John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I join the two distinguished Senators from Maine in paying tribute to the remarkable job that Senator George Mitchell did in Ireland. Senator Mitchell would be the first to say that success is not assured and that this is but the first step in a long, difficult process. But because of what Senator Mitchell did, the chances for peace have been greatly improved. And it truly was an extraordinary job, as the two Senators from Maine have outlined. What patience George Mitchell showed, and what skills as a negotiator he displayed. I join in the sentiment that has been expressed that his success there comes as no great surprise to those of us who knew him well. I served in this Senate for the entire time that George Mitchell was here as Senator from Maine. I had the privilege of serving in not one but two committees, the Finance Committee and the Environment Committee, with George Mitchell. Indeed, as soon as he came to the Senate, he went on the Environment Committee, and there I saw the tremendous abilities that he had. I can remember particularly the Clean Air Act, that George Mitchell was the one most responsible for the reauthorization of that act, which occurred when George Mitchell was majority leader. Because of the guidance that he gave to all of us, that extraordinary reauthorization took place. I personally have deep ties to the State of Maine. My father was born in Maine. I have spent childhood summers there and adult summers likewise. So I am very familiar with that State. I might point out that although Maine is large in size, it has a relatively small population, about 1 million people. It is true that Maine is a very large State; it is as large as the rest of New England put together; but, as I said, it has a relatively small population. Yet from that relatively small population of 1 million people have come a series of extraordinary Senators. I look back, Mr. President, just in the ones I have had the privilege of knowing--Margaret Chase Smith, for example, who stands out as a beacon, particularly in connection with the impeachment hearings and leading up to that of President Nixon. We remember clearly Ed Muskie, with whom I had the privilege of serving on the floor of the Senate. He was active, ran for Vice President, and gave one of the finest television speeches it has been my privilege to hear. And George Mitchell, whom we have just had the privilege of extolling, and rightfully so. And Bill Cohen, who is now our Secretary of Defense. And that great tradition of those outstanding Senators is carried on now by the two Senators from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Susan Collins. It seems to me that the people of the State of Maine have great reason to be extremely proud not only of the Senators who have been before--and I listed some of them--but of their current Senators, Senators Snowe and Collins. It is a tradition that they are carrying on. It is a remarkable one, Mr. President. As I thought about these remarks today and thought of the Senators I have known, I don't think you could name a State that is as small in population as the State of Maine and has produced such outstanding Senators as those I just listed. Mr. President, in making this salute to George Mitchell, it seems to me we are saluting the people of the State of Maine, who have had such good judgment. These are not all Republicans, and they are not all Democrats. They are Republicans and they are Democrats, both. It has been a remarkable flow of outstanding servants, not just for the State of Maine but for the United States of America. I think all of us can be very proud of those who have gone before and those who are now serving in the U.S. Senate from the State of Maine. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on Good Friday a landmark agreement was reached in Northern Ireland to start down the road to bring to an end decades of violent hostilities, and reshape fundamentally the political institutions of that province. All Americans have reason to be very pleased that the many competing political factions in Northern Ireland were able to resolve their longstanding, bitter disagreements. Today I want to express my particular appreciation of the splendid efforts of President Clinton's Special Advisor on Ireland, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. It comes as no surprise to me that those closest to these negotiations believe that were it not for the tireless efforts of Senator Mitchell, this agreement would not have been reached. Having worked with Senator Mitchell for nearly fifteen years on many complex issues, I can certainly attest to his unique ability to forge an agreement that most thought unachievable. Senator Mitchell's many fine attributes served him well in the U.S. Senate, and helped prepare him for the tremendous challenges he faced as chairman of the multi-party talks in Northern Ireland: He has the patience to listen to the contentions of people whose differences have existed for some three hundred years. Twenty-two months of talks may well have worn out a less capable, less disciplined person. Senator Mitchell also brought with him to Belfast the Senate's respect for full and fair debate. As chairman of these talks, he ensured that all voices at the table were permitted to speak. He knew well that in the end, a successful agreement required that all parties felt that they had been listened to. He possesses unrivaled negotiating skills. When needed, Senator Mitchell called upon Prime Ministers Blair of Great Britain and Ahern of Ireland, as well as President Clinton, in order to urge the participants to keep the talks alive. He also had the strategic thinking to set a deadline to end the talks. Senator Mitchell was persistent in bringing about this agreement. Despite the long odds, he never gave up in his core belief that newborn children in Northern Ireland deserve the same chance as his six-month- old son to have peace, stability and reconciliation. Finally, Senator Mitchell believed in compromise. Unionists and nationalists were clearly far apart when these talks began, as they had been for decades. Senator Mitchell was able to forge an