Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to outline some of the concerns I have about the provisions pertaining to the United Nations in the bill we have been considering, the State authorization bill. Titles II and III of the bill, in my opinion, amount collectively to an assault on U.S. participation in the U.N. system. I know that some Americans have questioned the effectiveness of the United Nations in certain peacekeeping operations, such as those in Somalia and Bosnia, and that there are lingering concerns about the ability of the United States to expend resources on foreign affairs in general. That being said, I think it is fair to say there is evidence that a majority of Americans support U.S. participation in the U.N. system-- particularly when it comes to U.N. peackeeping. To paraphrase former Secretary of State James Baker, U.N. peacekeeping is a pretty good bargain. For every dollar the United States spends on U.N. peacekeeping, we save many more by preventing conflicts in which we would otherwise become involved unilaterally. I am therefore distraught and distressed by this bill's obvious anti- U.N. course. If adopted in its present form, this bill could well establish the foundation for an eventual U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. system. I think that would be a disastrous outcome, and one to which the American public would strenuously object. As Secretary of State Christopher noted in a recent letter to me, ``* * * turning our back on the U.N. would increase the economic, political, and military burden on the American people.'' There are a number of troublesome sections in this bill relating to the United Nations. Section 201 authorizes a reduction of more than $157 million from the President's request for the U.S. assessed contributions to the United Nations and related agencies. From there, the fiscal year 1997-99 recommendations are straightlined--frozen, to be precise--at the fiscal year 1996 levels. That is a mistake. If we enact this provision, the Congress will force the United States to default on treaty obligations and fall further into arrears on our payments to the United Nations. I remember how hard I tried to work with the Bush administration to bring the United States back from its deadbeat status at the United Nations; what a shame it would be for us to fall behind once more. Section 203, in a misguided effort to save the United States money at the United Nations, calls for the U.N. General Assembly to reformulate the percentages of assessed contributions, and to base those percentages upon each nation's share of the world's total gross national product. If we were to follow these guidelines, however, the U.S. share of total assessed contributions to the United Nations would easily exceed our current mandated ceiling of 25 percent. In other words, we would achieve the exact opposite of what this section probably intends. Section 205 is probably the most problematic of all the U.N. provisions. This section would have the United States withhold 50 percent of its assessed peacekeeping dues and 20 percent of its regular contributions, and would bar payment of all voluntary peacekeeping contributions, unless the President were able to certify certain conditions with regard to the U.N. inspector general's office. While U.N. reform is a good idea, this provision sets unworkable standards for an effective U.N. inspector general. In other words, the President would never be able to certify the conditions set forth in this legislation, nor in many cases would he want such conditions to arise. In my opinion, by setting such impossible certification requirements, this section is but a thinly veiled attempt to cut off enormous percentages of U.S. funding for the United Nations. It ought to be modified or, better yet, deleted. There are other sections that also should be revised. I know that Senator Kerry and I have had discussions with our Republican counterparts to express concerns about section 206, a so-called whistle-blower provision; section 212, which increases advance notification requirement for U.N. Security Council votes; section 217, which creates exceptions for U.S. enforcement of U.N. sanctions regimes; section 220, which redefines the U.S. concept of a peacekeeping operation; and finally, sections 313, 316, and 317, which would prohibit certain U.S. contributions to the ILO and other international organizations. Having returned just a short time ago from the 50th anniversary celebration of the foundation of the United Nations, I am convinced more than ever of the usefulness and necessity of U.S. participation in the United Nations. It is often repeated--and with good reason--that if the United Nations did not exist, then the world would need to invent it. I think it is high time that the Congress recognized the good and positive value we get for spending at the United Nations, and make the correct decision to reject the troublesome provisions in this bill. Mr. President, on July 26, former Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead, who is now Chair of the U.N. Association, wrote to me to outline the Association's assessment of the U.S. stake in the United Nations. It is an important statement and offers a clear and concise argument for continued U.S. participation in the United Nations. Secretary Whitehead's letter prompted me to recall my own personal involvement with the United Nations having been present at its creation. To be precise, I was an Assistant Secretary of Committee III--the Enforcement Arrangements Committee--and worked specifically on what became articles 43, 44, and 45 of the charter. These articles are as relevant now as they were 50 years ago. To my mind, the charter has been more than mere words and paper, more than a blueprint of an organizational structure. To me, the charter is a vibrant and dynamic force, willed into being by the collective hopes and dreams of the participants in the San Francisco conference. Although experience has proven that the charter has not always lived up to such high expectations, the last 50 years have proven that collective security is a pretty sound concept for relations between states. It therefore pains me to see this debate in Congress over the future of U.S. participation in the U.N. system. If the United States abandons the United Nations, the United Nations could well meet the same fate as the League of Nations. I think our interest lies in remaining solidly behind the United Nations. The U.S. failure to support the League of Nations is precisely why the League failed. We should not let the same thing happen to the United Nations. In the coming years, I can easily foresee that the United States will need the United Nations to intervene in areas of conflict or to tackle issues such as the international environment, world hunger, and refugee crises. It is unfair and shortsighted to judge the United Nations solely on its success or failure in dealing with an intractable, longstanding ethnic conflict such as that in the former Yugoslavia. Rather, we should look at its 50 year's worth of experience in promoting collective security, humanitarian assistance and international cooperation in the environment and other areas. The record, I would argue, has been good, and with a little work, the future holds real promise. My hope is that 50 years from now, when the United Nations celebrates its 100 year anniversary, our children will look back and remember this time as the turning point. I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Whitehead's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, as I stated when the Senate acted on gift ban legislation last year, we have ventured into the treacherous shoals of self-regulation. I am supporting the bill, as indeed I have always supported reforms that will benefit the Senate as an institution. But I support this bill with somewhat muted enthusiasm. In passing this bill, we are responding once again to the public's perception of the political process and the public's presumption of what our standards and motives may be. These perceptions and presumptions must be dealt with, to be sure, but I for one find them to be often inaccurate and frequently demeaning. And the proposed remedies usually are unduly intrusive. We should be under no illusion, I believe, that public perceptions, amplified by media attention, can be neutralized or satisfied by legislative fiat. In the final analysis, the only way to change or disprove public perceptions and presumptions is for each of us to demonstrate integrity in all our actions. Guidelines and rules are helpful, to be sure. But it seems to me that the best guidelines are the simplest. I am troubled by the fact that the legislation we have passed does not meet the test of simplicity. It includes 23 exceptions and exemptions, covering ten pages of the bill, each of which is subject to expanded interpretation and challenge. I regret, also, that the bill imposes rigid dollar limits, which while more reasonable than originally proposed, still seem unduly restrictive. I was pleased to support the Lott amendment raising the ceiling on aggregated giving, but the subsequently adopted threshold for aggregating seems unreasonably low. [[Page S 10858]] The legislation of course does have redeeming features. One of the most significant, to my mind, is the prohibition on acceptance of elaborate and luxurious recreational trips at lobbyists' expense. And the basic intent of the legislation certainly is praiseworthy, namely to remove extraneous and improper influence, when it does occur, from the legislative process. Finally, I would applaud the fine sense of compromise that prevailed in winning approval of the legislation without time consuming and acrimonious debate. For that, the Senate and the Nation are better off. vote on amendment no. 1872, as modified

