John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations to the leaders on both sides of the aisle, the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Finance and Budget Committees, for all of their hard work in consummating this very significant, bipartisan budget agreement. While this bill is not everything I had hoped for, it is an important step toward getting our fiscal house in order. Moreover, it is grounded in a philosophy that I strongly believe in-- that bipartisanship is the key to making government work. On difficult national problems, such as balancing the budget, neither party alone can get the job done, nor garner the public consensus needed for such action. Indeed, this was the genesis behind establishing the so-called Chafee-Breaux centrist budget coalition, which I believe deserves considerable credit for advancing the terms of debate on the issue of long-term Medicare reform. Regrettably means-testing of the part B premium, increasing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, and the $5 home health copayment were dropped from the final package. However, the credit for getting them into the Senate version of this bill belongs to the centrist budget coalition. Each of these provisions was added to the Senate bill with a big, courageous bipartisan vote--something which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. As a result of these pioneering Senate votes and the growing national consensus on the need for long-term reform, President Clinton has now pledged to stand with those Members of Congress who vote for means- testing of the part B premium, an important step toward creating the political environment which will be needed to secure this program for future generations of retirees. I would further urge the President, as well as Democratic party leaders, to disavow and distance themselves from candidates who resort to mediscare demagoguery in their future political campaigns. The American people deserve a responsible debate on this difficult subject, and the centrist coalition will be working to see that this happens. This bill does include a number of helpful changes for Medicare beneficiaries, low-income children, and legal immigrants which I would like to briefly highlight. Medigap provisions included in this bill, which I was pleased to author earlier this year, will do for Medicare beneficiaries much of what the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance bill did for working Americans: It vastly improves portability and bans preexisting condition limitations for Medigap policy holders. This bill also improves access to emergency services for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care plans, which is derived from legislation Senator Graham authored and I was glad to cosponsor earlier this year. This provision establishes a prudent layperson definition of emergency medical conditions to ensure that emergency services are properly covered. This legislation also includes expanded preventive health care benefits for Medicare enrollees, including mammography, colorectal and prostate cancer screening; testing for osteoporosis; and improved coverage for diabetes and other important prevention measures. These enhanced services will be helpful to the more than 174,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Rhode Island. One of my most important priorities, that of expanding access to health insurance for low-income children, is also addressed in this bill. I am especially pleased that we are providing $24 billion for this purpose. This is a critical step forward for Rhode Island's children, 19 percent of whom live in poverty. Many of these poor children--38 percent--live in families where at least one parent is working, yet they are still poor. These funds are targeted to help these families especially. While I would have preferred greater specificity in terms of the benefits to be provided to children under this program, the final package is a significant improvement over some of the earlier proposals. I want to thank and acknowledge Senator Rockefeller for his leadership and expertise in working to advance the cause for children's health insurance. He was a strong partner in helping to make this a stronger and better program than it otherwise would have been. I also want to thank Senator Roth for helping me to ensure that Rhode Island can take full advantage of the funding provided under this program to continue its children's health initiatives. The Finance Committee chairman was very responsive to the problems this legislation posed for States, like Rhode Island, that have already expanded coverage. We were able to work together to ensure that Rhode Island will not be penalized for choosing to expand coverage on its own. This bill also gives States critical new flexibility by allowing them to enroll Medicaid beneficiaries into managed care without obtaining a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services. At the same time, the legislation includes important safeguards for these beneficiaries, many of which were contained in legislation I introduced earlier this year. For example, disabled children, children in foster care and special needs children who have been adopted are protected from mandatory enrollment in managed care. Women enrolled in Medicaid managed care programs will continue to have the freedom to choose their family planning provider, even if that provider is not part of their managed care plan. This bill also restores Medicaid coverage to thousands of children who were removed from the SSI rolls as a result of eligibility changes made in the 1996 welfare reform law. This will be enormously helpful to many low-income families whose children may no longer be considered statutorily disabled but who nevertheless have significant special health care needs. Let me take a moment to describe the provisions of this bill dealing with legal immigrants. As my colleagues know, the 1996 welfare reform law placed severe restrictions on the Federal benefits that legal immigrants may receive. Among these restrictions was a complete and immediate cut-off of supplemental security income [SSI] and food stamp benefits, not only for future immigrants but for those already in this country legally. For the elderly and disabled legal immigrants who last August were in the United States--including nearly 4,000 in my own State of Rhode Island--the new SSI ban represented nothing short of a crisis. For many, the loss of this critical Federal aid would mean losing the ability to live independently. In turn, this would present a serious community and fiscal challenge to State and local governments, as immigrants who had lost benefits and faced destitution turned to nursing homes