Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I share with the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] concerns with regard to section 1005 of the Defense authorization bill. Senator Helms and I had planned to offer an amendment to delete that section, but, as recess approached, were not able to find an opportunity to do so. This section of the bill would authorize spending under the Military- to-Military Program for military education and training for military personnel of foreign countries. The program would be in addition to the International Military Education and Training Program now in operation and overseen by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Appropriations, and their appropriate subcommittees. This new program would not have the same congressional oversight. Oversight of the International Military Education and Training [IMET] Program has proved generally valuable in ensuring that the Congress is comfortable with the activities undertaken pursuant to the program. Just this year, for instance, the Department of Defense proposed a program for a troubled country that was not consistent with its needs. In consultation with two members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I requested that the Defense Security Assistance Agency modify the program. They were quite prepared to consider our views and to meet our request that the program be modified. I would point out that, in that particular case, there has been a continuing and productive dialog to ensure that the program for that nation does not conflict with congressional concerns, but meets the reasonable objectives of the Department of Defense. There is no reason to conclude that the IMET Program is not supported by the committees of jurisdiction. I would point out that the foreign operations appropriations bill just reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a full $40 million for the IMET Program in the next fiscal year. This sum represents an increase in funding and reflects congressional willingness to back that well- established program. It makes no sense to create a duplicative military education and training program under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program. The IMET Program and the contacts program have different purposes and goals. The Congress has been very careful to separate the programs to ensure that the Military-to-Military Contacts Program would not be used to circumvent the restrictions of the IMET Program and to prevent duplication and overlaps. Three provisions were added to prohibit funding for the Military-to- Military Program from being used in countries that are ineligible for IMET to require coordination with the Secretary of State and to prevent the authorities from being used to transfer weapons. It is not at all in the interests of the Congress or the country for the distinction between these two programs to be blurred. Mr. President, it is not at all clear why this provision is being sought. It was not requested by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of Defense and it is opposed by the Department of State. I believe very much that section 1005 has no place in this bill. I hope that, with an eye both to comity and to good sense, it will be dropped in conference. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to draw the attention of my fellow Members to a significant nonproliferation amendment now in the defense authorization bill. I am pleased to have joined with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] in the provision that would withhold for a period of 1 year Export-Import Bank credits for any entity that knowingly assists a nonnuclear-weapon state to acquire a nuclear explosive device or the special nuclear materials for such a device. I am pleased that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] is joining us as a cosponsor. This amendment, which has been adopted, represents a significant advance in our efforts to target companies that are profiting from nuclear proliferation. It will strengthen the President's hand in showing U.S. determination to do all that it can to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them. Under current law, and subject to a national interest waiver, Eximbank credits are denied to: First, any country that has violated an international nuclear safeguards agreement; second, any country that has violated an agreement for nuclear cooperation with the United States; third, any nonnuclear weapons state that has detonated a nuclear weapon, or fourth, any country that has willfully aided or abetted a nonnuclear weapons state to get nuclear weapons. This amendment requires the President to apply sanctions against persons, including government-owned entities operating as commercial enterprises, that knowingly aid or abet efforts by a country to acquire a nuclear explosive device or the nuclear material for such a device. The amendment also authorizes the President to terminate sanctions upon receipt of reliable assurances that the effort to aid or abet has ceased and that such country or person will not in the future aid or abet any nonnuclear-weapons state in efforts to acquire nuclear explosives or unsafeguarded materials. Mr. President, in May the State Department announced that a firm owned by the Chinese Government--CNEIC, China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation--had sent ring magnets to an unsafeguarded Pakistani nuclear enrichment facility and it had engaged in other undisclosed nuclear cooperation. The law provides for sanctions in such a case against China if the transfer was the result of a willful action by the Government