John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 63, 64, 66, and 69. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. CHAFEE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Chafee and Mr. Reed pertaining to the submission of Senate Concurrent Resolution 22 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in addition to the request which I made, which was granted, on behalf of the leader, 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. President, that 5 minutes each follows my remarks, for which I have been granted permission for 15 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Last year, I voted against S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996 for several reasons. I felt that the measure rushed to build the interim site before the viability of the permanent site was considered. Also, under last year's bill, NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, would not have applied until quite late in the game, after great time and resources had been expended. It only would have applied to the licensing of the facility. It wouldn't have applied to construction of the facility at all. Finally, the radiation standards provided in S. 1936 were too lax, and EPA was virtually shut out of the process of setting such standards. Last year's bill was a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, and I chose to leave it. When S. 104 was reported by the Energy Committee earlier this year, I had every intention of opposing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, S. 104, again. But this year, the Energy Committee has worked hard to address the concerns that were raised about last year's proposal. After reviewing the changes made in the Murkowski substitute amendment, I have decided to vote in favor of the bill before us. While it is not perfect, the substitute is a significant improvement over last year's bill and this year's bill as reported by the Energy Committee. Is it a perfect bill? Not at all, but it is a far more reasonable solution to a terribly difficult situation than we have ever had before. Years ago, Congress rejected reprocessing as an alternative to waste storage. There aren't a lot of options when it comes to disposing of nuclear waste. Either it stays on site, or it goes to a centralized storage facility. I support centralized storage of nuclear waste; however, I believe that the effects of designating a central site must be considered before such a critical decision is reached. The Department of Energy is committed to completing a viability study of Yucca Mountain as the permanent repository by the end of next year. Until that study is completed, I feel strongly that there is no reason to go forward with an interim facility at the nearby test site in Nevada. Under last year's bill, as well as the bill reported by the committee, the viability study was disregarded. Site preparation and construction would begin upon enactment of the legislation. Senator Bingaman worked closely with Senator Murkowski and the Energy Committee to address this issue. The committee substitute amendment specifically precludes any work, beyond generic design, from going forward at the interim site, before the viability study of Yucca Mountain is completed. I also supported Senator Bingaman's amendment, which would have ensured that the interim storage facility would not become a de facto permanent repository if Yucca Mountain were deemed to be unsuitable. Regrettably, that amendment failed. While I was disappointed with the failure of this amendment, it was not enough to cause me to vote against the bill. Simply put, I believe it is highly unlikely that the viability study will be negative. The substitute also strengthens the role of NEPA. Site preparation, construction, and the use of the interim facility are no longer exempt from NEPA. In fact, no construction at the interim site could proceed before an environmental impact statement is completed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is an enormous improvement over last year's bill, which disregarded NEPA at every step prior to the licensing of the facility. The process for setting standards to protect the public from radiation at the Yucca Mountain site also is a marked improvement over previous measures. Rather than setting an arbitrary statutory standard, the substitute incorporates recent recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences in setting an overall radiation standard for the repository. Let me close by saying that the arguments on both sides of this issue have been persuasive. I want to recognize the undaunted persistence of Senators Bryan and Reid in articulating the potential implications of the bill and in arguing relentlessly for the interests of Nevada. I also want to commend Senator Murkowski for his hard work and determination. Senator Murkowski ably managed this very complex measure and was willing to accept suggestions and changes from other Senators that vastly improved the bill. The bill, as passed, did not resolve all of my concerns, but it did resolve most of them.