Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on August 6, 1995, U.N. Under Secretary- General Joseph Verner Reed attended the Hiroshima City Peace Memorial Ceremony in Hiroshima, Japan, where he delivered a message on behalf of U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. As many of my colleagues will recall, Ambassador Reed has an accomplished, remarkable record of service in the United States Government, including serving ably and with distinction as the United States Ambassador to Morocco and as Chief of Protocol. Ambassador Reed is now dedicating his talents to the United Nations, where he serves as Under Secretary General and Special Representative of the Secretary General for Public Affairs. In his introductory remarks to the Secretary-General's message, Ambassador Reed asked that we remember and praise the determination of the Hiroshima community to rebuild in the destructive aftermath of the war, and to work for nuclear disarmament and a nuclear test ban. As a longtime advocate, friend, and supporter of the United Nations, and as one who has tried to work for a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons, I believe the ceremony in Hiroshima was a particularly important and compelling event. In my view, the remarks by Ambassador Reed, and the message he delivered on behalf of Secretary-General Boutros Ghali, help to set precisely the right tone for the event. Mr. President, I commend those remarks to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the national debate over the future of the Medicare and Medicaid programs is not so much about objectives as it is about means. But it is the means that make all the difference. There clearly is widespread agreement that steps must be taken to restrain growth in Government spending for medical programs. But there is considerable disagreement about how to achieve this objective, how to distribute the impact of change, and about the timeframe in which all of this is to occur. In that connection, I join in expressing my distress about the course the congressional majority would have us take. I should say at the outset that I believe it is unfortunate that we are allowing arbitrary dollar limits to drive our consideration of essential social policy. We are seeking to evaluate fundamental human needs through the green eye shades of accountants. As I have stated on previous occasions, while I do share the view that Government spending should be curtailed where appropriate and that the deficit should be substantially reduced, I do not believe that this automatically translates into a cast-iron doctrine that the national budget must be in absolute balance by a time certain. In the case of the medical programs, it would have been far preferable, in my view, to have devised first a rational strategy for curtailing unreasonable growth in spending for these programs--while preserving their essential services--and then see how much savings could be dedicated to deficit reduction. But since the majority has committed us to a dollar-driven course of action, let's consider the figures. [[Page S 15487]] In their quest to reach budget balance by the year 2002, the majority seeks to reduce Government spending by an arbitrary $894 billion over the 7-year period. Over half of the saving--and by far the largest single component-- would be $452 billion in reduced spending for the Federal medical programs: $270 billion would be realized from reduced spending on Medicare, and $182 billion from Medicaid. While protracted cutbacks may be needed to assure solvency over the long term, there simply does not seem to be justification for reductions of the proposed order of magnitude in the timeframe of the next 7 years. I found particularly persuasive in this regard the recent testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin. Speaking in his capacity as managing trustee of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, Mr. Rubin stated: Simply said, no member of the Senate should vote for $270 billion in Medicare cuts believing that reductions of this size have been recommended by the Medicare Trustees or that such reductions are needed now to prevent an imminent funding crisis . . . Nonetheless, the Majority is asking for $270 billion in Medicare cuts, almost three times what is needed to guarantee the life of the Hospital Insurance Trust fund for the next ten years. The Secretary went on to observe that the $270 billion in reduced Government spending would be accomplished in part by increasing costs to beneficiaries of the Medicare part B program, even though such increases do not contribute to the solvency of the Part A Hospital Trust Fund. ``In this context,'' Secretary Rubin stated, ``it is clear that more than $100 billion in Medicare funding reductions are being used to pay for other purposes--not to shore up the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.'' Secretary Rubin's testimony is disturbing because it validates the presumption that the proposed reductions in Medicare are being made for reasons not dictated by necessity, including the possibility that the amount of proposed reductions might have been inflated for the specific purpose of accommodating a tax cut. In that light we can only ask what manner of needless sacrifice, worth more than $100 billion, are we asking of our senior citizens. Will most of it be accounted for by the $71 billion in increased payments by beneficiaries? Or will it be attributed to the $73.6 billion in reduced payments to hospitals, or the $22.6 billion reduction in the allowable fee schedule for physicians treating Medicare patients? It seems apparent to me that the majority has overreached and that a far more modest cutback of the Medicare Program would serve our purpose. Since Secretary Rubin says that more than $100 billion is being siphoned off for other purposes, this would suggest that the $270 billion reduction proposed should be in the order of $150 billion at the most. And the reduction could be even less if we take appropriate steps to deal with the annual loss of $18 billion through waste, fraud, and abuse. With respect to Medicaid, I am very distressed that the majority proposal would dismantle a 30-year-old commitment to the poor and disabled, and transfer a less binding responsibility to the States. The result, it seems to me, can only be the creating of pockets of medical impoverishment between a few overburdened oases of generosity. Some States and regions simply will not be able to maintain the level of compassionate service on which their citizens have come to depend. My own State of Rhode Island is in this latter category, partly because it has a larger proportion of elderly people using nursing home facilities. I would point out that our Republican Governor, Lincoln Almond, has voiced his opposition to the block-grant formula as it was proposed in the House. Here, I would like to salute the efforts in the Finance Committee of my distinguished colleague, Senator Chafee, to modify the plan, particularly through restoring entitlement status to pregnant women, children under age 12, and the disabled. But notwithstanding these efforts, the basic proposal is still fatally flawed in my view. As one of the original advocates of the Federal medical programs, I regret exceedingly that we have come to this juncture when in the name of economy, the gains of decades of progress in social responsibility are being jettisoned or badly compromised. The proposals should not become law, and I applaud and support the President's announced determination to veto them if they reach his desk in their present form.