'll] tell the School Committee that I'm not interested in a lot of 3-to-2 votes. I'll give up something for a 5-to- 0 vote.'' It is that quality--doing what it takes to reach a consensus--that has made him a successful leader. As Michael prepares for his private life away from the duties of his terribly demanding job, I want to congratulate and thank him for all that he has given to his community.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, S. 1519, a bill to provide a 6- month extension of highway, highway safety, and transit programs pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, was introduced and passed the Senate on November 10, 1997. The bill was passed by the House on November 12, 1997, and sent to the President for approval. Because the measure was considered and passed on the same day as its introduction, the Committee on Environment and Public Works was not referred S. 1519, and a report was not filed. Subsequent to the passage of the legislation, however, the Congressional Budget Office issued a cost estimate, as required under the Senate rules. Therefore, I ask that a letter from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, dated December 1, 1997, be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, December 1, 1997. Hon. Franklin D. Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Raines: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed estimate of the pay-as-you go effects of S. 1519, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Clare Doherty and Kristen Layman, both of whom can be reached at 226-2860. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Enclosure. Congressional Budget Office: Pay-as-You-Go-Estimate, December 1, 1997 S. 1519: Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997, As cleared by the Congress on November 12, 1997 S. 1519 would provide a temporary extension of highway and transit programs authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The bill would provide contract authority of approximately $8.7 billion for programs carried out by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Of that total, $15 million would be for the FHWA minimum allocation program, which is exempt from the obligation limitation that applies to the bulk of FHWA's spending. In addition to providing contract authority, S. 1519 would authorize the appropriation of $372 million for the Federal Transit Administration for the first half of fiscal year 1998. The minimum allocation program is the only program reauthorized in S. 1519 that has outlays that are classified as direct spending. All other outlays from authorizations in S. 1519 would be discretionary because they either would result from discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 1998 or would be subject to obligation limitations included in the 1998 appropriation act for transportation (Public Law 105- 66). S. 1519 would provide $15.46 million for the minimum allocation program for the six-day period from January 26, 1998, through January 31, 1998. For the purposes of estimating the pay-as-you-go impact of the act, this amount has to be extrapolated through 2002, based on the spending authority provided in the legislation. This approach is required under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which stipulates that an expiring mandatory program with current- year outlays in excess of $50 million be assumed to continue at the program level in place when it is scheduled to expire. The $15.46 million in contract authority for six days translates into an annualized level of $639 million for January 26 through the remainder of fiscal year 1998 and for each subsequent fiscal year. By comparison, the current CBO baseline for the minimum allocation program includes contract authority of $639 million for 1998, but assumes annual increases to reflect projected inflation for subsequent years. Thus, CBO estimates that enacting S. 1519 would produce pay-as-you-go savings of $62 million in outlays over the 1998-2002 period, relative to the current baseline. CBO's estimate of S. 1519's impact on outlays from direct spending is summarized in the following table for fiscal years 1998-2007. For purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the budget year and the succeeding four years are counted. Also, only direct spending outlays are subject to pay-as-you-go requirements; the discretionary outlays from contract authority subject to obligation limitations are not considered for pay-as-you-go purposes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, S. 1417, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide for the design, construction, furnishing, and equipping of a center for performing arts within the complex known as the New Mexico Hispanic Cultural Center, was introduced and passed the Senate on November 7, 1997. Because the measure was considered and passed on the same day as its introduction, the Committee on Environment and Public Works was not referred S. 1417, and a report was not filed. Subsequent to the passage of the legislation, however, the Congressional Budget Office issued a cost estimate, as required under the Senate rules. Therefore, I ask that the letter from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, dated November 17, 1997, be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, November 17, 1997. Hon. Franklin D. Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Raines: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for the pay-as-you-go effects of S. 1417, the Hispanic Cultural Center Act of 1997. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Christina Hawley Sadoti. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on November 7, 1997, the Committee on Environment and Public Works filed a report (S. Rept. 105-142) to accompany S. 1287, a bill to assist in the conservation of Asian elephants by supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation programs of nations within the range of Asian elephants and projects of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of Asian elephants. The bill is known as the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997. The bill was placed on the Senate Calendar. An identical companion bill, H.R. 1787, subsequently was passed by the Senate on November 8, 1997. Under the Senate rules, a cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office must be submitted with the filed report. Because the cost estimate was not available when the report was filed I ask that the letter from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, received on November 21, 1997, be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, November 21, 1997. Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1287, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Enclosure. congressional budget office cost estimate S. 1287.--Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 Summary: S. 1287 would establish a new fund to support the conservation of Asian elephants. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to use amounts in the new fund to finance eligible conservation efforts, which may include specific projects such as research and education as well as ongoing activities such as law enforcement. For this purpose, S. 1287 would authorize appropriations to the fund of $5 million for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Also, the Secretary would be authorized to accept and use donated funds without further appropriation. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1287 would result in additional discretionary spending of about $10 million over the 1998-2002 period (with the remainder of the authorized $25 million estimated to be spent after 2002). The legislation would affect direct spending and receipts by allowing the Secretary to accept and spend donations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. Any such transactions, however, would involve minor, offsetting amounts. S. 1287 contains no intergovernmental or private- sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) and would have no impact on the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the entire amounts authorized by S. 1287 will be appropriated for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Outlay estimates are based on obligation patterns for similar programs, which indicate that the rate of spending over the first few years of the new program would be slow. The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1287 is shown in the following table.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for legislation that will be considered by the Senate and has been considered by the House this morning. This legislation is the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. This bill, which is a compromise version of legislation that I introduced originally now has as supporters and sponsors: Senator Rockefeller, Senator Craig, Senator Bond, Senator DeWine, Senator Coats, Senator Jeffords, Senator Landrieu, Senator Levin, Senator Kerrey, Senator Dorgan, Senator Moynihan, Senator Moseley-Braun, and Senator Johnson. Mr. President, this legislation will make some critical changes to the child welfare system--changes that will vastly improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of children currently in foster care and waiting for adoptive homes. I am very hopeful that the President, who has indicated his support for this legislation, will sign this measure promptly. Mr. President, just yesterday, there was yet another story in the newspapers about a young girl, 9 years old, who was found dead from severe abuse in her sister's Bronx apartment. The tragic story of young Sabrina Green's short life is harrowing, and it is all too reminiscent of the cases we read and hear about, unfortunately, every single day. Each time I read about a case like Sabrina Green's, I feel outrage and frustration with a system that cannot take care of the most vulnerable members of our society. Now, Mr. President, we cannot bring Sabrina Green back to life, nor can we bring back any of the hundreds of children who have died under similar circumstances; but we can take action to prevent such deaths in the future, and that is what we are doing today. The bill that will come over to us shortly, Mr. President, will put the safety and health of the child first. That is a significant change in the law. Under this legislation, the safety and health of the child will come first. We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first. While we still believe that family reunification is a worthy goal, it's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together. Children who have suffered severe abuse or whose parents have committed violent crimes should be moved out of those homes rapidly and into adoptive homes. Our bill does that. Children who are in foster care for over 15 months deserve to have a decision made about their future. Our legislation does both of those things. It is also time we put a stop to children lingering in foster care for years. There are currently half a million children in this country--500,000 children in the United States of America--who have been removed from their abusive or neglectful parents and are living in foster care. In my State, there are 1,500 of these children in foster care. Nationally, each of these children in foster care will remain so for an average of 3 years before a decision is made about their future, and many of them will wait much longer. The average is 3 years. Some have stayed for years and years in foster care. Today, we are sending those half a million children a message of hope. Under