John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. The designation of the Alameda transportation corridor as a ``high-priority corridor'' reflects the committee's determination that the project merits an ongoing Federal role based upon the long-term potential benefits to interstate and international commerce. The Alameda corridor is, indeed, a project of national significance. Under section 1105, high-priority corridors are eligible for creative financing with the Secretary. This eligibility includes participation in the Priority Corridor Revolving Loan Fund, the establishment of a line of credit, and other methods of financing. The section 1105 ``high-priority'' designation allows the corridor project to help itself by making it eligible for these innovative financing options. I would encourage the Secretary to work with the project sponsors to identify and pursue those creative financing options that will assist the timely completion of the project.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session. The nomination, considered and confirmed, is as follows: Department of Defense John P. White, of Massachusetts, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to go into executive session to consider the nomination of John P. White to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator's wishes are attained, because the agreement clearly says, ``will complete the highway bill.'' I hope it will not take too long.

Mr. CHAFEE. So, those things will be done before moving to the consideration of S. 240, the securities bill.

Mr. CHAFEE. The agreement between the leaders reads as follows, ``That following the cloture vote and the completion of highway bill . . . .''

Mr. CHAFEE. That is right.

Mr. CHAFEE. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the highway bill tomorrow at 9:30. Rollcall votes can be expected on or in relation to amendments to the highway bill, however there will be no rollcall votes prior to 11:30 a.m., on Thursday. Senators are also reminded at 12 noon the Senate will resume debate on the nomination of Dr. Foster, with a cloture vote occurring on the nomination at 2 p.m. Also to alert Members following the cloture vote and completion of highway bill, it is the intention of the majority leader to turn to the consideration of S. 240, the securities bill. I would point out, therefore, under this agreement, if we are not completed with the highway bill, which I do not think we will, because we only have half an hour for votes between 11:30 and 12. Therefore, after the cloture vote at 12 o'clock on Dr. Foster, we will be returning to the highway bill for some time. I hope not too long.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Vermont is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator's understanding is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator accurately states my understanding of the intent of the agreement between the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Vermont Agency of Transportation.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleagues from Delaware. This amendment reinforces the flexibility that the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, so-called ISTEA, gave to the States in setting the States' transportation policies. That landmark legislation allowed States and local officials, for the first, time to determine how they want to spend their money. They can spend it on highway projects or transit facilities or other alternative transportation methods, even to the extent of bikeways and pedestrian walkways. The amendment by the Senators from Delaware builds on this flexibility by enabling the States to direct their so-called congestion mitigation and air quality and surface transportation program funds to intercity passenger rail. Passenger rail service is an important national resource. It is particularly important to the region of the country that includes my State, Rhode Island. I cannot imagine what the transportation situation would be on the east coast without passenger rail service, other than total gridlock. The highways and airways are already extremely congested and there is little room to build more highways and airports. The cost of building major new facilities in this part of the country would be prohibitive. We have one example now in this part of the country--the central artery in Boston. The cost of improving 3.5 miles of highway and building a 3.5 mile third harbor crossing is now estimated at $8 billion and rising--over $2 billion a mile. Imagine what kind of passenger rail service we could have for $8 billion. Yet, we are clearly in danger of losing passenger rail service in this country, and I believe that would be a terrible mistake. Over the past year, Amtrak has been in the process of restructuring its operations. So far, the results are encouraging. Thomas Downs, the president and chairman of the board of Amtrak, testified before the Surface Transportation Subcommittee last Friday that Amtrak is ahead of schedule in achieving a net savings of $173 million for fiscal year 1995. Amtrak is also working on innovative financing options, such as partnerships with State and local officials. Amtrak has a pivotal role to play in the Nation's transportation system. Intercity passenger rail is a vital link between automobile, bus, transit, and aviation transportation. Although the bill before us is entitled the National Highway System Designation Act, the NHS designation is a part of a multimodal national transportation system. We must not forget the big picture. I want to point out just a few of the benefits of passenger rail. First, passenger rail travel has made a significant contribution to the economic growth and prosperity of our Nation. Rail service in the Northeast corridor, for instance, has contributed to a major expansion of economic opportunities in the areas of Boston, New York, and Washington. It has also given other smaller cities like New Haven, CT; Trenton, NJ; and Providence, RI, the ability to take advantage of economic development opportunities that they would not otherwise have. Second, Amtrak provides travelers with a fuel efficient alternative to crowded highways and airways. As our highways and airways become more and more congested, travelers need more choices in mobility. Rail provides an environmentally sound alternate mode of travel to the automobile. Finally, there is the larger issue of State flexibility. One of the central principles of the surface transportation law is that State and local officials should have as much flexibility as possible to spend Federal-aid funds on their highest priorities. Another important ISTEA principle is that the best transportation system [[Page S 8774]] is an intermodal system. All modes of transportation must be considered when funding decisions are made. The Senators' amendment will give States the flexibility to consider the needs of passenger rail when they make their transportation funding decisions. The amendment of the Senators from Delaware is in keeping with the flexibility that is so important for the success of the surface transportation law. It does not require the States to spend any of their ISTEA money on passenger rail. It simply provides the States with another tool to provide passenger rail service if they choose to do so. It is my hope that the amendments by the Senators from Delaware will be approved. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Moseley-Braun, as well as Senators Simon, Campbell, Pell, and Thompson, I am introducing the black Revolutionary [[Page S 8824]] War patriots commemorative coin legislation. In 1986, Congress approved construction of a memorial celebrating the lives of more than 5,000 African-Americans who served, fought, and died during our Nation's Revolutionary War. Ironically, many of these brave Americans had never experienced the freedom and independence for which they fought. As a Rhode Islander, it gives me particular pleasure to sponsor this legislation. As few Americans know, of the estimated 5,000 African- Americans who served in the Continental Army, the vast majority were from New England, and a great number were from my State of Rhode Island. In fact, in 1778, Rhode Island approved the first slave enlistment act and the Black Regiment of Rhode Island was formed. This was one of only two all black regiments. The other was the Bucks of America of Boston. Not only did these men serve our Nation, they served with distinction. Regrettably throughout our history, their valor has been overlooked. Men like Jack Sisson of Rhode Island, who expertly steered one of five boats involved in the daring capture of British Maj. Gen. Richard Prescott at Newport in 1777, are barely mentioned in historical reports of the incident. Jack Sisson went on to join a regiment of some 200 black soldiers from my State, who, at the battle of Rhode Island, held their ground against several fierce attacks by British-Hessian forces, thereby allowing six American brigades to retreat. With scant training, but abundant courage, the First Rhode Island Regiment inflicted casualties of six to one on the professional troops of the Redcoats. Like African-American soldiers throughout the colonies, however, the soldiers of Rhode Island's First Regiment faced tragedy as well as triumph. In May 1781, the unit suffered a surprise attack by the British cavalry at Pines Bridge, and 40 soldiers lost their lives. Two years later, the regiment was disbanded unceremoniously in Oswego, NY. According to the historian John Harmon, the soldiers were told to find their own way home, and many died while making the trip. Further, despite the promise of freedom which had been made in order to entice them to enlist, some of the soldiers were actually reenslaved after their return. Valor and fortitude in battle always are worthy of celebration, but they are especially inspiring when one takes into account the hostility and oppression that African-American soldiers faced from the Nation for which they fought. As Harriet Beecher Stowe observed, They served a nation which did not acknowledge them as citizens and equals. . . It was not for their own land they fought, but for a land that enslaved them. Bravery under such circumstances, has particular beauty and merit. A portion of the proceeds from sales of the coin my legislation will authorize will help to pay for construction of the memorial. The Patriots Foundation already has raised $4 million for this purpose, and these additional funds are crucial if the memorial is to be completed. The design for the black Revolutionary War patriots memorial has been approved. It will be a 90-foot-long, 7-foot high, curved bronze wall located some 300 feet from the Vietnam Memorial in Constitution Gardens between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. Figures of black soldiers will be sculpted in high and low relief and a black granite arch will be inscribed with historical information. Nancy Johnson has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives, and it is my hope that this proposal will receive speedy approval by both bodies.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of two Senate resolutions en bloc submitted earlier today by Senators Dole and Daschle.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have here a document from the Colorado Department of Transportation, University of Colorado, Health Sciences Center. It is a news release dated February 15, 1994. And it says here, ``In the past three years--1991-93--134 motorcyclists have been killed in traffic crashes in Colorado. Ninety-six of the victims--72 percent-- were not wearing helmets.'' So whatever is happening in Colorado, apparently it is not encouraging the use of helmets very much, as of the date of this, anyway. ``Young riders are overly represented in the motorcycle fatality figures. Sixteen to 20-years old represent about 4 percent of the licensed motorcyclists in the state, yet during the past three years they have accounted for 15 percent of the deaths. Twenty of the motorcyclists killed--1991-93--were aged 16 to 20.'' And then a quote from Dr. Steve Lowenstein, associate director of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. Motorcycle crashes almost always have dire consequences. In 1991 and in 1992, there were 3,668 crashes involving motorcycles in Colorado. Of those, 80 percent resulted in either the death or injury to the motorcycle rider. Helmets could have prevented many of those injuries, saving taxpayers millions of dollars in health care costs. And then it goes on to point out in 1991 and in 1992, just 2 years, 2,824 motorcyclists were injured in crashes in Colorado with about 600 of those riders suffering traumatic brain injuries. The 1993 injury data was not yet available. Studies have documented that unhelmeted motorcycle riders sustain serious to critical head injuries three to five times more often than helmeted riders. So I do not think this should be an argument about States rights or the Federal Government imposing demands, requirements. We are dealing here with human beings, human beings all across our country. And these young people or those who are not so young could have been maintained in far greater health and prevented terrible injuries that could have been prevented with the presence of helmets. And we should do everything we can to encourage helmet use. I think we should do that. So, Mr. President, I would very much hope that this amendment would not be approved. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. We are ready to vote now. If this amendment is adopted, it is absolutely clear that the States, just as they did in the period of 1976, will repeal the mandatory helmet laws they have on the books. That is the next objective of the motorcycle association. They will be on every legislator's doorstep pressuring, demanding, and the result will be that the States that have it will repeal their helmet laws. And the result of that will be increased deaths on our highways from motorcyclists not wearing helmets, not having helmets. I think it is a very unfortunate step. If the Senator is through speaking, I will move to table.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is fine.