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on the question of the American Embassy in Jerusalem, I suggest that most of us here believe the same thing, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that our Embassy belongs there one day. Where some of us disagree, however, is whether or not the President has the right to decide when. I do not think the Congress has the right or the obligation or the responsibility to micromanage the decision. We all agree it should move. How it should move and when it should move, that I really think should be left to our President. All Americans are aware, too, of the respect and deeply seated, emotional attachment that Israelis--indeed all Jews--have for Jerusalem. I would add the same emotions and attachments apply to Moslems and Christians, and I think all of us appreciate the care and effort that Israel has made to make Jerusalem accessible to adherents of all faiths. For these reasons, I find it difficult to fathom a final settlement for the Middle East that does not declare, once and for all, that Jerusalem is, and shall forever remain, Israel's undivided capital. The administration has suggested that by adopting this legislation, Congress would be prejudging the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian talks, and in doing this, we might undermine our own traditional place as the honest broker and cast the peace process into disarray. Mr. President, I believe we must take due acknowledgement of the administration's strong and forceful views about this bill. When officials from the administration suggest, as they have in recent days, that adopting this legislation could interrupt--or indeed kill--the peace process, I think we must take those suggestions seriously. When the same officials predict that adopting this legislation could lead to an explosion of passions in the West Bank and Gaza, we cannot take those predictions lightly. When these officials say that passing the bill could mean that people, whether they are Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians, or U.S. diplomats, could lose their lives, we have a solemn obligation to be absolutely sure of what we do. I am not convinced that the arguments, both pro and con, have been given a chance to be aired properly. The Senate is on the verge of making an extraordinary decision without even having had the benefit of one hearing on the Senate side, at least, devoted to the issue. Against all these concerns, most of which I share, we must balance some fundamental truths. First among these is the fact that Israel is the only country in the world where the United States does not have its Embassy in the functioning capital. With the Israeli Government based in Jerusalem, having our Embassy in Tel Aviv has made it difficult to maintain our official contacts with the Israeli Government. Frankly, it has also stigmatized, indeed cheapened, our relationship with Israel. Moving our Embassy will at least settle once and for all what many of us know to be true--that Jerusalem is truly the capital of Israel. Second, by requiring the President to move our Embassy, the United States will once and for all dispel whatever unrealistic hopes remain that Jerusalem will somehow become the capital of a Palestinian State. Finally, no one, including the Palestinians, can really contest Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. If this bill passes and is implemented, our Embassy would clearly be moved there, not to East Jerusalem. I acknowledge, Mr. President, that I opposed this bill when it was introduced in an earlier form. Since then, it has been reintroduced with a significant change in text which has given a more flexible approach than existed [[Page S 15488]] earlier. I still believe more is needed, and for that reason, I tend to support amending it to address some of President Clintons additional concerns. If we moderate this bill sufficiently, then I am hopeful that we can arrive at a version the President could sign and implement. If we do not, then there is the risk that the President might feel forced to veto it. I do believe in my heart, however, that Jerusalem is truly and rightfully the capital of Israel. Once that premise is accepted, there can be no other choice but to move our Embassy there, whether it be now or in the near future. I therefore hope we can arrive at more flexible, consensus-based language that will enable everyone--the Senate, the administration, the Jewish-American community, the American people at large--to support this bill. To repeat, the important thing here is that eventually it be moved, but specifying the day, the hour, the minute, or the week or the month even is not up to Congress, it is up to the Executive to make that decision. I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I find it both ironic and disheartening to be standing here 30 years after the establishment of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities--30 years distinguished by success in preserving and nurturing the arts and scholarship of our Nation--defending the very principles upon which the legislation was created. As one of the founding sponsors of the legislation authorizing the National Endowments, I am deeply concerned about the future of these extraordinary agencies. I am told that the old arguments no longer work. Opponents dismiss the overwhelming evidence that a national infrastructure results in greater public access to our culture. They gloss over the fact that American creative excellence influences the way we are perceived as a Nation and remembered when the history of our civilization is documented. They ignore the many studies which demonstrate how the arts have stimulated local economies by revitalizing downtown areas, attracting tourism and providing jobs and taxable income. Yet, who can deny that Americans of all ages from every corner of the country have a tremendous thirst to learn, enjoy and participate in the great diversity of our Nation's culture? The public is aware that the Endowments have brought a great value to millions of Americans. The voices acknowledging this are no longer silent, but are being heard in increasing numbers. And what the people seek is not to be found in the commercial marketplace. Throughout the ages, the great legacies of art and scholarship have been created, sustained and preserved with some form of patronage. They should not now be expected to pay for themselves. I am proud when our American artists are recognized for their excellence with invitations to demonstrate their work abroad. I am equally proud when a child remains in school and improves his grades as a result of the positive experience he has had with a school-based arts program. The National Endowment for the Arts fosters American creativity just as the National Endowment for the Humanities stimulates learning. I firmly believe that regardless of our differences of wealth, race, religion and political belief, our cultural development binds us together, develops our character as Americans and establishes our common heritage. The Endowments were founded and have been sustained over the years with bipartisan support. Hearings before the full committee earlier this year demonstrated that the trend can continue. What has happened to this bipartisanship elsewhere in Congress? Why has the divisive tactics of a few led to so much time being devoted to such a small amount of money? While critics eager to further polarize our parties have focused on a very few controversial grants, perhaps they have missed the fact that the Arts Endowment Design Program led the way in convening a design panel to plan the post-bombing redevelopment of downtown Oklahoma City. Perhaps they did not know that a world-class American dance company performed in their home town or that young members of a string quartet gave a series of workshops in their schools. Perhaps they are unaware that many grateful constituents remember the role of both Endowments in bringing hope, joy, inspiration, knowledge and healing to their own communities. Perhaps, too, the critics did not notice the valuable changes in the agency's procedures instituted by National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Jane Alexander last year that go a long way toward addressing the public's concerns by strengthening the Chairman's oversight of Endowment grantees and making the Endowment respond more effectively to the needs of the people. I fully understand that many Americans are troubled when they hear of works distasteful to them that are funded (or rumored to be funded) in part with their tax dollars. Nevertheless, while the Endowment has awarded well over 100,000 grants, fewer than 40 have resulted in any controversy. The remaining 99.96 percent of all grants made are testament to the Endowment's success. As each of my colleagues know from their own constituents, the public's investment in a relatively small Endowment grant is often the key to stimulating the release of large amounts of State and local funds and private contributions. Unlike most Federal programs, the National Endowment for the Arts initiatives leverage 12 non-Federal dollars for each Federal dollar invested. Similarly, the National Endowment for the Humanities stimulates an average of $70 million in private support annually. In all probability, this money would never have become available to the recipients without the initial Endowment recognition. Donors look to the Endowments for leadership when they decide how to allocate their funds, and it is these private funds that guarantee the survival of the best of our country's arts and scholarship. In short, removal of the national recognition and the stimulation