John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts mentioned reforms, and I am curious as to what the suggested reforms are. To suggest we have come out of the blue without any consideration in the respective committee that deals with Davis-Bacon, in our committee, we have trespassed into areas we do not belong in. Davis-Bacon we have had out here on the floor as the Senator from Massachusetts knows, many, many times. And this provision that came from our committee solely applies for the areas that we deal with. I am not willing to concede that it is not within our jurisdiction. However, I am curious as to what the suggestions are, and I do not need them in great detail, but roughly, what is the Senator talking about? The Davis-Bacon now applies to any contract over $2,000. In other words, it applies to everything. What is the general trend, if I might ask the Senator from Massachusetts, of these reforms?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think what we are going to do this evening is this. The Senator from Illinois has something he wants to discuss as in morning business, which will take about 15 minutes. And then it would be my intention--and the leader said we can--to adjourn for the evening. Then we would be here tomorrow morning at whatever time we come in. Then there will be a chance for everybody to discuss this further. I have some questions I would like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts, but obviously he will be here tomorrow. This is what we call a filibuster on the motion to proceed. Rather than wearing everybody out, it would be my suggestion that we adjourn following the comments by the Senator from Illinois, as in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator can speak all he wants; he will have plenty of time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Will the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts be good enough to tell me, one, whose study is that?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would stress that the provision of Davis-Bacon that we have in this National Highway Systems law solely deals with highway construction. It does not deal across the board. It seems to me there is no more appropriate place for it than in this National Highway System legislation. Let me just say a few words, if I might. First, Congress must approve the National Highway System bill, as I mentioned, by September 1 of this year. If we do not, the States will not receive--I said $5 billion, it is $6.5 billion of their Federal aid highway money. This amount includes $2.9 billion for interstate maintenance and $2.6 billion for the National Highway System. Mr. President, a few words about the National Highway System. Why are we in this? The National Highway System was established by the so- called ISTEA, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. That was a major highway bill that we passed in 1991. The National Highway System can make a significant contribution to our transportation system. The 159,000 miles of designated National Highway System routes are the roads the States and the localities have chosen as some of their most important roads. These are the roads that provide mobility for our citizens and promote economic development. The National Highway System, which includes the Interstate System--we are all familiar with the Interstate System--represents 4 percent of the highways of the United States of America, a very small part. But these are the important roads. These roads carry 40 percent of the Nation's highway travel. These are the roads that connect our intermodal and strategic facilities such as our ports and airports and train stations and military bases. How was the whole thing developed? What is the National Highway System? It was developed by the Department of Transportation through the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the States. This was not something drawn up in Washington by a bunch of Federal bureaucrats. This was done in cooperation with the States. The Federal Highway Administration and the States designated the system based on the criteria of efficiency, connectivity, and equity among the States. The mileage distribution among the States and between urban and rural areas was another important element. The process to designate the National Highway System has worked quite well. There is a high degree of consensus among Federal, State and local officials that the map submitted by the Secretary of Transportation in December of 1993 represents the best effort at identifying the National System. What has happened is that the Federal Highway Administration has worked with, as I say, the State and local officials, to make changes in this map of 1993 to reflect new information and decisions made at the State and local level. This process will continue. This thing is not carved in stone. People come to us and say: We want to be added. There is a system for adding routes within the various States. This legislation includes a provision which will permit this process to continue, even after this bill has been enacted into law. So State and local officials with the Secretary of Transportation's approval will have the ability to make changes in this, as long--there is a maximum limit of mileage. That maximum limit is 165,000 miles. So what I am stressing here is that this is a dynamic, changing system, and it is important that the ability to make these changes is retained. Because we have this process that involves the local officials, the State officials, and the Federal Government officials--namely, the highway administrator--I think Congress has to be very restrained in making systems; in other words, changes. Somebody will pop up here on the floor and say, ``I want such and such added, I so move.'' Well, maybe that is valid. But we do not know. The managers of this bill, and the others