Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment by the Senator from Kansas. Her amendment, if adopted, would prevent the expenditure of funds by the Labor Department to carry out the Executive order President Clinton signed yesterday. The Executive order is entitled ``Ensuring the Economical and Efficient Administration and Completion of Federal Government Contracts.'' Simply put, this order would prevent Federal agencies from contracting with companies that permanently replace striking workers. Current law protects workers who strike for unfair labor practices, but allows those who strike for economic reasons to be permanently replaced--a curious synonym for being fired. Congress has attempted to legislatively rectify this inequity. Time after time, however, a minority of our colleagues has frustrated the will of the majority, often even preventing the Senate from debating the matter. In the last 3 years, the Senate has been forced to vote to invoke cloture on the bill four different times. Each time, despite garnering a majority necessary to pass the bill, a minority has ruled the day and frustrated the will of that majority: June 11, 1992, cloture failed 41 to 55; June 16, 1992, cloture failed 42 to 57; July 12, 1994, cloture failed 47 to 53; and July 13, 1994, cloture failed 46 to 53. Now, Mr. President, the opponents complain that the President is thwarting the will of Congress. Whenever striker replacement legislation has come before us in the past, I have heard from Rhode Islanders with views on both sides of the issue. Many business people have told me of their fear of a tilt in the balance of power in labor-management relations. They have discussed their concern with being faced with one of two choices: agree to union economic demands or be forced out of business. One gentleman even remarked that he considered employee demands for increased wages to be blackmail. I view striker replacement legislation and this Executive order differently. The legislation would restore a proper balance of power between employees and employers. Employees would have the right to strike for increased wages and management would have the right to hire replacement workers on a temporary basis. This Executive order tells businesses that if they want to do business with the Federal Government, they must respect the legal rights of working men and women or look elsewhere for business. I look forward to a full debate on this matter and urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, recently, concern was expressed that the Pell Grant Program may be giving college students a free ride, and that Federal funds might be better spent by transferring funds to the College Work Study Program. Because of this, I thought it might be helpful to take a somewhat closer look at the Pell Grant Program, and place it in a more proper context regarding student aid in general and its relationship to college work study in particular. I thought it might also be good to see just how many students today have to work to help pay for their college education. At the outset, let me make it clear that I support both of these very worthy programs. The Pell Grant Program provides students with need the opportunity to pursue a college education that might be beyond their financial reach. The College Work Study Program often supplements the Pell Grant Program and offers deserving students the chance to help defray their educational expenses by working. Both programs are important, and both programs are essential. I am concerned, however, that with respect to the Pell Grant Program, the impression in the public's mind might be that these students do not have to work and that their college education is being fully financed by their Pell grant. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As my colleagues know, the Pell grant award is need-based, which means it goes only to students who demonstrate financial need. Over 75 percent of all students who receive Pell grants come from families with incomes of less than $15,000 a year, which means that the program is targeted to those students who have the greatest financial need. In addition, it is very important that one realize that the maximum Pell grant can be no higher than $2,340, the current maximum, or 60 percent of the cost of attendance, whichever is less. Thus, in no situation does the Pell grant pay for a student's entire education. At best, it covers only 60 percent of the cost of attendance, and that in the case of those students who demonstrate the very greatest need. Increasingly, more and more students find they must work in order to obtain the additional funds necessary to pay for a college education. A recent Washington Post article indicated that the proportion of all fulltime college students between the ages of 16 and 24 who worked to help pay for their education had increased from 35 percent in 1972 to 51 percent in 1993. And, fulltime students now work an average of 25 hours a week. The figures for Pell grant recipients are even more dramatic. Of those who responded to a recent survey by the U.S. Department of Education, more than 75 percent of all Pell grant recipients worked and 60 percent worked while they were in school. Numerically, this means that almost 2.8 million Pell grant recipients work, and over 2.2 million must work and go to college at the same time. I am equally concerned that there may simply not be enough hours in a day for needy and deserving students to pay for their entire education by working. One goes to college to learn. If that is to be done and done well, students must have sufficient time to study. While work may be both necessary and laudable, it should not rob students of the time they need to fulfill the academic responsibilities that led them to seek a college education in the first place. Further, it is very doubtful that there are enough jobs in and around campus to meet the demand that would be created if the Pell Grant Program were handed over to college work study. When we reauthorized the Higher Education Act in 1992, we considered an expansion of the Work Study Program, but found that many colleges were literally stretched to the limits in terms of finding employment for their students. Thus, as worthwhile and important as the College Work Study Program is, it simply cannot meet the overwhelming needs of students. One of the unique features of the Pell Grant Program is that it is targeted to the student and not the institution. If students demonstrate need, Pell grant funds are available to help them attend a college of their choice. Transferring that approach to the campus-based Work Study Program would change the very nature of the Pell Grant Program. program, and I am of the mind that we should not alter that approach. The Pell Grant Program has helped literally millions of students achieve a college education that otherwise would have been beyond their reach. This year more than 3.7 million students received Pell grants, and more than 54 million grants have been made since the program began in 1973-74 school year. It is a program that has outstripped the widely popular and important GI bill on which it was modeled. Mr. President, today we are faced with the fact that more students and families are having to go deeply into debt to pay for a college education. The number of students and families who must borrow and the amount of money they are borrowing are reaching gigantic proportions. A decade ago the anticipated new loan volume in the Guaranteed Student Loan Program was $7.9 billion with just under 3.4 million borrowers. This year the anticipated loan volume is $25.8 billion and almost 6.6 million borrowers. The number of borrowers has less than doubled, but the amount borrowed has more than tripled. Instead of focusing concern on either the Pell Grant Program or the College Work Study Program, we should be examining with care the long- term effects of student indebtedness. Instead of a debate that would have us choose between grants or work study, we should be debating how to increase both of those programs in order to relieve students and families of the terrible debt burden they are incurring through student loans. Mr. President, in a Congress where the size of the national debt is rightfully a major focus and where the need for a better balance between income and expenditures is absolutely necessary, we should not lose sight of the fact that this applies not only to Federal spending but also to family spending and the deficit they face in trying to pay for a college education. In a Congress where budget cutting is a major theme, it may not be popular to suggest that the right and prudent course to follow in student aid is to increase funding in both the Pell grant and the College Work Study program. Yet, that is, to my mind, the course we should be following if, in fact, we are really, truly concerned about the debt American students and families are incurring as they invest not only in education but in their own and their Nation's future strength and well-being. What Disraeli said of England over a century ago is surely just as true for America today: ``Upon the education of our children depends the future of the nation.''

