Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is certainly an appealing idea. I can understand why many believe that it is a necessary procedural reform to ensure fiscal responsibility. I voted for the concept in 1986 when there seemed to be a lack of shared political will, between Congress and the Executive, to impose discipline. Last year, it seemed to me that the atmosphere had improved dramatically, and I opposed the balanced budget amendment because of the substantial and significant strides which the Clinton administration was then making, and continued to make, to curb expenditures and reduce the deficit. Now, things appear even more promising for the imposition of fiscal restraint. The new congressional majority has made it a primary objective, and the President remains committed to the idea of smaller and leaner government, although I might add parenthetically that I wish his 1996 budget would have gone a bit further than it does in this direction. But I am not yet convinced that this apparent convergence of political will power should result in a constitutional amendment that dictates procedure for all time to come. For one thing, I, like many of my colleagues want to see where it will lead in the immediate future. I want to know the full consequences of a 7-year plan to bring revenues and expenditures into balance. In particular, I want to know the impact on programs in which I have a deep and abiding interest as a legislator--education programs, foreign aid, support for the United Nations, and support for the arts and humanities. And I especially need to know if the cumulative loss of Federal aid to the State of Rhode Island over the 7-year period ending in 2002 could indeed be nearly $1.8 billion as has been predicated, and, if so, how will my small State adjust to such a massive change. For all of these reasons I joined in cosponsoring the right-to-know amendment offered by our distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle. We not only have a right to know, we have a responsibility to ask. But even if we succeed in getting all the right answers I still am not sure I am troubled by the reservations which have been expressed-- economic, fiscal, and constitutional--as we look more closely beneath the attractive surface of the proposed amendment. I wonder about the economic impact of rapid withdrawal of some $1.6 trillion in Federal spending in the arbitrary timeframe of the next 7 years. Some have warned that the resulting fiscal drag could virtually wreck the economy, especially if it should coincide with high interest rates or a recession. I wonder too about the rigid annual requirement for balance in each fiscal year. Some have called it ritualistic in its disregard for the more random vagaries of economic cycles, precluding the timely operation of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance during downswings when tax receipts may be on the decline. And on the other side of the ledger, I wonder if the ritual requirement to balance might deter the accumulation of budget surpluses in good years, since the pending amendment might tend to promote unreasoning tax slashes when such opportunities arise. I wonder if this constitutional amendment will be any more immune to evasion and accounting chicanery than other attempts to put the political process in a straightjacket. I think of the experience of my own State of Rhode Island where, in order to comply with a constitutional mandate and to take advantage of independent financing authority, various categories of expenditures simply have been moved off budget to a number of commissions and authorities. And finally, Mr. President, I wonder about the wisdom of using our Constitution for the purpose of imposing accounting rules. Will this amendment still be relevant a century from now in the light of now- unforeseen developments in technology, medical science, space exploration, demographic changes, and all intervening natural disasters and climatic variations? From the perspective of 2095, it may appear rather anomalous that the U.S. Senate spent much of 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. Having said that, Mr. President, I would only add that if this amendment is not approved, there will be a great burden on us all to get to work with a minimum of recrimination to produce the general result which would have been mandated; namely, a progressive reduction in Government spending and a corresponding alleviation of debt, hopefully at a more measured pace and without resort to troublesome arbitrary time constraints. I pledge my support to the effort. 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. Madam President, at the end of 1994, the Rhode Island Department of Health suffered an enormous loss--the retirement of James E. Carney. Jim was with the department of health for 16 years, serving as its director of community affairs for 13 years. And what a job he did. There was no question, no deadline, no request that I or my staff made that Jim Carney could not handle quickly, courteously, and to the point. He was always well informed about the activities and mission of the department, and the need for communication and coordination with other branches of government. He was a public servant in the very finest sense of the word, and we will sorely miss his help, his good humor, and his presence at the department of health. Jim was involved in the passage and implementation of many laws and programs, including the HMO Act of 1983; the central cancer registry at the department of health; newborn screening programs, childhood immunization and lead screening programs; oversight of the State medical examiner's office; protection of the rights of the terminally ill, and promotion of public health research and minority health programs. I regret to hear that Jim has not been in the best of health recently, and, on behalf of myself, my staff, and the people of Rhode Island, I want to wish him a speedy recovery, a long and happy retirement, and the best of everything in the future.