agreement that gave just enough to both sides so that each could declare victory. Indeed, this ability to bridge differences helped create our very nation, as our Founding Fathers crafted a Constitution that satisfied the big states--that sought representation by population--and the small states, that sought representation by states. Mr. President, George Mitchell's accomplishment in Northern Ireland makes us all very proud of him and proud of American values and ideals. In announcing the Good Friday Agreement, he stated, ``it doesn't take courage to shoot a policeman in the back of the head, or to murder an unarmed taxi driver. What takes courage is to compete in the arena of democracy as these men and women are tonight.'' Senator Mitchell knows the value of this competition of ideas from his days in this institution. He recognizes that a government which upholds this competition of ideas serves its people best. The people of Northern Ireland have recognized this basic truth as well. We salute George Mitchell, a true statesman who has helped begin the end of one of the world's most intractable conflicts.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this week the Senate has been debating a proposal that would enable families to invest in tax exempt savings accounts. The funds from these savings accounts could be used for educational expenses from kindergarten through college, including the cost of tuition at private and religious schools. I voted against this proposal in the Finance Committee, and I intend to vote against it today. If the President vetoes this bill, I will vote to sustain his veto. At first blush, this proposal sounds appealing. Why shouldn't parents be encouraged to save for their children's education? The problem is that the ``encouragement'' the proposal would provide, costs more than $1.6 billion over 10 years and, according to the Treasury Department, 70 percent of the benefits go to the richest 20% of Americans. That is money that would be better spent on improving public schools, particularly low-income, urban schools where most of the problems exist. Also, it permits families to use funds from these tax-exempt accounts to pay for tuition at private and religious schools. Doing so would mean that the federal government is subsidizing private and religious education. I believe that the Federal role in education must be to support public schools. Nearly 90% of students attend public schools. Our nation's public schools are required to take children who come to school at any time of the year, children with disabilities, children whose primary language is not English, children with disciplinary problems, and children with low IQs. Private schools have the ability to select the smartest and the least difficult students, with the fewest challenges to overcome. Families who send their children to private schools typically come from higher income levels, yet it is these families who would receive the greatest benefits from education savings accounts. There have been a number of amendments to this bill. Some of the amendments that I opposed have merit, and I would like to take a moment to explain my reasons for voting against them. Senator Moseley-Braun offered an amendment that would have provided tax incentives to help pay for school construction. Although her amendment failed, Senator Moseley-Braun has been very successful in making us all aware of the deteriorating conditions of our nation's school facilities. I voted against her amendment because I believe her approach would be very difficult for the IRS to administer, and I have concerns about using Superfund taxes as an offset. Senator Gorton offered an amendment, and, although I have serious concerns about its effect, he has highlighted an important problem with federal education funding. I share his view that states should have some flexibility in spending federal education funds. They should be able to target these funds to schools with the greatest needs, but I don't agree that $10 billion should be given to the states in block grants without the appropriate committees holding a single hearing. Also, the Commissioner of Education in my state had very serious concerns about the impact of this amendment. Next year, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is up for reauthorization, I hope that consideration is given to Senator Gorton's point of view and that appropriate hearings are held. I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Murray's desire to encourage smaller class sizes, particularly in the primary grades. In fact, in 1987, I introduced a bill that would have created a demonstration program on small class sizes. Regrettably, the Labor Committee never held hearings on my bill. I voted against Senator Murray's amendment because I am concerned about providing short term federal support for hiring new teachers. How would the school districts pay to keep 100,000 new teachers after the federal funding expired? This is a question posed by representatives from local school committees in Rhode Island when they visited my office earlier this year. Finally, I voted for Senator Ashcroft's amendment to prohibit federal funds from being used for national testing. Unlike many of my colleagues, I am not opposed to national testing. Parents should be able to compare their child's performance with children across the United States. Parents should be able to compare the performance of their child's school with schools across the state and throughout the nation. Nevertheless, I agree with Senator Ashcroft that it is Congress' responsibility to authorize a national testing program before federal funds can be used to implement such a program. Regardless of the outcome, we have had a good debate on a very important issue, namely the federal roll in education in America.