John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I hope the result which emerges from negotiations on the welfare part of the Balanced Budget Act will be closer to the Senate bill. The conference agreement appears to depart significantly from the Senate bill in areas such as foster care and children's Supplemental Security Income, for example. In addition, it is unreasonably restrictive with respect to the treatment of legal immigrants, which I find quite troubling and unacceptable. We should bite the bullet and correct the Consumer Price Index, which is a measure of inflation used to compute cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security benefits, as well as to conform Federal tax brackets with inflationary changes. There is growing bipartisan consensus within Congress, and among economists, that the CPI overstates inflation. Even a modest correction of five-tenths of 1 percent would reduce outlays by about $122 billion over 7 years, affecting only a $4 or $5 reduction in the increase the average beneficiary would receive. The approaches I have outlined will help the respective parties reach an agreement to balance the budget by providing the flexibility needed to reduce the reliance on savings from Medicaid and other programs serving the needy, particularly those serving poor children. Mr. President, in conclusion, this legislation presents us with a tremendous opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities to put our fiscal house in order. I urge passage of this legislation so that we can move on to direct negotiations with the White House toward a final budget agreement. I thank the Chair and the manager.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Washington that he is right, there is a selectivity about flexibility in the States, and the Senator wisely pointed that out. Flexibility is wanted as far as speed limits and helmets go and all that, but when it comes to flexibility and spending funds for Amtrak, State funds, that flexibility cannot be granted. But those are what we run into, even though we had, on Amtrak, a very favorable vote here on the Senate floor. But on the billboard matter, I would like to stress that the billboard section solely dealt with scenic byways, not the overall billboard control. And, second, we feel confident, and we spent a lot of time on this--I personally spent more time on this part than anything else in the conference--we feel that we have not given away anything in connection with the billboard control and that what we have codified is the exact practice that the highway administration is currently following. So I think we came out well on the thing, particularly in the final line in the conference report which I read earlier, which stated that ``The Secretary of Transportation has the authority to prevent actions that evade Federal requirements.'' So I am satisfied with how we came out.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is quite correct. In the ISTEA legislation of 1991, we had passed a provision dealing with scenic byways. And the provision was that on scenic byways there could be no new billboards; there could be the existing billboards, but no new ones. The House wanted to greatly weaken those provisions. One of their problems, they said, was that they required segmenting. In other words, a scenic byway might last for 30 miles and then there would be a 3-mile segment that would not be scenic and then there would be another 20 miles. They thought that should be taken care of. That was a legitimate problem, and we addressed that. But in no way was the billboard provision gutted in this legislation. Mr. President, I want to say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, I greatly appreciate the way he stood firm, and, indeed, this was the provision that held up this legislation right from the beginning. We were on this legislation for, what?--3 weeks, the conference. The bulk of the matters were settled in the first week, but it was this billboard provision that held things up. We stood our ground and came out with a measure that I believe everybody interested in scenic byways can be pleased with. Indeed, I would like to just state here the report language, the last sentence in this particular area: The Secretary of Transportation has the authority to prevent actions that evade Federal requirements. In other words, we have not given up the authority of the Secretary in any fashion here.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the conference on the National Highway System bill has reached agreement on the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. I am prepared to move to that now.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the chairman of the conference was the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner. He is the chairman of the subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee that deals with these particular highway matters. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for his very able leadership of this conference. Senator Warner demonstrated patience and persistence and thoroughness and did a superb job. So I think we are all in Senator Warner's debt for the outstanding job he did. I also wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], who is the ranking member of both the entire committee, that is, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and also the ranking member of the subcommittee that dealt with this matter. He played a vital role in working out this conference agreement. I also want to thank the other conferees from our committee; namely, Senators Smith and Kempthorne, Moynihan, and Reid, for their contributions. Because of what they did, we were able to make the progress that is represented by the conference report, which, by the way, emerged from the Environment Committee--the original bill--with a 16-to-nothing vote. Mr. Rodney Slater, Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, has been very helpful, as was the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Federico Pena. The result of the conference on the National Highway System legislation is a compromise, and I know that there will be comments today about dissatisfaction with certain portions of the report, particularly those dealing with the safety aspects. But nonetheless, like all conferences, they are a compromise. We moved ahead in allowing something over $6 billion in highway funds to now be released to the States. The purpose of this legislation is to approve the National Highway System which is a network of approximately 160,000 miles of highway in our Nation. The States and localities have chosen these roads as some of their most important ones. The National Highway System represents only 4 percent of the highways in the United States of America but on those 4 percent of the highways 40 percent of the Nation's traveling is done. In other words, these 4 percent