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 am deeply concerned with the rumors and talk about town regarding cuts in Federal education spending. While the Federal contribution constitutes only about 6 cents of every $1 spent in education in our country, it is a very concentrated and highly important amount of money. At the postsecondary level, it makes up 75 percent of all the grants, loans, and campus-based aid that enable deserving students to pursue a college education. In elementary and secondary education, it comprises over 60 percent of all the funds that go to help disadvantaged students learn on a level with their peers. To my mind, we should not be looking at cuts in education but, instead, should be examining how we might increase and strengthen the Federal contribution. One of the education cutbacks receiving greatest attention is the potential elimination of the in-school interest exemption for students who obtain Federal loans to help finance their college education. Elimination of this exemption would increase student indebtedness by 20 to 50 percent. It would only worsen an already unfortunate trend in which students and their families are having to borrow more and more money. It would be the wrong step in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Mr. President, as I have stated on many occasions, few things in life are more important than the education of our children. They are the living legacy that we leave behind and their education determines the future of the American Nation. As part of the possible proposed spending cuts, it has been suggested that the in-school interest subsidy feature of the Federal student loan program be eliminated. This term subsidy is somewhat of a misnomer. What the phrase actually refers to is the in-school interest exemption feature of the loan program. This is a critically important feature of the loan program that shows the Federal commitment of providing help to hard-pressed middle income families. Its elimination, however, is one of the possible funding cuts in education that could be made to help pay for the Contract With America supported by the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives. Because of this, I thought it very important not only to let my colleagues know of my strong opposition to such a proposal but also to let them know the terrible impact it would have on students who must borrow in order to pay for their college education. In a recent letter I received, a director of financial aid at an institution in California expressed great concern over this proposed cut. He noted that eliminating the interest exemption feature will compound the already high debt levels of students. Under the proposed cut, student loan indebtedness will increase from around 17 to 30 percent for the average undergraduate and graduate student. Elimination of the interest exemption feature will also hinder the students' ability to compete and participate in the economic marketplace if they are forced to begin their careers with such increased debt. The end result could well be an economy where college graduates cannot purchase homes or other necessities that are the economic stimulus of our society. These harsh consequences would especially affect students from middle-class families, those same students for whom the loan program was originally designed. The ability to obtain and repay a loan is a major issue confronting college students. Increasing the amount they will owe when they finish school will most certainly affect students' decisions whether or not to attend college in the first place or go on to graduate school after undergraduate study is completed. Without the in- who are enrolled for bachelors degrees could see their debt burden increase by $20,000 or more. For example a student that attends a 4-year college and borrows the maximum amount would owe $17,125. If interest is charged while the student is in school, the student would owe an additional $3,407 or $20,532 upon entering repayment. This 20-percent increase in the amount to be repaid would increase the monthly payment from $205 per month to $246 per month. The additional cost over the life of the loan would be about $5,000. This proposal is truly penny-wise and pound-foolish. Students who today pursue graduate study would have an enormous increase in what they owe. Those same students have the lowest default rate in the loan program. Increasing their debt burden, however, will certainly increase the risk of default. The effects on graduate students are even more profound for a student who attends 4 years while earning a bachelor's degree and attends graduate school for an additional 2 years to earn a masters degree. Upon graduation, the student would owe $34,125. If the interest exemption is eliminated, the student would owe an additional $9,167 for a total of $43,292. This represents a 27-percent increase in educational indebtedness and would increase the monthly repayment amount from $409 to $520 per month. Every day families are making decisions about sending their children to college. Certainly one of, if not the major obstacle they face is how to pay for college. The loan is their last resort. It provides the extra but necessary money they must have after exhausting their own resources and obtaining any grants for which their children might be eligible. Increasing the amount their children owe after graduation may well