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I bring to the attention of my colleagues National Sportsmanship Day which was celebrated on March 7. My pride stems from the fact that this celebration, which is recognized by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, originated as a concept of the Institute for International Sport. The institute, housed at the University of Rhode Island, has brought us the hugely successful World Scholar-Athlete Games and the soon to be held Rhode Island Scholar-Athlete Games. National Sportsmanship Day, now in its fifth year, has grown into a national and now an international movement. National Sportsmanship day was conceived to create an awareness among the students of this country--from grade school to university level--of the importance of ethics, fair play, and sportsmanship in all facets of athletics as well as society as a whole. The need to periodically refocus our young people on sportsmanship and fair play is sadly evident on the playing field in these days of taunting, fighting, winning at all costs mentality, and the lure of huge sums of money for athletes hardly ready to cope with life's normal challenges. To commemorate National Sportsmanship Day, the Institute for International Sport sends to all participating schools--now numbering 5,000 in all 50 States as well as a number of schools in nearly 50 countries--packets of information with instructional materials on the themes surrounding the issue of sportsmanship. Throughout the country, students are involved in discussions, writing essays, creating art work, and in other creative ways engaging each other on the subject. The institute's nationally recognized Sports Ethics Fellows Program, which counts among its present members Olympic gold medal skater Bonnie Blair, promotes and supports National Sportsmanship Day activities. Mr. President, as it has in past years, the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports had recognized National Sportsmanship Day. I ask unanimous consent that the letter signed by the council's cochairs Florence Griffith Joyner and former Congressman Tom McMillen be printed in the Record following my remarks. I also urge my colleagues, Mr. President, to encourage students to focus on National Sportsmanship Day.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator very much and share the Senator's admiration for Senator Boren. I think some of his ideas about how we get more bipartisanship should be followed.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Wisconsin on his words, which I agree with and endorse. Mr. President, with all due respect to my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from North Carolina and chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I add that I, too, strongly oppose the amendment he has offered to the pending DOD supplemental appropriations bill. First, this amendment is virtually identical to legislation the Senator introduced earlier which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Clearly, the committee should have hearings on this legislation, so that the full impact of these proposed changes in U.S. policy can be publicly discussed prior to Senate action. Although I oppose the policy direction set forth in the amendment, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Relations I will work with the distinguished chairman of the committee to facilitate committee consideration after full public hearings. The Senate should have the views and recommendations of our committee prior to voting on legislation as important and significant as this. Second, the distinguished chairman and I both want to see a free and democratic Cuba, but we disagree on the policy our country should adopt to achieve our common goal. I have long spoken to the need for a serious reexamination of our country's policy toward Cuba. However, the chairman's amendment clearly does not reflect the direction I had in mind. Yesterday I was encouraged to read that President Clinton is considering taking some modest steps toward altering the existing sanctions policy in favor of more communication and contact between the Cuban and American people--and I must say I applauded that initiative. Existing United States policy, consisting of a rigidly enforced embargo and an aversion to any significant dialog with Cuba, has, as best I understand them, three goals: To promote a peaceful transition to democracy; to support economic liberalization; and to foster greater respect for human rights while controlling immigration from Cuba. These three goals have guided our national policy toward Cuba for 30 years, Mr. President, yet there has been scant progress toward achieving any of them. There is still a government in Cuba which is not freely elected, which is only just beginning tentative steps toward a market economy, and which continues to fall short of international standards in the area of respect for human rights. Therefore, I can only conclude that this policy is not only outdated and ineffective, but, far worse, it is counterproductive. We should be ratcheting up and not down. It seems to me that the time has come to admit the obvious. The policy is a failure and will never achieve its stated objectives. Consequently, it would be a serious mistake, in my view, to intensify the embargo and impose even more stringent measures on the people of Cuba as proposed in the pending amendment. I believe that, rather than tightening the embargo and further isolating Cuba, the United States should expand contact with the Cuban people and enter into negotiations on all issues of mutual concern to our two countries, including the lifting of the economic embargo. For example, I believe the President will find a great deal of support within the Cuban-American community to a rolling back of last August's sanctions that were imposed during the Cuban migrant crises-- sanctions that have prohibited Cuban-Americans from sending money to family members in Cuba or visiting them, except in cases of dire emergency. This would be a small first step in the direction I support, but we must go much further. I say this not because of any regard for the government in Havana, a one-party state with a record of intolerance toward dissident voices within the society. Rather, I say this because, if our country and Cuba are to break the impasse that has existed in our relations for more than three decades, someone must take the first step in that direction. We are large enough and strong enough, and we can afford to do so. I believe, and have said many times, it is in the U.S. national interest to take that first step--to agree to sit discussed. In the meantime, there should be greater contact between our own citizens and the Cuban people. Such contact will serve to plant the seeds of change and advance the cause of democracy on that island. Just as greater exchange with the West helped hasten the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, so, too, it can achieve the same results much closer to our shores. I well remember when I was living in Czechoslovakia. The people would come to visit America and then came back. They came back much less convinced of communism than when they went. The more exchange of people and ideas the more likely communism is to erode. To erode means contacts, and this is what is necessary. Liberal Democrats are not alone in holding this view. Former President Richard Nixon wrote shortly before his death last year that, ``we should drop the economic embargo and open the way to trade, investment and economic interaction.'' Learned people across the political spectrum have made similar comments and observations about the policy. Why? Because they have all observed across the globe that policies which foster greater commerce and communication between countries work and those which engender isolation and enforced misery do not work. We have a choice. Let's take the one which works. It has been impossible for those who would seek to defend the status quo to cite an instance in modern history where a policy of forced isolation has successfully transformed a totalitarian state into a democracy. United States travel restrictions to and from Cuba are among the most prohibitive in the world--this to an island that is only 90 miles from our shores. At this point, only United States Government officials and journalists have unrestricted access to Cuba and only a small percentage of Cubans who apply are allowed to travel to the United