of the roads handle 40 percent of the total vehicle miles traveled in our country. These roads connect strategic facilities including our ports, airports, train stations, and military bases. The process to designate the NHS worked well. It is a cooperative process that produced a high degree of consensus among Federal, State, and local officials. The conference agreement approves the map as submitted by the Secretary and recognizes that this is a changing, dynamic process. And so there will be other changes in the future as State and local officials work with the Secretary of Transportation. The conference agreement preserves the important principles of flexibility that came from the basic highway act that we have which was passed in 1991, called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, with the pleasing acronym of ISTEA. In this legislation we passed, paperwork and regulatory burdens have been reduced, additional flexibility has been provided including management systems; metric signing requirements; implementing the transportation enhancement program; designing highways to allow for the preservation of environmental and scenic values; the use of Federal-aid funds for preventive maintenance; and the use of Federal-aid funds for roads that provide connections to intermodal facilities. What is an intermodel facility? It is a facility that has surface transportation, air transportation, and sea transportation, all blended together and from that some goods move by truck, some move by rail, some move by sea. Specifically regarding what is called design standards, I believe this provision provides significant new flexibility for the States and new opportunities for public participation. I hope that the Secretary will, in the development of design criteria, make every effort to ensure the full participation of organizations and individuals representing scenic, aesthetic, community, environmental, historic, bicycle, and pedestrian interests. I urge the Secretary of Transportation to make certain that State and local transportation officials are aware of this new flexibility that is provided so that they can take full advantage of it. This legislation also provides the States with additional financing options to address the needs of the transportation system recognizing that the Federal, State, and local governments' resources are limited. This conference report includes provisions that address problems that have occurred in the implementation of the Clean Air Act. One of the most effective measures to reduce air pollution is inspection of the vehicle that are already on the road to make sure that the pollution control equipment on the vehicle is working properly. This vehicle testing program is called inspection and maintenance in the Clean Air Act. Many Americans are familiar with this program because they are required to take the family car to the service station or repair shop once a year to get an emissions inspection. Inspection and maintenance of existing vehicles is now required in more than 60 major urban areas across the country. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act directed EPA to develop an enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program to be carried out in the cities with the worst air pollution problems. Congress mandated that the existing testing programs in these areas be upgraded to get even greater pollution reduction. EPA issued regulations to implement this part of the 1990 law in November 1992. However, those regulations went farther than Congress had expected or intended. The regulations required that testing be done with expensive, new technology called I/M240. Furthermore, the regulations imposed a penalty on testing programs that used service stations or automobile dealerships or other auto repair facilities to conduct the tests. In the past, vehicle inspection and maintenance in most States has been carried out through a decentralized network of service stations and repair shops. But these new EPA rules virtually precluded a continuation of that approach. The testing technology is too expensive for most service stations to afford. Any any program based on a so- called test-and-repair system faced an automatic 50-percent penalty in the emissions reduction credits EPA would allow. The States have aggressively resisted these EPA regulations for enhanced programs. Many States have refused to implement it. Other States that initially tried to implement the program are now pulling back. Earlier this week the Governors of five of these States-- California, Texas, Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania--wrote to the majority leader of the Senate and asked for legislative relief from these EPA regulations. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Governors be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. It will revert to the 25 percent that we have long since bypassed. It is now at 31.5 percent. Who set it at 31.5 percent?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, my own view----

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, my own view on this is, if after long, continuous debate--and I do not know when it will be we finally get to vote, whether the Simpson language is included or not, I do not know-- but my own belief is, if it is included and goes back over there, it will be a slice of salami. Then they will come back with some variations to it, and back and forth we go with the House in deciding just how far we want to go. They have staked out a big measure. Instead of us saying ``No, we don't want any part of it, we will take that up at another time,'' it is very popular here, we can do our version any time we want, we will do that within the next several weeks, we send this back with the variations, as the distinguished Senator from Idaho and the distinguished Senator from Wyoming have proposed, then back it comes with a small alteration, and on and on it goes. I think it is a mistake, Mr. President. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is right. Yes.

Mr. CHAFEE. I would ask that I have 2 more minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. A Democratic Congress--a Democratic House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate--provided that it be at the 31.5 percent. And to say this is an increase when that is what is being paid now is just plain not so. Now, Mr. President, you could say, well, it ought to go to 25 percent. Well, why not have it go to 10 percent or, indeed, more attractive and more appealing I suppose is no charge. Have the Federal Government pay it all. But we believe that when we look at these programs, when we look at the cost of $42 billion, for the beneficiary to continue paying at the same percentage he or she is currently paying is fair. Now, they do not say, well, it is unfair to pay 31.5 percent. Is that the viewpoint of the Senator from Massachusetts, I wonder?

