Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I voted for the original rescissions bill because the reductions were reasonable and because we had restored 80 percent of the education cuts that were contained in the House bill. I fervently hoped that the Senate position on education would prevail in the House-Senate conference. Unfortunately, it did not. As a result there are drastic cuts in several important Federal education programs, such as safe and drug free schools, dropout prevention, and education reform. Because of this, I cannot support the conference report.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution marks the beginning of the end of an era. There can be no avoiding of the fact that the resolution in many ways lays out a plan for the effective dismantlement of progressive government as we have come to know and benefit from for half a century. This I believe is a lamentable turn of events in my view, all the more so because I believe we could bring the Federal budget under control by less extreme and less destructive means. When I came to the Senate in 1961, the political climate was keyed to national circumstances far different from those prevailing today. Most of us had vivid memories, first, of the era of active, interventionist government that resulted from the economic stresses of the 1930's; and second, of the dominant role of the Federal Government in the successful prosecution of our role in World War II, a role which was to continue through the cold war era. From that basis of a dominant Federal role in opposition to foreign tyranny, there was a natural evolution to the historic role of the Federal Government in greatly expanding our national commitment to social justice at home. This found expression in the civil rights revolution of the 1960's, and in a host of other fields, including health, education, welfare, occupational safety, and environmental protection to name only a few. To be sure, there were excesses and mistakes that were committed in the name of an activist central government, and their elimination is one of the benefits of the current swing of the pendulum of history back in the direction of less government and less intervention. But as one who has been privileged to serve here during this remarkable cycle, I want to record the view that there is much that we have done over the past four decades that has made our country a better place, and those accomplishments should not be rejected in a willy- nilly rush to diminish the role of government. Unfortunately, the budget resolution lays the groundwork for just such an evisceration of progressive government and I, therefore, cannot support it. I am appalled at the implications of drastic cuts in the international affairs account, presaging a trend to isolationism and withdrawal from a half century of activist leadership in world affairs. This resolution envisions a progressive phasing back of assessed contributions for United Nations peacekeeping, as well as drastic cuts in foreign aid. These are radical and regressive changes and I reject them. I am likewise dismayed at the assumed reduction in Federal spending for education by as much as $32 billion over 7 years. This would place at risk or threaten curtailment of a number of worthy programs which have evolved over the past 30 years to assert a Federal interest in this most basic area of public investment. So these cuts too are not acceptable. I deeply regret also the assumptions underlying this resolution which would curtail the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AMTRAK, while at the same time threatening to turn back the clock of post-Watergate reform by abolishing the Presidential campaign financing system. I hope the Senate amendment restoring the funding for this system will prevail. These are but a few of the programs now in jeopardy in which I have a special interest. In combination with other provisions which likewise cancel out or curtail major elements of the Federal commitment to social justice--provisions such as the Medicare cutbacks and the cut in funding for the earned income tax credit--they serve to demonstrate how negative and regressive this resolution truly is. The pity is, Mr. President, that much of this programmatic slaughter may be needless. The fact is that it was ordained by a commitment to suspect goals which were dictated by political expediency rather than national selection, namely, the idea that the Federal budget must be brought into exact balance, and the corollary idea that it must be brought into balance in the arbitrary time frame of 7 years. With all due respect to the leadership of my own party, I must simply say that in my view these goals are specious and should not be the driving force for this sweeping revision of Federal policy. When I opposed the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution earlier this year, I took the position that the Federal budget is not supposed to be in perpetual balance, but that, as John Maynard Keynes wisely noted, it should remain a flexible instrument of national economic policy, registering a surplus in good times and engaging in stimulative spending in downtimes. The resolution before us puts us on an inflexible course, both in terms of achieving absolute balance and doing so by a date certain. It makes no allowance for all of the unforeseen contingencies, including natural disasters, international emergencies, or economic recessions, that might require us at some point in the next 7 years, to engage in unexpected spending and thus not meet the goal so confidently embraced. And even if the magical goal were somehow to be reached, there is a respectable body of opinion that warns that the deliberate withdrawal of $1.3 trillion in Federal spending in the arbitrary timeframe of 7 years could wreak havoc with the economy. It seems to me that the far wiser course would be to continue a vigorous but more reasoned program of deficit reduction that would not rule out revenue increases and certainly would not exempt defense from further budget cuts. I would generally avoid tax cuts, although I must say that I continue to believe that a more liberal treatment of capital gains would have a beneficial effect in promoting economic growth. Further, it seems to me that we ought to substitute flexible and rational measures of deficit control for the arbitrary goals which I believe have been too hastily accepted as a basis for a wholesale change of approach of Government. One useful measure is the ratio between the annual deficit and gross domestic product. Just as any prudent household should limit debt in proportion to income, it would make sense for the Federal Government to do likewise with respect to its annual deficit. For the present, we must act on the basis of goals and assumptions that, while widely accepted, may not be valid. To my mind, the budget resolution takes us in the wrong direction and does so for the wrong reasons. I hope the time will come when others will see the matter in the same light.