Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the extraordinary impact of the National Endowment for the Humanities on my home state of Rhode Island. Rhode Island has long had a special relationship with the Endowments--ever since the President of Brown University, my old friend Barnaby Keeney, formed a Commission to investigate the possibility of a national support for study in the humanities. [[Page S 14546]] The Commission returned with a forceful recommendation for the creation of such a program and in 1965 we created the National Endowment for the Humanities. Since that time, the Humanities Endowment has supported scholarly research, education and public programs concerned with history, literature, philosophy, language and other humanistic disciplines, and have helped to make the United States a leader in these fields of study. Programs have included both popular and scholarly works characterized by their singular excellence, including the Pulitzer Prize winning Slavery and Human Progress and programs such as ``The Civil War,'' ``Columbus and the Age of Discovery'' and ``Baseball.'' Barnaby Keeney, a decorated veteran and a medieval historian, left Brown University to become the first chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Since then, Brown University has been in the forefront of research and study in humanities, recognized for its extraordinary excellence with repeated fellowships and grants for humanities research over the last thirty years. Rhode Island and the Nation as a whole have benefited enormously from this work. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that two pieces by Edward Abrahams, director of government and community relations at Brown University--an op-ed article on the importance of the humanities that appeared recently in the Providence Journal and remarks delivered on Humanities Day--be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I offer my congratulations to the conveners and participants of the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing this September, and the parallel NGO Forum on Women for promoting the human rights of women around the world. I would especially commend the members of the U.S. delegation to the Women's Conference, particularly First Lady Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Madeleine Albright, as well as the many others who contributed to its success. The goal of this conference was to promote the advancement of women by identifying and overcoming the obstacles still facing women. In many parts of the world today, discrimination against women results in forced abortions, in the trafficking or forced prostitution of young girls, and in the denial of nutrition or health care, even to the point of infanticide. Women are also the primary victims of domestic violence or rape, and rape is increasingly being used as a tool of war in conflicts such as Bosnia, Cambodia, Liberia, Peru, Somalia, and Rwanda. In many parts of the world, women are denied education, job training, or employment opportunities. Today, 64 percent of the world's illiterate and 70 percent of the world's population that lives in absolute poverty are women. Even when employed, women frequently face pay discrimination in the workplace. In too many countries, women are excluded from participating in policy-making or prevented by law from voting in elections. Mr. President, the Women's Conference addressed all of these issues and called upon governments to commit to specific actions that would advance the status of women. The United States delegation made commitments that continue the long-standing tradition of U.S. leadership in the fight for equality for women and men. American commitments include: the creation of a White House Council on Women to coordinate the implementation of the Platform for Action within the U.S.; a new Justice Department initiative to fight domestic violence; increased resources for improving women's health; improved access for women to financial credit; and continued support for the human rights of all people. Mr. President, I commend the Clinton administration for its continued efforts to promote the status of women at home and abroad. This year marks a historic point in the fight for women's equality. 1995 is the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage in the United States. It is also the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, whose Charter recognizes the equal rights of women and men. And of course, the success of this year's Fourth World Conference on Women has set a new agenda for the advancement of women. In this spirit, Mr. President, I believe it is time for the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Women's Convention is the most comprehensive and detailed international agreement that promotes the equality of women and men. The Convention legally defines discrimination against women for the first time and establishes rights for women in areas not previously covered by international law. Today, 147 countries have ratified the Convention. The United States is the only industrialized democracy in the world that has failed to ratify the Convention. Under my chairmanship, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held three hearings on this important convention. On September 29, 1994, with my whole-hearted support, the Committee voted 13 to 5 to report favorably the Convention with a resolution of ratification to the Senate for its advice and consent. Despite support for ratification from many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, from the Clinton administration, and from the American public, opponents of ratification succeeded in blocking the Convention from reaching a vote in the Senate last year. Mr. President, I believe the U.S. ratification of this Convention is important to demonstrate American commitment to eliminating all forms of discrimination against women both at home and abroad. Equally important, the United States should ratify the Convention in order to underscore the importance we assign to international efforts to promote and protect human rights. By failing to ratify the Women's Convention, the United States has rightfully encouraged criticism from allies who cannot understand our refusal to uphold rights that are already found within the provisions of our great Constitution. The United States cannot criticize other countries' violations of women's rights if we have not recognized those rights as international legal standards. The Women's Convention is an important human rights document that is consistent with the existing laws of the United States. Senate advice and consent to this Convention will demonstrate U.S. leadership in the fight for women's equality. Finally, Mr. President, as we consider the appropriations bill for the State Department budget, I would emphasize the difficulties that funding cuts will produce in the work to promote human rights. Without adequate funding, the U.S. will be unable to continue to play a leadership role in the international effort to promote women's equality. The ability of the State Department to monitor human rights abuses, to participate in the work of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, to support NGOs in their human rights work, and to gather information on human rights violations would be severely threatened. Clearly, it is in the best interests of the United States to promote human rights and democracy in every country. Let us not lose our leadership role in the protection of human rights.