of partnerships offered through Federal grants will dramatically reduce all forms of State and local cultural support. Can we not move beyond the ideology of a few? Last July, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources voted 12 to 4 in favor of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 856 to improve and extend the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, the Museum Services Act, and the Acts and Artifacts Indemnity Act. The committee report reaffirms the Government's commitment to, and interest in, supporting arts and humanities projects throughout the Nation well into the future. After four hearings and lengthy debate, the committee determined that the agencies do provide valuable service to the American public and should be maintained. October is National Arts and Humanities Month. Let us use the occasion to reflect upon the eloquent words of President Kennedy delivered shortly before the Endowments were founded: I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist. * * * I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business and statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise its standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of its citizens. I believe that the National Endowment for the Arts has been remarkably successful in furthering this ideal. Arts is no longer the privileged domain of a relatively few practitioners and connoisseurs; it no longer exists in a remote and rarefied atmosphere. It can no longer be considered as incidental or peripheral to our way of life. It is central to the life we cherish and to the beliefs we hold; for as a nation we are reaching toward maturity, and the surest sign of maturity lies in the growing expression of an indigenous and creative national culture. The Arts Endowment provides critical assistance in creating and presenting our Nation's music, theater, dance, literature, painting, sculpture, photography, film and video, design arts and folk arts. Without this funding, many popular programs would simply not exist, let alone be made available to millions. Even the very limited funds appropriated for the Endowment help keep ticket prices reasonable, thus enabling lower income citizens, young people, the elderly and the disabled to gain access to our common culture. The Humanities Endowment has supported and preserved the work of an extraordinary group of scholars and historians, and stimulated a wide array of new scholarship--all of which has served to expand our Nation's collective knowledge of history, literature, philosophy, languages, and religion. Many know of the agency's role in sponsoring thrilling interpretive exhibitions and informative films on public television. It has also helped to fund such diverse projects as a dictionary of American language, an encyclopedia of bioethics, the publication of George Washington's papers, the distribution of the ``Civilization'' series to 2,000 colleges, the microfilming of over 600,000 brittle books and repair of 100,000 additional volumes, training for conservators, summer seminars for teachers, the introduction of various new technologies to the classroom, and repairs to museum, library, and school collections damaged by Hurricane Andrew and the Midwest floods. Parents and teachers know the importance of arts and humanities curricula; and studies confirm that they teach young people creativity, increase self-discipline, develop analytical and communication skills, and are a critical means of passing on an understanding of American culture and civilization to the next generation. I urge my colleagues to stop using the Endowments as pawns in an ideological war and move to reaffirm the Government's support of the arts and humanities. It is very important that we act on the reauthorization of the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities Act of 1995 this year and I fervently hope that our leadership will schedule a time to consider bill S. 856 as soon as possible.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I believe all my colleagues agree on the goals of United States policy toward Cuba--promoting a peaceful transition to democracy, economic liberalization, and greater respect for human rights while controlling immigration from Cuba. Where some of us clearly differ, however, is on how we get there. Despite the changes that have been made to the pending legislation, I believe that it continues to take us further away from achieving these goals. I believe, therefore, that this legislation is contrary to U.S. national interests. We should undertake policy measures to enhance contact with the Cuban people, because that will serve United States national interests; namely, the fostering of the peaceful transition to democracy on that island. In my view, greater contact with the Cuban people will plant the seeds of [[Page S 15319]] change and advance the cause of democracy just as greater exchange with the West helped hasten the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. I think it is naive to think that the measure before us today is going to succeed in forcing Castro to step aside, where all other pressures have not. However, the measures proposed in this bill do have the serious potential of further worsening the living conditions of the Cuban people and once again making a mass exodus for Miami an attractive option. Taken to its most extreme, this bill could even provoke serious violence on the island. This legislation is even more problematic than earlier efforts to tighten the screws on Castro. I say this because its implications go well beyond United States-Cuban relations. It alienates our allies and tie the administration's foreign policy hands. Contact and dialog between Havana and Washington will bring about democracy on the island of Cuba, not isolation and impoverishment. Perhaps if we took that approach, our allies would be more likely to support our policy with respect to Cuba. Today we are virtually alone. The Helms-Burton bill has gone through a number of changes since it was first introduced. In fact, Senator Helms' substitute amendment differs in a number of areas from the House-passed bill. However, no version to date resolves the fundamental problem I have with the direction it takes U.S. policy. For these reasons I will vote against this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the happy news that the Roger Williams National Memorial is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its authorization. I want to take this chance to tell you about Roger Williams, a Founding Father that you will not encounter here, except in the rotunda of the Capitol. He was the founder of Rhode Island and a champion of Democracy and religious liberty. There is no national memorial to Roger Williams here, unlike the monuments to other national heroes like Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. Our national memorial is in Rhode Island, where he lived and left us a philosophical legacy of incomparable worth. Roger Williams was banished for his beliefs from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635, but survived both banishment and subsequent efforts to take over the settlement he named Providence. ``The air of the country is sharp,'' Roger Williams said of Providence, ``the rocks many, the trees innumerable, the grass little, the winter cold, the summer hot, the gnats in summer biting, the wolves at night howling.'' Thirteen householders in the population of 32 in the first year formed the first genuine democracy--also the first church-divorced and conscience-free community--in modern history. I cannot emphasize enough how unique and utopian the vision of Roger Williams was in the midst of the 17th century. He was almost alone in believing that all citizens should be free to worship as their conscience dictated. Roger Williams was a determined and dedicated man. In 1672, when he was nearly 70, he rowed all day to reach Newport for a 4-day debate with three Quaker orators. Both his settlement and his ideas have survived and prospered. For most of his life, Roger Williams was a deeply religious man. Even without a church to call his own, his ideas flourished in Providence and remain alive today. Documents, such as our Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence can be traced directly back to the hardfought freedoms earned by Roger Williams and his followers. I encourage my colleagues to visit the statue of Roger Williams in the Rotunda of the Capitol. When you do, remember that even the principles of democracy and religious liberty did not come easily. Roger Williams gave them form and substance more than 350 years ago. These principles also founded the basis of our belief that all people are created with equal rights and should not be denied opportunities to succeed because of their race, gender, or religion. I sponsored the Senate legislation that authorized the creation of the Roger Williams National Memorial and I have watched it take shape on the site of his original settlement in Providence, RI. This anniversary comes at an important time. One purpose of the memorial is to emphasize the linked principles of tolerance and freedom. As recent events have demonstrated, we need to focus on these principles. I am delighted to share with my colleagues today the news that the National Park Service is planning new initiatives to strengthen the impact of the Roger Williams National Memorial and its vital message. If you have any doubts about the significance of Roger Williams in our history, consider how his philosophy has resonated through our other Founding Fathers and found its way into our most sacred documents. Just a few examples, culled from his writings, should help to sound his call for freedom: ``The sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the People.''