States each year. The pending amendment would restrict binational contacts even further. Mr. President, do we as a nation not have enough faith in the power of our democratic system and the strength of our ideas to let contact between our citizens and other peoples flourish? I would hope so. In my view, the strongest advocate for democracy and a free market economy would be a Cuban student or family member who had recently visited the United States and seen the sharp contrast between our way of life and that in Cuba. Current policy not only denies the United States the opportunity to promote positive change in Cuba, but it increases the likelihood of widespread political violence and another mass exodus of refugees to Florida. The Cuban Government, which is vigorously pursuing expanding political and economic ties with the rest of the world, is unlikely to give in to unilateral United States demands. Nor is there much indication that a viable opposition currently exists within Cuba strong enough to wrest power from existing authorities. We have made it very easy for Cuban authorities to justify the lack of political freedom in Havana. They simply point to the external threat posed by a hostile U.S. policy. I am concerned that adoption of the pending amendment would add further justification to the Cuban Government's repression--quite the opposite effect from that intended by the sponsors of this amendment. That justification would lose all credibility were we to adopt a more reasoned U.S. policy. Cuban authorities would then be hard pressed to justify the denial of political rights and economic opportunities that the Cuban people readily observe elsewhere. Mr. President, I have urged the administration to take the first step toward a new and enlightened policy--a policy that can once again unite Americans and Cubans. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a message that it is time to open up a new and constructive dialogue with Cuba by voting against the pending amendment. The best reason for doing that--as we see what has happened in the past few years as the Iron Curtain has dissolved--is the fact, as exposure is being increased between the East and West, that communism has been eroded as seen by its present disappearing act and what then follows in Europe today. I yield the floor. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, one of the more exciting and innovative programs enacted during the 103d Congress was the National and Community Service Act proposed by President Clinton. Under the AmeriCorps program established as a result of that act, young men and women are now able, through community service, to earn an education benefit to help defray the costs of a higher education. I am concerned, however, that this program may now be the target of severe cutbacks. Because of this, I wanted to bring to my colleagues' attention the correspondence I recently received from Mr. George Graboys of Barrington, RI, where he is a distinguished and widely respected business leader. Having retired as the chief executive officer of Citizens Bank, Mr. Graboys, nevertheless, remains very active in civic affairs. Among many activities, he serves presently as the vice chairman of the Rhode Island Children's Crusade for Higher Education. Mr. Graboys' view on the operation of AmeriCorps in Rhode Island merit careful and thoughtful consideration. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that the text of his January 31, 1995, letter to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as you know, I have spoken at length in this Chamber about the need to review United States policy toward Cuba. Therefore, I was very pleased to see reported in the Washington Post this morning that President Clinton is considering taking some modest steps toward altering the existing sanctions policy, in favor of more communication and contact between the Cuban and American people. As I understand it, what is under consideration is the rolling back of last August's sanctions that were imposed during the Cuban migrant crisis--sanctions that have prohibited Cuban-Americans from sending money to family members in Cuba or visiting them, except in cases of dire emergency. I believe that the President will find that there is a great deal of support for taking these steps within the Cuban-American community-- many of whom have been forced to sit back and do nothing to cushion the severe economic hardships they see their loved ones on the island enduring. I would urge the President to move forward with these measures, if for no other reason than on humanitarian grounds. In addition to rolling back the August sanctions, the President appears to be considering whether to set forth a list of steps that the Cuban Government might take to elicit the calibrated easing of United States sanctions policy. This technique was contemplated a number of years ago when relations with Castro had temporarily thawed, but was overtaken by events before it was ever implemented. It is clearly worth exploring. After more than 30 years of mistrust, confidence building measures on both sides will be needed in order to lay the groundwork for productive negotiations on issues of mutual concern to both countries. Someone must make the first gesture. I believe that if President Clinton acts affirmatively on the policy changes currently before him, he will be taking that very important first step. I would urge that he do so. I would ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``Clinton May Ease Sanctions on Cuba'' that appeared in the Washington Post on March 7, 1995 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last year, during the ceremony for United Nations Day on October 24, 1994, United Secretary-General Joseph Verner Reed delivered a message at U.N. headquarters on behalf of Secretary- General Boutros Boutros Ghali. That occasion launched the Golden Anniversary celebration of the United Nations and was the first in a series of planned events that will continue well into this year. As Ambassador Reed--whom, by the way, many of my colleagues will recall from his distinguished service in the U.S. Government--noted in his introductory remarks to the Secretary General's message. Forty-nine years ago in San Francisco, the United Nations was launched as our world organization and began its long journey for a better world. The signators of the charter were fifty-one sovereign states, and today the United Nations comprises 184 member-states; the organization represents the world with all its problems and all its aspirations. I had the honor of serving on the International Secretariat of the San Francisco Conference which drew up the U.N. Charter. I have since then held the hope that the United Nations would fulfill the noble thoughts expressed in the charter and have tried to promote ways to make the United Nations become a functional and effective alternative to international conflict and discord. Because of my longstanding interest in and support for the United Nations, it is a particular pleasure for me to witness and participate in the events to celebrate its 50-year anniversary. I also sure the sentiment expressed by the Secretary General in his message that * * * with the active commitment of people, the United Nations can continue to play its indispensible role for peace and security, social and economic progress, and global human development. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Reed's remarks and the Secretary-General's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in the opening words of a major foreign policy address last evening, President Clinton said that ``we live in a moment of hope.'' Mr. President, I concur with that sentiment. With the demise of the cold war, with the nascent friendship between the United States and Russia, and with the emergence of democratic trends across the globe, the world is experiencing a realignment in the fundamental relationship between states. It is, as the President suggests, a time of extraordinary opportunity for the United States. I commend President Clinton for his rejection of an inward-looking course, and endorse his ambitious call to support international peacekeeping, to reduce the nuclear threat by extending indefinitely the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and implementing other arms control agreements, and to be an aggressive player in the global economy. I also ask unanimous consent that the President's speech be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The present circumstances call to mind the watershed period after World War II. Then, as now, the United States faced a stark challenge: whether to assume the mantle of international leadership and become engaged in the establishment of a new diplomatic order, or whether to retreat into isolation, comfortably sheltered by two