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should fully participate in Expo '98 in Lisbon, Portugal, and that it should encourage the private sector to support this effort. Prime Minister Cavaco Silva recently invited the United States and other countries to participate in Expo '98, which will be the last exposition to take place in this century. A number of countries, including Germany, Greece, the United Kingdom, Morocco, India, Pakistan, and Cape Verde, have committed to participating in Expo '98, and several others, including Argentina, the Philippines, Canada, and Poland, have demonstrated their strong interest in participating. I understand that our own Government is seriously considering accepting the Portuguese Government's invitation. I believe it would be useful for the Senate to weigh in on this issue, and to encourage the administration to participate in this important exposition. As a longtime friend of Portugal, I am pleased to support United States participation in Expo '98. The theme of the exposition, ``The Oceans, A Heritage for the Future,'' is particularly fitting as we mark the 500th anniversary of Vasco Da Gama's discovery of the sea route to India. Portugal, of course, has a great history of sea exploration, and in fact, helped to create important trade links between the peoples of Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Lisbon, the capital of Portugal since the 12th century, is a vibrant cultural and economic center, and its location on the Atlantic makes it a fine choice for an expo focused on the sea. The U.N. General Assembly has declared 1998 as the International Year of the Ocean in an effort to alert the world to the need to improve the physical and cultural assets of the world's oceans. The theme of the expo is therefore, particularly appropriate. A fundamental goal of Expo '98 will be to focus on the growing importance of the world's oceans and to foster a debate on the sustainable use of marine resources and environmental protection. The United States, of course, has a vested interest in being part of this debate. The organizers of Expo '98 will provide all facilities relating to each national pavilion free of charge. Accordingly, participating countries will have to provide only the contents of its representation, which I expect to be sponsored by the private sector. In fact, the resolution I am submitting encourages the private sector to support Expo '98. As a fellow Atlantic power, and an ally of Portugal, the United States should have a strong interest in participating in this exposition. I sincerely hope that President Clinton will accept Prime Minister Cavaco Silva's invitation to be part of this important event.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I share the deep frustration many of my colleagues have expressed during the course of the Senate's debate on the Dole- Lieberman bill. Whatever the outcome of the vote on this bill, all of us agree that the behavior of the Bosnian Serb leadership is dreadful. The International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague has also acknowledged this. It has, in fact, just issued indictments against Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic for crimes and abuses committed earlier in the Bosnian war. The Serbs' most recent offenses--their utter disregard for the U.N. protected-safe havens--outrages us, and make us want to do something in response. Where proponents and opponents of the Dole- Lieberman legislation disagree, however, is what that something should be. At the urging of the United States, the contact group countries have agreed to do something in response to the atrocious Serb behavior. Details still need to be worked out, but this much is clear: earlier this week, the allies delivered an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serb commander that any threat against Gorazde will be met with disproportionate air strikes. Secretary Perry has made clear that the policy adopted for Gorazde could quickly be adopted to other areas should they come under attack. At the same time, British and French troops--part of the rapid reaction force--are working to open a key humanitarian supply route into Sarajevo. These new efforts have just begun, yet by passing this bill today, the Senate is saying that we are not willing to give them a chance. As President Clinton said in a letter today to the distinguished minority leader opposing this bill, ``Congressional passage of unilateral lift at this delicate moment will provide our allies a rationale for doing less, not more. It will provide the pretext for absolving themselves of responsibility in Bosnia, rather than assuming a stronger role at this critical moment.'' I would add that in passing this bill, we not only undercut the policy, but in so doing, we put at risk the brave U.N. personnel on the ground. The troop contributing countries, the U.N. Security Council, indeed the Bosnian Government have all made the judgment call that the United Nations should remain and redouble its efforts in Bosnia. None of those parties is asking for a U.N. withdrawal at this time. They know that if the United Nations were to pull out altogether, any areas of Bosnia which are now stable and well supplied due to the U.N. presence would likely face a humanitarian disaster. This is particularly true in central Bosnia. In his letter to Senator Daschle, President Clinton points out that ``for all its deficiencies UNPROFOR has been critical to an unprecedented humanitarian operation that feeds and helps keep alive over two million people in Bosnia.'' The President, our NATO and U.N. allies, and indeed the Bosnian Government have balanced the potential catastrophe of a U.N. withdrawal against the current tragedy, which has led many to call for a complete U.N. pullout. They have decided not to advocate a U.N. withdrawal at this time. Yet by passing this bill, the Senate is unilaterally calling for the United Nations to leave. That does not come without cost. I would remind my colleagues that the United States has committed to helping our allies withdraw from Bosnia as part of a NATO effort. So, in essence, by passing this bill, we are triggering the commitment of up to 25,000 United States troops to Bosnia to help with that withdrawal. We need to be clear about what we're voting for. This bill advocates, indeed would precipitate, a U.N. withdrawal from Bosnia followed by a unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. I do believe that if and when a decision is made to withdraw UNPROFOR, the arms embargo will de facto, be lifted with the support of our allies. That is as it should be. We are just not at that point yet. As I argued last week, if we pass this bill, it will inevitably be perceived as the beginning of a United States decision to go it alone in Bosnia. It is naive to think we can unilaterally lift the arms embargo, and then walk away. Another serious concern I have about this legislation is that it says that the lifting of the embargo shall occur after [[Page S 10628]] UNPROFOR personnel have withdrawn or 12 weeks after the Bosnian Government asks U.N. troops to leave, whichever comes first. Basically, this legislation gives the Bosnian Government--the power to end United States participation in a U.N. imposed embargo. While the Bosnian Government does indeed have the right to ask UNPROFOR to leave, we should not abdicate to the Bosnian Government the power to trigger a unilateral lifting of the embargo. I have been somewhat torn about how to vote on this matter, and have not made my decision lightly. Like my colleagues who support this bill, I want to do something to alleviate the suffering of Bosnian civilians; to make the Serbs pay for their brutality; to tell them that aggression will not be rewarded. I am not convinced, however, that we will achieve those goals by passing this legislation. Indeed, we could make things worse, at great risk not only to the besieged Bosnians, but to the United States and our European allies. I reached this decision too, out of respect for our President's request that we not move ahead with this legislation. I will therefore, with some reluctance, vote against the Dole-Lieberman bill. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the President's letter on Bosnia be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. PELL. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms in introducing the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995. This legislation is the follow-on to legislation that Senator Helms and I authored last year, which provides the President with the authority to waive certain legislative restrictions against the Palestine Liberation Organization. In September 1993, when Yasir Arafat shook Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's hand on the White House lawn under President Clinton's approving gaze, the PLO and Israel began a historic process toward peaceful coexistence. In order for the United States to facilitate that process, the administration requested Congress to provide the President with a certain amount of flexibility to deal with the PLO. The Congress agreed, in the form of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994, to provide the President with waiver authority to enable the provision of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians and the opening of a PLO office in the United States. That authority was provided subject to the President's certification that the PLO was abiding by its commitments with Israel and with the United States--in other words, that the PLO was behaving responsibly and was true to its word with regard to Israel. As many of my colleagues know, the authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 expired at the beginning of this month, and the Congress enacted a short-term extension to gain additional time to pass new legislation. I am pleased to be joining Senator Helms and my other colleagues in introducing that new legislation today. The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 is a bipartisan effort, and the product of many hours of negotiations between Republican and Democratic Senate offices, as well as representatives of the administration. The legislation, in my view, represents a good consensus view on how to continue U.S. support of the Israel-PLO peace accords. I cannot say that I am 100 percent supportive of every word in the legislation, but I am convinced that it is a reasonable approach to a difficult and complex issue. I wish in particular to express my appreciation to Chairman Helms and his staff for their flexibility and their good faith efforts in the negotiation of the text of the bill. Mr. President, the Middle East peace process has always enjoyed bipartisan support, and it serves vital U.S. interests in the region. I hope that the Senate will join us in supporting and enacting this critical legislation.