of China. Under this amendment, CNEIC could be sanctioned specifically for its activities for a period of 1 year. With this amendment the United States would move away from a situation in which Exim financing denial must be applied against a whole country, or not at all, which has presented very difficult choices. With this amendment, the denial of Exim financing can be focused on the wrongdoer. This will help us avoid charades in which we desperately avoid facing up to proliferation problems. As a result, companies and countries tempted to misbehave in the proliferation area will know that there is a much more real prospect of penalties that are both painful and appropriate. This amendment represents a further refinement of an expanding array of sanctions legislation that is steadily evolving in order to make it a more effective instrument of U.S. foreign policy in a bipartisan effort to end the spread of nuclear weapons. This has included the Glenn and Symington amendments of the mid- 1970's, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, and the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 as well as a number of other legislative initiatives. The Senate has been in the lead of efforts to develop a coherent and effective nonproliferation policy for the United States. At times, those of us most involved have worked closely with the executive branch. At other times we have been at odds, but we have been able to reach reasonable compromises. As a result, the United States has set an example for the rest of the world and has brought other nations along with us. In addition, some of the nations most concerned about proliferation have taken their own initiatives and the result is a world steadily more attuned to the problems posed by nonproliferation and better willing and able to deal with those problems. doe nuclear safety

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have many times made statements about my long interest in developing improved avenues of communication between employees and their bosses, often referred to as codetermination. My statement therefore, will be brief today. When employees and employers decide to enter into workplace committees to discuss workplace-related issues, both sides must place a great amount of trust and faith in the other. But society has instilled in workers the idea that employers are not allies but adversaries. Employers, who must be concerned about the health of the company, often view their employees in a similarly skeptical fashion. For that reason, labor and management should always be commended when they join together in sincere cooperation for the benefit of all concerned. It is, however, important that the two be really interested in cooperating with the other and that the cooperation be sincere. Both employees and employers must trust the other and be sure that their views matter to the other. While I do not see the need to create a strict framework for these conversations to take place, I do believe it is vital that employees feel confident they will not be punished for sharing their honest views with their employer. Workers must also feel that their views and thoughts are honestly being represented by those employee members of a workplace committee. For that reason, I strongly oppose S. 295. Workers cannot be expected to take part in any committee under the total control of their boss. In any competitive job market, what right-minded worker would take the risk of sharing unpopular views about his workplace when the boss has complete control of the work committee? During the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation outlining my views on this issue. During Labor Committee consideration of S. 295, I worked to develop compromise legislation to allow employees to select their representatives for workplace committees, to ensure that committee agendas are open to amendment by both labor and management and to prohibit unilateral termination of a workplace committee. Teamwork is important on the playing field or in the workplace. As a old Princeton rugby player, I know you don't win the scrum unless you and your teammates have confidence in each other and work for the benefit of all.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] an amendment that would withhold for a period of 1 year Export-Import Bank credits for any entity that knowingly assists a nonnuclear weapons state to acquire a nuclear explosive device or the special nuclear materials for such a device. I am pleased that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] is joining us as a cosponsor. This amendment represents a significant advance in our efforts to target companies that are profiting from nuclear proliferation. It will strengthen the President's hand in showing United States determination to do all that it can to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them. Under current law, and subject to a national interest waiver, Exim Bank credits are denied to: First, any country that has violated an international nuclear safeguards agreement; second, any country that has violated an agreement for nuclear cooperation with the United States; third, any nonnuclear weapons state that has detonated a nuclear weapon, or fourth, any country that has willfully aided or abetted a nonnuclear weapons state to get nuclear weapons. This amendment requires the President to apply sanctions against persons, including government-owned entities operating as commercial enterprises, that knowingly aid or abet efforts by a country to acquire a nuclear explosive device or the nuclear material for such a device. The amendment also authorizes the President