great oceans from the turbulent world of European balance of power politics. Due to the courage and foresight of our political leadership-- visionaries such as Harry Truman, George Marshall, Dean Acheson, and Arthur Vandenberg--America chartered a firm course of internationalism, guided by the principle of containment of the Soviet Union. Recognizing the shortsightedness of isolationism, the United States chose not to repeat the mistakes it made in ignoring the League of Nations, and became a driving force behind and host of the new United Nations. Our decisions then, and in the ensuing decades, solidified our role as the preeminent power in world affairs. The changes we have witnessed in the past 6 years are the direct result of the policies we, along with our allies, conceived, refined, and implemented during the course of the cold war. None of these changes, however, could have occurred without American leadership and engagement. I am therefore troubled by the emerging desire, expressed both in Congress and in public fora across the Nation, to retreat from our international commitments and obligations. And nowhere is this sentiment more dangerous and ill-conceived than in the emerging obsession with the United Nations. I am now and have been an ardent supporter of the United Nations since 1945, when I was part of the International Secretariat of the San Francisco Conference that drew up the U.N. Charter. In the years since then, I have tried to help to make the United Nations become the effective world organization--the very symbol of the international community of nations--that was envisioned in the charter. I am not so naive as to profess that the United Nations has always lived up to its potential. The United States-Soviet rivalry tended at times to hamstring the Security Council, and U.N. history occasionally has been interspersed with examples of waste and ineffectiveness. But for every example of failure, I can think of numerous countervailing examples of success--Cambodia, El Salvador, Namibia, and countless others. And now that we are entering a new era of cooperation with Russia, the Security Council harbors even greater promise for becoming a first-rate arbiter of international conflict and discord. U.N. peacekeeping has helped to serve American interests in the Middle East, in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia. And I know that there will be situations in the future where we will rely on the U.N. peacekeepers to support our foreign policy aims. Now that we no longer are forced to dedicate such a sizable proportion of our resources to the containment of Russia, we can see before us an entire new range of opportunity for international cooperation and prosperity. But the growth industries and salient political issues of the future--be they in telecommunications, the exchange of information, the flow of capital, the sound use of our environmental resources, or the prevention of the proliferation of conventional and unconventional arms--are heading in a direction that transcends national boundaries. If the United States is to keep pace, it cannot afford to slide back into inward-looking detachment. In his address, the President set out a challenging and crucially important arms control agenda. I was quite pleased to note the high priority he attaches to achieving the indefinite extension of the Non- Proliferation Treaty at the conference of the parties beginning next month. The President has decided to underscore the importance he attaches to the preservation of international barriers to nuclear proliferation by asking Vice President Gore to lead our delegation. The Vice President will be ably supported by Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr., and other experts from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The President also reaffirmed his commitment to the quick completion of a complete ban on nuclear testing. Substantial progress has been made in the negotiations. With a dedicated effort, the remaining stumbling blocks can be overcome. I was pleased also that the President attaches high priority to the ratification of the START II Treaty. The START I and START II effort is truly bipartisan, spanning three administrations. Under the leadership of Senator Helms and Senator Lugar, the Committee on Foreign Relations is in the process of wrapping up hearings started in the last Congress under my chairmanship. In addition to these priorities, the President told his audience: There are other critical tasks we also face if we want to make every American more secure, including winning Senate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, negotiating legally binding measures to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, clarifying the ABM Treaty so as to secure its viability while permitting highly effective defenses against theater missile attacks, continuing to support regional arms control efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and pushing for the ratification of conventional weapons which, among other things, would help us to reduce the suffering caused by the tens of millions of antipersonnel mines. * * * The President understands that this agenda is both far-reaching and imperative. He said: Now, in this year of decision, our ambition for the future must be even more ambitious. If our people are to know real lasting security, we have to redouble our arms control, nonproliferation and antiterrorism efforts. We have to do everything we can to avoid living with the 21st century version of fallout shelters and duck-and-cover exercises to prevent another World Trade Center tragedy. Mr. President, it is very important to understand that many aspects of arms control and nonproliferation are truly bipartisan. To be sure, Senators have and have had disagreements. Nonetheless, working together in a bipartisan fashion, we have moved steadily forward. During my chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations, we were able to craft bipartisan bills, with the strong involvement of Senator Glenn and other Members, imposing effective sanctions against both nations and individuals engaged in reprehensible activities involving chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons-related activities. control efforts that every treaty the committee and the Senate approved while I was privileged to be chairman won overwhelming support in the end. We were careful in every instance to resolve all legitimate concerns along the way to committee and floor consideration, and there was never a question with any of the arms control treaties voted out-- including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, and the START II Treaty--that the approval would be well beyond the required two-thirds support. Mr. President, I am gratified that President Clinton has embraced an ambitious agenda that will merit continued bipartisan support. He will thus be able to bring to fruition major initiatives of the Bush administration, as well as his own. The end result will assuredly be a safer, more stable world. It is important to understand that these efforts represent a continuum in arms control that covers much of the post-World War II period. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy initiated the first efforts to curb nuclear testing, and each succeeding administration has built on the successes of its predecessors. Mr. President, I wish that I could say that the major challenges of arms control and nonproliferation are behind us. Despite the many successes, the challenges ahead are formidable. I am extremely pleased that the President is able and willing to face these challenges. I trust that the Congress will continue a truly bipartisan effort to control, reduce, and even eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, we stand at the cross-roads of history. The tenor of current political discourse--focused as it is on disengagement, withdrawal, and neoisolationism--suggests we are heading toward a colossal error in judgment. Those who seek to retreat into a Fortress America offer no constructive suggestion for filling the vacuum to be left by America's withdrawal. We would lose our political and moral authority, our ability to exercise influence in matters vital to our interests, and do grave harm to our standing as one of the greatest powers in history. In his speech last night, President Clinton mentioned one of the most distinguished members ever to have served in this body--Arthur Vandenberg--who advanced the principle that politics should stop at the waters edge. But many of our interests, Mr. President, only begin there. I stand behind President Clinton's conviction that America can prosper in the next century only through international engagement and the assertion of leadership.