Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, during my time in the Senate, I have worked to see that United States joins the rest of the world by converting to the metric system of measurement. Believe it or not, the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that has failed to change to the metric system of measurement. I believe the Federal Government, as a major consumer of goods and services, should lead the way and convert to the metric system. In 1973, I authored the Metric Conversion Act that later became law in 1975. That act set forth the policy of the United States to convert to the metric system. Section 3 of the Act requires each Federal Agency to use the metric system of measurement in its procurement, grants and other business-related activities. Slowly but surely, the Federal Government has started to make that move. Federal construction officials in particular have made great progress in this area and have met with limited resistance from the construction community around the United States. All concerned deserve our praise for their efforts. Unfortunately, legislation introduced in both the House and the Senate during this Congress would have provided permanent, complete exemptions for two industries from requests for the metric-sized building products required by Federal law for Federal construction projects. Needless to say, I strongly opposed that legislation. Federal laws and Presidential Executive orders signed by Presidents of both parties over for 20 years clearly state that the United States should move to the metric system and that the Federal Government should lead the way-- by example. Over the last several weeks, I have joined with Senators Hollings, Glenn, and Burns to craft an acceptable amendment to the original legislation. I am not completely pleased with the result of our efforts and it is certainly not what I would have written. The result is, however, a compromise. I believe compromise to be integral to the working of the U.S. Senate and did, therefore, not oppose this substitute.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I rise to express my concern for the many historic and artistic sites around the world that are in grave danger through a growing range of threats from natural catastrophes and environmental deterioration to destructive acts of man. These magnificent sites are resources of great importance, not only for their spiritual and educational meaning, but also as valuable economic, social, and learning blocks for the global community. Through personal travel and my observations as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and Honorary Chairman of the American Committee for Tyre, I have come to understand the value of preserving and protecting cultural heritage, especially in times of political upheaval or social change. In Cambodia, Vietnam and Croatia, we have seen that the use and abuse of culturally significant sites plays a large role in international relations. The actual number of endangered sites is being well-documented by the World Monuments Fund, a United States nonprofit organization devoted to the conservation of cultural heritage on a worldwide scale that maintains an international listing of endangered sites. Within this country, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Park Service work with the World Monuments Fund to track sites in need of conservation and rehabilitation. I believe that the United States is in a unique position to lead an effort among independent nations to protect the future of our cultural legacy worldwide. A timely response is critical to prevent further losses. This can be achieved through sustained funding to stabilize and strengthen the ability of local institutions to protect their cultural resources on a consistent and long-term basis. Conservation work must increase. Professionals need to be trained in cultural resource management, and the public needs to be instilled with a concern for the survival of our significant cultural heritage. I hope that the 105th Congress will take action to establish an endangered cultural heritage fund and am today introducing legislation to serve as a discussion piece to move us in that direction. As a nation composed of the people of many cultures, it is fitting to support the care of great historic and artistic sites which define national character and pay tribute to human accomplishment of universal significance.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I rise to express my concern for the many historic and artistic sites around the world that are in grave danger through a growing range of threats from natural catastrophes and environmental deterioration to destructive acts of man. These magnificent sites are resources of great importance, not only for their spiritual and educational meaning, but also as valuable economic, social, and learning blocks for the global community. Through personal travel and my observations as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and Honorary Chairman of the American Committee for Tyre, I have come to understand the value of preserving and protecting cultural heritage, especially in times of political upheaval or social change. In Cambodia, Vietnam and Croatia, we have seen that the use and abuse of culturally significant sites plays a large role in international relations. The actual number of endangered sites is being well-documented by the World Monuments Fund, a United States nonprofit organization devoted to the conservation of cultural heritage on a worldwide scale that maintains an international listing of endangered sites. Within this country, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Park Service work with the World Monuments Fund to track sites in need of conservation and rehabilitation. I believe that the United States is in a unique position to lead an effort among independent nations to protect the future of our cultural legacy worldwide. A timely response is critical to prevent further losses. This can be achieved through sustained funding to stabilize and strengthen the ability of local institutions to protect their cultural resources on a consistent and long-term basis. Conservation work must increase. Professionals need to be trained in cultural resource management, and the public needs to be instilled with a concern for the survival of our significant cultural heritage. I hope that the 105th Congress will take action to establish an endangered cultural heritage fund and am today introducing legislation to serve as a discussion piece to move us in that direction. As a nation composed of the people of many cultures, it is fitting to support the care of great historic and artistic sites which define national character and pay tribute to human accomplishment of universal significance.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as I look back over my years of service here in the Senate, I am struck by how much international relations have changed and how much they have stayed the same. In just the last few years, we have witnessed the dramatic end of the cold war and a wave of democracy spreading around the globe from the Republic of China on Taiwan to the newly established countries in Eastern Europe. Advances in technology have opened new channels of communication between people of different cultures and languages. Economic development, investment and trade have become major factors in bilateral relationships. And in unprecedented fashion, the international community has reached consensus on the need to reduce nuclear weapons, to protect the environment, and to promote international peace and security. Yes some things have not changed since my arrival in the U.S. Senate. The world is still plagued with civil wars. Children continue to lack access to basic health care and immunizations. And despite the lessons learned from the horrible atrocities that took place under the Nazi regime in World War II, we have failed to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing from occurring once again. In wars that have ravaged both the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, aggressors have flown in the face of international law and committed the gravest crimes against humanity. If we in the international community are determined to learn the lesson this time, we must support the work of the International War Crimes Tribunals. The work of these tribunals is critical in the effort to establish genuine and long-lasting peace in war-torn areas around the globe. Created by the United Nations Security Council, the current two war crimes tribunals seek to find justice for the victims of genocide and other war crimes that took place in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. After witnessing the brutality of the wars in these two regions, the international community seized the opportunity to once again publicly prosecute and punish the planners and executioners of the genocide. The tribunals at Nuremberg after World War II have served as an important precedence for the current tribunals. The trials at Nuremberg were the first time that the international community recognized some crimes as so heinous that all states have the right and responsibility to prosecute the offenders. I am proud to say that my father, the late Herbert C. Pell, a former congressman from New York City, was President Franklin Roosevelt's representative to the U.N. War Crimes Commission which established the Nuremberg Tribunals. It is a tragedy that today there is once again a need for these tribunals to punish those who commit atrocities and other crimes against humanity. The task confronting the two war crimes tribunals is immense and complex. In both the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, U.N. investigators are struggling to collect documentation and eyewitness accounts of the murder, rape, ethnic cleansing, and other horrible crimes that were committed during those violent conflicts. But despite the difficulties encountered in trying to amass evidence and to arrest the accused, the international community has recognized that the work of the tribunals is critical to finding a long-term solution to the conflicts in both Bosnia and Rwanda. Unless the perpetrators of the genocide are held accountable for their actions, the cycle of violence will not be broken and could start once again in either country. Equally alarming, unless the international community decisively condemns these crimes, others may be encouraged to commit similar acts without fear of retribution. The significance of the war crimes tribunals has been emphasized most compellingly by the head prosecutor of the tribunals, Justice Richard Goldstone. In a recent statement to the Canadian Bar Association at the eleventh Commonwealth Law Conference, Justice Goldstone noted that: Without meaningful justice, there cannot be enduring peace in either the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda . . . it is surely unrealistic to expect the survivors to forget and forgive--to accept blanket amnesties and impunity for those most responsible . . . Accountability is essential if the hated is finally to come to an end. Mr. President, I would like to submit a copy of Justice Goldstone's address for the Record. As the head prosecutor for both tribunals, Justice Goldstone has placed an indelible mark on the course of international human rights law. Under his tenure, the Yugoslav tribunal has indicated 76 persons, and the Rwandan tribunal has indicted 19. Despite constant frustrations caused by insufficient resources and communications problems, the tribunals are setting important legal precedence for prosecuting those who commit appalling atrocities in the name of conventional warfare. It is truly a testament to the legal, diplomatic, and political skills of Justice Goldstone that so much progress has been made. With this in mind, I would like to note my own deep regret that Justice Goldstone will be leaving the tribunals at the end of this month to return to South Africa and a seat on its constitutional court. Over the last few years, I have had the privilege of meeting with Justice Goldstone on several occasions, and I found him to be an eloquent and influential spokesperson for the tribunals. He will be sorely missed, but I will join with many others in expressing my high expectations for his successor, Louise Arbour. We look forward to seeing the work of the tribunals continue with the same high caliber of leadership set by Justice Goldstone. Clearly this is a critical time for the war crimes tribunals. Now more than ever, the international community must