John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is a rare opportunity when we can provide assistance to one of our nation's most vulnerable groups: children in the foster care program. Currently, Independent Living Programs for older foster children end at their 18th birthday, abandoning these teens in the middle of a critical transition period from adolescence to adulthood. Sadly, these young people are left to negotiate the rough waters of adulthood without vital health and mental health resources and critical life-skills. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Rockefeller, Bond, Moynihan, and others in introducing the Foster Care Independence Act. Many of the 20,000 adolescents who leave the foster care rolls each year to become adults come from particularly troubled backgrounds. Typically, these young people have experienced on average four placements in the past seven years of their lives. As a result, they lack a sense of permanency and the skills essential to becoming self- reliant and productive adults. Our bill will cushion the transition to adulthood by funding Independent Living Programs and ensuring access to the critical health care and mental health services provided by Medicaid through a foster child's 21st birthday. Most importantly, it doubles the money available to state- administered Independent Living Programs, allowing them to provide the day-to-day living needs for 18 to 21-year-olds while they learn valuable life skills. This more comprehensive program with a long transition period will promote the safety, health, and permanency in the lives of these children. It also removes a significant barrier to these children's adoption by ensuring that the families who adopt them have access to the appropriate resources through age 21. In addition, this bill provides them access to the health and mental health services offered through Medicaid. Numerous studies of adolescents who leave foster care have found that this population has a significantly higher-than-normal rate of school drop outs, out-of- wedlock pregnancies, homelessness, health and mental health problems, poverty, and unemployment. They are also more likely to be victims of crime and physical assaults. My more comprehensive program addresses these grave health and safety concerns by allowing adolescents who age out of or are adopted out of foster care to continue to receive crucial health, and mental health care benefits through the age of 21. I am heartened by the broad, bipartisan support that the Independent Living Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague, Representative Nancy Johnson, received last week in the House. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure and ask unanimous consent that the full text and summary of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the managers' amendment to S. 880, the Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. S. 880 was voted out of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on May 11. The risk management program, RMP, created by Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, was designed to focus companies and emergency response personnel on reducing the change of an accidental chemical release and on improving the response to releases when they happen. The RMP was partly a reaction to the Bhopal, India chemical disaster and is part of a larger set of programs designed to reduce the likelihood of future accidental releases. In its regulation, EPA included propane and some other fuels in the program. This was seen as a problem because the RMP was not intended to address traditional fuel use. Senator Inhofe introduced S. 880 to relieve propane users from participation in the RMP. During markup of S. 880, the Environment and Public Works Committee adopted an administration proposal to address public access to a part of a facility's risk management plan, known as off-site consequence analysis. The EPA had intended to release this information on its website, until the FBI raised concerns that posting this information on the Internet would provide an attractive targeting tool for terrorists and criminals. The administration's proposal, which the managers' amendment would modify, attempted to balance the benefits of public access to this information with the legitimate safety concerns raised by its public availability. At the May 11 business meeting, members of the Environment and Public Works Committee raised some concerns about the administration's proposal. We had received the proposal little more than a day before the markup. Since then, committee staff from both sides of the aisle have worked diligently to resolve the difference and crafted a compromise that I believe improves upon the administration proposal. This amendment ensures that state and local emergency response officials have immediate and full access to this information. A greater measure of public access will be established within one year through a public notice and comment rulemaking. There are two important differences between this amendment and the administration's proposal that the Environment and Public Works Committee adopted. First, this amendment requires a rulemaking process, with public notice and comment, in the final determination of the extent of public access. Second, the exemption from FOIA is only temporary, rather than the permanent exemption proposed by the administration. In this amendment, the FOIA exemption is waived unless the rule is finalized within one year. The entire provision, including the FOIA exemption, expires after six years. If it is appropriate at that time, Congress could reauthorize the FOIA exemption. Both the managers' amendment and the administration language attempt to address the safety concerns raised by the availability of a national database of worst-case chemical accident information. To that end, the language in this bill will preempt State and local law regarding public access to government information. It makes little sense for us to limit public access at the federal level but not at the State level. As a former Governor, I believe the federal government must use the greatest restraint in exercising a preemption of State law. With that in mind, the managers' amendment makes clear that the preemption only applies to that information collected by the federal government. In other words, if a State were to require the submission of similar--or even identical--information about chemical releases, no federal restrictions would apply to its distribution. I believe most companies will want to work with community leaders and emergency response personnel to reduce the risks associated with their facility. This amendment includes several tools to assist in the process of reducing risks. First, this amendment ensures that emergency response personnel get full and immediate access to this information. Second, the regulation will allow access to a limited number of copies for any member of the public so each of us can have the information about facilities in our community. Third, this amendment will allow access to a national database of this information that does not identify the facilities. This will allow people to compare their local facility with others around the country. Finally, this amendment directs the administrator to create an information technology system that allows public access to off-site consequence analysis information on a read-only basis. This database would be centrally controlled by the federal government, much like the system the FBI uses to do background checks. Terminals to access the database could be placed in libraries and government offices around the nation where users could assess the information for research purposes, but not make copies of the information. This product is not perfect, everyone had to make concessions in order to reach agreement, but what we have is a product that strikes an appropriate balance between public access to this information and the safety concerns raised by posting it on the Internet. I want to thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Baucus for their efforts to achieve a reasonable and speedy solution acceptable to all parties.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I would like to clarify my position on these procedural votes regarding managed care reform legislation. I think Senators on both sides of the aisle are familiar with my position on the need for managed care reform legislation to ensure that health care consumers are treated fairly by their HMOs and other managed care plans. Indeed, I have authored bipartisan legislation--both in this Congress and the last--to provide a basic floor of federal protections for all privately insured Americans. And, I am pleased to be joined in that endeavor by Senators Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Max Baucus, Chuck Robb and Evan Bayh. Though I will vote not to table the Republican bill, I want to make clear, I do not think this bill goes far enough in protecting consumers. Nor am I entirely comfortable with the Democratic bill. Let me cite just a few examples. In the Chafee-Graham-Lieberman bill, our patient protections would extend to all privately insured Americans--not just to the self-funded component of the ERISA population, as is the case with most of the patient protections in the Republican bill. A credible enforcement mechanism is also critical to ensuring that any patient protections we adopt here in the Senate are taken seriously by managed care plans. The Chafee-Graham-Lieberman bill contains a strong enforcement mechanism which would permit injured parties to seek redress in federal court. Here the Democratic bill goes too far in exposing health plans to state tort liability, while the strengthened ERISA remedy contained in the Republican bill does not go far enough. Our bipartisan bill also contains very strong internal and external appeals provisions to ensure that patients get their appeals heard in an expeditious and equitable manner. I am not convinced the Republican bill does enough in this area. Regardless of our legitimate differences, I am not in favor of trying to force the debate on managed care in this manner. I respectfully urge both sides to work in good faith to arrive at a reasonable time agreement to facilitate an orderly debate as soon as practicable on this very important legislation. In that regard, I do not think 40 amendments on either side is realistic given all of the other matters competing for the Senate's attention; nor, for that matter, do I think 3 amendments would give the Senate the opportunity to fully debate these issues. If we are serious about Senate consideration of managed care legislation--as I believe both sides are--I see no reason why we cannot come to an agreement on a date certain for taking up this legislation, and a date certain for completing it. I believe the Senate could complete consideration of this legislation within a period of five or six days. So, let us proceed in a timely manner to debate these differences and to vote to resolve them. That is our task, and I am willing to help in whatever ways I can to ensure a full and meaningful debate.