this legislation, their time in foster care will be shortened. States will be required to make a permanent plan for these children after a year, and if a child has been in foster care for more than 15 months--1 year and 3 months--the State will be required to take the first steps toward terminating parental rights and finding an adoptive home. Terminating parental rights is the critical first step in moving children into permanent placements, but it is not enough. We also must promote adoption of these children, and our bill does that. Our bill removes geographic barriers to adoption. There are no limitations under this bill about children in one State having to be adopted in that State. We remove these geographic barriers to adoption and require States to document efforts to move children into safe adoptive homes. We also provide financial bonuses to States that increase their adoption rights. There is money here for States that increase the rate of adoption in their States. There are legal and procedural barriers to adoption, and there are also financial barriers. Lack of medical coverage is one such barrier to families who want to adopt special needs children. What is a special needs child? It is a child who has medical problems or physical problems, or a child of such an age, maybe 15 or 16, in a foster home. Adoptive parents are very reluctant to take on a child of that age. Many of these children have significant physical and mental health problems due to years of abuse and neglect and foster care. Many of these children have been shuttled from foster parent to foster parent. So the adoptive parents are taking a huge financial risk in adopting these children if the parents are not guaranteed that there will be health insurance for these special needs children. Our bill ensures that special needs children who are going to be adopted will have medical coverage. We also ensure that children whose adoptive parents die or whose adoptions disrupt or terminate for some reason, they will continue to receive Federal subsidies when they are adopted by new parents. Mr. President, I am very proud of this legislation. The Senate and House sponsors have worked tirelessly for many months to come to an agreement. Our shared commitment to improving the lives of these children brought us together. In closing, I want to especially thank my good friend, Senator Jay Rockefeller, who has spent years devoting his time and attention to these children. I also thank Senator Craig, who brought his own personal experiences and dedication to this effort, and Senator DeWine, who brought so much expertise and professional experience to this initiative. I also want to thank the other members of the coalition, those Senators that I mentioned earlier, and I will repeat their names--Senator Bond, Senator Coats, Senator Jeffords, Senator Landrieu, Senator Levin, Senator Kerrey, Senator Dorgan, Senator Moynihan, Senator Moseley-Braun, and Senator Johnson. I also want to congratulate the House sponsors who worked so hard on this--Congressman Camp and Congresswoman Kennelly. I thank our staffs for the extraordinary efforts they devoted to achieving passage of this legislation. Particularly, I salute Laurie Rubiner, of my staff, and Barbara Pryor, of Senator Rockefeller's staff. All of these individuals that are mentioned, and others, have been so helpful in achieving passage of this legislation, which I think has just now passed the House and will be coming here. We look for rapid action here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 12:30 under the same terms as previously agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the perspective my colleagues bring to this issue. Clearly, we need to take into account the status of tribes and tribal court system and the children under their jurisdiction in determining IV-E payments. I will work with them to correct this inequity.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing 13 bills to suspend the duty on the importation of certain products that are used by manufacturers in my home state of Rhode Island. The products in question are organic replacements for colorants that use heavy metals--such as lead, molybdenum, chrome, and cadmium--in the plastics and coatings industries. Heavy metal colorants traditionally have been used in the coloration of plastics and coatings, especially where the applications are subjected to high heat, or where high weatherfastness or lightfastness are required. Until recently, finding substitutes for these heavy metal-based products was difficult. However, thanks to new formulations, a number of organic products have proved themselves to be satisfactory substitutes. Reducing our reliance on heavy metal colorants makes sense environmentally. However, none of the organic substitutes in question are produced in the United States. Thus, our producers have no choice but to import the substitutes and pay the requisite import taxes, which range from 6.6 to 14.6 percent. The total price tag associated with these duties, while relatively small in the context of our federal budget, translates into a considerable business cost to the importing manufacturers. The added cost hurts their ability to compete, and thus their ability to maintain their workforce. Yet, given that there is no domestic industry producing these substitutes, the duties serve little purpose. The package of bills I am introducing today would remedy this situation by suspending the duty on these thirteen products. As I say, none of these organic substitutes are produced in the United States, and therefore lifting the current duties will not result in harm to any domestic industry. Rather, suspending the duties will allow our domestic manufacturers to reduce costs, thus maintaining U.S. competitiveness and safeguarding Rhode Island jobs. This is a critical point. I feel strongly that we in Rhode Island should do all we can to keep the state's economy going by creating jobs, encouraging business activity, and spurring new growth. These bills will help contribute to a productive manufacturing sector in Rhode Island, and aid our employers in keeping their costs down and their sales--and employment--up. It is my hope that by introducing this package of legislation now, there will be ample time for review and comment on each bill, and that as a result, should the Senate take up comprehensive duty suspension legislation next year, these provisions will be ready for inclusion.