--The Bloody Tenent of Persecution for Conscience Discussed (1644). ``The civil state is humbly to be implored to provide in their high wisdom for security of all the respective consciences.''--The Hireling Ministry None of Christs ``No person in this colony shall be molested or questioned for the matters of his conscience to God, so he be loyal and keep the civil peace.''--Letter to Major John Mason (1670) ``And having in a sence of God's merciful providence unto me in my distresse called the place Providence, I desired it might be a shelter for persons distressed for conscience.''--Early Records of Providence We owe a tremendous debt to Roger Williams as the first champion of true religious freedom and for translating principles of democracy and tolerance from concepts into substance.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this month marks the start of a new class of AmeriCorps members who are dedicated to serving this Nation. As AmeriCorps celebrates its first successful year and the new class begins its service, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my support for continued Federal funding of this important national service initiative. Over the past year, 20,000 AmeriCorps members worked in schools, hospitals, national parks, and law enforcement organizations to meet the most crucial needs of individual communities. AmeriCorps clearly helps to provide a more promising future for Americans by expanding educational opportunities for the young whole simultaneously improving the public services in hundreds of communities. In my own State of Rhode Island, AmeriCorps has been particularly successful due to the efforts of Lawrence K. Fish, chairman of the Rhode Island Commission for National and Community Service. Mr. Fish challenged higher education institutions in Rhode Island to grant scholarships to AmeriCorps members. Many of our colleges and universities answered Mr. Fish's challenge and have begun lending their support in the form of college scholarships. His endeavor to expand AmeriCorps has offered more students access to an otherwise unaffordable education. Mr. Fish's exemplary work in Rhode Island serves as the quintessential example of building the natural bridge between public service and educational opportunities. In this regard, I ask that an opinion editorial by Lawrence Fish from the Providence Journal of October 11 be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: [From the Providence (RI) Journal, Oct. 11, 1995] The Challenge of AmeriCorps (By Lawrence K. Fish) Not surprisingly, the debate in Washington over continued funding of the Corporation for National Service has become laser-focused on the politics of embarrassing President Clinton, and not on the people for whom AmeriCorps has been a ringing success. And the reason is not surprising. It is that Washington, to the frustration of just about everyone outside the District of Columbia, just can't resist playing an inside-the-Beltway version of Gotcha! From the politicians to the pundits to the press, the emphasis remains on the politics of issues, not on the substance of issues or their impact on real people. For whom has AmeriCorps been successful? It's been a success here in Rhode Island to the 250 AmeriCorps members who have signed up for this domestic Peace Corps and whose efforts, mostly in education, have made better, dramatically better, the lives of thousands of our neighbors. Giver and receiver have been enriched by the effort, and for that, Rhode Island is a better place. Let me try to explain why AmeriCorps' success here in Rhode Island ought to serve as a model for programs in the 49 other states, and why that success and our promise for the future stand as far more compelling points in the debate than political oneupmanship. AmeriCorps members have served in cities and towns from Woonsocket to Newport, bringing with them a wealth of desire, experience and cultural diversity. They have gotten results-- good results that are measurable. You can see the results on paper and you can see them on the faces of children getting their first ``A's'' and in adults reading for the first time. Rhode Island's AmeriCorps program has been very successful--and has been recognized as such. For the second straight year, after a very competitive process that pitted us against 49 other states, we received more AmeriCorps funding on a per capita basis than any other state. In this our second year Rhode Island will field 250 AmeriCorps members in eight programs that will touch the lives of thousands of our neighbors. Once again, they will work predominantly in education, because that's where many believe the greatest need is. Linking public service and education, we approached the leaders of the state's colleges, universities and technical schools to see if they would accept our AmeriCorps challenge to inaugurate a public-private partnership from which they will get the lessons of service and commitment from AmeriCorps veterans and to which they will provide a quality education. The Rev. Philip Smith of Providence College was the first to meet the challenge, and Vartan Gregorian of Brown was close behind. They were followed almost immediately by our other higher-education leaders--Bob Carothers of URI, Sister Therese Antone of Salve Regina, Bill Trueheart of Bryant, Roger Mandle of RISD, Jack Yena of Johnson and Wales and Ed Liston of CCRI. I mention them to dramatize that AmeriCorps runs cost-effective, successful, nonpartisan programs. I accompanied the presidents of seven of the state's public and private colleges and universities to Washington for meetings on Capitol Hill and in the White House. There we outlined the Rhode Island Challenge to [[Page S 15368]] Higher Education, a challenge to provide scholarships to AmeriCorps members that complement the stipends they receive for their year of service. The result is a win/win for both sides: Higher education gets the kind of committed students who are potential campus leaders; and AmeriCorps members pass through another gateway to opportunity. The foundation for the Rhode Island Challenge to Higher Education was laid a year ago. Rhode Island's bipartisan congressional delegation, each member of which played a role in the passage of the legislation that brought about AmeriCorps, joined other dignitaries at Slater Junior High School in Pawtucket in AmeriCorps's debut. The setting, a junior high school in the heart of one of our older, struggling cities, provided a fitting backdrop for the Rhode Island AmeriCorps members and the educational programs they would serve. In the year since, AmeriCorps members have farmed out across the state, serving as teachers' assistants in public schools, tutors in after-school mentoring programs, and teaching English as a Second Language and GED classes to adults. And they've had an impact, all because they are 100 percent behind keeping their end of a bargain to make AmeriCorps work the way in which Congress and the President intended. Rhode Islanders would have been proud to have joined me and some of the presidents in the White House Cabinet Room recently when we introduced the Rhode Island Challenge to Higher Education to President Clinton. From the smallest state to the other 49 came the challenge for their colleges and universities to match our commitment of scholarships to AmeriCorps members. Our hope, and that of AmeriCorps members around the country and others committed to public service, is that our Challenge to Higher Education can help overcome the cynicism that has come to mark the debate in Washington.