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on June 21st, family, friends and colleagues will gather to honor John P. Rezendes, who has served East Providence public schools for 30 years, and is retiring as Principal of Edward R. Martin Junior High School. John Rezendes built his career in Rhode Island, just as he received his education in our state. He graduated from East Providence Senior High School in 1965, received a bachelor's and a master's degree from Providence College, and later pursued additional studies at Rhode Island College. Over the years, John Rezendes has amassed an impressive record of public service. During his tenure in the East Providence public school system, John has worked with students in a variety of capacities, including as a classroom teacher, a ``House Leader,'' and a principal. Early in his career, John served as a history and civics teacher at Central Junior High School. In 1977, when a new facility was constructed to replace Central Junior High School, John was one of the first faculty members to occupy this new ``four house facility.'' That same year, he was promoted to House Leader where he continued a close relationship with his students and built a strong working relationship with the teachers he supervised. In 1983, John was appointed Principal of Riverside Junior High School. In this capacity, he brought many personal touches to the school. His work on revamping student schedules and creating ``teaching teams'' within individual grades are just a couple of the positive marks he left on the Riverside community. However, John Rezendes did not stop there. In 1986, Principal Rezendes was transferred to Martin Junior High School where he remained for the next thirteen years. During this time, John worked diligently on the educational needs of his students. In fact, in 1998, he began molding the East Providence Educational Development Center. This Center serves as an alternative high school for non-traditional students and focuses on the development of academic schedules to meet their individual needs. John Rezendes' work in the East Providence public school system certainly is well known. For over thirty years, John has made a lasting impact on thousands of students. He has treated his job as both a challenge and a privilege. As John 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 to introduce the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 1999. I also want to thank Senators McCain, Graham, Mack, Moynihan, and Jeffords for their support and cosponsorship of this important legislation. In 1996, legal immigrants in this country lost critical public benefits because of changes made under welfare reform. While I supported the underlying goals of welfare reform--self sufficiency and individual responsibility--I continue to believe that the cuts made to immigrants' benefits as part of the 1996 reforms were unwarranted. While some of those cuts were reversed in 1997 and again in 1998, we still have a long way to improve the lives of the millions of immigrants who are legally in this country. The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act is one small but important step toward this goal. While cash benefits such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and food stamps are critical to the well-being of low-income immigrants, access to health care is their largest concern. Immigrants who were legally in the country before the enactment of the welfare reform legislation are still eligible for Medicaid. However, those immigrants--including children and pregnant women--who arrived after August 22, 1996, the enactment date of the welfare bill, are barred for five years from receiving health benefits under Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). While these individuals may still get emergency medical care, they are ineligible for the basic medical services that may reduce the need for such emergency care. This makes no sense. The legislation we are introducing today would fix this problem by giving states the option to lift the five-year bar for pregnant women and children, allowing this narrow group of legal immigrants to receive health care services under either SCHIP or Medicaid. I want to emphasize that this legislation does not require states to cover these immigrant children--it merely allows the state to do so if it chooses. This approach is consistent with Congress' shift toward more state flexibility and will provide needed relief to states, such as Rhode Island, with high immigrant populations. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 1999. I also want to thank Senators McCain, Graham, Mack, Moynihan, and Jeffords for their support and cosponsorship of this important legislation. In 1996, legal immigrants in this country lost critical public benefits because of changes made under welfare reform. While I supported the underlying goals of welfare reform--self sufficiency and individual responsibility--I continue to believe that the cuts made to immigrants' benefits as part of the 1996 reforms were unwarranted. While some of those cuts were reversed in 1997 and again in 1998, we still have a long way to improve the lives of the millions of immigrants who are legally in this country. The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act is one small but important step toward this goal. While cash benefits such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and food stamps are critical to the well-being of low-income immigrants, access to health care is their largest concern. Immigrants who were legally in the country before the enactment of the welfare reform legislation are still eligible for Medicaid. However, those immigrants--including children and pregnant women--who arrived after August 22, 1996, the enactment date of the welfare bill, are barred for five years from receiving health benefits under Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). While these individuals may still get emergency medical care, they are ineligible for the basic medical services that may reduce the need for such emergency care. This makes no sense. The legislation we are introducing today would fix this problem by giving states the option to lift the five-year bar for pregnant women and children, allowing this narrow group of legal immigrants to receive health care services under either SCHIP or Medicaid. I want to emphasize that this legislation does not require states to cover these immigrant children--it merely allows the state to do so if it chooses. This approach is consistent with Congress' shift toward more state flexibility and will provide needed relief to states, such as Rhode Island, with high immigrant populations. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I wish to pay tribute to Mr. John Jermain Slocum, Jr., who has served at the Preservation Society of Newport County in Newport, Rhode Island, and is retiring as President and Chairman of the Board. Jerry Slocum's work is well known to me. I have had the pleasure of knowing the Slocum family for many years. Rhode Island has benefited greatly from their involvement in the community. In fact, during my years as Governor, Jerry assisted me in a variety of functions. Among his duties in my office, Jerry worked as a drafter of proclamations and handled constituent services. In this capacity, Jerry displayed the qualities of a problem solver and a facilitator, which are very important in the workplace. When Jerry joined the Preservation Society of Newport County in 1990, he brought with him the support and appreciation of historic houses instilled in him by his parents. Since becoming President, the Society has expanded its number of historic structures from 18 to 23--not an easy feat! The Society now hosts structures ranging from the Hunter House, built in 1748, to the Vanderbilt family's Newport summer house, the Breakers, to its newest acquisition, the Isaac Bell House. However, Jerry did not stop there. During his tenure, the educational programs offered by the Society have expanded to include: its annual International Symposium, the John Winslow Lectures, the Noreen Stonor Drexel Lecture Series and the Newport Flower Show. Jerry Slocum certainly is a believer in community involvement. He has worked tirelessly to extend the outreach of the Society and its facilities to the community, and in doing so, he has drawn people to Newport from across the country. This hard work and dedication has brought the Society national recognition. In 1998, the National Trust for Historic Preservation awarded the Preservation Society with a stewardship award for its exceptional contribution to preserving the historic and architectural heritage of Newport. Also, various properties of the Preservation Society have been recognized and used in films such as ``The Buccaneers,'' ``Mr. North,'' and the Arnold Schwarzenegger action film, ``True Lies.'' As Jerry 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 the Society and the community.