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I present to you Rhode Island's outstanding recipients of the highest honors for Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. They have distinguished themselves as community leaders, service volunteers, and mentors for their peers. For more than 50 years, artist Norman Rockwell captured in his paintings the spirit and sense of America and its people. A large number of these paintings portrayed Scouts and Scouting. Few other childhood activities better represent the commitment to God, country, and community that is inherent in Scouting. Providing girls and boys with tools and leadership skills that will be useful throughout their lives, Scouting is indelibly linked with transforming youths into able, educated, well-rounded adults. Activities like camping, service projects, and weekly meetings aim to build character, encourage responsible citizenship, and develop physical, mental, and emotional fitness. The highest honors that a Girl Scout can earn are the Gold and Silver Awards, which are presented to those girls who have shown exemplary commitments to personal excellence and unwavering public service. Likewise, the Eagle Award is the highest honor that can be earned by a Boy Scout. Recipients have displayed the highest achievable skills in outdoor activities and incomparable service records. Behind every Girl Scout and Boy Scout troop is a group of similarly dedicated parents and leaders who guide the youths through their achievements. It is for all these reasons that I am proud to honor the recipients of Girl Scouts' Gold and Silver Awards and the Boy Scouts' Eagle Scout Award. The outstanding achievements of these young recipients warrant our praise, admiration, and thanks. So that we all may know who they are, I ask that the complete list of awardees be printed in the Record. The list follows: Girl Scout 1996 Gold Award Recipients Cumberland, RI Nicole Tetreault. Johnston, RI Shannon Quigley, Sandra Shackford. Narragansett, RI Kate Hohman, Renee Johnson, Jill Raggio. North Providence, RI Marissa Borrelli. Saunderstown, RI Angela Briggs. Smithfield, RI Heather Harkness, Christina Riccio. Wakefield, RI Meghan Higgins. Woonsocket, RI Melissa Brin.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, a serious environmental problem facing the country today is the loss of open space to development. All across the country, farms, ranches, forests, and wetlands are forced to give way to the pressures for new office buildings, shopping malls, and housing developments. America is losing over 4 square miles of land to development every day. In Rhode Island, over 11 thousand acres of farmland have been lost to development since 1974. In many instances, this is simply the natural outgrowth of urbanization of our society. Other times it is the direct result of improper planning at the State and local levels. But frequently, the pressure comes from the need to raise funds to pay estate taxes. For those families where undeveloped land represents a significant portion of the estate's total value, the need to pay the tax creates powerful pressure to develop or sell off part or all of the land or to liquidate the timber resources of the land. Because land is appraised by the Internal Revenue Service according to its highest and best use, and such use is often its development value, the effect of the tax is to make retention of undeveloped land impossible. In addition, our current estate tax policy results in complicated valuation disputes between the donor's estate and the Internal Revenue Service. In many cases, the additional costs incurred as a result of these disagreements cause a potential donor of a conservation easement to decide not to make the contribution. These open spaces improve the quality of life for Americans throughout this great Nation and provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. The question is how do we conserve our most valuable resource during this time of significant budget constraints. Mr. President, I think we need to restructure the Nation's estate tax laws to remove the disincentive for private property owners to conserve environmentally significant land. The American Farm and Ranch Protection Act, which I am introducing today along with Senators Baucus and Gregg, will help to achieve this goal by providing an exemption from the estate tax for the value of land that is subject to a qualified, permanent conservation easement. This bill is similar to legislation that we introduced during the 104th Congress and was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It excludes land subject to a conservation easement from the estate and gift taxes. Development rights retained by the family--most frequently the ability to use the property for a commercial purpose--remain subject to the estate tax. In order to target the incentives under this bill to those areas that are truly at risk for development, the bill is limited to land that falls within a 50-mile radius of a metropolitan area, a national park or a national wilderness area, or an urban national forest. Conservation easements, which are entirely voluntary, are agreements negotiated by landowners in which a restriction upon the future use of land is imposed in order to conserve those aspects of the land that are publicly significant. To qualify for the estate tax exemption under this bill, such easements must be perpetual and must be made to preserve open space, to protect the natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, to meet a governmental conservation policy, or to preserve a historically important land area. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to save environmentally sensitive open spaces. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges facing metropolitan areas in our Nation is finding a way to reduce traffic congestion. Commuters in cities across the country spend countless hours on the road traveling to and from work. This traffic places tremendous pressure on our highway infrastructure and causes monumental environmental problems. More than 100 cities fail to meet today's clean air standards. The best way to clean up our air is to reduce the number of automobiles which are driven on a daily basis. Unfortunately, our current tax laws actually encourage commuters to travel to work in single occupant automobiles. Today, employers can provide parking to their employees as a tax-free fringe benefit. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the value of parking that qualifies for this benefit is limited to $170 per month. By comparison, tax-free transit or van-pool benefits are limited to only $65 per month. There is another aspect of this benefit that makes the tax-free parking an even greater incentive for employees to drive to work. The fringe benefit must be offered by employers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. In other words, the employee has the option of accepting the employer-paid parking or nothing at all. The tax-exempt status of the employer-provided parking is lost if employees are offered a choice between the parking fringe benefit and taxable salary. Let me illustrate the problem this creates. Suppose an employer has two employees, Sally and Jim. Under current law, the employer can pay for a parking space at a garage next door. This fringe benefit will not be taxable to Sally and Jim so long as the cost does not exceed $170 per month. But, let's assume that Sally would prefer to receive cash instead of a parking space, because she can commute to work with her husband or take public transportation. The way the law is currently written, Sally's employer cannot offer her cash instead of the parking fringe benefit, because it would cause Jim's parking fringe benefit to become taxable. The Commuter Choice Act of 1997, which I am introducing today along with my colleague Senator Moynihan, corrects this bias in the Tax Code by allowing employers to offer their employees the choice of tax-free parking or taxable cash compensation. This proposal is completely voluntary. Employers are not required to offer cash in lieu of parking. Furthermore, it has absolutely no affect on employees wishing to continue receiving tax-free parking. That fringe benefit would remain exempt from income and payroll taxes. However, my proposal would allow employees not interested in the parking fringe benefit to opt instead for taxable cash compensation. Intuitively, I believe Voluntary Cash Out will have positive revenue consequences for the Federal Government. Some individuals who currently receive tax-free parking will instead opt for taxable cash compensation. For example, trading in a parking space in many cities could be worth almost $2,000 in pretax salary annually, a powerful incentive to consider alternative ways of getting to work. An overwhelming majority of employees receive tax-free parking from their employers--95 percent who drive to work, according to the National Personal Transportation Survey. So, even if only a small portion of this population chooses the taxable cash it should lead to a substantial revenue windfall. In 1992, the State of California enacted legislation that required employers with 50 or more employees to offer cash in lieu of parking if the employer subsidized commuter parking. A recent study of eight employers who complied with this law provides some evidence of how businesses and their employees might react to Commuter Choice. For the nearly 1,700 employees of the eight firms, the solo driver share fell from 76 to 63 percent; to carpool share increased from 14 to 23 percent. More importantly, because many employees voluntarily chose taxable cash over tax-exempt parking, State and Federal income tax revenues increased by $56 per employee per year. Finally, employer interest in programs like Commuter Choice will increase as pressure builds to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution in our Nation's cities. Many urban areas that are in nonattainment for national air quality standards have incorporated employee commute option programs as part of their State implementation plans. These programs are hampered, however, by the current tax rules, which prohibit employees from trading in tax-free parking for cash and utilizing alternative commute options. The Commuter Choice Act removes that prohibition. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which offers greater flexibility to employers and employees, and which will have a substantial positive effect on our air quality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, all across America, in the small towns and great cities of this country, our heritage as a nation--the physical evidence of our past--is at risk. In virtually every corner of this land, homes in which grandparents and parents grew up, communities and neighborhoods that nurtured vibrant families, schools that were good places to learn and churches and synagogues that were filled on days of prayer, have suffered the ravages of abandonment and decay. In the decade from 1980 to 1990, Chicago lost 41,000 housing units through abandonment, Philadelphia 10,000, and St. Louis 7,000. The story in our older small