to terminate sanctions upon receipt of reliable assurances that the effort to aid or abet has ceased and that such country or person will not in the future aid or abet any nonnuclear weapons state in efforts to acquire nuclear explosives or unsafeguarded materials. Mr. President, in May the State Department announced that a firm owned by the Chinese Government, China Nuclear Energy Industry Crop. [CNEIC], had sent ring magnets to an unsafeguarded Pakistani nuclear enrichment facility and it had engaged in other undisclosed nuclear cooperation. The law provides for sanctions in such a case against China if the transfer was the result of a willful action by the Government of China. Under this amendment, CNEIC could be sanctioned specifically for its activities for a period of 1 year. With this amendment the United States would move away from a situation in which Exim financing denial must be applied against a whole country, or not at all, which has presented very difficult choices. With this amendment, the denial of Exim financing can be focused on the wrongdoer. This will help us avoid charades in which we desperately avoid facing up to proliferation problems. As a result, companies and countries tempted to misbehave in the proliferation area will know that there is a much more real prospect of penalties that are both painful and appropriate. Mr. President, this amendment represents a further refinement of an expanding array of sanctions legislation that is steadily evolving in order to make it a more effective instrument of U.S. foreign policy in a bipartisan effort to end the spread of nuclear weapons. This has included the Glenn and Symington amendments of the mid- 1970's, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, and the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994, as well as a number of other legislative initiatives. The Senate has been in the lead of efforts to develop a coherent and effective nonproliferation policy for the United States. At times, those of us most involved have worked closely with the executive branch. At other times we have been at odds, but we have been able to reach reasonable compromises. As a result, the United States has set an example for the rest of the world and has brought other nations along with us. In addition, some of the nations most concerned about proliferation have taken their own initiatives and the result is a world steadily more attuned to the problems posed by nonproliferation and better willing and able to deal with those problems.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the second-degree amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords. It represents a small, yet very significant step in the direction of placing the funding of impact aid upon the agency responsible for the Federal property. Impact aid is assistance provided because Federal property is taken from the tax rolls. It is compensation, and really should not be placed in the category of educational assistance. If the property is a military installation, the responsibility for compensation should rest with the Department of Defense, not the Department of Education. If the property is public land used for parks and recreational purposes, the responsibility for compensation should rest with an agency such as the Department of the Interior, not the Department of Education. Impact aid is also general aid. It is not tied to the need to improve basic skills, upgrade professional development, strengthen educational research, or open opportunities for a college education. Its only relationship to education is because the property tax is too often and unfortunately a major source of support for education at the State and local level. Removal of that source of funding has an impact upon the total resources available to fund education in community after community throughout America. I would contend, therefore, that compensation for this lost resource should come from the agency or department responsible for removal of this land from the tax rolls. With respect to this particular amendment, I understand that about 60 percent of the additional districts that would be eligible for impact aid are related to the armed services. Thus, under the provisions of the Jeffords amendment, the Secretary of Defense would be required to cover that amount, which I understand is 60 percent of $11 to $18 million. My own opinion is that this amendment represents the direction in which we should be moving in regard to the entire Impact Aid Program. As I have said, it is only a small step, but it is also a very important one. I would strongly urge my colleagues to join Senator Jeffords and me in approving this amendment.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. To be perfectly clear then, under the amendment, generic drug companies will be able to use all of the information contained in their ANDA, in addition to any other evidence they wish, to assist in proving their claim of ``substantial investment'' in court.

Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator for that clarification.

Mr. PELL. I would like to clarify my understanding of some language contained in section 2(B) of the section of the pending amendment entitled Determination of Substantial Investment. It is my understanding that this section of the legislation is meant to simply set a standard for a determination of ``substantial investment'' by a generic drug company at a level higher than the simple completion of paperwork and testing necessary for filing of an application submitted under section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the so-called ANDA, to the FDA. Is that so?