renew its commitment to the tribunals so that the progress accomplished thus far is not lost. The hard work of Justice Goldstone, and of the prosecutors, justices, and staff, certainly merits greater financial and political support from all U.N. member states. The victims who have survived the genocide and other horrible crimes are looking to the tribunal to see justice handed down. We must ensure that the tribunals are given the resources and political will to achieve their mandates. That is why I strongly supported the Clinton administration's efforts to establish the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals through the United Nations. And this year, I joined my colleagues in supporting a provision of the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations appropriations bill to provide $25 million of U.S. financial support to the tribunals. Of course, U.S. support alone is not enough. But through the contributions and cooperation of all states, the international war crimes tribunals will work to ensure that the human rights of all people are protected under international law. Justice Goldstone's address follows: Prosecuting War Criminals Almost a year ago, in Ottowa I was invited to address the Conference of Commonwealth Chief Justices and International Appellate Judges on the work of the UN International War Crimes Tribunals. It was extremely encouraging that the subject of the prosecution of war crimes found a place on the agenda. It is no less encouraging that almost a year later, at this important Conference, the subject is again receiving attention. Before the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, the prosecution of war criminals would universally have been considered to be of national and not international concern. Victims of war crimes had recourse only to national courts which had jurisdiction over the perpetrators. States whose forces were responsible for the crimes seldom, if ever, prosecuted their own combatants. That state of affairs was changed by the Nazi Holocaust. It was that affront to human dignity which led to the internationalisation of humanitarian law. The recognition by the international community of the concept of a crime against humanity was the essential key to international jurisdiction. There were crimes so evil and so over-reaching that it was the right and the duty of all of humankind to try, and if found guilty, punish the perpetrators. There was, in short, universal jurisdiction. It was that recognition that provided the moral and legal underpinning for the conferment of jurisdiction to punish perpetrators outside the country where the crimes were committed or where the accused happened to be found. At the time of the establishment of the United Nations, it was widely assumed that an international criminal court would be set up. Indeed, there was an express reference to such a court in the 1948 Genocide Convention. But it was not to be. States were too jealous of their own sovereignty even to allow their citizens to be surrendered to an international jurisdiction even for the most serious war crimes. Alas, there was no court before which Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and other post-World War II genocidal leaders could be prosecuted. The establishment by the Security Council of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia came as a surprise. It was generally accepted by the experts that an international criminal court would have to be established by treaty. It had never been seriously contemplated that such a court would be established as a measure which could assist in the re-establishment of international peace and security. It was that determination, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, that gave the Security Council the power to take that step. It was that act and the subsequent establishment of the Rwanda Tribunal that have drawn wide attention to the global dimensions of justice. In the case of both tribunals, the Security Council made a determination that the widespread and systematic atrocities perpetrated in both countries constituted a threat to international peace and security. That, in itself, was significant, because it was the first time that the linkage had ever been made by that body. Even more significant was the consequential decision that bringing to justice the individuals responsible for those violations was an appropriate response to that threat. The linkage between justice and peace in the international arena was born. Notwithstanding that action by the Security Council, there have been serious challenges to the concept that peace and justice not be in opposition to each other. There were, and still are, those who argue that the establishment of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia would derail any nascent peace process. Just recently, an anonymous article appeared in the 1996 Human Rights Quarterly published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, in which the author wrote: ``Targeting violators of human rights and bringing them to justice is essential. Accusation, however, comes more easily than making peace. The quest for justice for yesterday's victims of atrocities should not be pursued in such a manner that it makes today's living the dead of tomorrow. That, for the human rights community, is one of the lessons of the former Yugoslavia. Thousands of people are dead who should have been alive-- because moralists were in quest of the perfect peace. Unfortunately, a perfect peace can rarely be attained in the aftermath of a bloody conflict. The pursuit of criminals is one thing. Making peace is another.'' This debate over the potential of the Tribunal to destabilise the peace process was particularly intense just before the negotiations at Dayton. More particularly, there were those who argued that it would be impossible to negotiate a peace agreement in circumstances where the leaders of a principal party were under indictment for war crimes. Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic were, of course, at the centre of that concern. The implication was that peace would require the sacrifice of the laudable but unrealistic objective of pursuing justice. Happily the cynics have been proven wrong. Notwithstanding the indictment twice over both Karadzic and Mladic, the peace agreement was signed in Paris and its military objectives have been successfully carried out by IFOR. I have no doubt that it those alleged war criminals had been present at Dayton no agreement would have been reached. And, if they had been allowed to stand for election next month that election would not take place. Certainly, the Muslim leaders would not consider participation. The position with the Rwanda Tribunal is somewhat different. In the first place, it was established by the Security Council at the request of the Government of Rwanda-- the Government whose forces brought an end to the genocide of mid-1994. The leaders who were responsible for the organisation of the atrocities leading to the murder of about one million people had fled the country. They are not amongst the estimated 70,000 people who are today being kept in atrocious prison conditions in Rwandese prisons. They have moved to other countries in Africa, Europe and North America. Some of them took much of wealth of Rwanda with them. For these reasons, in particular, it is appropriate that there is an international tribunal. Few countries are likely to be willing to extradite persons to Rwanda before that country's criminal justice system has been re-established and it has reasonably acceptable prison conditions. The Rwanda Tribunal was established at the end of 1994. It took many months to staff an office in very difficult conditions in Kigali. It took the UN Headquarters eleven months to appoint a Registrar for the Tribunal at its seat in Arusha in Northern Tanzania. The first cells there were only completed two months ago. At the time of writing this address seven indictments have been issued. Three of those indicted have been transferred from Zambia to the Tribunal in Arusha. They have made their initial appearances and the first trial is about to begin. Apart from the persons already indicted, provisional charges have been brought against four persons held in The Cameroons. They are expected to be transferred to Arusha in the coming days. They include Colonel Theoneste Bagasora, against whom we have evidence that, as chief of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Defense at the time the genocide began, he was one of the central persons responsible for the atrocities which followed. Another was one of the senior directors of the radio station, Radio Milles Collines, that spewed out hateful propaganda which was so important a weapon in the hands of the perpetrators. I have no doubt that without meaningful justice, there cannot be enduring peace in either the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda. Where peoples have witnessed and suffered mass systematic murder, rape, torture and other unspeakable atrocities, and where millions have been displaced, it is surely unrealistic to expect the survivors to forget and forgive-to accept blanket amnesties and impunity for those most responsible. Such a policy would inevitably perpetuate the cycles of violence which have marked the recent histories of both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Accountability is essential if the hatred is finally to come to an end-there is no substitute for avoiding collective guilt upon which genocide feeds. In short, without effective justice, there is little hope for an enduring peace in societies suffering the aftermath of gross human rights violations. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the remarkable and praiseworthy efforts of the Security Council, we are still a long way from effective international criminal justice. The failure by the Implementation Force (IFOR) to go out and arrest those indicted by the Yugoslav Tribunal is a matter for deep regret. The 60,000 strong force undoubtedly has the capability to do so, Under the Dayton Agreement it has the legal right to do so. The fault lies not with the IFOR commanders but with their political bosses. Their policy is not to risk the lives of members of IFOR. But what are there for. As their name proclaims, they are there to implement the Dayton Agreement-but in this important respect they are being precluded for doing so. As is well known, the policy of the North Atlantic Council is that only those who literally fall into the hands of the IFOR soldiers will be arrested. It should come as no surprise that not one arrest has taken place since the IFOR troops first entered Bosnia Herzegovina at the end of last year. And, if the policy is not changed none is likely to be made. Far from endangering what may be a fragile peace in Bosnia, the arrest of some of the leading Serb and Croat indicated war criminals would have avoided many of the recent difficulties of Mr. Carl Bildt and the OSCE election organizers. It would have avoided the unfortunate spectacle of Mr. Karadzic making fools of some international leaders. That policy is also calculated to undermine the credibility not only of the international community but also of the Tribunal and international justice itself in the long term, this could create a disastrous precedent for the future exercise of international criminal jurisdiction. The establishment of the two ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda has to be understood in a broader context. Even their most ardent supporters would not suggest that the response by the Security Council to two specific instances of humanitarian law violations is a satisfactory solution to the problem of world-wide massive war crimes. Many people question, with justification, why we are investigating and prosecuting violations in the former Yugolslavia and Rwanda and not similar shocking conduct in other parts of the world. It is disciminatory, and worse, the decision as to where such atrocities should be prosecuted is a political one taken by a political body-the Security Council. It is hardly fair or just that, by definition, war crimes committed by a permanent member of the Security Council, or by a country protected by such a member, would never be the subject of the exercise of that power. That notwithstanding, the establishment of the two tribunals is a significant step in the direction of having a permanent and independent international criminal court To the extent that they are successful, they will hasten that development. And, if we are unsuccessful in The Hague