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, yesterday Secretary of State Warren Christopher delivered an important address to the U.N. General Assembly. Secretary Christopher's speech, which was made at the initiation of the 50th session of the General Assembly, was remarkable not only for the milestone it commemorated, but for the forward- thinking approach it took to the issue of U.N. reform. Recent congressional debates have demonstrated that continued U.S. support for the United Nations hinges on the issue of reform. At a time when some members of Congress are questioning the fundamental utility of U.S. participation in the United Nations, it is imperative that the U.N. perform its duties effectively and in a cost-efficient manner. As Secretary Christopher said last night, It is time to recognize that the UN must direct its limited resources to the world's highest priorities, focusing on the tasks that it performs best. The UN's bureaucracy should be smaller, with a clear organizational structure and sharp lines of responsibility. Each program must be held to a simple standard--that is, it must make a tangible contribution to the freedom, security, and well-being of real people in the real world. Mr. President, as one who was present at the creation of the United Nations, I have tried very hard to see the U.N. live up to its potential and have seen the good works of which it is capable. I underscore and applaud the Secretary of State's call for reform. His initiative has my full support, and I hope it will receive the support of the Congress as well. The very future of the United Nations, and the success of many of our own national security objectives, depend upon it. Mr. President, I commend the Secretary's address to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that the full text of his remarks be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I offer an amendment in support of the excellent work done by private, voluntary organizations and cooperatives, I believe my amendment will be acceptable to [[Page S 14061]] both sides. It is cosponsored by Senators Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Simon. My amendment is very simple. It says that the President shall seek to ensure that the same percentage of our economic assistance that currently is channeled through PVOs, continues to be channeled through PVOs next year. This language is identical to a provision that was included in the foreign aid authorization bill reported by the Foreign Relations Committee, and it is similar to a provision in the House- passed foreign operations appropriations bill. I think this amendment is important because private, voluntary organizations--PVOs--are our most cost-effective vehicle for delivering foreign assistance, and in this era of shrinking budgets we simply cannot afford to abandon our partnership with them, PVOs operate in countries and circumstances in which our government cannot or will not. They not only reflect American values and generosity, but are an efficient means of delivering people-to-people assistance that has a positive and lasting impact on the lives of the poor and builds long- term friendships for the United States. In addition to commanding broad public support, our partnership with PVOs and cooperatives leverages vast private resources. Much of the assistance we provide through PVOs is matched by contributions from corporations and private individuals. Thus reductions in the level of PVO participation in our foreign aid program could have a very damaging multiplier effect. Unfortunately, it appears that some cuts in development assistance are unavoidable. My amendment simply seeks to ensure that PVOs are not cut disproportionately. I think it is critical that the Senate go on record in support of the tremendous work done by these organizations and I would urge that the Senate adopt my amendment. amendment no 2747 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: Of the funds appropriated for Turkey under the heading ``Economic Assistance'', not less than $5 million shall be made available only through non-government organizations to be used only for projects in the ten southeastern provinces currently under a state of emergency, and shall be used only for projects designed to promote economic development, cultural and ethnic tolerance, and human rights activities, and to support the development and activities of non- governmental organizations.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that directs that a small amount of our overall assistance to Turkey be used by nongovernmental organizations for specific activities in the poorest part of Turkey--the southeast. Specifically, the amendment designates that not less than $5 million of our aid to Turkey be used for projects designed to promote economic development, cultural and ethnic tolerance, and human rights activities, and to support the development and activities of nongovernmental organizations in the southeast. The southeast, of course, is a traditionally Kurdish area where Kurds are caught in a vise between PKK terrorism and the Turkish military. Earlier this week, I released a report on Turkey prepared by members of the minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee. The report, which was based upon a trip that the staff conducted in August, found, among other things, that the Kurdistan Workers' Party [PKK] poses a grave threat not only to Turkey, but to regional stability as well. According to the report, the PKK bears direct responsibility for much of the tensions in southeast Turkey and for prompting the recent Turkish invasions of Iraq. The report also found, however, that the Government of Turkey bears much of the responsibility for the continued suffering in the southeast. The report acknowledges the great political challenges Prime Minister Ciller faces as she tries to address the Kurdish problem--a fact borne out by developments of the last several days by the fall of her government. The bottom line, however, is that the government has been unable--or unwilling--to distinguish the genuine threat posed by the PKK from the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Kurdish people. As a result, Turkey refuses to engage in a political dialog with nonviolent Kurdish representatives, and is executing a heavy- handed, indiscriminate military campaign to eradicate what it views as a monolithic threat to the unity of the country. By equating all Kurdish aspirations with the terrorist designs of the PKK, Turkey effectively has eliminated outlets for nonviolent Kurdish political or cultural expression. As a consequence, Turkey unintentionally may be contributing to the PKK's appeal. I believe it is important to encourage Turkey to offer Kurds and other groups outlets for nonviolent expression. One response to the well-chronicled Turkish rights violations has been to cut assistance. In fact, as many of my colleagues may be aware, the House voted to limit economic support funds for Turkey to $21 million. I propose that we take a different approach by addressing some of the very real economic needs Turkey is facing in the southeast--and to do so through non-governmental organizations. The Foreign Relations Committee staff visited Diyarbakir, one of the main cities in the southeast, which in many ways symbolizes the ethnic difficulties that persist within Turkey. That city has become a haven for rural Kurds forced to evacuate neighboring towns and villages destroyed by the Turkish military. By some estimates, the city's population has grown from roughly 300,000 to more an 1,500,000 during the past 5 years. Although Turkish officials, local residents, and some independent observers suggest that tensions have subsided during the past 2 years, it is evident that any existing calm is tenuous and the result of Turkey's overwhelming--and at times oppressive--security presence, which has exacted a high cost in terms of human rights violations. I believe that my amendment would have a positive impact by improving economic conditions in a very unstable area. This amendment also sends an important message to Turkey--as it faces the challenge of forming a new government--about the need to address other underlying problems such as the lack of ethnic and cultural acceptance and human rights abuses in the southeast. Turkish officials speak of the need to increase stability in the southeast. True stability can only come with increased tolerance. This amendment is intended to bolster that effort. amendment no. 2748 On page 36, line 4, after the word ``Turkey'' insert the following: ``: Provided further, That the President should seek the agreement of the Prime Minister of Turkey to permit access throughout Turkey for international humanitarian organizations which operate confidentially, and report to the Committee on Appropriations by June 1, 1996, on progress towards such agreement''.