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing 13 bills to suspend the duty on the importation of certain products that are used by manufacturers in my home state of Rhode Island. The products in question are organic replacements for colorants that use heavy metals--such as lead, molybdenum, chrome, and cadmium--in the plastics and coatings industries. Heavy metal colorants traditionally have been used in the coloration of plastics and coatings, especially where the applications are subjected to high heat, or where high weatherfastness or lightfastness are required. Until recently, finding substitutes for these heavy metal-based products was difficult. However, thanks to new formulations, a number of organic products have proved themselves to be satisfactory substitutes. Reducing our reliance on heavy metal colorants makes sense environmentally. However, none of the organic substitutes in question are produced in the United States. Thus, our producers have no choice but to import the substitutes and pay the requisite import taxes, which range from 6.6 to 14.6 percent. The total price tag associated with these duties, while relatively small in the context of our federal budget, translates into a considerable business cost to the importing manufacturers. The added cost hurts their ability to compete, and thus their ability to maintain their workforce. Yet, given that there is no domestic industry producing these substitutes, the duties serve little purpose. The package of bills I am introducing today would remedy this situation by suspending the duty on these thirteen products. As I say, none of these organic substitutes are produced in the United States, and therefore lifting the current duties will not result in harm to any domestic industry. Rather, suspending the duties will allow our domestic manufacturers to reduce costs, thus maintaining U.S. competitiveness and safeguarding Rhode Island jobs. This is a critical point. I feel strongly that we in Rhode Island should do all we can to keep the state's economy going by creating jobs, encouraging business activity, and spurring new growth. These bills will help contribute to a productive manufacturing sector in Rhode Island, and aid our employers in keeping their costs down and their sales--and employment--up. It is my hope that by introducing this package of legislation now, there will be ample time for review and comment on each bill, and that as a result, should the Senate take up comprehensive duty suspension legislation next year, these provisions will be ready for inclusion.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1213, the Oceans Act of 1997 and to thank the bill's principal sponsors for addressing my concerns. This legislation has broad, bipartisan support and as the senior Senator from the Ocean State, I am glad the United States Senate will be on the record on ocean and coastal policy as we enter 1998, which the United Nation has designated as the ``Year of the Ocean.'' The Oceans Act of 1997 is a significant bill. Its 1966 predecessor, the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act, was one of the seminal developments in environmental law. The act created the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, better known as the Stratton Commission. The Stratton Commission's report, ``Our Nation and the Sea'' was delivered in 1969 and, among its many important recommendations, led directly to the creation of National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970. I would note that two distinguished Rhode Islanders played leading roles in the Stratton Commission. University of Rhode Island Professor Emeritus John A. Knauss, then the Dean of the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography, was a Commission member and chaired the panel on Environmental Monitoring and on Management and Development of the Coastal Zone. Professor Emeritus Lewis Alexander of the University of Rhode Island, who has had a distinguished career in government and academia, was the Commission's Deputy Director. I expect that the Rhode Islanders will play key roles in the new Stratton Commission. The value of our oceans and coastal areas cannot be underestimated. More than half of the United States population lives in or near a coastal area. The commercial fishing industry alone, which depends on these areas, contributes $111 billion dollars per year to the national economy. Moreover, oceans are the lifeblood of the world. The health of our marine resources is intertwined with that of ecosystems throughout the world. The purpose of the bill before us is to develop and maintain a comprehensive national policy for our oceans and coastal areas. A national ocean policy includes a broad range of issues from commerce, environmental protection, scientific research, to national security. To that end, the bill establishes a 16-member National Ocean Commission, which will be assisted by an interagency National Ocean Council, in developing and making recommendations to Congress for a national oceans policy. As originally reported by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology, the creation of the National Ocean Council, raised