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last week, British Prime Minister Major and Irish Prime Minister Bruton took an important step toward lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The two leaders unveiled a framework document designed to serve as the basis for negotiations on Northern Ireland's future. I believe it is important to note, as both Mr. Major and Mr. Bruton have, that the framework document is not a done deal or final settlement to be imposed, but a basis for talks among all the parties of Northern Ireland. This assurance should go a long way toward putting the various parties on the negotiating track. Both the British and Irish Governments have signaled their willingness to make some difficult compromises in the name of enduring peace and reconciliation--compromises that cut to the heart of each country's traditional constitutional doctrines and that could cost each government political support at home. I believe that Mr. Major and Mr. Bruton should be commended for their courage. Similarly, Irish Foreign Minister Dick Spring, who was in Washington yesterday, deserves great credit for his efforts--in providing continuity and credibility to the process. For its part, the British Government will propose changes to its constitutional legislation to ensure that the will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland is respected in determining Northern Ireland's status. Similarly, the Irish Government will introduce and support proposals to end its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. The document also proposes to create cross-border institutions, such as a North/South body with elected representatives from a Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament. The fate of the process now lies squarely in the hands of the various parties in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that they will not miss this historic opportunity to create a permanent peace. An editorial in Monday's Washington Post makes this point rather well, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the news that Harry V. McKenna died last week and I recently returned from his funeral in Rhode Island. Harry McKenna was not only the dean of broadcast journalism in our State for many decades, he was a premier broadcast journalist whose high standards remain a challenge for his successors. Harry became the touchstone for Rhode Island politicians until his retirement in 1983. It seems you would not be taken seriously as a candidate, unless you were interviewed by Harry McKenna. When I first ran for the Senate, almost 36 years ago, my first public interview was with Harry. His weekly ``Radio Press Conference'' ran for 32 years and was Rhode Island's longest-running news broadcast. I was saddened when I learned of his death and I was touched by the gathering that honored him at his funeral. He was a good friend and an exemplary journalist. After he retired, I missed him. Now I miss him even more. My wife's and my deepest sympathy go to his wonderful wife, Julie, and his children and grandchildren. I ask unanimous consent that the text of an obituary that appeared in the Feb. 22, 1995 issue of Providence (RI) Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank my friend, the Senator from Arkansas. Amendment No. 307

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, after much deliberation, I have concluded that I should not support the balanced budget amendment and will vote against it when the final vote is taken in the Senate tomorrow. The proposed amendment is appealing on the surface, but underneath there are a host of problems. I believe its objectives are unrealistic and possibly detrimental, and I fear that it could place intolerable burdens on the States. I find myself in basic disagreement with the philosophy of the proposed amendment. As our distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Moynihan, has so eloquently reminded us, the Federal budget is not supposed to be in perpetual balance. Those of us who experienced the economic cycles preceding World War II have a special respect for the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes, who showed us that government should save when times are good so that it can spend when times are bad. The balanced budget amendment is the antithesis of that sensible doctrine. Its ritualistic requirement for balance in each fiscal year disregards the random vagaries of economic cycles, precluding the timely operation of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance and bank deposit insurance during downsizings when they are most needed. Likewise, the ritual requirement to achieve balance might deter the accumulation of budget surpluses in good years, since the pending amendment might tend to promote unreasoning tax slashes, instead of the prudent salting away of a surplus. I also fear that the rapid withdrawal of some $1.6 trillion in Federal spending in the arbitrary time frame of the next 7 years could virtually wreck the economy, especially if it should coincide with a period of high interest rates or a recession. And I am particularly concerned about the impact of a cumulative loss of $1.8 billion in Federal spending to the small State of Rhode Island over the same timeframe. Finally, Mr. President, I recoil at the notion of using our Constitution for the purpose of imposing bookkeeping rules. I doubt that this amendment will stand the test of timelessness which has sustained the wisdom of the Framers for 200 years. From the perspective of the year 2095, it may appear rather anomalous that the U.S. Senate spent the month of February 1995 trying to mandate for all time that our books should be balanced, down to the last dollar and cent, at the end of each 12-month period. My guess is that--if the amendment is approved--a disenchanted electorate will have repealed it long before the century passes. Of course, we can and should continue to do everything we can to cut Government spending and reduce deficits. But we already have ample authority to do so and should simply get on with the task. In my mind, there is no need for a constitutional amendment. The Constitution should not contain a balanced budget amendment, and I would trust that it does not succeed. I realize the political appeal of the very title of a balanced budget amendment is immense. It is not an open and shut case one way or the other. Many of us have proposed different ways at different times. I voted for it in the past. But it is a close call. But my conclusion is that the best interests of the Nation would be served by not passing the balanced budget amendment. by the columnist David Broder when he wrote that it is ``a bad idea whose time has gone.'' The time and place to stop it is here and now. I urge its rejection. I yield the floor. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, after weeks of intense negotiation, the United States and Mexico yesterday agreed on a package of guarantees and swap transactions to help restore investor confidence in the Mexican economy while addressing United States concerns about the fundamental soundness of the Mexican economy and the level of risk to American taxpayers. I commend the President for his efforts to respond to this crisis while ensuring that adequate safeguards and conditions are in place to protect U.S. national interests. I must say that, when the administration first proposed, in the immediate aftermath of the peso devaluation, a major U.S. response, I was quite skeptical. In many discussions with the administration I raised my concerns and urged that tough questions be asked about the wisdom of United States involvement and tough conditions be applied on Mexico as a precondition to any aid package. Mr. President, I believe the administration has negotiated tough- minded terms for the package. I commend them for this and now believe it is both appropriate and in our national interest for this program to be put into operation. In all candor, I continue to have some concerns about the possible long-term negative consequences of this whole crisis to our national economy and national economic interest. But I do believe as a nation we had to act and that the administration has acted skillfully. And if we did not act, real economic disaster could result. The economic stabilization package signed Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Mexican Finance Minister Guillermo Ortiz actually consists of four separate agreements. The framework agreement sets the overall terms and conditions for U.S. support. These include commitments on the part of Mexico to reduce inflation, strengthen the peso, and encourage new investment by cutting Government spending, pursuing tight monetary policy, and raising short-term interest rates. Mexico is also committed to accelerate structural reforms in the transportation, telecommunications, and banking sectors, speed privatization, and