John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I strongly support the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty which serves our national security interests in a number of ways. U.S. ratification would help set an international standard that would put political pressure on outlaw nations to rid themselves of chemical arsenals. This treaty will also give our intelligence community valuable new tools to combat illicit production of deadly chemicals, even among nations that do not ratify the convention. Mr. President, ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the Senate this evening would continue our Nation's proud tradition of leadership in the field of international security. We took the lead in the formation of NATO, on the containment of communism, and on the defeat of Iraqi aggression in the Persian Gulf. This evening, we can again assert our irreplaceable leadership by participating in an effort to ban chemical weapons around the world. Mr. President, condition No. 33, which we are now debating, must be stricken in order for the United States to participate in the CWC. Condition No. 33 requires that the President--these are the conditions of condition No. 33--the President of the United States must certify with ``a high degree of confidence'' that our intelligence community can detect ``militarily significant'' violations of the convention. Now, Mr. President, what does ``militarily significant'' mean? It is defined as 1 metric ton or more of these chemical weapons. Mr. President, this condition is simply impossible to achieve. This condition would bar the U.S. participation in the CWC forever. We must understand that the convention seeks to ban chemical weapons. These weapons, by their very inherent composition, are extremely difficult to detect in relatively small quantities, such as a ton. This truth has been known from the beginning, and no one, Mr. President, has alleged that the CWC will eliminate chemical weapons from the face of the Earth. If an individual wants to build a chemical weapon somewhere in a small shack or a cave in some remote area of the world, he or she will always be able to do so, regardless of the outcome of this vote. No treaty, no matter how it is written, will ever be able to stop such an occurrence. Our inability to verify fully the CWC is not a result of any flaws in the convention. It is due to the innate difficulty in monitoring chemical weapons and their components. Mr. President, I also question the definition of ``militarily significant quantity,'' as being 1 metric ton or more of chemical weapons agent. Although 1 metric ton can certainly do a lot of damage, particularly in a terrorist attack, I will defer to military experts to consider what is military significant. In testimony to the Senate, Gen. John Shalikashvili stated that tonnage is not the only factor to consider in assessing the military capacity of these weapons. To transform an illicit chemical stockpile into something militarily useful, an adversary must have vast supplies of these weapons, and he must have an infrastructure for handling them and must have troops trained in the use of these weapons. It is these more complex activities--the training of the troops, for example--that the Chemical Weapons Convention, together with our intelligence resources, will be able to verify. As Gen. Brent Scowcroft has testified to the Foreign Relations Committee, under the CWC, it will no longer be possible for a country to buy a few pounds of these chemicals from various sources around the world to amass an abnormal supply of chemicals. Our intelligence community has, in fact, indicated on a number of occasions that this convention will provide another tool to the U.S. inventory of ways to stem worldwide expansion of chemical weapons capabilities. In brief, the Chemical Weapons Convention will supplement--it will not replace, but it will add to--ongoing efforts to monitor chemical weapons production worldwide. Now, critics of this treaty claim it is unverifiable, that we will not be able to catch adversaries abroad who cheat. But they also allege that the CWC's verification regime, while too weak to catch those cheaters abroad, is too intrusive for American industry. In other words, it won't let us find anything abroad, but it is too intrusive for other nations as far as inspection in the United States. They can't have it both ways. The fact is that the Chemical Weapons Convention's verification tools--in other words, how to determine whether there are weapons in other countries--go beyond those of other arms control treaties that we have approved in the Senate in the past. No treaty will ever be able to verify totally a ban on chemical weapons. Condition No. 33 is impossible to meet. The condition that is in this, which we are seeking to strike, is an impossible condition to meet. It serves no purpose other than to prevent U.S. participation in the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. So I urge my colleagues to support the motion to strike this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow at 10 a.m. the Senate will begin consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty. Under the order, there will be 10 hours of debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, or their designees, and 1 hour under the control of Senator Leahy. Also, in accordance with the agreement, a limited number of amendments are in order to the resolution of ratification. Therefore, Senators can anticipate rollcall votes late tomorrow afternoon and throughout Thursday's session of the Senate.