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I am in support of the effort to preserve the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA, on whose board I currently sit, has been of profound and indispensable use to the Congress in the carrying out of its function of an independent source of complex, unbiased analysis of the technology issues facing our country today. I firmly believe that it would be short-sighted and unwise for us to eliminate entirely this agency, even as we strive to effectuate budget savings with the Legislative Branch. The OTA was created in 1972 as a result of a far-sighted, bipartisan effort led by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations then ranking Member, Senator Clifford Chase of New Jersey. It evolved from the need to have objective, expert analysis to assist the Congress in assessing the potential effects of a nuclear war on the United States. Again in the late 1970's, the OTA conducted a more comprehensive and detailed study on the same issue. These two studies were among the first comprehensive unclassified efforts to provide realistic assessments of just what nuclear war might mean for the citizens of this and other country's. They proved to be extremely valuable in helping inform the Congress as we developed national policy in this area. Since those studies, the OTA has proved itself time and again in hundreds of studies across the board spectrum of technology assessment. Throughout its tenure, it has become recognized around the world of its cogent, professional, and unbiased work. It would be foolhardy to shelve that expertise now in a blind effort to simply slash budgets. I am thankful that under the amendment, another revered and invaluable congressional institution, the Library of Congress, will not be subject to budget cuts in order to spare the OTA. Both of these organization have an exemplary record of in their service to the Congress and I am glad that a mean has been found to adequately preserve the functions of both. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in this effort to preserve a scaled-back OTA and in doing so, insure that the Congress will continue to be able to make informed, reasoned decisions regarding the complex technology issues that it will inevitably face in the future. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Last night when this debate opened, I said I find this a very difficult vote to cast. Hearing the debate this morning, I find some of my colleagues' arguments to be very compelling. Senator Lieberman and others have given us an excellent, eloquent account, for example, of the horror the Bosnian civilians are suffering--of the dreadful behavior of the Serbian forces who are outgunning the Bosnians. The invasion of two safe areas, areas that the international community said it would protect, outrages us, as it should. We all want to do something to respond to the atrocious Serb behavior in Bosnia. Indeed, the United States and our allies are working hard on a united response. Lifting the arms embargo certainly seems, at first glance, to offer a cost-free solution to the fall of the safe areas. I, too, am torn. I am still not convinced, though, that we will make things better by passing this legislation. Indeed, we could make things worse, at great risk not only to the besieged in Bosnia but to the United States and to our European allies. It is time for our President, along with our U.N. and NATO allies, to consider how we will respond to the dreadful, egregious Serbian behavior and, indeed, to consider the very future of the United Nations in Bosnia. The United States and our allies know that if the United Nations were to pull out altogether, many areas of Bosnia, now stable and well supplied due to the U.N. presence, would face humanitarian disaster. This is particularly true in central Bosnia. The President and our NATO allies must balance that potential catastrophe against the current tragedy which has led many to call for a complete U.N. withdrawal. We should be honest about what we are debating. This bill, if passed, will actually trigger the U.N. withdrawal from Bosnia. I remind my colleagues that the United States has committed to helping our allies to withdraw from Bosnia as part of the NATO effort, so in essence by passing this bill we are precipitating the commitment of up to 25,000 U.S. troops to Bosnia to help with the withdrawal. I do believe that if and when a decision is made to withdraw UNPROFOR, the arms embargo will de facto be lifted. And that is just as it should be. We are not at that point yet, though. The troop- contributing countries have not made a decision to withdraw. The U.N. Security Council has not made a decision to withdraw UNPROFOR. The Bosnian Government has not asked UNPROFOR to withdraw. Yet, by passing this bill, the United States Senate would very likely trigger a U.N. withdrawal from Bosnia. If we pass this bill today, it will inevitably be perceived as the beginning of a U.S. decision to go it alone in Bosnia. It is naive to think we can unilaterally lift the arms embargo and walk away. Instead, we would have to assume responsibilities for Bosnia not only in terms of our moral obligation but in practical terms as well. Lifting the embargo without international support would increase the American responsibility for the outcome of the conflict. Delivering weapons to Bosnia would likely require sending in United States personnel. Granted, this legislation states that nothing should be construed as authorizing the deployment of U.S. forces to Bosnia and Herzegovina for any purpose. But I want to emphasize that this would be the U.S. decision to dismantle the embargo. I do not see how we can lift the embargo on our own without sending in the personnel and without providing the wherewithal to carry out the new policy. Another serious concern on this legislation is that it says that the lifting of the embargo shall occur after UNPROFOR personnel have withdrawn or 12 weeks after the Bosnian government asks U.N. troops to leave, whichever comes first. Basically, what this does is it gives the Bosnian Government, not the United States Government, the power to end the United States participation in a U.N.-imposed embargo. As I have said, if and when UNPROFOR does leave, it is very likely that the arms embargo would be lifted. While the Bosnian Government does indeed have the right to ask UNPROFOR to leave, we should not give the Bosnian Government the power to trigger the unilateral lifting of the embargo. To give them that right is an abdication of U.S. power. Lifting the embargo unilaterally would increase U.S. responsibility in Bosnia, yet this legislation would allow the Bosnian Government to make the decision to increase our involvement. Finally, I do not want to see happen to the United Nations at this time what happened many years ago when Abyssinia was about to be overrun by Italy. It appealed to the League of Nations, but the League wrung its hands and did nothing. That was the downfall of the League. We do not want to see the same set of circumstances arise here where Bosnia comes and asks for help, and we wring our hands but do not reply. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President many of my colleagues know of the interest that I have long had in the protection of the global commons. As early as 1967 I introduced resolutions containing draft treaty language that eventually resulted in treaties banning the emplacement of weapons of mass destruction on the seabed floor and the use of environmental modification techniques in warfare. In 1978, a resolution that I had introduced in 1977 was adopted by the Senate, which called on the U.S. Government to seek the agreement of other governments to a proposed global treaty requiring the preparation of an international environmental assessment for any major project, action, or continuing activity which may be reasonably expected to have a significant adverse effect on the physical environment or environmental interests of another nation or a global commons area--Senate Resolution 49, May 18, 1978, Report No. 95-990, July 17, 1978 My proposed Environmental Impact Assessment Treaty did not aim to prohibit a state from carrying out activities, but rather required it to make a detailed assessment of the impact this activity would have, and to communicate this information to the affected countries. As such, it would play a crucial part in ensuring that the United States would not be negatively impacted by the activities of another state. Alternatively, when the activity was to have an impact on a global commons area, the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] was to be the recipient of that information. The United Nations Environment Programme was created in the aftermaths of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This conference represented the first concerted effort on the part of all nations to integrate human development and the protection of the environment and natural resources for future generations. UNEP has now become the legal entity where most international environmental programs are either initiated or hosted and, as such, is widely recognized as a useful and efficient arm of the United Nations. The United States has truly been a visionary in this respect, as the ideas embedded in my 1978 resolution were later endorsed in a number of international environmental legal instruments. The United Nations Environment Programme itself endorsed this view when its governing council adopted a series of goals and principles that specify how important these assessments can be, and how and when they should be carried out. Building on these goals and principles, the U.S. Government, along with other members of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, signed the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, done at Espoo, Finland on February 25, 1991. While my 1978 resolution initially called for a global treaty applying to all activities worldwide, much of the reflection that followed led to a breakthrough in thinking with which I agree, namely that a regional approach would be more suited. The Espoo Convention is a perfect example, as it embodies the commitment by member states to the U.S. Economic Commission of Europe to act in a precautionary manner when dealing with transboundary activities. The convention highlights how and when environmental impact assessments need to be carried out, and an annex to the convention lists the activities that will trigger their application. Because different countries in different areas of the world carry out different activities, separate regional conventions, along with specific lists of triggering activities, are more appropriate than one global treaty. Even after the Espoo Convention was signed in 1991, other international legal instruments highlighted the need for Environmental Impact Assessments. In 1992, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development--the Rio Earth Summit--more than 180 participating nations adopted the Rio Declaration of Principles on Environment and Development. Principle 17 of the declaration states that environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority. This was but the latest indication of the endorsement by the whole international community of environmental