Mr. PELL. In that regard then, is it correct to say that under the language of the amendment, when a company includes information in its ANDA which pertains to the capital investments it has made in bringing a product to the market, such as the building of plants, buildings, or equipment or investments in developing manufacturing processes or personnel, that that information can be fully used in court proceedings to prove its claim of substantial investment.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate is proceeding to consider Treaty Document 104-24, commonly known as the Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement. I strongly urge my colleagues to support Senate advice and consent to ratification. The need for this Agreement--and indeed other appropriate measures to protect fisheries--has become increasingly evident in the past years. World fish production, both marine and aquaculture, peaked in 1989 at roughly 100 million tons. Since then, marine catches have declined significantly due to over-exploitation. By 1992, the world marine catch had declined to 86 million tons and by 1994 to 72.3 million tons. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 70 percent of the world's marine fish stocks are fully to heavily exploited, over- exploited, depleted, or slowly recovering. Against this backdrop, the Straddling Stocks Agreement will significantly advance U.S. interests. In effect, it confirms the U.S. approach to fisheries management and reflects the acceptance by other nations of that approach. The agreement does not require any changes to U.S. fishery laws or institutions. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act as well as other acts, provide the necessary legislative authority for the United States to carry out its obligations under the agreement. It is very important to note that the Straddling Stocks Agreement is tightly linked, both legally and practically, to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has for nearly 2 years been pending before the Foreign Relations Committee. The United States ability to pursue its objectives under the agreement will be maximized only if we in the Senate move ahead to grant advice and consent to ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention. Over the past 2 years I have repeatedly addressed the Senate to highlight the ways in which the Law of the Sea Convention has been improved, and now meets our fisheries interests, our national security interests, and our economic interests. I hope that all my colleagues who have shown such an interest in the Straddling Stocks Agreement will join me in my efforts to see the convention ratified promptly.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, yesterday, as we all know, a horrendous bombing occurred at a United States military facility in Saudi Arabia. As of this morning, 19 Americans were dead, and nearly 300 wounded. As time goes on, it is probable that number of those killed will increase. A number of things come to my mind in response to this awful news. First, of course, is the tremendous sympathy that I have for the families of the victims. Service for one's country--whether in the military, the diplomatic corps, or government--is one of the noblest of callings. And to give one's life in that service is the supreme sacrifice. I do hope that the families of those lost in this tragedy can take some small comfort in that fact. Their loved ones made a difference--each and every one made our country a better and safer place. Second, it is our duty to those killed, and in our utmost national interest, to find and punish those responsible. There is no more cowardly act than a terrorist attack--the victims have no warning, no chance to defend themselves. They have done no wrong and are chosen solely for their symbolism. Third, and regrettably, today's news was no bolt from the blue. Months ago, a similar act occurred wherein five Americans were killed. Since then, and particularly since the perpetrators of the previous bombing were executed, United States personnel in Saudi Arabia have been bracing for another attack. On top of that, the Kingdom has been rife with reports about the health and well-being of King Fahd and about his eventual replacement by Crown Prince Abdullah. These same reports have carried unsettling news about the growing prominence and strength of extremist Islamic groups, and of their disputes with the royal family. These developments ought to have a direct bearing on the United States Government's calculus of our role, interests and presence in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is, of course, our most important partner in the Persian Gulf, and arguably the entire Middle East. There is no doubt that America should be well represented there, and that our troop presence is a key element of U.S. military strategy. Yet the fact remains that more Americans have been killed in Saudi Arabia during the past year than in Bosnia, where United States troops were placed in a combat situation. It seems to me that the United States must undertake a serious examination of the entire spectrum of our relationship with Saudi Arabia--including the prospects for future instability, the return on our investment of troops and other personnel, and the efforts of the Saudi Government to deal effectively with political dissent. Clearly, the sooner Ambassador-designate Fowler is cleared by the Senate, the better. The sands in Saudi Arabia are shifting, and I believe we ought to have a much better handle on what to expect in the months ahead. The memory of those killed demands no less.