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the resolution appear in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 77, submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to commend 25 outstanding students from West Warwick High School in West Warwick, RI, who will be visiting Washington later this month to compete in the national finals of the ``We The People . . . The Citizens And The Constitution'' program. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with it, the ``We The People . . . The Citizens And The Constitution'' program is among the most extensive educational programs in the country, developed to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply these principals to contemporary situations. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We The People . . . The Citizens And The Constitution'' program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history. We hear so much these days about growing apathy and ignorance among young people about our history and governmental traditions. In my view, programs such as this can go a long way to combat these ills. It is heartening to see young Rhode Islanders taking such an active and participatory interest in public affairs. Mr. President, you may be interested to know that West Warwick High School has an outstanding track record in the ``We The People . . . The Citizens And The Constitution'' program. The West Warwick team has won the Rhode Island State competition for 7 of the past 10 years. I am very proud of Jamie Amaral, Mary Asselin, Jonathan Bassi, Justin Broz, John Caressimo, Brian Carr, Andrew Constanza, Krystle Couto, Bethany DeBlois, Candice Felske, John Johnson, Jonathan Juneau, Jamie Kullberg, Kristin Larocque, Gina Musto, Meghan O'Brien, Ryan O'Grady, Stephanie Paquet, Erica Ricci, Hillary Sisson, Derek Tevyaw, Kevin Willette, Kristen Wolslegel, Man Yu, and Debra Zenofsky for making it to the national finals. I applaud this terrific group of young men and women for their hard work and perseverance. Also, Mr, President, I want to congratulate Michael Trofi, a fine teacher who deserves so much credit for guiding the West Warwick High School team to the national finals. As Mr. Trofi and this fine group of West Warwick High School students prepare for their trip to Washington to compete in the national finals on April 26-28, I want to congratulate them for what they have already achieved and wish them the best of luck in the final competition. These students, with the guidance of Mr. Trofi, have learned what our Nation is all about and what countless men and women have fought and died to protect. No matter what the outcome of the contest is, they have each earned the greatest prize of all: Knowledge.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, in open session, to receive testimony regarding the Department of the Navy's shipbuilding development and procurement programs in review of S. 450, the national defense authorization bill for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition, of the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on ``Antitrust Implications: The British Airways--American Airlines Alliance.''

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct a hearing on S. 459, a bill to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to extend certain program authorizations.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 23. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate immediately begin consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty as under the previous order.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today we celebrate the 27th anniversary of the first Earth Day. In the spirit of that celebration, it behooves us to remember how the first Earth Day came about, and what brought it about. I know the distinguished occupant of the Chair participates in Earth Day activities and is deeply interested and involved in environmental matters. Perhaps he also will be interested in a little history of what happened. In the 1960's, a series of events occurred that shocked the Nation into an awareness of the need to protect the environment. Rachel Carson wrote her famous book, ``Silent Spring,'' in 1962. The country was appalled by her revelations of the destruction caused to our environment by widespread pesticide use--DDT and others, for example. Then, in 1969, another extraordinary event occurred--the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire. When a river catches fire, it certainly is an eye catcher. Why did it catch fire? It was so polluted with oils and other substances that it suddenly burst into flames. That is, somebody threw a match into the river and it caught fire. Extraordinary. So in the early 1960's, a Democratic President, President Lyndon Johnson, laid the foundation for the major environmental laws that came later. He signed antipollution and open space legislation into law, including the creation of the Redwood National Park, the Wilderness Act, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I might say, Mr. President, it was moneys from that Land and Water Conservation Fund that enabled me, as Governor of our State of Rhode Island, to purchase land for open space, wetlands, and parks. The