communities has been the same, and the trend continues. It is important to understand that it is not just buildings that we are losing. It is the sense of our past, the vitality of our communities, and the shared values of those precious places. We need not stand hopelessly by as passive witnesses to the loss of these irreplaceable historic resources. We can act, and to that end I am introducing today the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Graham of Florida and Senator Jeffords. This legislation is patterned after the existing historic rehabilitation investment tax credit. That legislation has been enormously successful in stimulating private investment in the rehabilitation of buildings of historic importance all across the country. Through its use we have been able to save and reuse a rich and diverse array of historic buildings: landmarks such as Union Station right here in Washington, DC, the Fox River Mills, a mixed use project that was once a derelict paper mill in Appleton, WI, and the Rosa True School, an eight-unit low- and moderate-income rental project in a historic school building in Portland, ME. In my own State of Rhode Island, Federal tax incentives stimulated the rehabilitation and commercial reuse of more than 300 historic properties. The properties saved include the Hotel Manisses on Block Island, the former Valley Falls Mills complex in Central Falls, and the Honan Block in Woonsocket. The legislation that I am introducing builds on the familiar structure of the existing tax credit, but with a different focus and a more modest scope and cost. It is designed to empower the one major constituency that has been barred from using the existing credit-- homeowners. Only those persons who rehabilitate or purchase a newly rehabilitated home and occupy it as their principal residence would be entitled to this new credit. There would be no passive losses, no tax shelters and no syndications under this bill. Like the existing investment credit, the bill would provide a credit to homeowners equal to 20 percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures made on an eligible building which is used as a principal residence by the owner. Eligible buildings are those individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or on a nationally certified State or local historic register, or are contributing buildings in national, State or local historic districts. As is the case with the existing credit, the rehabilitation work would have to be performed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, although the bill clarifies that such Standards should be interpreted in a manner that takes into consideration economic and technical feasibility. The bill allows lower-income homebuyers, who may not have sufficient Federal income tax liability to use a tax credit, to convert the credit to mortgage assistance. The legislation would permit such persons to receive an Historic Rehabilitation Mortgage Credit Certificate which they can use with their bank to obtain a lower interest rate on their mortgage or to lower the amount of their downpayment. The credit would be available to condominiums and co-ops, as well as single-family buildings. If a building is rehabilitated by a developer for resale, the credit would pass through to the homeowner. One goal of the bill is to provide incentives for middle- and upper- income families to return to older towns and cities. Therefore, the bill does not limit the tax benefits on the basis of income. However, it does impose a cap of $50,000 on the amount of credit which may be taken for a principal residence. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will make ownership of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for homebuyers of modest incomes. It will encourage more affluent families to claim a stake in older towns and neighborhoods. It affords fiscally stressed cities and towns a way to put abandoned buildings back on the tax rolls, while strengthening their income and sales tax bases. It offers developers, realtors and homebuilders a new realm of economic opportunity in revitalizing decaying buildings. In addition to preserving our heritage, extending this credit will provide an important supplemental benefit--it will boost the economy. Every dollar of Federal investment in historic rehabilitation leverages many more from the private sector. Rhode Island, for example, has used the credit to leverage 252 million dollars in private investment. This investment has created more than 10,000 jobs and 187 million dollars in wages. The American dream of owning one's own home is a powerful force. This bill can help it come true for those who are prepared to make a personnel commitment to join in the rescue of our priceless heritage. By their actions they can help to revitalize decaying resources of historic importance, create jobs and stimulate economic development, and restore to our older towns and cities a lost sense of purpose and community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to make some critical reforms to the child welfare system. The goals of the legislation are twofold: to ensure that abused and neglected children are in safe settings, and to move children more rapidly out of the foster care system and into permanent placements. While the goal of reunifying children with their biological families is laudable, we should not be encouraging States to return abused or