Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Earlier I drew to my fellow Senators, attention a letter signed by 53 senior executives of the chemical industry in support of the convention. I ask unanimous consent that that August 29 letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. PELL. Lastly, I would like to make a matter of public record the widespread support the convention enjoys in the arms control community. I ask unanimous consent that a September 3 letter to me and my fellow Members urging approval of the Chemical Weapons Convention also be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. PELL. We cannot ignore now the fact that the Chemical Weapons Convention is an integral part of a continuum of arms control agreements that developed in the period since the Second World War. In that period we have embarked on undertakings that ban nuclear weapons in outer space, on the ocean floor, that limit nuclear weapons elsewhere in the world and have resulted in the removal, following deployment, of a whole class of nuclear missiles from Europe. The nations of the world have joined together in a truly global effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and they took advantage of the opportunity last year to extend the non-proliferation treaty indefinitely, without condition. We and the former Soviet Union forged ahead with a series of agreements limiting strategic offensive and defensive missiles and those agreements have now been broadened to include other successor states of the former Soviet Union. More than 2 decades ago the nations of the world agreed to ban biological weapons. With this agreement we are attempting to ban chemical weapons. The result of all this is certainly not a perfect world and all of our efforts are not completely successful. We know, for instance, that there are biological weapons in the world. We know that there will be chemical weapons in the world--even under this convention when ratified. We know that we cannot solve the world's woes immediately through such accords, but we can change the goals of the world and we can change the direction of the body of nations. With the Chemical Weapons Convention we will move away from a situation which those who wish to have chemical weapons are free to have them, if not to use them, to a new situation in which the responsible nations of the world will be doing their best to banish this class of weapons from the face of the Earth. The failure to take this could prove most unfortunate. A U.S. decision not to join the Chemical Weapons Convention would not stop it from entering into force, but would surely undermine the effectiveness of the treaty and would be harmful to critically important U.S. interests in identifying and dealing with chemical weapons threats in various parts of the world. It is not in our interest to be on the outside looking in as the Chemical Weapons Convention is set up. Madam President, this convention enjoys the support of a number of Republican Senators and has virtually unanimous Senate Democratic support. I hope that the Senate will wisely return to consideration of this convention at an opportune and early moment. There is no question in my mind that we will pay a price for today's regrettably necessary decision. We can hope that the opportunity will return to get the United States back on track with regard to a chemical weapons ban. Exhibit 1 The Secretary of Commerce, Washington, DC, September 12, 1996. Hon. Claiborne Pell, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Pell: We are writing to clarify a number of misconceptions regarding the impact of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on small business. Contrary to a number of allegations, the CWC will not impose a burdensome reporting requirement on small businesses nor will it subject them to a frequent and intrusive regime of international inspections. The Administration estimates that about 2000 firms will be required to submit a data declaration. The reporting burden on smaller chemical companies will focus mainly on producers of ``Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemicals'' (carbon compounds). The vast majority of these--some 1800-1900-- firms, many of which are smaller companies, will only be required to submit annual reports that identify aggregate production ranges (e.g., this plant site produced over 10,000 metric tons of Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemicals last year.) They will not be required to identify the specific chemicals that were produced. Previously, the Administration had estimated that more companies would be required to submit a data declaration. However, additional analysis indicated that many did not cross the CWC production threshold for reporting. Further, administrative exemptions at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] will be crafted to exclude entire industries from reporting--biomediated processes (such as certain beverages) and polymers (such as plastics used in football helmets). In addition, plant sites that exclusively produce hydrocarbons (e.g. propane and ethylene) are completely excluded from any reporting requirements. This ``Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemicals'' data declaration does not require any information regarding imports, exports, usage or processing. We estimate that it will take a few hours to complete this ``Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemical'' form the first time. Subsequent annual reporting should be much more simple and take less time. No manufacturer of ``Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemicals'' will be subject to a routine inspection during the first three years. After three years, OPCW will address the issue of inspections for manufacturers of ``Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemicals''. It is unlikely that many of these producers would ever be inspected. We anticipate that there will be very few challenge inspections and the prospect for a challenge inspection of a small producer of ``Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemicals'' is remote indeed. It is likely that whatever challenge inspection requests are issued will be directed at military facilities. These facilities are well prepared to protect classified and other sensitive information. In this regard, we want to make it clear that the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) and its 260 members support ratification of the CWC. SOCMA's member companies are typically small businesses with fewer than 50 employees and less than $50 million in annual sales. Further, in a joint statement issued on September 10, 1996, SOCMA, the Chemical Manufacturers Association [CMA] and the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers Association [PHARMA] noted that ``We urge the Senate to support this historic arms control agreement, and the prompt passage of the accompanying implementing legislation.'' In short, the industry that will be affected by the CWC has taken a strong position in support of Senate ratification. We urge you to listen to their advice and ratify this important treaty. Sincerely, Michael Kantor, Secretary of Commerce. Philip Lader, Administrator, Small Business Administration. Exhibit 2 Chemical Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA, September 9, 1996. Hon. Claiborne Pell, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Pell: As the Senate prepares to consider the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), questions have been raised about the impact of the treaty on the commercial chemical industry in the United States. I want to reassure you that the U.S. chemical industry unequivocally supports this Convention. As I stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on numerous occasions, the Chemical Manufacturers Association [CMA] has carefully reviewed the impact of the CWC on industry. We tested the CWC's reporting and inspections obligations. We balanced the costs and benefits of this treaty, and found that the benefits far outweigh the costs. The CWC will require approximately 2,000 commercial facilities in the United States to report on their activities. More than 90 percent of those facilities will only need to file a simple two-page form, once a year with the government. A second, smaller group of 200 facilites will have more detailed reporting requirements, and may be subject to on-site inspections. CMA's members worked closely with the government in drafting the reporting forms, and in two separate ``road tests'' of the reporting system, reported that the system was indeed reasonable. CMA members also helped craft the inspection procedures under the Convention. Those procedures have been tested in commercial facilities in the United States, to favorable reviews. The second category of affected facilities are those that produce commercial chemicals that can be diverted into weapons production. It is important to note that even these facilities have significant protections under the CWC, such as the ability to negotiate how inspections are conducted, and the ability to protect sensitive trade secrets. Companies affected by these provisions have tested the draft U.S. reporting forms, and even offered their facilities to test inspection procedures. They reported to CMA that the CWC's benefits far out-weighed the comparatively smaller cost of implementation. We are confident that between CMA and the other national trade associations with whom we have worked (including the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, among others), the overwhelming majority of companies that have possible CWC-related obligations know and understand their responsibilities. The Senate should not learn belatedly about the implications of the Convention for business, and business should not learn belatedly about its obligations under the Convention. That is why education and outreach has been one of our major goals on the CWC. That is why we have worked cosely with the U.S. and other governments to focus the Convention on those facilities that may pose a risk to the goal of a world free from chemical weapons. For your further information, I have enclosed a copy of my May 9, 1996 letter that was sent to all senators, which details the commercial impact of the CWC. The American chemical industry fully supports this treaty. Senator, I urge you to vote in favor of the Chemical Weapons Convention. If you have any questions concerning the chemical industry's support for the CWC, please have your staff contact me or Claude Boudrias, Legislative Representative for Trade & Tax at 703/741-5915 Sincerely, Frederick L. Webber, President & CEO. Exhibit 3 August 29, 1996. Hon. Claiborne Pell, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Pell: The undersigned senior executives of chemical companies urge your vote in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC], and quick Senate action on legislation to implement this important treaty. The chemical industry has long supported the CWC. Our industry participated in negotiating the agreement, and in U.S. and international implementation efforts. The treaty contains substantial protections for confidential business information [CBI]. We know, because industry helped to draft the CBI provisions. Chemical companies also help test the draft CWC reporting system, and we tested the on-site inspection procedures that will help verify compliance with the treaty. In short, our industry has thoroughly examined and tested this Convention. We have concluded that the benefits of the CWC far outweigh the costs. Indeed, the real price to pay would come from not ratifying the CWC. The treaty calls for strict restrictions on trade with nations which are not party to the Convention. The chemical industry is America's largest export industry, posting $60 billion in export sales last year. But our industry's status as the world's preferred supplier of chemical products may be jeopardized if the U.S. does not ratify the Convention. If the Senate does not vote in favor of the CWC, we stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in overseas sales, putting at risk thousands of good-paying American jobs. The U.S. chemical industry has spent more than 15 years working on this agreement, and we long ago decided that ratifying the CWC is the right thing to do. We urge you to vote in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Sincerely, J. Lawrence Wilson, Chairman & CEO, Rohm and Has Company, Chairman, Board of Directors, Chemical Manufacturers Association. Alan R. Hirsig, President & CEO, ARCO Chemical Company, Chairman, Executive Committee, Chemical Manufacturers Association. H.A. Wagner, Chairman, President & CEO, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. D.J. D'Antoni, President, Ashland Chemical Company. Helge H. Wehmeier, President & CEO, Bayer Corporation. John D. Ong, Chairman & CEO, The BFGoodrich Company. Robert R. Mesel, President, BP Chemicals, Inc. Charles M. Donohue, Vice President, Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. J. Dieter Stein, Chairman & CEO, BASF Corporation. W.R. Cook, Chairman, President & CEO, Betz Dearborn, Inc. Joseph M. Saggese, President & CEO, Borden Chemicals & Plastics, LP. Dr. Aziz I. Asphahani, President & CEO, Carus Chemical Company. Vincent A. Calarco, Chairman, President & CEO, Crompton & Knowles Corporation. Richard A. Hazleton, Chairman & CEO, Dow Corning Corporation. Howard J. Rudge, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company. Richard G. Fanelli, President & CEO, Enthone-OMI Inc. J.E. Akitt, Executive Vice President, Exxon Chemical Company. William S. Stavropoulos, President & CEO, The Dow Chemical Company. Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr., Chairman of the Board & CEO, Eastman Chemical Company. Bernard Azoulay, President & CEO, Elf Atochem North America. Bruce C. Gottwald, CEO, Ethyl Corporation. Ron W. Haddock, President & CEO, FINA, Inc. Robert N. Burt, Chairman & CEO, FMC Corporation. Otto Furuta, V.P. Global Logistics & Materials, Management, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. R. Keith Elliott, President & COO, Hercules, Inc. Hans C. Noetzli, President & CEO, Lonza Inc. Robert G. Potter, Executive Vice President, Monsanto Company. Dr. William L. Orton, Senior Vice President, Chemical Operations, Givaudan-Roure Corporation. Michael R. Boyce, President & COO, Harris Chemical Group. Thomas F. Kennedy, President & CEO, Hoechst Celanese Corporation. Mack G. Nichols, President & COO, Mallinckrodt Group, Inc. S. Jay Stewart, Chairman & CEO, Morton International, Inc. E.J. Mooney, Chairman & CEO, Nalco Chemical Company. Jeffrey M. Lipton, President, NOVA Corporation. Donald W. Griffin, Chairman, President & CEO, Olin Corporation. Peter R. Heinze, Senior Vice President, Chemicals, PPG Industries, Inc. Phillip D. Ashkettle, President & CEO, Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. Ronald L. Spraetz, V.P., External Affairs & Quality, National Starch & Chemical Company. J. Roger Hirl, President & CEO, Occidental Chemical Corporation. David Wolf, President, Perstorp Polyols, Inc. Ronald H. Yocum, Chairman, President & CEO, Quantum Chemical Company. Thomas E. Reilly, Jr., Chairman, Reilly Industries, Inc. Peter J. Neff, President & CEO, Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. Nicholas P. Trainer, President, Sartomer Company. J. Virgil Waggoner, President & CEO, Sterling Chemicals, Inc. W.H. Joyce, Chairman, President & CEO, Union Carbide Corporation. Arthur R. Sigel, President & CEO, Velsicol Chemical Corporation. Roger K. Price, Senior V.P., Mining & Manufacturing, R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. F. Quinn Stepan, Chairman & President, Stepan Company. William H. Barlow, Vice President, Business Development, Texas Brine Corporation. Robert J. Mayaika, President, CEO & Chairman, Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. John Wilkinson, Director of Government Affairs, Vulcan Chemicals. Albert J. Costello, Chairman, President & CEO, W.R. Grace & Company.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, the recent shooting of two young Greek Cypriots and a Turkish Cypriot soldier have raised tension on Cyprus to a higher level than has been experienced in many years. These events demonstrate that the status quo of foreign occupation and forcible division of the island is unacceptable and dangerous to peace and stability in the area. Above all, the recent killings highlight the need to demilitarize Cyprus as a first step toward achieving a just and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem. Last fall, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution calling for demilitarization and it was subsequently approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The need for demilitarization is even greater now than it was last year. Neither demilitarization nor a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem will occur, however, unless Turkey demonstrates the political will and flexibility to arrive at a compromise solution to the division of Cyprus. In order for that to happen, the United States and its European allies must make a concerted effort to convince Turkey that an end to the division of Cyprus is in everyone's security interest. The Ambassador of Cyprus in Washington, Andrew J. Jacovides, has very persuasively laid out the case for such an effort in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post that was published on September 9. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of his letter be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, under a unanimous consent agreement, the Senate has obligated itself to consider the Chemical Weapons Convention later this week. The timing is fortuitous. Getting the Senate to this point has taken much longer than was needed or one would have hoped, but, if the Senate does indeed decide this week to consent to the ratification of the convention, we will be in on the setting up of the organizations required by the convention--a conference of all the states parties, a 41-member executive council, and a technical secretariat, which will be the international body responsible for conducting verification activities. As of this point, 62 nations have ratified the convention. The convention will enter into force l80 days after it gains the 65th party. If the Senate acts now, our action will enable us to be in on every aspect of the setting up of the convention. Moreover, we will surely bring others with us and, thus, help ensure widespread adherence to the treaty and do much to ensure its effectiveness. This treaty represents a serious and important step in our continuing effort to curb and to end the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction to us, our friends and allies, and to the world. The Chemical Weapons Convention, when it enters into force, 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. It is very important that we be involved every step of the way. Particularly important is our involvement in a leading role during the l80-day period when so much is done to prepare for the entry into force of the treaty. Simply put, during this crucial period for the treaty, we simply cannot afford to be on the outside looking in. If we stay out, we will have no say over the activities of the governing body. We will not be involved in the establishment of the inspection regime, which, if done as envisaged, could be very important in providing information as to the presence or absence, worldwide, of chemical weapons programs. If we are not a party, we will certainly avoid having the minor inconvenience of international inspections in our country, but at the price of having no expert Americans on inspection teams worldwide looking for illicit chemical weapons activity. These would be major prices to pay for failure to participate in this important undertaking. There is another major price to be made if we do not become a party. Our failure to join the treaty would constitute a major body blow to our critically important chemical industry, which supports ratification in overwhelming numbers. The problem that failure to ratify would cause for the industry was put clearly to the Committee on Foreign Relations by the president of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Mr. Frederick Webber, who said: Mr. Chairman, honest businesses have nothing to fear from this treaty. On the contrary, the real price to pay is for not taking action. The United States, as I am sure you know, is the world's preferred supplier of chemical products. Chemical exports, last year, topped $60 billion. Indeed, we are the leading exporting industry in America. Those exports, that $60 billion figure, sustained 240,000 high-paying American jobs throughout the land. That makes us the nation's largest exporter. More than 10 cents of every export dollar is a product of the chemical industry. We are a fast, reliable, high-quality supplier to customers in every corner of the globe. But we could lose that distinction, we could lose it if the U.S. does not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Convention sharply restricts trade in chemicals with countries who are not parties to the treaty. If the Senate does not ratify, our customers will cut us off. They will drop us, and find other suppliers. Unfortunately, we will be lumped in the same categories as nations like Libya, Iraq, and North Korea. We do not believe this is an acceptable option. The critics like to say that this treaty imposes too many burdens on business. They say that opening our plants to inspections will mean forfeit our most important trade secrets. It is a good story, if it were true, but it is not. Yes, the Convention does open our plants to inspection. But it also offers state-of-the-art protections for confidential business information. This treaty will not reveal our secrets. Indeed, it will protect them. We know, because we helped develop the inspection system. Then we put the system to the test over and over again. We learned what works and what does not. We found the gaps, and we believe that we have plugged them. Mr. Chairman, let me cut to the bottom line. The benefits of this inspection system far outweigh the costs. The rewards outweigh the risks. The treaty may not provide an iron-clad guarantee that chemical weapons will not ever again be a threat, but it does have teeth. It will provide a real deterrent. It is the best available option. The Convention strikes a balance. It is tough, but it is fair. It is intrusive, but it is not stifling. It asks a lot, but in return, it offers a significant reduction in the threat of chemical weapons. Mr. President, I find the points raised by industry and the issue of U.S. involvement in activities that really are at the heart of our national interests to constitute in themselves compelling reasons for us to be very, very careful before giving any serious thought to a turning down of this treaty. Today and over the next several days, I'm sure that Senators will be bombarded with arguments for and against this treaty. I would like to draw my fellow Senators attention to a very thoughtful analysis provided the committee by Dr. Brad Roberts this year. Dr. Roberts, who has spent a considerable time assessing issues related to the treaty, spoke in full recognition of some of the concerns that have been raised. He said: In sum then, the CWC certainly is not perfect, and anybody who has told you it is, is blowing smoke. The relevant question for this committee, though, is simply: Is it good enough? Is the treaty in the national interest? If you believe, as I do, that it is better to narrow the proliferation threat, than to let it spiral out of control, which is where it is headed, that the only chemical weapons that matter to the United States are those that pose real military threats, that it is better to share verification and compliance tasks and to have on-site access, than to go it alone on these matters, that it is better to add relatively modest regulatory burdens to industry than to jeopardize its long-term competitiveness, that it is better to create more tools to deal with the proliferation threat of the post-Cold War than to have fewer, and if you agree that it is better to share the burden of managing this problem than to saddle the United States alone, then support the CWC. It is not perfect, but it is largely up to us to define and manage its risks through our military programs, our anti- chemical protection systems, our own national verification capabilities, a task that is far easier than coping with the risks of a world of much broader chemical and perhaps biological proliferation, and the difficult challenges that would result to U.S. interests, capabilities, and leadership. Mr. President, I know my fellow Senators will weigh this treaty very carefully before deciding how they wish to vote. I deeply believe that a positive vote is the correct one for our national interests. I hope very much that most of my fellow Senators will reach the same conclusion.