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today that will offer a new tool for the conservation of imperiled species throughout the world. This legislation would establish a fund to provide financial assistance for conservation projects for these species, which often receive little, if any, help. The primary Federal law protecting imperiled species is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Of the 1700 species that are endangered or threatened under the ESA, more than 560--approximately one-third-- are foreign species residing outside the United States. However, the general protections of the ESA do not apply overseas, nor does the Administration prepare recovery plans for foreign species. The primary multilateral treaty protecting endangered and threatened species is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES identifies more than 30,000 species to be protected through restrictions on trade in their parts and products. It does not address other threats facing these species. Consequently, the vast majority of endangered or threatened species throughout the world receive little, if any, funding by the United States. Presently, three grants programs exist for specific species-- African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinos, and tigers. In FY 1999, they received an aggregate of $1.9 million. Other small conservation programs exist in India, Mexico, China, and Russia under agreements with those countries. However, no program addresses the general need to conserve imperiled species in foreign countries. This need could not be greater. Recently, much deserved attention has been given to the decline of primate populations in both Africa and Asia as a result of habitat loss and poaching to supply a trade of bushmeat. These species vitally need funding to arrest their serious declines. Numerous other species in the same rainforests across Africa and Asia, as well as the rainforests of the Americas, also face threats relating to habitat loss. Habitats as varied as the alpine reaches of the Himalayas, the bamboo forests of China, and tropical coral reef systems are all home to species facing the threat of extinction, such as the snow leopard, the panda and sea turtles. While the charismatic mega-fauna receive the most public attention, the vast multitude of species continue to slip steadily towards extinction without even any public awareness. A new grants program would be a powerful tool to begin to address the critical needs of these species, and would fill a significant gap in existing efforts. Such a program would be similar to the programs for elephants, rhinos and tigers, but would apply to any imperiled species. The existing programs have proven tremendously successful, particularly in creating local, long-term capacity within the foreign country to protect these species. The bill that I introduce today would build on these successful programs. Specifically, the bill establishes a fund to support projects to conserve endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. The projects must be approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the Agency for International Development. Priority is to be given to projects that enhance conservation of the most imperiled species, that provide the greatest conservation benefit, that receive the greatest level of non-Federal funding, and that enhance local capacity for conservation efforts. The bill authorizes appropriations of $16 million annually for 4 years, 2001 to 2005, with $12 million authorized for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and $4 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this worthwhile initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today that will offer a new tool for the conservation of imperiled species throughout the world. This legislation would establish a fund to provide financial assistance for conservation projects for these species, which often receive little, if any, help. The primary Federal law protecting imperiled species is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Of the 1700 species that are endangered or threatened under the ESA, more than 560--approximately one-third-- are foreign species residing outside the United States. However, the general protections of the ESA do not apply overseas, nor does the Administration prepare recovery plans for foreign species. The primary multilateral treaty protecting endangered and threatened species is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES identifies more than 30,000 species to be protected through restrictions on trade in their parts and products. It does not address other threats facing these species. Consequently, the vast majority of endangered or threatened species throughout the world receive little, if any, funding by the United States. Presently, three grants programs exist for specific species-- African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinos, and tigers. In FY 1999, they received an aggregate of $1.9 million. Other small conservation programs exist in India, Mexico, China, and Russia under agreements with those countries. However, no program addresses the general need to conserve imperiled species in foreign countries. This need could not be greater. Recently, much deserved attention has been given to the decline of primate populations in both Africa and Asia as a result of habitat loss and poaching to supply a trade of bushmeat. These species vitally need funding to arrest their serious declines. Numerous other species in the same rainforests across Africa and Asia, as well as the rainforests of the Americas, also face threats relating to habitat loss. Habitats as varied as the alpine reaches of the Himalayas, the bamboo forests of China, and tropical coral reef systems are all home to species facing the threat of extinction, such as the snow leopard, the panda and sea turtles. While the charismatic mega-fauna receive the most public attention, the vast multitude of species continue to slip steadily towards extinction without even any public awareness. A new grants program would be a powerful tool to begin to address the critical needs of these species, and would fill a significant gap in existing efforts. Such a program would be similar to the programs for elephants, rhinos and tigers, but would apply to any imperiled species. The existing programs have proven tremendously successful, particularly in creating local, long-term capacity within the foreign country to protect these species. The bill that I introduce today would build on these successful programs. Specifically, the bill establishes a fund to support projects to conserve endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. The projects must be approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the Agency for International Development. Priority is to be given to projects that enhance conservation of the most imperiled species, that provide the greatest conservation benefit, that receive the greatest level of non-Federal funding, and that enhance local capacity for conservation efforts. The bill authorizes appropriations of $16 million annually for 4 years, 2001 to 2005, with $12 million authorized for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and $4 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this worthwhile initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for sponsoring his amendment relating to the withdrawal of lands from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. I am happy to cosponsor it, and I look forward to working with him in the future on this issue. The amendment removes the provision in Title 29 relating to the Goldwater Range, and includes nothing more than a placeholder for subsequent consideration of the withdrawals. It is no more than a means to ensure that the Administration expeditiously completes its review process regarding the withdrawals. It is not intended in any way to prejudice this process, or to shape the substance of the provisions ultimately adopted by Congress. Mr. President, my colleague from Arizona and I have agreed to work openly and collaboratively on this provision. As the National Wildlife Refuge System is within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have a strong interest in the withdrawals of lands from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, as well as the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, which will be considered later. Again, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my distinguished colleague from Arizona. I thank him for his willingness to address my concerns and to sponsor this amendment. It is always a great pleasure to work with him and his staff, and I am delighted to have this opportunity to do so again.