neglected children to homes that are clearly unsafe; regrettably, this is occurring under current law. Our legislation would clarify the primacy of safety and health in decisions made about children who have been abused and neglected. The legislation would also push States to identify and enact State laws to address those circumstances in which the rights of the biological parent should be terminated expeditiously (for example, when the parent has been found guilty of felony assault, chronic sexual abuse, or the murder of a sibling). The legislation also would provide incentives to move children into permanent placements, either by returning them home when reunification is the goal or by removing barriers to adoption. I would like to thank those who have worked so hard to develop this legislation. In particular, Senator Rockefeller, the lead Democratic cosponsor, with whom I have worked for many years on childrens' issues. I also want to thank Senator DeWine, who, as a former prosecutor, brings a good deal of legal expertise and personal experience to this issue. We are also grateful for all Senator Jeffords has done in the past to lay the groundwork for this important legislation. My sincere thanks also goes out to the many child advocacy organizations which were so helpful in the development of this legislation. Finally, it is encouraging that similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Representatives Camp and Kennelly. While there are minor differences between our bills, the overall goals of both bills are the same. In that regard, I look forward to working with our House counterparts toward the enactment this year of child welfare reform legislation this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the amendment before us today represents a far more prudent approach to this sensitive issue. It outlines in detail the serious problems involved in Mexico today, and makes it clear that further progress is needed. However, instead of simply clubbing Mexico and walking away, this amendment sets very specific benchmarks for improved antidrug efforts by Mexico, and requires a progress report from the administration by September 1. Among other things, this report must describe the extent to which our two nations have made significant and demonstrable progress on dismantling drug cartels, improving law enforcement relationships, and increasing cooperation on extradition of Mexican drug dealers wanted in the United States. The amendment makes it entirely clear both to this administration and to Mexico where the failings have been and what our priorities are. However, under this compromise, nationalist forces will not be incited in Mexico, and our diplomatic efforts can continue smoothly. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senators from Georgia, California, and Texas were able to reach agreement with the administration on a resolution addressing certification of Mexico's cooperation in fighting illegal drugs. I have been strongly opposed to a straight or even qualified decertification, which I believe would have undermined U.S. interests and been counterproductive in our efforts to address the scourge of illegal drug use in America. I am not here to argue that the situation in Mexico today, with respect to drug trafficking, is in any way acceptable or serves United States interests. The Senators from California, Georgia, and many others deserve commendation for speaking out strongly about the deteriorating condition surrounding anti-drug efforts in Mexico, and the critical imperative that Mexico take stronger action to stem the flow of illegal drugs across its border into the United States. The statistics with which we have become familiar are alarming and worsening: 10.9 percent of children in the United States between 12 and 17 years of age use illegal drugs; Mexico is the source of 70 percent of the marijuana shipped into the United States, and is a transit point for between 50 percent and 70 percent of the cocaine shipped into our Nation; drug arrests and drug seizures in Mexico are only half of what they were just 4 to 5 years ago; there are 52 outstanding United States extradition requests for drug dealers in Mexico, although few, if any, Mexican nationals have been extradited to the United States on drug charges; drug-related corruption has reached the highest levels of the Mexican Government, with the recent arrest of Mexico's highest ranking antidrug official. Mr. President, I could go on, but the fact is clear: the Mexican Government, in partnership with the United States, must do a better job of stopping illegal drug production and trafficking. The 10 billion dollars' worth of narcotics that is illegally smuggled from Mexico into the United States each year must be sharply reduced, or even better, eliminated. But let's be clear about one thing: Solely addressing the situation in Mexico--the ``supply side'' of the drug problem--is incomplete and insufficient. Precious little time in the debate on decertification has been devoted to addressing the demand side of this problem, that is, the tragic, insatiable appetite for illegal drugs in the United States. If there were no demand for illegal drugs here at home, the drug kingpins and cartel chiefs that have caused so much misery, would be unemployed. A Washington Post editorial earlier this month makes this point clear, stating ``the demand equation remains the true frontline of the