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL. I would like to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. PELL. Thank you. As I have stated on previous occasions, my usual practice is to always vote for cloture as a matter of principle. Indeed, in my more than 34 years in the Senate, I have cast over 330 votes in favor of cloture and have only voted otherwise very rarely. The vote tonight is one of those rare occasions, because I feel so strongly about the issue at hand. I believe the best American policy in Cuba will be one of openness and regular relations. My several visits to that island over the years have only fortified my belief that the Communist regime there will wither under the light of expanded contact with the United States. Having in other periods of life lived under communism, I know that when exposed to freedom and the market economy it dies of its own ineptitude. The bill before us has just the opposite effect, and extended debate is warranted to make the case against it. So I shall be casting my vote, with some reluctance, against cloture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that material I have here be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, when the subject of Job Corps was being discussed on the Senate floor at an earlier time, I spoke about solutions to, The important problems and challenges facing our young people: the need for originality and new ideas; the need for knowledge to combat ignorance; and, above all, the need for broadening the horizons for youth, so that each young man and young woman in the United States can develop the best of his or her talents in a climate of maximum opportunity. I delivered those remarks in March 1964 during debate on President Johnson's poverty program, which created, among others, the Job Corps Program. Thirty-one years later, the problems and challenges are surprisingly, and unfortunately, the same. I doubt any of my colleagues would disagree with the importance of allowing our young people to develop to the best of their ability. For many, colleges and universities are the places they go to develop their talents; still others find vocational schools or service in our Armed Forces to be the place. Regrettably, Mr. President, there remain some young men and women who do not even know what their talent is. They are referred to as poverty youth. In reality, they are young Americans who, through no fault of their own, lack the skills needed to get an education or find a job. It is for these people that Job Corps was created, has flourished, and must continue. It is just as important today as it was 34 years ago to do all we can to look for new ideas to old problems; to replace ignorance with knowledge; and most important, allow all of our young people, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they make, to discover their special talent and go on to develop that talent. This is why I am a cosponsor of and will vote for the Simon-Specter amendment. I am pleased the amendment calls for a review and closing of any centers that are not serving their students. I am also pleased about the strong emphasis the amendment places on community involvement. The hearings held by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee certainly pointed out the strong, positive impact an involved community can have on the success of a Job Corps Center. Most important, I am pleased that the Simon-Specter amendment keeps the Job Corps Program as a national program. This, I feel, is vital. My only lingering regret, Mr. President, is that my own State of Rhode Island is one of four States which so far does not have a Job Corps Center of its own. I continue to hope that this omission can be addressed in the context of strengthening and improving the program. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Jeffords and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the House of Representatives recently approved the Careers Act which contains extensive provisions regarding library services. This is the companion bill to the legislation we are now considering and the bill the House will bring to conference, Senate bill 143. I am of the mind we should have library services provisions formally on the table when we go to conference with the House. Thus, the amendment now being offered would include the Institute of Museum and Library Services reauthorization as part of S. 143. Those provisions stress the importance of both museums and libraries to literacy, economic development and most importantly, the work force development, all of which are relevant and important to the bill now under consideration. Mr. President, I believe this amendment is or should be considered noncontroversial, and I urge its approval.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have a couple of points to make. One of them is, it seems to me unwise to support tacitly the practice of submitting a cloture motion at the same time as a bill or amendment is submitted. I think if this becomes a precedent, it could lead to abuse. Second, I would like to make the observation that I think I am probably the only Member of this body who has lived under communism for a year or two, a couple of years, and been exposed to it. I have been to Castro's Cuba four times since being in the Senate and twice to Guantanamo. My view is that the best medicine we can give the Cubans is to submit them to exposure to freedom and fresh air and clear light, that this is what gets rid of communism. I think back to when I lived under the Iron Curtain. We used to say the same thing, that communism would die of its own evil, which it did; of its own ineptitude, which it did. And this is what we should admit to having with Cuba. And, I submit, the legislation before us does not do that. I believe all my colleagues agree on the goals of American policy toward Cuba--promoting a peaceful transition to democracy, economic liberalization and greater respect for human rights while simultaneously controlling immigration from Cuba. What is clearly different is how we get there. In my view, the legislation before us today is going to take us further away from achieving these goals and is contrary to U.S. national interests. Rather than ratcheting up the pressure even further in order to isolate Cuba, as this bill would do, we should be expanding contact with the Cuban people. In that regard, I believe the measures announced by President Clinton last week are a step in the right direction. These measures include the reciprocal opening of news bureaus in the United States and Cuba in order to improve the accuracy of the bilateral flow of information; support for the development of independent, nongovernmental organizations in Cuba in order to strengthen civil society; clarification of standards for travel for purposes of news gathering, research, cultural, educational, religious and human rights activities; simplification of regulations that govern travel to Cuba by the Cuban-Americans for extreme humanitarian emergencies such as death or illness of family members; and, finally, authorization for Western Union to open offices in Cuba to facilitate the transfer of funds that are currently permissible for purposes of paying legal immigration fees and for case-by-case humanitarian needs. Of course, I would like to see the administration go even further in order to permit the full, free flow of information and people between our two countries because I believe this would best facilitate the transition to democracy. Under appropriate circumstances, too, I would support lifting the embargo. I say this not because I believe the Cuban Government should be rewarded. In fact, I am amongst those who are disappointed that the Cuban Government has failed to make truly meaningful steps toward political reform and improved human rights. Nor do I believe that should be done as a quid pro quo. We should undertake policy measures to enhance--not decrease--to enhance contact with the Cuban people, because that will serve American national interests; namely, the fostering of the peaceful transition to democracy on that island. In my view, greater contact with the Cuban people will plant the seeds of change and advance the cause of democracy just as greater exchange with the West helped hasten the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. In his posthumously published book, former President Nixon wrote that ``we should drop the economic embargo and open the way to trade, investment and economic interaction * * *'' Nixon believed we would better