Mr. CHAFEE. We are on my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there are two horses the Democrats like to ride. One is Social Security, and the other is Medicare. They like to ride both of them at the top of their lungs, as has been indicated here this evening. Let us talk about Medicare, which is the subject before us. There are a lot of deceptive statements being made here this evening in connection with Medicare. One is that you are increasing the premiums. First, let us make clear what we are talking about. Under Medicare, there is part A. There is a trust fund and that pays for the hospitalization. Part B is an insurance program. It is a voluntary insurance program that senior citizens can take if they so choose, and about 99-plus percent choose the part B insurance program. What does the part B insurance program do? It covers the cost after the deductible for physicians. That is what part B is. Let us look at a little bit of history. When part B was set up under Medicare in the early 1960's, the thought and, indeed, the plan was that the beneficiary, the insured, would pay 50 percent of the premium and the Federal Government would pay the other 50 percent of the premium. However, due to the fact that it was set in dollars and medical inflation came along, what started out as a dollar premium that equaled 50 percent soon slid down, down, down and became less than 25 percent, something like 18 percent. So then we changed the law, and we provided that it be 25 percent as a minimum. But over the past several years that rose, and it currently is at 31.5 percent. That is what it is now. And so this idea that by staying at 31.5 percent we are increasing the premium is absolute, total nonsense. It is important to remember this. The Federal Government is now paying, for the total part B premiums, as its share, namely the 69 percent that it pays, with the insured paying 31.5 percent, $42 billion a year, and we believe that the 31.5 percent premium that is currently being paid is a fair premium. It is not 50 percent, as the authors of the legislation originally provided, and it is not 40 percent, but it is 31.5 percent. That is what the Republicans have provided. The argument is, well, do not do it on this bill. Do it on something else. The problem is that unless we provide on this bill that it be at 31.5 percent, due to the mechanics of the machinery for Social Security and the withholding, and so forth and so on, because this is a premium that is deducted from the benefit of the Social Security recipients--in other words, when they choose to have the insurance, they provide that the premium be deducted from their Social Security income, and in order to keep it at this particular figure, 31.5 percent, it is required that legislation be enacted. That is why we are here this evening.

Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President----

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President that is what you call a syllogism. Does he believe that the premium should not be 31.5 percent? Suddenly we get talking about tax breaks for the rich. There is no tax break for the rich provided in this legislation. What we are saying is----

Mr. CHAFEE. Let me finish.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, my question is this: Apparently there seems to be agreement--I certainly concur in that--that the language that came over from the House is not acceptable. Now, it seems to me we ought to leave well enough alone, take it out, strike it. It has to go back to the House, and then we go on with our business when it comes back from the House. Hopefully, it would be without that language. And then we could proceed with the passage of the continuing resolution. What the distinguished Senator from Idaho and the distinguished Senator from Wyoming are proposing is that in lieu of the language that was objectionable in the House, that we insert other language. Now, it is my understanding, having listened to the debate, that this language is not exactly the same as the so-called Simpson language that was adopted unanimously by voice vote. There are variations to it. What they are, I am not sure. But my question to the Senator from Idaho is as follows: Why are we doing this? Why get involved at this point, when we are trying to pass a continuing resolution, with an extraneous bill that the Senators indicate is extremely popular and, if so, it ought to be able to pass on its own. Why bog down this legislation with that and tie us up in something as we are, as I understand it, near unanimity that we do not want the language that came out from the House? So let us strike it and go on with a clean CR. Frankly, I am in favor of a clean continuing resolution. All of us can think of nice things that ought to be added on it. Why, we can do something about Social Security for the senior citizens being able to earn more money----

Mr. CHAFEE. I know I am against sturdy competition, particularly in the volume level, but I would like to finish. We believe that a beneficiary paying 31.5 percent is fair. As you know, under the current law, when an individual is unable to pay the premium, then Medicaid can step in. That is the current law of the land. Medicaid is there to cover the deductibles. Medicare is there to pay the part B premium. But we believe that it is fair for the beneficiary to pay 31.5 percent with the Federal Government paying 68.5. That is a pretty good deal. So that is what this is all about this evening. It has nothing to do with the rich. You can read the language, and there is no tax cut for the rich. I do not know where they get that from. It has nothing to do with that. It is whether it is fair to say to the beneficiaries you are getting a very good deal here. And you cannot beat it for paying not the entire premium. Indeed, there is no means testing here. There is no suggestion, as we have proposed and subsequently presumably it will come along in later days, that the more affluent pay more. That is not included here. I would be happy if it were. But that is not in this particular program. So, because of the mechanics that have to take place, it is important that this legislation be approved.