war on drugs.'' I am pleased that the language agreed to in these negotiations at least in part addresses this critical aspect of our fight against drugs. We would be remiss in not putting today's debate in its proper perspective. Nevertheless, Congress is right to speak out in an appropriate manner on the deterioration of antidrug efforts in Mexico, and the need to take concrete measures to stem this tide. I would argue that much--not enough, but much--has already been done: the drug certification law passed in 1986, while imperfect, has produced a framework that can produce real results. Nations that receive United States and international assistance are each year held to a very large measure of accountability for their cooperation with the United States in combating drugs. The specter of losing most United States foreign aid and having IMF and World Bank loans vetoed is certainly a strong incentive for governments such as Mexico to cooperate with us and take needed action. Despite all of the problems in Mexico, there is evidence that the certification law has compelled Mexico to do more than it would have done were the law not in place. President Zedillo, in particular, has taken a number of steps, including the arrest and firing of thousands of corrupt and criminal individuals in Mexico. His Government has also eradicated an area the equivalent of 5\1/2\ times the island of Manhattan. Finally, President Zedillo has declared the drug cartels and the corruption associated with them to be Mexico's principal national security threat. But more needs to be done, and the Clinton administration has the appropriate tools available at its disposal to make further progress on achieving some very important goals. The amendment before us today not only maintains the administration's ability to enhance its cooperation with Mexico, but provides for needed accountability to Congress and the American people. On February 28, President Clinton certified to Congress that the Government of Mexico was fully cooperating with the United States in antidrug efforts. The question before the Senate during the past several weeks is should we overrule the President's decision and decertify Mexico? I have argued that, despite the deteriorating situation in Mexico, congressional decertification is the wrong approach, and would actually be counterproductive in solving these problems. I am gratified that the authors of the original decertification resolution have made significant compromises with the administration so that such a vote has been avoided. Decertification would have been a slap in the face to our diplomats, who have labored, often painstakingly, to prod the Mexicans to help us crack down on illicit drug trafficking. Not only would it upset these delicate diplomatic efforts, a straight decertification would incite the well-known nationalistic political forces in Mexico, making it even more difficult for President Zedillo to further cooperate with us in achieving the goals all of us share. If it's difficult to work with Mexico now, I shudder to think what would have happened if Congress had overruled the administration by passing a straight or even qualified decertification. I prefer instead to entrust our diplomats with the task of negotiating expanded antidrug efforts with the Mexicans, rather than hoping that decertification, even if sanctions were waived, would compel action on their part. As the March 3 Washington Post editorial states, decertification is ``a blunt instrument poorly designed for the delicate political work of drug enforcement. . . . A nationalistic reaction is the inevitable result.'' I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Put me down as a firm supporter of Mrs. Leahy.

Mr. CHAFEE. My question is this. As I understand it, there are 3 hours on this bill, so presumably that would take us up to around 6 o'clock, as I understand.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if there appeared to be much of a chance that some time might be yielded back? It would be very helpful to me, but I do not want to stop any pearls of wisdom.

Mr. CHAFEE. Could I ask a question in here at the proper time? I do not want to interrupt the flow. I had a question of the manager?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing, along with my colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, the National Economic Crossroad Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, referred to as NEXTEA. NEXTEA is the Clinton administration's legislative proposal for the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I am introducing NEXTEA because it builds upon the landmark ISTEA legislation. It emphasizes environmental protection, system preservation, safety, and intermodalism. I would like to encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at this proposal. In addition, I will be a cosponsor of the ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997, a bill that has been written by Senators Moynihan, Lieberman, and Lautenberg which will be introduced in the near future. This proposal also builds upon the program structure and emphasis of the original ISTEA. Today's introduction does not mean that I endorse all the ideas in the administration's proposal. I am still in the process of reviewing the bill's details and plan to ask the administration questions about their provisions and the thinking behind some of their proposals. Of particular