impact assessment as a means to ensuring that human activities with a view to enhancing human betterment are undertaken in environmentally sound ways. On October 7, 1992, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic Treaty, signed in Madrid on October 4, 1991--Treaty Doc. 102-22. This protocol builds upon the Antarctic Treaty to extend and improve the treaty's effectiveness as a mechanism for ensuring the protection of the Antarctic environment. Among other obligations, it requires application of environmental impact assessment procedures to activities undertaken in Antarctica for which advance notice is required under the Antarctic Treaty. Annex I of the protocol sets out different environmental impact assessment procedures that apply according to whether the proposed activities are identified as having less than a minor or transitory impact, a minor or transitory impact, or more than a minor or transitory impact. This is a very rational approach to environmental impact assessment, an approach to which the Senate gave its advice and consent, and the same approach that my 1978 resolution embodied. As previously noted, the United States has pursued the objectives of my 1978 resolution--Senate Resolution 49--by becoming a party to the Espoo regional convention of the United Nations Economic Commission of Europe. This convention represents the consensus between the United States and its industrialized allies that the best way to proceed is to require environmental impact assessments before transboundary activities are carried out. As I have explained before, regional treaties are the best possible approach because they allow taking into account the particularities of the region at hand. What the United States and its allies have achieved must now be duplicated by other states, in other regions, so that the adoption of environmental impact assessment truly becomes a standard precautionary measure. Consequently, the resolution I introduce today builds upon my 1978 resolution--Senate Resolution 49--by urging the administration to encourage other states to pursue the negotiation of appropriate environmental impact assessment requirements in other regional treaties. My resolution acknowledges the history of international efforts carried out since 1978 and allows the Senate to endorse once more these important goals.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his kind words. Mr. President, once again, the Senate is debating legislation to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia-Hercegovina. Since the Senate first took up this issue in January 1994, I have voted against every attempt to force the United States to lift the embargo unilaterally. I must say that I now find this would be an extremely difficult vote to cast. The fall of a U.N. protected safe haven--and the impending fall of a second--is a dreadful human tragedy. The terrible images of tens of thousands of Moslem refugees fleeing Serb aggression make us want to find a quick and easy solution to the crisis, but I am afraid there are no easy answers. A Senate vote to lift the arms embargo unilaterally may seem cost-free, but I believe there are serious downsides that could actually make the situation worse. The legislation before us says that the lifting of the embargo shall occur after UNPROFOR personnel have withdrawn or 12 weeks after the Bosnian Government asks U.N. troops to leave, whichever comes first. We should be honest about what we are debating here. This bill, if passed, will actually trigger a U.N. withdrawal from Bosnia. I would remind my colleagues that the United States has committed to helping our allies withdraw from Bosnia as part of a NATO effort. So, in essence, by passing this bill, we are precipitating the commitment of up to 25,000 United States troops to Bosnia to help with that withdrawal. It is indeed time for our President, along with our U.N. and NATO allies to consider the future of the United Nations in Bosnia. They know that if the United Nations were to pull out altogether, many areas of Bosnia which are now stable and well supplied due to the U.N. presence would likely face a humanitarian disaster. This is particularly true in central Bosnia where the U.N. presence has fostered a peaceful federation between the Bosnian Croats and Moslems, who until February 1994, had been engaged in a fierce war. The President and our NATO allies must balance that potential catastrophe against the current tragedy which has led many to call for a complete U.N. pullout. As we speak, the administration and our allies are grappling with that difficult issue. General Shalikashvili met with his counterparts in London regarding this matter this past weekend; British Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind is in Washington today to discuss this issue; and later this week, Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry will travel to London for negotiations with their European counterparts. Clearly, I would have hoped we would wait to know the results of these important meetings and await our President's recommendation on the future of UNPROFOR and the role of the United States before embarking on this debate. I believe that Europe bears the brunt of the burden for dealing with the Bosnia crisis. Indeed the Europeans acknowledge this fact and are contributing the bulk of the troops to the U.N. effort. We have no troops on the ground, and that is as it should be. The U.S. Senate, therefore should not take unilateral action that would actually precipitate a U.N. withdrawal. In the end, a decision may have to be made to withdraw U.N. troops, but I do not believe the Senate should make that decision. I would add that the Bosnian Government, if it wished, could ask the United Nations to leave at any time. But it has not done so. Yet this bill would put the U.S. Senate on record as endorsing, indeed hastening a withdrawal. A unilateral lifting of the arms embargo after U.N. troops are withdrawn will inevitably be perceived as the beginning of a United States decision to go it alone in Bosnia. It is naive to think we can unilaterally lift the arms embargo, and then walk away. We instead would assume responsibility for Bosnia not only in terms of our moral obligation, but in practical terms as well. If we lift the embargo, who will supply the weapons? How will weapons be delivered? Who will train the Bosnians in using the weapons? The proponents of this bill will argue that it places no obligations on the United States, but everyone knows the Bosnian Government will look to us. [[Page S 10235]] Lifting the embargo without international support would increase American responsibility for the outcome of the conflict. Delivering weapons to Bosnia would likely require sending in United States personnel. Granted, this legislation states that nothing should be construed as authorizing the deployment of United States forces to Bosnia-Hercegovina for any purpose. But I want to emphasize that this would be a U.S. decision to dismantle the embargo. I do not see how we can lift the embargo on our own without sending in the personnel and without providing the wherewithal to carry out the policy. A unilateral lifting of the embargo--be it now or after U.N. troops are withdrawn--would put the United States in the position of abrogating a U.N. Security Council resolution, and in essence, breaking international law. The embargo is in place as a result of a binding U.N. Security Council resolution and can only be abrogated by a subsequent U.N. Security Council action. A unilateral lifting of the arms embargo would set a dangerous precedent. Other countries could choose to ignore Security Council resolutions that we consider important--such as the embargo against Iraq and sanctions against Libya and Serbia. In April, the Washington Post reported that Iran was engaging in embargo-busting by supplying plane loads of weapons and military supplies to Bosnian Government forces. If the United States were to lift the embargo unilaterally, we would joint Iran in embargo busting. I would ask my colleagues: Do you want to be in that company? Is Iran a responsible player in the international community? The answer, of course, is no. If the United States were to break the embargo on its own, we would destroy our credibility as a trustworthy leader in international affairs. A unilateral lifting of the arms embargo would undoubtedly strain our relations with our NATO allies and undermine our standing in other international negotiations completely unrelated to the Bosnian tragedy. After U.N. troops are safely withdrawn, lifting the embargo multilaterally may indeed be the best course of action. If and when UNPROFOR does withdraw, I believe we should make sure we know where our allies stand on lifting the embargo. Whether or not to lift the embargo should be a multilateral decision. We should not go it alone. I acknowledge that I see merit in some of the arguments of the amendment's proponents. This is a difficult problem that cuts across partisan lines and that slices to the heart of issues related to U.S. influence and power abroad. We all want to do something in response to the terrible pictures of the old people being wheeled out of eastern Bosnia in wheelbarrows or the frightful sight of the 20-year-old Bosnian hanging from a tree. I am just not convinced, however that voting for this bill will alleviate that suffering. Indeed, I am afraid that we might make matters worse. We are, as public servants, called upon to exercise our best judgment on this very difficult issue and this is what I intend to do. I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President. Yesterday, the President transmitted to the Senate the annual report for 1994 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In addition to detailing the Agency's many activities during 1994, the report includes a major section on the adherence by the United States to its arms control obligations and the compliance of other nations with their arms control obligations. This compliance report, which was provided in both classified and unclassified versions, is the most detailed annual compilation of arms control issues available to us. It has been required of the agency for a number of years, and it is particularly thorough and detailed in this year's iteration. I believe that my fellow Senators should avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain the report from ACDA and to review both the Agency's activities and the numerous arms control compliance questions addressed in the report. This year's unclassified report is remarkably open with regard to the kind of problems that we must address, and it represents a serious effort by ACDA Director, John Holum, and his staff to be informative and clear-headed in their analysis and judgments. Let me give you several examples of the kind of information included in the report: With regard to Russia's compliance with the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the report says: Previous assessments of Russian compliance have highlighted the dichotomy between what appears to be the commitment from President Yeltsin and other members of the Russian leadership in attempting to resolve BWC issues and the continued involvement of ``old hands'' in trilateral BW discussions and in what Russia describes as a defensive BW program. With regard to former Soviet biological weapons related facilities, some research and production facilities are being deactivated and many have taken severe personnel and funding cuts. However, some facilities, in addition to being engaged in legitimate activity, may be maintaining the capability to produce biological warfare agents. The Russian Federation's 1993 and 1994 BWC data declaration contained no new information and its 1992 declaration was incomplete and misleading in certain areas. With regard to the trilateral process that began in 1992, while there has been progress towards achieving the openness intended in the Joint Statement, the progress has not resolved all U.S. concerns. next steps The United States remains actively engaged in efforts to work with the Russian leadership to ensure complete termination of the illegal program and to pursue a number of measures to build confidence in Russian compliance with the