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my colleague, Senator Chafee, as a cosponsor of S. 1871, legislation to expand the existing boundary of the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge. Senator Chafee has worked hard for many years to designate this vital area as one of our Nation's wildlife refuges and then to assure that we continue necessary financial resources. I have enjoyed working with him in this effort and I am pleased to join in support of the expansion. This bill will help clear the way for Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] to acquire 100 acres adjacent to long cove on the pond's northeastern shore. The owner, who has declared his intention to make a partial donation of the value of the property, has been talking to FWS for about a year. I am delighted to advise my colleagues that several additional landowners with valuable habitat in the vicinity of the refuge also have contacted FWS to express their interest in selling their property so it may be maintained as open space. Recent biological surveys of upper Point Judith Pond indicate that wildlife species have become more diverse and are using the pond habitat more heavily than in the past. The bill would allow the FWS to expand the refuge boundary when opportunities to acquire valuable habitat arise. Specifically, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the refuge boundary, after appropriate public notice and comment, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Secretary currently is only authorized to make minor revisions to the boundary. The Pettaquamscutt National Wildlife Refuge truly is one of our national treasures in Rhode Island and it protects a vital ecosystem that includes rare and endangered species among its wildlife.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as one of the original cosponsors of the McCain-Feingold bill S. 1219, I rise in support of the bill and urge that it not be set aside by a cloture vote. It is by no means a perfect bill, but it does move us several steps closer to a better campaign finance system. More than 35 years in the Senate I have joined in sponsoring and supporting virtually all major campaign reform legislation before the Senate. In my view, many of these reforms have worked quite well, notwithstanding the traditional laments about the evils of the system. Just consider how far we have come in improving the system since the Watergate era. We have an effective reporting and disclosure system which works very well; it uses electronic technology and is light years beyond the previous system. We have a system for public funding of Presidential elections, which while compromised by recent practice, is still at core an effective counterforce to flagrant abuse. And we have the Federal Election Commission which fulfills the indispensable role of a neutral--or at least bipartisan--referee, notwithstanding the structural problems inherent in such a role. To be sure, there are major flaws and problems crying out for resolution. They include the glaring problem of soft money, the disproportionate influence of PAC's and the exorbitant cost of media advertising. The McCain-Feingold bill addresses these problems in a straightforward way. Indeed, one of the main reasons I joined as an original cosponsor of the bill is that it provides an entitlement of free broadcast time for candidates who voluntarily comply with the spending limits proposed by the bill. The concept of free broadcast time for Federal candidates is an idea that I have embraced for many years. I believe that the provision of free media time to educate the electorate should be a basic condition of a grant of a license for commercial use of a segment of the broadcast spectrum. I have sponsored legislation providing various schemes for free time grants for political campaigns for the past 10 years, and I remain hopeful that the concept will one day become law. When I first introduced legislation providing for free media time in 1986, the idea was viewed as being quite far out of the mainstream--so much so that the bill was not taken very seriously. But by 1993, the concept had gained enough momentum to attract 32 votes in the Senate when I offered it as an amendment to Senator Boren's Election Reform Act. So while the amendment failed to carry the day, the idea had indeed come into its own. And now the McCain-Feingold bill takes it a step further. I would point out that my own proposals for free broadcast time differ from those in the bill in two respects. First, I believe free broadcast time should be made available for all legitimate candidates, regardless of whether they agree to spending limits, because all should be sharing in an equal claim on a public resource, namely the broadcast spectrum. And my plan would actually distribute the free time through the political parties, to allow for the problem of overlapping claims on broadcasters, which might result from direct distribution to candidates. Second, I would note that my 1993 amendment to the Boren bill contained a contingency provision of tax deductibility for broadcasters of the value of free time made available for political campaigns. Some such consideration seems necessary to overcome the objections of the broadcast industry. Finally, Mr. President, I have a basically different view of political action committees than is reflected in this bill. In my view, PAC's play a useful and legitimate role in conveying valid political interests to the campaign process. I do fully agree that they have come to wield disproportionate influence and that their techniques have frequently created the appearance and often the reality of undue and improper influence. But the solution, I believe, is not to ban PAC contributions altogether from the political process. Surely, there must be a middle ground that would permit PAC's to make their legitimate contribution to the political process without compromising the beneficiaries. One approach that I find intriguing is the idea of an intermediary, or buffer, between the contribution PAC and the beneficiary candidate both for purpose of sanitizing the transaction and enforcing an overall limit of PAC expenditures per candidate. This would entail the creation of a neutral entity which might be called the national political action fund, to be the central repository to which all PAC contributions must be sent, with a pubic listing of intended beneficiaries. The fund would be administered by a neutral authority, possibly the Federal Election Commission. Part and parcel of this concept would be the provision of statutory limits on the aggregate amount of contributions a candidate could receive from all PAC's in an election cycle. A model for such a provision is the standby limitation proposed in S. 1219, which is 20 percent of the applicable spending limit per State. Under the plan I am outlining, PAC's could designate intended recipients for payments up to the existing $5,000 limit, and the neutral administrator of the fund would make the payments accordingly, up to the statutory aggregate limit for a given candidate. Any surpluses remaining in the national political action fund at the end of each cycle could be transferred to the Presidential Election Campaign fund, or some similar appropriate source. Mr. President, I offer the outline of this plan for further development. The process of political campaign reform is an evolutionary process, and I am pleased to have been part of it so far. It remains for those who follow to take up the cause and carry it to new levels of improvement. I urge them to be persistent and patient.