involved here on the floor, do not know whether that particular road meets the criteria. So we have set forth in the legislation a method of making changes. We think it is a fair series of other routes. Once we depart from the criteria, we say, ``Well, Senator X has presented a very moving story about this highway he wants added.'' But once we start down the path of not adhering to the criteria or to the system set forth in the legislation, we are opening our way up to a lot of problems. This bill which was reported out by the Environment and Public Works Committee preserves the important principles of the 1991 surface transportation law. That was a monumental piece of legislation that we passed. It makes changes to provide greater flexibility to the States to resist administrative burdens. As I mentioned, there are a series of requirements that the States are relieved from, the principal one being the Davis-Bacon Act which brings us here this evening. The bill also provides additional flexibility for design standards for the national highway routes which are not applicable to the Interstate System. This legislation which is S. 440--we will hear that term quite often this evening; that is the number of this bill--provides the States with additional financing options to address the needs of the transportation systems. It allows the States to credit private sector donations 100 percent to the States' cost share. This legislation addresses something that those of us here in this Senate are pretty familiar with, and that is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The replacement of that bridge is essential. Its remaining lifespan is estimated to be only 10 years. The bridge was designed 40 years ago to carry 75,000 vehicles a day. How many vehicles does it carry, 75,000? No. Today the bridge carries 167,000, more than twice what it was designed for as maximum load. Title II of this legislation authorizes the States of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into an interstate agreement or a compact to establish the National Capital Interstate Transportation Authority. I must say sometimes we get long titles here. But that is what this is, the National Capital Interstate Transportation Authority. The ownership of this bridge is transferred to the authority. The authority has the ability to use various financing provisions, including tolls, to replace the bridge. The bill provides $97 million of Federal funds for completion of the environmental impact statement, for interim repairs to the bridge, and for the preliminary design and engineering of a replacement bridge. There is one action the committee took which is a great disappointment to me personally; and, that is, there is a change made in the speed limits. I believe the Federal speed limit maximum of 65 miles per hour in rural areas on the interstate has been remarkably successful in reducing fatalities. It has resulted in major savings to the taxpayers of our country. The health care costs of speed-related crashes is currently estimated to be $2 billion a year; the health- related costs of the carnage that comes from excess speeding is currently estimated to be $2 billion a year. The total economic cost to society--not just the health care costs but the property damage, lost work--is estimated to be $24 billion a year. According to the Department of Transportation, the decision that this Congress made several years ago to allow a maximum of 65 miles an hour just on rural interstates, increased from 55--which was the limit before--jumping from 55 to 65, and has estimated to have cost this country 500 additional deaths. In my view, it is inevitable that, if the Federal speed limit is repealed, which this bill does--not with my vote, but, nonetheless, the committee chose to do so--States will raise the speed limit, and the cost to everyone, including the Federal Government, would go up dramatically. In other words, what we have said is there are not going to be any Federal limits, no Federal speed limits on these highways. Let the States put on what they want. I suppose the States will say 65 is not enough. Let us try 70. And the competitor will say, ``Well, why have any speed limit?'' And I think that is unfortunate. I am aware that there are likely to be amendments which will be offered to repeal or weaken other safety laws, particularly the safety belt and motorcycle helmet law requirement. What are those? When we did the ISTEA legislation in 1991, we provided that a State would have a certain amount of time to enact a mandatory seat belt bill and a mandatory motorcycle helmet bill. If the States failed to do that, then a certain amount of that State's highway money would have to go into safety features, including safety education. As a result of that, some 26 States have passed mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation, and the strong seat belt legislation. What has been the result? California passed it. The Governor signed it. And as a result, the number of motorcycle deaths on the California highways has been reduced by 35 percent. Maryland did likewise. As a result of the passage of the motorcycle law, with the mandatory helmet, the number of motorcycle deaths in Maryland decreased by 25 percent. You might say, ``Well, this is a State problem. What is the Federal Government doing in mandating motorcycles helmets?'' The answer is the following: The Federal Government is in it because we pay the health bills. The Federal Government has to pay the Medicaid costs of those who are in comas in hospitals because they had no helmet and got into a very serious motorcycle accident. I have seen that myself in my own State. We have one individual regrettably in our State hospital who has been there in a coma for 20 years severely injured by a head injury on a motorcycle without a helmet. The helmet would have prevented such an injury. That