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I will take 30 seconds, and the Senator from Idaho will take 30 seconds. More than half of all the endangered species in the United States are in private lands. In the Endangered Species Reauthorization Act, we put in moneys, we provide for assistance to private landowners, most of them small landowners. We do that. The chairman of the Budget Committee provided that if any BLM lands are sold--if they are sold, those moneys, instead of going into the general treasury, will be used for the Endangered Species Act to help landowners, mostly small landowners. Amendment No. 2285 to Amendment No. 2206 (Purpose: To recognize potential alternative funding sources for landowner incentives under the Endangered Species Recovery Act)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the committee report accompanying the budget resolution includes a brief discussion of the Administration's so-called Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) request for fiscal year 1999 and subsequent fiscal years. Specifically, the committee report states on page 22 that, ``[s]ince the President has not submitted a treaty or plan to implement the reductions called for in the agreement [Kyoto Protocol], providing additional funding for these technology programs in the 1999 budget is premature.'' The committee report goes on to state that, ``[a]s a result, the resolution assumes last year's levels of $730 million for these technology programs and does not provide the increases requested by the President.'' I am trying to understand the implication here. Setting aside the merit of the Administration's CCTI request, voluntary domestic activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including tax incentives and research funding for energy efficient technology and renewables, are consistent with the existing 1992 Rio Climate Treaty that the United States has already ratified. While some use economic arguments to oppose any form of government subsidy, prudent investment along these lines does not constitute regulation and is in no way a form of Kyoto Protocol implementation. Therefore, I ask my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, if he and other members of the Budget Committee are arguing in the committee report that we cannot take steps to try to increase energy efficiency and advance renewables unless and until the Senate provides its consent to the Kyoto Protocol?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for clarifying the report language. I yield the floor. funding for the national institutes of health (NIH).

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, over the course of the next month or two, the Senate will have the opportunity to debate how best to address the most significant, preventable public health problem confronting this nation today: the scourge of tobacco use by our young people. The Senate will face some difficult choices in this regard. The grim statistics about this epidemic, coupled with almost daily revelations of tobacco industry misdeeds, underscore the need for our earnest action. We can all agree, where adults are concerned personal responsibility must be the rule; tobacco is a legal product and adults are free to make that choice. However, the same level of independent judgment cannot be said where fourteen year-olds are concerned. Bear in mind, only one in ten smokers takes up smoking after the age of eighteen; the remainder start well before that stage. All of us--Democrats and Republicans--share a deep and abiding concern about this problem, and a recognition that now is the time for action. However, each of us has different thoughts on how best to attack this problem. The Commerce Committee draft bill offers a good beginning, but it must be strengthened. Senators Harkin, Graham and I believe that an aggressive, but responsible approach is essential if we are to be successful in reducing teen tobacco use. This is why the KIDS Act would force the price of cigarettes up by $1.50 over the course of two--not four, five or six--years. The price hike must be significant and rapid in order to affect the purchasing behavior of children; the evidence solidly favors that position. Simply put, a smaller increase of only $1.10 over a longer period of time--in effect 20 cents per year in the Commerce Committee draft--will not achieve the desired result. As a result of our aggressive approach on price, the KIDS Act would halve teen smoking within just three years! That is also why the KIDS Act contains very stiff so-called look- back'' penalties if the industry fails to meet the annual youth reduction targets specified in our bill. Unlike the Commerce Committee draft, the KIDS Act emphasizes company-specific penalties to ensure that the companies who do the addicting take the hit. Additionally, our annual penalties are capped at $10 billion per year, as opposed to $3.5 billion in the Commerce Committee draft. These look-back penalties are the very heart of our efforts to curb youth tobacco use; if they miss the mark, the whole program is the weaker for it. This is also why the KIDS Act provides roughly $5.1 billion per year for anti-tobacco programs, including counteradvertising, school and community-based prevention and education programs, cessation and other initiatives. For those who think this is too much spending, we spend a lot more money on addressing other ills which kill far fewer than 400,000 Americans per year. Recognizing that the needs of each state are very different, the KIDS Act hands back $6 billion per year to the states in recognition of the costs and damages they have incurred in treating tobacco-related illnesses. Importantly, this funding could be used to meet the particular needs of each state; flexibility is the key with respect to the use of this funding. One pool of $3 billion per year could be used to meet any need; the other pool of $3 billion takes the form of a health, human services and education block grant to meet virtually any human need. Our bill also includes a State Performance Bonus Pool to help incent and enlist states in the war against teen tobacco use, and we need all the stakeholders we can get! As a consequence of these provisions, the National Governors Association supports the state payment mechanism contained in the KIDS Act. Some have pointed out that the draft Commerce Committee bill incorporates the cap on annual liability payments included in our bill--although at $6.5 billion, not $8 billion. My response is that the cap cannot be examined in isolation from the other parts of the