and Kigali, we will retard that process. It is for that reason that those of us involved in this process are so concerned when the international community fails adequately to support and protect a judicial body created by it. On the more positive side, we have accomplished far more than many informed observers anticipated when the two tribunals were established. The Yugoslav Tribunal has issued 16 indictments in which some 76 defendants have been named. One of them, Erdemovic, a former member of the Bosnian Serb Army, recently pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity. He was involved in the murder of innocent Muslim civilians in the vicinity of Srebrenica in July 1995. He accepted responsibility for shooting at least seventy of the many hundreds who were killed. At this time he has not yet been sentenced by the trial chamber. Apart from Karadzic and Mladic, other leaders indicted Dario Kordic, the former vice-president of the self-proclaimed Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosnia and Milan Martic, the ``President'' of another self-proclaimed Serb Administration in Knin prior to its destruction last year by the Croatian Army. The most recent indictment relates to the town of Foca in Bosnia Herzegovina. The charges arise out of the systematic rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated against the female population of that town by members of the Bosnian Serb Army. At present we have seven of the indictees in our custody, but alas, none of the leaders to whom I have just referred. The trial of Dusko Tadic, which began many weeks ago, is likely to be followed by that of Tibotil Blaskic, a Croatian general, who voluntarily surrendered himself to the Tribunal to stand trial. He is the former regional commander of the Croatian Defense Council in the Lasva River Valley area of Bosnia Herzegovina, and was subsequently promoted to the Chief of Staff of the Mostar Headquarters of the HVO. He has been indicted on charges of crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. We have also brought a number of reconfirmation hearings where indicted persons have not been arrested and surrendered to the Tribunal. In these proceedings, the Prosecutor is able to present, in public, some of the evidence in support of the indictments. This is not a trial in absentia but a proceeding designed to enable a trial chamber to issue an international arrest warrant. The most recent proceeding of kind was that against Karadzic and Mladic and resulted in the issue of such warrants against both of them. Having regard to the evidence led it is even more difficult to accept the supine policy of the leading western nations with regard to their apprehension and surrender to the Tribunal. This is an important time in the lives of both tribunals. The financial crisis of the United Nations has made our progress very difficult. We have constantly been under- resourced. Without the generosity of a number of governments, and particularly the United States and The Netherlands, we would not be at the trial stage in either The Hague or Arusha. I have already referred to some of the credibility problems facing the Yugoslav Tribunal. If the people we indict are not brought to trial then we will not be able to fulfil our mandate. In particular, we will be seen to have failed by the victims themselves. The Security Council undoubtedly raised their expectations in establishing the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and endowing it with peremptory powers under the UN Charter. It sent a message to those victims that the international community had taken notice of what they had suffered and that message carried with it the promise that some justice would be afforded them. Their expectations were again raised when, from time to time, the Tribunal issued indictments. Imagine their frustration when they heard and read that IFOR would not be permitted to take the risk of seeking to arrest those indicted. Imagine their frustration when Karadzic and Mladic continue to flaunt the terms of the Dayton Agreement. Whether the elections are able to take place in a reasonably free and fair atmosphere still remains to be seen. In Rwanda the problems are different and no less serious. Two years after that country was destroyed by its then genocidal rulers, its criminal courts are still not functioning. The frustration of the members of its present government cannot be exaggerated. Not the least of their frustrations is what they understandably regard as an unacceptable delay in the International Tribunal becoming operational. Then, there is the unfortunate imbalance by reason of the Rwandan Law recognizing death sentence while the International Tribunal has no such power. Add to this the recent wish of the Rwandese Government wishing to try leading members of the former government in Kigali and the clash between that wish and the Tribunal legitimately exercising its right of primacy and insisting on the leaders being tried in Arusha. Finally, there is the disturbing fact that the Rwanda Tribunal has increasingly become forgotten by the Western media. This may change when the trials are under way. I hope that I have said sufficient to bring to your attention some of the positive and some of the negative features which have emerged in consequence of the establishment of the two tribunals. Without strong public pressure in a number of countries they would certainly not have come into being. Without continued pressure they will not succeed. It is for that reason, in particular, that I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to your attention some of the important issues relating to the future of the tribunals. Not only are they important for the victims. If they succeed they can also provide a powerful deterrent for the future. Your support for the work of the tribunals and for a permanent international criminal court is of cardinal importance.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, at the request of the Library of Congress I am introducing, for myself and for the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the Library of Congress Commemorative Coin Act, in recognition of the 200th anniversary of the Library of Congress, which will occur in the year 2000. Established in 1800, the Library of Congress is our Nation's oldest national cultural institution and has become the largest repository of recorded knowledge in the world. It stands as a symbol of the vital connection between knowledge and democracy. The Library of Congress Commemorative Coin Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue, in year 2000, 500,000 silver dollars and 500,000 half dollar coins commemorating the anniversary. The proceeds of the sale of the coins will support not only the observance of the bicentennial of the Library's creation, but also digitization projects that will share the resources of the Library with the Nation's schools and libraries. James Madison said ``Learned institutions ought to be the favorite objects of every free people. They throw the light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.'' This bill commemorates the fact that the Library of Congress for two centuries has fulfilled James Madison's hope by dispensing the light of knowledge over the Congress, the Nation, and the world.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, at the request of the Library of Congress I am introducing, for myself and for the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the Library of Congress Commemorative Coin Act, in recognition of the 200th anniversary of the Library of Congress, which will occur in the year 2000. Established in 1800, the Library of Congress is our Nation's oldest national cultural institution and has become the largest repository of recorded knowledge in the world. It stands as a symbol of the vital connection between knowledge and democracy. The Library of Congress Commemorative Coin Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue, in year 2000, 500,000 silver dollars and 500,000 half dollar coins commemorating the anniversary. The proceeds of the sale of the coins will support not only the observance of the bicentennial of the Library's creation, but also digitization projects that will share the resources of the Library with the Nation's schools and libraries. James Madison said ``Learned institutions ought to be the favorite objects of every free people. They throw the light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.'' This bill commemorates the fact that the Library of Congress for two centuries has fulfilled James Madison's hope by dispensing the light of knowledge over the Congress, the Nation, and the world.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today marks the 35th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the first year of John F. Kennedy's Presidency. The groundwork had been laid earlier in the Eisenhower administration, and the effort reached fruition in 1961. I was privileged to be part of that process as a new Senator in his first year of service. I had become quite interested in the new processes of arms control, and I went with my more veteran and most distinguished colleagues, Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania, to argue the case that the new agency would have more weight and authority if it were established not by Executive order, but by the Congress as a statutory agency of the Federal Government. Fortunately, our friends in the White House agreed, and, over the next several months, the agency was created. The Agency was started with much hope and high expectations. Some even feared that the Director of the Agency would be too powerful and might take steps that endangered the national security by moving too precipitously to control arms. In the process of compromise, the statute was worked out so that the Agency could fulfill high expectations, but the nation would be protected from precipitous arms control. As matters have worked out, it is clear that those who feared that ACDA would go too far have had their fears unrealized. Those who hoped that the Agency would soar to new heights of arms control have had their dreams only partially realized. Nonetheless, the 35 years have been marked by many solid arms control achievements that have helped to ensure the protection of the national interests of the United States and that have served to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States is willing to continue on the course of arms control. The achievements during the period of ACDA's existence include: the Limited Test Ban Treaty, Outer Space Treaty, Protocols to the Latin American Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty, Non-Proliferation Treaty, Seabed Arms Control Treaty, Biological Weapons Convention, Incidents at Sea Agreement, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the SALT I Interim Agreement, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, Environmental Modification Convention, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, START I Treaty, START II Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention to be considered a-new by the Senate next year, and the recently signed Comprehensive Test Ban. The ACDA involvement has varied among the treaties--some were achieved by Presidential envoys, and some by officials of the Department of State. In other cases, the Agency had the lead. But, in almost all cases of significant agreements, the Agency provided much of the necessary technical and legal expertise and provided the continuing backstopping that was necessary for success in negotiations year-in and year-out. The Arms Control Agency has provided an arms control perspective and expertise whenever needed by others in the executive branch. In the most successful times for the Agency as in this administration, the President and the Secretary of State have turned to the Director and to his staff as principal advisers on arms control and, often, nonproliferation. This experience has demonstrated the wisdom of President Kennedy and the Congress in their decision to give arms control a real boost by creating the only separate agency of its type in the world. Now that the cold war is over, some question the continued need for an arms control and disarmament agency. Some ask whether the essential tasks of arms control and disarmament are not done. In recent rounds of budget cutting, the Agency has indeed become beleaguered. It is fighting even now for a budgetary level at which it can successfully accomplish the tasks assigned to it. I hope very much that the effort to have ACDA adequately