Mr. PELL. There is objection.

Mr. PELL. Will the Senator yield for one correction?

Mr. PELL. I yielded to the Senator from Massachusetts not to oppose but to manage the bill. There is a difference.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, earlier today some statements were made on the floor of the Senate concerning the proposed reorganization plan for the State Department. The suggestion was made that Democratic Members-- specifically those on the Foreign Relations Committee, are responsible for holding up the processing of Ambassadorial nominations and other business by delaying the passage of the reorganization plan. I think that suggestion warrants a response. Why? The reorganization plan at issue is not a bipartisan plan. I only wish it was. Its existence was made known only yesterday, and it was crafted without the knowledge or input of even one Democratic Member. Already, it is clear that there are serious differences and much disagreement about the plan. I have other thoughts about this plan which should be expressed later. But I just wanted to respond to the suggestion that somehow it is the Democratic side of the committee that is delaying the consideration of nominations, legislation, treaties, and other important matters. The truth is that there is not, nor has there ever been, a Democratic hold on the Foreign Relations Committee's business. It is entirely the prerogative and within the power of our Republican colleagues to resume the committee's business. The halt in activity is an attempt to force an amendment that is supported and written and endorsed only by Republicans. We should not succumb to it simply because the proponents state erroneously that Democratic Members are responsible for the delay. Mr. President, during the years that I chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, I always tried to move every nomination and conduct business in both a timely and collegial fashion. Never--never--during those years--and indeed during those years of service on the committee--since 1964--can I recall a time when the committee was stopped dead in its tracks to force the consideration of a controversial measure. I do not think that is a proper way to conduct business and a tactic I have always--always resisted using over a great many years. I would hate to see it being used now, and the Senate becoming a battlefield, saying some of the Members will not do what they should do anyway, what they were hired to do, plus the treaty, plus the nomination, and in the meantime say, ``We will not do what we are [[Page S 14029]] supposed to do until you do what we want you to do.'' And I think it is a bad precedent. I would hope that the Senate turns it down. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Colorado for working with me and others to revise S. 602, the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995, which he and Senator Simon introduced earlier this year. While there are still a few [[Page S 14064]] changes that I hope we can make down the road, I share the amendment's goal of assisting our friends in Central and Eastern Europe to make the transition from Communist domination to greater integration with the rest of Europe. I believe that overall, the amendment before us is a vast improvement over S. 602, and I will support it. NATO expansion is very important. In fact, the United States has taken the lead within the Alliance to address the issues thoroughly and expeditiously. Stepping up security assistance to former Communist states is critical to the Partnership for Peace initiative as well as to NATO expansion. The administration has already put forth a proposal--the Warsaw Initiative--to facilitate the participation of democratic European states in Partnership for Peace activities. The Brown-Simon amendment complements what the President is already doing in this regard. This amendment does not alter the fact that Partnership for Peace is becoming an important feature of the European security system. This amendment sets up a series of eligibility criteria for countries to receive additional assistance leading to the transition to full NATO membership. The criteria, which include having a Democratic government and a free market economy, civilian control of the military and the intelligence services, adherence to OSCE principles, and a commitment to prevent the sale of defense articles to terrorist states, are quite appropriate and reasonable. I want to be clear, however, that adoption of this amendment should not be taken as a signal that Congress can deem that certain countries are more ready than others for NATO membership. The 16 NATO countries have a process in place for addressing the expansion issue. That is as it should be. NATO has almost completed its internal study of expansion, which will be made public as early as next week. Then NATO will begin briefing Partnership for Peace members regarding expansion. Under Senator Lugar's leadership, the European Subcommittee is conducting a series of hearings to examine NATO expansion issues. To date, the subcommittee hearings have shown that the issue of expansion has not been thoroughly examined or vetted by the Congress or by the American public. The costs and responsibilities of NATO expansion have not been thoroughly examined. Therefore, any unilateral congressional determination as to which countries are ready for NATO membership is inappropriate. This amendment does not make a pronouncement regarding NATO membership. It simply authorizes the President to help countries that are already members of Partnership for Peace, and that may be interested in full NATO membership. I believe that this amendment strikes an appropriate balance between encouraging the administration to reach out to our friends in Central and Eastern Europe on the one hand and supporting the process among our NATO allies on the other. amendment no. 2750 (Purpose: To provide a substitute for the provision relating to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization) Strike all after ``that'' on p. 108 line 18 through line 10 on page 109, and insert in lieu thereof the following: (a) in accordance with Section I of the Agreed Framework, KEDO has designated a Republic of Korea company, corporation or entity for the purpose of negotiating a prime contract to carry out construction of the light water reactors provided for in the Agreed Framework; and (b) the DPRK is maintaining the freeze on its nuclear facilities as required in the Agreed Framework; and (c) the United States is taking steps to assure that progress is made on (1) the North South dialogue, including efforts to reduce barriers to trade and investment, such as removing restrictions on travel, telecommunications services and financial transactions; and (2) implementation of the January 1, 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. (d) A report on the specific efforts with regard to subsection (c) shall be submitted by the President to the Committees on Appropriations six months after the date of enactment, and every six months thereafter.