interest to my colleagues is whether my introduction of the administration's bill indicates my endorsement of the administration's formula for distributing funds among the States. It does not. The administration's formula relies to a great extent on the contributions paid into the highway trust fund by the individual States. I have serious concerns about setting national policy on the basis of where gasoline is purchased. The Federal Highway Administration's estimate of the highway trust fund contributions is based upon where gasoline is purchased, not even where it is used. Let me give a couple of examples of the problems I see with this misplaced focus. If you buy gas in Baltimore, MD, and drive to Woonsocket, RI, you will drive through the States of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Maryland will be the only State that gets credit for this trip. Even if we were better able to estimate where gasoline is used, rather than just where it is purchased, setting national transportation policy on gasoline usage provides incentives that contradict policies of ISTEA such as environmental protection, intermodalism, and efficiency. Under a gas tax-based formula, States and localities that use transit significantly or use less gasoline because of good planning are actually penalized for their good work. For example, programs or policies that encourage any of the following would be penalized: Shifting highway usage to other modes such as transit, greater use of carpooling and High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] lanes, progressive land use planning, and the use of alternative fuels, or electric vehicles. In other words, ``no good deed, goes unpunished'' under such a national policy. Gasoline taxes are an efficient and low-cost way of raising revenue for transportation purposes. They should not, however, be attributed a policy importance that they do not deserve. Let me conclude my statement by encouraging all of the Members of the Senate to work together as we craft an ISTEA reauthorization proposal. I know we have some substantial disagreements that need to be resolved. As we move forward, we need to keep in mind the diversity and uniqueness of the country and all of its transportation needs. All of us must resist the temptation to set a national transportation policy based solely on our own region's particular demands. The demands of the Northeast are different from those of the South; the demands of the South are different from those of the West. And so on. We need to be cognizant of the population growth that has taken place in the South and Southwest and the strains that such growth has put on areas within that region. Many of the Western States, by contrast, with their low-population density and the great distances involved in travel, rely on highways as the major mode of transportation. We also need to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Northeast United States; its older infrastructure and acute congestion make it more dependent on nonhighway modes such as transit and Amtrak. Attempts to pass a new bill by forming alliances along regional lines will fail unless the bill recognizes the needs of all regions. I am hopeful that the ISTEA reauthorization will build upon the strong record of its predecessor. Admittedly, the transition from old policies and practices to those embodied in ISTEA has not always been easy, and more work needs to be done. However, we should not let these bumps in the road cause us to retreat from the progress we have made. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. I will ask that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Waste Tire Recycling, Abatement, and Disposal Act of 1997. This is really a reintroduction of legislation I first offered in 1991 to address a very serious environmental hazard. What is that hazard I am talking about? It is the very real threat posed by improper disposal and stockpiling of used tires. Unfortunately, the threat posed by improper management of used, scrap tires is as great or greater than when I first introduced this legislation some 6 years ago. The scope of the waste tire problem is enormous. Americans generate approximately--think of this--250 million scrap tires per year. That is a tire per person in the United States of America that is disposed of. Over time, approximately 3 billion--not million, 3 billion--of these tires have accumulated in the surface stockpiles throughout our country. These used tires pose real threats to the health and welfare of communities. They are places where water is collected, thus mosquitoes breed, some of them encephalitis-carrying mosquitoes. They provide a home for rodents. They are bad news. The threats proposed by piles of tires are great also. Few things are worse as far as fires go than to have a pile of rubber tires catch on fire. These can start from lightning or they can start from acts of vandalism. Burning tire piles produce a dense toxic smoke and also produce the oil byproducts that have gone into the making of the tires, and thus we have toxic hydrocarbon compounds. The hydrocarbons so released can soil the air, can soil the soil and, more important, can contaminate surface water and ground water. Often the piles of tires and the fires that result can burn for months and cost millions of dollars to attempt to extinguish. Putting out the fire may just be the tip of the iceberg as there have been