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as the discussion on the budget resolution has progressed, it appears that there are fundamental and partisan differences on our spending priorities and programs. Some of these differences go to the heart of the Democratic and Republican approaches to governance, and call into question the Federal Government's role in society. Soon we may be dismantling the core components of a decades- old social compact between the American government and people. Our social safety net--Medicare and Medicaid, education, support and assistance for our Nation's poor--is the priority one issue of our time. It is one of the most important functions of our Government, and it encompasses the matters about which the American people care most deeply. As critical as they are, however, this budget debate is about more than just our domestic spending priorities. The spending cuts in the budget plan are so wholesale and comprehensive that they will drastically curtail the U.S. ability to conduct diplomacy and advance our interests abroad. I would like to take a moment, Mr. President, to focus on the impact of the proposed spending cuts on foreign affairs--the so-called 150 account. This budget will slash funding for U.S. foreign affairs agencies, personnel and assistance programs; virtually eliminate U.S. financial support for the United Nations; and shackle the ability of the United States to participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions. Even though it has yet to be adopted, the resolution already has had a debilitating impact on our foreign policy [[Page S7365]] agencies and programs. Last week the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported--on a straight party-line vote--foreign relations authorizing legislation that will cut spending for the Department of State and U.S. foreign policy programs by $3.5 billion during the next 4 years. Yesterday the Committee began to mark up foreign aid authorizing legislation, which if reported will have an equally devastating effect on our overseas assistance program. Together, these bills will abolish three major foreign affairs agencies--ACDA, USIA, and USAID. They will curtail U.S. participation in the United Nations Organization and support for U.N. peacekeeping. They will slash foreign aid spending and virtually eliminate U.S. support for multilateral lending institutions. They will arbitrarily prohibit U.S. participation in multilateral environmental organizations and adversely affect the implementation of critical environmental initiatives. The rush to cut spending is such that the Foreign Relations Committee bills will authorize spending at levels far below even what the budget resolution currently recommends--perhaps as much as $600 million. On its surface, I acknowledge that for some, this news will not be entirely disappointing. There are those who do not understand the value of spending money on foreign affairs programs, and most opinion polls place foreign aid near the bottom in terms of public support. At the same time, Americans want the United States to remain a prominent world power in the post-cold war era. The people understand this, and the times demand it. Our economic future lies in a global trading system; if we want to protect our national interests we must be active players in the international system. The problem, however, is that the scope and scale of the budget and spending proposals will force the United States to retreat into isolation. All of these initiatives are negative in tone; they dictate or suggest that we should not engage in certain activities. They do not offer affirmative policy prescriptions. In the post-cold war era, Republicans and Democrats should be working together to fashion a bipartisan strategy for U.S. foreign policy in the 21 century. Instead, we are wasting our time debating neo-isolationist proposals which, if adopted, will result in the United States becoming a feeble, second- rate power. We will be unable to exert influence or work cooperatively with the international community to resolve conflicts, advance our interest, or promote democratic and free market principles. As written, the budget resolution would 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.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, we often celebrate success on the floor of the Senate: the passage of a particularly difficult bill, the ratification of a difficult international agreement, or even the retirement of a public figure who has built a record of achievements. This time, however, I would like to share with my colleagues the inspiring story of a glorious failure. It truly is an inspiring story for several reasons: the age of the individual involved, the wisdom of his perspective, and the strength of his spirit. I do not know Mark Pfetzer but, as a Rhode Islander, I have been following the news accounts of this 15-year-old high school freshman's attempt to become the youngest person to climb Mount Everest. Mark has climbed at least 26,000 feet up the 29,028-foot Himalayan mountain, perhaps even higher, when he reportedly was forced to turn back because of rib injuries. According to his mother, he was injured during a coughing fit brought on by the extremely dry and thin air near the summit. Those injuries reportedly led a doctor to rule Mark out of the final assent to the summit. I found one quote from Mark's mother, Christine Pfetzer, to be particularly telling. She said that during his preparations for the expedition he was fond of a quote by the Roman general Cassius: ``In great attempts it is glorious to fail.'' Mr. President, I congratulate Mark on his effort, his wisdom, and his spirit. I am confident that his glorious failure will lead him to a life of continued success. I trust that, with his attitude, he eventually will climb the highest mountain--all the way to the top. I am sure he will go on to new conquests, if he remains willing to take the chance of failure. We wish him well and, when he returns to Rhode Island in June, I hope his homecoming is only the beginning of a life with great promise. I ask unanimous consent that a May 18 wire story by the Associated Press, titled ``15-Year-Old Fails in Everest Summit Attempt,'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. PELL. Eight minutes is fine.

Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I second his remarks about the Senator from Massachusetts. He has shown remarkable leadership. The budget resolution before us would have a very detrimental impact on Federal education spending. Instead of adjustments, fine tuning and reasonable savings, this resolution would produce drastic and unwarranted reductions of the small but critical role general education and 11 percent for higher education is the share of the Federal Government. According to the Budget Committee figures, this resolution assumes a reduction of $59.4 billion in outlays for function 500 over the next 7 years when compared with current law. When compared with the President's budget, though, the estimate is that the reduction would total $65 billion over the same 7-year period. According to the Labor Committee's own estimates, education makes up about 58 percent of function 500, and this means therefore that the reduction in education spending could total as much as $38 billion over the next 7 years. The reduction in education would come in two areas, mandatory spending and discretionary spending. The Hollings-Harkin amendment before us would add back $40 billion in both mandatory and discretionary spending. It would have the effect, therefore, of ensuring that we would not experience drastic cutbacks in Federal education spending. Failure to approve this amendment would surely put education in harm's way. While the budget resolution assumes protection of certain programs, those are only assumptions. They do not have the full force of law. The final decision for discretionary cuts will be left to the Appropriations Committee, while the final decision for mandatory cuts will fall to we, the authorizing committee. My fear is that the size of the cuts in the budget resolution are so immense that no program will be protected and all will be at risk. If the cuts are applied across the board, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that one-third of the Federal investment in education will be eliminated by the year 2002. In mandatory spending, the budget resolution before us assumes savings of $13.8 billion in outlays over the next 7 years. Seven assumptions are made in order to achieve those savings, but only five of those are within the jurisdiction of our Labor Committee. According to OMB, the total of the remaining five options is less than $5 billion. That includes about $3.3 billion in savings if we eliminate the in-school interest subsidy for graduate students, an option which I for one would vigorously oppose. The Labor Committee is also left with the responsibility to come up with almost $9 billion in additional savings. This is such a massive requirement that the only option available would be the elimination of the in-school interest subsidy for undergraduate students who come primarily from middle-income families. To my mind, this is not the road we should travel. Elimination of the in-school interest subsidy for all students would, according to the Department of Education, increase student indebtedness by 20 to 50 percent. In a period when more Americans are borrowing more money to help finance a college education, this would be the wrong step and the wrong direction to take. In a very real sense, we would be increasing private debt to decrease public debt, an option that is not at all satisfactory. With respect to discretionary program spending, the effect would be equally alarming. Freezing the Pell Grant Program at the current law level would diminish the value of that program by as much as 40 percent over the next 7 years. According to OMB, half of that is because of the increase in eligible students and the other half because of the expected increase in inflation in the next 7 years. Freezing the title I program in elementary and secondary education for the 7 years comes when we anticipate at least a 9-percent increase in student population. The result: According to OMB, we will serve 2 million fewer students by the year 2002. That is 2 million fewer students by the year 2002. According to OMB, failure to protect the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program would save $1 billion over the next 7 years. It would also mean that 94 percent, almost all of our Nation's school districts would lose funding that now goes to help 39 million students. Failure to protect vocational education and training would place the very existence of this program at risk. OMB estimates that a possible cut of $5.3 billion over the next 7 years means that some 12 million fewer students would be served. This would come at a time when business and industry leaders are telling us they need a better and more well- educated work force if we are to remain leaders in the world marketplace. Passage of this resolution without adoption of the Harkin-Hollings amendment before us would alter almost 30 years of a strong bipartisan partnership on behalf of education. It would seriously threaten bipartisan accomplishments that have brought the dream of a college education within the reach of every American who has the drive and the desire and the yearning that has begun to bring poor children into the education mainstream and that have brought real meaning to the concept of equal educational opportunity. Mr. President, this is not the time to retreat in education; it is the time to advance. As President Clinton has noted, as a nation we face both a budget deficit and an education deficit. To my mind, we should not increase the latter to decrease the former. A strong and sound economy depends on a well-educated, well-prepared work force. To pull back in education is the wrong step, in the wrong direction, at the wrong time, and I hope we would not do so. Accordingly, with all the strength we have, let us support the amendment before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Rockefeller amendment to restore $100 billion in funding for Medicare and long-term care, to be offset by the funds which the committee bill would reserve for tax cuts. This amendment coincides with my own philosophy on the matter of the budget. We must curtail spending and reduce the deficit, but we must do so by the most humane means. And we should not even think about tax cuts until we have achieved some kind of equilibrium between income and expenditures, and have done so without shifting the burden to those least able to bear it. While there is no question that we must take seriously the recent report of the Medicare trustees which warns that--if we don't do something--the Medicare trust fund will go bankrupt in the year 2002, our efforts to fix the system should not be driven by our desire for deficit reduction. While reducing the deficit is a goal that we all share, it is not something that can be accomplished without affecting real people, who have real needs and real problems. Let's look for a moment at the House Republican budget proposal. House Republicans propose to cut $286 billion from Medicare and to use the proceeds for deficit reduction and a $20,000 tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. In my view, this defies logic. By paying these Social Security taxes, a portion of which goes to fund the Medicare trust fund for part A hospital benefits, the citizens of this country have a contract with the Government that this program, for which their hard-earned money is collected, will be used to provide them with health care when they are aged or disabled. Not to provide deficit reduction. And not to provide tax relief, especially to those who need it least. And the Senate Republican budget proposal isn't much better. It proposes to cut $256 billion from Medicare solely for deficit reduction. This level of cut fails to recognize that--in future years-- more and more people will reach the Medicare age of 65, will depend on its benefits, and will have to rely on a much smaller pot of funds to pay what are likely to be higher costs for the same care they are receiving