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill, together with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Domenici and Crapo, to address one of the most problematic, controversial and misunderstood provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This is the provision relating to the designation of critical habitat for endangered or threatened species. As I have often said, the key to protecting our nation's fish and wildlife is to protect the habitat on which those species depend. This is particularly true for endangered and threatened species, which often fall into such precarious condition precisely because of habitat loss and degradation. This makes habitat protection for those species all the more vital. It is thus terribly ironic that the provisions in the ESA relating to habitat are those that present the most problems. My bill goes a long way to fix those problems. It is virtually identical to the critical habitat provisions contained in S. 1180 from the last Congress, which was approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee by a vote of 15 to 3, with strong bipartisan support. Landowners fear that critical habitat imposes severe restrictions on use of their own lands; the Secretary frequently does not designate critical habitat to avoid these controversies; and environmental groups often bring lawsuits over this failure to designate. Of almost 1,200 species listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, only 113--nine percent--have critical habitat designated. Indeed, of the 256 species listed since April 1996, the Service has designated critical habitat for only two. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been brought against the Service in recent years. Currently, 15 active lawsuits are pending, with six already decided--all against the Secretary--and prospective challenges for another 40 species are on the horizon. These statistics underscore the problems with the existing law with respect to critical habitat designations. The root of these problems lies in the fact that designation of critical habitat requires knowledge of the conservation needs of the species as well as an assessment of the economic impacts of the designation, neither of which is generally known, or can be determined, at the time of listing. Designation of critical habitat is more appropriate in the context of developing a recovery plan for a listed species, because the recovery plan specifically addresses the conservation needs of the species and provides for an estimate of the costs for recovery actions. Indeed, numerous individuals and organizations, including the National Research Council, have suggested that the requirement to designate critical habitat be moved from the time of listing to the time of recovery plan development. As for recovery plans, the Secretary is required to develop and implement recovery plans for listed species. However, there is no deadline for the Secretary to do so. Less than 70 percent of listed species are covered in a recovery plan, and 56 percent of those species without plans have been listed for longer than one year. These statistics underscore the need for a mandatory deadline for developing recovery plans. The bill that I introduce today would move the requirement to designate critical habitat from the time of listing to the time of recovery plan development. The bill would also require that a recovery team be appointed, unless the Secretary states otherwise through notice and comment. The bill would also provide a deadline for development of recovery plans, no later than 36 months after listing. In the event that the designation is necessary to avoid the imminent extinction of the species, the bill allows the Secretary to designate critical habitat concurrently with listing. A new provision would be added to the citizen suit section that would require any lawsuit challenging the actual designation of critical habitat to be brought in conjunction with a suit challenging the recovery plan on which the designation is based. Other than these changes, the critical habitat provisions would remain virtually the same as in existing law. Let me say that I do not have any desire to open the broader question of reauthorization of the ESA. I believe that this bill addresses a narrow fix in a way that answers the complaints of both environmental groups and the regulated community. I do not advocate the inclusion of other issues not related to critical habitat. There may be another time and vehicle for that, but this is not the time, and this bill should not be the vehicle. In closing, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his cooperation on this issue, and for his decision to work on this bill together in lieu of offering a rider on the recent supplemental appropriations bill. I know this issue is of no great importance to the constituents in his home State, and I am pleased to work with him to find a resolution. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999. This bill represents our efforts to focus on the areas where bipartisan consensus is achievable this year. The bill provides liability relief for many parties trapped in Superfund--in fact, it exempts or limits the liability of the vast bulk of all parties involved in Superfund litigation. The bill includes very strong provisions to facilitate the redevelopment of Brownfields, and it starts to wind down the Federal role in site cleanup, while enhancing the role of the states. The bill includes many provisions that have enjoyed widespread bipartisan support in the Senate. The Brownfields title will provide $100 million in grants for state, tribal and local governments to identify, assess and redevelop Brownfields sites. It protects prospective purchasers of contaminated sites, innocent owners of properties adjacent to the source of contamination, and innocent property owners who exercised due diligence upon purchase. These provisions have been included in past bills supported by Democrats and Republicans over the last six years. The bill exempts a number of parties from Superfund liability and incorporates provisions of S. 2180, the Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1998, cosponsored last year by Senators Lott and Daschle, as well as 64 other members of the Senate. Our bill exempts small businesses, contributors of very small amounts of hazardous waste, and contributors of small amounts of municipal solid waste. The bill limits the liability of larger generators or transporters of municipal solid waste, as well as owners or operators of co-disposal landfills where municipal solid waste is disposed. The bill limits the liability of so- called de minimis parties--generally one percent contributors or less-- as well as municipalities and small businesses with a limited ability to pay. It is well known that Superfund liability--retroactive, strict, joint and several liability--often can be terribly unfair. It does not make any sense to make Superfund liability even more unfair to the parties who do not receive liability relief in this bill by merely shifting the share of the exempt or limited parties onto those that remain liable. This bill does not do that. Instead, where we grant liability relief, we direct EPA to use the taxes already collected from industry to pay the cost of the exemptions. This seems only fair. The bill also requires EPA to perform an impartial fair-share allocation at Superfund NPL sites and to give all parties an opportunity to settle for their allocated amount. In performing the allocation, EPA is directed to use the factors first proposed by Vice President Gore when he was serving in the House. EPA is given discretion to design the process, and parties that do not participate or settle remain liable to Superfund's underlying liability provisions, which remain unchanged except for those fortunate parties provided the new protections noted above. As EPA proudly boasts, cleanup is complete or underway at over 90 percent of the sites on the current NPL. While it is cleaning up the sites at a rate of 85 per year, it has listed only an average of about 26 per year. Last year, the General Accounting Office surveyed the states and EPA about the approximately 3,000 sites identified as possible National Priority List sites, but not yet listed. Only 232 of these sites were identified by either EPA, a state, or both, as likely to be listed on the NPL. Clearly, this program is much closer to the end than in the beginning. This bill requires EPA to plan how it will proceed at those 3,000 sites still awaiting a decision regarding listing. Everyone knows that the vast bulk of these sites will not be listed on the Superfund List, they will be cleaned up by the states, as the GAO report confirms. Under our bill, new listings on the National Priority List must be requested by the Governor of the affected state, and EPA is limited to listing 30 sites per year. The bill provides finality at sites cleaned up in state cleanup programs unless a state asks for help, fails to take action, or a true emergency is present. This will give greater confidence to prospective developers that state cleanup decisions will not be second-guessed by EPA. The bill strengthens state programs and starts to bring Superfund to an end. The bill makes EPA's authorization and appropriation process more transparent. There are separate line items for EPA's cleanup program-- the heart of the program--and all other activities such as Brownfields, support for research and development, Department of Justice enforcement, et cetera. No longer will increases in popular programs such as Brownfields come at the expense of the cleanup program. Authorization levels for the cleanup recognize that the program's workload is decreasing and will ramp down over time. The bill allows the program to be funded from either general revenues or the Trust Fund. It is my view that the Superfund taxes should not be reimposed, and I will strongly oppose their reimposition absent comprehensive Superfund reform that includes needed improvements to provisions governing natural resource damages, liability, and the cleanup process. To the extent that EPA improves its cost recovery performance and the Trust Fund balance exceeds levels needed to fund the liability relief provided in this bill, then that balance, instead of general revenues, can be used for Superfund cleanup. It is possible that EPA can recover enough past cleanup expenditures to pay for the full 5-year reauthorization program. Since the program's inception, EPA has spent approximately $15.9 billion on cleanup, the vast majority of it from industry-paid Superfund taxes deposited in the