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today as the Senate comes to the conclusion of the debate over the Securities Litigation Reform Act, I state my support for this legislation. It has been a long process to achieve reform in this area and the Senate has worked for several years to craft legislation which will adequately address the problems in the laws which govern our securities industry without creating others. I commend the efforts of those most directly involved, particularly my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd, for their commitment and hard work in bringing this bill to final passage. The need for some type of reform in this area is universally acknowledged, even by those who have most vociferously opposed the version of reform contained in the final bill. Indeed, the bill had 51 cosponsors, an indication of overwhelming consensus that congressional action is necessary to correct a glaring problem. Simply put, the securities industry has been plagued by abusive and frivolous lawsuits for years. These lawsuits have been encouraged by a system that far too often does more to reward creative lawyers and undeserving plaintiffs than it does to protect the integrity of the securities markets and legitimate investors. The end result has been the unnecessary escalation of business costs as companies are forced to pay legal costs to defend against these meritless actions. In a growing number of cases, these escalated costs, combined with the chilling effect of the threat of groundless litigation, have resulted in bankruptcies, reluctance to release pertinent investment information, and in many cases, the decision to forego the formation of startup enterprises altogether. The latter has particularly been the case for fledgling high-technology companies, the next generation of American industry. As we strive to compete in the world marketplace, it becomes even more imperative that we work to discourage those aspects of our legal system which foster frivolous, costly, and unnecessary litigation. I do not claim that this bill is perfect in all aspects. Indeed, some 17 amendments were offered to the legislation as we considered on the Senate floor and I supported many of them. I share the concerns expressed that as we rewrite our securities laws to eliminate abusive lawsuits, we must also protect the rights of legitimately wronged investors to have their day in court. Of particular concern are those small investors, many times senior citizens and those with stakes in pension funds, who face formidable odds in bringing actions against large corporations. Accordingly, I voted for stronger protection against fraudulent and misleading statements by corporate executives as well as for an alternative dispute mechanism which would have discouraged frivolous actions without the use of the courts. I also supported giving even the smallest investor a voice in choosing who would control suits brought on behalf of a large class of plaintiffs, an effort to ensure that everyone would be represented in legal actions, no matter how big or small. Unfortunately, these and other efforts to improve the bill were not supported by a majority of the Senate. However, even though these amendments did not succeed, the legislation as a whole merited support for its work to reform our legal system in a constructive way to curb unnecessary lawsuits in our securities industry without removing adequate protection for those legitimately harmed by fraud and wrongdoing. Again, I commend the good work done by all involved with this legislation. There are still significant differences with the House that need to be worked out so I fear that we still have a way to go before the process of securities law reform is completed. With passage today, however, the Senate has taken an important step toward achieving that goal.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it should come as no surprise that the budget resolution which has come back to us from conference is far worse and more dismaying in its impact than the version which passed the Senate on May 25. What I said when I voted against the resolution the first time applies now with even more force: This budget is a plan for the evisceration of progressive government as we have come to know it in the past 40 years. Sadly, it marks the end of an era of high intentions and decency and compassion in public policy. On of the worst provisions of the conference report, from my point of view, is the mandatory cut of some $10 billion in education programs, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate last month voted 67-32 to restore $9.2 billion to this account. The conference cut in education will substantially increase the indebtedness that students incur to pay for college tuition, adding some $4,000 to $5,000 to the cost of an average student loan. It could well mean that literally millions of students will have to trim, defer or even drop their plans for college. A number of important education programs--such as Safe and Drug Free Schools, Goals 2000, School to Work Opportunities, Head Start, Pell grants, the National and Community Service Act and Vocational Education--could well be subject to severe funding reductions and even elimination. At a time when our Nation needs a more educated and better prepared workforce, these education cuts mean we would be moving in precisely the opposite and wrong direction. Similarly, Mr. President, the conference report's outline for spending on foreign affairs, the so-called 150 account, indicates that over time, there will be significant cuts in funding for U.S. foreign affairs agencies, personnel and assistance programs; there will be an enormous reduction in U.S. financial support for the United Nations and U.N. peacekeeping missions; and there will be major constraints on the ability of the United States to conduct diplomacy and exert influence abroad. If we follow the prescriptions in this budget plan, the United States will be unable to exercise leverage over or work cooperatively with the international community to resolve conflicts, advance our interests, or promote democratic and free market principles. I am particularly disturbed by the potential impact of the budget plan on our ability to contribute to the United Nations. Having just returned from the 50th anniversary celebration of the United Nations, I am once again reminded of the tremendous contributions that the United Nations has made to support and advance U.S. foreign policy goals, and of how useful a tool it could be for the United States in the future. I am not so naive as to profess that the United Nations has always lived up to its potential, but for every example of failure that are numerous countervailing examples of success. These cuts will set us squarely down the road toward retrenchment and withdrawal. If we choose to go this route, we will do grave disservice to the next generation of Americans. At the end of World War II, we chose not to yield to the temptation of isolationism, and our country prospered as it never had before. I think we should have learned our lesson by now. These cuts in education funding and in the foreign affairs account typify the great differences in priorities and values which distinguish the opponents from the proponents of this resolution. All of us agree that many Federal programs should be trimmed or restructured or phased out altogether. But we have significant differences over where the axe should fall. I for one think that far more critical attention should be given to modifying and reducing the elaborate defense and security structure which in many ways is a casualty of its own success in the cold war. I am dismayed that the conference report comes back to us with even greater allowance for defense outlays than we originally provided. As I see it, we should be spending far less on defense and more on domestic social programs. The same might be said for the vast hidden budget of our intelligence apparatus which I note spent some $10 billion in its unsuccessful efforts to estimate the state of the Soviet economy, the collapse of which it failed to anticipate. Mr. President, as I indicated last month, my differences on the budget go deeper than priorities. I continue to question the basic premise that the Federal budget must be brought into absolute balance in a specific time frame. And I particularly question the wisdom, indeed the sanity, of providing for tax cuts at the very time our objective should be to bring revenues and expenditures into balance. It seems preposterous that the budget resolution now comes back to us with a provision for tax cuts of $245 billion, notwithstanding the Senate's decisive rejection by a vote of 69 to 31 of the Gram amendment last month. For every dollar of opportunistic tax cuts provided by this resolution, an offsetting dollar must come from some other source. The designers of this budget actually propose to borrow funds in the next few years to make up for the lost revenue, and then the impact will fall on school children, college students and Medicare recipients among many others. This seems like a strange way indeed for a modern society to manage its affairs. A far better way, it seems to me, would be to make judicious cuts, reduce the deficit to reasonable proportions and, if necessary, raise additional revenues to preserve worthy programs. We should not loose sight of Franklin Roosevelt's wise dictum that ``Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.'' In the end, we get what we pay for. opposition to defense funding levels