now. So there is no comfort in the explanation that the proposed cuts are simply reductions in the rate of growth of the program. These proposed cuts will clearly mean higher deductibles, higher out- of-pocket costs, and a greater burden on the family members of beneficiaries who cannot afford the increase. And with the proposed cuts in Medicaid which are also part of the Republican plan, any safety net for all but the very poorest Americans will be eliminated, offering no help at all to hard working, middle-income families. Mr. President, the medical inflation rate and the changing demographics of our population are not the fault of our senior citizens. As Government leaders, it is our responsibility to anticipate our citizens' needs and to prepare for them. It is my strong view that neither the House nor the Senate Republican budget proposals do this. Rather, both proposals will cause a bad situation to become worse. I have examined my own views and conscience on the matter of Medicare very carefully. I know that we must make changes--some of which may be very painful--in order to ensure that Medicare is there not only for today's senior citizens, but also for future generations of senior citizens. I believe that today's senior citizens understand that--and that, while they are deeply concerned about the cost of their own medical care--they truly want this fine system to be around when their children and grandchildren need it. So I am prepared to take steps that are needed to cut costs, even if this causes some pain to current and future recipients. But I do not intend to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens. And I do not intend to support using Medicare trust funds, or making modifications in the Medicare Program, that do not go directly to the effort to strengthen the Medicare Program and ensure its long-term viability, unless it is part of more comprehensive health care reform that improves the overall health care system for all our citizens, including our seniors. Mr. President, the problems plaguing Medicare today are the same problems that have plagued our health care system for some time: the rate of medical inflation, the increased use of expensive medical technology, and more hospital admissions--due in part to the aging of America. And while I recognize fully that the Nation may not be ready for the kind of comprehensive health care reform that was proposed last year, I believe that we cannot intelligently address the rising health care costs of one segment of the population--the elderly--without addressing the system as a whole and the fact that those who are not elderly today will--if they are lucky--be elderly tomorrow. So I certainly hope that we will revisit health care reform very soon and recognize that a crucial part of reform is the strengthening of the Medicare Program. I hope that as the budget debate begins, we will be able to focus much more on what cuts the Medicare system can withstand and much less on the amount that Members believe they [[Page S6993]] should cut to provide deficit reduction or tax cuts to the favored few. I believe that if Members of Congress pursue policy over politics, we will be able to pass legislation that will start us on the road to protecting and preserving Medicare's promise for future generations, while leaving room for future programmatic reform.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Law of the Sea Convention entered into force on November 16, 1994, and was transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent on October 6, 1994 [Treaty Document 103-39]. On this occasion I applauded the President's transmittal of this historic treaty and spoke to the ways in which it will protect the economic, environmental, scientific, and most importantly, the national security interests of the United States (Congressional Record, Vol. 140, No. 144, p. 14467). On March 14, 1995 I addressed the importance of ratification of the Convention to the fishery interests of the United States (Congressional Record, Vol. 141, No. 47, p. 3862). Today I would like to address how ratification of the convention will best serve U.S. economic interests. The Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea was initiated as early as 1973 by the United States and the U.S.S.R. to protect navigation rights and freedoms, at a time where coastal States were claiming excessive areas of jurisdiction. Most of the provisions of the convention have long been supported by the United States, and at the conclusion of the law of the sea negotiations in 1982, the Reagan administration indicated that it was fully satisfied with, and supported the entire convention, except for the deep seabed mining part. The recently negotiated part XI implementation agreement, which is also before the Senate [Treaty Document 103-39] addressed all the reservations that the United States and other industrialized countries had. I will speak to the deep seabed mining issues in a forthcoming statement. The convention directly promotes United States economic interests in many areas: It provides the U.S. with exclusive rights over marine living resources within our 200 miles exclusive economic zone; exclusive rights over mineral, oil and gas resources over a wide continental shelf that is recognized internationally; the right for our communication industry to place its cables on the sea floor and the continental shelves of other countries without cost; a much greater certainty with regard to marine scientific research, and a groundbreaking regime for the protection of the marine environment. With regard to national security, the Department of Defense has repeatedly expressed its strong support for the ratification of the convention because 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. The extension by other nations of their national claims were not always limited to matters of resources use but also represented a potential threat to our interests as a major maritime nation in the freedom of commercial and military navigation and overflight. The United States is both a maritime power and a coastal Stage and, as such, it benefits fully from the perfect balance that the convention strikes. It gives extensive rights to States over the resources located within their EEZ's, but also recognizes the need to maintain freedom of navigation on the high seas, transit passage and even through the territorial seas of other States based upon the principle of innocent passage. Mr. President, seaborne commerce represents 80 percent of trade among nations and is a lifeline for U.S. imports and exports. Ninety-five percent of U.S. export and import trade tonnage moves by sea. With continuing economic liberalization occurring globally, exports are likely to continue to grow as a percentage of our economic output. In addition, on some sectors, such as oil, our dependence on imports will continue to grow. Thus our economic well being--economic growth and jobs--will increasingly depend on foreign trade. Without the stability and uniformity in rules provided by the convention,we would see an increase in the cost of transport and a corresponding reduction of the economic benefit currently realized from an increasingly large part of our economy. Consequently, the United States would stand to lose a great deal if it was no longer assured of the freedom of navigation: trade would be impaired, ports communities would be impacted and our whole maritime industry could be put in jeopardy. The convention addresses these concerns and failure of the United States to ratify would impose a tremendous burden on this industry. Within its EEZ, the United States has exclusive rights over its living marine resources. Foreign fleets fishing in our waters can be controlled or even excluded, and our regional management councils are in a position to adopt the best management plans available for each of the fisheries on which our industries depend. The settlement of disputes provisions of the convention do not apply to the measures taken by the coastal State within its EEZ. Consequently, the United States has discretionary powers for determining the allowable catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses to other States and the terms and conditions established in its conservation and management measures. The provisions of the convention generally reflect current U.S. policy with respect to marine living resources management, conservation and exploitation. As such, they incur little new U.S. obligation, commitment, or encumbrance. The U.S. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, commonly referred to as the Magnuson Act, was crafted to parallel closely most of the law of the sea's provisions for living resources. But the convention also ensures that some of the stricter measures that the U.S. has adopted, precautionary in nature, are also incumbent on other States, in their EEZ's and, more importantly, on the high seas. As such, some measure of increased stability in international living marine resources policy can be anticipated as a beneficial aspect of U.S. participation of the law of the sea regime. The convention also provides a jurisdictional framework for the negotiation of a new regime for straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas. A conference is currently under way at the United Nations to establish such a regime, and I am happy to note that at the last session, held a few weeks ago in New York, the U.S. delegation expressed its satisfaction at the progress already achieved. The negotiators involved are cautiously optimistic that an agreement will be reached by the end of this year, which should help prevent the kind of incidents that recently pitched Canada and the European Union in the latest case of gunboat diplomacy. The convention will provide both the basis and the framework for this new agreement. Representatives of the oil and gas industry served as active advisers to the U.S. Government throughout its negotiation of the convention. In 1973 the National Petroleum Council published a detailed analysis of industry objectives in relation to this treaty, all of which have been achieved. The National Petroleum Council determined that it was important to its industry that the convention reflect the following principles: Confirmation of coastal State control of the continental shelf and its resources to a distance of 200 nautical miles, and beyond to the edge of the continental shelf; Establishment of a continental shelf commission to advice States in delimiting their continental shelves in order to promote greater certainty and uniformity regarding resources ownership; A constructive mechanism for the settlement of disputes; And guarantees that the principles of freedom of navigation essential to the movement of tankers and other commercial vessels will not be undercut by the extension of coastal State jurisdiction. Working in close coordination with our offshore oil and gas industry, our negotiators successfully obtained convention provisions that serve U.S. interests both in regards to development of energy resources off our coasts as well as the interests of our nationals operating abroad. The convention goes further than the Truman Proclamation, in which our country asserted our rights over oil and gas resources on the continental shelf, because it specifies the outer limits of the area. This new certainty is very important for our oil and gas industry because offshore development is enormously capital intensive and security of tenure is the key. The convention's standards and procedures avoid uncertainty and disagreement over the maximum seaward extent of our jurisdiction. The resulting clarity advances both our resource management and commercial interests, as well as our interest in stabilizing claims to maritime jurisdiction by other States. At the same time, the convention ensures the protection of the marine environment in relation to pollution, including the allocation of enforcement responsibility between flag, port, and coastal States. It here again strikes the right balance between the need to ensure the development of the oil and gas industries and greater certainty that the environment is adequately protected. The convention also provides significant benefits to the communication industry. As we know, our country is a proud leader in the technology and communication revolution. In that respect, we depend upon ships to carefully lay fiber optic cables on the sea floor. When these cables are broken, U.S. companies and consumers incur huge repair costs. For example, one such cable, connecting the United States and Japan, can carry up to 1 million simultaneous telephone calls and is valued at over a billion dollars. As one of our major growth industries, telecommunication firms have ambitious plans for replacing existing coaxial cable on our ocean floor and expanding the existing cable network globally. Our telecommunication industry had long suffered from the poor legal protection afforded to cables laid on the seabed. The Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 1958 provided that the laying of cables and pipelines is a high seas freedom, and that coastal States may not impede laying or maintenance of cables on the continental shelf. Yet it did not contain clear provisions designed to prevent mariners from working dangerously close to cables. The Convention on the Law of the Sea incorporates the language and principles of the 1958 Geneva Convention. Most important, it also goes further in providing that States are to make it a punishable offense, not only to break a cable, but to engage in conduct likely to result in such breaking or injury. For the first time, cable owners and enforcement authorities are able to act to prevent cable breaks from occurring. Consequently, the protection afforded submarine cables is substantially increased by the convention. Mr. President, the negotiations on this new ``Constitution for the Oceans'' took more than 9 years, and when the first version, open for signature in 1982, did not meet all our concerns, the Democratic and Republican administrations refused to sign it. It was only after 12 more years of negotiations that all the concerns of the United States were addressed. Significant U.S. economic interests are now protected by this convention and we now need to reap the benefits of these long years of negotiations. President Clinton said it best in his transmittal letter to the Senate, ``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 Maintenance of such stability is vital to U.S. national security and economic strength.'' I strongly agree and look forward to the Senate giving its advice and consent to this historic convention during the 104th Congress. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have today received a copy of a resolution passed by the Rhode Island House of Representatives, outlining the devastating consequences that H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, would have on the State of Rhode Island if it becomes law. This resolution, introduced by Rhode Island State Representatives Benoit, Sherlock, Williams, Kellner, and Bumpus, articulates far better than I can the great damage that this legislation would do to the neediest of Rhode Island families. As the welfare debate begins in earnest in the Senate, I hope that my colleagues will bear in mind the strong opposition of many in my State to this proposal, and will heed in particular the part of the Rhode Island House of Representatives' resolution which urges us to ``Put children first by working for humane welfare reform that provides for all citizens in need during difficult economic times, that supports effective return-to-work programs, and that recognizes that the care given to our Nation's children is a shared Federal-State responsibility. * * *'' I ask unanimous consent that the resolution passed by the Rhode Island House of Representatives on May 10, 1995, be printed in the Record.