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senate recently received from the House H.R. 436, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. The bill would amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA-90. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has exclusive jurisdiction over OPA-90, I support the Senate's passage of H.R. 436 by unanimous consent without delay. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the time the committee reported the bill that became OPA-90, I am well acquainted with the statute. As many of us will recall, the Congress enacted OPA-90 in the aftermath of the catastrophic Exxon Valdez oilspill in Prince William Sound, AK. One of the key elements of OPA-90 requires all vessels to demonstrate a certain minimum level of financial responsibility to cover the costs of cleanup and damages in the event of an oil-spill. The intent behind this requirement is to ensure that an entity that discharges oil into our natural environment pay for the costs and damages arising from the spill--not the U.S. taxpayer. This intent remains sound and should continue to inform the application of the statute. In passing OPA-90, however, Congress did not intend to abandon the use of common sense. As the act currently stands, there is no distinction made in the financial responsibility requirements for oil- carrying vessels, regardless of the kind of oil being carried. Therefore, a vessel carrying sunflower oil is held to the same requirements under OPA-90 as a carrier of deep crude. H.R. 436 simply recognizes that vegetable oils and animal fats are different from petroleum oils. Most important, they are different in ways that make it less likely that a spill of vegetable oil or animal fat will cause the same kind of environmental damage as would a petroleum oilspill. For example, vegetable oils and animal fats contain none of the toxic components of petroleum oil. This is not to suggest that a spill of vegetable oil or animal fat will have no adverse environmental impacts. Experience has shown to the contrary, especially in the case of the Blue Earth River spill in Minnesota in the mid-1960's. Here it is important to note that H.R. 436 would not provide an exemption for carriers of vegetable oil or animal fats. They still would be subject to a mandatory minimum financial responsibility requirement under OPA-90. Thus, H.R. 436 will lend more rationality to the application of OPA- 90 while maintaining the fundamental integrity of the act's purpose and approach. I commend my colleagues in the House for recognizing an opportunity to improve the implementation of an environmental statute. Finally, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, let me say that I appreciate the willingness of all Senators to expedite action on this bill. Without unanimous consent, H.R. 436 would have been referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. My review of the bill has convinced me that it is a straightforward, commonsense piece of legislation on which committee hearings are unnecessary and to which I can lend my support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this reconciliation bill is the culmination of the congressional budget process. It provides for a balanced budget within 7 years, a truly remarkable feat. The next step will undoubtedly be direct negotiations between congressional principals and the President to reach a final budget accord. However, that cannot occur until this legislation has been passed in final form, and sent to the President. And the quicker, the better, in my view. While I do not agree with every aspect of this reconciliation bill, the objective of achieving a balanced budget far outweighs any misgivings I have about various of its provisions. We do not always get everything we want in the legislative process. Achieving the greater good must also be a consideration; and, here, the greater good is to obtain a balanced budget. For 33 straight years this Government has spent more than it has taken in. The cumulative consequence of our annual budgetary sins is an incredible $5 trillion national debt--literally, a mortgage on the economic future of our children and grandchildren. This is immoral, and must stop. Every week, the Treasury Department must issue debt securities to keep the Government afloat. This past Monday, for example, Treasury borrowed $27 billion to cover maturing securities, and to raise needed cash. The Department must hold monthly, quarterly, and annual auctions just to maintain solvency. If we make no changes to the course we are currently on, we will run $200 billion deficits each year well into the next century. Fully 15 percent of our annual Federal budget--$235 billion--must now go to paying the interest on this massive debt, without a penny of that going to reduce the principal. Within 10 years annual interest costs will jump to $400 billion. This must stop. Those of us in Congress, who have struggled over the years to reverse this ruinous course, are rightfully frustrated. In 1985, we passed the Emergency Deficit Control Act, also known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. That law was supposed to deliver a balanced budget by 1991. It did not happen. In 1990, we passed the Budget Enforcement Act, establishing the discretionary spending caps and the pay-as-you-go rules for entitlement spending and tax cuts. The results are barely measurable. Despite our best efforts, deficit control continues to elude us. Regrettably, we cannot balance the budget this year or next. However, with the bill before us, we will balance the budget by the year 2002. And, from there, we can hopefully go on to commence retiring the staggering national debt that will remain. Is this bill perfect? No, it is not. I am not aware of any Senator who is satisfied with every aspect of this 1,900-page bill. In my view, at a time when we