legislation. If, for example, the youth smoking provisions are not as tough as they should be, than I question the appropriateness of a liability cap. Now, some people have said our bill is too tough and could bankrupt the tobacco industry. Says who? The tobacco companies? I'm not sure we can rely upon their representations if past history is any judge. What about the securities analysts who understand the financial workings of the tobacco industry? Can we rely upon these individuals and firms when many of these same companies manage pension and mutual fund portfolios with significant investments in tobacco stocks? Frankly, I think the only reliable measure of what the industry can truly afford would be an independent audit--not an illogical request of an industry which seeks a virtually unprecedented deal with the federal government, the several states and the American people. The KIDS Act would require the industry to pass along in the price of its products an annual payment of $25 billion. Given discussions we have had with a variety of experts, both inside and outside the government, we do not believe the payment requirements in our bill would jeopardize the profitability or future viability of the tobacco industry. In closing, I urge my colleagues to examine the KIDS Act and to join with us in working to pass a strong, responsible tobacco bill as quickly as possible. We look forward to working with our respective Leaders, Senator McCain, and our colleagues toward that end.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I want to comment very briefly on an amendment of mine that has been accepted by the managers. My amendment deals with cost-sharing for a levee and waterway project included in the Supplemental Appropriations bill for Elba and Geneva, Alabama. Specifically, the amendment strikes the phrase, ``to be conducted at full Federal expense'' as found on page 17, lines 10 and 11 of the bill. By striking this phrase, the appropriate, lawful cost-sharing ratio would be applied. It would be my strong preference, Mr. President, that we not include any authorization for this or other water projects in the Supplemental bill. These are matters more appropriately dealt with in the Water Resources Development Act, which we plan to take up this summer. However, recognizing the urgency of the situation in these Alabama communities, I am willing to go forward with the expedited process provided here; as long as the cost-sharing is consistent with current water resources law. My amendment ensures that the levee repair and associated work in Elba and Geneva will be cost-shared. I want to thank Senator Shelby and the bill's managers for working with me today to favorably resolve this matter. amendment no. 2145

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, these are requests I am making on behalf of the leadership. I can only assume they have been agreed to by the minority. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture votes with respect to the education A+ bill occur beginning at 5:45 p.m. on Thursday, March 19.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I want to remind all my colleagues that, under rule XXII, all first-degree amendments must be filed at the desk by 1 p.m. tomorrow and second-degree amendments must be filed by 4:45 tomorrow in order to qualify under the ``timely filed'' requirement postcloture.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the treaty be considered as having passed through its various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, yesterday, many in America honored St. Patrick--but all week long in Rhode Island--veneration belongs to the University of Rhode Island Rams basketball team. The so-called experts said it couldn't be done--and, admittedly, the odds were against them. After all, the little Rhodys of the world just aren't supposed to beat the college basketball powerhouses like the Jayhawks of Kansas. But somewhere along the way to Oklahoma City, someone forgot to tell that to the Rhode Island Rams. Someone forgot to tell Tyson Wheeler--the same Tyson Wheeler who was once told he was too short to play college basketball at all--that the Davids of Rhode Island couldn't beat the Goliaths of Kansas. Someone forgot to tell that to Cuttino Mobley, who always gives his best whether it is in Keaney Gym or in the national spotlight, that Rhode Island couldn't beat one of the best teams in the nation. And clearly, someone forgot to tell Antonio Reynolds-Dean and Luther Clay that they weren't supposed to be able to compete with the much taller and perhaps stronger inside presence of the Kansas All- Americans. There's a word on Rhode Island's state flag that these Rhode Island Rams have come to symbolize--that word is ``Hope''. It's a sentiment we hold dear in my home state--and one which was displayed for all the world to see. We may be the smallest state, but we know that means: we must always try harder. It's a philosophy to always give your very best, and to never give up. That's the kind of fighting spirit that turns the cause of ``Hope'' on our flag into the action of ``courage'' on the court. Rhode Island's advance to the ``Sweet Sixteen'' provides a needed reminder that at one time or another, we've all been underdogs. Whether it be in schoolyard, or in the workplace, or on the basketball court, each and every one of us has faced seemingly insurmountable odds at one time or another in our lives. That's what makes Rhode Island's recent win over the Kansas Jayhawks that much sweeter. For the Rhode Island Rams have given us more than a wonderful basketball season. They've reminded us that the Davids can beat the Goliaths of this world. They have sent a signal to the underdog in all of us--that if one perseveres and gives one's best, there indeed is always hope. So, Madam President, I congratulate the Rhode Island Rams and applaud the example they have set. Rams Coach Jim Harrick and all of his players have earned a special place in the hearts of Rhode Island and the nation. I, along with the people of my state, am proud of their accomplishments. These fine young men have set an example which we'll treasure for years to come. They have given us ``Hope.'' Go Rams!