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, international efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons were given a tremendous boost today with the decision by more than 170 nations to extend indefinitely the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.S. Arms Control Agency and Ambassadors Ralph Earle II and Thomas Graham, Jr., deserve our deep appreciation. The decision by the participants in the NPT extension conference demonstrates their willingness to trust us and the other nuclear powers to continue with the effort in SALT and START to reduce our strategic nuclear arsenals, to strive eagerly and effectively to bring about an end to nuclear testing, and to be unflagging in efforts to spare the world from nuclear war and the threat of nuclear war. We have today incurred a renewed obligation to prove to those who trust us that their trust is not misplaced.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today the Senate has passed by a convincing margin the product liability bill. It was a difficult and contentious effort, much akin to the debate that this area has generated over the last decade. I was pleased that the Senate saw fit to pass this legislation and am hopeful that a productive and successful conference with the House will follow and eventually that the President will sign this legislation into law. I have long supported product liability reform even when it began as a somewhat lonely effort over a decade ago. Finally, with a supportive Congress, it seems that we may be coming up with a bill that can actually become the law of the land. It must be noted that in order to preserve the best possible chance of reaching that result, other areas of legal reform, such as medical malpractice and broad tort reform, have been excluded. I joined in the effort to keep this bill clean from those additions but I want to state that I support reform in those areas as well and look forward to addressing them in the future. I simply felt that this legislation was an inappropriate forum for dealing with those issues. In the end, this bill represents a workable and reasonable balance for reforming the legal procedures and standards governing how one can seek redress for harm caused by faulty products. I congratulate the hard work of my colleagues, in particular Senators Rockefeller and Gorton, who artfully and doggedly crafted a compromise that was acceptable to the Senate. They have worked hard and long, indeed for years, on this legislation and they are to be commended for their accomplishment. I await the conference report on this legislation with anticipation and express my hope for speedy final consideration.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I join with my friend and colleague, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, in introducing legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office building at 24 Corliss Street, Providence, as the Harry Kizirian Post Office Building. I am enthusiastic about this designation. I can think of no more fitting tribute. Harry Kizirian has made extraordinary contributions to the United States, to Rhode Island and to Providence. A very brief review of his contributions is instructive. Harry enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating from Mt. Pleasant High School. He subsequently became Rhode Island's most decorated marine. He fought in Okinawa and was shot in battle. He earned the Navy Cross, the Bronze Star with a ``V'', the Purple Heart with a Gold Star and, finally, the Rhode Island Cross. Upon his return to Rhode Island, he went to work at the post office, where he had worked as a 15-year-old to support his widowed mother. He worked his way up through leadership positions in the Postal Service. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as postmaster in 1961, a position he held for 25 years. In addition to his military service and his work in the Postal Service, he has served on numerous committees and boards in Rhode Island. Harry served on the board of directors of Butler Hospital, Big Brothers of Rhode Island, the Providence Human Relations Commission, Rhode Island Blue Cross and Rhode Island Heart and Lung Associations. He also was a member of the Community Advisory Board of Rhode Island College, the Providence Heritage Commission, the Commission on Rhode Island Medal Honor Recipients, DAV and the Marine Corps League. Harry Kizirian already is a Rhode Island landmark. His name has become synonymous with the qualities he exemplifies--dedication, loyalty, leadership and hard work. The Harry Kizirian Post Office Building will be an entirely appropriate testament to his remarkable life and friendships.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, today President Clinton is joining President Mitterrand, Prime Minister Major, Chancellor Kohl, and President Yeltsin in Moscow to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. That is as it should be. Together, after all, the United States, France, Britain, and the Soviet Union rid the world of the Nazi menace. The anniversary of Allied triumph over the Nazis carries great significance for us all. For the Russian people, who lost more than 20 million of their fellow citizens during the war, this commemoration is particularly meaningful. Now that the cold war is over, the allies have the opportunity to stand together again--this time to build a new Europe--democratic, whole, and free. The gathering of the five leaders in Moscow today should be seen as a commitment to that goal. We have an enormous stake in Russia. United States engagement with Russia since the breakup of the Soviet Union has yielded significant results--particularly with regard to the reduction of weapons of mass destruction and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Europe. It is in the U.S. national interest to see that this process proceeds. Russian reformers offer the best prospect for continued progress on the issues that really count for the United States. Accordingly, we should be doing what we can to bolster Russia's democrats. President Clinton has come under fire for going to Moscow at a time when Russia is pursuing some policies to which the United States is opposed. I believe this criticism is short-sighted and for the most part, politically motivated. Some of the same people who are criticizing the President for going to Moscow are also demanding that the administration deliver a tough message to Moscow about its behavior in Chechnya, its proposed sale of a nuclear reactor to Iran, and its views about NATO expansion. What better way to deliver the message than to go to Moscow and do it personally? By going to Moscow, President Clinton is demonstrating to Russian leaders the benefits of continued engagement with the West. If he had decided to cancel his trip, President Clinton would be missing an opportunity to tell President Yeltsin and other Russian leaders--face to face--where he believes Russian policy is on the wrong track. That being said, we should not have any illusions about our ability to change Russian policy overnight. We must be realistic. Russian leaders, like their counterparts worldwide are political creatures. With parliamentary elections looming at the end of this year, and Presidential elections scheduled for 1996, few Russian politicians want to be perceived as buckling to Western pressure. Russian nationalists, whose influence is regrettably on the It is therefore highly unlikely that President Clinton will return to Washington with a long list of Russian concessions. Those who are demanding--or even predicting--that he will do so are setting up the administration for failure. We can and should expect, however, President Clinton to discuss our differences candidly and constructively, and to lay the ground work for United States-Russian accommodation on key issues like arms control, the Iran nuclear deal, Chechnya, and European security. The hallmark of a successful summit is not to solve all of the world's problems or even to resolve all of the bilateral issues between two countries. President Clinton's trip to Moscow is part of an ongoing process between Russia and the United States. We should be realistic about our expectations.