place the dream of a college education beyond their reach. That, to my mind, would be a tragedy of truly immense proportions. In fact, recent studies show that the people who are the most uneasy about borrowing funds are those with low incomes. But these are the same low income students who will turn away from taking the loan because of the monetary increase. Without the funds, an education becomes an unachievable dream. The proposal to eliminate the in-school interest exemption also comes at a particularly bad time. The cost of a college education continues to escalate at all levels, but particularly in the public sector where a previously affordable education is in danger. State after State has trimmed support for its public institutions. The result: Students and their families have had to pay more through higher tuitions and other related costs. The need to borrow to pay for a college education is already increasing at an alarming rate. According to a recent study by the American Council on Education, the volume in the Stafford Loan Program increased by 45 percent last year, and the average loan size grew by nearly 20 percent. The study also found that the increase in borrowing over the past year was far greater than any previous year's increase. Unfortunately, borrowing is more necessary because we have failed to provide sufficient funding for our grant programs in general and the Pell Grant Program in particular. When we reauthorized the Higher Education Act 3 years ago, we sought to extend Pell grant aid to middle income families, but the sad fact is that funding has been inadequate to accomplish that objective. The consequence has been that more and more American families have been forced to borrow more and more money to pay for a college education. Elimination of the in-school interest exemption will only exacerbate an already worsening situation. For example, at the University of Rhode Island in my home State, borrowing increased from $8.2 million in 1988-89 to over $26.7 million in 1994-95. For the current school year alone, cutting the in-school interest exemption would add another $2 million in debt burden. That is not the direction in which we should be moving. Mr. President, I care deeply about the education of our children. If the in-school interest exemption is eliminated, we will be removing an essential and very helpful feature of the federal loan program. I urge my colleagues to talk with college officials in their respective States and to learn just how devastating elimination of the in-school interest provision would be not only to their schools but particularly to their students. I also urge my colleagues to join me in expressing early and strong opposition to such a proposal so that it might be removed from any and all lists of education cuts under consideration.

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, earlier today President Clinton announced that he was working to develop an alternative package for addressing the Mexican peso crisis. This comes as a welcome response to a situation that was worsening by the day, as financial markets reflected increasing pessimism that Congress would approve the loan guarantee package. It is unfortunate that we were unable to act more expeditiously to help stem the crisis, and I want to commend the President for recognizing that we would all suffer from further delay. While the details of the new package have not yet been clarified, as currently proposed it would include a $20 billion share from the United States Exchange Stabilization Fund, $17.5 billion in credits from the IMF, and a $10 billion short-term lending facility from the Bank of International Settlements. These aggressive but prudent measures should serve to shore up the Mexican peso as well as investor confidence in the Mexican economy as a whole. Mr. President, without immediate action on the part of the United States and the world community, the short-term debt crisis in Mexico threatens to escalate into a full-scale recession that would negatively impact on all of us. Perhaps lost in the debate over the details of the financing mechanism was the fact that the United States and Mexican economies are now closely intertwined, and what happens there cannot help but affect us. Mexico is our third largest trading partner; American jobs and exports rely on Mexico's financial stability and growing prosperity. Politically, neither our immigration problems nor our war on drug trafficking can be adequately addressed without Mexico's active cooperation. We have been fortunate that across our long southern border is a friendly and stable ally. It is in our own self-interest to help ensure that a short-term debt problem does not become a lasting source of economic, political and social turmoil across the hemisphere. I look forward to supporting President Clinton and urge my colleagues to do likewise. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last week, Russian President Boris Yeltsin declared victory in Chechnya, stating that the military stage of the conflict had concluded. It is clear, however, that neither the conflict nor its political and international ramifications are behind us. The fighting, although less intense, continues with horrifying reports of attacks against civilians. Russia's foray into Chechnya, moreover, continues to take a toll on Russia's domestic reform agenda as well as its relationships with the West. Secretary Christopher put it well last week after his meetings in Geneva with Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev. He said: ``I told the Foreign Minister that the United States fully supports the principle of Russia's territorial integrity, but that we are extremely concerned about the price that the war is exacting in terms of human life, in terms of support of reform, and in terms of Russia's standing in the world.'' To my mind, Secretary Christopher delivered the right message. Let us hope that Russia responds appropriately. Mr. President, I believe that few of us would deny that territorial integrity is an important principle that must be preserved. There are 32 ethnic federal units in Russia--consisting of 21 sovereign republics and 11 autonomous regions. These areas make up about one-third of Russia's land mass. Much of that territory is resource-rich and politically important. If Russia had taken a laissez-faire attitude toward Chechnya, it is conceivable that other republics and regions would have followed suit by attempting violent breakaways--breeding instability and bloodshed throughout the region. An unstable Russia is clearly not in the United States interest. I do believe that Russia has a right to preserve its borders consistent with the principles laid out by the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE--formerly the CSCE--makes clear that Europe's borders are not to be changed by force. That being said, Russia can't have it both ways. if we are going to look to OSCE to argue that Russia's territorial integrity should be preserved, we also have to take seriously OSCE commitments and principles regarding human rights. As a member of OSCE, Russia has committed to observing certain standards of behavior. Most recently, at the OSCE summit in Budapest, OSCE members adopted a code of conduct that spells out principles guiding the role of armed forces in democratic societies. The Russian military's behavior in Chechnya raises serious questions about Russia's commitment to OSCE principles. It is not too late for Russia to seek a peaceful end to the Chechnya conflict. In fact, an OSCE team is scheduled to visit Chechnya to focus on human rights, treatment of prisoners, humanitarian aid, and election preparation. Moscow should welcome this as an opening to show good faith and follow through on President Yeltsin's pledge of ``rehabilitating the life-support system and of protecting human rights to the full extent.'' While I want to see the United States continue to engage Russia and to support the reform effort, there are many voices here in the Congress calling for a reevaluation of our relationship, including our assistance program. In my view, United States bilateral assistance--the vast majority of which is in the form of technical assistance to farmers, teachers, business representatives, and other ordinary Russians--is crucial to bolstering the reformers. By far the most important type of assistance, however, is the aid we provide under the Nunn-Lugar program to help Russia and the other nuclear powers of the former Soviet Union with dismantlement and conversion. It is a wise investment in our own security, and to create linkages between Chechnya and the Nunn-Lugar program would be the height of irresponsibility. As I said, however, not everyone shares this view, and I am afraid that if Russia does not opt for a peaceful solution to the Chechnya conflict, the march to end assistance will be unstoppable.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I watched with utter revulsion and horror the news accounts of the terrorist attack in Netanya, Israel. The casualties now stand at 19 dead and more than 60 injured, all apparently at the hands of the radical Islamic Jihad organization. Once again, Israelis are reminded of the human costs of pursuing peace with the Palestinians. Once again, the Islamic radicals have demonstrated their capacity to seize the initiative with their craven acts of terror. Once again, Israel is forced to seal off the territories and reexamine its willingness to participate in the Palestinian experiment with self-rule. And once again, in a perverse twist of logic, the enemies of peace become the beneficiaries of a horrible tragedy. The Israeli Government, to its enormous credit, has concluded that it will not allow the terrorists to dictate Israel's decision to implement its peace agreement with the Palestinians. Prime Minister Rabin has, in my opinion, made the right and courageous decision to stand by his pledge. What concerns me most, Mr. President, and what I wish to highlight today, is the price to be paid for that decision. All of us who follow events in Israel know that Prime Minister Rabin has a limited mandate to reach peace with the Palestinians and Israel's other neighbors. With each act of terror, with each addition to the list of casualties, the Prime Minister's political standing, and his ability to take risks for peace, are eroded. Even more important, there is a real danger that the Israeli public will change its fundamental view of the peace process. In Israeli minds, last year's moving images of White House signing ceremonies and hopeful talk of peace and understanding have been replaced by the bloody carnage of the bombing site and the mournful cries of the victims' families. Although opposition to the peace process--even violent opposition--is to be expected, my fear is that is