help the Cuban people by building ``pressure from within by actively stimulating Cuba's economic contacts with the free world.'' The Cuban Government has been expanding political and economic ties with the rest of the world. These economic relations in and of themselves are no substitute for the economic benefits that would accrue from more normal relations with the United States, but they do provide sufficient space for Castro to refuse to give in to U.S. demands. I think it is naive to think that the measure before us today is going to succeed in forcing Castro to step aside, where all other pressures have not. However, the measures proposed in this bill do have the serious potential of further worsening the living conditions of the Cuban people and once again making a mass exodus for Miami an attractive option. Taken to its most extreme, this bill could even provoke serious violence on the island. This legislation is even more problematic than earlier efforts to tighten the screws on Castro. I say this because its implications go well beyond United States-Cuban relations. Not only does it alienate our allies and tie the administration's foreign policy hands, it also seriously injures certain Americans in order to benefit a class of individuals in the Cuban-American community. In the process, it throws out the window more than 40 years of international law and practice, in the area of expropriation. Finally, it will make more difficult the transformation of the Cuban economy to a market based on economy, because of the complex property issues associated with these pending court judgments. Contact and dialog between Havana and Washington will bring about democracy on the Island of Cuba, not isolation and impoverishment. Perhaps if we took that approach, our allies [[Page S 14998]] would seek a similar course, and realize that they might compromise some of their approaches with us. I only ask my colleagues to observe the lessons of what happened with the removal of communism in Eastern Europe when it was forced out--when the light, free air, and freshness of democracy swept it out. But if you build walls and isolate that will not occur. I yield the floor. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, I think I would prefer that the sponsor of the amendment have the first opportunity. Mr. PRYOR. I thank the distinguished Senator. I will proceed. I will be sensitive to the time constraint that we are faced with. (The remarks of Mr. Pryor pertaining to the introduction of S. 1299 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PELL. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PELL. Right. That will be done by the managers of the bill. I want to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Jeffords. The bill provides that 25 percent of the funds go to the work force education. This amendment would stipulate that 25 percent of those education funds would go to adult education and 75 percent to vocational education. To my mind, it is very important the adult education be assured of funding. In State after State this is a program that is run by volunteers and groups that do not have substantial political clout. Consequently, I fear that adult education will be at a considerable disadvantage in the give and take that will lead to dividing the pie with vocational education. Today, adult education serves only half of all those who seek its services. This says nothing about outreach to those who need such services, but do not seek them. If the one-stop career centers operate as they are envisioned, it is reasonable to expect that we will identify many more adults who need adult education services. That, in turn, could well overwhelm an adult education system that is already overburdened. Approval of the Jeffords amendment would mean simply that adult education would be ensured a flow of funds that would enable it to continue the very excellent and much-needed services it now provides. I would urge my colleagues to support its passage and that I strongly support it myself. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to again join with Senator Dodd in sponsoring this amendment. Unfortunately, when a similar version was offered at the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee markup, it was defeated on an 8 to 8 tie. Senator Dodd and I know all too well how a State is affected by sudden, unexpected, large-scale worker dislocations. It is our strong belief that under S. 143 States would not be able to react go the large dislocations my home State has become familiar with recently. By their nature, these massive dislocations are abrupt events. In designing its general work force plan called for under this new legislation, no State would, or should, reserve a portion of its limited job training money to prepare for an event that might or might not take place at an undetermined time in the future. This is why we have introduced this amendment that reserves a small pool of money at the Federal level to be dispersed to States when and if they are in need. This program works well now and I believe it should be allowed to continue. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for this legislation, which makes dramatic and sweeping changes not only in job training but also in vocational and adult education. In job training, change is without a doubt necessary. We need to consolidate programs and to build a system that better meets the needs of those who need job training services. In vocational and adult education, however, the need for a massive overhaul is much less clear. In some ways, we need simply to refine and not revamp what we already have in law. I am generally pleased with the course that has been set in this bill. It will bring coherence and coordination to a system of too many programs that have often operated at odds with each other. It will focus job training services on those who need them most, and in a way that will help them get the advice, assistance, and training they need. In vocational and adult education, I believe we have fashioned an agreement that should sustain the strong bipartisan support these programs have traditionally enjoyed. Among the important provisions are: No. 1, are within state formula; No. 2, a focus on at-risk students from low-income families; No. 3, maintenance of effort and supplement not supplant language; No. 4, an emphasis on the integration of academic and vocational education; No. 5, the linking of secondary and postsecondary education through exciting programs like tech prep; No. 6, the disaggregation of data to let us know better the progress we are making; and, No. 7, the continuation of the critically important adult education programs. I would emphasize, however, that we can make this bill even better if we adopt a series of important amendments. I am very concerned, for instance, that adult education should have a separate stream of funding so that its accomplishments are not diminished. I believe that the flexibility account, which constitutes 50 percent of the funding, is too large, and that a better configuration would be one-third for work force education, one-third for work force training, and one-third for the flex account. Further, I believe we should approve an amendment strengthening the Job Corps provisions now in the bill. And, I do not believe that we should repeal the Trade Adjustment Act which helps individuals who because of international competition, and through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. Mr. President, I supported this bill in committee largely because of the strong provisions for adult and vocational education. I support it today for the same reasons. However, I believe we have the opportunity to make a good bill an even better one if we approve amendments such as those I have mentioned. I look forward to a lively and productive debate, and remain very hopeful that the end result will be legislation that has broad and deep bipartisan support.