improve financial transparency. The Medium-Term Exchange Stabilization Agreement provides the basis for currency swap transactions, under which Mexico can exchange pesos for dollars for a period of up to 5 years. The interest rate charged for these swaps is to cover the U.S. risk for such transactions. Under the guarantee agreement, the United States will provide guarantees for the issuance of Mexican debt securities with maturities of up to 10 years. This portion of the package is intended to convince investors to lend money to Mexico for longer terms at lower interest rates, thus alleviating the short-term debt burden that precipitated this crisis. Finally, the oil proceeds facility agreement establishes the mechanism by which the United States is assured substantial repayment should Mexico default on its obligations. The agreement would set up a bank account in the United States into which foreign purchasers of Mexican oil would be required to make their payments. If Mexico fails to repay the United States under any of the financing agreements, the Treasury Department would be able, in effect, to take over that bank account. All told, these agreements total $20 billion in United States support for Mexico--a bold and comprehensive package designed to prevent an immediate shortfall from leading to long-term economic and political instability. This support is designed to entail no direct costs to our taxpayers. Mexico will be charged fees for the guarantees and interest for the medium-term swaps, and all of Mexico's obligations to the United States will be backed by proceeds from the export of Mexican crude oil and oil products. Moreover, the U.S. action is more than matched by the international response. The IMF has offered an unprecedented $17.8 billion in medium- term assistance, while the other G-10 countries plan to provide another $10 billion in short-term credit through the Bank of International Settlements. Mr. President, I believe it is essential that we continue to monitor this situation closely, and the agreements that were signed yesterday provide the means and expand our ability to do just that. Even with this assistance, Mexico will face difficult economic choices, many of which could have an impact upon us. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the administration to ensure that Mexico lives up to its commitments under this package and that broad United States interests continue to be served through its implementation.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished and learned Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] to amend the proposed constitutional amendment to allow a majority, rather than a supermajority to determine when a deficit can be incurred. The concept of majority rule is so deeply embedded in our society and in almost every organized group proceeding--from fraternal and social groups to corporations large and small and government at the village, county, city, and State level--that many Americans might be very surprised to realize the extent to which the Congress of the United States is sometimes ruled by a minority, and could become more so in the future. We have before us the balanced budget amendment which contains not just one but two supermajority requirements--one requiring a three- fifths vote of the entire membership of each House to permit outlays to exceed receipts and the other a three-fifths vote of the entire membership of each House to increase the public debt limit. And we may soon have before us a line-item veto proposal which would subject congressional disapproval of a rescission to a two-thirds supermajority veto override, as opposed to an alternative plan under would a simple majority could block a rescission. If approved, these supermajority requirements would join others already in place: the Senate cloture rule, the new rule of the House of Representatives on votes of that body to raise income taxes, and the statutory supermajority requirement for waiving points of order under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, better known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Mr. President, these flirtations with supermajorities are leading us astray from the apparent intent of the wise men who wrote the Constitution two centuries ago. For them the principle of majority rule was so self-evident that they apparently saw no need to state it explicitly. Since the Constitution provides for supermajorities only in specific instances--such as overriding vetoes, Senate consent to treaties, Senate verdicts on impeachment, expulsion of Members, determination of Presidential disability and amending the Constitution itself--it seems clear that the Framers intended that all other business should be transacted by a majority. And since the Constitution gives the Vice President the power to break ties when the Senate is ``equally divided,'' Framers again evidenced a clear intent that business was to be transacted by a majority. We carry forward that intent in the structural organization of Congress itself, whereby the party that controls 50 percent plus one seat assumes control. The time may be coming when the only way to prevent further violence to the Framers intent will be to enshrine this most basic principle of governance--majority rule itself--as a constitutional provision. Mr. President, I offer these reflections today from the vantage point of 34 years service in this body. As I stated here a few days ago, I have cast 327 votes for cloture during those years, so I am no stranger to the impact and consequences of a supermajority requirement in the Senate. I would point out, in that regard, that cloture by majority rule would not cancel out rule XXII of the Senate--it would simply lower the margin for invoking cloture to the threshold envisioned by the Founding Fathers for the transaction of business. And we should make no mistake about the fact that the rules of proceedings now have such sweeping substantive effect that they do in fact constitute an important element in the business of the Senate. Mr. President, in the haste to fulfill the expectations and promises of this new Congress, many of which are of great merit, we must take special care to preserve basic principles of our democracy which may be brushed aside in the rush to reform. The principle of majority rule is the basic cornerstone of the edifice, whether it applies to rules of proceedings or the substance of legislation. It must be preserved and protected from all assaults. Perhaps the time is coming when it too should be enshrined in the Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that three articles entitled ``The Three- Fifths Rule: A Dangerous Game'' by David Broder, ``Super-Majority Simple-Mindedness'' by Lloyd N. Cutler, and ``On Madison's Grave'' by Anthony Lewis, be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last month I spoke in this Chamber about the need for a serious reexamination of United States policy toward Cuba. In the weeks since quite the opposite has occurred. Instead, we seem to be rushing toward an intensification of the current policy. That policy, consisting of a rigidly enforced embargo and an aversion to any significant dialog with Cuba, has, as best I understand them, three goals: to promote a peaceful transition to democracy; to support economic liberalization; and to foster greater respect for human rights while controlling immigration from Cuba. These three goals have guided our national policy toward Cuba for the more than 30 years I have been in this body, Mr. President, yet there has been scant progress toward achieving any of them. There is still a government in Cuba which is not freely elected, which is only just beginning tentative steps toward a market economy, and which continues to fall short of international standards in the area of respect for human rights. Therefore, I can only conclude that this policy is not only outdated and ineffective, but, far worse, it is counterproductive. It seems to me that the time has come to admit the obvious. The policy is a failure and will never achieve its stated objectives. further isolating Cuba, the United States should expand contact with the Cuban people and enter into negotiations on all issues of mutual concern to our two countries, including the lifting of the economic embargo. I say this not because of any regard for the Government in Havana, a one-party state with a record of intolerance toward dissident voices within the society. Rather, I say this because, if our country and Cuba are to break the impasse that has existed in our relations for more than three decades, someone must take the first step in that direction. I believe it is in the U.S. national interest to take that first step-- to agree to sit down at a negotiating table, where all issues can be discussed. In the meantime, there