are struggling to reduce the deficit and asking people to sacrifice, the tax cuts are ill-timed. Earlier this year, during the debate on the Budget Resolution, a number of moderate Republicans--myself included--sought to discourage the tax cuts. That effort was complicated by the fact that the President's own budget called for tax cuts totaling more than $105 billion. During the Finance Committee deliberations last week, I was the lone Republican voting to eliminate or scale-back the tax cuts. Unfortunately, my view did not prevail. I have also been clear in my objections to block granting the Medicaid Program. I took steps in the Finance Committee to ensure that, at a minimum, pregnant women and children with incomes below the poverty level, as well as the disabled, retain some minimum guarantee of services. In that regard, I am pleased my amendment to clarify the definition of ``disability'' passed the Senate yesterday by a vote of 60-39. Similarly, I am gratified the Senate this morning rejected, by a vote of 21-78, an amendment to strike my guarantee provisions for low-income pregnant women and children, as well as the disabled. These votes place the Senate squarely on record in support of requiring states to guarantee services to these vulnerable populations. As a result of negotiations with the majority leader, moderate Republicans have been able to obtain a number of other improvements to the Medicaid package over the past several days. These include retaining Federal standards for nursing homes, a set-aside for low- income Medicare beneficiaries, and requiring that the same solvency standards a state applies to private plans must also be applied to Medicaid plans. We were also able to obtain a provision to permit the integration of services for elderly and disabled individuals who are both Medicare and Medicaid-eligible. Finally, we also won inclusion of an additional $10 billion in funding to the States under the revised Medicaid Program, and $2 billion more in Medicare payments to teaching hospitals. I am also pleased that we were able to reach an agreement with the majority leader to eliminate the proposed reductions in Federal student loan programs that most directly effect students, parents, and schools. This occurred yesterday with the passage of the Kassebaum amendment, which restores the interest exemption ``grace period'' for newly guaranteed students, retains the current interest rates on ``plus'' loans to parents, and drops the new fee based on student loan volume that schools would be required to pay. We must not burden families further by making student loans more costly. Despite these improvements, I still have some serious objections to S. 1357. Nonetheless, I will vote for this reconciliation measure. Moreover, I will vote against any amendments which I believe will delay or prevent this legislation from reaching the President's desk at the earliest possible time. The new fiscal year started over 3 weeks ago, numerous appropriations bills remain outstanding, and the short term continuing resolution we passed last month will soon expire. My objective is to expedite getting to the endgame--to the bargaining table with President Clinton--where the real negotiations and work can commence on the terms of a final agreement to balance the budget. While one may or may not agree with this package, it definitely does not represent business as usual. In fact, it is a bold, politically risky initiative, without precedent in my memory. This is the first serious attempt to constrain the explosive growth of Medicare and Medicaid; to cap and reform farm subsidies; and to delay the cost of living adjustments for Federal retirees. These deficits are a cancer, and this bill is the chemotherapy. It's painful medicine, but it is necessary. During hearings earlier this year in the Finance Committee, a number of distinguished economists testified on fiscal policy and the state of our economy. Nearly every one of these witnesses, including Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, said that balancing the budget is the single most important step we in Congress can take to help the economy. The benefits that flow from balancing the budget include increased employment and wages, greater investment and productivity, and lower long term interest rates. Once we get on a glide path to a balanced budget, which can only come from hard negotiations with the President, our economy will begin to see some of these improvements. As interest rates drop, borrowing to buy a house, or to finance a college education will become more affordable. With less government borrowing, there will be more capital available for small businesses to expand, and to hire more people. Real wages, now stagnant, will begin to grow again, and our standard of living will gradually begin to improve. In summary, Mr. President, we must take bold steps now. We cannot continue to pile ever greater debt burdens on our children and grandchildren. Thank goodness we finally have a legislative proposal that will reverse this ruinous course.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3025 (Purpose: To strike the sale of 25 millions of barrels of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil in order to protect our national energy security and to fully offset the revenue loss by imposing a 2.5 percent net smelter return royalty on certain hardrock mines)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill contains a provision which would put the Hyde language permanently into law. This is the first time that this has been done. The Hyde language has always appeared in annual appropriations bills which are open to modification. This provision, subsection 2123(g) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 7191(a) in the reconciliation measure, does not produce a change in outlays or revenues and is not necessary to implement a provision that does change outlays or revenues. I, therefore, raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(a) of the Budget Act against that provision.