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in the past few months, I have taken the floor on several occasions to highlight how the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea would protect the national interests of the United States with regard to our fisheries and our economic activities. Today, I wish to address how U.S. ratification of the convention will enhance our most important interest: national security. The convention establishes as a matter of international law freedom of navigation rights that are critical to our military forces. This was highlighted by the President in his Message to Congress, transmitting the Convention on the Law of the Sea: The United States has basic and enduring national interests in the oceans and has consistently taken the view that the full range of these interests is best protected through a widely accepted international framework governing uses of the sea. . . . Each succeeding U.S. Administration has recognized this as the cornerstone of U.S. ocean policy. . . . The Convention advances the interests of the United States as a global maritime power. It preserves the right of the U.S. military to use the world's oceans to meet national security requirements and of commercial vessels to carry sea-going cargoes. . . . Early adherence by the United States to the Convention and the Agreement is important to maintain a stable legal regime for all uses of the sea, which covers more than 70 percent of the surface of the globe. Maintenance of such stability is vital to U.S. national security [[Page S 9196]] and economic strength.'' (Treaty Doc. 103-39, p.iii-iv) Secretary of Defense William Perry and Secretary of State Warren Christopher emphasized in a joint letter to the Congress last year that: As one of the world's major maritime powers, the United States has a manifest national security interest in the ability to navigate and overfly the oceans freely. A recent Department of Defense Report on National Security and the Convention on the Law of the Sea concluded that the United States . . . national security interests in having a stable oceans regime are, if anything, even more important today than in 1982 when the world had a roughly bipolar political dimension and the U.S. had more abundant forces to project power to wherever it was needed.'' (Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations on the Current Status of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, S. Hrg. 103-737, pp.61-75) In his letter to the Senate accompanying that report Secretary Perry declared that: . . . the Convention establishes a universal regime for governance of the oceans which is needed to safeguard United States security and economic interests, as well as to defuse those situations in which competing uses of the oceans are likely to result in conflict. . . . Historically, this nation's security has depended upon the ability to conduct military operations over, under and on the oceans. . . . To send a strong signal that the United States is committed to an ocean regulatory regime that is guided by the rule of law, General Shalikashvili and I urge your support in securing early advice and consent of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and implementing Agreement. I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Perry's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PELL. With the end of the cold war, both our vital interests and our ability to defend them have shifted. In these fiscally difficult times, the convention allows us to concentrate our resources on the most strategic points of our national security. Illustrations of this phenomenon can be found in the provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention that provide for innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic passage. The convention allows a coastal State to claim a territorial sea that shall not exceed 12 nautical miles measured from the baseline. While this provision recognizes the special rights of the coastal state in the area immediately adjacent to its coastline, it also provides specifically for the right of innocent passage for ships, including warships and submarines, to transit through the territorial sea. Likewise, in some areas, archipelagic states have been allowed to enclose waters located between the various islands of an archipelago, and to claim them as national waters. Unfortunately, some of these instances involve islands located in international straits or along routes used for international navigation and overflight of the highest strategic importance. Here again, the convention strikes the perfect balance by guaranteeing to all ships and aircraft, including warships, submarines, and military aircraft a right of passage on, over and under international straits and archipelagic sea lanes. The need to protect freedom of navigation is not merely a theoretical issue. There have been recent situations where even U.S. allies denied our Armed Forces transit rights in times of need. Such an instance was the 1973 Yom Kippur war when our ability to resupply Israel was critically dependent on transit rights through the Strait of Gibraltar. Again, in 1986, United States aircraft passed through the Strait to strike Libyan targets in response to that government's acts of terrorism directed against the United States, after some of our allies had denied us the right to transit through their airspace. In April 1992, Peruvian fighters strafed a United States C-130 aircraft that was 60 nautical miles off the Peruvian coast, well within Peru's claimed 200-nautical-mile territorial sea, but well outside the 12-nautical-mile limit recognized by the Law of the Sea Convention and the United States. This incident resulted in the death of one U.S. service member and the wounding of several others, as well as the loss of the aircraft. Peru continues to challenge United States aircraft flying over its claimed territorial sea. There are a number of other situations where having the Law of the Sea in effect might have made a difference. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of such instances be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PELL. Another way in which the convention protects our national security interests is by bringing an incredible amount of stability and certainty with regard to multiple and sometimes divergent ocean uses. Most importantly the convention provides the most effective brake on excessive coastal state maritime claims in ocean areas adjacent to their coasts. If the United States is not a party to the convention, preserving our navigational rights in nonwartime situations becomes increasingly costly. The Law of the Sea provides very clear rules and circumstances according to which these claims need to be recognized. In addition, if the rights of a transiting nation are impeded, the Law of the Sea provides all parties with a very clear set of rules for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Only a few weeks ago, a potential conflict threatened to erupt over Greek territorial claims around its islands in the Aegean Sea. Turkey has warned against the transformation of this area into a ``Greek Lake'' and many have warned of the possibility of conflict over this issue. The Law of the Sea specifically calls for peaceful resolution of such disputes and, when the Hamburg Tribunal on the Law of the Sea is convened, it could be seized to address disputes such as this one. Another potential point of conflict is to be found in the South China Sea, where conflicting claims have been staked over the Spratly Islands. These islands have been claimed by the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. Recently, some of those claimants have engaged in aggressive activities. The location of the Spratlys is of paramount importance, as the islands lie along strategic sea lanes that connect the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf to the Pacific Ocean. Seventy percent of Japan's oil imports travel through this route and both the United States and its allies would stand to lose if armed conflict erupted as a result of these conflicting claims. The administration recently advised the various claimants that the United States would view with serious concern any maritime claim or restriction on maritime activity in the South China Sea that was not consistent with the Law of the Sea Convention. In that regard, on June 20, 1995, the Committee on Foreign Relations reported, and on June 22 the Senate agreed to, Senate Resolution 97, introduced by Senator Thomas and Senator Robb, which I cosponsored. This resolution calls on the parties involved in this dispute to solve their differences in a manner that is consistent with international law. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an op ed piece that was published on May 26, 1995 in the Washington Times and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PELL. In it, Keith Eirinberg, a Fellow in the Asian Studies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, calls the Law of the Sea Convention perhaps the world's greatest diplomatic achievement for having established internationally accepted laws for three fourths of the earth's surface. He also clearly demonstrates that excessive claims have no standing under the Convention and that the U.S. ability to influence a peaceful settlement of the dispute over the Spratly Islands would be enhanced by U.S. ratification of the treaty. In addition, on June 22, 1995, Rear Adm. Lloyd R. Vasey (Ret.), a senior strategist specializing in Asia-Pacific security, wrote in the Christian Science Monitor that the claims over the Spratly Islands should be resolved through international law and the UN [[Page S 9197]] Convention on the Law of the Sea. He added that for its own credibility the U.S. needs to complete ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. PELL. There are scores of other instances where maritime boundary disputes were solved in a peaceful manner, precisely because the Law of the Sea establishes such clear rules and limitations. If it does not ratify the Convention, the United States will stand at risk of being left out of the enforcement of this Constitution for the Oceans, and will be subject to the uncertainties of customary international law. I have heard arguments that the Convention's provisions on freedom of navigation are not really important because they reflect customary international law. I disagree with that argument. Customary international law is inherently unstable. Governments can be less scrupulous about flouting the precedents of customary law than they would be if such actions were seen as a violation of their treaty obligations. Moreover, not all governments and scholars agree that all of the critical navigation rights protected by the Convention are also protected by customary law. They regard many of those rights as contractual and, as such, available only to parties to the Convention. The concordant judgment of those charged with responsibility for the national security of our Nation is reflected in the report of the Department of Defense on National Security and the Law of the Sea, which states: Our principal judgement is that public order of the oceans is best established by a universally accepted Law of the Sea treaty that is in the U.S. national interest. ... Reliance upon customary international law in the absence of the modified Convention would represent a necessarily imprecise approach to the problem as well as one which requires the United States to put forces in harm's way when principles of law are not universally understood or accepted. A universal Convention is the best guarantee of avoiding situations in which U.S. forces must be used to assert navigational freedoms, as well as the best method of fostering the growth and use of various conflict avoidance schemes which are contained in the Convention. Mr. President, this is not merely my opinion but that of the professionals whose job it is to protect our Nation's security. We must not ignore their advice: United States ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention will enhance our national security interests. Exhibit 1 The Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, July 29, 1994. Hon. Claiborne Pell, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: In 1982, the United States made a decision that it would not become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea because of its concerns about the deep seabed mining provisions, contained in Part XI of the Convention. The Convention is due to enter into force on November 16, 1994, now that the requisite number of other states (60) have ratified it. However, consultations were recently concluded which resulted in an Agreement to correct what the United States has long viewed as the Convention's flawed deep seabed mining provisions. The United States now intends to sign the Agreement at the United Nations on July 29, 1994. Accordingly, the Convention as modified will be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent at the end of the 103rd Congress. The Department of Defense fully supports U.S. signature of the Agreement, and ratification of the Convention as modified by the Agreement. In the Administration's view, the new Agreement satisfactorily resolves the issues that the U.S. Government and ocean mining interests raised in the early 1980's during deliberations over whether the United States should sign the Law of the Sea Convention. The new Agreement meets these objections by correcting the serious institutional and free market deficiencies in the original Convention. We have received indications from other industrialized nations that, with adoption of the new Agreement, they will soon accede to the modified Convention. The Convention establishes a universal regime for governance of the oceans which is needed to safeguard U.S. security and economic interests, as well as to defuse those situations in which competing uses of the oceans are likely to result in conflict. In addition to strongly supporting our interests in freedom of navigation, the Convention provides an effective framework for serious efforts to address land and sea-based sources of pollution and overfishing. Moreover, the Agreement provides us with an opportunity to participate with other industrialized nations in a widely accepted international order to regulate and safeguard the many diverse activities, interests, and resources in the world's oceans. Historically, this nation's security has depended upon the ability to conduct military operations over, under, and on the oceans. The best guarantee that this free and unfettered access to the high seas will continue in the years ahead is for the U.S. to become a party to the Convention, as modified by the Agreement, at the earliest possible time. In the coming months, we anticipate heightened public debate of the merits of the Law of the Sea Convention. To put that debate into perspective, you will find enclosed a paper which briefly outlines the history of the original Convention, the steps leading to the formalization of the Part XI Agreement, and the nation's vital national security and other interests in becoming bound by the modified Convention. To send a strong signal that the United States is committed to an ocean regulatory regime that is guided by the rule of law, General Shalikashvili and I urge your support in securing early advice and consent of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and implementing Agreement. Sincerely, William J. Perry.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. On May 6, 1995, I was honored to be part of the delegation headed by Ambassador Madeleine Albright and accompanied by Gen. Charles G. Boyd, commander in chief, U.S. European Command, to represent President Clinton at ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Plzen in the Czech Republic. Having served as a foreign service officer in Prague in 1946 after World War II, it was a particular personal honor to be present at such a warm outpouring of appreciation and gratitude shown by the people of the Czech Republic toward the gallant contributions made by the service men and women of Gen. George Patton's Third Army. While in Plzen I was also honored to participate in the opening of American Center Plzen, with Prime Minister Klaus, the United States Ambassador to the Czech Republic, Adrian Basora, Ambassador Albright, and General Boyd. The creation of the American Center in Plzen was the personal accomplishment of a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer from Barrington, RI, John R. Hess. The Center is a tribute to the enthusiasm and commitment of John Hess and the citizens of Plzen. Significantly, it was completed without having to commit any U.S. tax dollars. I asked Mr. Hess if he would send me a report on the creation of American Center Plzen, so that his work could serve as an example to others reaching out to our neighbors around the world. I ask unanimous consent that his report on American Center Plzen be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I learned with regret last week that the People's Republic of China has recalled its ambassador to the United States, Li Daoyu, because of the visit of Taiwan President Lee Teng- hui. I am disappointed that the Chinese government has chosen this step as a form of protest over Lee's visit. President Lee came to the United States on a private visit after he was invited to speak at his alma mater. He was granted a visa as a simple act of courtesy and his trip does not represent a change in our government's one-China policy. The United States believes strongly that notable speakers from around the world should be free to travel here to speak their views. I feel that Beijing's reaction to Lee's visit is both excessive and unproductive. Lee's visit was a small matter and should be seen as insignificant for overall Sino-United States relations. There is a great reservoir of friendship between the peoples of China and the United States. I think of that friendship as an iceberg. Right now we may see problems at the tip, but underneath is a large, enduring solidness. I feel certain that sturdy base will help us outlast minor irritants to the relationship, such as this one. It is my deep wish that Beijing would simply agree to disagree with Washington on this matter, return Ambassador Li to his post quickly, and move on to the truly important matters we have between the two countries.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts and rise in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General. While I am delighted that the day of debate has finally arrived, I must say how unfortunate I find it that Dr. Foster's nomination may be resolved--not by the will of the majority--but by the minority rule permitted under the Senate's cloture rule, which was invoked here even before there was any debate. I have long believed that every President deserves great deference in the choice of nominees, provided that the individual is qualified for the position for which he or she has been nominated. And because of that belief, I have--over the years--cast votes for nominees for whom I had little enthusiasm. This is not the case today. Today I can enthusiastically cast my vote for Dr. Foster, after having met him, talked with him, and listened to him carefully during 2 full days of testimony before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. I believe that Dr. Foster is a man of substance, who has worked very hard all his life to achieve an unselfish kind of success. Dr. Foster was raised in the rural South at a time of intense segregation, enduring those indignities with the kind of dignity, intelligence, and vision that enabled him both to see that he could achieve something important in his life--and to do it. He speaks eloquently of his father's teachings of the value of education and hard work, and he has clearly incorporated those values into everything he has done throughout his life. Dr. Foster's credentials alone render him a qualified candidate for Surgeon General. A practicing obstetrician-gynecologist for 38 years, he is also a medical educator who has devoted much of his professional life to reducing infant mortality and preventing teen pregnancy. He has served as both dean of the school of medicine and acting president of Meharry Medical College, and has been the recipient of many awards and honors--too numerous to mention here--ranging from induction into the Institute of Medicine to receiving a Thousand Points of Light Award from President Bush for his I Have a Future Program that promotes self- esteem and positive choices among at-risk teens. But it is true that qualifications alone may not be sufficient for a person to hold a position of leadership and [[Page S 8725]] trust in our Government. Especially with a position attracting as much attention as Surgeon