John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, could I ask what is the pending business?

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I am prepared to enter into a time agreement of 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I will control the time on our side. I ask the Chair that I be notified when I have used 8 minutes of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the Environment and Public Works Committee in bringing the conference report of the Safe Drinking Water Act before the Senate. The committee has been working on this since 1993, and our efforts have received broad, bipartisan support at every step. I particularly pay tribute to the ranking member of this committee, who was the chairman of it during the prior 2 years, the senior Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. He has done an excellent job and has been a real stalwart in achieving reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act. What we have before us is, to a considerable extent, based upon the fine work he did while he was chairman and the committee was under his guidance. We all agree reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act is necessary. Public health has been strengthened, there is no question, over the standards that have been issued over the past several years. But these new standards and new treatment have put a strain on the water suppliers. This bill includes many provisions to ease that burden. What is in the bill? There is a drinking water revolving loan fund that the President first recommended. In addition to all that, the States are authorized to reduce monitoring costs by developing their own testing requirements. The States may grant variances to small systems that cannot afford to comply with the national standard. We are not rolling back any health protection that is now provided. No existing standard will be weakened. In addition to the SRF grants, there are new programs to prevent pollution at the source. This program lets the cities and towns go to the headwaters and see if they cannot clean up the pollution there, rather than permitting the pollution to come down the river and then the city has to invest in a very, very expensive water purification plant. All of that makes sense. The bill pushes hard for more and better science, including research programs to determine whether some groups, like children or pregnant women or people with particular illnesses, are likely to experience adverse affects from drinking water contaminants. Before describing the major provisions in detail, I wish to thank our colleagues for the hard work they have done. Particularly, I thank Senator Kempthorne, who was chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this bill. Senator Kempthorne, over many months with great patience and superb knowledge of this bill, brought forward this legislation which we now have before us, in essence. His efforts in behalf of State and local governments and others is widely recognized. The trust that Senator Kempthorne had built up with local officials was, I believe, essential in achieving the compromise that is always necessary when you sign a bill into law. Senator Reid, the ranking member of that subcommittee, was a partner in that effort and did excellent work. I mentioned the fine work that Senator Baucus has done, and Senator Warner, likewise, and others. I also want to thank the House leadership that we worked with, Chairman Bliley and Congressman Dingell and Waxman and others who are, obviously, members of the conference committee. We had help from the office of water at the EPA, including Bob Perciasepe, who heads the drinking water office. Mr. President, if somebody were to ask what is the one thing we can do that will most improve the safety of drinking water in the United States, I think the answer would be help the small systems. There are 54,000 small drinking water systems in the United States, in trailer parks, in villages, in small communities. There are thousands of these systems that are operated by very small towns. Many of these very small systems do not have, obviously, the technical or financial resources to consistently provide safe drinking water. They cannot keep up with the testing and monitoring and determining which contaminants are and which are not so dangerous over a short period of time. The operators have little or no training. These small systems have been overwhelmed by the regulations imposed by the existing Safe Drinking Water Act, so the conference report that we are bringing before us now, and passing, hopefully, in a short time, addresses the problems of these small systems. How? First, as I mentioned, a grant program, a State revolving loan fund starting off at $725 million, that is for 1 year, provides Federal assistance to build treatment plants, if that is what is required in these communities. This system was proposed in 1993 by President Clinton. As I say, we authorize it for $1 billion, hopefully with an appropriation this year of $725 million. That is the first big thing. The second is that each State adopts what they call a capacity development strategy, to help these small systems. A State strategy might include what the State decides when they ask, what can we do to help each of these small communities? It is not always necessarily money for investment. Sometimes it is money for training the operators in these small communities, or technical assistance on how do you develop a new safer water supply. It may be the ground water in the present area is contaminated but there may be other sources, deep wells or whatever it might be, that could produce new and safer water. So we are