two concerns. First, how would the National Ocean Council affect the execution of existing environmental laws? Second, is it timely now to create a permanent Council prior to the report of the independent National Ocean Commission created in the bill? The manager's amendment that is before us to day answers both of these questions. Any possible ambiguity regarding the National Ocean Council's role is resolved. Existing responsibilities under federal law are unaffected. I was concerned creation of a permanent Council now would unduly constrain the Commission's recommendations. The manager's amendment makes it clear, however, that the National Ocean Council's function is to assist the independent National Ocean Commission in the preparation of its report. After the Commission completes its report, the Council will take the Commission report into account in developing an implementation plan for a national ocean and coastal policy. the National Ocean Council will also cease to exist one year after the Commission submits its report. Before closing, I want to commend Senators Hollings for his persistence with respect to oceans and coastal policy. I also want to thank him, as well as Senators Snowe and McCain, for addressing my concerns in the manager's amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senate has approved unanimously a bill I introduced with Senator D'Amato which will permit each State to design the back of the circulating quarter dollar. I would like to express my gratitude to Senator D'Amato for his work to ensure passage of this proposal before adjournment and to the long list of colleagues who cosponsored this bill. As we all know, the circulating quarters in use today are Washington/ Eagle quarters. They have a bust of George Washington on the ``head'' side and an eagle on the ``tail'' side. Under this legislation, beginning in 1999, the mint will strike only statehood quarters until all 50 States are represented. Only the design on the back of quarters will change. There will be no changes whatsoever to the size, weight, or other specifications of quarters. This uniformity is necessary to ensure that these new quarters will continue to work in vending machines, telephones, parking meters, and for other similar transactions. This program will operate for 10 years, with the mint producing five different statehood coins per year. The order in which States will be represented is based on the order in which States ratified the Constitution and joined the Union. Some might ask what the purpose of this proposal is; why not leave well enough alone. It is my hope that this proposal will spark interest in every State across our Nation about its unique history. I hope that school children begin to study the history of their States in search of an appropriate individual or emblem to represent their States on the reverse side of these quarters. I hope that artists, coin collectors, historians, and scholars debate and ultimately join together to suggest an appropriate representation for their State. I know that there are a wide range of appealing options for my own State of Rhode Island. Of course, there is the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson, who, like Roger Williams, dedicated her life to the principles of religious freedom and tolerance. There is the Anchor of Hope, which is our State motto and is shown on our flag. Rhode Island is the Ocean State, so a seascape would be interesting proposal, as would be a lighthouse or a gull. As the coins are minted, I hope that school children as well as adults will collect these coins, and, in doing so, will become curious about the places these coins represent. This modest proposal could lead to a greater interest in geography and history. The final design for each State will be selected by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the appropriate Governor, the Commission on Fine Arts, and the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. Each State will nominate a design to the Secretary. Last year, legislation was enacted which instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to study the feasibility of a circulating commemorative coin. That study found that there is considerable public interest in the circulating commemorative quarter and that collecting such coins would produce significant earnings. The bill that the Senate approved today will implement this program. Identical legislation has been approved by the House, and I urge the President to sign it into law when it reaches his desk.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana was so right in recognizing the cooperation of the Members of the House. I worked with them, as did the other Members. Several times we had meetings, telephone calls with Representative Shuster, the chairman of the counterpart committee in the House, Representative Petri, Representative Oberstar, and Representative Rahall. All of them were very helpful. Obviously, you cannot get a compromise unless you get the other side to join in the compromise. Fortunately, they were helpful in achieving that. Mr. President, also, when I listed the staff members that we worked so closely with, I omitted Brian Riley from the Budget Committee, who was extremely helpful to us. His knowledge and expertise were very, very useful.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. 1519, introduced earlier today by Senator Bond.