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Senate has now adopted legislation making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs--the so-called foreign ops appropriations bill. This is the first major foreign-affairs-related legislation to pass the Senate this year. We have not yet passed authorizations for the State Department and other foreign affairs agencies, or for the foreign aid program. We also have yet to pass an appropriation for the State Department--which is usually done along with the Commerce and Justice Departments. The reason why we have not yet passed these measures--and why we were able to pass the foreign ops bill--gets to the very heart of bipartisanship. The authorization bills and the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill represent, in my mind, partisan efforts to mandate drastic and poorly conceived cuts and reductions in foreign policy programs and agencies. In their present form, the bills are so controversial that it has proven difficult even to bring them up for consideration. I am pleased to note though--with a few notable exceptions--the foreign ops bill has been crafted with a fair amount of bipartisanship, and by comparison to the other bills, represents a sound basis for discussing our foreign assistance and other programs. I do not wish to suggest that I support every provision of this bill. I do not. I have deep concerns about the unnecessarily low spending levels and about some of the language dealing with the former Yugoslavia, North Korea, and Russia--countries and issues of critical importance to the U.S. foreign policy agenda. While most of the multilateral lending institutions have fared reasonably well in this bill, I also regret that there is such a low level for the International Development Association, which lends to the poorest of the poor. I hope that where possible compromise language can be worked out on all of these matters in conference. I also want to note that the Appropriations Committee, in its report accompanying the foreign ops bill, expressed strong support for the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program, known as ASHA, a small but effective program of which I have been a longtime advocate. Among other things, this program has provided U.S. support to the American University of Beirut, the Lebanese American University, and other important institutions that have advanced U.S. foreign policy goals abroad. Mr. President, I again want to emphasize and commend the bipartisan approach that has been apparent on this bill. I hope that spirit can be preserved as we move down the road. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to speak in connection with the Brown amendment on Pakistan. As many of us know, deliveries of United States military equipment purchased by Pakistan have been suspended since 1990 under the terms of the Pressler amendment. This amendment would lift the suspension temporarily to allow the delivery of much of the military equipment--including naval aircraft, missiles, and spare parts. While it would not permit the delivery of the F-16's purchased by Pakistan but still undelivered, the amendment would allow for a plan to sell the F-16's to a third country and to provide those proceeds to Pakistan. The sponsors of this amendment argue that it will help to improve United States relations with Pakistan. I want to say at the outset that I well understand the importance of good relations with Pakistan. Not only was Pakistan an important ally in the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union, but Pakistan also continues to be a key player in the South Asia region. I also wish to be supportive of the current Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. When Pakistan was ruled by an oppressive military dictatorship, I tried to be helpful in securing Mrs. Bhutto's release from house arrest, and in promoting a return to democracy in Pakistan. I have long considered Prime Minister Bhutto a friend, and have promised her to do what I can to ensure strong United States-Pakistani relations. That being said, I must balance my support and affection for Pakistan against what I believe to be right for United States nonproliferation policy. And I believe that this amendment goes too far. I support resuming economic assistance, but oppose the delivery of the military equipment. I will vote accordingly when the time comes. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly draw the attention of my colleagues to the funding measures that the foreign operations appropriation bill recommends with regard to our participation in important ongoing international environmental efforts. In particular, I wish to refer to the allocation of $50 million that have been earmarked for the Global Environment Facility, commonly referred to as the GEF. At the outset, let me highlight that while this amount falls short of the $110 million that the administration had requested, it represents a 66-percent increase from the amount that the House of Representatives had recommended. This important increase is the result of the joint efforts of Democrats and Republicans, who in a spirit of bipartisanship joined their efforts to increase funding for international environmental activities. Mr. President, the GEF was recently restructured and now represents all the good that can come out of sound international efforts on the environment. The committee report that accompanies the foreign operations bill correctly emphasizes the need to maintain U.S. leadership in this vital organization, which seeks to combat ocean pollution, ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity, and other serious threats to the Earth's environment. Specifically, the GEF aims to assist developing countries in meeting the new challenges of sustainable development. We are now at a time where the impacts of global change are starting to have significant effects on our environment and the United States just cannot afford to relinquish its leadership role. This point was highlighted in a recent editorial piece in the New York Times, which enumerated the mounting evidence experts now have on the depletion of the ozone layer and other climate change factors. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be included at the end of my remarks. We should not be reducing our commitment to a healthy global environment at such a critical time. I also note that the Senate Appropriations Committee has increased from the House bill the amount that will be dedicated to international organizations and programs, which also includes U.S. efforts to promote sustainable development, and particularly the protection of the global environment. The United States has been an active partner in the activities of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol on the Depletion of the Ozone Layer. The administration has highlighted the fact that the Montreal protocol fund is a low-cost and very effective shield to protect the health of our citizens and our environment. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change addresses the problem of climate change with policies that are both good for the environment and good for the economy. The committee report recognizes the importance of these organizations and programs and urges that adequate funding be provided for these important activities. The need to protect biodiversity is also highlighted as a priority and the report recognizes that global biological wealth is vital to U.S. security and key to our own agricultural and pharmaceutical interests. The report thus urges AID to remain active in regions that are significant for biological diversity. I support that commitment. Finally, the foreign operations bill recognizes the key role played by the U.N. Environment Programme [UNEP], by requiring that any reduction in the amounts made available for UNEP shall not exceed the percentage by which the total amount appropriated for international operations and programs is reduced. UNEP provides a means to pursue international environmental standards that are both compatible with U.S. interests and comparable to U.S. regulatory requirements and restraints. Further, UNEP goals are complementary to our own, particularly in the area of climate change and ozone depletion. Mr. President, I am grateful for the bipartisn approach that prevailed in the Appropriations Committee which has allowed us to ensure that the United States will remain committed in our very important efforts to protect the environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the New York Times on that subject, and I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate concluded several weeks of debate on welfare reform legislation. The changes that were incorporated in the legislation are profound, marking a great departure from the system that has been in place for 60 years. As one who has served my State of Rhode Island and this Nation as a U.S. Senator from 35 of those 60 years, I did not take lightly the vote that I cast yesterday. I thought long and hard about the desire for change, for reform, and for a better welfare system, and I share all of those goals. As I look at the bill, I remain concerned. It does not provide nearly enough of what I think is necessary for quality welfare reform. And it does not sufficiently protect our children or provide adults with the tools they need to move off of welfare and into work. But the final bill was also a drastic improvement over the House welfare legislation, and, with the addition of the Dole-Daschle compromise, moves us more in the direction that I think is best for our Nation. So while it was with some reluctance, I decided to cast my vote in favor of the legislation that was before us yesterday. I did so with the understanding that the American people want and demand action, and are seeking a new way of accomplishing what the existing system has not been able to accomplish. I am willing to try a new way, but acknowledge freely that without the minimal protections put into place by the Dole- Daschle agreement with respect to child care and other important provisions, I would not have voted ``yea.'' I cannot help but hope that the conference committee will see fit to incorporate more of the provisions contained in the Work First proposal introduced by Senator Daschle, which I cosponsored. I still support and strongly prefer its provisions--its emphasis on transitioning welfare recipients to work, its understanding that providing child care is a linchpin of successful reform, and its premise that--despite very real abuses of the current system by some welfare recipients--most people want to get off welfare and work at a job that provides a living wage. But I realize that the conference committee is more likely to move this bill in a direction that I cannot support, by being more punitive to parents and, in the process, harming children who have not chosen their parents or their circumstances. Mr. President, it would be my intention, should the bill return from the conference committee stripped of these moderating provisions, or including any of the more draconian provisions we defeated during the Senate debate, to cast my vote against the conference report. I hope that this will not be necessary and that we will be able to pass a conference report that really does move the Nation in the direction that we all want to see--toward workable reform that moves this generation off of dependency while ensuring that the next generation does not suffer for its parents' failures or misfortunes.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Senate has now debated welfare reform legislation for several weeks. The changes that have been incorporated in the legislation before us today are profound, marking a great departure from the system that has been in place for 60 years. As one who has served my State of Rhode Island and this Nation as a U.S. Senator for 35 of those 60 years, I do not take lightly the vote that I am casting today. I have thought long and hard about the desire for change, for reform, and for a better welfare system, and I share all of those goals. As I look at the bill before us, I remain concerned. It does not provide nearly enough of what I think is necessary for quality welfare reform. And it does not sufficiently protect our children or provide adults with the tools they need to move off of welfare and into work. But the bill before us is also a drastic improvement over the House welfare legislation, and, with the addition of the Dole-Daschle compromise, moves us more in the direction that I think is best for our Nation. So while it is with some reluctance. I have decided to cast my vote in favor of the bill before us today. I am doing so with the understanding that the American people want and demand action, and are seeking a new way of accomplishing what the existing system has not been able to accomplish. I am willing to try a new way, but acknowledge freely that without the minimal protections put into place by the Dole- Daschle agreement with respect to child care and other important provisions, I would not be voting ``yea'' today. I cannot help hope that the conference committee will see fit to incorporate more of the provisions contained in the work-first proposal introduced by Senator Daschle, which I cosponsored. I still support and strongly prefer its provisions--its emphasis on transitioning welfare recipients to work, its understanding that providing childcare is a linchpin of successful reform, and its premise that, despite very real abuses of the current system by some welfare recipients, most people want to get off welfare and work at a job that provides a living wage. But I realize that the conference committee is more likely to move this bill in a direction that I cannot support, by being more punitive to parents and, in the process harming children who have not chosen their parents or their circumstances. Mr. President, it would be my intention, should the bill return from the conference committee stripped of these moderating provisions, or including any of the more draconian provisions we defeated during the Senate debate, to cast my vote against the conference report. I hope that this will not be necessary and that we will be able to pass a conference report that really does move the Nation in the direction that we all want to see toward workable reform that moves this generation off of dependency while ensuring that the next generation does not suffer from its parents' failures or misfortunes.