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a most insightful address on religious tolerance and freedom delivered by Radm James R. Stark, president of the Naval War College, at Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI on August 25. Admiral Stark has had a distinguished career, serving our Nation with great dedication and a strong commitment to the enduring principles upon which our country was founded. His address exemplified the principles of George Washington now memorialized today on the 30-cent stamp issued in August 1982 to commemorate the Touro Synagogue: ``To bigotry no sanctions. To persecution no assistance.'' These same words were in George Washington's letter to Moses Seixas and the Touro Synagogue community. Let me share Admiral Stark's concluding remarks: Today, we have the opportunity to rejoice in the success of the Touro congregation to be treated like any other citizens, and to celebrate in the wisdom of George Washington and the other founding fathers, who realized that our diversity did not have to breed hate and suspicion and discrimination, that our ``unlikeness'' did not prevent us from being good citizens in a society of mutual trust, and respect, and consideration. Rather than being a weakness, America's diversity has become our strength. I ask unanimous consent that Admiral Stark's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, under a previous unanimous consent agreement, the Senate is scheduled to consider and complete action before the end of next week on the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Convention bans the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. It includes detailed verification provisions. It was negotiated in the Reagan and Bush administrations and was based largely on a text personally presented to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva by then Vice President Bush. The convention represents a significant advance beyond the only existing constraint on chemical weapons, the 1929 Geneva Protocol, which only bans the use of such weapons in war. Earlier today, several Members expressed concern with regard to the convention. I am sure that those concerns and any others that Members may have will be raised and addressed in detail next week during the total of 12 hours agreed upon for consideration of the treaty. I personally favor very much ratification of the treaty. I reached that judgment following extensive hearings I chaired in 1994 while chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Additional hearings have been held this year under the chairmanship of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and, as a result, the Committee has been able to consider a broad range of issues and, in my view, resolve them quite satisfactorily. The Clinton administration strongly supports the treaty as settled upon during the Bush administration. In its efforts to inform the Senate, I am told that the administration has responded to over 300 Senate questions on the treaty and has responded in detail to inquiries made by members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and others. The administration's responses include over 1,500 pages of information on the Chemical Weapons Convention--over 300 pages of testimony, over 500 pages of answers to Senate letters and reports, over 400 pages of answers to Senate questions for the treaty record, and over 300 pages of additional documentation. During the August recess the White House held a series of briefings for Senate staffers. This coming Monday at 4 p.m. in S-407 senior administration officials will meet with all Senators in S-407 to discuss the treaty. This will allow all Members an opportunity to assess first-hand the arguments for the treaty and to raise any questions they have. I hope that any Senator with the slightest concern will avail him or herself of the chance to have concerns addressed directly. As we prepare for formal consideration I thought it would be helpful to my fellow Members to consider a letter I received this afternoon from the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Anthony Lake, addressing in detail some of the questions that have been raised regarding the treaty. The letter included an enclosure, a portion of which is classified, which is available in committee offices for interested Members. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lake's letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, there is no question that this convention enjoys the overwhelming support of the Nation's chemical industries. On August 29, I and other Senators received a letter strongly endorsing the convention and arguing for Senate consent to ratification. This letter was authored by senior officials of a number of significant corporations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter also be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I look forward to the debate on the convention when it comes before the Senate next week. Exhibit 1 The White House, Washington, September 5, 1996. Dear Senator Pell: As we continue to prepare for the Senate's floor debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) two weeks from now, I want to share with you the basic points we have made recently in responding to certain concerns that have been raised by the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Helms has questioned whether Russia will ever ratify the CWC. As you are aware, the Russian Government has formally stated its commitment to become a party to the CWC, as recently as July 22 of this year at the Plenary meeting of the CWC Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) in The Hague. In this same statement, the Russian Government announced that it is seeking the speedy submission of the Convention to the Russian parliament for ratification. In my view, the recent Russian statement in The Hague, which mentioned the issue of entry into force, does not reflect an intention to distance Russia from the CWC, but rather a concern about being left behind. In these circumstances, I believe that the best way to promote Russian ratification is to proceed with our own ratification, as has been done by all of our major NATO allies and many others, and to bring the CWC into force as soon as possible while, at the same time, trying to address Russian concerns in a manner consistent with our own interests. We have forthrightly told the Russians that we believe that prompt entry into force of the Convention is crucial to the fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against terrorism. Consequently, we have informed them that we are moving forward with our own ratification and have urged that they continue to proceed ahead with their effort as well. The Russians have clearly stated that the central problem they face regarding the CWC is financing the cost of their CW destruction program. While requesting international assistance, the Russians have also made it clear, most recently in their Plenary Statement in The Hague, that the program will be financed primarily by Russia itself. We and other countries have indicated our willingness to address this outstanding concern on an expedited basis, but we have continued to underscore to the Russians that CW destruction is primarily their responsibility and that any U.S. assistance is contingent upon approval by the U.S. Congress. Senator Helms has also raised concerns with regard to the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement (BDA). The Russian Federation, as you know, has long expressed concerns about certain aspects of this agreement and has not agreed to detailed implementing procedures and updated provisions to finalize the BDA. We continue to press the Russians at the highest levels on the need to resolve the outstanding CW issues, and they agreed to a meeting with ACDA Director Holum, which was held on August 10. They also agreed to host a visit to Volgograd later this fall to address specifically the issue of conversion of production facilities. While the Russians have stated that they believe that the bilateral agreements between Russia and the United States have fulfilled their useful role, they have also stated that they will not renege on the agreements they have made. As for the Chairman's specific concerns about the possible consequences of Russian withdrawal from the BDA, I would point out that if the BDA is not in force when the CWC is implemented, Russian chemical weapons elimination will still be subject to systematic verification under the CWC, although that would be performed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), instead of the United States. It is important to remember that, in contrast to the CWC, the BDA does not require total destruction of CW stocks nor does it provide a multilateral framework including challenge inspections for addressing compliance concerns. As you may recall, the President informed the Senate in 1993 in transmittal of the CWC that, while the BDA was an important agreement in its own right, it has become less relevant than it was in 1990 because the CWC has been completed and that final agreement on the BDA should not delay submission of the CWC to the Senate. Some have the impression that Russia is ``withdrawing'' from the 1989 Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding. This agreement has been implemented in two phases. During the first phase, the two sides exchanged general information on their chemical weapons stockpiles and production and storage facilities and carried out reciprocal visits to relevant military and civilian facilities. During the second phase, the two sides exchanged the detailed information on their stockpiles and chemical weapons facilities and carried out a number of inspections at declared chemical weapons production, storage and development facilities, including challenge inspections of such facilities. While Russia has met its obligations to participate in implementation activities under the Memorandum of Understanding, questions remain regarding certain aspects of the Russian data. We are continuing to press the Russians at the highest levels on the need to resolve these outstanding CW issues. In any case, I have stressed to Senator Helms that the Administration is prepared to actively pursue concerns regarding the veracity of any State Party's reporting under the CWC, since the provision of accurate declaration information is a fundamental obligation essential to the effective implementation of the Convention. The Administration also continues to believe that prompt entry into force of the CWC will provide the necessary tools to deal effectively with these issues, including a basis for punitive measures or sanctions in response to noncompliance. Finally, we have carefully considered the Chairman's request for declassification of any documents and cables pertaining to bilateral discussions with Russia. As you know, it is our standard practice to make relevant