or other costly facilities for support. I was sorely troubled by these restrictions on immigrants, and pledged to do what I could to mitigate the most harsh of these during this Congress. I am delighted to say that in this regard, we have been successful. The conference report before us now is identical to the Senate-passed bill on which I and others of my colleagues worked very hard. It restores benefits to those legal immigrants who were receiving SSI as of last August. It also allows immigrants who were in the United States last August and who may become disabled in the future to receive SSI. For my State, this means that 3,753 currently elderly and disabled Rhode Island residents--and many others who may become disabled in the future--will be able to receive basic SSI assistance to allow them to live with dignity. Now, the immigrant provisions of this bill are not perfect. And I am disappointed that it does not contain the Chafee-Graham amendment on legal immigrant children and Medicaid, or the provision dealing with SSI for those too disabled to naturalize. But the bill before us goes a long way toward restoring fair treatment for the thousands of legal, tax-paying immigrants who were in the country and playing by the rules when welfare reform was enacted. I want to commend Senators D'Amato, Feinstein, DeWine, and Graham for all of their hard work in helping to solve this problem. Since the introduction of our Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act in April, we have been working as a united team toward fair treatment for legal immigrants. With passage of this bill, our efforts will have met with success. In closing, I am hopeful that we can build upon the bipartisanship that was necessary to make this bill a reality when we turn to the more challenging task of advancing long-term budget and entitlement reforms in the future. I particularly want to address the entitlement reforms I strongly believe are necessary for Medicare. Although the provisions we worked hard on--means testing the part B premium, increasing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, the $5 home health care copayment--were dropped in the final package, nonetheless, I think it behooves all of us to continue our work on each of these measures, and certainly I will do everything I can to advance them. I thank the Chair. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Again, I do want to thank the two distinguished managers of the legislation, the bill. The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby, has been very, very helpful, and as I indicated, very responsive. And we are very appreciative. And likewise, Senator Lautenberg, as mentioned, we have--I have to be careful in my use of words. I was going to say ``pestered'' him, but we have implored him or spent a good deal of time pointing out the virtues of this project. And the way they both have responded makes us very grateful. And I say to Senator Shelby, I want to thank you for your kind remarks and the work you have done on this, and Senator Lautenberg likewise. So, if nobody else seeks the floor----

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is getting more and more expensive. So if nobody else seeks the floor at this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE. I want to start off, Mr. President, by saying to Senator Shelby that I am very pleased that this legislation has come to the Senate floor. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly discuss a project of great importance to my home State of Rhode Island. Included within S. 1048 is $10 million for the Rhode Island freight rail development project commonly known as the Third Track. I would like to express my gratitude to the subcommittee chairman, the manager of the bill, Senator Shelby, who has agreed to include this funding in his subcommittee's bill. And I see the distinguished ranking member of the committee, and I would also like to express my thanks to him likewise for support of this legislation. Earlier this year Senator Shelby was kind enough to take time to listen to Rhode Island's Governor, Lincoln Almond, Senator Reed from Rhode Island, and myself as we outlined the benefits of the Third Track project. And, Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to say that Senator Reed has been very interested and very supportive of all efforts in connection with this Third Track. The Third Track is a $120 million project that will upgrade 22 miles of rail line between Quonset Point-Davisville, and Central Falls, RI. It is needed to accommodate two impending changes that are occurring on this rail line: First, the increased passenger rail traffic and more passenger trains that will result from Amtrak's New Haven-Boston electrification project--that is the first problem that has arisen-- and, secondly, the larger freight cars that will operate along the line. The Third Track represents a tremendous potential for economic growth and job creation in Rhode Island. It plays a vital role in the State's development of the Quonset-Davisville Industrial Park and making that into a premier commerce park and international cargo point. Mr. President, let us take a brief look at recent developments associated with this Third Track. In just the past year, some 19 new tenants and four others have expanded their operations and have invested over $16 million and brought 500 new jobs to the Quonset- Davisville Industrial Park. It is conservatively estimated that development of the port and of the park will yield in excess of 15,000 good-paying jobs to Rhode Island. The Third Track is a key element in what is not surprisingly one of our State's most promising economic development projects. To date, Congress has appropriated $13 million for the Third Track. Another $42 million is budgeted over the next 4 years, including the $10 million within the bill before the Senate today. Rhode Island's voters, on their part, in order to fulfill the State's 50-50 funding matching requirement, passed a bond referendum last November allocating $50 million to this Third Track. I might say, Mr. President, a $50 million bond issue is a substantial one for our small State of little fewer than a million people. The Third Track represents great hope for economic growth in Rhode Island at a time when our manufacturing job base continues to erode. I again thank Chairman Shelby for his support and also thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Lautenberg, for his support, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I see the distinguished manager of the legislation, Senator Shelby, here. And I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. On my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Absolutely.