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my distinguished colleagues to introduce the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. This bipartisan legislation addresses one of the most important global environmental issues today--the protection and preservation of tropical rain forests. Since 1950 the world has lost as much as half of its tropical forests, and the destruction is continuing unabated. The most comprehensive survey of global deforestation estimated that, last year alone, we lost more than 30 million acres of tropical rain forest--an area the size of the State of Washington. This is a devastating loss because of the potential biological impacts deforestation can have both regionally and globally. Tropical forests contain the world's richest stores of biological diversity, and their health is essential for life on Earth. Scientists estimate that more than 50 percent of the Earth's terrestrial biological diversity is contained within these forests, which account for less than 2 percent of the planet's land surface. Almost 40 percent of all terrestrial plants and at least 25 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species are endemic to these areas. That is, they are found no where else on Earth. Consider that in the Tropical Andes region alone, there are 320 species of endemic birds, 558 species of endemic reptiles and amphibians, and 20,000 species of endemic plants. Moreover, many of these species are found only in a small area of the forests. And as the forests are destroyed, Mr. President, the species are permanently lost through extinction. Tropical forests also function as carbon ``sinks,'' storing greenhouse gasses that could otherwise contribute to global climate change. While there are still many scientific uncertainties related to climate change, it is undeniable that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising rapidly. A significant number of scientists believe that humans have already influenced our global climate. In order to lessen the risks associated with this change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather conditions, and higher average temperatures, it is important that the United States join with other nations to take preventative action. Protecting our tropical rain forests, and thus preserving their vital function of reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is one such action. These forests are important to human health in other ways. They harbor many of the biological resources that are used in life-saving medicines, and provide the genetic sources to revitalize agricultural crops that supply most of the world's food. They significantly affect rainfall, and therefore the health of crops and coastal resources worldwide. Many of the world's tropical forests are located in developing countries that, since the international debt crisis of the 1970s, have been unable to repay loans to foreign lenders. These countries are in need of hard currency, and to come up with cash, they have resorted to exploiting their natural resources with little regard for environmental planning. Vast areas of tropical forests are destroyed each year for logging, agriculture and livestock operations. This trend will continue as debt continues to mount. Mr. President, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act would help turn the tide against this deforestation. This legislation builds upon President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, or EAI. EAI created a system by which Latin American and Carribean governments could restructure some of their official debt to the United States, while channeling local currency into funds to support environmental and child development programs. Using so-called ``debt-for-nature swaps,'' EAI restructured bilateral debt to provide $154 million to environmental trust funds in Latin America. Under these swaps, a nation's debt is modified, rescheduled, or written off, in return for the borrower nation's commitment of its own currency towards local conservation. The legislation before us today would utilize this same principle, but would focus exclusively on tropical forest conservation and extend eligibility to include countries in Africa and Asia. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act would authorize $325 million over three years to be used for debt-for-nature swaps with developing countries that have forests with the greatest biodiversity and the highest risk of threat. The bill assists countries with tropical forests that are globally outstanding in terms of their biodiversity, and applies to any lesser developed country with tropical forests and qualified U.S. debt. The authorized amount would be used to compensate the Treasury Department for any revenues lost due to the restructuring of outstanding debt. This legislation gives the President authority to reduce debt owed to the United States as a result of any credit extended through specific loan programs. In exchange, the developing countries would establish funds in their local currency to preserve and restore tropical forests. To ensure accountability, funds shall be administered and overseen by U.S. Government officials, environmental nongovernmental organizations active in the beneficiary country, and scientific or academic organizations. To qualify for assistance, countries must meet the criteria established by Congress under EAI, including that the government must be democratically elected, has not provided support for acts of international terrorism, is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics control matters, and does not participate in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Mr. President, I believe this is an important bill that, if passed, will go a long way to helping protect some of the world's most ecologically sensitive and vital areas. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act promotes debt reduction, investment reforms, community based conservation, and sustainable use of the environment. It has the support of numerous environmental organizations, including Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to support the legislation as well.