should be greater contact between our own citizens and the Cuban people. Such contact will serve to plant the seeds of change and advance the cause of democracy on that island. Just as greater exchange with the West helped hasten the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, so, too, it can achieve the same results much closer to our shores. Liberal Democrats are not alone in holding this view. Former President Richard Nixon wrote shortly before his death last year, ``we should drop the economic embargo and open the way to trade, investment, and economic interaction.'' Learned people across the political spectrum have made similar comments and observations about the policy. Why? Because they have all observed across the globe that policies which foster greater commerce and communication between countries work and those which engender isolation and enforced misery don't work. It has been impossible for those who would seek to defend the status quo to cite an instance in modern history where a policy of forced isolation has successfully transformed a totalitarian state into a democracy. United States travel restrictions to and from Cuba are among the most prohibitive in the world--this to an island that is only 90 miles from our shores. At this point, only United States Government officials and journalists have unrestricted access to Cuba and only a small percentage of Cubans who apply are allowed to travel to the United States each year. Legislation recently introduced in the Senate would restrict binational contacts even further. Mr. President, do we as a nation not have enough faith in the power of our democratic system to let contact between our citizens and other peoples flourish? In my view, the strongest advocate for democracy and a free-market economy would be a Cuban student or family member who had recently visited the United States and seen the sharp contrast between our way of life and that in Cuba. Current policy not only denies the United States the opportunity to promote positive change in Cuba, but it increases the likehihood of widespread political violence and another mass exodus of refugees to Florida. The Cuban Government, which is vigorously pursuing expanding political and economic ties with the rest of the world, is unlikely to give into unilateral United States demands. Nor is there much indication that a viable opposition currently exists within Cuba to wrest power from existing authorities. We have made it very easy for Cuban authorities to justify the lack of political freedom in Havana. They simply point to the external threat posed by a hostile U.S. policy. That justification would lose all credibility were we to adopt a more reasoned U.S. policy. Cuban authorities would then be hard pressed to justify the denial of political rights and economic opportunities that the Cuban people readily observe elsewhere. Mr. President, it will be an incredible legacy of whatever administration succeeds in achieving what all the United States administrations of the past 30 years have failed to do--to bring about the peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. At last all the peoples of the hemisphere would truly be one family, united by common principles and values. It will require political courage to abandon this antiquated and ineffective policy. Old hatreds and vested interests have, heretofore, held us captive. However, I believe the rewards of a new policy of engagement will be so great that embarking on it will outweigh the political risks. Mr. President, I urge the administration to take the first step toward a new and enlightened policy--a policy that can once again unite Americans and Cubans. I extend my support and effort in that endeavor. I urge my colleagues to join me as well.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased to note that William McWhorter Cochrane, who until this year was one of the Senate's most venerable staff members, is continuing his service to the legislative branch in a new capacity at the Library of Congress. Bill Cochrane began his Senate service in 1954, thus predating all sitting Members of this body today. Over the years, he has truly become an institution in his own right. Always faithful to his home State of North Carolina, Mr. Cochrane began his Senate career as counsel to Senator Kerr Scott, and 4 years later became administrative assistant to Senator B. Everett Jordan. In 1972, he joined the staff of the Committee on Rules and Administration, serving as staff director until 1980, a period which included my own tenure as chairman of the committee in the 95th and 96th Congresses. One of Mr. Cochrane's special areas of interest has always been the Library of Congress, and his knowledge of that institution is encyclopedic. So it is altogether fitting that he has been named Honorary Historical Consultant to the Library, especially at this time when the Library is preparing to observe its 200th anniversary in the year 2000. I congratulate Bill Cochrane on this occasion and I also congratulate the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, for making this appointment. I ask unanimous consent that a news release from the Library of Congress on Mr. Cochrane's appointment be printed in the Record at this point. [From the Library of Congress News, Washington, DC] William McW. Cochrane Named Honorary Historical Consultant to Library of Congress Librarian of Congress James H. Billington announced today the appointment of William McW. Cochrane as the Honorary Historical Consultant to the Library of Congress. Mr. Cochrane's career in the U.S. Senate spanned 40 years. In making the announcement, Dr. Billington said, ``As the Library of Congress approaches its 200th anniversary in the year 2000, we are fortunate to be able to draw on the knowledge and wisdom of this distinguished public servant. Bill's respect for and knowledge of the Congress, and of its Library, will bring a unique historical perspective to our bicentennial planning.'' Following service in World War II and administrative and teaching positions at the University of North Carolina, Cochrane came to the Senate in 1954 as counsel to Senator Kerr Scott (D-N.C.). From 1958 to 1972, he served as administrative assistant to Sen. B. Everett Jordan (D-N.C.). From 1972 through the 103rd Congress, he worked for the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration as staff director from 1972-1980, as Democratic staff director from 1981-1986, and as senior advisor from 1987. In addition, he held several senior positions with the Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. His work with the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress, the oldest continuous joint committee of Congress, totaled more than 30 years. Among his numerous honors, he has received the Distinguished Alumnus Award for Public Service from the University of North Carolina and the 20th Annual Roll Call Congressional Staff Award. In 1992, he was one of six recipients of the State of North Carolina Award for Public Service.

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, the United States lost a great and distinguished citizen today with the death of former Senator J. William Fulbright. Senator Fulbright was a giant in the Senate. He became a person of international reknown and reputation during the period of his chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations from 1959 until his defeat in 1974. I came to know him very will after I joined the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1969 and came to admire very much his careful and thorough approach to issues of tremendous national importance, most especially the war in Vietnam. William Fulbright was born in Missouri and grew up in Fayetteville, AR. He attended pubic schools, graduated from the University of Arkansas in 1925, as a Rhodes Scholar from Oxford University England in 1928, and from the Law Department of George Washington University in 1934. In 1939 he became president of the University of Arkansas--the youngest in its history. He served one term in the House of Representatives from 1943-1945 and went on to election to the Senate in 1944. He was reelected in 1950, 1956, 1962, and 1968. William Fulbright brought to his political career a great love and understanding of the responsibilities of an educator. His experience as a Rhodes Scholar taught him the value of international exchanges and led him to conceive of the Fulbright Scholars Program in the period immediately following World War II, which he described as ``a modest program with an immodest aim.'' Since the program's establishment in 1946, more than 100,000 people from abroad have studied in the United States and more than 65,000 U.S. students and professors have studied overseas in what is undoubtedly the largest and most successful international exchange program in