that we are fast approaching a point of no return, a point where Israeli government calls to continue the peace talks will fall on deaf ears. In order to maintain their support for the peace process, Israelis have to know that they will be secure, and that the Palestinians are making a good faith effort to ensure that is the case. Otherwise the Israeli public will see no reason to make other difficult concessions for peace. If the Palestinians do not take dramatic steps to reign in Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, then the simple fact is that more terrorist acts will occur. At some point in the not too distant future, Israelis--and even the Israeli government--could decide that adherence to the process is no longer worth the effort. It is up to all interested parties--the Israelis, the United States, the Syrians who provide support and safe haven to the terrorists, and, more to the point, to the Palestinians themselves, to see that does not happen. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor a resolution condemning the acts of terrorism, which will be offered shortly by Senators Dole, Daschle, and others.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this year marks the 30 year anniversary of the establishment of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. In 1965 Senator Jacob Javits and I sponsored this legislation to foster the development of excellence in American art and culture. After a long and distinguished history of nurturing the arts in our Nation, the National Endowment for the Arts has in recent years become the subject of some controversy concerning the funding of certain works which many of our citizens consider offensive. In light of this, I would like to explain why I believe that the National Endowment for the Arts has been a tremendous boon to our Nation and should continue as a viable entity for the support of American culture. Our Nation's Arts Endowment provides critical assistance for cultural works and presentations in music, theater, literature, dance, design arts, and folk arts around the country. This year, in my own State of Rhode Island, the Endowment provided funds to renovate painting and sculpture facilities in the Museum of Art at the Rhode Island School of Design, supported an after-school arts education program for minority neighborhood youth in the fourth and fifth grades, and funded the Trinity Repertory Theater, one of the Nation's premier theaters. In other areas, the NEA funded a Music in our Schools program in Providence and aided a folk arts apprenticeship program. Without this funding, Mr. President, many of these programs would simply not exist. In this context, I ask unanimous consent that these editorials from the Providence Journal and others from around the country in support of the National Endowment be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I fully understand that many Americans are troubled when they hear of works distasteful to them that are funded in part with their tax dollars. Nevertheless, while the Endowment has awarded well over 100,000 grants, fewer than 40 have resulted in any controversy whatsoever--a success rate of 99.96 percent. Over the last year Chairman Jane Alexander has instituted a series of most valuable changes in the agency's procedures. The agency will no longer accept applications from organizations, other than the State arts councils, which subgrant Endowment funds out to other projects. In addition, the Endowment will now require that progress reports be submitted before the release of the final third of a grant award. Permission from the agency will be necessary before a grantee can modify its activities from those approved by the Endowment. These changes give the chairman greater oversight over Endowment grants and I believe they will go a long way toward addressing the concerns of many of our citizens. Chairman Jane Alexander has increased the Endowment's focus on rural communities and the inner cities. The Underserved Communities Program grants $8.7 million specifically to broaden public access to the arts. Even the very limited funds appropriated for the Endowment help keep ticket prices reasonable, thus enabling lower income citizens, young people, the elderly, and the disabled to gain access to our common culture. Nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion that support for the arts provided by the National Endowment constitutes a subsidy for the wealthy. One of the primary missions of the Arts Endowment has been to encourage the spread of American culture beyond those individuals, communities, and regions affluent enough to afford it on their own. Uncharacteristically among Federal programs, Endowment dollars multiply and foster national support for the arts. Yearly Endowment grants draw matching grants of approximately $1.4 billion from private, State, and local patrons. Thus, before the National Endowment for the Arts came into existence, there were only 22 professional theaters in the entire country and 1 million people attended each year. Today, our Nation boasts 420 and 55 million attend. There were 58 orchestras before the agency, today, there are over a 1,000. Fifteen million more Americans attend symphony performances each year. I think it is rather unfair to our citizens for some individuals to assert that only wealthy Americans are interested in the development of the arts. I firmly believe and the