funded will be successful. Should we not adequately fund ACDA--with a budgetary level equivalent to the cost of a single fighter aircraft--I believe that we will rue that decision when we come to realize that the Agency made a great difference to our true national security interests. One can legitimately ask whether there are any truly significant challenges ahead. The able and dedicated current Director, John Holum, gave a chilling look at the challenges that truly face this country in the area of nonproliferation alone when he said in February at George Washington University: ``Meanwhile, the Soviet-American arms race has been overshadowed by a danger perhaps even more ominous: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--whether nuclear, chemical or biological, or the missiles to deliver them--to rogue regimes and terrorists around the world. By reputable estimates, more than 40 countries now would have the technical and material ability to develop nuclear weapons, if they decided to do so. More than 15 nations have at least short range ballistic missiles, and many of these are seeking to acquire, or already have, weapons of mass destruction. We believe that more than two dozen countries--many hostile to us--have chemical weapons programs. The deadly gas attack in Tokyo's subway last year crossed a fateful threshold: the first use of weapons of mass destruction not by governments but terrorists, against an urban civilian population. Revelations about Iraq have provided a chilling reminder that biological weapons are also attractive to outlaw governments and groups. And recalling the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, we must ponder how even more awful the suffering would be if even primitive nuclear, chemical or biological weapons ever fell into unrestrained and evil hands.'' Mr. President, I commend the Arms Control Agency and its excellent staff. I hope very much that the Congress of the U.S. will have the wisdom to provide the necessary support and backing to the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as it serves us and all Americans in the future in helping to find ways to deal with the threats to peace and security, the United States, its friends, and its allies will face in the period ahead.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. The Senator should. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. PELL. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the third International Natural Rubber Agreement, which was reported favorably by the Foreign Relations Committee 3 months ago. After holding a hearing on this important measure, our committee agreed that it would clearly serve the interests of the United States and ordered it reported favorably on a voice vote. I believe that the Natural Rubber Agreement is a clear example of the way in which both producing and consuming nations of a major natural resource can work together to ensure adequate supply and stable prices. Its primary purposes are to encourage investment in rubber production in order to assure adequacy of supply, and to set up a mechanism to prevent excessive volatility in prices. These functions are particularly important because the United States is the largest importer of natural rubber, while just three countries--Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia--control 75 percent of the world's production. Without a mechanism like the INRA, U.S. tire and rubber manufacturers as well as consumers would be more vulnerable to cartel-like behavior that raises prices and creates uncertainty of supply. U.S. participation in INRA has been supported by four successive administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, and has received the advice and consent of the Senate on two previous occasions. The original agreement was adopted in 1980 by a vote of 90 to 1, and the first extension in 1988 was approved unanimously, by a vote of 97 to 0. The United Steelworkers of America has called ratification of this treaty ``a matter of critical importance to our union, its members and families--and the consumers who purchase the products we produce.'' If the United States fails to ratify this treaty by the end of this year, it could mean the end of an agreement which has served to the benefit of the United States and the world for the last 16 years. Mr. President, during the course of my service in the Senate I have risen many times in support of treaties that have come under attack. There are currently a number of extremely important treaties pending before the Senate that I deeply regret have not been taken up during this session. The Chemical Weapons Convention is only the most recent example, but several other agreements such as the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, should also be taken up at the earliest opportunity. I welcome the chance to consider the International Natural Rubber Agreement today, and I urge that it be followed expeditiously by the other treaties I have mentioned. In closing, let me say that a failure to approve this treaty now would be a great mistake. The objections that have been raised are not borne out by our experience with this agreement, and I urge my colleagues to join me in giving their advice and consent to its ratification. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL. How much time remains?

Mr. PELL. I am happy to yield that back.

Mr. PELL. Madam President, I ask for consideration of the resolution before the Senate by a division vote.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last week, the 51st session of the U.N. General Assembly convened in New York City. To recognize the occasion, I spoke on the floor of the Senate to highlight some of the many benefits that the United Nations brings to the American public. The United Nation has furthered American national interests by working to promote peace and democracy, to protect human rights, to strengthen international stability, and to foster cooperation between states on a wide range of important issues. Today I wish to focus on one of these important issues--an area where the United Nations has made significant advances by enabling countries to work together and to find common solutions to common problems. Today I wish to discuss the unique role of the U.N. Environment Programme. The 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm was the catalyst for the creation of the U.N. Environment Programme [or UNEP]. As a participant in those meetings, I eagerly supported the effort to integrate human development and the protection of the environment as two equally important goals to the international community. The establishment of UNEP ensured that all countries would have access to technical information and skills in order to develop and improve national environmental policy. UNEP has also served as a valuable forum for reaching international and regional consensus on laws and operational standards that reinforce cooperative efforts to achieve long-term sustainable development. Because of its unique role within the United Nations as the only agency with the mandate to make environmental concerns the top priority, UNEP has facilitated U.S. policy initiative in the environmental field. As Secretary of State Warren Christopher noted in an address at Stanford University last April: The environment has a profound impact on our national interests in two ways: First, environmental forces transcend borders and oceans to threaten directly the health, prosperity and jobs of American citizens. Second, addressing natural resource issues is frequently critical to achieving political and economic stability, and to pursuing our strategic goals around the world. I wholeheartedly agree with Secretary Christopher that the United States must view environmental problems from a global perspective. The actions of one state inevitably affect the well-being of the citizens of its neighbors. The United States cannot afford to ignore the overpopulation, or the pollution, or the deforestation occurring in other countries because the consequences could be devastating right here at home. That is why the United States has participated in and supported U.N. agencies like UNEP. It is in our own best interests to work together with other states to protect the international environment. Under the leadership of UNEP over the last 20 years, the international community has agreed upon several international conventions which directly further U.S. environmental objectives. These conventions include the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [or CITES] which prohibits or regulates trade in some 35,000 endangered species; the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which have led to a 77 percent drop in global CFC emissions since 1988--saving millions of lives through the prevention of skin cancer-- and the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits industrialized countries to reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases by the year 2000. These are but a few examples of international cooperation led by UNEP which have benefited U.S. citizens. Despite these tangible benefits, however, I am concerned that the survival of UNEP is in jeopardy today. At a time when our Government's financial constraints are increasing, the United States should be looking for ways to increase cooperation with other states in order to avoid bearing the cost of acting alone. While I support the calls for making U.N. agencies more efficient and effective, it is important that the United States continue to play a leading role in promoting international environmental cooperation by supporting UNEP. The Clinton administration should persist in its efforts to streamline the programs and personnel of UNEP while making some real financial commitments at the upcoming meeting of the governing council in January. Equally important, the decision on the leadership of UNEP should be given high priority for United States attention during the next month. This is a critical moment for UNEP as the agency's financial crisis has reached a point where many of its important programs may no longer be viable. Given the recent decrease in financial and political support for UNEP from its member states, the international community must decide whether or not environmental concerns are still a priority on the international agenda. If the answer is yes, then all member states must commit themselves to both reforming and financially supporting UNEP. We have seen 20 years of impressive progress in the environmental field that has often been achieved through the expertise and leadership of UNEP. With so much at stake, it would be a tragedy to allow this organization to founder today.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, during my last days in Congress, I wish to state my unequivocal support of the restoration of funds to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These fine agencies have sustained disproportionate and unreasonable cuts over the past 2 years, and the erosion must stop. As coauthor of the legislation that created the endowments 31 years ago, I have felt like a proud father as both endowments have served the guiding principles upon which they were conceived. Overall, their programs have been remarkably successful. There has been overwhelming evidence of the positive impact of the arts and humanities on education, the economy, urban renewal, and cultural pride. It is important that two endowments are funded sufficiently to be able to continue their worthwhile and extremely effective endeavors to improve the quality of life for all Americans. Mr. President, I am by no means alone today in favor of continued Federal funding for the arts and humanities. There is a strong bipartisan commitment. Earlier, Senator Jeffords and I circulated a letter signed by 31 Members that expressed their support of appropriations for the NEA, NEH, and IMS in fiscal year 1997 at current or slightly increased levels, and I ask that the letter be included in the Record. Other Members have spoken with us subsequently regarding their support. The American public remains solidly and strongly behind Federal support for the arts and humanities. A recent Harris poll found that a 61 percent majority of Americans--to 37 percent saying ``no''--would be willing to be taxed $5 more in order to pay for Federal financial support for the arts. These people believe the arts to be important and would sorely miss them if they were not there. In Rhode Island, the restored Humanities funding means quite literally survival for an extremely important project that