improvements we made continue to give pleasure to thousands of Rhode Islanders in the past and will do so for literally millions of individuals in the future. That is a wonderful law, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. When Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin proposed the idea of Earth Day in 1970, even he didn't know how it would galvanize Americans into action, how it would catch the imagination of Americans. The first Earth Day was a phenomenal success, a reflection of America's strong conviction for cleaning up the environment. I can remember some of the activities that took place on Earth Day where I was--cleaning up the riverbeds where there were old tires and dishwashers and refrigerators and many other things thrown over the bank and down into the stream. We took time to clean our nearby streams, as countless others did. Ours was one small activity in one small section of the country, but it made a difference. The years that immediately followed the first Earth Day were a vibrant period for environmental legislation. The key players in that legislation, Mr. President, were on the very committee on which you serve so ably, the Environment and Public Works Committee. We remember that Democrats like Jennings Randolph from West Virginia and Ed Muskie from Maine worked closely with several Republicans, including Howard Baker from Tennessee and Bob Stafford from Vermont. Indeed, their success was the result of a nonpartisan, bipartisan cooperation. Magnificent progress was made. It is hard to think that, before 1970, none of the laws or institutions that I am going to rattle off existed; but then they passed in 1970, 1971, and 1972. Indeed, under President Richard Nixon, the Environmental Protection Agency was created. We never had an Environmental Protection Agency. The President's Council on Environmental Quality was born; the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, the guiding law upon which so many of our acts depend; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Endangered Species Act. I wasn't here at the time, but the Endangered Species Act passed on the floor of the Senate 92 to 0. That is the way the Senate felt about environmental laws. Then another Republican President, Ronald Reagan, had the United States take the lead internationally in environmental matters, and we signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987, to eliminate the production of chlorofluorocarbons, the gaseous culprit responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer. It was under still another Republican President, George Bush, that the 1990 Clean Air Amendments were passed. In addition, President Bush personally went to the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro and signed the International Treaty on Global Climate. So we have seen Republicans and Democrats in the White House exhibit strong leadership. This was a bipartisan effort. This bipartisanship has brought about tremendous, tangible change. Let us review the bidding to see what has taken place in the past 27 years. Have these acts done a good job--the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act? It is a remarkable story. Before the EPA, before all of the laws now on the books, there was lead in our air and sewage in our rivers. I can remember at the time when I was Secretary of the Navy, we took a trip on the Sequoia, the Presidential yacht, down the Potomac River here in Washington. I invited my British counterpart, the equivalent of our Navy Secretary, to join us. It was a lovely July evening, calm and quiet, not a ripple on the water. As we started down the river, the propeller churned up the water and it was like going for a ride down the sewer. The smells were so overpowering from the polluted river water that we all had to retreat inboard to have our dinner. That is not the way it is now, though. In those days, two-thirds of the rivers, lakes, and streams of the United States were considered nonfishable and nonswimmable. Now the reverse is true. Two-thirds of the rivers and lakes and streams in America are considered fishable and swimmable. Every year that percentage rises. What have we done on auto emissions? Well, from 1970 to 1994, the number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States increased by 111 percent, more than a doubling of VMT. Yet, in that same period, the combined emissions of the 6 principal air pollutants dropped by 24 percent. In other words, we had dramatic emissions reductions while vehicle miles traveled shot up. Lead in the air--which everybody knows has a terrible effect on the mental development of children, particularly in congested inner cities--was reduced by 98 percent--a 98-percent reduction of lead in the air. How did that come about? Because we mandated the use of unleaded gasoline in the mid-1970s. What an achievement. The Montreal Protocol, as I mentioned before, has been a tremendous success. Let's look at this chart. The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1985. Since then, because of the restrictions on the production of chlorofluorocarbons--it is now projected that the ozone layer will gradually recover, and return to pre-ozone-hole levels by the year 2050. What are chlorofluorocarbons? They are cooling agents found in refrigerators and air conditioners in our homes, offices and automobiles. Because of the leadership shown by President