evidence supports the fact that Americans from every walk of life, from every economic level, strongly desire and seek access to cultural events in their communities for themselves and for their children. The National Endowment for the Arts is a testament to the continuing development of our unique culture, to our enduring faith in our own creativity and to our world leadership in artistic achievement. From an economic point of view, the dollars sent by the Arts Endowment to communities around the Nation have been an extraordinarily successful investment. For every dollar the Endowment invests, there is created a tenfold return in jobs, services, and contracts. The arts fostered by the National Endowment encourage national and international tourism, attract and retain businesses in our communities, stimulate real estate development, increase production of exportable copyrighted materials and contribute to the tax base. Governors and mayors from around the country can attest to the manner in which Endowment-supported projects have breathed new life into the downtown areas of their towns and cities. New businesses and tourists congregate in those areas which have a developed cultural life. San Antonio, TX; Cleveland, OH; Greenville, MS; Oklahoma City, OK; and Birmingham, AL are among the cities whose studies have shown the enormous economic contribution of the arts. Mr. President, every parent knows that the arts are crucial in our school curricula because they teach young people creativity, increase self-discipline, and are a critical means of passing on an understanding of American culture and civilization to the next generation. Study of even a single artistic discipline is of immense value to a child, who may go on to become an avid amateur or patron. Last year, the Arts in Education Program distributed millions of dollars in partnership grants to the States to pay for artist residencies in schools and art teacher training. I am most gratified that Chairman Kassebaum and Chairman Jeffords will be holding hearings over the next few weeks on authorization of the Endowments. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to share with those of us on the committee their concerns and ideas so that we can work together to shape the Endowment's future role in our society as effectively as possible. This tiny investment in our Nation's culture makes a statement to ourselves and to the world that we view the development of American culture and its availability to our citizens as of significant importance. We must not become the only Western industrialized nation to declare that our Government cares nothing for the development of our culture. National support for the arts fosters the creation of community--locally and on the national level. Regardless of our differences of wealth, race, religion, and political belief, our cultural development binds us together, develops our character as Americans, and establishes our common heritage. As President John F. Kennedy once said: Art and the encouragement of art is political in the most profound sense, not as a weapon in the struggle, but as an instrument of understanding the futility of the struggle between those who share man's faith. Aeschylus and Plato are remembered today long after the triumphs of imperial Athens are gone. I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we too will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or politics, but for our contributions to the human spirit.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to extend my wife's and my deepest sympathy to our colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], on the death of his mother, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy. I extend condolences also to two of her grandsons, my Rhode Island colleague Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Representative Joseph Kennedy of Massachusetts. No other woman in American history can match the distinction of Rose Kennedy in nurturing progeny for distinguished service to the Nation. Three sons who became U.S. Senators, one of them a President, and now in the next generation two grandsons in the House of Representatives, a granddaughter who is a Lieutenant Governor, and another grandson in a State legislature. History will look back in wonder and admiration at such a family and especially at the woman who instilled it with so much vitality and high sense of purpose. Rose Kennedy was privileged to savor the highest of life's triumphs but she also had to bear the burdens of tragedy of almost unbearable weight. Where lesser mortals would have been crushed by such adversity, Rose Kennedy remarkably kept on course, guided, as it were by some strong inner compass. We know now that the compass was steadied by her own great faith and religious commitment, and that these were the sure cornerstones on which she built her extraordinary family. Rose Kennedy left a legacy like no other to the Nation, and the Nation will always be grateful. history that comes anywhere near Rose Kennedy, in my memory or in my view. That is the mother of Napoleon, Madam Le Mere. She ruled the known world at the time, most of Europe and the countries there. And she, herself, gave her imprimatur to all kings and queens and rulers around Europe. I send all my sympathy to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Does the Pastore rule still apply or can I talk on another subject?