Trust Fund. Unfortunately, EPA has only recovered $2.4 billion of this total. Even discounting nearly $6.9 billion in expenditures that have been written-off by EPA or are no longer considered recoverable, there is approximately $6.6 billion that EPA could recover for the Trust Fund. It is well known that Senator Smith and I have long advocated comprehensive reform of the Superfund program. We have not abandoned that goal. However, in many ways, the bill we introduce today is more far-reaching than our efforts in the last two Congresses. Except for the liability provisions described above, the major focus of this bill is how to address sites not yet in the federal Superfund program. The Superfund Program Completion Act addresses the future of the Superfund program. The major reforms included in our previous efforts are not a part of the new bill. This bill does not address liability for damages to natural resources. The bill does not include liability relief for large responsible parties, such as federal funding of the fair shares attributed to bankrupt, defunct and insolvent parties. The bill does not make changes to Superfund's provisions regarding the conduct of cleanups. I still believe reforms are needed for natural resource damages, liability for large responsible parties, and the cleanup process. Unfortunately, the administration no longer supports legislative reform in these areas. Even in previous years, when the administration claimed to support such reforms, agreement was not possible. Given the remote prospects for concurrence on these issues, Senator Smith and I decided to set the issues aside for now and move forward with an agenda that we believe can generate bipartisan support. I cannot understand why anyone would fail to support this bill. It will accelerate Brownfields redevelopment. It will strengthen state programs in anticipation of the day we all know is coming--the day when the Superfund program becomes the small emergency program that was originally intended. It limits or eliminates the liability of many parties who were caught in Superfund's incredibly broad liability net, and it does so in a manner that is fair to those that are left. It does not undermine the so-called ``polluter pays'' principle, but in fact strengthens it by creating an incentive for EPA to improve its cost recovery performance. The committee will move forward quickly on this bill. The committee will hold hearings on the bill next week. We will work through the Memorial Day recess to address Members' concerns, then hold a markup within 10 days of returning from the recess. The bill will be ready for floor action prior to the July Fourth recess. 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 to introduce a bill, together with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Domenici and Crapo, to address one of the most problematic, controversial and misunderstood provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This is the provision relating to the designation of critical habitat for endangered or threatened species. As I have often said, the key to protecting our nation's fish and wildlife is to protect the habitat on which those species depend. This is particularly true for endangered and threatened species, which often fall into such precarious condition precisely because of habitat loss and degradation. This makes habitat protection for those species all the more vital. It is thus terribly ironic that the provisions in the ESA relating to habitat are those that present the most problems. My bill goes a long way to fix those problems. It is virtually identical to the critical habitat provisions contained in S. 1180 from the last Congress, which was approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee by a vote of 15 to 3, with strong bipartisan support. Landowners fear that critical habitat imposes severe restrictions on use of their own lands; the Secretary frequently does not designate critical habitat to avoid these controversies; and environmental groups often bring lawsuits over this failure to designate. Of almost 1,200 species listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, only 113--nine percent--have critical habitat designated. Indeed, of the 256 species listed since April 1996, the Service has designated critical habitat for only two. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been brought against the Service in recent years. Currently, 15 active lawsuits are pending, with six already decided--all against the Secretary--and prospective challenges for another 40 species are on the horizon. These statistics underscore the problems with the existing law with respect to critical habitat designations. The root of these problems lies in the fact that designation of critical habitat requires knowledge of the conservation needs of the species as well as an assessment of the economic impacts of the designation, neither of which is generally known, or can be determined, at the time of listing. Designation of critical habitat is more appropriate in the context of developing a recovery plan for a listed species, because the recovery plan specifically addresses the conservation needs of the species and provides for an estimate of the costs for recovery actions. Indeed, numerous individuals and organizations, including the National Research Council, have suggested that the requirement to designate critical habitat be moved from the time of listing to the time of recovery plan development. As for recovery plans, the Secretary is required to develop and implement recovery plans for listed species. However, there is no deadline for the Secretary to do so. Less than 70 percent of listed species are covered in a recovery plan, and 56 percent of those species without plans have been listed for longer than one year. These statistics underscore the need for a mandatory deadline for developing recovery plans. The bill that I introduce today would move the requirement to designate critical habitat from the time of listing to the time of recovery plan development. The bill would also require that a recovery team be appointed, unless the Secretary states otherwise through notice and comment. The bill would also provide a deadline for development of recovery plans, no later than 36 months after listing. In the event that the designation is necessary to avoid the imminent extinction of the species, the bill allows the Secretary to designate critical habitat concurrently with listing. A new provision would be added to the citizen suit section that would require any lawsuit challenging the actual designation of critical habitat to be brought in conjunction with a suit challenging the recovery plan on which the designation is based. Other than these changes, the critical habitat provisions would remain virtually the same as in existing law. Let me say that I do not have any desire to open the broader question of reauthorization of the ESA. I believe that this bill addresses a narrow fix in a way that answers the complaints of both environmental groups and the regulated community. I do not advocate the inclusion of other issues not related to critical habitat. There may be another time and vehicle for that, but this is not the time, and this bill should not be the vehicle. In closing, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his cooperation on this issue, and for his decision to work on this bill together in lieu of offering a rider on the recent supplemental appropriations bill. I know this issue is of no great importance to the constituents in his home State, and I am pleased to work with him to find a resolution. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999. This bill represents our efforts to focus on the areas where bipartisan consensus is achievable this year. The bill provides liability relief for many parties trapped in Superfund--in fact, it exempts or limits the liability of the vast bulk of all parties involved in Superfund litigation. The bill includes very strong provisions to facilitate the redevelopment of Brownfields, and it starts to wind down the Federal role in site cleanup, while enhancing the role of the states. The bill includes many provisions that have enjoyed widespread bipartisan support in the Senate. The Brownfields title will provide $100 million in grants for state, tribal and local governments to identify, assess and redevelop Brownfields sites. It protects prospective purchasers of contaminated sites, innocent owners of properties adjacent to the source of contamination, and innocent property owners who exercised due diligence upon purchase. These provisions have been included in past bills supported by Democrats and Republicans over the last six years. The bill exempts a number of parties from Superfund liability and incorporates provisions of S. 2180, the Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1998, cosponsored last year by Senators Lott and Daschle, as well as 64 other members of the Senate. Our bill exempts small businesses, contributors of very small amounts of hazardous waste, and contributors of small amounts of municipal solid waste. The bill limits the liability of larger generators or transporters of municipal solid waste, as well as owners or operators of co-disposal landfills where municipal solid waste is disposed. The bill limits the liability of so- called de minimis parties--generally one percent contributors or less-- as well as municipalities and small businesses with a limited ability to pay. It is well known that Superfund liability--retroactive, strict, joint and several liability--often can be terribly unfair. It does not make any sense to make Superfund liability even more unfair to the parties who do not receive liability relief in this bill by merely shifting the share of the exempt or limited parties onto those that remain liable. This bill does not do that. Instead, where we grant