John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 21, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. on S. 803, S. 668, and the Domestic Cruise Ship Trade.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 21, at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to hold hearings.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 21, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on: ``Overview of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission Report.''

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now go to morning business until 6 o'clock.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his thoughtful comments about global warming. It is a subject in which I am deeply interested. I was very interested and pleased with his references and comparisons with what took place with the Montreal protocol and our efforts that were successful in controlling chlorofluorocarbons, so-called CFC's. There is an example where the first scientific body of opinion suggested that, indeed, the CFC's were destroying the ozone layer. There was great skepticism, not only in this body, but throughout the Nation. But gradually, through testimony and through powerful speeches and articles by those who were involved, this country came to recognize that, indeed, CFC's were destroying the ozone layer, were causing skin cancer to our population and the population of the world. As a result of that, we moved forward and various meetings were held, which many of us remember, and capping it all off was the Montreal protocol, which called for substantial reduction of the production of CFC's in our country and the world. At the time, it looked as though it would be very difficult to achieve, but as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, the United States' scientific and mechanical ingenuity rose to the surface and, lo and behold, we not only met those reductions but we exceeded them. The results are now showing that the amount of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere has been reduced, at least the increases have been reduced, and gradually we will see a reduction in the total body of CFC's, as it were, in the atmosphere, because all of this takes a long time to achieve. I also say to the Senator from Massachusetts that I think it is important to stress not only the costs of complying with a global warming treaty--that is always what is portrayed, it is going to cost our farmers, it is going to cost our manufacturers, it is going to cost our automobile industry, the coal miners, and on and on it goes. The costs of complying. But rarely does anybody ask, what are the costs if we don't have the treaty? The scientific evidence, as the Senator from Massachusetts was pointing out, is increasingly coming to be recognized that, indeed, the world is becoming warmer, just as the Senator pointed out what is happening to the ice accumulations, the glaciers. In every single place in the world, the glaciers are retreating. Why is that coming about? It is coming about because of the increased temperature, infinitesimal though it might seem, that is occurring throughout the world. So more and more I believe we have to say to ourselves, what does it cost if we don't do anything? Just take Florida. I don't know what the height of Florida is above sea level, but it must be tiny. If they get an increase in the level of the oceans of the world, and particularly those in the Caribbean, for example, the effects to Florida can't help but be devastating. Indeed, in my State, likewise; Massachusetts, likewise. In all our States, we are doing what we can to increase seawalls. What is happening? We are not sure. All we know is, once upon a time, our beaches were steeper and now they have been cut away. Now we have to have breakwaters and barriers and groins, as they call them, and so forth, to try and prevent the erosion of the soil. The Senator from Massachusetts pointed out what one of the presidents of one of the oil-producing countries of the world had to say. I would like to also point out a statement by the chairman of the Ford Motor Co. finance committee, none other than William Clay Ford, Jr. This is what he had to say on October 11, just 10 days ago, as quoted in the Washington Post: Ford Motor executive William Clay Ford, Jr., called global warming a genuine threat to the environment and said automakers who oppose a proposed treaty to address the problem risk being ``marginalized'' in the court of public opinion. This is what someone, whose family owns 40 percent of the voting stock of Ford Motor Co., had to say. The remarks by Ford, a leading contender to become chairman of the No. 2 automaker, distances himself from several Detroit executives who, in recent months, have criticized the proposed global warming treaty saying the phenomenon might not exist or its causes are uncertain. So that's what the leader of the second largest automobile manufacturing company in our country had to say. All I am saying to my colleagues, and substantiating what the Senator from Massachusetts said, is let's examine this thing carefully. Let's look at what the scientists have to say. We can say we don't agree with them. I don't know how many Nobel laureates there are in that group-- are there 10 Nobel laureates in that most recent group? It is something like that--plus a total of 2,500 scientists. I believe this thing is serious, and I think we ought to approach it with that attitude and not say, ``No, we're not going to have anything to do with it because if we have anything to do with it and try and solve the problem it will be very expensive.'' Well, that is no way to approach things. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for the remarks he made, and I hope that all our colleagues were listening. This thing is serious; let's take it seriously. We may not agree. We may have different scientific evidence, but let's not just trash it because it is going to be expensive to comply with. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I also ask unanimous consent that from the hour of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m., the Senate stand in recess for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Tuesday, October 21. I further ask that on Tuesday, 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 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Hutchinson, 10 minutes; Senator Lieberman, 20 minutes; and Senator Bond, 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Therefore, tomorrow the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., From 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., the Senate will recess for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will resume consideration of the ISTEA legislation. As the managers of the bill indicated earlier today, Members are encouraged to make opening statements and discuss possible amendments to the legislation during tomorrow's session of the Senate. In addition, the Senate may turn to any appropriations conference reports that become available. Rollcall votes are, therefore, possible throughout the day.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