individual's medical costs have cost the State of Rhode Island and the Federal Government through Medicaid to date $3 million. So, Mr. President, I hope that this Senate would resist any efforts to reduce the mandatory motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws. Mr. President, I finally want to commend the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. This bill came from a subcommittee, and that subcommittee was chaired by Senator Warner. He has done a splendid job on this legislation. When it came up to the full committee, there were no changes, and it passed out of the full committee by a vote of 15 to 1, with Democrats and Republicans voting for this legislation. So I have had the privilege of working with Senator Warner on this, and with the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Baucus, and with all members of this committee in this legislation. So I am very pleased that the Senator from Virginia has agreed to manage this bill before this full Senate. I mention Senator Baucus being the ranking member of the full committee. But Senator Baucus is also the ranking member of the subcommittee likewise. I greatly appreciate the cooperation and assistance that he has given us in this legislation. So, Mr. President, I hope we can get to this bill. It is important. I know the business about Davis-Bacon is contentious. I would like to see us have a vote on it, and see what happens. But most of all, I would hope at least we could move to the consideration of the legislation. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, I will be glad to.

Mr. CHAFEE. This is something that has been around. I do not know how many times we voted on it.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, no one who has been in this Chamber very long will find repeal of the Davis-Bacon is something new. We have debated it. There have been hearings. There have been hearings in the committee of the Senator from Kansas, and the Senator from Massachusetts has been through those hearings many times. There is nothing unique. This is not a creeping up by night with this provision.

Mr. CHAFEE. I do not have a question. I was prepared to make a statement.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on Monday occur at 3 p.m. and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

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. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the highway bill tomorrow. However, the majority leader has announced that no rollcall votes will occur during Friday's session of the Senate. A cloture motion was filed on the motion to proceed. So Senators should be on notice that a cloture vote will occur at 3 p.m. on Monday next.

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 11,000 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 difficult. 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 may 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 the 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, with I am introducing today along with Senator Baucus, 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 last year. The principles involved in this bill have been endorsed by the Piedmont Envionmental Council, the National Audubon Society, the American Farm Bureau, the Land Trust Alliance, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The bill 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. 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 an historical 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 a copy of the bill and a brief explanation of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. CHAFEE pertaining to the introduction of S. 910 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which makes a technical correction to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 [OBRA 90]. These changes would allow pregnant women and children enrolled in the Medicaid Program to continue receiving services from osteopathic physicians. The 1990 provisions were meant to prevent unqualified physicians from caring for Medicaid patients. Strict guidelines were enacted, requiring physicians working with these populations to be certified in family practice, pediatrics, or obstetrics, by the applicable medical specialty board recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties [ABMS]. While the 1990 budget legislation recognizes the importance of the ABMS in not recognize the authority of the American Osteopathic Association [AOA] in certifying osteopathic physicians. As one out of every four Medicaid recipients receives health care from an osteopath, this policy only makes life more difficult for those on Medicaid. It is important that we rectify this situation. Osteopaths have been an integral and vital part of our Nation's medical community for over a century. This important change ensures that our health care system continues to grow more accessible and reliable for those who depend upon it. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and look forward to working with them toward the bill's enactment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Missouri three questions about the provisions in this bill on the auto emissions inspection and maintenance program required by the Clean Air Act. The bill would prevent EPA from apply an automatic 50 percent discount in emissions credits for State programs that included test-and-repair, as opposed to test-only, stations. It is my understanding that the bill requires EPA to examine each program a State has submitted and assign the appropriate emissions credits. Based on various features of a State's program, EPA might assign emissions credits equal to 100 percent of a test-only program. Or EPA might find the appropriate credit is only 75 percent or 25 percent, depending on how a State program is structured. Is that a correct reading of the bill?