provides fascinating information to all Americans, not just the residents of my State. With NEH funding, the Rhode Island Historical Society is reassembling the Papers of Nathanael Greene from over 100 libraries and collections scattered around the country, and is currently preparing the 10th of a total of 13 planned volumes. Nathanael Greene, you will recall was a Rhode Islander sent by George Washington to liberate the South--a task he accomplished with distinction. If work on the Papers stops now, it will be the history of Georgia and the Carolinas that would not be published. Interestingly, while Greene was alive, Congress promised to publish his daily letters and orders. How poignant that we fulfill this promise now. As I enter my last days as a U.S. Senator--36 years among wonderful colleagues--I urge Congress to support the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum Services at a level where they can fulfill their potential and continue to bring American culture to all Americans. I hope to hear that the issues that are preventing the reauthorization of the programs of these agencies will be resolved amicably in the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I was fortunate to be in New York at the United Nations yesterday with President Clinton for the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I can report to you that there is a tremendous sense of gratification of achievement in the United Nations with regard to this treaty. It was finally approved last week by an overwhelming majority of the Members in a 158-to-3 vote. I will be serving this fall at the United Nations as a Member of the United States delegation. Fifty-one years ago, I had the honor of serving on the International Secretariat of the San Francisco Conference that drew up the United Nations' Charter. I was one of those flushed with youthful enthusiasm with regard to the potential future of the United Nations. In the years since, there have been excellent achievements and some disappointments. I must say that I rank the united effort that led to the comprehensive test ban as one of the paramount successes. President Clinton has been able to bring to fruition an effort begun more than three decades ago by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. The first test ban was negotiated under the direct and forceful leadership of President Kennedy, who drew upon the workable aspects of the Russian position in order to help bring about the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which restricted nuclear testing to underground environs. The next test ban treaty came in 1974 under President Nixon's leadership, when the Threshold Test Ban Treaty was negotiated. The companion Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty was signed in 1976 in the Ford administration. President Carter attempted to achieve agreement on a comprehensive test ban, but lacked sufficient time to do so. President Clinton played a leading role in bringing the comprehensive test ban, which represents the culmination of those earlier efforts, to conclusion this summer. Under this treaty, the parties will be obligated not to conduct any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion. This very strong prohibition is a direct result of President Clinton's forward- thinking decision on August 11, 1995, not to agree to any exceptions to this ban, but instead to negotiate a true zero yield comprehensive test ban treaty. Bringing this to fruition was a very high priority of Secretary of State Warren Christopher and ACDA Director John Holum. It involved years of painstaking work at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva by Ambassador Stephen Ledogar and his delegation and in Washington by the backstopping team led by Dr. Pierce Corden of the Arm Control and Disarmament Agency. There is no question in my mind that this treaty from this date forward will constrain the qualitative development of nuclear weapons. International controls and the inspection regime will become active upon entry into force. It will serve to ban the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons and it will serve to demonstrate to the world that the declared nuclear powers--United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China--are truly committed to control their nuclear arsenals and genuinely desire to contribute to the prevention of nuclear proliferation. This treaty truly represents a significant step toward nuclear disarmament. Mr. President, we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that gaining Senate advice and consent to a comprehensive test ban treaty is going to be easy. It will not be. Once the treaty is submitted by the President, the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which I have been chairman or ranking member since 1981, will hold thorough and wide- ranging hearings. It is a process that I would enjoy very much, but will instead be viewing from a distance as a retired Senator. The degree of contentiousness that is possible can be seen in the simple fact that the treaty was achieved by a Democratic President with the support of his party and is rejected in the Republican Party platform adopted this summer. I hope that the hearings to be held by the Committee on Foreign Relations will serve to bring the sides together and will serve to assuage the fears and concerns of those who fear the possible consequences to our national security of a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing. I believe that, since nuclear weapons design clearly is a mature science, we do not need further testing to assure that our scientists have done their work well and that we can move into a future without nuclear testing secure in the knowledge that we have a fine and reliable nuclear arsenal deterrent that will serve us well so long as we rely upon nuclear weapons to protect us. Experts will testify that there are no safety and reliability issues that would necessitate further testing. Experts will also assure us that the restraints that this treaty will place on other nations are very much in our national security interests. Moreover, I would expect there will be expert testimony from the intelligence community that will provide the necessary reassurance to the Senate. When all of that happens, I would expect that the Senate will, indeed, determine that it can proceed ahead with the comprehensive test ban without any jeopardy to our national security. That step forward will bring us well- deserved commendation from other nations and it will be a gift beyond value to the generations that will succeed us. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to call to the attention of my colleagues--especially those who co-sponsored my legislation establishing a national policy on permanent paper --the final mandated report to the Congress on progress in reaching the objectives of that policy. That legislation, which became Public Law 101-423 on October 12, 1990, stated that: It is the policy of the United States that Federal records, books, and publications of enduring value be produced on acid free permanent papers. The Librarian of Congress, the Archivist of the United States, and the Public Printer were required to make three progress reports to the Congress over a 5 year period, and the last of these has now been made, reporting developments through 1995. This latest report is a record of remarkable progress and I am pleased that it will be printed as a Senate document. When I first introduced a permanent paper bill in October 1988, almost all documents and publications produced by the Federal Government or by Federal funds were on acidic papers with a useful life of less than 100 years. These papers had been in general use since the mid-19th century. The Federal Government was not unique. State and local governments and private publishers all used such papers. Librarians and archivists had for some time expressed their concerns about the loss of irreplaceable historical, cultural and scientific books, publications and other records. Many millions of dollars were already being spent by research libraries, foundations, and State and Federal governments either to save these materials by deacidification or to preserve their contents by microfilming--both costly processes. I might note that when the present Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington, appeared before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration for his confirmation hearing on July 14, 1987, he described at considerable length the deterioration of the holdings of our national library. In response to our questions, he told us that he regarded the problem of ``brittle books'' as a major one, both retrospectively, in terms of salvaging the records of the last century and a half, and prospectively, in terms of preventing continuation of the problem. He spoke of the need for ``mobilizing informed opinion to assure that we get a better response from those who publish, so that this problem is not with us in the future.'' It was by no coincidence that an active campaign to ``mobilize informed opinion'' ensued thereafter. Many people throughout the library community were actively involved, but I would particularly like to cite the efforts of Robert Frase, former vice president and economist of the Association of American Publishers. Mr. Frase was instrumental in conceiving and helping to bring to fruition the resolution to establish a National Policy on Permanent Paper, which as I indicated, was first introduced in 1988. Looking back at the short span of eight years since that time, one is struck by the relatively low level of activity in permanent paper production that then prevailed. Research had demonstrated that the deterioration of papers produced from mid-19th century onward was caused by chemicals in a process using wood pulp rather than rags as raw material. The resulting acidic papers began to yellow and crumble (hence the term ``brittle books'') within a few decades, while the earlier rag papers continued to last for centuries. Research financed by the Council on Library resources and others, however, had demonstrated that wood pulp based papers could be produced by an alkaline process, resulting in estimated useful lives comparable with the old rag papers. A small amount of such papers was actually being produced. What was required at that point was an increased awareness of the problem and a dramatic demonstration that something was going to be done about it. This would then lead to an increased demand for new papers, and in turn induce paper mills to convert to an alkaline process. Increased production would result in lower costs and prices competitive with acidic papers. The American Library Association started the ball rolling by passing its first resolution on this subject in January 1988. After my first bill was introduced in October of that year it was promptly endorsed by another ALA resolution in early 1989. This led to similar resolutions by other U.S. organizations and then by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions [IFLA] and the International Publishers Association later in 1989. A big and prominent institution was needed to provide the impact of taking the first step into an action program, and the U.S. Government was an obvious choice. Its responsible agencies--the Library of Congress and National Archives--were well aware of the issues and the enormous problems and costs which were building up for the future unless alkaline paper came into general use; it was the world's largest producer of publications and documents; and its example would have a profound influence both at home and abroad. These were the considerations that led to the introduction of the bills that became Public Law 101-423 --my Senate Joint Resolution 57 and Representative Pat Williams' House Joint Resolution 226, both in early 1989. Public Law 101-423 did not mandate the use of alkaline papers by Federal agencies. To have done so would have been impractical because the supply of such papers was limited and the price uncompetitive. But by establishing a policy and a goal, it set a process in motion which in a period of a few years would achieve the same results. An important technical prerequisite to realizing the goal was the establishment of a clear definition of the term ``acid free permanent paper.'' Since the most important factor in paper deterioration is acidity any long-lived paper must be acid free, or alkaline. To be permanent, however, a paper must conform to additional technical specifications, the most widely recognized of which is designated