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, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from New York for his very fine comments. Coming from him they mean a lot. As we all know, he was the principal author of the bill that emerged from the conference in 1997, the so-called ISTEA legislation. It is due, principally, to Senator Moynihan, that that bill came out as it did. All of us were there. The Senator from Montana and I and others were there during those negotiations. The Senator from New York was not the chairman of that conference, the chairman was the Representative from New Jersey, Mr. Roe. But the chairman of the Senate in the conference was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee at that time, the Senator from New York. Out of that came a bill that I think has been a model. I have always said it and I will say it again that the principal credit for doing that, achieving that, was what the Senator from New York did. Regarding the magnetic levitation, I agree with him, the Senator from New York. Based upon his urgings, I went over to Bremen, Germany, to see the magnetic levitation demonstration tracks. It is about a 10-mile track that is in the form of a figure 8. We attained at that time speeds of over 300 miles an hour with a cruising speed of 240 miles an hour. It was so calm you could rest a glass of water on the table or you could write a letter with ease. As the Senator from New York mentioned, there were considerable sums in the ISTEA legislation, but those sums, as I recall, were not spent but were taken back by the appropriators over the years. So we have $30 million more from that in here. From that, we believe the Department of Transportation can arrive at the site. We ought to try one of these. Where it will be, I don't know. It could well be in Texas or Florida, moving vast amounts of people back and forth in some fashion wherever it might be. I am sure it will not be in the State of Rhode Island, but I am for it. And I am not necessarily saying we have to develop new technology. I think the Germans have developed some outstanding technology. I have not seen the one in Japan. I think we ought to get on with it and see how it works in this country and see not only if the construction costs can be amortized but the operating costs, likewise. Again, I thank the splendid Senator from New York for his comments and appreciate the support he has given this legislation from the word go.

Mr. CHAFEE. Architectural history.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is curious that both the Senator from Montana and I serve on the Finance Committee, likewise on the Environment Committee with the Senator from New York. So I have served with the Senator from New York for some 21 years on this committee and 18 years or so on the Finance Committee. And then we both were on the Intelligence Committee back and forth at different times. The Senator from Montana has been on the Finance Committee, likewise, 15, 16 years or so. So I have always felt, Mr. President, because of serving on those committees with the Senator from New York that I received a Harvard education without having to pay for it, and it has been worth it. I know the story the Senator has told about then, I believe, Second Lieutenant Eisenhower leading a convoy across the country. I think it took about 40 days. And from that, as the Senator from New York pointed out, came this inspiration for the then Lieutenant Eisenhower, later General Eisenhower, and then President Eisenhower, that we ought to build superhighways to get across this Nation. So I echo what the Senator from Montana says. It has really been a pleasure to work with the Senator from New York.

Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding that there would be an objection to amendments being considered. But absent that, Senators could come over and discuss amendments that they might subsequently be filing or be permitted to be considered. So there is a chance to get a lot done this afternoon if those Senators in their offices would come on over and give us the benefit of their wisdom on this matter, which we seek. So, Mr. President, I suggest, until such occurs, the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters written by the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record. The first letter dated October 7, 1997, includes the cost estimate for S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, the ISTEA bill we are considering now, as reported by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This letter points to certain technical violations of the Budget Act in S. 1173. We have made adjustments in the committee substitute for S. 1173 which was agreed to on October 8 to correct those deficiencies. So that is the first letter, Madam President. The second letter, dated October 6, 1997, includes more detailed information on the Minimum Allocation Program, one of the components of the Federal Aid Highway Program that is exempt from the annual obligation limitation. The Committee on Environment and Public Works used the information in the October 6 Congressional Budget Office letter to make the technical budget corrections found in the committee substitute amendment to S. 1173.

Mr. CHAFEE. On a separate subject, Mr. President, I know there are efforts made to get cosponsors on the so-called Byrd-Warner-Baucus, et al., amendment. I say to my colleagues that might be listening, we have not seen that yet. That has not emerged. I hope people would go slow on cosponsorship of measures such as that because Senator Domenici and I have an approach that we think is a very good one and we want to make sure that people just don't get committed in advance, particularly on a measure they have not even seen yet. I believe I am correct in saying that the Senator from Montana, that measure which was discussed on Thursday a week ago, in other words, something like the 9th of October and was imminent, has not yet appeared, am I correct?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the point I was making is on October 9, Thursday, before we left here, we were promised that this amendment was imminent. As a matter of fact, I thought I would be handed a copy then. But now, 11 days have gone by and we still have not seen the amendment. All I am saying to my colleagues is, just be cautious before leaping on as cosponsors of something that no one has seen yet. I don't know what the problem is, the hold up in this piece of legislation is, but all I know, it is not here yet, and while the prediction is it will be soon, all I can say is that is exactly what was said 11 days ago, and despite the time off that staffs and others had during the recess, nothing has emerged. I ask my colleagues to just hold their fire and keep their ammunition dry and let's see what the different proposals are that are inside here, including the one which I wouldn't characterize in the same fashion as the Senator from Montana did, namely, the Domenici amendment, which I will be part of. I suggest the absence of a quorum.