relying on the States to take the lead in designing this capacity enhancement strategy. What are some of the other things that can be done under this bill? The States are authorized to grant variances to small systems that cannot comply with the stiff requirements you impose on the big cities where they can afford it. A portion of the SRF funds may be set aside for technical assistance, as I mentioned before, the cost of training operators. And the States may reduce the monitoring requirements. There is no point in testing constantly for a substance that never occurs in a certain section of the country. Why make the small systems constantly go through that monitoring for a contaminant that is not found in that section of the nation, as I mentioned before? When we brought this bill before the Senate it passed 99 to nothing. The House, in many provisions, included our language word for word, for example, in the standard setting. The standard setting is based upon science and technology that I believe makes much more sense than the existing situation. For some contaminants, this approach to standard setting can impose large costs nationwide while producing only small gains. So we believe the science approach that we provided will reduce those large investments that have to be made. So, I believe we have here an excellent piece of legislation. Again, I congratulate my colleagues.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Montana for his very generous comments about the work I have done and others and our staff. And I want to join him in his salute to Jo- Ellen Darcy and Mike Evans and the others on his staff who really were tremendous. I now yield 10 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the person who took this on, mastered it, pushed it forward. And the bill we have before us is really, to a great extent, the bill that Senator Kempthorne brought from his committee that passed in this Senate 99 to 0. So if kudos are deserved around here, they are deserved by Senator Kempthorne.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield now several minutes to the Senator from Virginia who is the second ranking member on the committee. He has worked very hard on this bill, and he is unable to be here long, so I ask that he might proceed.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I take this moment to pay particular tribute to the Senator from Virginia for the work he did in connection with providing funding for the city of Washington aqueduct. It supplies, obviously, all the residents of Washington plus some residents of northern Virginia. But for the attention and diligence of the Senator from Virginia in connection with this matter, we would not have dealt with it in the fashion we did. I believe, as a result of the efforts of Senator Warner, the problems of the Washington water supply system will be solved in the not too distant future. I pay tribute to what the Senator has done.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 4 minutes. I want to say the Senator comes from a State with lots of small communities with small waterworks and he has been particularly vigilant in seeing that those small communities were protected not only in safety but also in the training of their operators who paid a lot of the attention to the requirements of small communities. Senator Thomas.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for her very kind remarks. We express our appreciation to her. Mr. President, I will yield soon 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith. But before doing so, I want to say that Senator Smith has been deeply involved with this Safe Drinking Water Act from the beginning. He worked very closely with the authors of it and particularly was concerned about the small communities. There are two things he sought for these small communities. One is that they have safe drinking water and, two, that they have it at an affordable price. I pay tribute to the work Senator Smith did in reflecting the views of his constituents in New Hampshire. I give him sincere praise for his assistance. I yield to Senator Smith.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, for the very generous remarks he made. He was hip deep in this when we started some 4 years ago, and although he is not on the Environment Committee, he has followed it extremely closely and has been extremely helpful and constructive to us. So I thank him personally. In conclusion, I thank the staff: Ann Klee and Buzz Fawcett with Senator Kempthorne; Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Evans, and Tom Sliter with Senator Baucus; Ann Loomis with Senator Warner; Mike Smith with Senator Thomas; Scott Slesinger with Senator Lautenberg; Gregg Daines with Senator Reid; Chris Russell with Senator Smith; Diane Hill with Senator Kerrey, and, of course, from the majority staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Steve Shimberg, Jimmie Powell, who was the lead on this, who was absolutely phenomenal, and Stephanie Daigle. All of them deserve a lot of praise and thanks.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I certainly join in those thanks. Now we are ready to go to a vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. I do not think the majority leader would find a rebellion if that 2 hours of debate were reduced.

Mr. CHAFEE. We completed a whole conference report here in 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I note the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is here. I spoke with him earlier in the day, and he seemed to have a case of laryngitis, I thought, and perhaps he will not have the steam for 2 hours or an hour. I say that hopefully.