Reagan and later President Bush, we have made great progress. This red line shows what would have happened without the controls of the Montreal Protocol. Instead, we have been able not only to stabilize chlorine loadings, but actually reduce them. That line will go down and down. All of this has tremendous effects on what comes through this protective shield, the upper atmosphere. Now, what about the Endangered Species Act? That is something the Presiding Officer has worked so hard on. The endangered species are-- perhaps--the proverbial ``canaries in the coal mine''; that is, when a canary keels over, it shows there is dangerous gas. It gives you a hint that something is wrong. The best way to judge how successful we have been in preserving the habitat is to look at how the plant and animal species are doing. If the plant and animal life around us is in trouble, that means trouble for us in the future. The Endangered Species Act is geared toward preserving the habitat. How do you save the animals? You preserve the habitat and thus bring them back from the brink of extinction. Since its enactment in 1973, by a vote of 92 to 0 in this Chamber--not a single Senator in 1973 voted against that law--the populations of whooping cranes, brown pelicans, and the peregrine falcon have come back from near extinction. The bald eagle has increased from a low of 400 nesting pairs in 1963 to just over 4,700 pairs in 1995. Think of it. In the Continental United States, the lower 48 States, as they say, there were only 400 nesting pairs of bald eagles in 1963. Thirty-two years later--in 1995-- there are now 4,700 nesting pairs. Remarkable. The grizzly bear has been saved from extinction and brought back from the endangered list to the threatened list. The California gray whale and American alligator have recovered to the point where they have been removed from the endangered list. Of the 960 species currently listed on the endangered species list, more than 40 percent are stable and gaining ground. And for many others the rate of decline has been reduced. The recovery of the striped bass is another success story. The striped bass is a magnificent fighting fish, one that has been valued up and down the Atlantic coast for centuries. It is interesting to hear what the original settlers said, and what Capt. John Smith said in 1614, over 350 years ago. This is what he said about the striped bass. ``I myself, at the turning of the tide, have seen such multitudes pass out of a pond that it seemed to me that one might go over their backs dryshod.'' There were so many it seemed you could walk across on their backs. So it was with great alarm that we learned of the precipitous decline of the striped bass in the late 1970's. And, by 1983, commercial harvest had dropped by 77 percent as compared to the previous year. By 1983, the sports harvest of striped bass had declined by 85 percent from 4 years earlier. So we inaugurated an Emergency Striped Bass Study by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. I am proud to say that this legislation came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. And fewer than 20 years later, through the cooperative efforts of State fish and wildlife agencies and the Federal agencies, most Atlantic striped bass stocks have recovered to healthy pre-1979 levels. This dramatic turnaround is proof that, if we act quickly to reduce the threats and preserve habitat, we can recover imperiled species. Wetlands loss has slowed dramatically. When it comes to wetlands conservation, perhaps no program has been as successful as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan--signed 11 years ago, in 1986, by the United States and Canada, and later, Mexico. Under this plan, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, partnerships are established bringing together Federal and local governments, and nonprofit groups such as Ducks Unlimited, and private donors, as well as landowners--to work on the conservation of wetlands, and there are Federal dollars to match private contributions. To date, well over 4 million acres have been protected, restored, or enhanced--some of it through easement, and some of it through purchases by the United States and Canada. And 20 million additional acres are protected in Mexico. Has it done any good? Listen to this: In 1996, there was the largest migration of waterfowl in the previous 40 years--89.5 million ducks, which is 7 million more than 2 years before, and 18 million more than the year before that migrated south for the winter; 90 million ducks, the largest migration in the past 41 years. That came about because of the North American Waterfowl Plan, which I mentioned before. So it seems that the way that the plan operates, involving partnership between the States, the Federal Government, and private entities, it represents the wave of the future, which all of us ought to think about as we ponder how fast we can save these wetlands and wildlife habitat areas. We are not done. We should not rest on our laurels. Some of the trickiest and most difficult environmental problems lie ahead, and we have to address these with purpose and ingenuity. We took on the formidable environmental challenges of the past and were successful. Now we look to the future. We shouldn't just rest on our laurels, as I said. We have to remember that these efforts can never succeed without strong and sincere bipartisan cooperation--Republicans and Democrats working together; Congress and the administration, likewise. In conclusion, I just want to quote probably the greatest environmental President of them all, Teddy Roosevelt. This is what he said 86 years ago. ``Of all the questions which can come before this Nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us.'' Those are pretty good words for us to remember as we celebrate Earth Day in 1997--words to be considered while thinking of the future and preserving the environment for our children and grandchildren and those who come after us.