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in a statement on the Senate floor last week, I indicated I would oppose any reconciliation instructions that hurt students. I said it was time that we took students out of harm's way. Unfortunately, the reconciliation package we will consider on Wednesday does precisely the opposite. It harms students and their families. Three-quarters of the cuts in this package will be borne by students and their families. For the first time, institutions of higher education would be charged a fee of 2 percent of the total amount of money borrowed by students, and parents of students, at each institution. While this fee could not be directly passed on to students, institutions of higher education would have to find the money somewhere. I greatly fear that the result could be a reduction of institutional student aid, or cutbacks in educational programs and student support services. Clearly, a change of this magnitude harms students and their families. Increasing the interest rate on parents loans comes at a time when middle-income families are increasingly hard-pressed to make ends meet and help pay for their children's college education. This harms students and their families. Decreasing the interest subsidy during the grace period from 6 to 4 months hits students when they have just finished their college education and are looking for a job. This harms students and their families. Capping the direct loan program at 30 percent ensures that no new schools will enter the program and that students at these institutions will not be able to benefit from this program. It also removes an incentive to improve the regular guaranteed loan program. Advancements such as improved services to the student and better, more favorable interest rates could well disappear. This would harm students and their families. The series of changes affecting lenders, holders, and guaranty agencies could well endanger the stability and viability of the current program. For instance, more lenders might leave the program. Thus, we could well have fewer lenders at a time when more are needed because of the proposed 30 percent cap on direct lending. This would jeopardize access to loans by all students, and would harm students and their families. I intend to oppose these instructions. To make such draconian changes just to save money is not, in my opinion, prudent public policy. It would be far better to put a tax cut in harm's way and to spare students.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, during the August recess two members of the Foreign Relations Committee minority staff traveled to Turkey at my direction to assess a range of issues related to United States-Turkish bilateral relations. Turkey, one of the largest recipients of United States military assistance, is an important United States ally in a dangerous and unstable region. It is therefore, incumbent upon us to take a close look at what is occurring in Turkey--the threats to its security, its political struggles, and its human rights situation. In particular, I asked my staff to focus on Turkey's Kurdish problem, which has broad implications for regional stability, as well as Turkey's relations with the West. Among the staff's findings is that the Kurdistan Workers' Party [PKK] poses a grave threat not only to Turkey, but to regional stability as well. At the same time, the Government of Turkey is unable--or unwilling--to distinguish the genuine threat posed by the PKK from the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Kurdish people. Turkey is responding with a heavy-handed, indiscriminate military campaign against the Kurds, even as it shuts off opportunities for nonviolent, Kurdish political expression. Consequently, Turkey may be fomenting, rather than preventing Kurdish separatism. I believe this report makes an important contribution to the Congress' consideration of the United States approach toward Turkey. I ask unanimous consent that the ``Summary of Key Findings'' be placed into the Record at this point, and would commend the full report, which is a available at the Foreign Relations Committee office, to my colleagues' attention. Summary of Key Findings Turkey, which places a high priority on good relations with the West in general and the United States in particular, is an important U.S. ally in a dangerous and unstable neighborhood: Three of its immediate neighbors--Iran, Iraq, and Syria--are on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism; it is engaged in an economic and political competition with Russia for influence in and access to the resources of Central Asia and the Caucasus; there is ongoing conflict to Turkey's north--in Georgia and between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Turkey is not, however, a disinterested in neutral party, it is openly sympathetic to Azerbaijan's position, and although it has opened an air corridor to Armenia, Turkey maintains a road and rail blockade; it continues to spar with Greece over Cyprus and other issues, in particular, a dispute over maritime boundaries in the wake of Greece's ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty threatens to bring Turkey and Greece into outright conflict. The Kirdistan Workers' Party (PKK) poses a grave threat not only to Turkey, but to regional stability as well. The PKK-- which employs deadly terrorist tactics against innocent noncombatants in Turkey and [[Page S 13656]] against innocent civilians elsewhere in the Middle East and Europe--bears direct responsibility for much of the tensions in southeast Turkey and for prompting the recent Turkish invasions of Iraq. Operation Provide Comfort, the allied humanitarian and security operation in Northern Iraq, is a critical element of U.S. and Western strategies with regard to Iraq, and may be the only thing preventing tens of thousands of Kurds from pouring into southeastern Turkey. Although some Turkish officials recognize these facts and military officials at Incirlik have provided splendid cooperation to their British, French and American counterparts, other Turkish military and political officials (including parliamentarians) argue that Provide Comfort offers the PKK protection and cover in Northern Iraq. This rather schizophrenic view of Provide Comfort makes Turkey appear a relucant participant in the allied effort, which Turkey has exploited to its advantage in dealings with its allies. In keeping with traditions established during the days of Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, Turkey has an almost paranoid fear of losing its Turkish identity. The government of Turkey accordingly is unable--or unwilling--to distinguish the genuine threat posed by the PKK from the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Kurdish people. As a result, Turkey refuses to engage in a political dialogue with nonviolent Kurdish representatives, and is executing a heavy-handed, indiscriminate military campaign to eradicate what it views as a monolithic threat to the unity of the country. The city of Diyarbakir, which symbolizes the ethnic difficulties that persist within Turkey, has become a haven for rural Kurds forced to evacuate neighboring towns and villages destroyed by the Turkish military. By some estimates, the city's population has grown from roughly 300,000 to more than 1,500,000 during the past five years. Although Turkish officials, local residents, and some independent observers suggest that tensions have subsided during the past two years, it is evident that any existing calm is tenuous and the result of Turkey's overwhelming--and at times oppressive--security presence, which has exacted a high cost in terms of human rights violations. Turkey's government refuses even to acknowledge that there is a ``Kurdish problem,'' and thereby is ignoring the real issue. By equating all Kurdish aspirations with the terrorist designs of the PKK, Turkey effectively has eliminated outlets for nonviolent Kurdish political or cultural expression. As a consequence, Turkey unintentionally may be contributing to the PKK's appeal. Turkey desperately wants to join the European Union's Customs Union, and is making some effort to meet the European Parliament's minimum demands regarding democratization and human rights in order to achieve membership. It may even make some modifications to Article 8 of the Anti-Terror law (which prohibits the advocacy of separatism). Turkey will not, however, take any action which it perceive as comprising the Turkish identity, so there are limits to the amount of genuine change it will make to gain membership in the Customs Union. It is equally unclear that the West would have much impact on Turkish behavior by withholding benefits such as Customs Union membership. Despite claims that it regards fundamentalism as a threat to its secular heritage, the government of Turkey appears to be encouraging and even sponsoring Islamic activities in an attempt to bind the country together and defuse separaist sentiment. Such a strategy--which parallels efforts of governments in the Near East seeking to counter radical lefist groups during the 1970s and early 1980s--could backfire and inadvertently provide a foothold for Islamic extremists.