classified information available to the Senate through classified briefings and reports. The Administration has provided the Senate with numerous briefings and reports of this sort since November 23, 1993, when the President submitted the CWC with a request for its prompt consideration. I informed Senator Helms that I regretted that we cannot declassify the requested documents, because they have been properly classified pursuant to E.O. 12958 and because disclosure of the information they contain could seriously undermine ongoing diplomatic activities. The Administration is eager, however, to assist the Senate in developing a complete record for its consideration prior to floor action on the Chemical Weapons Convention, as stated in the June 28, 1996 unanimous consent agreement pertaining to the Convention. Therefore, I made clear to the Chairman that we are prepared to make appropriate officials available to Senators and cleared staff to brief on those documents under appropriate classification at the earliest date. We look forward to Senate advice and consent to the CWC by September 14. Enclosed please find the detailed answers we provided the Chairman in response to the questions he had recently raised. Sincerely, Anthony Lake, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Exhibit 2 August 29, 1996. Hon. Claiborne Pell, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Pell: The undersigned senior executives of chemical companies urge your vote in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and quick Senate action on legislation to implement this important treaty. The chemical industry has long supported the CWC. Our industry participated in negotiating the agreement, and in U.S. and international implementation efforts. The treaty contains substantial protections for confidential business information (CBI). We know, because industry helped to draft the CBI provisions. Chemical companies also help test the draft CWC reporting system, and we tested the on-site inspection procedures that will help verify compliance with the treaty. In short, our industry has thoroughly examined and tested this Convention. We have concluded that the benefits of the CWC far outweigh the costs. Indeed, the real price to pay would come from not ratifying the CWC. The treaty calls for strict restrictions on trade with nations which are not party to the Convention. The chemical industry is America's largest export industry, posting $60 billion in export sales last year. But our industry's status as the world's preferred supplier of chemical products may be jeopardized if the U.S. does not ratify the Convention. If the Senate does not vote in favor of the CWC, we stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in overseas sales, putting at risk thousands of good-paying American jobs. The U.S. chemical industry has spent more than 15 years working on this agreement, and we long ago decided that ratifying the CWC is the right thing to do. We urge you to vote in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Sincerely, J. Lawrence Wilson, Chairman & CEO, Rohm and Has Company, Chairman, Board of Directors, Chemical Manufacturers Association; Alan R. Hirsig, President & CEO, ARCO Chemical Company, Chairman, Executive Committee, Chemical Manufacturers Association; H.A. Wagner, Chairman, President & CEO, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.; D.J. D'Antoni, President, Ashland Chemical Company; Helge H. Wehmeier, President & CEO, Bayer Corporation; John D. Ong, Chairman & CEO, The BFGoodrich Company; Robert R. Mesel, President, BP Chemicals, Inc.; Charles M. Donohue, Vice President, Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.; J. Dieter Stein, Chairman & CEO, BASF Corporation; W.R. Cook, Chairman, President & CEO, Betz Dearborn, Inc.; Joseph M. Saggese, President & CEO, Borden Chemicals & Plastics, LP; Dr. Aziz I. Asphahani, President & CEO, Carus Chemical Company; Vincent A. Calarco, Chairman, President & CEO, Cromption & Knowles Corporation; Richard A. Hazleton, Chairman & CEO, Dow Corning Corporation; Howard J. Rudge, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company; Richard G. Fanelli, President & CEO, Enthone-OMI Inc.; J.E. Akitt, Executive Vice President, Exxon Chemical Company; William S. Stavropoulos, President & CEO, The Dow Chemical Company; Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr., Chairman of the Board & CEO, Eastman Chemical Company; Bernard Azoulay, President & CEO, Elf Atochem North America; Bruce C. Gottwald, CEO, Ethyl Corporation; Ron W. Haddock, President & CEO, FINA, Inc.; Robert N. Burt, Chairman & CEO, FMC Corporation; Otto Furuta, V.P. Global Logistics & Materials Management, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation; R. Keith Elliott, President & CEO, Hercules, Inc.; Hans C. Noetzli, President & CEO, Lonza, Inc.; Robert G. Potter, Executive Vice President, Monsanto Company; Dr. William L. Orton, Senior Vice President, Chemical Operations, Givaudan- Roure Corporation; Michael R. Boyce, President & COO, Harris Chemical Group; Thomas F. Kennedy, President & CEO, Hoechst Celanese Corporation; Mack G. Nichols, President & COO, Mallinckrodt Group, Inc.; S. Jay Steward, Chairman & CEO, Morton International, Inc. E.J. Mooney, Chairman & CEO, Nalco Chemical Company; Jeffrey M. Lipton, President, NOVA Corporation; Donald W. Griffin, Chairman, President & CEO, Olin Corporation; Peter R. Heinze, Senior Vice President, Chemicals, PPG Industries, Inc.; Phillip D. Ashkettle, President & CEO, Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.; Ronald L. Spraetz, V.P., External Affairs & Quality, National Starch & Chemical Company; J. Roger Hirl, President & CEO, Occidental Chemical Corporation; David Wolf, President, Perstorp Polyols, Inc.; Ronald H. Yocum, Chairman, President & CEO, Quantum Chemical Company; Thomas E. Reilly, Jr., Chairman, Reilly Industries, Inc.; Peter J. Neff, President & CEO, Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.; Nicholas P. Trainer, President, Sartomer Company; J. Virgil Waggoner, President & CEO, Sterling Chemicals, Inc.; W.H. Joyce, Chairman, President & CEO, Union Carbide Corporation; Arthur R. Sigel, President & CEO, Velsicol Chemical Corporation; Roger K. Price, Senior V.P., Mining & Manufacturing, R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc; F. Quinn Stepan, Chairman & President, Stepan Company; William H. Barlow, Vice President, Business Development, Texas Brine Corporation; Robert J. Mayaika, President, CEO & Chairman, Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc.; John Wilkinson, Director of Government Affairs, Vulcan Chemicals; Albert J. Costello, Chairman, President & CEO, W.R. Grace & Company.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I know we all have been saddened in recent days by reports of rioting and violence in Indonesia. Last weekend, the government cracked down on a political opposition group in Jakarta. Supporters of that group took to the street in protest and as a result, several people have been killed and over 200 arrested. The crackdown has reportedly been widened to include other known political activists including Muchtar Pakpahan, the head of the Indonesian Labor Welfare Union. We also read this week that the military commander in Jakarta ordered his troops to ``shoot on the spot'' any protestors who are seen to be threatening the peace, a particularly disturbing development. I would urge the government in Jakarta to seek to negotiate and to work with the opposition forces in a peaceful manner, rather than calling on the military to quell any protests. This is the same approach I suggest in the report of my visit to Indonesia 2 months ago. The root of the current problems is, I believe, the lack of an open political system in Indonesia. Two token legal opposition parties are allowed to exist, but they have little influence over policy. They cannot seriously challenge the ruling Golkar party. The current political and electoral systems are designed such that Golkar is assured of retaining power. But in the most recent parliamentary elections in 1992, Golkar unexpectedly lost a percentage of the parliamentary seats. Hoping for a trend, the two opposition parties were beginning to talk of making greater gains in the parliamentary elections scheduled for next year, although observers never thought either was likely to take the majority. This talk upset the government. Even though retaining ultimate political control was never in question, the government has reacted to even a slight loss in that control by calling on the military. The government is centering its efforts on the Indonesian Democracy Party--or PDI--led by Megawati Sukarnoputri, the daughter of Indonesia's first president, Sukarno. Megawati had begun a very visible campaign in preparation for the parliamentary elections next year and indicated that she might challenge President Suharto in the presidential elections in 1998, a first for Suharto who has always been unopposed. In what appears to be a nervous reaction, the government allegedly orchestrated a coup within the PDI to force Megawati out of her leadership position. Her supporters took over the PDI headquarters and refused to leave until the military took over the headquarters this past weekend. President Suharto has done much that is good for his country. Indonesia's population control program, for example, is a model for the developing world. The country's economic development has been admirable and many U.S. companies benefit from their investments throughout the archipelago. But as the country has grown and developed economically, it comes as no surprise that certain elements of Indonesian society now want their country to grow and develop politically as well. The government's current approach to the threat of a serious political challenge--to arrange for Megawati's overthrow within her party, blame the riots on virtually extinct communist sympathizers, and threaten to shoot any protestors--I believe will both hamper Indonesia's continued economic development and cause great harm to our bilateral relationship. Internally, the Indonesian currency and stock market are beginning to fall. For several months now the U.S. Government has considered selling F- 16s to the Indonesian military. In light of the events in Jakarta, I urge the administration to rethink the wisdom of this sale. My own view is that we should not rush forward with a high-technology, glamorous weapon sale to a foreign military that is threatening to shoot peaceful protestors in the street. I am encouraged, Mr. President, by some signs that the administration is considering holding off on this sale. Indonesia is poised to be one of the region's most important and influential countries. President Suharto has the chance now to accelerate that process by allowing for Indonesia's transition to modern political governance. He could follow the model of Taiwan, which transformed itself from a single-party, authoritarian regime to a thriving multi-party democracy without violence. Indonesia is more than ready to allow full-fledged, active opposition voices to publicly make their case to the people. I would urge the Indonesian Government to call back its military, deal peacefully with the opposition, and show the world it is indisputably ready for the 21st century.