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there will be no session of the Senate on Friday, and the Senate will be in session on Monday for a pro forma session only. No business will be conducted during Monday's pro forma session. The Senate will then reconvene on Tuesday for a period of morning business. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes during Tuesday's session. Also as a reminder to my colleagues, policy lunches normally held on Tuesday will occur on Wednesday of this coming week. All Senators should be aware that under the previous order, the Senate will begin consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty on Wednesday and Thursday. Rollcall votes can therefore be expected beginning Wednesday of next week.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that committees be permitted to file legislative or executive calendar items from 10 a.m. to 12 noon on Friday, April 18 and Monday, April 20.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed as if in morning business for the next 15 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this weekend while we are away from the Capitol, an unusual event will occur here. Areas in the Capitol rotunda and the small rotunda, which are ordinarily open to the public, will be closed to visitors, as will the passageway to the majority leader's office. And starting tomorrow, temporary structures will be constructed in these areas. Under the able supervision of the Architect of the Capitol's office, steps are underway to move the statue of Roger Williams, which stands in the rotunda, to the second floor hallway outside of the majority leader's office. In February, Senator Warner, chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, notified me that the statue of Roger Williams would be moved from the rotunda in order to accommodate the so-called portrait monument of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Lucretia Mott in accordance with a concurrent resolution approved by both houses during the last Congress. While I have no objection to moving the portrait monument to the rotunda, I was disappointed to learn that it would result in the dislocation of the statue of Roger Williams. Senator Warner assured me that the Roger Williams statue would receive an excellent new location and that none of the alternatives--namely in the rotunda--were available. Senator Warner certainly kept his word. The new location is very satisfactory. The statue will stand in the second floor hallway between the Senate Chamber and the rotunda, on the way to the majority leader's office. It is a bright and sunny space with windows looking out beyond the West Front of the Capitol to the Washington Monument. The statue of Roger Williams will be in good company, too. Other statues in this area depict Maria L. Sanford, a 19th century Minnesota teacher known as the best loved woman of the North Star State; Edward Douglas White of Louisiana, who served as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; John Hanson, who was among the strongest colonial advocates for independence and who served as President of the United States in Congress Assembled under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 to 1782; representing Kentucky is a statue of Ephraim McDowell who was an eminent surgeon and founder of Centre College in Danville, KY; William Edgar Borah, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who is best remembered for his integrity, his skills as an orator, and his bipartisanship, and finally; John Middleton Clayton who served in the Delaware State Legislature, the U.S Senate, as chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, and as Secretary of State. I would like to commend the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, and his staff, most notably Roberto Miranda, Satish Gupta, and Ralph Atkins, for their extraordinary efforts to protect the statue of Roger Williams as it is transported to its new perch overlooking the National Mall. To ensure the safety of the statue which is quite delicate, it was wrapped in numerous layers of protective materials. First it was completely covered in plastic wrap. Then, it was wrapped in several layers of aluminum foil which was secured with duct tape. Next, it was covered with paraffin wax and a quarter of an inch of latex rubber was applied. All of this was bundled in burlap and a second layer of latex was applied. It was then completely covered with plaster, and tomorrow all of this will be encased in fiberglass. The actual move is expected to occur on Saturday, and on Sunday, after the statue is replaced on its base and precisely positioned in the hallway, all of these layers of covering will be removed with the same kind of instrument orthopedic surgeons use to remove casts from patients. I have every confidence in the Architect's office and