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the recent cease-fire agreement in Liberia. After nearly 6 years of civil war, 13 failed peace agreements and protracted negotiations, the leaders of Liberia's warring factions have finally coalesced to form a government aimed at bringing peace and democracy to this war-torn African nation. This recent peace agreement, agreed to on August 19, 1995, in Abuja Nigeria, provides the United States with a unique opportunity to demonstrate leadership in restoring peace and democracy to a longtime ally, as well as to prove its concern for the stability of the entire West African region. Mr. President, I would like to begin my statement by identifying several key actors who deserve recognition for procuring this peace agreement: Members of ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, ECOMOG, the West African peacekeeping force, UNOMIL, the U.N. observer mission, and the President's Special Envoy to Liberia, Ambassador Dane Smith, I would particularly commend the extraordinary diplomatic leadership shown by President Jerry Rawlings of Ghana and his Deputy Foreign Minister Muhamed Ibn Chambas. I know and greatly admire both men; their commitment to peace in Liberia is exemplary and is one of the key reasons why this cease-fire and agreement have been archived. On a local level, I would like to pay special tribute to my esteemed colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, the distinguished Senator from Kansas. As Chair of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, she is a strong leader, an able manager, a model for bipartisanship, and a tremendous resource on issues regarding African affairs. Last week, Senator Kassebaum introduced amendment 2710, stating that it is in the interest of the United States to ``strongly support the peace process [[Page S 14701]] in Liberia, including diplomatic engagement, support for the West Africa peacekeeping force, humanitarian assistance, and assistance for demobilizing troops and for the resettlement of refugees.'' I too, believe that it is in the interest of the United States to support this peace agreement, both diplomatically and financially. The United States has a special responsibility towards Liberia. Founded in the early 19th century by freed American slaves, the United States and Liberia have had almost 150 years of continued friendship. As pointed out in a position paper sent to me by Friends of Liberia, in World War II, American soldiers used Liberian airfields and ports as a primary base to supply the battlefields in North Africa and Europe. During the cold war, Liberia was often our only reliable ally in Africa, serving as a listening post and headquarters to the United States intelligence services. At the United Nations, Liberia has been a dependable American ally, consistently voting in support of United States positions, even when such actions were unpopular among other developing nations. If we neglect our historic relationship with Liberia, we will jeopardize, if not lose, our reliable foothold in Africa. A limited diplomatic reaction to this peace agreement would reflect poorly on our commitment to peace and democracy on the African Continent, and would hinder future United States diplomatic and commercial interests, among others, in the region. Given the current climate in Congress to paralyze humanitarian assistance, I believe that this situation offers an important opportunity to prove to critics of U.S. foreign aid that a small investment in seeking peace through diplomacy will yield significant returns. By heightening our diplomatic involvement and providing modest financial support to the peace process, we can help break the cycle of humanitarian need that will only continue if this disastrous war is not resolved. American support can make the difference in securing a sustainable peace in Liberia and beyond. The international community looks to the United States as having the closest ties to Liberia, thus having the responsibility of taking the first step in assisting this peace process. Once the United States takes the lead, the European Community, Japan and other governments with historical relationships with Liberia, as well as members from the private and public sectors, are likely to follow. Given our special relationship towards Liberia, our commitment to promoting peace, democracy, trade and human rights in West Africa, and our position in the international community as the only remaining superpower, I conclude that it is in the interest of the United States to take the initiative to develop and implement a coalition to sustain the peace in Liberia. We must move quickly to provide the significant support, in terms of diplomatic engagement and where possible, the allocation of resources, to assist the Liberians as they move through this delicate period of transition to peace and democracy.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, 30 years ago today on September 29, 1995, I was proud to witness President Lyndon Johnson sign into law the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act which established the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. That historic occasion marked the beginning of a process to preserve America's cultural heritage and to broaden access to millions of our citizens in every corner of the country, Americans who would otherwise not be able to hear a symphony orchestra concert, see a dance or theater production, or experience a great museum exhibition. By any measure, the endowments have been a magnificent success. People are participating in our culture in record numbers. The endowments have made a difference in the lives of millions of children and their families. A cultural infrastructure has solidified and grown. In 1965, where there were 46 nonprofit theaters, there are over 425 today. The numbers of large orchestras has doubled, opera companies have increased 6-fold, and there are 10 times as many dance companies now as there were 30 years ago. In 1965, there were five State arts agencies; today every State has a vibrant public arts agency, and there are now community arts agencies in over 3,800 cities, counties and towns. Individuals who have received endowment support early in their careers have gone on to spectacular achievement, earning numerous important prizes and awards, and creating works that will prove to be an enduring legacy from the second half of the 20th century. In my own State of Rhode Island, the endowments have supported a Music in our Schools program in Providence, a folk and traditional arts apprenticeship program and the nationally-acclaimed Trinity Repertory Theater; aided the Museum of Art at the Rhode Island School of Design in renovating its painting and sculpture facilities; and provided funds to a team of scholars at the Rhode Island Historical Society to edit the papers of Revolutionary War Gen. Nathaniel Greene for publication. Also funded was a partnership between the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts and the U.S. Department of Education to integrate theater, music and design into the curriculum of the Davies Career and Technical High School which has shown to improve overall discipline and attendance at the school. As further testimony to their success, the small investments in American culture made by the endowments has stimulated an extraordinary amount of private dollars. Since 1985, NEH matching funds have leveraged almost $1.4 billion in third-party support for the humanities. Each Federal dollar invested by NEA leverages $12 non- Federal dollars. As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the endowments, we are celebrating our belief in a vigorous, democratic, far-reaching culture. The Federal Government has a strong role to play in transmitting our Nation's greatest artistic and scholarly achievements to the generations of the future. As the present custodians of American culture, we must continue to do so. It would be a tragedy for the 30th anniversary celebration to be marred by a reluctance to reauthorize the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senate is considering the appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice and State Departments. It would be tempting to address this bill in the same fashion as I have other measures during this session which have contained drastic--indeed, draconian--spending cuts. The natural inclination is to talk about how the cuts will affect specific programs or policies, many of which are vital to the security of our Nation or the well-being of our people. In this context, I would be led to talk about how the CJS appropriations bill, as reported by the committee, lops off more than $1 billion--I repeat, more than $1 billion--from the President's request for the foreign affairs agencies. There will be dramatic reductions in spending for the administration of foreign affairs, for the acquisition and maintenance of buildings, for the U.S. assessed contributions to the United Nations, for U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping, and for international exchange programs. I understand that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee may offer an amendment which may add additional funds to the foreign affairs account--which I applaud and will support. I must speak now, however, to the bill as