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the Senate and House have reached an agreement to continue funding for the Nation's Federal-aid highway, safety and transit programs. The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997 will keep our transportation system up and running. It will give States the flexibility they need to continue transportation planning and construction activities until a permanent reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] is enacted, hopefully early next year. The Senate-House agreement provides $9.7 billion of obligation authority--money States actually can spend. This $9.7 billion in spending authority is distributed according to the structure provided in S. 1454, the Senate-passed extension bill, which we passed this month. Each State is guaranteed at least 50 percent of its previous year's limitation to spend on any transportation project or program. To keep the States on an equal footing, however, no State may spend more than 75 percent of its 1997 spending limitation. As you might know, one of the major concerns we had with the 6-month extension bill passed by the House was its formula structure. By adopting the spending structure in the Senate bill, we have avoided the contentious fight over formulas that would have prevented us from going forward had we adopted the House formulas. Another important feature of the Senate-passed bill we have agreed to preserve is the flexibility provision. Under current law, the States are restricted in using their unobligated balances across Federal-aid highway, transit and safety categories. The Senate-House agreement allows the States to spend their balances on any Federal-aid highway, transit or safety program category. To prevent important environmental programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program [CMAQ] from being unfairly disadvantaged, however, the Secretary of Transportation must restore the transferred funds back to these programs when the long-term reauthorization bill is enacted. The Senate-House agreement preserves the Federal commitment to safety by funding key ISTEA safety programs. This is a very important part of our legislation. In the United States, there are more than 40,000 fatalities and 3.5 million collisions on our highways every year. The measure before us will help ongoing efforts to reverse this disturbing trend. Funds are provided to enable the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the State and Community Safety Grant Program, the National Driver Register, and the Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Program. The federal transit discretionary and formula programs will receive the funds they need. The Senate-House agreement will provide funds for the Federal Highway Administration to continue its operations and to assist the States in running their transportation programs. Without the measure before us, the Federal Highway Administration would have shut down in January and 3,600 employees would have been sent home because we lack the ability to pay them. The Senate-House agreement extends the transfer of funds from the highway trust fund to the aquatic resources trust Fund to be used for sport fish restoration and boating safety programs. The bill also will provide funds necessary for our local transportation planners, the metropolitan planning organizations, to continue their work. The agreement also provides $5.5 billion in new contract authority, which will be distributed proportionately according to the structure in the Senate-passed bill. I want to make it clear that this new contract authority will not affect the overall spending limitation of $9.7 billion provided in the agreement. Let me add that we will have the opportunity next year to enact a long-term ISTEA reauthorization that will set the comprehensive transportation policy necessary to take us into the next century. The majority leader has assured me that the ISTEA II bill--in other words, the one that we will be considering next year, that we have already had on the floor but regrettably we weren't able to get to it for longer--that the bill which was reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee 7 weeks ago will be the first item before the Senate when we reconvene in January. That is the statement of the majority leader. In the meantime, the Senate-House agreement will keep the State and Federal transportation programs running. It will ensure that no highway contractors will be put out of work because of lack of Federal dollars. And it will continue funding for vital safety and transit programs. Moreover, it will keep the momentum going to enact the 6-year bill early next year. Before closing, Mr. President, I want to give special recognition to Senator Bond, who was instrumental in making sure that we addressed these important issues before going home for the year. Senator Bond did yeoman work on this program, as did Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, both of whom are on the floor. And I personally thank them for their diligent and constructive work on this program. I also wish to thank the majority leader for all of his help. He was a steadfast ally in assuring that this work would be completed. Further, Mr. President, the staff of all members have been tremendously helpful. Jimmie Powell, Dan Corbett, Tom Sliter, Linda Jordan, Cheryle Tucker, Kathy Ruffalo, Ann Loomis, Ellen Stein, Tracy Henke, and Keith Hennessey of Senator Lott's staff, every single one of them have done yeoman's work in connection with getting this bill in the shape it is now, and all of us join in thanks to each and every one of them. I thank the Chair. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to also say that the junior Senator from Massachusetts was quite right in saying that the senior Senator from Massachusetts during his long years here has certainly had a significant impact on legislation, and we all should recognize that and pay tribute to him for what he has done. Mr. President, I would also like to note that the Presiding Officer is a former marine. So he is celebrating today likewise the 222d birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps. So we are all celebrating together.