the office of the Curator that the job of relocating the Roger Williams statue will be skillfully completed. As satisfied as I am with all of this, Mr. President, I am submitting a concurrent resolution to return this statue of Roger Williams to the rotunda when the portrait monument is removed. I do this because I believe that the millions of girls and boys, men and women, from all parts of the United States and of the world, should be reminded of the principles for which Roger Williams is known. Roger Williams was born in England around 1603 to James and Alice Williams. He grew up in a section of London in which religious dissenters were burned at the stake. Through his personal ingenuity, he gained notice by Sir Edward Coke, who helped young Roger attend school. Later he was able to attend Pembroke Hall in Cambridge University. He was ordained by the Church of England and made chaplain at a manor house in Essex. It was there that he met and married his wife, Mary Barnard. By 1629, Roger Williams had accepted many of the views of the Puritans and 1 year later, he and Mary left England aboard the Lyon to start a new life in New England. He refused to join the congregation at Boston because of its close ties to the Church of England, and instead, became minister at Salem. The bad blood between Roger Williams and the Boston magistrates led to his departure from Salem. He moved to Plymouth where he joined the Separatist Pilgrims. He remained in Plymouth for 2 years, and eventually became assistant pastor. It was during his time in Plymouth that Roger Williams first became acquainted with and interested in native Americans. Eventually he returned to Boston where he found himself again embroiled in controversy, this time because he questioned the validity of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's Charter. Roger Williams pointed out that the King of England had no authority to grant a charter giving away lands that were owned by the native Americans. Of course, this was virtual heresy, and Roger Williams, once again, was banished. You can see that Roger Williams was way ahead of his time with his concern for native Americans and that they be paid fairly for their land. Because of this, once again he was banished. Leaving his wife and baby daughter behind, he journeyed for 14 weeks through the winter harshness to seek refuge with his native American friends in Narragansett County. In the spring, he was joined by others, but soon this small group of dissenters was forced to uproot themselves again because they were still within the boundaries of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They traveled across the Seekonk River, landed at Slate Rock on the west side of the Seekonk River and, in gratefulness for the goodness of God to him, he named the area where he was ``Providence,'' and therefrom came the name of Providence. Subsequently, of course, it was the capital of the State of Rhode Island. Roger Williams and his followers purchased land from Canonicus and Miantonomi, the chief sachems of the Narragansett Tribe, and in 1636, founded a new colony devoted to religious freedom and tolerance, the first time in the history of the world that there had been anything like this. No one was turned away or banished because of his or her religious beliefs. Roger Williams embraced people of all faiths. In fact, the first synagogue in the New World was built in Newport, RI, and, after joining the Baptist faith, Roger Williams built the first Baptist Church in the New World. Both of these historic and religious landmarks still stand today and are completely operational, a living tribute to Roger Williams. Roger Williams was banished time and again for having the courage of his convictions. He believed that every individual should be free to practice whatever faith he chose, a view that today is as integral to our national consciousness as is freedom of expression. He believed in the separation of church and state. And he believed in protecting the rights of those who first inhabited this beautiful land, the native Americans. This weekend, he will be banished once more from the pantheon of leaders with whom he certainly deserves to stand. Mr. President, I believe it is only fair for this statue of Roger Williams--in this symbol here you see the picture on the stamp that was issued depicting his settlement in the State of Rhode Island in 1636. I believe it only fair for this statue of Roger Williams, his symbol of tolerance, be returned to the Capitol Rotunda. This provision in the concurrent resolution says--the suggestion is that the statue of the women, the so-called monument, will only be there for a temporary period. Indeed, the resolution says that at the conclusion of the temporary display of the suffragettes--how long the temporary period is we are not sure. We are not against the statue of the suffragettes at all. But when that is moved, we ask that the statue of Roger Williams go back into the Rotunda. As I say, I have no desire to hasten the removal of the portrait monument. But at the appropriate time, I and my colleagues believe that the Roger Williams statue should be returned. So I send the concurrent resolution to the desk, and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on March 14, I came to the floor to introduce S. 445, the Waste Tire Recycling, Abatement, and Disposal Act of 1997. Today, I want to make sure that the record is