liability relief, we direct EPA to use the taxes already collected from industry to pay the cost of the exemptions. This seems only fair. The bill also requires EPA to perform an impartial fair-share allocation at Superfund NPL sites and to give all parties an opportunity to settle for their allocated amount. In performing the allocation, EPA is directed to use the factors first proposed by Vice President Gore when he was serving in the House. EPA is given discretion to design the process, and parties that do not participate or settle remain liable to Superfund's underlying liability provisions, which remain unchanged except for those fortunate parties provided the new protections noted above. As EPA proudly boasts, cleanup is complete or underway at over 90 percent of the sites on the current NPL. While it is cleaning up the sites at a rate of 85 per year, it has listed only an average of about 26 per year. Last year, the General Accounting Office surveyed the states and EPA about the approximately 3,000 sites identified as possible National Priority List sites, but not yet listed. Only 232 of these sites were identified by either EPA, a state, or both, as likely to be listed on the NPL. Clearly, this program is much closer to the end than in the beginning. This bill requires EPA to plan how it will proceed at those 3,000 sites still awaiting a decision regarding listing. Everyone knows that the vast bulk of these sites will not be listed on the Superfund List, they will be cleaned up by the states, as the GAO report confirms. Under our bill, new listings on the National Priority List must be requested by the Governor of the affected state, and EPA is limited to listing 30 sites per year. The bill provides finality at sites cleaned up in state cleanup programs unless a state asks for help, fails to take action, or a true emergency is present. This will give greater confidence to prospective developers that state cleanup decisions will not be second-guessed by EPA. The bill strengthens state programs and starts to bring Superfund to an end. The bill makes EPA's authorization and appropriation process more transparent. There are separate line items for EPA's cleanup program-- the heart of the program--and all other activities such as Brownfields, support for research and development, Department of Justice enforcement, et cetera. No longer will increases in popular programs such as Brownfields come at the expense of the cleanup program. Authorization levels for the cleanup recognize that the program's workload is decreasing and will ramp down over time. The bill allows the program to be funded from either general revenues or the Trust Fund. It is my view that the Superfund taxes should not be reimposed, and I will strongly oppose their reimposition absent comprehensive Superfund reform that includes needed improvements to provisions governing natural resource damages, liability, and the cleanup process. To the extent that EPA improves its cost recovery performance and the Trust Fund balance exceeds levels needed to fund the liability relief provided in this bill, then that balance, instead of general revenues, can be used for Superfund cleanup. It is possible that EPA can recover enough past cleanup expenditures to pay for the full 5-year reauthorization program. Since the program's inception, EPA has spent approximately $15.9 billion on cleanup, the vast majority of it from industry-paid Superfund taxes deposited in the Trust Fund. Unfortunately, EPA has only recovered $2.4 billion of this total. Even discounting nearly $6.9 billion in expenditures that have been written-off by EPA or are no longer considered recoverable, there is approximately $6.6 billion that EPA could recover for the Trust Fund. It is well known that Senator Smith and I have long advocated comprehensive reform of the Superfund program. We have not abandoned that goal. However, in many ways, the bill we introduce today is more far-reaching than our efforts in the last two Congresses. Except for the liability provisions described above, the major focus of this bill is how to address sites not yet in the federal Superfund program. The Superfund Program Completion Act addresses the future of the Superfund program. The major reforms included in our previous efforts are not a part of the new bill. This bill does not address liability for damages to natural resources. The bill does not include liability relief for large responsible parties, such as federal funding of the fair shares attributed to bankrupt, defunct and insolvent parties. The bill does not make changes to Superfund's provisions regarding the conduct of cleanups. I still believe reforms are needed for natural resource damages, liability for large responsible parties, and the cleanup process. Unfortunately, the administration no longer supports legislative reform in these areas. Even in previous years, when the administration claimed to support such reforms, agreement was not possible. Given the remote prospects for concurrence on these issues, Senator Smith and I decided to set the issues aside for now and move forward with an agenda that we believe can generate bipartisan support. I cannot understand why anyone would fail to support this bill. It will accelerate Brownfields redevelopment. It will strengthen state programs in anticipation of the day we all know is coming--the day when the Superfund program becomes the small emergency program that was originally intended. It limits or eliminates the liability of many parties who were caught in Superfund's incredibly broad liability net, and it does so in a manner that is fair to those that are left. It does not undermine the so-called ``polluter pays'' principle, but in fact strengthens it by creating an incentive for EPA to improve its cost recovery performance. The committee will move forward quickly on this bill. The committee will hold hearings on the bill next week. We will work through the Memorial Day recess to address Members' concerns, then hold a markup within 10 days of returning from the recess. The bill will be ready for floor action prior to the July Fourth recess. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Let's vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. Does this bill create civil liability immunity only for gun owners who use a safety device?

Mr. CHAFEE. I just want to be clear about the civil liability provisions. Does this bill create civil liability immunity for gun manufacturers, dealers of guns accessed in the home, or manufacturers or distributors of safety devices?

Mr. CHAFEE. And is it correct that this section does not change in any way existing product liability law?

Mr. CHAFEE. Does that immunity apply if the gun owner is negligent-- even if he doesn't actually give anyone permission to use the gun, but for example leaves the key to the lock sitting next to the gun?

Mr. CHAFEE. Finally, would you further concur with me that our definition of a ``secure gun storage or safety device'' is not intended to include a permanent feature of a home or motor vehicle, such as a closet or glove box, even though such environments also may be locked?

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator once again. On another matter, I want to make equally clear for the record exactly what a ``secure gun storage or safety device'' is and is not. Specifically, would the Senator from Wisconsin agree with me that the definition of such devices in our amendment is intended solely to include personalized guns, lockable devices which either are affixed to a firearm directly, or to secure locked containers or safes.

Mr. CHAFEE. And, finally, is it correct that any pending suits against gun owners would be allowed to continue?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kohl in support of the commonsense child safety lock amendment. The amendment we had offered last Friday addresses a shameful--and uniquely American--tragedy: that of children finding handguns, and accidentally causing great harm to themselves or others. Most of these terrible shootings occur in the home, when a curious youngster finds a parent's loaded handgun in the closet, under the couch cushions, or in a bedside table drawer. The child then shoots a sibling, a friend, or him- or herself. And all too often the result is death, or permanent injury. One of the most tragic examples of children accidentally shooting other children occurred last year in Greensboro, North Carolina. A 4- year-old who was attending the sixth birthday party of a friend, found a loaded gun in a purse in the house where the party was taking place. The 4-your-old shot and killed the 6-year-old. The National Center for Health Statistics tells us that every day in America 13 children are shot and killed, and every day at least one of those deaths is accidental. Every year in America, approximately 1,500 children and teens commit suicide with guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that about 7,000 violent crimes are committed by juveniles each year with guns they found in their own homes. Today, in few other countries are children so affected by gun violence, accidental or otherwise: CDC tells us that the rate of death among children under age 15 from guns in this country is 12 times that of the other 26 major industrialized nations combined. A 1995 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that there is a gun in approximately half of all U.S. households. Another 1995 study by the SAFE KIDS Campaign found that 59 percent of parents with guns admitted that they don't lock-up their guns. The statistics about children who are harmed accidentally by handguns are appalling. They are a national shame. And to grieving parents, siblings, and friends, they are not just statistics. For them, the loss or serious injury of a child is absolutely devastating. Yet these accidents are wholly preventable. That is why we are taking action today. The child safety lock amendment, No. 352, that we are proposing would require that all future sales of handguns be accompanied by a locking device--a mechanism that prevents the guns from being discharged without a key or combination lock. Earlier in the debate on S. 254, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve an amendment offered by Senators Hatch and Leahy that requires internet services providers to give parents a tool to filter violent material their children could be exposed to on the internet. It was an amendment to provide parents with a tool to help keep their children safe. The amendment Senator Kohl and I are offering with Senator Hatch is identical in its purpose. It is meant to provide parents with a tool--the trigger lock for a handgun--to keep their children safe. I appreciate the support of the Judiciary Committee chairman and urge my colleagues to show the same level of support for this amendment as they showed for the internet filtering amendment last week.