as the American National Standard and often referred to by the acronym ANSI/NISO. The technical designation is ``American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Publications and Documents in Libraries and Archives, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.'' As a practical matter, companies deciding to produce alkaline paper can easily take the small further steps required to produce permanent paper meeting the ANSI/NISO standard. An important feature of Public Law 101-423 was a monitoring device to help ensure that the national policy was actually being carried out, and that device is the requirement that three progress reports be made to the Congress on December 31, 1991, 1993, and 1995, by the Librarian of Congress, the Archivist of the United States, and the Public Printer. Although the 1995 report is the last to be required by law, these three officials have stated their intention to continue to monitor progress in achieving the goals of the legislation on an ad hoc basis. I welcome their decision, a sentiment I am sure is shared by the many members of Congress who have taken an interest in this matter, as well as those in the library, archival, scholarly and historical professions throughout the world. I urge that these progress reports continue to be issued every 2 years through the rest of this century. Progress in the Federal Government Since Public Law 101-423 focused on the production of Federal records, books and publications of enduring value on acid-free permanent paper, I am very pleased to note that the third report documents a number of very encouraging developments in this regard. Here are some of the most notable: The National Archives and Records administration has circulated widely bulletin No. 95-7, Procurement of Writing, Copying, and Printing Papers for Federal Records, which provides guidance to Federal agencies in the use of alkaline and permanent papers. Permanent or alkaline papers are recommended for all Federal records; at least alkaline for routine use; and permanent in offices that create and file a high proportion of long-term and permanent records. There has been a notable increase in the availability of permanent and alkaline paper for Government use. When Public Law was enacted in 1990, the Joint Committee on Printing listed only one grade of permanent paper. In 1995 it had four; plus 16 grades of alkaline paper. The General Services Administration provides papers for purchase by Federal agencies that match the standards set by the Joint Committee on Printing. The executive branch has ruled that the requirements of Executive Order 12873 mandating the use of recycled paper by Federal agencies are not to conflict in any way with the concurrent requirement for permanent paper use. The National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Historical Records Commission mandate the use of permanent and alkaline papers in projects they fund. The National Library of Medicine has carried on a remarkably successful, and little recognized, campaign to ensure that the world's biomedical journals are printed on alkaline or permanent paper. This effort was started in 1988. Then only 4 percent of the 3,000 journals throughout the world that were indexed in the Library's Index Medicus were being printed on alkaline paper. Due in large part to the Library's campaign, this figure had risen by April 1995 to 91 percent. Progress in the Private Sector The ultimate success of the permanent paper campaign depends on inducing changes in the nongovernmental sector. Governments--Federal, State, and local--primarily produce documents, many of which, of course, need to be preserved. But publications, the carriers of our literature, culture, history and science, are overwhelmingly produced by private publishers, profit and nonprofit. These publishers had to be persuaded to use permanent paper and the paper mills had to be persuaded to produce it. Publishers would not use permanent paper, even if they thought they should, because it was not easily available at competitive prices. Paper manufacturing companies saw no reason to shift to an alkaline process lacking a strong demand from publishers. It was here that the development of standards for permanent paper played an important role. These were developed primarily in the private sector by a collaborative effort of profit and non-profit organizations, but with participation also of Government agencies. Such standards enable publishers to state their permanent paper requirements without having to develop, by themselves, the specifications included in their paper purchasing contracts. We have already taken note of the 1992 American National Standard ANSI/NISO, which was first developed by the library and publishing committee of the American National Standards Institute in 1984 and subsequently revised and expanded in 1992. Standards had also been developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials and the Council on Library Resources. Since publishing, paper manufacturing, and libraries are not confined to national boundaries, it was appropriate that an international standard for permanent paper compatible with the American standard should be published in 1994. In the spring of 1988, the New York Public Library began a campaign, jointly with well-known authors, to get book publishers to use alkaline or permanent paper. Public pledges to this effect were secured from prominent publishing houses. The industry trade group, the Association of American Publishers, gave its endorsement to the campaign. University presses--publishers of scholarly, scientific, and historical works, had earlier recognized the problem of paper deterioration and had begun to use alkaline paper for their relatively small editions. They have not only been the most faithful in doing so, but also in noting this fact in the books themselves and in the bibliographic information provided to the Library of Congress under the Cataloging in Publication program. But the most gratifying development in the private sector in the past several years has been the great increase in the production of permanent papers in the United States and Canada. A 1988 report of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment had estimated that only 15 to 25 percent of the books produced in the United States were on acid-free paper and predicted that this percentage was unlikely to change. It now appears that this prediction has proven to be unduly cautious. Two indications of this production increase may be noted. The first is the fact that 99.9 percent of book papers procured through bulk purchase by the Government Printing Office in 1995 were alkaline. The second is the information provided in North American Permanent Papers 1995, published as a public service by Abbey Publications of Austin, Texas. This catalog of papers produced by 34 United States and Canadian companies lists by brand name 423 different papers that are reported to meet the specifications of the 1994 ANSI/NISO permanent paper standard. The great increase in permanent paper production has come about primarily through the conversion of existing paper mills from acid to alkaline processes, a shift encouraged by regulations issued under the Clean Water Act, requiring the reduction of pollution of streams by the effluent of paper mills. Conversion to an alkaline process reduces this pollution, but also results in the production of paper at the same or lesser cost. The happy result was that environmental preservation helped to promote the availability of acid-free paper. Progress in the States Connecticut led the way to conversion to permanent paper at the State level. As a result of a campaign led by the State Librarian, the first statute was enacted in 1988. Subsequently additional legislation extended the use long-lived paper to most State and local documents. In later years many other States took action, either by legislation or administrative rulings, to require alkaline or permanent paper use to some degree. But few went as far as Connecticut. The progress of State legislation was stimulated by three letters to State Governors from the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Services calling attention to developments under the Federal law and requesting information on State activity. The last such survey, jointly with the Library of Congress, was conducted in July 1995. In the third report the following 21 States were listed as having taken some kind of action: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Utah has now been added to that list. International The international library community had long been aware of the problem of brittle books. The subject was discussed as early as the 1920's at a conference in Europe. It was not until 1989, however, that the first resolution urging action was adopted by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions [IFLA]. A similar resolution was adopted that same year by the International Association of Publishers. Note has already been taken of the impact of the program of the U.S. National Library of Medicine on biomedical journals throughout the world. Nevertheless, until recently European publishers and governments lagged behind this country. A 1993 survey of 142 publishers in 17 European countries reported that: 31 did not know that most currently used book paper becomes brittle after 50 years; and 90 were unaware of the ANSI/NISO permanent paper standards. Governments, with some notable exceptions, have been slow to require the use permanent paper by legislation or administrative regulations, even with respect to their own publications and documents. The same has been true of the agencies of the United Nations. But in the last couple of years the pace has picked up. A number of European organizations, both official and private, are now actively promoting permanent paper. European paper manufactures contributed to a 1994 catalog listing about 100 different permanent papers being sold by 26 paper mills or their agents--papers meeting the specifications of the 1992 American National Standard. Summary It is now 9 years since I first raised the question with Librarian of Congress Billington as to whether something could not be done to bring to an end the indefinite production of brittle books. Enormous progress been made--at least in the United States, in Canada, in much of Europe, and in Japan--in the production of books, other publications, and documents on paper which should endure for several centuries, instead of self-destructing in less than 100 years. Many individuals and organizations, public and private, have contributed to this result-- some known to me and others not. I note once again the efforts of Robert Frase in this connection. We owe them all a debt of gratitude. I celebrate the fact that the Congress and Federal agencies have made major contributions to this progress in a variety of ways, not the least of which has been through the passage and the implementation of Public Law 101-423 to establish a National Policy on Permanent Papers.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it appears to me that we find ourselves in a pleasant predicament when it comes to education appropriations for fiscal year 1997. On each side of the aisle we have leadership packages that would add some $2.3 billion in additional funding to education. In several areas, the Democratic package, of which I am a cosponsor, is larger than the Republican package. It would, for instance, add $585 million to the Pell Grant program in order to fund a $2,700 maximum grant for the coming year. It would also add funds to the Goals 2000 Program, to the Professional Development Program for Teachers, to Education Technology, and to important higher education programs, such as TRIO and the SSIG Program. In other areas, however, the Republican package is larger. In areas such as Title I, Adult Education, the SEOG Program, College Work Study, and Special Education, the Republican package contains more funding than the Democratic package. Mr. President, there is a solution to the dilemma with which we are faced that is in the best interests of our nation. It is also an outcome that would get us out of a bipartisan battle, and bring the spirit of bipartisanship back to education policy making and appropriations. Very simply, I believe we should take the higher number from each package, put them together, and pass a package for which we can all take credit. This would mean more money for education, and to my mind, that would be very good news, indeed. It would mean better funding in such critical areas as Pell Grants, Title I, Professional Development for Teachers, Special Education, and the campus-based student aid programs. Instead of discussing which proposal is better in which area, we should resolve the dilemma and conclude an agreement that is in the best interests not of one political party or the other but of the American people.