Mr. CHAFEE. Well, Mr. President, I do not think that is what it is all about. Everybody can define the issue as they wish. But the real question is does the Congress have any interest in the safety of its citizens riding its roads. And I believe we do. We have a deep interest. We have a deep interest because of the pain and suffering that arises but also because of the costs. The Senator from Maine is familiar with the letter that came from the Eastern Maine Medical Center, which she herself received. It is a study of the Medicaid costs that arise with those who are unbelted or with no helmets. It is a very, very persuasive study that was done. What are we talking about when we are talking Medicaid? We are talking Federal dollars. And so for that reason alone--never mind the suffering that arises. I have seen it. I am sure the Senators from Colorado and Maine have likewise visited their rehabilitation centers and seen individuals who were so severely damaged because of head injuries as a result of not having helmets, some who end up in comas, some who end up in terrible physical condition. These could have been avoided. I just cannot understand that we go backward. It is on the law now. It is not resisting the presence of the law, the enactment of the law. It is repealing the law. And yesterday, thank goodness, we rejected the effort to repeal the seatbelt requirement, and I hope we will reject this effort to repeal the motorcycle helmet effort. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 8:30 a.m., on Thursday, June 22, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 9:30 a.m., with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of the following: Senator Dorgan, 10 minutes, Senator Coats, 20 minutes, and Senator Thomas, 30 minutes; further, that at the hour of 9:30 the Senate resume consideration of S. 440, the highway bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent there be a period for morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the sponsor of the amendment would mind setting it aside just for a minute or so, while we dispose of some other business here?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the Lautenberg amendment. And people say this is a States rights issue. I would remind everyone that Medicaid, a Federal program, pays for probably the great majority of the injuries that arise from excessive speed and terrible accidents. So I hope that we will go forward with the speed limit as suggested by the Senator from New Jersey.