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to make a few observations regarding the effort sponsored by Senator McConnell to add comprehensive medical malpractice reform to the product liability legislation currently pending before us. I was much torn about the McConnell amendment because I support medical malpractice reform and believe the time has come to profoundly change the current system. Yet, in the end, I decided to vote against the McConnell amendment. I did so because I was deeply concerned that adding this desirable but controversial reform effort to the pending legislation would gravely endanger the cause of product liability reform, a cause I have supported for many years. After many years of frustration I have real hope that we will achieve product liability reform in this Congress and I wanted to avoid any action which would endanger that hope. I would add that I was persuaded in this regard by the sponsor of the product liability reform effort, Senator Rockefeller. However, I look forward to the opportunity to fully address medical malpractice reform later in this Congress when the issues can be aired fully and not be encumbered by the desire to achieve progress in other areas of legal system reform. While I do not support all the provisions of the McConnell amendment, I do support its thrust and would welcome the opportunity to debate the issue strictly on its own merits. medical malpractice reform

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today President Clinton has announced the conclusion of a new migration agreement with the Government of Cuba. This new agreement treats the more than 15,000 Cuban migrants currently detained at Guantanamo in a very humane manner, while putting in place safeguards to ensure that a similar flood of migrants is not encouraged at some future date. I want to commend the President for his decision to enter into, what I believe is a fair and balanced approach to handling the Cuban migrant issue. Under the terms of the agreement, Cuban migrants currently being detained at Guantanamo will now be eligible to be paroled into the United States, provided they qualify under United States immigration laws. Those paroled from Guantanamo will be counted in the annual 20,000 migration ceiling set last September in the context of the resolution of last year's Cuban migration crisis. This will mean that people at Guantanamo who have been in limbo since last year will now have the possibility of getting on with their lives. To continue to detain these people indefinitely was really inhumane, but nothing else could be done for them until this new agreement was reached with the Government of Cuba. In contrast to the treatment of those currently at Guantanamo, any future Cuban rafters intercepted at sea will be returned to Havana. Cuban authorities have committed to accepting these migrants back without reprisal, and will allow for the monitoring of such individuals to ensure that this is the case. Obviously, any individual who might qualify for refugee status will be able to apply for asylum at the U.S. Interest Section in Havana. Finally, those Cubans who may successfully evade interdiction and reach the United States will be subject to the same deportation procedures any other alien would face upon entering the United States illegally. Mr. President, as you know I am in profound disagreement with our overall policy toward Cuba. I have said many times in the past that I believe that policy is outdated and ineffective and should be altered to enhance communications and contacts between the Untied States and Cuba. In my view this is the best way to facilitate the peaceful transition to democracy on that island. Unfortunately, President Clinton has not yet decided to alter the overall framework of our policy toward Cuba. However, I believe that the agreement announced today is one step in the right direction toward a more enlightened Cuba policy. I hope there will be many more steps in that same direction in the very near future.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today the Senate formally adds its voice of condemnation and outrage of the mindless and heartless massacre carried out in Oklahoma City last week. I join my colleagues in stating in absolute and unequivocable terms that such acts will never be tolerated in this country and that we resolve to do all in our power to make sure that the perpetrators of this heinous crime are found and brought to justice. In our society, the rule of law reigns over the rule of terror and it follows that swift and assured retribution must await those who harbor the thought that such acts can somehow alter that equation. The victims deserve no less; the criminals can expect no more. As this tragic event causes us to pause and reflect upon a myriad of questions as to how and why such an event could occur, I urge us all to exercise the temperance and reason which are the characteristics of a civilized society. This most uncivil and unhuman of acts cannot be explained simply or logically by rational thought. In the rush to pinpoint blame and cause, already occurring it seems in the public discourse about this incident, too often we overstep the mark and compound the harm already suffered. For the moment, let us attend to the most immediate tasks at hand, that of the continued efforts to search for survivors, to friends who have lost loved ones, and to apprehend and punish those responsible. That is more than enough for now and it will keep us busy for days to come. Then we will have the time for reflection on the broader, though not any less important, questions as to what we may be able to do to thwart such acts in the future. My heart goes out to those families and friends grievously affected by this unthinkable tragedy. The losses they have suffered are immeasurable and I join the entire country in expressing the consolation and sympathy. I also salute the heroic efforts being made to deal with this event and in particular commend the Oklahoma City Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Departments, President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, the Justice Department, the FBI, FEMA, and all others for their excellent work in dealing with this incident. I pledge whatever assistance I may be able to give and will work to do what I can to diminish the chances of such an event from occurring in the future.