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the United States will shortly become one of the first and perhaps the first Nation to ratify the Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement. This agreement was approved by the Senate on June 27. I am very pleased that prompt Senate action on the Agreement enabled the United States to continue its leadership on international fisheries issues. The agreement will significantly advance our efforts to improve fisheries management. In effect, it endorses the U.S. approach to fisheries management and reflects the acceptance by other nations of the need to manage fisheries in a precautionary and sustainable manner. That being said, Mr. President, in advising and consenting to ratification of the Straddling Stocks Agreement, the Senate's work is only partially done. Having approved the Straddling Stocks Agreement, the next logical step for this body is to consider and pass the treaty which provides the foundation for the agreement, namely the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. My purpose today is to highlight the connections between the two and to underscore the many benefits that will accrue to the United States if the Senate grants its advice and consent to ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention, a step that should have been taken long since, and I hope will come about shortly. Prima facia evidence for the tight linkage between the Law of the Sea Convention and Straddling Stocks Agreement is found in the latter's title, the ``Agreement for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to Fish Stocks.'' Clearly, the Agreement was negotiated on the foundation established in the Law of the Sea Convention. The connection between the two is made explicit in Article 4 of the agreement which stipulates that the agreement ``shall be interpreted and applied in the context of and in a manner consistent with the Convention.'' Further, Part VIII of the agreement provides that disputes arising under the agreement be settled through the convention's dispute settlement provisions. Indeed, the Law of the Sea Convention establishes a framework to govern the use of the world's oceans that reflects almost entirely U.S. views on ocean policy. Can the United States become a party to the agreement, but remain outside the Law of the Sea Convention? The answer is yes. The more important question is: Does this best serve U.S. interests? The answer to that question is no. Only by becoming a party to the Law of the Sea Convention can the United States maximize its potential gain from the agreement and protect its fisheries interests. One way to do this is to ensure that U.S. views on fisheries management are represented on the Law the Sea Tribunal. That is the body which settles disputes arising under the agreement, and it is established in the Law of the Sea Convention. Not surprisingly, in order to nominate a judge to the tribunal, the United States must become a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. A second way to ensure that U.S. gains are maximized is to ensure that our country's views on fisheries management are well represented in the convention processes themselves. To do this, we must be a party to the convention. The Straddling Stocks Agreement's provisions are to be applied in light of the convention. As the convention itself is an evolving, living document, the United States must be part of the dialogue that will affect not only the Straddling Stocks Agreement, but other oceans management policy. Mr. President, there are sound reasons for the United States to become a party to the Law of the Sea Convention in order to enhance the benefits of the Straddling Stocks Agreement. There are, however, reasons to become a party to the Law of the Sea Convention far beyond the connection with the Straddling Stocks Agreement. Indeed, I have always held the view that the strength of the Law of the Sea Convention lies in the multiplicity of interests that it protects and enhances for the United States. It is precisely because the convention addresses our Nation's broad range of interests so comprehensively that the United States has so much to gain by becoming a party. Indeed, I believe there is no action that the Senate can take before the end of this session that would have greater long term benefits for the world as a whole than to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The implications for world peace are enormous; the potential for trade and development is equally far-reaching. I hope this will not be caught up in a spate of politics as usual, but will be seen in the framework of a renewed commitment to bipartisanship in foreign policy. The old saying was that ``politics stops at the water's edge.'' That would be an apt motto for our consideration of Law of the Sea, since its scope begins precisely at the water's edge. Perhaps more than any other nation, the United States has a broad range of interests in the oceans and their uses. We are the world's predominant sea power. The United States Navy operates on a global scale and has vital interests in seeing the convention's provisions on freedom of navigation implemented. The Air Force too shares many of these interests. We are also a maritime nation, Mr. President. Fully 95 percent of U.S. export and import trade tonnage moves by sea, with direct repercussions for American workers' jobs. The United States is also a coastal nation--we have one of the longest coastlines in the world--with strong interests in the sound use of resources on our continental shelf. Mr. President, I think it is useful to remind my colleagues that, more than 20 years ago, the United States was a driving force in initiating the negotiations that produced the Law of the Sea Convention. At that time, the Navy in particular was concerned about other nations' ever increasing maritime jurisdictional claims. To address this problem, the Department of Defense sought a treaty that would set out as a matter of international law a regime to govern such claims. Given this history, it is more than a little ironic that the United States ultimately led efforts to block adoption of the convention upon conclusion of negotiations in 1982. In my view, while the convention's critics raised some legitimate concerns regarding provisions related to deep seabed mining, they allowed these concerns to blind them to the overriding benefits the convention would confer on the United States. Moreover, all of these concerns have now been addressed in the recently negotiated agreement on deep seabed mining. I would like to recount those benefits for my colleagues' information. First and foremost, the convention enhances U.S. national security. Remember, Mr. President, that this was the original driving force behind U.S. participation in the convention. The convention establishes, as a matter of international law, freedom of navigation rights that are critical to our military forces. In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, Admiral Center stated, The Convention strongly underpins the worldwide mobility America's forces need. It provides a more stable legal basis for governing the world's oceans. It reduces the need to fall back on potentially volatile mixture of customary practice and gunboat diplomacy. The need to protect freedom of navigation is not merely a theoretical issue. There have been recent situations where even U.S. allies denied our Armed Forces transit rights in times of need. Such an instance was the 1973 Yom Kippur war when our ability to resupply Israel was critically dependent on transit rights through the Strait of Gibraltar. Again in 1986, U.S. aircraft passed through the Strait to strike Libyan targets in response to that government's acts of terrorism directed against the United States, after some of our allies had denied us the right to transit through their airspace. I have heard arguments that the convention's provisions on freedom of navigation are not really important because they reflect customary international law. I disagree. Customary international law is inherently unstable. Governments can be less scrupulous about flouting the precedents of customary law than they would be if such actions were seen as violating a treaty. Moreover, not all governments and scholars agree that all of the critical navigation rights which are protected by the convention are also protected by customary law. They regard many of those rights as contractual; that is, only available to parties to the convention. For example, it was not long ago that our country claimed a territorial sea of only 3 miles. This zone now extends to 12 miles, as allowed by the convention. But other countries have claimed territorial sea zones that extend to 200 miles, in direct violation of the convention. Currently, the United States routinely challenge such excessive jurisdictional claims through the Freedom of Navigation Program. I do not doubt that, if necessary, the U.S. Navy will sail where it needs to to protect U.S. interests. But, if we reject the convention, preservation of these rights in nonwartime situations will carry an increasingly heavy price for the United States. By remaining outside of the convention, the United States will have to challenge excessive jurisdictional claims of states not only diplomatically, but also through conduct that opposes these claims. Each time we conduct an operation in contested waters we are sending our young men and women into harms way. Mr. President, we don't need to do that. A widely ratified convention would significantly reduce the need for such operations. A widely ratified convention would also afford us a strong and durable platform of principle to ensure support from the American people and our allies when we have no choice but to confront claims we regard as illegal. Now I would like to turn to the issue of the Law of the Sea Convention and U.S. economic interests. The convention promotes these interests in a number of ways. It provides the U.S. with exclusive rights over marine living resources within our 200 miles exclusive economic zone; exclusive rights over mineral, oil, and gas resources over a wide continental shelf that is recognized internationally; the right for our communications industry to place its cables on the sea floor and the continental shelves of other countries without cost; a much greater certainty with regard to marine scientific research, and a ground breaking regime for the protection of the marine environment. Mr. President, seaborne commerce represents 80 percent of trade among nations and is a lifeline for U.S. imports and exports. As I noted earlier, 95 percent of U.S. export and import trade tonnage moves by sea. With continuing economic liberalization occurring globally, exports are likely to continue to grow as a percentage of our economic output. In addition, in some sectors, such as oil, our dependence on imports will continue to grow. Thus our economic well being--economic growth and jobs--will increasingly depend on foreign trade. Without the stability and uniformity in rules provided by the convention, we would see an increase in the cost of transport and a corresponding reduction of the economic benefits currently realized from an increasingly large part of our economy. Consequently, the United States would stand to lose a great deal if it was no longer assured of the freedom of navigation: trade would be impaired, ports communities would be impacted and our whole maritime industry could be put in jeopardy. The convention addressees the concerns and failure of the United States to ratify would impose a tremendous burden on this industry. Within its EEZ, the United States has exclusive rights over its living marine resources. Foreign fleets fishing in our waters can be controlled or even excluded, and our regional management councils are in a position to adopt the best management plans available for each of the fisheries on which our industries depend. The settlement of disputes provisions of the convention do not apply to the measures taken by the coastal State within its EEZ. Consequently, the United States has discretionary powers for determining the total allowable catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses to other States and the terms and conditions established in its conservation and management measures. Indeed, the Law of the Sea Convention will play a paramount role in the implementation of the important international agreements to which the United States is already a party. These include: the 1992 Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, approved by the Senate on August 11, 1992; the U.N. General Assembly Resolution on Large-Scale High