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, my purpose for rising was to congratulate and thank the Senator from Delaware for underlining this point. Those of us living on the east coast in the corridor have it as part of our lives. It has been in my own life. I know what it means to many millions of people. The book to which he referred, which was written about 30 years ago on this subject, is still pretty well current, because in this 30 years so little progress has truly been made. I look forward to the day, while I may not be here, but I look forward to the day in the not too distant future where we will have high-speed railroads, really high speeds, as our friends in Europe have, speeding around the country to the different cities of our great land. In this regard, I am struck by the number of States that are traversed by the high-speed railroad. And, from a political viewpoint for both parties, about a fifth of the electoral votes in the United States are traversed by the high-speed railroad. I hope that will help spur on support. I have some regrets about retiring myself. I look forward to visiting Washington in the years to come on a high-speed railroad. I thank the Chair. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank my colleague and friend for yielding at this time.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today the U.N. General Assembly will convene its 51st session. This occasion has particular meaning for me because 51 years ago I had the honor of serving on the International Secretariat of the San Francisco Conference that drew up the United Nations' charter. In 1970, I was privileged to serve as a Representative of the United States to the 25th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. This year I have been honored again with my nomination by President Clinton and confirmation by my Senate colleagues to be a representative of the United States to the 51st session of the United Nations General Assembly. Having been present at the United Nations' creation and observed its work over the last 50 years, I strongly believe in the need for such a body and in the principles upon which it was founded. While I have applauded and participated in efforts to amend and improve the organization, I would argue that these last 51 years have witnessed an impressive record of achievement. Though it has not always lived up to all the expectations of its founders, the United Nations has irrevocably changed the world in which we live. Despite the obstacles posed by the politics of the cold war, I can think of numerous examples where the United Nations succeeded in promoting international peace and security--in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, and countless other countries. Whether brokering peaceful settlements to violent conflicts, halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, protecting the international environment, or immunizing children from disease, the United Nations has made the world a safer place. Clearly, if the United Nations did not exist today, we would have to invent it. I am therefore troubled by the increasingly violent attacks on this important institution--in Congress, the press, and other public fora. These attacks seem symptomatic of a broader and dangerous tendency to seek to retreat from our international commitments and obligations. Revolutionary changes in communications, transportation, capital flows, and the nature of warfare have irreversibly linked our fate with that of the rest of the world. Today, there is no ocean wide enough--nor border fence we could build that would be high enough--to keep out an often turbulent world. Rather than abandoning our role as part of the international community, we should endeavor to expand and improve cooperation with those states that share our values in order to address our common problems. The United Nations offers a valuable forum for such cooperation. With this in mind, I would like to use this opportunity to address three of the more dangerous myths that have been propagated recently regarding the United Nations: The first of these myths is that the United Nations somehow threatens American sovereignty. Critics of the United Nations have often depicted the organization as a nascent world government eager to supplant the nation-state. In fact, the United Nations more accurately resembles an unruly debating club, where members control and vote on its activities. Moreover, the United Nations charter clearly states that resolutions of the General Assembly are non-binding on member states. In similar fashion, United Nations conventions only apply to nations that elect to ratify them. The one United Nations body in which decisions could be binding upon member-states is the Security Council, where the United States and other permanent members enjoy veto power. Because of these institutional checks, the United Nations usually must struggle to achieve enough of a consensus to make action possible. In no way could one mistake this organization for an out-of-control bureaucracy trampling upon the prerogatives of nation-states. A second myth about the United Nations is that it does not serve American interests. In the most extreme version of this myth, critics imagine that the United States always fares worse when it acts multilaterally, than when it goes it alone. In fact, given that many of today's most pressing problems--be it crime, disease, environmental degradation, terrorism, or currency crises--transcend national boundaries, there is much to be gained from forging common solutions to common problems. The end of the artificial divisions of the cold war has presented the United States with an extraordinary opportunity to use the United Nations to advance its foreign policy goals. In the last U.N. session, members of the General Assembly voted with the United States 88.2 percent of the time; 91 percent of Security Council resolutions were adopted unanimously. The United Nations has enabled the United States to avoid unilateral responsibility for costly and entangling activities in regions of critical importance, even as it yields to the United States a position of tremendous authority. To paraphrase former Secretary of State James Baker, U.N. peacekeeping is a pretty good bargain. For every dollar the United States spends on peacekeeping, it saves many more dollars by preventing conflicts in which it might otherwise have to become involved. From a cost-benefit perspective, U.S. contributions to the United Nations and its agencies have been a very worthwhile investment. In addition to the American lives and dollars saved by U.N. peacekeeping missions, other U.N. agencies have worked to prevent disaster and death and to promote health and security both here in the United States and abroad. In 1977, the World Health Organization [WHO] averted an estimated 2 million deaths per year by eradicating smallpox. Today, WHO's children immunization program saves an estimated 3 million lives every year. In 1992, during a severe drought in Africa, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Programme saved an estimated 20 million people from starvation. And in this last week, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which will contribute to the security and well-being of generations of peoples to come. Which brings me to the third myth: that U.S. participation in the United Nations is ruinously expensive. In fact, in fiscal year 1996, the United States' assessed and voluntary contributions to the U.N. system totaled $1.51 billion. That includes $304 million for the U.N. general budget, $359 million for peacekeeping operations, $7 million for war crimes tribunals, $337 million in assessments to the United Nations' specialized agencies, and $501 million in voluntary contributions to programs such as UNICEF and other programs that the United States has treaty obligations to support. This total American contribution represented less than half of 1 percent of the current defense budget; that allotted for peacekeeping less than the annual budget of the New York City police force. On a per capita basis, the annual U.S. contribution to the U.N. regular budget breaks down to slightly more than $1 per American. This is considerably less than what most other people in the world pay. For example, the per capita contribution of the U.N.'s newest member state, Palau, is over $6 per person. Clearly, the American taxpayer is getting a good deal for his money. Of course there is certainly room for further economies. Like many large organizations, the United Nations could be leaner, more efficient, and more responsive. But rather than eviscerating one of the key institutional underpinnings of the present international order by starving it of funds, we should work patiently but determinedly with like-minded states and with the U.N. Secretariat to reform and to improve it. I am heartened by the consensus among such strong advocates for U.N. reform as former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and former Assistant Secretary of State John Bolton that the U.S. benefits greatly from its membership in the United Nations. I also agree with them that a U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations would be contrary to our national interests. How we go about the task of reforming the United Nations will say a lot about the prospects for American leadership in the twenty-first century. As after World War II, the United States faces a decisive challenge: whether to maintain the mantle of international leadership and stay engaged in the creation of a new international order, or to seek to retreat into isolationism. The latter course is an even more dangerous option today than it would have been 51 years ago. Only through international engagement and assertive leadership can America hope to prosper and safeguard its security in the next century. The United Nations can serve as an important vehicle for advancing these vital national interests.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. I voted against this bill for three reasons. First, there is no need for this legislation. Not one State in this Nation has legalized marriages between gay men or lesbians. Until one does, there is absolutely no need for Congress to consider whether other States are, or should be, obligated to recognize such marriages. Second, it is clear to me that this legislation is politically motivated. By making this unnecessary bill a priority of this Congress, while failing to act on numerous other measures of much more immediate importance, the Republican leadership has made clear its desire to try to embarrass those who have traditionally supported equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. Third, I do not believe that most Rhode Islanders or most Americans think that this a matter of urgent national importance requiring congressional action. Prior to the introduction of this legislation, I had not received one letter or phone call expressing concern about gay or lesbian marriages. And since the introduction of this legislation, I have received only limited correspondence from Rhode Islanders expressing support for it. Whoever has this bill high on their agenda has not consulted with many of my constituents or with many of the people from across the Nation who write to me. Mr. President, I know that people of good will and strong faith can differ on this sensitive subject. And I knew that the Senate's vote would be a lopsided one. But if we truly believe in family values, we should remember that the gay men and lesbians whom this legislation will affect are our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers, our friends and colleagues. Before we enact legislation that further isolates them from the mainstream of society, we should consider carefully whether this legislation is needed, desired, or desirable. I do not believe that it is.