existence. Earlier, as a freshman member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Senator Fulbright offered a resolution setting forth U.S. support for an international peacekeeping organization. This resolution, the first to be passed by the U.S. Congress since the League of Nations debacle following World War I, set the stage for establishment of the United Nations in 1945. He was a maverick during much of his time in the Senate and was known for taking positions he believed in regardless of their level of popularity. For instance, in 1954, he cast the single Senate vote against funding Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's investigative subcommittee. Senator Fulbright's period of greatest prominence was that of the Vietnam war. He introduced the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which gave President Johnson virtually free rein in the early stages of the Vietnam war. Only two Senators opposed the resolution and Senator Fulbright later made it clear he wished it had been three, including himself. ``Not that it would have made the slightest difference in the course of affairs, but I'd feel better about myself.'' Senator Fulbright was one of the earliest critics of the war. Under his stewardship the Committee on Foreign Relations conducted extensive investigations of involvement in Vietnam, held numerous hearings and was the fountainhead of legislative initiatives beginning in 1969 to restrict United States activities in Vietnam. In 1973, a Fulbright- Aiken amendment stopped direct involvement of United States combat forces in Vietnam. Through the committee's intensive work on the war, Senator Fulbright tried steadfastly to educate his colleagues, the Senate, the Congress, and the public as to the tremendous folly of the Vietnam involvement. I can well remember watching Senator Fulbright facing down hostile witnesses while chairing hearings of great thoroughness and steadily and calmly posing questions until the truth of various problems was there for all to behold. His widow, Harriett, recalled that the Senator deeply believed ``that in order to ensure prosperity for all members of a free country, those who live in a democracy must be educated,'' In fact, education ran through the heart of whatever he said and did. His speeches he wrote himself on yellow pads in pencil, full of lines through any fuzzy phrase. He worked them over until he was satisfied that every sentence was not only perfectly understandable but devoid of hyperbole. They were meant to clarify and persuade; in other words to educate--to educate audiences around the world as well as constituents. One of the finest writers in the history of the Washington Post, the late Henry Mitchell, wrote a profile of William Fulbright in 1984. He pointed out that, despite Senator Fulbright's concerns over the arrogance of power: He does not say a nation can forget self-respect in the world or allow its citizens to be run over roughshod by others. ``But dignity has nothing to do with domination, nor is self-respect the same thing as arrogance. A nation can take pride in its accomplishments without taking on a missionary role in the world. . . ``Which is the greater legacy any generation of leaders can bequeath, a temporary primacy consisting of the ability to push other people around, or a well-run society of cities without violence of slums, of productive farms and of education and opportunity for all citizens?'' To ask it is to answer it. Mr. President, the Vietnam war made the Nation very much aware of the efforts of William Fulbright and of the Committee on Foreign Relations. To many in official Washington, he was anathema. But to others who saw Vietnam as a quagmire he was simply a hero. A leader who gave legitimacy, respectability and honor to opposition to the war and what it was doing to the United States. At the time there were many who were quite disdainful of William Fulbright and who disliked him intensely. I remember well how he would sometimes conclude that his sponsorship of a measure would cost votes rather than gain them. This was a price that he felt he had to pay. In 1993 Senator Fulbright's fellow Arkansan, President Clinton, awarded the Medal of Freedom to the Senator. President Clinton said at that time ``Senator Fulbright has long been known as a patriot and a realist. He has never been one to waste time and energy cursing the darkness; he is far too busy seeking and finding lamps to be lit.'' William Fulbright has been gone from this body for over 20 years. The controversy surrounding him as certainly abated and many more have come to appreciate the intelligence and care he brought to his assessment of public issues. His reputation has grown over the past two decades rather than dwindled. And his term as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations is now regarded as a halcyon period for the committee and the Senate. There were many challenges to be faced in the period of his chairmanship and he did not shirk from taking those challenges on and doing his best to meet them. His central interest was never personal aggrandizement but rather the discovery of the best way for the Nation to proceed. He is gone now but his legacy is powerful and he will live on as Fulbright Scholars are trained and educated and return to their countries and to the United States better able to play meaningful and productive roles. Our deepest sympathy goes to his widow, Harriett and his family.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the situation in Croatia, where the Krajina Serbs have refused to consider an international peace plan for the country, and where President Tudjman has indicated that he will ask UNPROFOR troops to leave when their mandate expires in March. Last weekend in Munich, Bosnian Croats and Moslems, with the support of the Croatian Government, agreed to bolster their federation agreement. This good news is overshadowed, however, by dangerous developments in the Croatian peace process. Last week, Serbian nationalists who control one-third of Croatia declined to consider a plan to resolve the status of Croatia's U.N.- protected area [UNPA's] prompting fears of a renewed Croatian war. The plan was developed by the Zagreb Four--or Z-4--consisting of the United States, Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union. It ought to have been the last step in an otherwise successful process to reduce tensions and normalize relations between Croatia and the Serbs living in the UNPA's. I would particularly like to commend our Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, the United States representative to the Z-4 process--who was a senior staff member with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations during my tenure as chairman--for his efforts in this regard. A Z-4- negotiated ceasefire is in place, and the parties have agreed to confidence-building measures that include opening transportation and communications links between Croatia and the U.N. zones. These are important gains which I hope will not be lost by last week's setback with regard to a political settlement. By all accounts, the Z-4 plan goes a long way to address the concerns of both the Croatian Government and the Krajina Serbs. It calls for the restoration of Croatian sovereignty to all the U.N areas, with considerable autonomy for the local Serbian population. As I said, the Krajina Serbs have not even deigned to look at the plan; the Croatian Government has not yet responded to it. President Franjo Tudjman's decision not to renew the mandate for UNPROFOR, the 15,000-troop U.N. force in Croatia, has dangerous repercussions for the Z-4 process. The threat of withdrawal has provided a convenient, though unacceptable excuse for the Serbs to ignore the peace process. To my mind, it would be a grave mistake for UNPROFOR to withdraw at this time. Frankly, I am concerned that the U.N. withdrawal will precipitate renewed fighting between the Serbs living in Croatia and the Croatian Government, and indeed, even between Serbia and Croatia. While the United Nations does not have a flawless record in Croatia, UNPROFOR's presence since early 1992 has prevented the reemergence of full-scale war. Without UNPROFOR to patrol the demilitarized zones, the current ceasefire negotiated by the Z-4 is likely to collapse. UNPROFOR's withdrawal could very well offer an opportunity for the Serbs to attack, and Croatia's intentions regarding Serb-controlled areas in the wake of a U.N. withdrawal are unclear. A new war in Croatia, by all estimates would make the horror in Bosnia pale in comparison. Mr. President, I hope the parties to the conflict wake up; see the treacherous path on which they are headed; call off the U.N. withdrawal; and seriously consider the Z-4 peace plan. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, I withhold my request.