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, can I introduce a measure without the Pastore rule applying?

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to commend and thank the able Senator from North Dakota on modifying his metric conversion amendment. While I opposed the provisions of the amendment that would have imposed a 2-year moratorium, I am comfortable with asking the Commission on Unfunded Mandates, which would be created under this legislation, to look into the impact on States and localities of using the metric system. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a longtime proponent of conversion to the metric system. I believe we can't afford not to convert to the metric system. Not converting has already cost this Nation a great deal. The United States is one of three nations in the world, along with Burma and Liberia, yet to change to metrics. More importantly, the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that is not a metric country. With a growing global economy, thanks in part to NAFTA and GATT, how can we as a nation expect to sell our products to the rest of the world when those products literally don't measure up with the rest of the world? The United States stands to gain untold millions of dollars in exports that we are currently losing, because our nonmetric goods are almost excluded from international markets. In fact, the U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that U.S. exports could increase by as much as 20 percent by offering metric-sized goods. Three instances of international trade problems caused by the production of non-metric goods highlight the difficulties caused by our nation's reluctance to go metric. Saudi Arabia rejected a shipment of General Electric appliances because the power cords were 6 feet long rather than 2 meters as required by Saudi law. A middle-eastern company was forced to rewire all the electronic equipment it imported from the United States because standard American wire sizes are different from international standards. Countries around the world have great difficulty locating American lumber mills willing to produce cut lumber in metric sizes. Mr. President, I agree that the Federal Government should not require States to do that which it is unwilling to do. In that regard, I have and will continue to work to see that all portions of the Federal Government comply with laws already on the books and that it leads the way in converting to the metric system. I am confident that the more we study the value of the metric system, the more we will find that not joining the rest of the world will only cost us more in the long run. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Michal Strak, the chief of the Office of the Polish Council of Ministers. Mr. Strak brought to my attention Poland's activities with regard to Poles living in the former Soviet Union, and I would like to share some of that information with my colleagues today. With the end of the cold war, Poland has been able to reestablish links with ethnic Poles throughout the former Soviet Union. The Polish community in the New Independent States is comprised of descendants of Poles who were exiled there during the 1930's. Poles suffered great losses during World War II, due in part to the mass deportation of Polish citizens. Many were pressed into forced labor and others died of hunger and disease. Those who survived became victims of the Soviet system, isolated from their homeland. Until recently, their descendants have had few opportunities to learn the Polish language or culture. Poland, which itself is undergoing major reform, maintains an active outreach program to the Polish community in the former Soviet Union-- particularly Kazakhstan where more than 100,000 people of Polish origin reside. Many of these activities focus on language training, with Polish nongovernmental organizations providing Polish language teachers and textbooks, and the Polish Government offering scholarships for ethnic Poles to study in Poland. The Polish Government is also seeking to encourage and support business links between the Polish community in countries such as Kazakhstan and Poland. These activities play an important role in helping the people of the New Independent States establish ties with the West. The Government of Poland is to be commended for its efforts to assist the Polish communities in their democratization and economic reform efforts.