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, very soon the Senate Labor Committee will convene to consider how to meet the reconciliation instructions contained in the budget resolution approved earlier this year. It will mark the seventh set of reconciliation instructions sent to the Labor Committee since 1981. The major entitlement program within the jurisdiction of the Labor Committee is the Stafford Student Loan Program. As a result, it has been the primary target in each and every reconciliation. Over the course of the past 14 years, in reconciliation and related deficit control measures, we have made almost 50 major changes in the loan program. Some are prudent and defensible; others were not. While I have played an active role in meeting each of these instructions, I have done so with deep reservations. The primary motive in reconciliation is to save money. Unfortunately, determining whether or not the change has merit and constitutes good public policy has all too often been lost. As I have indicated, some of the changes we have made under the pressures of reconciliation have been good; some have not. In 1981, for example, we imposed a 5-percent origination fee on all loans. Thus, a student who applied for a $2,000 loan would get only $1,900 but would have to repay the loan as if he or she had received the full $2,000. This was intended to be a temporary measure to save money; it became permanent and deserving students were the losers. In 1987, we required State guarantee agencies to return to the Federal Government some $250 million in so-called excess reserves. The provision did not produce the expected savings, and it had the very adverse effect of endangering the stability and the very existence of many agencies. It proved to be an unwise and unfortunate move. In 1993, in a dramatic departure from the previous reconciliation efforts, we took action that actually helped students. In particular, the competition between the new direct student loan program and the Stafford Loan Program already in place had given students improved services, better rates, lower fees and greater benefits. It would, in my judgment, be a shame to disturb that balance. Earlier this year, we considered the budget resolution that would have required almost $14 billion in student loan cuts over the next 7 years. We brought that down to $4.4 billion, with the passage of the Snowe-Simon amendment, which I supported. On final passage, however, I voted against the resolution. I did so because one of my concerns was that it would produce dramatic reductions in a series of very important Federal programs, not the least of which was the loan program. When the budget resolution came back to the Senate after conference with the House, most of the gains we made with respect to the Stafford Loan Program were lost. We were confronted with having to come up with more than $10 billion in savings in the loan program. As a result, I know that I for one voted against the conference report. I did so because I believed its passage meant we would make a series of unwise and unreasonable cuts in the loan program. Over the past six reconciliations, everyone has been hit. Lenders, guarantors, secondary markets, and students--particularly students-- have felt the budgetary knife. No one has been immune. All have sacrificed. And soon, the loan program will go back to the operating table once again to require cuts so large that everyone will be subject to the knife. I have already gone on record opposing any cuts that will affect students. In particular, I oppose any change in the in-school interest subsidy and any change that might be passed on to students. Students are already hard pressed to make ends meet as they pay for a college education. We should not make that situation worse, either while they are in school or as they repay their loans after graduation. At the same time, I am also concerned that additional cuts among [[Page S 13578]] lenders, guarantors, secondary markets, and other program participants could threaten the very stability and the very viability of the entire loan program. Adverse changes could well threaten student access to the loans they need and must have. Further, I believe we should keep the agreement we reached in conference 2 years ago with respect to the direct student loan program. More than anything else, that agreement has worked to the benefit of students, and it is aid to students that should be our main concern. Mr. President, I wish to make it as clear as I can that enough is enough. It is time we left the loan program alone. It is time we considered changes solely on their merits and not because they appear to save sufficient money to meet our meticulous reconciliation instructions. It is time we understood, once and for all, that the best way to reduce the deficit which hangs over us is through a strong economy supported by a well educated and well trained work force. I favor bringing the deficit down. We all do. But I do not favor doing that on the backs of those who need our help the most--the elderly, the poor, the middle-income wage earner, and I think, most importantly, the students upon whom we must all eventually depend to keep our Nation strong and vibrant. In particular, I do not favor making cuts in the loan program or other valuable programs just to pay for a tax cut. To my mind, the time has come for us to say no to the instructions given the Labor Committee. It is time to say no to cuts in the student loan program. It is time we took students out of harm's way. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues an extremely exciting and momentous development in regard to the AmeriCorps Program. Today, eight of Rhode Island's colleges and universities are announcing that they have each agreed to match the $4,725 education grant for every Rhode Island AmeriCorps participant who successfully completes AmeriCorps service and attends one of the participating Rhode Island institutions. As a result of this commitment, the education benefit for successful AmeriCorps participation will be at least $9,450. As one of the first proponents of national service and of linking successful completion of service to an education benefit, I believe this is a remarkable and praiseworthy commitment to the concept of community service. I take special pride in commending each of those institutions for this superb commitment. They include: the University of Rhode Island, the Community College of Rhode Island, Brown University, Bryant College, Johnson and Wales University, Salve Regina University, the Rhode Island School of Design, and Providence College. I might add that several other institutions in Rhode Island are currently exploring this idea, and the number may well grow. I also want to pay special tribute to Mr. Lawrence Fish, chief executive officer of Citizens Financial Group in Providence, RI, who, as chair of the Rhode Island Commission on National Service, spearheaded the effort that resulted in this truly historic achievement.