reported by the committee. Many of my colleagues know that these are programs and functions that are extremely important to me. When I recently announced my intention not to seek reelection to the Senate, some of my fellow Senators graciously came to the floor to say some very kind things about me. For that I am deeply grateful, and indeed humbled. One thing that struck me that day was how many of my colleagues mentioned my support for the United Nations, and the fact that I have carried a copy of the charter with me for many years. I have not carried it with me all of this time just for show and tell. I carry it because I believe in it, and I think that it has represented--and continues to represent--one of our best hopes for international peace and security. If we proceed with the reductions in funding for the U.S. contributions to the regular and peacekeeping budgets, however, the charter will become nothing more than pretty words. There will be no point, and no joy, in carrying it in my pocket. I have also been a consistent advocate of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA]. More than three decades ago, President Kennedy and the Congress decided to create by statute the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency--which was then and remains now the only separate agency of its type in the world. If the Congress eviscerates ACDA and perversely rewards its employees by discharging them, we will do grievous damage to our ability to lead the world in effective arms control, to verify compliance of often hostile nations with their arms control obligations to us, and to deal effectively with new arms control and proliferation threats. As I said moments ago, it would be tempting to continue at length about the impact of this and other bills on programs such as arms control, the United Nations and U.N. peacekeeping. Today, however, I want to discuss this bill in broader and more far-reaching terms. Whether or not the Senate cares to admit it, our decisions and actions this year are going to have a direct and negative impact on America's place in the world, and on our fundamental relationships with other world powers. I am very proud of the U.S. record of leadership, achievement, and engagement in international relations. Twice in the 20th century, our Nation stood with its allies to fight on a global scale against aggression. During the cold war, the United States took the lead to contain the hegemonistic designs of the former Soviet Union. In the early 1990's, the United States led an international coalition of forces in turning back Iraq's illegal grab of Kuwait. Equally as important, however, are the battles we did not fight--the conflicts that we avoided, the crises that we averted through diplomatic discussion and pressure. Even if we made mistakes from time to time, we were successful in all of these endeavors because of our belief in principles, our commitment to do what we thought right and our willingness to be actively engaged. Our decisions, policies, and programs were often costly in both human and material terms, but they made our world a safer place, and our Nation a better and more profitable place to live. Our motivation sadly seems to have changed. Decisions are being made out of political expediency rather than sound judgment. Our impulse as politicians--particularly this year--is to rush willy-nilly to make budget cuts for their own sake, without regard to the consequences. Instead of using reason and analysis to construct a foreign policy, we are using calculators. We must stop, think, and take a good hard look at how the United States can expect to project its power and influence under the circumstances now proposed. The State Department and the foreign affairs agencies--our Nation's eyes, ears, and voice to the world-- cannot carry out its mission if they haven't the personnel, resources, and infrastructure required by the times. [[Page S 14500]] It is not just a matter of doing more with less. I know the fiscal imperatives of our time, and appreciate that we are required to spend less and consolidate functions and responsibilities. The spending reductions in this bill are so severe, however, that the United States will be forced to close dozens of critical posts overseas, to renege on treaty commitments, and simply disengage from diplomatic activity. That is not sound fiscal policy, and it is certainly not leadership. It is isolationism. We are shutting ourselves off from the world, and our Nation's security and economy will suffer. I do not use the term isolationism lightly. It is a serious charge, but one that I think is accurate. We must acknowledge the impact of this bill on our ability to work with other nations, and understand that by violating our international commitments, we will undermine our own national security. And make no mistake, this bill will force us to violate our international commitments and will have an adverse impact on virtually every aspect of the quality of life of our citizens. Allow me to give some examples. In 1990, the Bush administration pledged that the United States would meet its treaty obligation to pay its U.N. dues in full, and that we would pay off our arrears. This bill would violate that pledge, and we will become the world's biggest deadbeat. At a certain point--which is fast approaching--we will lose our vote in the U.N. General Assembly because of the size of our arrears. This bill will also affect our obligations to NATO, to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to the International Telecommunications Union, and to the World Health Organization. In other words, we will have a diminished role to play in the critical fields of international security, nuclear nonproliferation, global communications, and international health. We also would hamstring the work of lesser-known but important organizations such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. Both of these are making vital contributions to simplifying and unifying the international legal system. How many times have we interceded on behalf of constituents in international adoptions, or in cases of parental abduction, or in the enforcement of legal judgments? This bill will afford our constituents less protection in such matters, and we will be responsible. As a broader, practical matter, American citizens will be far less able to rely on U.S. Government support abroad as a result of this bill, whether it be in consular, commercial, or political matters. My guess, and it pains me to say this, is that the Congress will try to duck its responsibility for such an outcome. Instead of facing up to our constituents and explaining why they cannot find support or relief, Members will try to shift the blame to the State Department and our overseas employees. Recently, some have found it fashionable--and even humorous--to characterize the Foreign Service as a coddled group of elitist intellectuals who shun hard work. As a former Foreign Service officer, I reject the characterization and am compelled to pay tribute to the dedicated and capable men and women who comprise our diplomatic corps. I know how hard they work, and how dedicated they are to serving our Nation's interests. Some of them, as we have just seen in Bosnia, have made the supreme sacrifice of giving their lives in service to the country. Mr. President, we should honor these men and women and give them our full appreciation. At a minimum, we should see that they have a basic level of support to handle their ever-increasing responsibilities. We would never send our soldiers to war without support in depth; why would we send our diplomats--whose service is no less noble or patriotic than that of any soldier--to do political battle with virtually no support at all? Mr. President, we are forsaking the lessons of history for political opportunism. The proponents of this bill will insist that they are not isolationists, but they must realize that their proposals will lead us into isolationism. We cannot influence the decisions of international bodies if we are not there to participate. And if we try to participate without paying our bills, no one will listen to us. That is isolation in the truest sense of the word. Mark my words: if we continue down the path we are now heading, our children will be left with one of two choices. The first is to accept that their forebears let their country become a xenophobic, second-rate power with a shrunken and insulated economy. The second is to re-fight the battles for which our generation already has paid so dearly. Neither, in my view, is an acceptable choice. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.