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, during the recess, two members of my Foreign Relations Committee staff traveled to Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia to examine the wide range of issues related to the conflicts in the region, and their implications for United States policy. The situation in Bosnia is unraveling quickly, and with the Senate likely to consider legislation concerning Bosnia in the coming weeks, I think it is important for my colleagues to be aware of the staff's findings. Among other things, the staff found that as the situation in Bosnia deteriorates, the United Nations may be forced to withdraw from Bosnia and Croatia for any number of reasons, including: a worsening security situation, a shortage of world food stocks, a loss of local employees to the draft, or a lifting of the arms embargo. The United States has pledged to participate in a NATO effort to withdraw U.N. troops. According to the staff report, a NATO operation in Bosnia would be costly, would require a long lead time, and would likely occur under hostile circumstances. The report finds that NATO is not prepared to extract U.N. troops immediately should that become necessary. The report also raises some serious questions about the federation agreement between Bosnia's Croats and Moslems as well as about Croatia's intentions. It questions the prospects for peace negotiations regarding the Serb-held Krajina region of Croatia. Finally, the report finds that Serbia is continuing to fuel both the Krajina and Bosnian Serb war machines. Despite this fact, last Friday, the United Nations voted to extend sanctions relief for 75 days. The report recommends that the United Nations resist further sanctions relief until Serbia ends all assistance to the Bosnian and Krajina Serbs. Mr. President, as I mentioned, we may be asked next month to vote to life the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government. I believe that the staff report may be a useful resource as we move into the debate. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the key findings of the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, every year at this time, people of Armenian descent throughout the world commemorate the anniversary of the genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1923. This tragedy is one of the most horrible in the history of humankind, yet it is often overlooked. Eighty years ago today, on April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire launched a systematic campaign to eradicate the Armenian people from Ottoman territory. In that year, hundreds of Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were rounded up, exiled, and murdered. During the next 8 years, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed through executions, during death marches, or in forced labor camps. Many women, children, and elderly people were raped, tortured, or enslaved. In addition to those killed, an estimated 500,000 Armenians were exiled from the Ottoman Empire, many of whom found their way to freedom in the United States. Recently, the campaigns of ethnic slaughter in the former Yugoslavia and Burundi have focused much attention on crimes against humanity. Silence in the face of genocide effectively encourages those who would commit such atrocities in the future. As the horrors in Bosnia and Burundi demonstrate, ethnically based campaigns of murder are still possible, even as the world approaches the 21st century. Mr. President, despite a long history of persecution and tragedy, the Armenian people have demonstrated remarkable moral strength, resilience, and pride, as demonstrated by the successes of Armenian- Americans and the great contributions they have made to our society. These qualities are also evident in the effort of the newly independent state of Armenia to build a prosperous and democratic country after decades of Soviet oppression, and despite the ongoing conflict with Azerbaijan--an effort which I personally witnessed when I visited Armenia in January 1992. During the last year, there have been some hopeful signs with regard to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan--most notably the implementation of a cease-fire. I hope that the memory of the Armenian genocide, as well as the sight of the suffering of the Armenian and Azeri peoples, will spur a peaceful resolution to the dispute. The legacy of the Armenian genocide has not succeeded in deterring subsequent acts of genocide. However, it is which befell the Armenian and other peoples that we can hope to achieve a world where genocide is finally relegated to the realm of history books, rather than newspaper headlines. I hope my colleagues and leaders throughout the world will join me in commemorating the anniversary today, and thus ensure that the tragedy of the Armenian genocide will not be forgotten.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if in morning business.

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

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join in celebrating the life of Sister Carol McGovern, RSM. Often we find that life gains meaning through our service to others, and our greatest personal ambition seems empty and illusory compared to such service. Sister Carol McGovern, who died Wednesday of breast cancer, was executive director of Amos House, a soup kitchen and social service center in the poorest neighborhood of Providence, Rhode Island's capital city. To this position she brought tremendous energy and great vision. Her vision arose from spiritual commitment and was informed by an extraordinarily active life. Sister Carol was involved: She served on many boards of directors, working with Sunrise House, the Rhode Island Rape Crisis Center, the Campaign To Eliminate Childhood Poverty, and the Rhode Island Right to Housing Now. When one first meets a person such as Sister Carol, an initial elation often gives way to the question: Where will the energy come from to sustain such commitment? The problems of humanity, even at a local level, seem so vast, complex, and intractable that they would quickly consume one entirely. Yet, year after year, on issue after issue, Sister Carol was there. Her energy never diminished, but grew deeper. Service that one would have thought to be all consuming, revealed itself to be vitalizing. In the end, she was a force. The name Sister Carol McGovern resounds with meaning unattainable by pursuit of individual interest. In 1959, she joined the Sisters of Mercy, in 1967 she took her final vows. She earned her bachelor's degree from Salve Regina College and her master's degree from St. Michael's College. She was given awards for her work, the John Kiffney Award from the Providence Newspaper Guild, an honorary doctorate from Rhode Island College, to name two. For anyone this would be a record of outstanding accomplishment and well deserved recognition, but this record never defined her. Her essence was her commitment to service, her real presence was to be found among those most in need. Her life was claimed by an illness that afflicts many women, she faced it bravely, and again she set a fine example. My office and I were deeply fortunate to be able to work with her over the years. Many times she enlightened us and gave us courage to address difficult issues squarely. She didn't ask for answers, only effort. We shall miss her greatly. I am truly saddened by her passing. Yet it is her life of service that I ask this body to celebrate and commemorate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Providence Journal of April 6, 1995, entitled ``Sister Carol McGovern, 53, Champion of the Poor, Dies,'' be inserted into the Congressional Record as if read.