Mr. CHAFEE. The report language accompanying this bill indicates that EPA may give a State up to 2 years to make a demonstration that justifies the credits it is seeking. Is EPA required to grant a 2-year demonstration period to every State that requests it?

Mr. CHAFEE. Finally, I would ask whether this provision affects any other aspect of the plan submissions and attainment demonstrations that States are to make under the Clean Air Act?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for letting me have some time at the final part of this evening. It is with some reluctance that I will vote against the conference report on H.R. 1158, the pending rescissions bill. The report has much to commend it. It would provide needed disaster relief to Americans across the country who are still recovering from a series of tragedies, of course the principal one of those is in Oklahoma City. In addition, the report would provide for more than $16 billion in savings to the Federal Treasury. Although I cannot say I agree with each of the places where the report would make these cuts, nonetheless it represents a really solid first step toward reversing the pattern of unconstrained Federal spending. Mr. President, notwithstanding the benefits of the funding provisions of the report, it is the general policy provisions that are the ones that have led me to conclude I cannot support the report. As those who have read the report carefully will note, it is replete with measures that would override or revise substantially environmental laws in a variety of contexts. I am especially concerned about those relating to Federal timber sales and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, sometimes referred to as NEPA. My concern with the bill's timber sales provisions have been evidenced ever since I voted against a motion to table a substitute amendment during [[Page S7380]] the floor debate on the Senate version of the bill. I recognize the need to address expeditiously risks arising from the poor health of certain public forests. However, this provides no ground for throwing environmental considerations overboard. The conference report has only added to my concerns. Why do I say this? First, the report retains so-called ``sufficiency language,'' with respect to salvage and option 9 timber sales. This language provides that an agency's compliance with certain minimal obligations in the carrying out of a sale is ``deemed sufficient'' to satisfy the requirements of all applicable statutes. This language would disallow any meaningful site-specific challenge to a sale under the environmental laws, especially given that the report would also would eliminate administrative appeals of timber sale decisions. In addition, Mr. President, another provision in the report expressly would revise the agencies' analytical obligations with respect to salvage timber sales. The provision in question would make the duty to consider environmental effects of salvage timber sales solely discretionary. I think this is an important point, Mr. President. Under the revisions that have been made in connection with this rescissions bill, the agency would make the duty to consider environmental effects of salvage timber sales to become discretionary; in other words, you do not have to do it. This approach, I believe, is shortsighted and unwise. Conducting environmental analysis can be especially important in carrying out salvage sales because candidate sites usually have experienced significant disturbances. A salvage sale has arisen because there has been significant disturbances in the area--a tremendous hurricane or tornado, earthquake, or something as formidable as an explosion, the volcanic action of a mountain, as took place in the State of Washington about 15 to 18 years ago. Such sites, therefore, are often especially sensitive to further disturbance caused by timber harvests. Is this me talking or some expert? Well, let us see what the dean of the Duke University School of Environment, Norman Christensen, said in March 23 of 1995, just 2 months ago, in a letter to Appropriations Committee Chairman Hatfield. He explained the possible serious adverse effects of poorly carried out salvage sales. This is what he said: Improperly used, however, [salvage and thinning] can cause serious, long-lasting damage to resources including soils, streams, wildlife, fish and residual trees. The timing and manner of their application requires at least as careful analysis and monitoring as other types of logging. In other words, there is not something unique about salvage sales, winds fall and timber; you can just go in and take it away. Done poorly, the productivity and biological integrity of public forests may be permanently compromised. And finally, Mr. President, environmental effects of sales encompassed by the report could be substantial, particularly in light of two factors: No. 1, the conferees extended by a full year the period during which sufficiency language would apply. This extension would nearly double the sufficiency period that was in the Senate bill. We passed a bill at a certain length of time. They doubled it in the conference, and this could translate into an additional 2 billion to 4 