Mr. CHAFEE. Because greenhouse gas emissions from the developing world will, on a cumulative basis, exceed those of the developed world sometime during the first quarter of the next century, the Senator's position appears quite sound on both environmental and economic grounds, and I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, earlier this week I met with Senator Byrd to discuss S. Res. 98, which, of course, deals with climate change. In this measure, the Senator has identified one of the more important features required to address this global problem, namely, global participation. Gradually, many have come to the conclusion that man is indeed contributing to changes in the global climate. Human activities-- particularly the burning of fossil fuels--have increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other trace greenhouse gases. These gases, combined with the natural levels of CO2 and water vapor, act like panes of a greenhouse and retain the Sun's heat around the earth. The burning of fossil fuels has continued to grow, at least in ever greater amounts of CO2. Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels reached a record of just over 6 billion tons in 1995. The Earth's climate has remained stable for the past 10,000 years. But, as Ambassador Paul Nitze said in the Washington Post earlier this month, ``Global warming threatens the stability that fostered modern civilization.'' What is being done about this threat? Of the 35 industrial countries that committed themselves under the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio, they agreed there to hold their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the year 2000. In other words, by the year 2000 we would get the levels down to what they were in 1990. But, regrettably, Mr. President, only a handful of the countries are expected to meet that target. The United States will miss its target by an estimated 13 percent. In some developing countries, emissions are on a course to nearly double between 1990 and 2000. The failure by many industrialized countries to meet these voluntary aims is what is leading us to this debate today. This debate is over the imposition of legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In other words, should we enter something that is binding? Because of the link between greenhouse gases and activities fundamental to industrialized and developing economies, many anticipate, or at least fear, that the costs of limiting their emissions will be high. Unlike most other ambient air and water pollution problems, there is no pollution control technology for CO2. In many of the emissions problems we have dealt with in the past, technology can reduce the amount of emissions. But we don't have that for CO2. You either make CO2 or you don't. Some have argued that the United States and, indeed the entire world, should wait to address the looming threat of climate change. In other words, don't do anything. Let's wait awhile. The scientists are divided on this. How much has the temperature gone up? Has it indeed risen in the last 100 years by 1 degree Fahrenheit? There are arguments over that. ``Time is on our side,'' some say, believing that if we simply wait long enough, new and inexpensive technologies will come along to make this solution painless. But the citizens of my State, for example, have concerns. We are a sea-bordering State. There are possibilities of rises in the sea level which would affect us dramatically. Indeed, they would affect all but one major city in our country because all but one major city in our country occupies tidal shorelines. I know that if the Atlantic Ocean begins to warm and expands as it warms, rising sea levels will be with us for centuries. I am also concerned about the economic consequences of actions to address global warming. Senator Byrd has addressed these, and I salute him for that. He is concerned about the issue of U.S. competitiveness in relation to developing countries. And I join with him in urging our negotiators to recognize that we are serious about the concerns Senator Byrd is expressing. The position taken by the European Union is a major concern. As representatives of the Global Climate Coalition indicated to the Foreign Relations Committee last month, the prospect of European Union bubble, which was just addressed here, with no ability for the United States to address similar alliances with other nations, would permit the European Union to steal a competitive march on the United States. This concerns me. In trade terms, our bilateral trade with the European Union, of course, is mammoth certainly when compared to the trade that we have with China. Last year we had $128 billion in exports to the European Union, more than 10 times of that going to China. I believe our negotiators in Kyoto would fail us if they did not bring home an agreement with developing country commitments as described in the resolution and with the market-based tools of joint implementation emissions trading and emissions banking. I want to say that many countries in the U.S. are already taking steps to address these problems. Farsighted companies like Tucson Electric are going ahead with a pilot joint implementation project in cooperation with the city of Sava in Honduras to display diesel-fired power generation with biomass fuels. Companies like American Electric Power, which is the largest electric utility in West Virginia, and British Petroleum are getting together with the Nature Conservancy and the Government of Bolivia to offset some of American Electric Power's coal-fired plant emissions by expanding parks and sustainable forests in Bolivia. The Southern Co. has joined forces with State forestry commissions in planting 20 million trees in Georgia, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle. These projects boost environmental protection while lowering costs. But on their own, the voluntary projects will not be sufficient to address the potential problem. We need legally binding measures to spur technological innovation that will be needed to solve the greenhouse problem. The resolution makes clear that an exemption for developing countries would be inconsistent with the need for global action. In light of the seriousness of the issue, Mr. President, I welcome the concern that Senator Byrd and others have shown for the twin goals of environmental protection and economic competitiveness. Mr. President, I had a brief colloquy I was going to enter into with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. It is as follows: Senate Resolution 98 includes two important conditions for U.S. agreements to any future treaty to limit greenhouse gases. Quoting directly from the text of the resolution--that is, Senator Byrd's resolution: The United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States. Without losing my right to the floor, I wish to ask the primary sponsor of the resolution a couple of questions. I am curious as to whether the Senator from West Virginia intends for his resolution to speak to the scientific understanding of global climate change.

Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate the Senator's fundamental candor on this point and agree with his assessment. With regard to specific provisions contained in the resolution, I am interested in what the Senator intends--and I might say Senator Hagel has been active in all of this. He is the chief cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. CHAFEE. Could I have 2 more minutes?

Mr. CHAFEE. Senator Hagel has been active in all of this, and we have dealt with his folks, and wherever I refer to the Byrd resolution, I really should have referred to the Byrd-Hagel resolution and will attempt to make that change in the transcript. With regard to specific provisions contained in the resolution, I am interested in what the Senators intend on page 4, lines 9 through 11 by the phrase ``new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing country parties.'' Is it the Senators' intentions that the developing country parties, irrespective of the national incomes and greenhouse gas emission rates, be mandated to the very same commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the annex 1 parties?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I want to thank my friend from New Hampshire for his support for this initiative. ``made in the usa'' advertising

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if I could get the attention of the distinguished manager of the bill, Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg. I have a proposal related to small business development centers, and I'd like to get him to comment on it.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator. What I propose to do is give more SBDCs the tools they need to encourage small companies to start exporting. As the Senator knows, the SBDCs are doing a terrific job helping small business owners devise business plans, marketing strategies, and so forth, but many of them simply don't have the capacity to offer advice on how to export. We ought to try to change that, in my view. Exporting is the name of the game today--even for small businesses. And one way to do that would be to broaden access to a successful small business export promotion program called the International Trade Data Network, or ITDN. Now, what is the ITDN? The ITDN is a computer-based service that small business owners can use to retrieve a stunning amount of international trade data--compiled both from Federal Government sources and the private sector. With a few quick keystrokes, individuals can read about everything from market demographics to descriptions of upcoming trade missions to explanations of relevant export and import regulations to potential contract leads. Small businesses anxious to export can learn about virtually every industry and virtually every country. The ITDN was developed in 1988 by the Export Assistance Center at Bryant College in Smithfield, RI, and it's been a big help to literally hundreds of Rhode Island's small businesses. In fact, 18 companies in Rhode Island use the ITDN every single day. Listen to some of these endorsements from Rhode Island business owners. One said, ``The information made available through the ITDN is an integral part of our Pre-Entry Level Market Analysis.'' Another reported, ``I find the ITDN to be a state-of-the-art, user friendly software that is a one-stop shop for international information. It is a vital tool for businesses today that need to survive in a global environment.'' But right now, only 30 or so of our 960 Small Business Development Centers have direct access to the ITDN. So what I'd like to do is expand the program, so that SBDCs all across the country are connected to it. Specifically what I have in mind is converting the ITDN to an internet-based website, and establishing an Interactive Video Trade Conferencing Center at each State's lead small business assistance office. My proposal would also make the ITDN technology available to the Approximately 2,500 SBDC sub-centers across the country. As I understand the situation, SBDCs are already authorized to conduct export promotion activities under Section 21 of the Small Business Act. In fact, representatives of Bryant College met with the SBA's Associate Administrator for the SBDC program earlier this year to discuss this proposal, and received a very positive response. For one reason or another, however, the SBA has been reluctant to dedicate any money to this purpose. The 1988 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriation bill contains $75.8 million for the SBDC program, an increase of some $2.3 million over the 1997 funding level. In talking with the folks at the Export Assistance Center at Bryant College, it's my understanding that expanding the ITDN could be done over 2 years, with a first year cost of about $925,000. I'd ask the distinguished manager if I could get his endorsement of my proposal.