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my distinguished colleagues to introduce the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. This bipartisan legislation addresses one of the most important global environmental issues today--the protection and preservation of tropical rain forests. Since 1950 the world has lost as much as half of its tropical forests, and the destruction is continuing unabated. The most comprehensive survey of global deforestation estimated that, last year alone, we lost more than 30 million acres of tropical rain forest--an area the size of the State of Washington. This is a devastating loss because of the potential biological impacts deforestation can have both regionally and globally. Tropical forests contain the world's richest stores of biological diversity, and their health is essential for life on Earth. Scientists estimate that more than 50 percent of the Earth's terrestrial biological diversity is contained within these forests, which account for less than 2 percent of the planet's land surface. Almost 40 percent of all terrestrial plants and at least 25 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species are endemic to these areas. That is, they are found no where else on Earth. Consider that in the Tropical Andes region alone, there are 320 species of endemic birds, 558 species of endemic reptiles and amphibians, and 20,000 species of endemic plants. Moreover, many of these species are found only in a small area of the forests. And as the forests are destroyed, Mr. President, the species are permanently lost through extinction. Tropical forests also function as carbon ``sinks,'' storing greenhouse gasses that could otherwise contribute to global climate change. While there are still many scientific uncertainties related to climate change, it is undeniable that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising rapidly. A significant number of scientists believe that humans have already influenced our global climate. In order to lessen the risks associated with this change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather conditions, and higher average temperatures, it is important that the United States join with other nations to take preventative action. Protecting our tropical rain forests, and thus preserving their vital function of reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is one such action. These forests are important to human health in other ways. They harbor many of the biological resources that are used in life-saving medicines, and provide the genetic sources to revitalize agricultural crops that supply most of the world's food. They significantly affect rainfall, and therefore the health of crops and coastal resources worldwide. Many of the world's tropical forests are located in developing countries that, since the international debt crisis of the 1970s, have been unable to repay loans to foreign lenders. These countries are in need of hard currency, and to come up with cash, they have resorted to exploiting their natural resources with little regard for environmental planning. Vast areas of tropical forests are destroyed each year for logging, agriculture and livestock operations. This trend will continue as debt continues to mount. Mr. President, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act would help turn the tide against this deforestation. This legislation builds upon President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, or EAI. EAI created a system by which Latin American and Carribean governments could restructure some of their official debt to the United States, while channeling local currency into funds to support environmental and child development programs. Using so-called ``debt-for-nature swaps,'' EAI restructured bilateral debt to provide $154 million to environmental trust funds in Latin America. Under these swaps, a nation's debt is modified, rescheduled, or written off, in return for the borrower nation's commitment of its own currency towards local conservation. The legislation before us today would utilize this same principle, but would focus exclusively on tropical forest conservation and extend eligibility to include countries in Africa and Asia. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act would authorize $325 million over three years to be used for debt-for-nature swaps with developing countries that have forests with the greatest biodiversity and the highest risk of threat. The bill assists countries with tropical forests that are globally outstanding in terms of their biodiversity, and applies to any lesser developed country with tropical forests and qualified U.S. debt. The authorized amount would be used to compensate the Treasury Department for any revenues lost due to the restructuring of outstanding debt. This legislation gives the President authority to reduce debt owed to the United States as a result of any credit extended through specific loan programs. In exchange, the developing countries would establish funds in their local currency to preserve and restore tropical forests. To ensure accountability, funds shall be administered and overseen by U.S. Government officials, environmental nongovernmental organizations active in the beneficiary country, and scientific or academic organizations. To qualify for assistance, countries must meet the criteria established by Congress under EAI, including that the government must be democratically elected, has not provided support for acts of international terrorism, is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics control matters, and does not participate in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Mr. President, I believe this is an important bill that, if passed, will go a long way to helping protect some of the world's most ecologically sensitive and vital areas. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act promotes debt reduction, investment reforms, community based conservation, and sustainable use of the environment. It has the support of numerous environmental organizations, including Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to support the legislation as well.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 12, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. on the fiscal year 1999 Coast Guard budget.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 12, 1998, in open session, to receive testimony on the Department of Defense, Science, and Technology programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1999 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 1998, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 12, 1998, at 2 p.m. in open session, to receive testimony on the Department of Energy's fiscal year 1999 authorization request for environmental management, non- proliferation, and fissile materials disposition.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator DeWine, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his statement. If this issue is in the House bill it will be before the conference committee. metropolitan planning organization status for the lake tahoe basin

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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