clear on an issue relating to the retreading of radial-type tires. It has come to my attention that my remarks regarding retreading have led to some concern on the part of those engaged in the retreading industry. There are approximately 1,440 retreading plants in the United States, and approximately 90 percent of the retreading plants are independently owned small businesses. In my oral remarks on March 14, I said ``the nature of modern steel belted radial tires makes it very difficult to recycle these tires into new ones. Once upon a time, old tires were retreaded, as we all know. You cannot do that with radial tires.'' While that statement is true with regards to recycling rubber from modern radial tires directly into new radial tires, it is not accurate with respect to retreading of radials. The Tire Retread Information Bureau and the International Tire and Rubber Association recently provided me with the information on the retreading of tires in 1996, when a total of 29.1 million tires were retreaded in the United States. This breaks down to approximately 4.2 million passenger car tires, 99 percent of them radials; 7 million light truck tires, 80 percent of them radials; and 16.5 million medium truck tires--tires for so-called 18 wheelers, 89 percent of them radials. The remainder are off-road vehicle tires, aircraft tires, and specialty tires. My bill, S. 445, recognizes that retreading tires is an environmentally beneficial fate for tires that would otherwise require immediate disposal. Proposed section 4011(d)(1)(B) provides tire retreaders with an exception to the general prohibition on storage of more than 1,500 unshredded waste tires for a period greater than 7 days. This section affirmatively promotes retreading by allowing retreaders to store at their plants the greater of either 2,500 tires; or a number equal to the number of tires to be retreaded over a 30-day period.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that once the Senate receives from the House H.R. 1226, it be placed on the calendar.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Monday, April 21, for a pro forma session only. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the pro forma session, the Senate stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 22. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Coverdell, or his designee, in control of 60 minutes from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.--that is from 1300 to 1400--Senator Daschle, or his designee, for 60 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as in executive session, that if executive resolution 75 is defeated, the Senate then agree to the motion to reconsider that vote and the resolution then be pending once again.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today Senators Feinstein, D'Amato, Lieberman, DeWine, Moynihan, and Mikulski and I are introducing legislation to protect legal immigrants who are facing the loss of critical SSI and food stamp benefits later this summer. Now that the welfare bill has become law, the crisis facing many legal immigrants, especially the elderly and disabled, is all too evident. For those legal immigrants who face the loss of assistance in August and September, the outlook is grim. The bill we are introducing focuses on the plight of these legal immigrants. First, our bill grandfathers all legal immigrants who were receiving SSI or food stamp benefits as of August 22, 1996, the date the President signed the welfare bill. Second, our bill grandfathers those refugees who were in the country on August 22, 1996, regardless of whether they were receiving benefits. Why this approach? To us, it is a matter of fundamental fairness. That is the principle that underlies our bill. We believe that those who were in this country and playing by the rules should not have the rules suddenly changed out from under them. As for refugees, we provide them a slightly broader provision, since unlike other immigrants they do not have sponsors and they come here to flee persecution. This is a matter of great importance to the residents in the States represented before you today. In my own State, a significant percentage of our total population is immigrants, indeed, measured in those terms, Rhode Island is one of the top immigrant States in the country. Some 10,000 legal immigrants in my State rely on SSI and food stamp benefits, quite a lot by RI standards. We believe that our approach is a reasonable, commonsense proposal that will appeal to Members on both sides of the aisle and that can be enacted this year. By introducing this bipartisan bill today, we hope to signal to our colleagues the seriousness of our concern and the strength of our resolve. We intend to fight for passage of this bill, and we have every expectation of meeting with success.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 105th Congress, the authority of the majority leader to make six appointments and that of the Democratic leader to make seven appointments to the Senate Arms Control Observer Group, pursuant to Senate Resolution 105 of the 101st Congress, as amended, shall be increased to eight appointments for the majority leader and nine appointments for the Democratic leader.

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Chafee and Mr. Reed pertaining to the submission of Senate Concurrent Resolution 22 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')