billion board feet of timber being harvested with minimal environmental analysis. This is not a case of rushing in and picking up some timber that has just fallen down in a certain area. This is big activity. No. 2, while numerical timber volume targets have been removed from the bill, the managers' statement includes a so-called ``volume requirements.'' This is a classic example of trying to have it both ways. The managers' volume numbers exceed by far what agriculture Secretary Glickman has said the Forest Service can achieve while meeting substantial requirements of applicable law. Mr. President, I have concerns over what is done to the National Environmental Policy Act, so-called NEPA. But, Mr. President, in this late period in the evening, I am not going to debate the merits of the report's NEPA provisions as much as to highlight that there has not been real debate on them at all. These actions take place in the Appropriations Committee, and I do not think the Congress should be in the routine of using appropriations bills to bypass or bar compliance with environmental statutes in ways that will have significant environmental effects. This is an improper practice that must cease. For me, that means now with this report. I want to thank the Chair and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for yielding me some time and congratulate her and Senator Abraham for the amendment which they have presented and of which I am a cosponsor. I believe they are on the right track. Any time you make substitutions, as the Senator from Kansas pointed out, it is difficult. But I think the selection of the substitutions that Senators Snowe and Abraham made are good ones. So that is a fine amendment and I am glad to be a cosponsor of it. I would just like to say, if I might, a few words about this budget we are considering here today and will vote on tomorrow. It seems to me tremendously important that we bear in mind that for 33 straight years this Nation of ours, through wars and recessions, through good economic times and through bad economic times, the Federal Government has continually had to borrow money each year to pay its bills. Why is this so bad? What it means is that each year we continue to finance the Government with debt, and in doing so we steal the economic prosperity of our children and our grandchildren. Interest expenses this year totaled $235 billion. Not a penny of that for principal--$235 billion; 15 percent of the total budget of the United States now is being spent on interest on the debt. That amount of $235 billion will increase to $400 billion in just 10 years unless we do something about this budget. With the problem so clearly defined, you would think the President would have addressed it when he sent up a budget this year. But he did not. Instead, the President sent us a budget that had $200 billion of deficit this year, and over the next 7 years he continued with deficits of the same nature. I do not think that continuing on the path of deficit spending is acceptable. To me it is morally wrong to be sending these bills on to our children and future generations. Some Members on the other side of the aisle have suggested that selecting 7 years from now, the year 2002 is arbitrary. I mean why do you select 2002? How about 2005? There is nothing magic about 2002. But let us get on with the job. Once you start down the slippery slope of saying how about 2005, how about 2015 or 2020? I do not go with the thinking of postponing it beyond 7 years. Seven years provides us with enough time to implement the cuts in a manner that does not jeopardize our economy. Like every Senator, I have heard from people who come up to me, as every Senator here has had the experience, and they say, ``I am for balancing the budget, but''--the next word is always ``but''--``but please protect this particular program I am interested in,'' whether it is education or the environment or health care or doing something about law enforcement. You always hear that word ``but,'' but do something about greater research at the NIH--whatever it might be. If we are going to balance this budget, we have to have hits right across the board, in a whole series of attractive programs. Is this the perfect budget? I do not think it is. I suppose, if they had asked me to draw up a budget, I could have done a better job, probably. That is what I think. And every single Senator here thinks the same thing. But this budget is the first one in three decades that puts us on a path of fiscal responsibility. I congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for the extraordinary work he has done. Not only Senator Domenici, but the members of his committee likewise deserve congratulations. We have a choice. We can stick with the status quo. We can do nothing. And we can just go on with $200 billion of deficit this year going up to $400 billion in a few years. Or we can end these deficits and do it now. The budget before us leads America away from the red ink and toward a better future for our children. If we succeed in balancing this budget, as we are on the path to doing now, we will reap the benefits of lower interest rates, stronger economic growth, and the feeling, that wonderful feeling that we are passing this Nation on to our children in better condition than we found it. What could be more worthwhile than that? What more worthy goal than to say we are not going to continue passing these bills on to our children and grandchildren? Mr. President, I just hope this budget before us will receive the support from every single Senator when we vote on it tomorrow afternoon. Again, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Maine and the distinguished Senator from Michigan for the excellent amendment which they have submitted.