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, earlier today the majority and minority cooperated in the vitiation of a unanimous-consent agreement under which a landmark international agreement, the Chemical Weapons Convention, was to have been considered. I hope very much that the Senate will be able to return to that treaty under more favorable circumstances. It is important to understand that the treaty had been subjected to a barrage of criticism in recent weeks--some of it apparently motivated by a simple desire to kill the treaty. As a result the treaty's merits were somewhat obscured. The Senate's former majority leader, former Senator Robert Dole, the Republican Party's current candidate for President, expressed certain reservations yesterday. Mr. Dole indicated that he would only support the treaty if we had high confidence that our intelligence community would detect violations and that the treaty will be truly global and include such parties as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea. In the context of the Dole comments it became clear that the Senate would probably have to consider two amendments offered by the majority as provided for in the unanimous-consent agreement. The first amendment appeared likely to prohibit the President from depositing the U.S. instrument of ratification unless the Director of Central Intelligence certified to the Senate that the intelligence community could monitor the treaty with high confidence. The second amendment would have prevented the President from depositing the instrument of ratification until he certified that such so-called rogue states as Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria had ratified the treaty. The first amendment would have established an impossible standard, since no Director of Central Intelligence could ever make such a certification with regard to the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is the very nature of chemical weapons that they can be made with very simple equipment and in small spaces. Nations or terrorist groups could certainly succeed in manufacturing quantities of lethal chemicals. Certainly no Director of Central Intelligence could ever express high confidence about abilities to detect all such activities. Most of those familiar with the treaty understand that it represents a departure from the high confidence of detection that could be applied in earlier accords dealing with strategic offensive arms, for instance. Silos can be counted and so can submarines and their missiles. Bombers at airfields are clearly visible. We must understand now that we are entering new fields of arms control and that there are going to be fewer absolute certainties. The important standard to be met with regard to verification of arms control agreements is that we would be able to detect any militarily significant illegal activity under the treaty and be able to respond to that activity before any damage to our national security interests could occur. Mr. Dole tied the impossible demand for high confidence in verification to insistence that the convention be effectively verifiable. Effective verification alone is a standard most experts believe this convention should meet and has met. The need for effective verification has been a commonly accepted standard for years. Insistence on high confidence of the detection of myriad violations moves the standard to the realm of impossibility, as Mr. Dole and treaty opponents know fully. President George Bush concluded that the treaty was indeed effectively verifiable. In a July 18, 1994, letter to me, former President Bush wrote: The United States worked hard to ensure that the Convention could be effectively verified. At the same time, we sought the means to protect both United States security interests and commercial capabilities. I am convinced that the Convention we signed served both objectives, effectively banning chemical weapons without creating an unnecessary burden on legitimate activities. Our highest current military authority, General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in testimony prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations: While no treaty is 100 percent verifiable, the CWC is effectively verifiable. It provides for complementary and overlapping verification requirements that help deter CW violations. The CWC does this through the most intrusive verification provisions of any arms control regime to date. This verification regime consists of declarations, routine inspections of declared facilities, and short notice challenge inspection of any facility. Of note, some of the convention's imperfection was intentional in order to protect our military interests. The regime allows military commanders to protect classified information, equipment, and facilities unrelated to the Convention. In response to concerns regarding clandestine programs, Secretary of Defense William J. Perry argued, While we recognize that detecting illicit production of small quantities of chemical weapons will be extremely difficult, we also recognize that that would be even more difficult without a Chemical Weapons Convention. In fact, the Chemical Weapons Convention verification regime, through its declaration, routine inspection, fact-finding, consultation and challenge inspections, should prove effective in providing a wealth of information on possible chemical weapons programs that simply would not be available without the convention. Mr. John Holum, Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency stated: While no treaty is 100 percent verifiable, the CWC will increase the risk of detection and therefore help deter illicit chemical weapons activities. Its declaration and inspection provisions will help build a web of deterrence, detection, and possible sanctions that reduces the incentives for states to build chemical weapons. The then-Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. R. James Woolsey stated: The Chemical Weapons Convention provides the intelligence community with a new tool to add to our collection tool kit. It is an instrument with broad applicability, which can help resolve a wide variety of problems. Moreover, it is a universal tool which can be used by diplomats and politicians, as well as intelligence specialists, to further a common goal: elimination of the threat of chemical weapons. Mr. Woolsey also added: The isolation and adverse attention that nonsignatories will draw upon themselves may spur greater multinational cooperation in attempting to halt offensive chemical weapons programs. Secretary of State Christopher argued: No treaty is 100 percent verifiable, but the Convention is carefully structured so that Parties tempted to cheat will never be sure they can evade detection and sanctions. The sooner the Convention enters into force, the sooner those countries possessing or seeking chemical weapons will have to make a choice: abide by its provisions or suffer the weight of penalties and sanctions imposed by the international community. Secretary of Defense Perry stated: The Chemical Weapons Convention contains the most extensive verification provisions of any arms control regime. It consists of detailed declarations, routine inspections of declared sites and short notice challenge inspections. With its complementary and overlapping verification requirements, the Chemical Weapons Convention's regime provides the means to help deter a state party from violating the provisions of the Convention. Therefore, we are confident that activities such as the destruction of declared chemical weapons stocks and production facilities can be verified. We are confident that we will be able to detect large-scale production, filling and stockpiling of chemical weapons. With regard to the desire that the convention be truly global, I would point out that history demonstrates that well-conceived treaties, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention is, pick up parties over time and become worldwide in scope. That was certainly true of the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If we were to wait to join until all nations that caused us concern had joined, there is no question in my mind that the convention would be hobbled by our absence over a number of years. It is no threat to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea to say that we will not join the treaty until they do. Rather than our applying pressure on them, it is more likely that such a stance would be used by the rogue states to apply pressure to us. It makes far more sense to start out, as envisaged by the treaty, with a minimum of 65 states parties and build from that point and be in a position to apply effective international pressure upon rogue states to behave themselves and get into the treaty. Madam President, The Chemical Weapons Convention, if successful, will ban the production, acquisition, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. In it each State Party undertakes never, under any circumstances, to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone; Use chemical weapons; Engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons; and Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this convention. In addition each State Party undertakes, all in accordance with the provisions of the convention to destroy the chemical weapons it owns or possesses or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control; Destroy all chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party; and Destroy any chemical weapons production facilities it owns or possesses or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control. Finally, each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare. The Chemical Weapons Convention provides for both routine and challenge inspections to assist in the verification of compliance with the convention. Madam President, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I held six public hearings and three closed sessions of the committee in 1994. In those hearings, witnesses included Secretary of State Warren Christopher; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Shalikashvili; the Director of the United States Arms Control Association, John D. Holum; the U.S. negotiator for the convention, Ambassador Stephen J. Ledogar; the Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey; and other senior officers of the national security and foreign policy agencies of the executive branch. In addition, the committee received extensive testimony from a number of nongovernmental witnesses. We were very careful to receive testimony from critics, as well as supporters, of the treaty so that the committee and the Senate would be assured the opportunity to receive a balanced and reasoned judgment on the merits of the convention. Earlier this year, the committee held wrap-up hearings on the convention before marking up the treaty this spring. Both critics and supporters were heard. I and other supporters concluded following these final hearings that the United States would clearly benefit and could not suffer significant harm through joining the treaty and helping to ensure its success. On April 25, the committee voted by a 2-to-1 margin, 12 to 6, to approve a substitute resolution of ratification I offered with the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Lugar] we were joined as co-sponsors in this venture by Senators Kassebaum, Biden, Dodd, and Kerry. In our resolution, which was fully supported by the executive branch, we made every effort to identify areas of legitimate concern and to deal effectively with them. Madam President, I would hope that the resolution adopted by the committee with strong bipartisan support will help the Senate when it returns to consideration of this vitally important venture. Madam President, a number of concerns have been expressed regarding the possible effects on business of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Some fear that the convention would pose a new and onerous burden on businesses throughout the country. It is important to understand that industry representatives were involved throughout the course of the negotiation and worked carefully to ensure that the chemical weapons ban would be effective and that it would be quite manageable from the standpoint of business. Government officials also have been involved in efforts to ensure that implementation of the convention would constitute the smallest inconveniences possible. In that connection, I received a very informative letter today from the Honorable Michael Kantor, Secretary of Commerce, and Mr. Philip Lauder, the Administrator of the Small Business administration dealing with a number of misconceptions regarding the impact of the convention on small business. Also today, I received additional information in a letter from Mr. Frederick L. Webber, president and chief executive officer of the Chemical Manufacturers Association. I ask that the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.