Seas Driftnet Fishing, approved by the Senate on November 26, 1991; the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea, approved by the Senate on October 6, 1994; and the FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, approved by the Senate on October 6, 1994. In approving these treaties, the Senate spoke to the importance of these issues to our Nation; however, the long-term benefits of these fishery agreements will only be realized and mutual enforcement ensured if the underlying principles of the Law of the Sea Convention--the new constitution of the oceans--are ratified by the United States. Mr. President, in 1982, the Reagan administration was prepared to sign the convention on behalf of the United States, but for part XI. Part XI dealt with deep seabed mining and contained a number of provisions that the United States found objectionable. Unfortunately, at the time, the administration was not able to secure the changes it sought in time for the United States to sign the convention. As a result, neither the United States nor the other industrialized countries signed the convention. During the Bush administration, with the prospect that the convention would actually enter into force, informal consultations were begun at the United Nations with the aim of resolving concerns with part XI. That goal was achieved in an agreement that, in effect, amends part XI of the convention in a manner that meets all of the concerns first articulated under President Reagan and carried forward through to the Clinton Administration. The modification of part XI is a bipartisan foreign policy success and is the culmination of three decades of U.S. oceans policy efforts. I feel qualified to say this Mr. President, since I have closely followed the Law of the Sea negotiations from their early days to the present. The initial support for this idea was put forth by Arvid Pardo, Malta's delegate to the United Nations, with his famous ``Common Heritage of Mankind'' speech before the U.N. General Assembly in 1967. The convention then became the product of visionaries. I remember particularly the ``Pacem in Maribus''--Peace on the Seas--meetings organized by Elizabeth Mann Borgese, the daughter of Germany's great writer, Thomas Mann. Her book, The Ocean Regime, published in 1968, gave written expression to the ideas that were to gain a wider audience through Pacem in Maribus, on their way to being embodied in the negotiated texts of the Law of the Sea Convention. For me the dream began even earlier, during my service in the U.S. Coast Guard during World War II. Why not declare the oceans a zone of peace, open to all peoples and nations, to be free forever from the ravages of warfare? My service on the staff of the San Francisco Convention that prepared the U.N. Charter, just 51 years ago this summer, further confirmed me in my belief that ways could be found to create a working peace system. The Law of the Sea Convention is the product of one of the more protracted negotiations in diplomatic history. When the process began, the Vietnam war was nearing its peak; the cold war was at its height; it had been only 5 years since the construction of the Berlin Wall. I was proud to serve as a delegate to those early Law of the Sea negotiations, one of the few who had also attended a Pacem in Maribus meeting. My enthusiasm led me in 1967 to introduce the first Senate resolution calling on the President to negotiate a Law of the Sea Convention. That resolution and a draft treaty that I proposed in 1969 led to the Seabed Arms Control treaty, which was ratified by the Senate in 1972. This little-known treaty has permanently removed nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from the ocean floor, which is 70 percent of the Earth's surface. It has been signed by nearly 100 countries, it works, and it provides a good precedent for the Convention on the Law of the Sea. With the Seabed Arms Control Treaty as my model, you can appreciate my enthusiasm for the Law of the Sea Convention. Now, Mr. President, we must look to the future and U.S. oceans policy for the 21st century. Our interests in the Convention lie not only in what it is today, but in what it may become. Just as form and substance have been given our Constitution by the courts, so too will future uses of the oceans be influenced and shaped by decisions made under the convention. With the convention's entry into force, the United States stands on the threshold of a new era of oceans policy. Under the Convention, U.S. national interests in the world's oceans would be protected as a matter of law. This is a success of U.S. foreign policy that will work to our benefit in the decades to come. Mr. President, the United States was a leader in initiating the negotiations of the Law of the Sea Convention because our national security interests were at stake. We have also played a widely recognized leadership role in the Straddling Stock Agreement negotiations because our fisheries interests were threatened. Indeed, the United States will be among the very first parties to ratify this very important agreement. It is time for the United States to regain its leadership role by ratifying promptly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and thus protecting the entirety of our oceans interests. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate will today approve the conference agreement on S. 1028, the Health Insurance Reform Act. Since the House of Representatives has already acted favorably on this legislation, it will be only days before President Clinton can sign this important legislation into law. This new law will have been a very long time in coming. We need not review the circuitous path that these health reforms have taken since the Clinton administration took over in 1993. But I believe it is fair to say that even these limited reforms could never have happened without the leadership of the President and First Lady, who brought into virtually every American home their passionate and persuasive pleas to reform our Nation's health care system. And without effective and devoted legislative warriors, led over the decades by Senator Kennedy and joined in recent years by our distinguished Chairwoman, Senator Kassebaum, I believe that we would not be here today passing this bill. Mr. President, as my 36 years on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee draw to an end, I could not be more pleased that we will finally see the fruition of so many years of work on health insurance reform issues. The bill before us will correct many of the flaws of our current system, including enhancing portability of insurance from job to job, and limiting the current practice of permitting exclusions for preexisting medical conditions. But, as I have said many times before, this bill does not accomplish many other things that need to be done. Most notably, the bill does nothing to make insurance more affordable to people who need it, including those with preexisting medical conditions. Just today, I got a phone call from a constituent from Pawtucket, RI, who has a thyroid condition and who wants to know whether under this legislation, her insurer will be able to charge her more. I regret very much that I will have to tell her that her insurers can, indeed, charge her more. And I regret very much that I will have to report to the many Rhode Islanders who support the Domenici- Wellstone mental health parity provision that opposing forces prevailed in deleting this provision from the conference agreement. Health care reform being the lightning rod issue that it is, I recognize--and I hope that the American people recognize--that while this bill represents only incremental change, it is an important step forward. We all know that much, much more needs to be done if every American is to have access to high quality, affordable health care. And I hope that my colleagues who will remain in the Senate and that those who succeed me will take up the challenge as early as possible in the next Congress. In the meantime, Mr. President, I want to thank all of my colleagues on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, who approved this bill unanimously just 1 year ago. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many committee staffers who assisted us so ably in crafting this important legislation. I offer a special tip of the hat to Senator Kennedy's senior health adviser, David Nexon, who has been of such great assistance to me and to my staff over these many years. I look forward to voting for this legislation and even more, to its becoming law.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I take the floor today to pay tribute to a distinguished civil servant, Ambassador David A. Colson. Ambassador Colson is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. He will retire from 25 years of Government service on August 2; his departure is a loss to the Department of State and a loss to our country. Dave Colson's career is an exemplar of public service. In 1966, he graduated from college and joined the Peace Corps, serving for 2 years as a teacher in Liberia. Thereafter, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. Upon completion of his tour of duty in 1971, he returned to law school. In 1975, he began working for the Department of State, the organization which has enjoyed the benefits of his efforts ever since. Dave progressed rapidly up the career ladder at State. First as Attorney-Adviser, then as Assistant Legal Adviser, and finally as Deputy Assistant Secretary. He received a career appointment to the Senior Civil Service after only six years working in the Legal Advisers office. Since 1991, he has served with the rank of Ambassador. Mr. President, those are titles and ranks. They are impressive, but they speak little to Dave's accomplishments and service to our country. The true measure of his contributions lies in the body of international law that he leaves behind and the people whose lives are better because of his work. In these areas, his achievements are legion. At the Foreign Relations Committee, Ambassador Colson is best known for his expertise in the area of living marine resources. In the past three Congresses, he appeared before our Committee to testify on numerous marine resource treaties. Each of these advanced the interests of the United States and its citizens. Each of them improved the conservation of in the world's marine resources. Each of them developed further the framework of international law that governs the use of ocean space. And each of them was brought about either in large or partial measure through Ambassador Colson's efforts. Dave Colson's accomplishments are not, however, confined to living marine resources. As Deputy Assistant Secretary for the OES Bureau at the State Department, he has been extensively involved in a variety of issues including the Law of the Sea Convention, the London Dumping Convention, a number of maritime boundary negotiations, navigation issues, and a range of matter associated with the Arctic and Antarctic. Simply put, Dave Colson became one of the leading experts in the world on oceans. He is to be commended for his invaluable and lasting contributions. I wish him all the best as he embarks on this new phase of his life.