released enough toxic substances that, as I say, go into the ground water and cause tremendous problems. In my State of Rhode Island, the threat from tire piles is not just an abstraction. Smithfield, RI, is the reluctant host of a tire dump that reportedly is the second largest in the United States. Estimates of the size vary, but the so-called Davis tire pile is thought by our Department of Environmental Management to contain 10 million scrapped tires. This tire pile is close to our reservoir. It is only 4 miles from the principal source of drinking water in our State, the Scituate Reservoir. A major fire at the site could foul the reservoir through a fallout from dense soot and by contamination of the ground water aquifers. Nationwide, waste tires are still accumulating in large stockpiles. Why? What happens? Where is the end of this? Well, why have the tire piles grown? There are several reasons. First, landfills are reluctant to accept scrap tires. Second, the nature of modern steel-belted radial tires makes it very difficult to recycle these into new ones. Once upon a time, old tires were retreaded, as we all know. You cannot do that with radial tires. The third reason is that the other markets for the beneficial reuse of this material have been slow to emerge. Scrap tires have some value. They contain a lot of Btu's, more Btu's per pound than most grades of coal and can be burned to produce electricity. Many folks operating tire dumps are hoping for higher energy prices so that there will be a windfall for these scrapped tires. However, there is significant opposition to new waste combustion facilities across our country. There is a reluctance to have these waste combustion facilities in one's community. So combustion seems now a less likely option to solve the tire problem. And finally, where there are beneficial uses for scrap tires, the processors like what they call clean tires, ones that do not have dirt or rocks or gravel in them. The waste tire management program that is contained in my legislation has three purposes. What am I trying to do? First, to assure that scrap tires are managed in a way that reduces the risk of fires and spread of disease. Second, the bill would require the elimination of waste tire dumps within 4 years after enactment. It requires that the 3 billion tires in stockpiles across our country be recycled or burned or shredded or buried by the end of the year 2006. And finally, the management program is intended to encourage markets for recycled material from tires. Now, all of this would take place as an amendment to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, so-called RCRA, with which we are familiar in this body and is already legislation for the Nation. The traditional partnership program between EPA and RCRA through the States will lead to implementation of this program. In other words, it is a partnership between EPA and the States. The bill encourages States to adopt a program to safely manage existing tire piles. The bill authorizes grants to States to develop and implement State programs to manage these piles of tires. The bill will limit disease and fire problems. The fire threat will be reduced by including specifications for the size and spacing of these tire piles into smaller, more manageable units, separate them out so that if a fire does start, it does not spread to the entire dump of tires. It also requires provisions that waste tire dumps like the Davis site in my State are closed and the scrap tires shredded and recycled and safely disposed of within 4 years of enactment. So this could take place as soon as the year 2001. Other scrap tire stockpiles that are operating legally under a State permit will have until the year 2006, as I mentioned. So all this is accomplished by imposing a 50-cent tax per tire, truck and passenger, on those manufactured or imported into the United States. It just applies to new tires. I want to inform my colleagues that this legislation, once enacted, will solve several solid waste management problems. So I urge my colleagues to join in the support of this. As I noted earlier, Rhode Island is host to a site with approximately 10 million of these tires. It has been called the most serious environmental threat to our State. Even after some 250,000 have been removed in order to get at a Superfund site that is underneath these tires, a toxic waste disposal site that was then subsequently covered over by these tires, and even after the State removed some 1.2 million more tires, there still will be 8 million tires left in this Davis site. The threat posed by that is a very real one to my State, as I previously pointed out. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It can prevent environmental disasters from taking place. As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I will exert every effort to see that these bills become law. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. He is very familiar with this because they have somewhat the same problem, perhaps not in the same magnitude as we have in our State, and they have a tire-shredding program in Oxford, CT. So, Mr. President, I send to the desk two bills to accomplish my goal. One includes the tax, the other includes the cleanup efforts. Accompanying this is a summary of these bills.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. We are delighted.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.