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss one provision in the legislation now before the Senate. Under the heading of Related Agencies, the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill provides funding for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. As my colleagues know, our Nation's Special Trade Representative, backed by the team of staff at USTR, is responsible for negotiating and administering trade agreements and coordinating overall trade policy for the United States. Those are significant responsibilities, and they are critical to the economic interests of American firms, workers, consumers, and families. For an agency with such significant duties, USTR does not consume much in the way of taxpayer monies. Annual funding for USTR has hovered at just over $20 million for the past 5 years. In terms of the Federal budget--or for that matter of the several other agencies funded by this bill--$20 million is a mere pittance. I might say that for what we get in return, the funds spent on USTR represent quite a bargain. Thanks to USTR, we have in place trade agreements and policies that allow our companies to compete successfully worldwide. And where barriers remain, the USTR team works continuously to make further progress. Their work over the years has affected billions of dollars in U.S. trade and contributes enormously to the health of the overall U.S. economy. Now, USTR does not require much in funding because for the most part, appropriations are spent on two items: salaries and travel. Those basic necessities--the salaries that pay the staff, and the travel that is required for the various ongoing negotiations with our trading partners around the world--make up the bulk of USTR's financial needs. There is not much fat there. Therefore, every dime they get is critical. I want to commend the chairman of the Commerce-State-Justice Subcommittee for allocating the full budget request for USTR for fiscal year 1998. Under his bill, the Office of the USTR will receive $22,092,000, exactly what the administration sought. I want to thank him for that. Let me raise one concern, however, that I know is shared by the leadership and most members of the Senate Finance Committee. Since the January 1995 implementation of the Uruguay round agreements and the WTO, USTR has taken on an enormous new docket of cases in which the United States is involved, and all of these cases now come with strict deadlines. As of July 1, there were pending some 47 WTO or NAFTA cases in which the United States is a plaintiff, a defendant, or otherwise a participant. That is quite a workload. Yet despite the increase, USTR has not increased its career legal staff. The number of lawyers and litigators now on staff is virtually the same as in the pre-WTO days. USTR has just 12 lawyers in Washington, with 2 more in Geneva, and only 2 of them are able to devote themselves fulltime to the international litigation. That dearth of staff makes no sense--and only hurts our efforts to win our cases. I believe USTR must have the resources and personnel that it needs to fulfill its responsibilities. While I am delighted that USTR received its full budget request, I must say that the budget request amount is simply not realistic for an agency facing these new assignments. Even a modest increase of, say, $1 million--which again, in terms of the federal budget is not even visible--would make a significant and positive difference to the ability of USTR to carry out its work. And that in turn would only benefit US workers and families, and the overall US economy. I want to urge USTR to press the Office of Management and Budget to recognize their new workload. I have mentioned this repeatedly to Ambassador Barshefsky and I hope she will act on it. And I want to exhort OMB in the strongest terms possible to adjust next year's budget request accordingly for USTR. I am confident that such an adjustment would be met with favor by the members of the authorizing committee, namely the Senate Finance Committee. If OMB fails to act, then it may fall to Congress to do the right thing, and make the small but necessary increased investment in this agency. Indeed, I seriously considered taking such a step during today's debate. But for now I will wait. Thanks to the good work of the chairman, we do have in this bill $22 million in full funding for USTR, and I intend to do what I can to make sure that that full $22 million becomes law. However, I call upon the administration in no uncertain terms to ensure that in the budget submitted next year, USTR is provided the resources they need.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senators from Alaska for their remarks about carbon monoxide violations in Fairbanks. Their hometown has dramatically reduced the number of exceedences over the past 20 years and should be recognized for this success. It is my hope that the EPA will continue to work with Fairbanks to devise pollution reduction strategies that recognize the unique conditions that exist in Fairbanks. Mr. MURKOWSKI: I thank my friend from Rhode Island. office of the u.s. trade representative

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from North Carolina whether----

Mr. CHAFEE. I do not want to get involved in the second-degree amendment. I just want to deliver a few pearls of wisdom in connection----

Mr. CHAFEE. With the underlying amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my hearty congratulations to Frank and Marion Hawkins on their 50th wedding anniversary. Frank and Marion took their vows at St. Raymond's Church in Providence, RI, in 1947. So, on October 2, they will have spent 50 years together, living their dreams, raising their family, and sharing their successes and setbacks. The Hawkins are blessed with four children: Robert, Charles, Mary- Ellen, and Stephen. They are also the proud grandparents of five grandchildren. After graduating from Providence College in 1942, Frank served in the Army Air Force during World War II. Marion graduated from Edgewood Secretarial School. Frank retired in 1986 after working for the Carey & Celotex Corp. I am pleased to announce that the family will gather on July 27, 1997, for a mass and festive meal to celebrate the Hawkins' 50th wedding anniversary. In closing, Mr. President, I want to extend my best wishes to the entire Hawkins family as they come together to celebrate this wonderful event.