Mr. CHAFEE. No, they have not been ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the conference report accompanying the health care reform legislation. Members of Congress have worked for many years to pass health care reform legislation, and it has been a long road. I would like to congratulate the co-sponsors of this legislation, Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy. At a time when most would have doubted that any health care reform bill could pass this year, they persevered. And this legislation is a fitting tribute to the senior Senator from Kansas who retires at the end of this year. In recent years, we have fought to reduce the number of Americans without access to health insurance and slow the rate of growth in health care costs. Two years ago we had a nationwide debate on health care reform. There were many competing proposals, and ultimately we failed to reach a consensus on comprehensive health reform legislation. In the wake of that failure, we have put aside our differences and taken a more incremental approach to health care reform. Rather than forcing dramatic change in our health care system, we are making small, yet important changes in the health insurance market which will give working Americans something very important--peace of mind. Once this legislation is enacted, Americans will know that if they change jobs they will be able to move from one group health insurance plan to another without worrying that preexisting conditions will limit or exclude them from coverage. Once this bill is enacted, families will no longer face being locked into their jobs for fear of losing health insurance coverage. This bill would also assure that if a worker lost his or her job or accepted a job without health insurance coverage, they would have the opportunity to purchase a health insurance policy without limitations or exclusions for preexisting conditions. This legislation also includes provisions introduced by Senator Cohen, to crack down on individuals who knowingly commit fraud in or health care system. Not only will this help to control health care costs in the private insurance market, but it will also reduce the fraud which plagues the Medicare Program. The bill includes provisions, authored by Senator Bond, to create uniform, standards for the electronic transmission of health care information in an effort to streamline and lower administrative costs. Finally, the language includes important tax provisions to make health insurance more affordable for the self-employed by allowing them to deduct a greater percentage of their health insurance costs. It also clarifies that the cost of long-term care insurance is deductible-- encouraging more Americans to purchase private long-term care insurance. I am hopeful that this provision will lessen the burden of long-term care costs on our Medicaid Program, which many seniors fall back on once they exhaust their life-savings on nursing home care. I recognize that there are those who are disappointed in the final outcome of some of the provisions in this legislation. Probably the most glaring is the omission of the Domenici-Wellstone provision providing parity for mental illness. During Senate consideration of the health reform proposal, I voted against the mental health parity amendment as well as other key provisions. I did so to assist the managers of the bill in trying to keep the bill free of controversial provisions that could have slowed down the process. I also had concerns that the amendment was too encompassing. I am hopeful that Congress will act in the near future on a narrower version of this important legislation. In conclusion, no one got exactly what they wanted on every aspect of this bill, myself included. Nonetheless, I think we all should take satisfaction in the passage of this legislation and recognize that great things often come form humble beginning. Thank you Mr. President. clarifying certain definitions

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I join Senator Inhofe in urging the Senate to pass S. 1873, the National Environmental Education Act Amendments of 1996. I commend Senator Inhofe for his leadership on this bill. Mr. Inhofe and other members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have crafted a reauthorization of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990. It is a bipartisan bill sponsored by 11 members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, including myself and Senators Inhofe, Baucus, Lieberman, Faircloth, Kempthorne, Moynihan, Reid, Lautenberg, Smith, and Graham. S. 1873 extends the authorization for programs authorized by the National Environmental Education Act until 2007. The bill also includes a number of changes to make programs authorized under the act operate more effectively and efficiently. The goal of the National Environmental Education Act is to increase public understanding of the environment and to advance and develop environmental education and training. The act has been successful in supporting environmental education through grants and training programs aimed at schools, nature centers, museums, and other educational organizations. The act has benefited thousands of teachers and millions of students--children and adults. Educational programs supported through this act increase the public's awareness and knowledge about environmental issues, and provide them with the skills needed to make informed decisions. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important environmental education legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding that the Parliamentarian noted that the previous definitions of ``Federal means-tested public benefit'' were broad enough to include discretionary spending. According to the Parliamentarian, that inclusion caused the definition to violate Section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Byrd rule, which prevents reconciliation legislation from extending its scope to items that provide merely incidental deficit reduction, that is, discretionary programs. Therefore, when the bill was considered in conference, I understand that there was an intentional effort to ensure this provision complied with Byrd rule by omitting the definition of that particular term. In other words, then, the term ``Federal means-tested public benefit''--if it is to be in compliance with the Byrd rule--does not refer to discretionary programs. I would assume that programs such as funding for community health centers, as well as the maternal and child health block grant, would not be impacted.