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, when the welfare reform bill was before us last week, I said that I could not let my desire to vote for reform cloud my judgment about the bill, and about the serious flaws which I perceived in it. The bill has been returned to us from conference with some of those flaws remedied, but alas not all, and the omissions to my mind are determinative. And so once again, I shall vote against the bill. I am especially concerned about the bill's undeservedly harsh treatment of legal immigrants. I note with dismay that nearly half of the $56 billion that would be saved by this bill comes from the denial of benefits to people in this category. More often then not, legal immigrants are hard-working, tax paying individuals who deeply appreciate the freedom and opportunity of U.S. citizenship, which they hope to attain. To deny them so many of the benefits that they might legitimately need as they build a life here, seems unfair and unjustified. While I applaud President Clinton's assurance that this grievous flaw in the bill will be corrected by future legislation, the provision amounts to justice denied, here and now, and I cannot bring myself to vote for it. I remain concerned, moreover, about the practical consequences of ceasing to treat welfare as an entitlement and replacing it with block grants. But what this means is that this Nation will cease to respond to anyone in great need, as a matter of right, and that some people in need may be cut off simply because we have shifted this serious national problem to the States, and we have done so without providing them with adequate support to address the problem. I am particularly concerned that some States, including my own State of Rhode Island which has just enacted a new welfare program, may be penalized if they choose to have a welfare program which is relatively more liberal than the Federal law. Also troubling is the retention of cuts in food stamp spending, projected at roughly $24 billion over 6 years. Unemployed workers without children will be hard hit, as will legal immigrants. Finally, I continue to be deeply concerned about the plight of children. I simply cannot believe that eliminating an entitlement which ensures that all poor children get the food, clothing, and shelter that they need can move us individually or as a society down the path we all want to go. While some improvements were made in conference, the fact remains that children will be the ones most vulnerable to the vagaries of variable State welfare programs. Mr. President, it is with real regret, then, that I cast a ``no'' vote on this welfare reform legislation. I recognize that the bill achieves many important broad objectives which are clearly desired by the public at large--including work requirements, time limits on benefits and job creation incentives. But looking at the final product, I cannot say that what we have before us is better than what we now have. The bill is, as the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] reminded us ``radical legislation with unforeseeable consequences.'' Better to reject it now than try to make up for its deficiencies in the future.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair and the Senator from New Jersey. I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from Arizona, Mr. McCain. Before I outline my reasons for opposing this amendment, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Hatfield, chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, and Senator Lautenberg, a very strong supporter of passenger rail, for their work on this bill. I believe this bill is a tremendous and necessary improvement over the one passed by the House, and we have these two gentlemen to thank for that. Regarding the amendment offered by my colleague from Arizona, I think the point made by the Senator from Delaware is very valid. All of the modes of transportation are subsidized to a degree. We hear much about the much vaunted Swiss railroad system. They are subsidized. The one in France is subsidized. The one in Japan is subsidized. But in return for that subsidization, the people of the area get a service and a greater degree of safety and comfort that they would not get otherwise. As some of my colleagues are aware, I wrote a book on this subject some 30 years ago, ``Megalopolis Unbound.'' And the book remains current today because so little has been done in those 30 years. I hope that we will sustain the effort of the Transportation subcommittee and keep the money in for Amtrak. I am hopeful that, by doing so, we can really make progress in enhancing intercity high speed passenger rail. In so doing, perhaps we can avoid having a future Member of Congress come along 30 years from now, as I am now, lamenting that much more needs to be done, and how very little has changed in the intervening years. We should also recognize that modernizing and enhancing, not shortchanging, passenger rail is the current trend in Europe and Asia. These various nations are providing their people a form of efficient and safe transportation. Mr. President, as one who helped shepherd through Congress the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, it has been my long-held belief that passenger rail service is the most fuel-efficient; the least environmentally disruptive; and ultimately, will be the least expensive mode of transportation. Finally, there is another thought here. We accept the idea that elevated vertical transportation should be free but not horizontal transportation like the subway because it is horizontal. I can remember when I was a boy there were buildings in Europe--still some in Europe-- buildings in New York where you put a nickel in order to be transported up or down. I think this also should be kept in mind. So for all these reasons, I believe that the money--the subsidy, if you want to call it that--for Amtrak should be preserved because it is giving our people service that the citizenry should expect. I thank the managers of this bill for their very fine efforts, efforts I am pleased to support. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that amends the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA] to improve the definition of eligible dislocated workers. The legislation defines ``dislocated worker'' as any employee who ``has become unemployed as a result of a Federal action that limits the use of, or restricts access to, a marine natural resource.'' This language is directed at fishermen. In Rhode Island, as well as many other coastal States, customarily the crew members of fishing boats are not paid but are given a share of the day's catch. Unfortunately, this means they are neither employees of the boat nor self-employed. Fishing has always been a difficult occupation. But now, with a declining supply, Government efforts to restore the population of various species of fish by limiting or closing access to fishing grounds, and the need to close large portions of our coastal waters after oil spills and other environmental disasters, fishermen are leaving port less and, when they do, catching less. Some months ago, I received a letter from a Rhode Island fisherman who realized that fishing would no longer be able to support the demands of his growing family. He had, therefore, selected a new occupation--he wants to be a cabinetmaker--and on his own, he had located and been accepted into a training program. His only problem? Financial assistance. Because he is technically not unemployed, the present system is of no help to him. My legislation would correct that unfortunate inequity. I originally offered and had accepted a similar version of this legislation in the Labor and Human Resources Committee as an amendment to S. 143, the Workforce Development Act. Regrettably, the House-Senate work force development conference committee has only just finished its work under a cloud of partisanship and disagreement and I very much doubt any further action will take place during this Congress. I do not believe the commercial fishermen in Galilee, RI, should suffer because of the failure of a conference committee in Washington, DC. I have, therefore, drafted this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that amends the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA] to improve the definition of eligible dislocated workers. The legislation defines ``dislocated worker'' as any employee who ``has become unemployed as a result of a Federal action that limits the use of, or restricts access to, a marine natural resource.'' This language is directed at fishermen. In Rhode Island, as well as many other coastal States, customarily the crew members of fishing boats are not paid but are given a share of the day's catch. Unfortunately, this means they are neither employees of the boat nor self-employed. Fishing has always been a difficult occupation. But now, with a declining supply, Government efforts to restore the population of various species of fish by limiting or closing access to fishing grounds, and the need to close large portions of our coastal waters after oil spills and other environmental disasters, fishermen are leaving port less and, when they do, catching less. Some months ago, I received a letter from a Rhode Island fisherman who realized that fishing would no longer be able to support the demands of his growing family. He had, therefore, selected a new occupation--he wants to be a cabinetmaker--and on his own, he had located and been accepted into a training program. His only problem? Financial assistance. Because he is technically not unemployed, the present system is of no help to him. My legislation would correct that unfortunate inequity. I originally offered and had accepted a similar version of this legislation in the Labor and Human Resources Committee as an amendment to S. 143, the Workforce Development Act. Regrettably, the House-Senate work force development conference committee has only just finished its work under a cloud of partisanship and disagreement and I very much doubt any further action will take place during this Congress. I do not believe the commercial fishermen in Galilee, RI, should suffer because of the failure of a conference committee in Washington, DC. I have, therefore, drafted this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank my Senate colleague.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have been deeply impressed over the years by the strong and unwavering commitment to arms control shown by the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield. The Senator, who I am pleased to call a friend, has numerous accomplishments in the field of arms control to which he can point with pride. As only one example, the current multinational moratorium on nuclear testing is essentially the result of an initiative he took several years ago as ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. As many of my fellow Members are aware, a major effort is under way at the Conference on Disarmament to bring to a successful close negotiations on a comprehensive test ban to follow the international moratorium brought about largely through the efforts of the Senator and others of like mind. I am pleased, too, that the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, has taken such a strong interest in this amendment, and I note with pleasure that we are joined by a number of cosponsors in support of the Arms Transfers Eligibility Act of 1996. The purpose of the amendment is to provide congressional review of the eligibility of foreign governments to be considered for United States military assistance and arms transfers and to establish clear standards for arms cooperation. In effect, the major change proposed in the legislation is to emphasize a requirement for congressional involvement and approval that does not now exist. For 2 decades now, arms sales have been carried out under procedures giving Congress the right to disapprove particular sales if they appear inadvisable. Interestingly enough, in those 20 years, the Congress has come close on several occasions, but it has never succeeded in getting a resolution of disapproval enacted. This does not mean that Congress has not had a significant role. A large number of sales have been modified or withheld by the executive branch following congressional consultations. As ranking Democratic member and former Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I can assure you that the dialog on arms sales with succeeding administrations has been detailed and in depth and that a number of risky, threatening or destabilizing transfers have been averted. I understand and appreciate the Senator from Oregon's deep concern over continued arms races throughout the world and