John Chafee

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, tomorrow morning following the period of morning business the Senate will conduct two consecutive rollcall votes beginning at 11 a.m. The first vote will be on cloture on the committee amendment to the ISTEA legislation, to be followed by a vote on passage of the continuing resolution. If cloture is not invoked at 11 a.m. on Thursday, it is hoped that the second cloture vote will occur Thursday afternoon. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session of the Senate. It is the leader's hope that the Senate can make progress on the highway legislation--it is my hope, too, I might add--during tomorrow's session. In addition, if any appropriations conference reports become available, it would be expected that the Senate consider those reports in short order.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 56, submitted earlier today by Senator Specter.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1268 and the bill be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and that the Indian Affairs Committee be immediately discharged from further consideration of the following nominations, and further that the Senate then proceed to their consideration: Michael Naranjo, Jeanne Givens, Barbara Blum, Letitia Chambers. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Thursday, October 23. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate immediately proceed to a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of Senators Faircloth and Ford, 30 minutes; Senators Craig and Hagel, 35 minutes; Senator Feinstein, 15 minutes; Senator Shelby, 10 minutes; Senator Torricelli, 15 minutes; Senators Kempthorne and Robb, 20 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur on the modified amendment to S. 1173 at the hour of 11 a.m. on Thursday. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the cloture vote, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the continuing resolution, H. J. Res. 97, regardless of the outcome of the first cloture vote.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

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

Mr. CHAFEE. I might say I think the Senator is on weak ground to suggest I am slow. If I understand, the first discussion of the Byrd amendment was on October 9th. I know there is a gestation period here, but this has been unusually long. Whereas we have not been discussing our amendment publicly and talking about it, it is going to come. I think it was first going to come on the 10th; then it was going to come on Monday the 20th. Then we looked forward with bated breath for it on the 21st. Indeed, it has not even been submitted yet. You could perfectly well revise this. I don't know why you haven't filed it.

Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.

Mr. CHAFEE. What I am saying is these amounts are listed here as contract authority. I mean that is the word. And that means that every single State will anticipate--they can work these percentages out. You don't have to be a Phi Beta Kappa to do that. And they will anticipate what they are getting. Indeed, proponents are already saying every State is going to get 25 percent more. They don't know they are going to get 25 percent more. That is what I mean. They are riding one horse saying you are going to get 25 percent more because there it is, ``in contract authority.'' At the same time they are saying we leave it completely up to the appropriators, it is not necessarily 25 percent. Which is it?

Mr. CHAFEE. It will be available tomorrow.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues, both here on the floor and elsewhere, that there will be a Domenici-Chafee amendment which will provide a simple, fast-track method to increase highway spending without requiring an entire new ISTEA bill. So let's put to rest the suggestion that all kinds of complications are going to have to be gone through in order to increase highway spending under the bill that is before us, plus the amendment that Senator Domenici and I will submit. So, therefore, you say, what's the difference? What's the difference between the two bills? Domenici-Chafee provides a fast-track method to provide additional funding and the so-called Byrd bill, Byrd-Baucus- Warner-Gramm bill says there will be increased funding for highway spending. But, let me just tell you the difference, Madam President. What the Byrd bill says, it says, now, what the contract authority will be, and since that is to be apportioned in just the present proportions that exist amongst the States, that applies a chart immediately that will go out, telling each State what it will get for each successive year. There is a hitch there, though. That's a promise, it appears. But the sponsors are stressing that it is not a promise, that the appropriators do not have to provide that amount of money. Here is the problem under that approach. I just look here on page 2, ``Authorization Of Contract Authority: There shall be available from the Highway Trust Fund . . . to carry out this subsection [$5.x billion] for fiscal year 1999,'' $5.471 billion the next year, on and on it goes until it gets up to $5.781 billion. That is contract authority. And, absent something occurring, that is what the States will get. But the question is, is that what the appropriations are going to be? Here is the hitch. Every State department of transportation will look, as I say, at these amounts, everybody can figure out what their percentage is now and, since the promise is they are going to get the same percentage, we will figure let's see, what does Rhode Island get out of this? Let's see, in fiscal year 2001 things look pretty good. You just take $5.573 billion, which is on top of the amounts we have already, the $21 billion, you just add that in and figure this is what we are going to get in Rhode Island. But Rhode Island is not--or Maine, or Montana or West Virginia--is not necessarily going to get these amounts which appear to be promises because they are not promises because the appropriators have to act. So, it seems to me the proponents of the bill are riding two horses here. One, they are saying to every State, you are going to get 25 percent more, isn't that wonderful? At the same time they are saying, oh, there are no commitments. Nothing is done. We are not breaking the budget. We are just going to leave it to the appropriators. Other programs can get what they want. The problem, it seems to me, is once you get these sums out there in contract authority, as is in the Byrd bill, that every department of transportation, every Governor will figure that is what is coming and there will be tremendous pressure on this body to come through on the promise, seeming promise. They will stress, rightfully, it is not a promise. But who knows what the requirements are going to be for the budget, on the budget in the year 2001? Or 2002? Or 2003? It may well be we want to spend more on education. We may want to spend more on health care. It may be we want to cut taxes. But here this is locking us in. I know they will deny it is locking us in. Why, contract authority, that is just there, you can change it. But I will guarantee by this time tomorrow every State will have a chart showing what they are going to get for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. And it will appear to be a promise. That, to me, I believe, is a definite flaw in this measure. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. I think we better let the Senator get on with his statement. I have no time. Is the Senator the last speaker?

Mr. CHAFEE. Go to it.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator for that because, so far, we have not been sure what we were dealing with. But now we know. I say this to the Senator. I ask the Senator, I listened to the statements on the floor here from the Senator from Texas and others, and there has been a lot of talk about truth in taxes and how wicked it was that this 4.3 cents has not gone for highways, and that it was deceptive to the American motoring public that when this tax was levied, it was levied on the basis that it would be used for bridges, highways, and so forth. Yet, I ask the Senator, was it not true when that tax was enacted, the 4.3-cent additional gasoline tax, in 1993, it was crystal clear to everybody that that was a deficit reduction; am I correct in that?

Mr. CHAFEE. Well, Madam President, the point I am making here is that, in 1993--and we were all here at the time--the President of the United States came forward with a deficit reduction program. In that deficit reduction program--this was in 1993--there was a 4.3-cent added gasoline tax imposed. It was crystal clear to everybody who paid any bit of attention to it that that was for deficit reduction. That went into the general fund. It wasn't for gas, it wasn't for highways or bridges, it was for deficit reduction. I voted against it. Every single Republican voted against it, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that it passed. In those days, there were a majority of Democratic Senators in this body, and those 1993 moneys were clearly for deficit reduction. So the reason I am stressing this is because we have heard some powerful discussion here on the floor about truth in taxes and how unfair it is to the American public that when our wives go and pump the gas into the car, they believe that every tax they pay on that is going into roads and bridges. That may be what they think, but that isn't what the facts are. In 1993, it was crystal clear. There was all kinds of debate here. I am not saying that was wrong. I voted against the entire package but, as I said, that is neither here nor there. It is clear that the money for gasoline taxes was to go for deficit reduction.

Mr. CHAFEE. I don't even have the floor. I am here by sufferance.

Mr. CHAFEE. First, I say to the Senator that I am very pleased that the amendment has now been submitted. It is submitted for printing--I guess not formally submitted. Anyway, this is the amendment that we are going to act upon, as I understand it.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume the highway bill.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending committee amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the cloture vote will occur on Friday of this week if cloture is not invoked earlier on Thursday. All Senators will be notified as to the exact time of this cloture vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.