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I welcome to Washington today one of the most honorable and respected leaders of our time, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. His Holiness is a historical rarity, someone who has devoted his entire life to finding a peaceful solution to an overwhelmingly difficult political problem with an often belligerent foe. China invaded Tibet in 1949, under the banner of ``peaceful liberation,'' but the presence of the People's Liberation Army in Tibet since then has been neither peaceful nor liberating. The Tibetan people continue to suffer repression under the too-often violent control of an outside power. But the Dalai Lama's response has been unswervingly one of seeking a peaceful solution to Tibet's conflict with China. His Holiness' courage and leadership is widely respected in Tibet and has assuredly prevented the Tibetans from staging a violent uprising or insurgency, the response that suppressed people without such moral leadership often take. In accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, His Holiness showed the world how all-encompassing his call for peace and compassion was when he said he felt no ``anger or hatred toward those who are responsible for the immense suffering of our people and the destruction of our land, homes, and culture. They too are human beings who struggle to find happiness and deserve our compassion.'' How rare in today's world--or in the history--to find a leader willing to see the human face of his or her enemies and to offer compassion in response to oppression. He argues not for retribution but for recognition that thoughtfulness and benevolence towards others is in every individual's self-interest, and ultimately is essential for relations in an increasingly interconnected world. His call for people to accept that we are a ``global family'' and recognize that actions we take to hurt each other or damage the world we live in--such as acts of war or pollution--ultimately harm us as well, is a model for global interaction at the end of the 20th century. We can learn much from the teachings of this ``simple monk.'' I urge my colleagues to meet him at a coffee the Foreign Relations Committee is hosting in his honor tomorrow afternoon. Come meet the leader whose moral courage and commitment to nonviolence has put him in the ranks of leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Ghandi. While His Holiness' visit to Washington is short, I hope his lessons will live on in the minds of us all.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank my colleagues and my friends, one and the same. I am very glad that the Senate has resumed debating the matter of welfare reform. And I am encouraged that the first few days of this debate--both before the August recess and again today--have been composed largely of thoughtful concerns and constructive suggestions about what can be done to make the current system work better and cost less. In reviewing the legislation before us, however, we must each decide for ourselves what it is we believe about the current welfare system and how it can best move people from dependency to self-sufficiency, and from poverty to a living wage. I continue to believe that our welfare system should provide temporary-- I emphasize the word temporary--financial assistance to those in need. There are millions of people who fall on hard times; losing a job, getting divorced, or becoming widowed should not be a ticket to poverty. Welfare is there largely to help women and children get back on their feet--and to protect them from hunger, homelessness, and desperation in the interim. In this respect, welfare is a compassionate and needed social program and I support its continued existence. But there is also no question that the system has, at times, been abused, and that it has been viewed by some welfare recipients as a free ride with no concomitant responsibility. These individuals, whom I believe to be a minority of welfare recipients, have nevertheless prompted understandable wrath in many other Americans who work hard, play by the rules, and do not receive any Government assistance. I understand their anger at what they perceive as a Government handout, and I think there is considerable merit to their claim that this abuse must stop. In fact, many of us who believe that welfare has a role to play in helping people get a hand up also believe that certain responsibilities go along with Government help. I strongly believe that those welfare recipients who are able to work should work, and that every American should understand that our Nation's welfare system provides a safety net, and not a way of life. But with that said, the question arises ``how do we get people to work?'' Do you simply impose a requirement that they must work to receive benefits or they will no longer receive them? And what do we do if they try to find a job but can't due to high unemployment, a lack of skills or education, or an inability to find anyone to care for their infant child? Do we simply say that if they do not work they will receive no benefits? To me, Mr. President, that approach is too harsh and far too unlikely to produce the results we seek. What we want to do, what we need to do, is create a system that moves people off of welfare--for good. A system that gives them the tools they need to find a job, get employed, and stay employed at a living wage. Only then--and perhaps it will take some additional investment by both the Federal Government and the States--can we end the cycle of dependency and poverty that keeps generation after generation on welfare and discouraged from seeking to work. The Democratic alternative--the Work First bill--addresses many of these issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. It fosters the transition from welfare to work by providing health care, and, when needed, access to affordable child care services. And it provides a reasonable period of time for people to move into the workforce. In fact, the Democratic alternative involves welfare recipients in a full-scale, full-time search for real employment; a job they can be proud to have. Its Work First Employment Block Grant makes one and only one demand on States: an increasing number of their welfare recipients must find a job and keep the job. How the State does that is up to the individual State. Mr. President, on another matter, I am distressed to see that the Dole bill lumps vocational and adult education [[Page S 12706]] with welfare reform. Simply put, education is not welfare. Vocational and education programs are not, and should not be considered welfare. And while I certainly endorse enthusiastically the idea of a welfare recipient undertaking education as a means of obtaining a good job to move off of welfare, I do not think that this welfare legislation should tinker with existing education or vocational education programs, and shall oppose their inclusion in this legislation. In fact, we have already reported a comprehensive education and training bill from the Labor and Human Resources Committee, which I supported. It is a very important bill, and ought to be considered independently and in its own right. Mr. President, there are a number of other parts of the Democratic bill that I think are crucial to our effort to reform the welfare system. I strongly believe in ensuring the ability of all who financially qualify to receive welfare, and thus do not support the concept of a limited block grant. Such an approach, adopted by the Dole bill, would leave millions of women and their dependent children with no financial assistance at all. And further, it would prevent them from participating in the new system we hope to create--which will give them the tools to get off of welfare once and for all. Mr. President, as we undertake the very difficult task of reforming our Nation's welfare system, we may be tempted to seek simple answers to complex questions or be moved by rhetoric rather than fact. In my view, two basic principles should guide us in these discussions: fairness to taxpayers and compassion to those in need. I hope that my colleagues will share this view and spend the time and care necessary to make the right changes, not simply any changes. I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.