General, it is important that the person appointed be an example of the best that our country has to offer. Mr. President, from what I have learned about Dr. Foster, I believe that he is such a person. In addition to excellent academic and leadership qualifications, Dr. Foster has traveled an admirable path, in the early years forfeiting a life of wealth in a more comfortable setting to return to his roots--this time to poor, rural Alabama--to help an underserved population that needed his care. Since then, Dr. Foster has helped train the minds and influence the careers of hundreds of Meharry Medical College students, many of whom have followed in his footsteps. While Dr. Foster's life and career have not been without their controversial moments, there are few, if any, individuals of prominence and principle in this country who have not experienced such moments in life. I have reviewed carefully the information available to me about those times in Dr. Foster's life and have asked him about others. I am satisfied that Dr. Foster has told the truth about the discrepancies that arose shortly after his nomination was announced, and I believe that his actions can be explained in the context of the times and the nature of his work. I have been most impressed by the strong support Dr. Foster has received from the medical community, from public health and social service advocates, and from individuals in my State and around the country--including several Rhode Islanders who have contacted me to say that they personally know and admire Dr. Foster. I hope that the U.S. Senate will look fairly at the man himself and consider carefully his story, his dreams, his vision for the country, and his qualifications. I feel confident that it we do that, we will confirm the nomination of a person of compassion, humor, and dedication, whom I believe deserves the chance to serve his Nation as the next Surgeon General.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on May 29 the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations observed not only Memorial Day but also Hope Day, commemorating the 205th anniversary of the State's ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It was at 5:20 in the afternoon of May 29, 1790, we are told, that the final vote was taken at a convention of delegates from all parts of the State, giving Rhode Island's belated and somewhat grudging approval to the new Federal Constitution. The vote was 34 to 32, making the smallest of the Thirteen Original Colonies to join the new union of States which had come into being the previous year. The word ``Hope'', which the State took as its motto in 1875, in recent years has become associated with the anniversary of the date of Rhode Island's ratification, signifying the high expectations of that occasion. This year, the Hope Day commemoration, under the chairmanship of G. Brian Sullivan of Newport, included an invitation to all churches in the State and all vessels in Narragansett Bay to sound their bells and horns at 5:20 p.m. in a reenactment of the ``Great throughout the State heralded the outcome of the vote on ratification. Mr. President, I ask to have reprinted in the Record proclamations of Hope Day 1995 by Gov. Lincoln Almond and David F. Roderick, Jr., mayor of Newport. The proclamation follows: The Governor of the State of Rhode Island--Proclamation Whereas, on May 29, 1790, Rhode Island became our country's thirteenth state, fulfilling the hope of our nation's forefathers who sought unity and upheld the motto ``E Pluribus Unum''--``One Composed of Many''; and Whereas, while Rhode Island led the thirteen original colonies in rebelling against the tyrannical rule of England with the destruction of the British revenue sloop ``Liberty'' in 1769 and the burning of the schooner ``Gaspee'' in 1772, it would not seek democracy and its status as an independent state until May 29, 1790; and Whereas, while Rhode Island was the last of the original thirteen colonies to ratify the federal constitution, our founding fathers--Dr. John Clarke and Roger Williams--were instrumental in creating the Great Charter granted by King Charles II on July 8, 1663, assuring Rhode Island's complete religious freedom, an antecedent to the Bill of Rights; and Whereas, on this fourteenth commemoration of ``Hope Day,'' all of Rhode Island should stand proud in recognizing that on this great day back in 1790, federal unification became complete and the thirteen original colonies had become one nation; Now, therefore, I Lincoln Almond, Governor of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Do Hereby Proclaim, May 29, 1995 as Hope Day.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, Daniel W. Varin today announced his own plans for retirement, in one of the quietest, most unobtrusive ways imaginable, after more than 30 years of service directing the State of Rhode Island's planning effort. Dan Varin, who has been acknowledged nationally a dean of State planning officials, announced his own plans quietly at the end of an otherwise ordinary State Planning Council meeting in Rhode Island, under the agenda item of ``other business.'' Throughout his 30 years, he has brought an unusual ability to his position. He perceives the implications of numbers, statistics, and trends, in a word, he has foresight. He has remained committed to a larger view of things, exercising his gift of seeing the interrelation of issues. He has been a wonderful, dedicated proponent of comprehensive, areawide planning. He has looked to the future, and worked long hours. He has been available in crises, and brought a great knowledge of how governmental systems work to resolving vexing problems for State and local government. In the winds of change, and squalls of politics, Dan Varin has been a steadying sail of calm reason. He has been a navigator of great value on a stormy sea. He has an awesome knowledge of State and Federal programs, and those of us in the Federal Government are indebted to him. Much of what we do relies on State action to secure its realization. With Dan Varin's guidance, many things were done well in Rhode Island. To say that my office and I will miss him deeply is an understatement. All that really can be said is, ``Thank you, and best wishes for a truly well-earned retirement.''

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President. Today, as the Senate considers final passage of S. 735, legislation designed to combat domestic and international terrorism, I regret that I must oppose the final version of the bill. I regret it because I believe that appropriate steps can be taken by this Congress to add to the tools currently available to law enforcement to combat terrorism. Especially in light of the recent, horrific tragedy in Oklahoma City, enhancement of the ability to combat the growing menace of terrorism is timely and necessary. However, as Congress rushes to respond, we can not let our fervor for action allow us to unwisely circumscribe basic protections long enshrined in our Constitution. Unfortunately, I believe that as the bill stands, the Senate has gone too far in changing and restricting the application and availability of the right to appeal court decisions under the writ of habeas corpus. This writ has been a fundamental part of our jurisprudence since our country's founding. It is a critical part of the means by which our system of justice guarantees that everyone has the opportunity for a fair trial and that the rights granted under the U.S. Constitution will be respected and enforced. With this time-honored tradition of habeas corpus so much a part of the bedrock legal principles which underpin our society, why are we considering changing it all? The answer is clear and has been readily acknowledged by the proponents of this so-called reform: they want to expedite the execution of those who have received the death penalty. It is that simple. There is no other driving force behind these efforts; efforts which incidentally have been around for years now. Those who favor the death penalty are frustrated that appeals under habeas corpus are available for those who protest their innocence and claim they were denied a fair trial. They argue that with an appeals process that lasts for years, the deterrent effect of the death penalty is lost. Thus, they want to drastically limit the ability of those convicted of crimes and given the death penalty to appeal their convictions, despite the fact that the sentence, if carried out, is irreversible and final. Let me be clear. I harbor no sympathy for those appropriately found guilty of murder and strongly believe that it is critical that they face certain and severe punishment, including life in prison without parole. The victims deserve no less, the criminal deserves no more. However, I do oppose the death penalty. I do so because I believe that the death penalty is not a conscionable punishment in a civilized society. The reason is obvious; the death penalty once carried out cannot be reversed if turns out that an individual really was innocent. Indeed, I note that the last time an individual was executed in my state of Rhode Island, it was later proved that he did not commit the crime. It strikes me as remarkable that in a legal system which has the death penalty, such as ours, that procedures would be sought which limit the opportunities otherwise available for an individual to prove his innocence. If anything, I believe that additional avenues should be available for the proof of innocence, not fewer. But the bill before us today does just that--it limits the rights of the accused to have their convictions reviewed for error. This is wrong and in my opinion, a sad day in the U.S. Senate. Accordingly, I feel that the limited good done by the bill--by which I mean the commendable efforts to fight terrorism--is outweighed by the attack on habeas corpus which has been included. Interestingly enough, efforts to limit the changes in habeas corpus to apply only to Federal terrorism cases, the supposed reason for this bill, were rejected. The entire habeas corpus system, meaning for both those cases brought in State and Federal courts, has been changed. It brings into question the true motivations behind attaching this language to this bill--a bill that on its face has great public appeal and is being moved by a sense of urgency given the events in Oklahoma City in April. But despite my profound sympathy for the victims of the bombing in Oklahoma City-- indeed as well as all terrorist acts--and my desire to do something about relieving the pain they suffer, I believe that in good conscience, I cannot support the bill as it stands given the changes it contains to habeas corpus.