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the time is on the other side now.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if I could be notified when I have 1 minute remaining. I am pleased today to speak in behalf of the welfare proposal which came from conference. It is a good bill, and while there are areas which still could be improved, overall I think it is a positive first step toward real welfare reform. Indeed, it does represent a compromise. The administration had some thoughts they contributed. Obviously, the House did, and clearly, of course, the Senate did. We can no longer continue the current welfare system. I think that is clear. This system has encouraged long-term dependency, and that has been addressed several times this afternoon and this morning. There is one thing we all know, that the surest prescription for a life of poverty is to be born to young, to unmarried, and to poor parents. It is time to give the States a chance to improve the lives of all these poor families. This bill does that. It turns the AFDC Program over to the States and allows them, the States, to create programs suited to the needs of the residents of those States. We are doing this with very few restrictions on the States. Indeed, we can practically rattle off the restrictions. The States will be required to impose time limits on benefits. The States will have to meet tough work participation rates. But how they achieve these goals is left almost entirely to the State and to the local government. I would like to see more Federal oversight of the program. I was on the conference. I presented my views but did not prevail in that particular area. The Governors insist that they will do the right thing and we ought to have confidence in them. I am hopeful, indeed optimistic, that they will, but I certainly will be keeping a close eye on the progress in this area. While we are giving the States maximum flexibility, there are several important protections in this bill. First, we have ensured that families who lose cash benefits because of changes in the State's cash assistance program, those families will still be entitled to receive Medicaid. If the State goes down, lowers the level at which an individual can qualify for cash assistance, the families still receive Medicaid based on the old formula. This is the critical provision for the success of welfare reform. In the last 2 years, in the Finance Committee welfare reform hearings, one thing we heard over and over is that we cannot pull the rug out from beneath these poor families. In order to be able to support themselves, they must have Medicaid coverage. I am very pleased that this bill includes the amendment Senator Breaux and I sponsored to continue Medicaid coverage for these individuals. Earlier versions of welfare reform included block grants in several child welfare and foster care programs. I have long believed that despite the name ``child welfare''--that is a misnomer, Mr. President. Child welfare is not a cash or an in-kind assistance to poor families. Child welfare programs deal with abused children. It deals with neglected children regardless of their income. It does not have anything to do with a poor child. Child welfare programs deal with neglected and abused children regardless of income. So, child welfare has no place in a welfare reform bill, and I am pleased we were able to have those block grants removed. We stay with the present entitlement system in the child welfare program. The present welfare bill has also made more cuts to the children's SSI program than I would have liked to have seen. That is the way it started off, with rather severe cuts. This bill is much less damaging in that area. It does tighten the eligibility for participation in children's SSI programs, but retains cash assistance for those children who remain eligible. This is the right thing to do. These families are under enormous strains, families with SSI children, and they need the benefits, the cash assistance that comes so they can care for those children. I want to pay special tribute to Senator Conrad, who worked with me and others to achieve this compromise. Welfare, as we know, has always been a shared responsibility between the States and the Federal Government. That will continue under this bill. It is true that States ought to have a financial incentive to reduce the welfare caseloads. We all agree with that. However, when they are reducing these caseloads, they should benefit from it, but also the Federal Government ought to benefit from it, too. That is why we provide that, if the States reduce their spending below a percentage mark, Federal dollars will be reduced likewise. In other words, the Federal Government will share in the savings. There is one thing that does bother me about this bill, and that is the denial of benefits to legal immigrants. I think the bill is harsh in that area. We made some improvements, in other words we made it less harsh, because we allow States to decide whether to extend Medicaid coverage to legal immigrants. In other words, the States still have the option to extend Medicaid coverage to legal immigrants. I had hoped during the legislative process, consideration here and the conference, we might have mitigated some of the harsher provisions, especially those affecting currently elderly and currently disabled recipients. I think it is very tough to take away some of the benefits of those individuals that they are currently enjoying. In closing, I congratulate those who worked so hard to reach this agreement. Former Senator Dole deserves a lot of credit for laying the groundwork for this bill. Senator Roth picked up after Senator Dole left and helped steer this bill through the Senate. On the other side of the aisle, my colleague from the centrist coalition, my colleague Senator Breaux, did splendid work to forge a compromise between the two parties. On the other side of the Capitol, Congressman Shaw and Congressman Archer were dedicated to this cause for some time and deserve a lot of credit. So my congratulations to each and all, and to all here who worked hard to make this bill a success, the success I believe it can be. It is not perfect. We all recognize that. But there are a lot of very fine provisions in this bill. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the distinguished Senator from Montana. Mr. President, the amendment by the Senator from Montana corrects an accounting error made by the Department of the Treasury in 1994. There may be some confusion as to whether under this amendment States will receive full credit for contributions made to the highway trust fund. Under the Baucus amendment the States will receive full credit for all contributions made to the highway trust fund but they will receive that credit in the year that they were actually collected rather than when they were recorded on the Treasury ledger. I would like to emphasize that this is not an attempt to rewrite the highway funding formula under the so-called ISTEA, the Interstate Transportation Act. This is not a highway trust fund formula amendment. And I do think it is very, very unfortunate that the clerical error has resulted in confusion, and indeed understandable irritation for Members of this body. Frankly, Mr. President, I greatly wish it had never occurred so that we would not be here trying to straighten things out. I realize that some Members of this body believe that the formulas that distribute highway funds are not fair or appropriate. And that is a legitimate concern. Members will have their chance to make their case for changes in the formula next year when we reauthorize the highway program. The Environment and Public Works Committee plans to commence hearings on the reauthorization of the so-called ISTEA in September of this year. We will continue those hearings next year. We want to get on with this bill. We have to get on with it next year. At that time we definitely will have arguments over the formula and what should go into it. The Senator from Montana ticked off some of those items. For example, should we count the amount of interstate highway mileage, the State's population, the miles driven, the amount of highway trust fund contributions, the number of deficient bridges? All of those are legitimate things to consider when we deal with the formula. That will be a very healthy debate, I can guarantee everybody here, because you have donor States who put in more than they get back and you have donee States that receive more than they put in. Legitimately, the States that put in more are distressed. And the States that put in less think that, well, this is a National Highway System so you should not get back exactly what you put in. That is OK. We will debate that vigorously. But I do believe that it is unfortunate and not appropriate, when we are trying to straighten out a bureaucratic error, to change the current formula that has been agreed to, was agreed to by Congress in 1991. The distribution of funds in the highway program structure are issues that must be debated on the merits, as I said, when we reauthorize the basic legislation. Some would say, ``Well, OK, if you want to straighten out this problem, wait until next spring when you deal with the highway reauthorization. Why do we take it up now?'' We are taking it up now because the problem that we are talking about will be compounded if we wait. Now is the time, difficult though it might be. Some might say, ``Oh, well, in the list that the Senator from Montana read off, Rhode Island will get back some money that they should have gotten, and others will have to restore some of the extra money that they received.'' As I say, we wish that all had not occurred. But if we wait, the problem, as I say, will become more difficult. I would like to raise, Mr. President, a concern regarding the public perception of this issue. Failure to approve the amendment by the Senator from Montana will mean that an accounting error will generate more than $1 billion in false spending authority. This situation obviously will be difficult to explain to taxpayers when they are concerned about reining in Federal spending. Moreover, unless it is corrected, this error will create the image of an irresponsible Federal Government which cannot correct an error. So I hope we will support this amendment and get on with it, difficult though it might be. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. No, I do not believe that is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that, as the distinguished chairman has said, has been cleared by both sides. It is an important amendment to the State of Washington and, indeed, to Senator Baucus as well. It is a good amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved full funding for Amtrak operations, capital support, and the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. I regret this amendment to cut funding for Amtrak by $173 million is being offered. Amtrak, as has been pointed out, provides service for millions of Americans, a competitive service at a competitive price. Through a modern nationwide passenger rail system, traffic congestion, and air pollution are reduced by this fuel-efficient alternative to highway and air travel. I certainly recognize that Amtrak cannot survive much longer as a viable entity in its current financial condition. Many of us are familiar with the oft-cited GAO report documenting the widening gap between Amtrak's revenues and expenses since the beginning of this decade. For the past 2 years, the question facing Congress is, what should we do about Amtrak? I do not think anyone believes that simply increasing or even continuing in perpetuity Amtrak's annual subsidy are wise solutions. Instead, a better solution has been proposed. This solution, partially embodied within the Amtrak authorization bill, will enable Amtrak to operate as much like a private business as possible. Separate legislation, which constitutes the second part of this proposal, would redirect one-half cent of the Federal gas tax to a new passenger rail trust fund similar to those existing for highway and air travel. I will just say this. Transporting people has never been a profitable business for railroads. At least it certainly has not been in the past 50 years. So, I believe it is unfortunate that prospects for passage of this Amtrak authorization bill and legislation to redirect the half cent of the Federal gas tax, is being proposed. I think if there is no Amtrak authorization bill and no steady revenue source to allow Amtrak to modernize and privatize, there is going to be trouble. That is the situation we have today. Funding for Amtrak operations and capital support in the Northeast corridor are urgently required for the short- term survival of intercity passenger rail service. Amtrak does want to end its dependence on Federal subsidies. However, until such a plan is in place, Amtrak simply must have the yearly support needed to continue at a minimal level. I am a user of Amtrak, Mr. President. It is very important to the section of the country I have, and, therefore, I urge the opposition and, indeed, the defeat of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Arizona.