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with Senator Domenici, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, with respect to the rural housing guaranteed loan program. In reviewing the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1996 Concurrent Budget Resolution, I note that the Senate Budget Committee recommends ``the reduction or elimination of certain subsidies provided by the federal government for a range of credit programs in the Small Business Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Rural Housing and Community Development Service.'' Am I correct in understanding this to mean that the Budget Committee assumes no savings from the Rural Housing and Community Development Service's Section 502 unsubsidized guaranteed loan program over the next seven years?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we face many difficult decisions in the next few months. Due to the increasing national deficit and our efforts to control it, we must carefully review all Federal programs. Of particular concern are Federal entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Today we are debating a budget resolution that will reduce the growth rate in Medicaid spending by $175 billion over the next 7 years. I am supportive of efforts to bring Federal spending under control, including Federal spending on the Medicaid Program. However, I am deeply concerned about the future of this program which provides critical health care services to low-income children, pregnant women, persons with disabilities and the elderly. Clearly, as we move forward we can expect to see some dramatic changes in the Medicaid Program. And as a former Governor, I understand the need to provide States with additional flexibility to administer the program, and to control costs. Many may question whether it is possible to meet these objectives without jeopardizing health care services to millions of low-income Americans. Some have suggested converting the Medicaid Program into a block grant and capping the general rate of growth in Federal expenditures. While I agree that we should give States more flexibility, I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect the Federal Government to hand over more than $100 billion per year without expecting accountability. Thus, earlier this year I began to look for alternatives to this approach. Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleagues Senators Bob Graham and Kent Conrad in introducing legislation that we believe will serve two very important objectives in the Medicaid Program. First, this legislation will give States the additional flexibility that they need to administer the Medicaid Program by allowing them to enroll Medicaid patients in managed care. Second, this bill will set Federal standards for managed care to ensure that Medicaid patients receive the same quality of care afforded private managed care patients. Specifically, this legislation would allow States to require Medicaid patients to enroll in managed care plans. States would be required to offer patients a choice of a least two plans. States would no longer have to go through the lengthy and cumbersome process of applying to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a waiver of Medicaid regulations. This legislation sets Federal standards for managed care plans that wish to enroll Medicaid patients. Plans would be required to meet certain standards for quality, access to care, and solvency. These standards are especially important given recent problems in States that have set up Medicaid managed care programs under the waiver process. Plans have failed to contract with enough providers to serve the Medicaid population; plans have been permitted to operate under standards that are lower than commercial insurers are required to meet; and plans have used fraudulent marketing practices to entice Medicaid patients to sign up with their plans. These actions have resulted in patients being denied medically necessary services, and have resulted in States and the Federal Government paying for care that was never given. Considering these abuses, why should we allow Medicaid managed care at all? Because managed care, if done correctly, can vastly improve the quality of health care provided to low-income families. In today's fee- for-service program, patients face myriad problems. Some are forced to get care in hospital emergency rooms because they cannot find a private physician willing or able to accept Medicaid's low payment rates. Those who do have access to providers often face waiting for hours in clinics which are overcrowded and understaffed. And, sadly, they often do