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Campbell for his work on this appropriations bill. I was particularly pleased with the funding level for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, which was increased by $1 million over the budget request. It is my hope that, although not specifically earmarked, a portion of these funds will go toward completing the Rhode Island Historical Society's ongoing project ``The Papers of General Nathaniel Greene.'' As I am sure my colleagues are aware, Nathaniel Greene, in addition to being a famous Rhode Islander, was second in command to General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War. Nathaniel Greene's papers, which are extensive, provide a complete, first-person account of the Revolution. The Greene papers include numerous correspondence with George Washington, as well as letters from all of the members of the Continental Congress, the Board of War, many of the state governors, a number of Generals in the Continental Army, and other troops and their loved ones. When the war was over, General Greene, clearly recognizing the historical significance of his correspondence, gathered as many as 6,000 letters and documents in trunks and made his way home to Rhode Island. Later, he stopped in Princeton, New Jersey, the site of the Continental Congress, and expressed his desire to have his papers copied, assembled, and bound in books. That very day, Congress agreed to General Greene's request and voted to provide him with a clerk to undertake this task. Regrettably, General Greene died two years later, and, over the years, his papers have been scattered between more than 100 repositories in a number of states. Since 1971, the Rhode Island Historical Society has worked to assemble and publish the extraordinary papers of this remarkable patriot. At the onset of this project, which was cosponsored by The William L. Clement Library at the University of Michigan, funds were provided by the National Historical Publications Commission (now the NHPRC). Additional funds were received through the National Endowment for the Humanities, which contributed to the completion of the first nine volumes of ``The Papers of General Nathaniel Greene.'' The remaining volumes of the Greene Papers will focus on the Revolutionary War in the South. Details about the Southern Campaign are far less well known than those about the War in the North. At the age of thirty-two, Nathaniel Greene became the youngest General in the Continental Army and later became commander of the Southern Army. In 1781 and 1782, he and his troops defeated the British in the Carolinas and in Georgia. The several volumes that remain to be completed focus on this aspect of our nation's early history. It is a period that, in some important aspects, is not well chronicled, and I believe that completion of the Greene Papers will add significantly to our knowledge of an entire region--the South. Once again, I applaud Senators Campbell and Kohl for their work on this bill and hope that funds from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission will be available for completion of the Greene Papers.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill has come to the Senate floor, and commend the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont for all of their hard work in authoring this important legislation. S. 955 provides increased funding for international affairs functions of our Government, a priority that has been neglected in recent years. I agree with Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who has argued that we can no longer conduct foreign policy on the cheap. Section 571 of this bill is a briefly worded but very significant restriction on U.S. military assistance. Mr. President, Indonesia is an emerging power in South Asia that has a very considerable economic relationship with the United States. I have long believed that we should fully engage the developing world not only for our own economic interests, but also so that the citizens of these nations can enjoy economic prosperity. Such economic development is the best means of enhancing long-term peace and stability. Unfortunately, though, Indonesia has yet to join the community of nations in respecting basic human rights and permitting political freedom. Indonesia's continuing repression of East Timor has dampened hope that this nation's tremendous economic success will be matched by progress on human rights and democracy. In just the past month, international human rights activists have cited the disappearance and possible torture of a number of East Timorese civilians. This news comes as the State Department has sharply criticized Indonesia's human rights record in its annual report issued in January. These events are just the latest examples of the Indonesian Government's continuing denial of fundamental rights to the people of East Timor. This past May, Indonesia held an election which was widely discredited as undemocratic. This election, which returned the ruling party to power as has been done in every election since 1971, was marred by violence that killed 200 people. Clearly, Indonesia must end its behavior that has caused so much pain and suffering among its people. Mr. President, section 571 would simply prevent United States military equipment sold or transferred to Indonesia from being used in East Timor, the site of the most egregious human rights violations committed by this government. The United States should have no part of this oppression, particularly through the provision of military equipment. I commend the managers of this bill for including this important restriction, and am hopeful that it will be enacted into law.