his desire to apply serious limits and controls through the legislation now under consideration. I can also understand why some in this body would prefer a system under which the positive approval of Congress would be required for transfers and assistance to a number of particular counties, as contrasted with the present emphasis on the right of disapproval. While I very much support the underlying concept of this initiative, as we explore this and other concepts further, we will want to take care to ensure that the legislation is workable in real world situations in its final form. For instance, certain questions are raised by the prohibition on arms transfers and assistance to governments other than democracies. The prohibition would appear to exclude any monarchy, emirate or sheikdom. All of those nations in the Persian Gulf that are scared to death of Iran and Iraq are kingdoms, emirates or sheikdoms, and would thus be ineligible for transfers or assistance, unless given a Presidential waiver and approved by Congress. We will also want to make sure that we do not create a situation in which our decisions on transfers and some assistance are less balanced and deliberate and more chaotic or haphazard. It is very important that our defense industry and its thousands of American workers understand that we want both to improve the standards under which transfers are allowed, but that we will remain dedicated to our national security interests and to the security of our friends and allies throughout the world. I am sure that these and other concerns can be met and strong, positive legislation that earns solid, bipartisan support can emerge. I would hope that is the case because much more needs to be done to put a lid on the continuing, desperately costly arms competition throughout the world. For the moment, I think it is important that we affirm our belief that democratic values, respect for human rights, avoidance of armed conflict in violation of international law, and participation in the U.N. register of conventional arms are all reasonable standards by which we should judge whether we wish an arms relationship with another country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the Smith amendment which would prohibit funding for economic assistance to Vietnam. I just visited Vietnam 2 months ago and I believe that this amendment would move us in exactly the wrong direction as we attempt to encourage economic and political change in Vietnam. There is a tremendous entrepreneurial spirit pervading the streets of Hanoi. All along the narrow, winding streets you will find small stores crammed in next to each other, selling every thing under the Sun-- books, postcards, clothes, car parts. The people of Vietnam very clearly want to have their own businesses. They want to trade. They clearly want a market economy, but they need help to develop it. The foreign operations bill provides funding for us to provide assistance to teach them economic and legal reforms. This type of assistance will only encourage the country to move farther away from socialism and closer to a Western-style market system. Moreover, this is just the type of reform that United States business leaders in Hanoi told me they need to see in Vietnam. It is very much in American commercial interests to have investment and especially legal reforms in Vietnam. U.S. businesses are losing money now, but they continue to do business there because they believe change is coming to both the country and the region as a whole and that change will be profitable for them. The type of assistance this bill provides for will encourage that change to come sooner, rather than later. By prohibiting economic assistance to Vietnam, the amendment we are discussing would needlessly stifle budding, indigenous market reforms and hurt United States companies at the same time. It was truly an amazing sight to see the people in Vietnam in the streets, Vietnamese and American businessmen working and chatting together in a friendly way. That would have been impossible to imagine 20 years ago. I hope this amendment is not accepted and that we do what we can to encourage Vietnam's development. I yield floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL. I thank my friend from Vermont. Madam President, I wish to speak to the amendment regarding the United Nations offered by our distinguished colleague and my successor as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms. I have the utmost respect for Senator Helms, but I have deep concerns about the amendment he proposes. As one who participated in the San Francisco conference which drew up the U.N. charter, I have tried over the years since both to support and improve the organization any way I could. And the United Nations, I would argue, has accumulated a solid record of achievement. It has not lived up to all of its potential, but for every example that critics give of the U.N.'s failures, there are numerous countervailing examples of success--in brokering peaceful settlements to violent conflicts worldwide; in halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons; in protecting the international environment; and in immunizing the world's children and preventing the spread of disease. The U.N.'s record is lofty, not only for its thought, but it has made the world a truly better place. 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. U.S. leadership at the United Nations is threatened by our inability to pay our dues and meet our obligations. Amendments such as these only endanger our position further. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate adopted my amendment on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context. I want to thank the bill's managers, in particular, for their assistance in making Senate action possible. I also want to thank Senator Murkowski for his willingness to work with me on this issue. Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government should encourage other nations to carry out environmental impact assessments for activities that will have transboundary impacts. In other words, if countries are going to carry out activities with significant cross-border environmental impacts, the country undertaking the activity should, at a bare minimum, be aware of the consequences of its activities. The amendment is an extension of my long interest in the protection of the global commons. In 1977, I introduced a resolution which called on the U.S. Government to seek the agreement of other governments to a proposed global treaty requiring the preparation of an international environmental assessment for any major project, action, or continuing activity which may be reasonably expected to have a significant adverse effect on the physical environment or environmental interest of another nation or a global commons area. That resolution was adopted by the Senate in 1978. While my 1978 resolution initially called for a global treaty applying to activities worldwide, regional approaches may also be called for in some instances. We have seen such an approach used in the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. The Convention was signed by the United States and members of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Mr. President, this amendment simply underscores the point that environmental impact assessments should be carried out when activities in one country are likely to affect adversely the environment of another country or the global commons. What the United States and its allies have achieved, both in domestic law and in treaties, must now be duplicated by other states, so that the use of environmental impact assessment truly becomes a standard precautionary measure. Mr. President, this amendment acknowledges the efforts that have already been made and encourages the U.S. Government to continue efforts to promote environmental impact assessments as a tool in environmental protection. I thank my colleagues for their support of this amendment. Amendment No. 5082, as modified On page 120, line 21, before the period insert the following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated under this heading, $5,000,000 shall be available only for a land and resource management institute to identify nuclear contamination at Chernobyl.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, like so many of my colleagues, I would like to reform the Nation's welfare system. I believe that able- bodied people should work and that our Nation's safety net should be just that: a safety net. But I cannot let my desire to vote for welfare reform cloud my judgment about the bill that the Senate passed yesterday. I have several major concerns about this bill: First, this bill eliminates welfare as an entitlement and replaces it with a block grant. To some, the term entitlement has come to mean an expectation that some people have of support from the Government with no effort on their part to achieve self-sufficiency. Defined in those terms, I agree that any sense of entitlement must end. But what the word entitlement actually means here is that this Nation will respond to anyone in great need--that we will not cut off people in need simply because there are too many people in line before them. A block grant is almost guaranteed to cut off people in need, with children suffering the greatest harm. And while I reluctantly voted last year for the then pending welfare bill, which included a block grant, I did so primarily to strengthen the Senate's position in conference against a far more damaging House-passed bill. Second, I believe that instead of giving people a hand up and out of the welfare system, we have limited their options and their opportunities further. For the most part, we have simply shifted this serious national problem to the States, and we have done so without providing them with adequate support to address the problem. Third, I am concerned about the bill's harsh treatment of legal immigrants. More often than not, these individuals are hard working, taxpaying individuals who deeply appreciate and value the freedom and opportunity of the United States. I cannot agree to deny them so many of the benefits that they might legitimately need as they build a life here. Finally, my deepest concern is for the children. No matter what the faults of the parent, we as a society must do all we can to protect and nurture the next generation. Otherwise, no matter how tough our welfare policy or how good our toughness makes us feel, we will raise a generation of children who are incapable of functioning in society, much less leading it. I simply cannot believe that eliminating an entitlement which ensures that all poor children get the food, clothing, and shelter that they need can move us individually or as a society down the path we all want to go. Mr. President, it is with real regret, then, that I cast a ``no'' vote on this welfare reform legislation. I know that the will of the people demands action, and I very much want to be part of an effort to pass a quality welfare reform bill. And I have joined with many of my Senate colleagues in voting for amendments that, had they been approved, might have made the bill acceptable. But looking at the final product, I cannot say that what we have adopted is better than what we now have. The risk to our children's future is too great. I will not punish a child to teach its parent, and I believe that this is what this legislation, in the end, will do. I regret that the Senate did not approve the work first proposal introduced by Senate Daschle. And I continue to support its emphasis on transitioning welfare recipients to work, its understanding that providing childcare is a linchpin of successful reform, and its premise that--despite very real abuses of the current system by some welfare recipients--most people want to get off welfare and work at a job that provides a living wage. In any effort to pass this kind of welfare reform legislation, I will cast a sure and solid ``yea'' vote.