not have access to primary and preventive care services which would have prevented them from becoming ill to begin with. Medicaid managed care, if done well, provides regular prenatal care to assure that children are born healthy. These plans provide coverage for check-ups and immunizations to prevent serious illnesses. And they give patients a medical home--a provider they know can go to if they are sick, or a number to call if they have questions. Medicaid managed care also has the potential of benefiting our overall health care system by providing access to primary care providers rather than forcing patients to make costly and unnecessary visits to hospital emergency rooms. It gives providers the opportunity to catch and treat, or prevent, costly health problems. Mr. President, I hope as we move forward in this budget debate that we will be successful in funding a means of giving Governors the additional flexibility they need to administer their Medicaid programs. I am also hopeful that we will be successful in dramatically decreasing the rate of growth in this program. The legislation that I introduce today will give States the flexibility they have sought without going through the costly and complicated waiver process, and I look forward to working with the Governors to identify [[Page S7122]] additional areas of flexibility in the Medicaid Program. We must bear in mind, however, that the Medicaid Program is the sole source of health insurance for millions of low-income Americans. I believe that it would be a mistake for Congress, in its efforts to control Federal spending, to take any action that would result in a dramatic increase in our Nation's uninsured population. I hope my colleagues will join with me in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to commend all the students who participated in the Rhode Island finals of the 1995 National Geography Bee that took place at Rhode Island College on April 7. The competition included eight preliminary rounds. The top 10 winners of the semifinals then competed in the final round. These students received a medallion from the Rhode Island Social Studies Association for their performance. The third place winner was Matthew Lawrence from Hugh B. Gain Junior High School. He received $50, a book from National Geographic, and an inflatable globe. Matthew Price of Riverside Junior High School was the second place winner. He received $75, a book from National Geographic, and an inflatable globe. The first place winner was Mitchell Malachowski of Western Hills Junior High School. As well as receiving $100, an atlas, and an inflatable globe, he will compete in the national finals at National Geographic Headquarters here in Washington, DC. His teacher, Mr. William Morris, will travel with him. Western Hills Junior High School was presented with a plaque. Even more important than the books and plaques that these students received, is the knowledge of geography they obtained during preparations for the competition. As our world grows smaller through the advances in technology, communications, and transportation, the study of geography becomes increasingly significant. This achievement is an exceptional feat. Geography is a very important subject. All the participants have demonstrated exceptional knowledge in the field. My heartiest congratulations to them all. I ask that a list of these students be printed in the Record. The list follows: Contestants in the Rhode Island Finals--1995 National Geography Bee group a Jonathan Greer, Winman Junior High School; Joseph McDonough, Portsmouth Middle School; Sumon Datta, James H. Eldredge School; Paul J. Ring, Mount Saint Charles Academy; Matthew Lawrence, Hugh B. Bain Jr. High School; Timothy Garceau, St. Cecilia School; Matthew Price, Riverside Junior High School; Bradley Schoultz, Thompson Middle School; Michael Hirth, St. Rose of Lima School; and Andrew Watts, George Hanaford School. Mark Roll, Northern Lincoln Elementary; Melissa Tamke, St. Anne's School; Jessica A. Scholl, Stony Lane School; Syed Rizwan Latif, Samuel Slater Jr. High School; Nicholas Rubano, Gallagher Jr. High; Kenneth Virgil Ward Brown III, Alice M. Waddington School; Michael McManus, N. Cumberland Middle School; Johanna Anderson, St. Philip School; Justin Shilad, Lincoln Central Elementary School; and Michelle Beauregard, Wickford Middle School. group B Amy Tibbetts, The Wheeler School; Michael Broomhead, Barrington Middle School; Adina Shafner, Providence Hebrew Day School; Adam Hommeyer, Archie R. Cole Jr. High School; Lauren De Sillier, Babcock Middle School; Jake Cahalan, John F. Deering Middle School; Katelain Kelly, St. Mary Academy Bay View; Seraph Townsend, Aldrich Jr. High; Brendan Carroll, Burrillville Middle School; and Michael Haskell, Fallon Memorial. Kevin Remillard, St. Joseph Intermediate School; Matthew P. Celeste, George J. Peters School; Timothy Larson, N. Smithfield Elementary School; Carey J. Gaughan, The Prout School; Jim King, W. Kingston Elementary School; Stacy Thompsen, Myron J. Francis Elementary; Michael Crittenden, Tiverton Middle School; David Tuetkin, Raymond C. LaPerche School; Nelson Cordeiro, St. Paul School; and Noah Leclaire- Conway, Wakefield Elementary School.