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, over the last 3 weeks a steep decline in the value of the Mexican peso has precipitated a financial crisis with worldwide implications. The peso's loss has not only shaken investor confidence on the Mexican stock market, but triggered a short-term debt crisis that is affecting currencies and markets throughout the hemisphere. Without a swift and sure response to this crisis, Mexico could face serious economic decline and political instability. President Clinton was quick to recognize the long-term danger this poses for all of us. A Mexican crisis would hit the United States economy hard by reducing Mexico's ability to import United States goods and services. It could increase illegal immigration and destabilize the Mexican Government. Finally, it could spread to other emerging market economies and further reduce U.S. exports. In light of these potential consequences, the administration moved expeditiously to propose a package of loan guarantees to address the problem. The Departments of Treasury and State have been working closely with the bipartisan leadership of the House and the Senate to craft a loan guarantee package that will bring an end to the crisis without costing money to the American taxpayer. I hope that soon we will be able to move forward on legislation to help resolve the Mexican crisis while addressing the legitimate concerns that many have raised. I am concerned that the loan guarantee program be structured so it will not become a cost to our taxpayers. In addition it is important there be full disclosure to Americans of those investors, United States, Mexican, and others, who will benefit by our United States action to guarantee up to $40 billion of Mexican Government bonds used to satisfy Mexican Government obligations to those investors. Mr. President, yesterday at the Department of Treasury, President Clinton spoke about the broader implications of the Mexican situation and about the package being put together to respond to it. I believe his remarks were very helpful and instructive, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record:

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I refer to my position on the vote we took earlier today on the cloture motion to curtail debate on the unfunded mandates bill. On that vote I declared a live pair but indicated I would have voted for cloture. I was not comfortable with that vote, particularly because it placed me at cross purposes with the leadership on this side of the aisle in their campaign to assure fair treatment of the minority. But I took the position I did in the context of the long-standing practice I have followed since I first came to the Senate in 1961. And that practice is simply to support termination of debate except in extraordinary circumstances and to allow a majority of the Senate to work its will. Over the 34 years that I have served in the Senate, I have cast 327 votes in favor of cloture, and some 55 of those were cast when our party was in the minority. But in the same period I have always reserved the right to support continued debate--or at least not voting for cloture--when there were clear and extraordinary circumstances which called for extended deliberations. Indeed, there have been some 32 occasions in which I either paired or, as in two cases, voted against cloture, or was absent. In the future, I expect to continue my longstanding practice of voting for cloture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may print in the Record a listing of issues on which I have voted for cloture from the 87th Congress through the 103d Congress.

Mr. PELL. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for a few minutes as in morning business.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. To my mind, this amendment is an unwarranted governmental intrusion into what is basically a private effort. It also constitutes micromanagement to a degree that is neither wise nor necessary. First, the national standards that are being developed, whether in history or any other discipline, are purely voluntary. This was made clear in the Goals 2000 legislation and reinforced in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Second, the voluntary standards do not have to be submitted to either the National Education Standards and Improvement Council or the National Goals Panel. That, too, is voluntary. If the organization that developed the standards wants to submit them, they may do so at their own volition. It is not required. Third, certification is nothing more than a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. It carries no weight in law, and imposes no requirements on States or localities. They are free to develop their own standards, and may use or not use the voluntary national standards as they wish. Fourth, the history standards in question are proposed standards. They have not been finalized. Quite to the contrary, representatives from the National History Standards Project have met with critics and have indicated their willingness to make changes in both the standards and the instructional examples that accompany the standards. Their commitment is to remove historical bias and to build a broad base of consensus in support of the proposed standards. Fifth, make no mistake about it, these proposed standards were not developed in secret or by just a few individuals. They are the product of over 2\1/2\ years of hard work. Literally hundreds of teachers, historians, social studies supervisors, and parents were part of this effort. Advice and counsel was both sought and received from more than 30 major educational, scholarly, and public interest organizations. Mr. President, I strongly believe that we should not interfere with a process that is still in play. We should not inject ourselves in a way that might impede both the important work being done in this area and the effort to develop a broad base of consensus. Accordingly, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and to support instead the substitute to be offered by the Senator from Vermont. I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks by the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] with respect to the haste with which we are being asked to consider S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. I fully agree that this is very important legislation. Several communities in my own State have indicated an interest in it. I may well decide to support it when it comes to a final vote. But I am aware that there are a number of issues--many of them dealing with quantitative impacts and budgetary consequences--that need to be discussed and clarified. And we in the minority have not just a right but an obligation to make sure that these questions are appropriately considered. So I certainly agree that the Budget Committee, which had shared jurisdiction on this legislation, owes us a full report in the usual course and form, before we should proceed with any votes on the bill. And I urge the leadership to schedule action accordingly. I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.