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am introducing today, the Highway Tax Equity and Simplification Act of 1999. This bill improves the equity among taxpayers paying into the Highway Trust Fund. Under current law, some users pay too much into the trust fund relative to the costs they impose on the nation's highway system, while other pay too little. This proposal more fairly apportions the tax burden to those who impose the greatest costs to our highway infrastructure. In my statement today, I plan to briefly describe: (1) Who pays too much and too little? (2) Why the current tax structure fails? (3) Why the current tax structure can't be just tinkered with and therefore needs radical change? (4) A description of the plan I am introducing today. Who pays too much and who pays too little? If we look at the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) latest cost allocation study of the highway system, it is clear that the current system does not fairly apportion the relative burden of taxes paid compared to costs imposed. At this time, I will submit for the Record a table which summarizes the relative burden among users based on analysis provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As this table shows, some users are paying 150 percent of their share while some of the heaviest trucks are paying as low as 40 percent of their share. This is simply unfair and needs to be changed. Another way to look at the unfairness of the current situation is to look at the per vehicle subsidies for heavy trucks that the U.S. DOT provided in their latest report to the Congress. In determining these subsidies, DOT simply subtracted what these vehicles should have paid in taxes, based on the costs they impose, from the amount of taxes they do pay. These subsidies are thousands of dollars per vehicle annually, with several above $5,000 per vehicle. At the end of my statement, I would like to enter into the Record a table showing a few examples of the subsidies summarized in the DOT report. One of the reasons that the current tax structure fails so miserably at properly allocated costs is because neither the Congress nor the U.S. DOT has looked seriously at this issue for a very long time. The last significant cost allocation study was completed in 1982, more than 17 years ago. Without up-to-date analysis, it has been virtually impossible for the Congress to address this significant problem. I want to commend Secretary Slater for taking the initiative to have his Department provide an up-to-date analysis to the Congress. It is my understanding that DOT plans on keeping its analytical capability current regarding cost allocation so that the Congress doesn't have to wait every 17 years to address this issue. Lack of good information is one of the reasons we have this unfair situation. The other reason deals more directly with basic engineering concepts. Highway pavement wear and tear imposed by a vehicle is related to two primary factors: how much you drive on the road and the weight of the vehicle. Now, why is the weight of a vehicle so important? It is important because pavement damage increases dramatically (actually exponentially) with weight. At this time, I will submit for the record information which shows the relationship between weight and pavement damage. This chart shows that on a rural Interstate Highway, a single 100,000 pound standard tractor-trailer wears the equivalent of more than 1,700 automobiles. But, that truck certainly does not pay 1,700 times the amount of taxes. On a rural arterial road, not built to Interstate standards, this dynamic is even worse, wearing the equivalent of 3,500 cars. The problem with the current tax system is that it does not attempt to recover from trucks the dramatic pavement damage costs that are incurred as the weight of these vehicles increases. Until we address this fundamental principle, we will not have an equitable tax system. Now, let's briefly look at each of the current taxes and how well they contribute to tax equity. Excise Tax--Under current law, we impose a 12 percent excise tax on the purchase of new trucks. This tax raises more than $2 billion annually. However, it has no relationship to either road usage or pavement damage and therefore does not contribute to tax equity. Tire Tax--the exist tax imposed on tires is moderately helpful for improving tax equity because it varies by miles driven and, to some extend by weight. However, it raises a relatively small amount of money (about $400 million per year or less than 5 percent of truck taxes) and therefore has a small effect on cost allocation. Diesel Tax--currently, diesel fuel is taxed at 24 cents per gallon. Although diesel taxes paid do vary by mileage, diesel taxes do a poor job of recovering pavement damage related to the weight of the vehicle. When the weight of a truck is increased, fuel use increases only marginally. However, the pavement damage imposed by that same vehicle goes up exponentially. Increasing diesel tax rates does not resolve this fundamental problem and actually exacerbates the unfairness of the current system. I would submit for the Record information which illustrates the problem. Heavy Vehicle Use Tax--this tax sounds like it might be the right place to address concerns related to weight, but it also falls well short of the mark. Even the name is deceiving. First, this tax does not vary by use. A truck that travels 10,000 miles annually and another that travels 100,000 miles pay the same tax. Secondly, although the name implies it applies to Heavy Vehicles, this tax is capped at 75,000 pounds, the point at which pavement damage goes up dramatically. I will also submit information which compares pavement damage and the Heavy Vehicle Use tax. In summary, our review of the current taxes led me to conclude that they do a poor job of aligning taxes paid with road damage. In other words, they just can't get the job done. We need a new mechanism. The bill I introduce today eliminates 3 of the separate taxes and replaces them with a straightforward tax that more fairly distributes the tax burden among highway users. Specifically, the bill eliminates the tire tax, the 12 percent excise tax on new trucks, and the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax. It also eliminates the so-called ``diesel differential,'' the additional 6 cents per gallon imposed on diesel fuel compared to gasoline, which is taxed at 18.33 cents per gallon. To replace the lost revenue from these repeals and tax reductions, and to improve the equity of the truck taxes paid, the bill establishes a new user fee, an axle-weight distance tax. This new tax varies based on the truck's axle-weight loads and the distance traveled, the exact same concepts that affect pavement damage. The bill collects the same amount of tax revenue from trucks overall as current law, about $11 billion annually. Overall, there are more winners than losers under this bill. The vast majority of trucks--more than 5.9 million--will see a tax reduction. This compares to roughly 1.5 million who will see an increase. The bill also reduces double taxation on toll roads by allowing a credit against the axle-weight distance tax for travel on a toll facility such as the Oklahoma or Florida Turnpikes. This new axle-weight tax has long been recognized in the transportation community as the best way to tax trucks. As an example, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, the association representing State Transportation Departments, policy resolution on this matter finds: . . . truck taxes based upon a combination of the weight of vehicles and the distance they travel more equitably distribute financing responsibility proportional to costs imposed on the system than other tax alternatives. In fact, AASHTO policy calls for substituting a weight-distance tax for the heavy vehicle use tax and all other federal user fees on trucks except for a federal fuel tax--a perfect description of the proposal we are introducing today. Now, I would like to briefly touch upon a few areas where I expect opponents of this effort may focus. Some may argue that this is an anti-truck proposal and will impose new costs on consumers. My response to this assertion is that overall truck taxes are held constant and most of the trucking industry benefits from this proposal. Unfortunately, this benefit is at the expense of the portion of the industry that is doing damage to our nation's roadways without paying for it, and they will probably fight hard to keep their undeserved subsidies. The trick for the rest of the industry and for all roadway users is to recognize that virtually all of these arguments are attempts to distract us from the real issue-- should heavy trucks pay their fair share? Heavy truck operators will try to argue about all sorts of ancillary items to distracts us from this fundamental issue. They will argue about tax evasion, administrative burden, additional record keeping and the like. Anything but the core issue of whether these trucks should pay their fair share. As the Congress considers, this issue, I hope we can remain focused on this fundamental question and not be distracted by arguments that are not intended to squash efforts to address the unfair system we have today. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a summary of the legislation, and the materials previously cited be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am introducing today, the Highway Tax Equity and Simplification Act of 1999. This bill improves the equity among taxpayers paying into the Highway Trust Fund. Under current law, some users pay too much into the trust fund relative to the costs they impose on the nation's highway system, while other pay too little. This proposal more fairly apportions the tax burden to those who impose the greatest costs to our highway infrastructure. In my statement today, I plan to briefly describe: (1) Who pays too much and too little? (2) Why the current tax structure fails? (3) Why the current tax structure can't be just tinkered with and therefore needs radical change? (4) A description of the plan I am introducing today. Who pays too much and who pays too little? If we look at the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) latest cost allocation study of the highway system, it is clear that the current system does not fairly apportion the relative burden of taxes paid compared to costs imposed. At this time, I will submit for the Record a table which summarizes the relative burden among users based on analysis provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As this table shows, some users are paying 150 percent of their share while some of the heaviest trucks are paying as low as 40 percent of their share. This is simply unfair and needs to be changed. Another way to look at the unfairness of the current situation is to look at the per vehicle subsidies for heavy trucks that the U.S. DOT provided in their latest report to the Congress. In determining these subsidies, DOT simply subtracted what these vehicles should have paid in taxes, based on the costs they impose, from the amount of taxes they do pay. These subsidies are thousands of dollars per vehicle annually, with several above $5,000 per vehicle. At the end of my statement, I would like to enter into the Record a table showing a few examples of the subsidies summarized in the DOT report. One of the reasons that the current tax structure fails so miserably at properly allocated costs is because neither the Congress nor the U.S. DOT has looked seriously at this issue for a very long time. The last significant cost allocation study was completed in 1982, more than 17 years ago. Without up-to-date analysis, it has been virtually impossible for the Congress to address this significant problem. I want to commend Secretary Slater for taking the initiative to have his Department provide an up-to-date analysis to the Congress. It is my understanding that DOT plans on keeping its analytical capability current regarding cost allocation so that the Congress doesn't have to wait every 17 years to address this issue. Lack of good information is one of the reasons we have this unfair situation. The other reason deals more directly with basic engineering concepts. Highway pavement wear and tear imposed by a vehicle is related to two primary factors: how much you drive on the road and the weight of the vehicle. Now, why is the weight of a vehicle so important? It is important because pavement damage increases dramatically (actually exponentially) with weight. At this time, I will submit for the record information which shows the relationship between weight and pavement damage. This chart shows that on a rural Interstate Highway, a single 100,000 pound standard tractor-trailer wears the equivalent of more than 1,700 automobiles. But, that truck certainly does not pay 1,700 times the amount of taxes. On a rural arterial road, not built to Interstate standards, this dynamic is even worse, wearing the equivalent of 3,500 cars. The problem with the current tax system is that it does not attempt to recover from trucks the dramatic pavement damage costs that are incurred as the weight of these vehicles increases. Until we address this fundamental principle, we will not have an equitable tax system. Now, let's briefly look at each of the current taxes and how well they contribute to tax equity. Excise Tax--Under current law, we impose a 12 percent excise tax on the purchase of new trucks. This tax raises more than $2 billion annually. However, it has no relationship to either road usage or pavement damage and therefore does not contribute to tax equity. Tire Tax--the exist tax imposed on tires is moderately helpful for improving tax equity because it varies by miles driven and, to some extend by weight. However, it raises a relatively small amount of money (about $400 million per year or less than 5 percent of truck taxes) and therefore has a small effect on cost allocation. Diesel Tax--currently, diesel fuel is taxed at 24 cents per gallon. Although diesel taxes paid do vary by mileage, diesel taxes do a poor job of recovering pavement damage related to the weight of the vehicle. When the weight of a truck is increased, fuel use increases only marginally. However, the pavement damage imposed by that same vehicle goes up exponentially. Increasing diesel tax rates does not resolve this fundamental problem and actually exacerbates the unfairness of the current system. I would submit for the Record information which illustrates the problem. Heavy Vehicle Use Tax--this tax sounds like it might be the right place to address concerns related to weight, but it also falls well short of the mark. Even the name is deceiving. First, this tax does not vary by use. A truck that travels 10,000 miles annually and another that travels 100,000 miles pay the same tax. Secondly, although the name implies it applies to Heavy Vehicles, this tax is capped at 75,000 pounds, the point at which pavement damage goes up dramatically. I will also submit information which compares pavement damage and the Heavy Vehicle Use tax. In summary, our review of the current taxes led me to conclude that they do a poor job of aligning taxes paid with road damage. In other words, they just can't get the job done. We need a new mechanism. The bill I introduce today eliminates 3 of the separate taxes and replaces them with a straightforward tax that more fairly distributes the tax burden among highway users. Specifically, the bill eliminates the tire tax, the 12 percent excise tax on new trucks, and the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax. It also eliminates the so-called ``diesel differential,'' the additional 6 cents per gallon imposed on diesel fuel compared to gasoline, which is taxed at 18.33 cents per gallon. To replace the lost revenue from these repeals and tax reductions, and to improve the equity of the truck taxes paid, the bill establishes a new user fee, an axle-weight distance tax. This new tax varies based on the truck's axle-weight loads and the distance traveled, the exact same concepts that affect pavement damage. The bill collects the same amount of tax revenue from trucks overall as current law, about $11 billion annually. Overall, there are more winners than losers under this bill. The vast majority of trucks--more than 5.9 million--will see a tax reduction. This compares to roughly 1.5 million who will see an increase. The bill also reduces double taxation on toll roads by allowing a credit against the axle-weight distance tax for travel on a toll facility such as the Oklahoma or Florida Turnpikes. This new axle-weight tax has long been recognized in the transportation community as the best way to tax trucks. As an example, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, the association representing State Transportation Departments, policy resolution on this matter finds: . . . truck taxes based upon a combination of the weight of vehicles and the distance they travel more equitably distribute financing responsibility proportional to costs imposed on the system than other tax alternatives. In fact, AASHTO policy calls for substituting a weight-distance tax for the heavy vehicle use tax and all other federal user fees on trucks except for a federal fuel tax--a perfect description of the proposal we are introducing today. Now, I would like to briefly touch upon a few areas where I expect opponents of this effort may focus. Some may argue that this is an anti-truck proposal and will impose new costs on consumers. My response to this assertion is that overall truck taxes are held constant and most of the trucking industry benefits from this proposal. Unfortunately, this benefit is at the expense of the portion of the industry that is doing damage to our nation's roadways without paying for it, and they will probably fight hard to keep their undeserved subsidies. The trick for the rest of the industry and for all roadway users is to recognize that virtually all of these arguments are attempts to distract us from the real issue-- should heavy trucks pay their fair share? Heavy truck operators will try to argue about all sorts of ancillary items to distracts us from this fundamental issue. They will argue about tax evasion, administrative burden, additional record keeping and the like. Anything but the core issue of whether these trucks should pay their fair share. As the Congress considers, this issue, I hope we can remain focused on this fundamental question and not be distracted by arguments that are not intended to squash efforts to address the unfair system we have today. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a summary of the legislation, and the materials previously cited be printed in the Record.