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by very partisan, political tone that is beginning to cloud deliberations over the Workforce Development/Careers Act legislation now in conference. The blame for this development cannot be placed at the doorstep of any individual or any political party. I am afraid that everyone is at fault, and that there is enough blame for everyone. I voted for the Senate bill in committee and on the floor. I did so for several reasons. It brought a sweeping reform and a consolidation of a multiplicity of existing programs that simply were not working very well. It represented a new and innovative Federal-State partnership in administering programs that are so very important to the education and training needs of our Nation. And most important to me, it contained a series of very strong vocational and adult education provisions. Unfortunately, the bill that is being developed in conference differs considerably from the one the Senate passed. The concept of a new Federal-State partnership that was a key element of the Senate bill is gone. The Senate provision that continued support for School To Work Programs appears doomed. A strong within-State formula that sends vocational education funds to those districts most in need is endangered. Equally important, the need for reform is being lost in a battle for political gain. The lines of differences are hardening, and there is an all-or-nothing attitude beginning to develop on all sides. We have a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress and a Democratic administration. Yet, instead of a good give and take, instead of compromises in which both sides, we are reaching a stalemate that literally ignores the needs of millions of adult and young people who need these education and training services and who could rightfully care less who gets the credit. Mr. President, I deeply regret this situation. I would implore both sides to erase the lines that have been drawn in the sand, and get back to the table in a serious spirit of bipartisanship. I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to refrain from anything that might be labeled a ``Republican'' bill. I would urge my fellow Democrats in both the Congress and the administration to refrain from an uncompromising insistence on provisions that will ultimately doom this important legislation. I would ask everyone to lay their political labels aside and move ahead with one thing in mind: the need to produce a good bill that helps Americans who need our help.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, 1996 is fast emerging as one of the most critical years of the post-cold-war period. Earlier this year, Taiwan concluded Presidential elections, taking a firm step toward a pro- democratic course under China's watchful eye. India and Israel recently held elections that resulted in dramatic shifts of power in both countries. Russia just concluded the first round of balloting in its Presidential elections, and a second round is scheduled shortly in which Russians will face a stark choice between the West-leaning Yeltsin and the former communist Zyuganov. Later this year, Bosnia is scheduled to hold elections as well, the outcome of which may well determine whether that war-torn, fragmented country will continue to exist. As President Clinton said recently, ``we live in a moment of hope.'' The demise of the cold war, the emergence of democratic trends across the globe, advances in telecommunications and the exchange of information--all of these are helping to create a new international environment, which will force a realignment in the fundamental relationship between States, and augurs for a more stable and cooperative world. As we complete what appears to be a transition period into an era of unprecedented opportunity, the world will look to the United States--as the only true remaining superpower--for guidance and moral authority. Any President of the United States, of course, immediately plays an epic role on the world's stage. But President Clinton seems to be paying a more critical role than most. During the past 4 years, the Clinton administration has worked assiduously to exert influence over and capitalize on the momentous changes that have occurred. President Clinton's solid record of achievement, I would argue, demonstrates beyond all doubt that he has the requisite vision and courage to steer the ship of state into the next century. If you will permit me, I will give a brief tour of the international horizon to underscore my point. In Europe and the former Soviet Union, the Clinton administration has achieved some of its greatest foreign policy successes. Clinton's active engagement in Bosnia--a mine field where Presidents, policymakers, and pundits once feared to tread--has brought a halt to the bloodshed and killing in one of Europe's most destructive and intractable conflicts. The presence of U.S. troops--whom early critics predicted would be drawn into a fighting war--has proven to be the key ingredient in setting the stage for the return of stability. In the next several months, the administration looks to be equally engaged in ensuring that the proper circumstances arise for free and fair elections to take place, which would go a long way toward paving the way for a U.S. withdrawal and bringing the issue to a close. Russia follows close on Bosnia's heels as a major foreign policy success. The recent conclusion of the first round of the Presidential elections is a remarkable development in and of itself. For the first time in Russia's history, a Russian leader has endeavored to seek reelection, further strengthening prospects for the emergence of a Russian democratic culture. And the Clinton administration's policy of engaging--without actually endorsing--Yeltsin appears now to have been brilliantly conceived and well implemented. Turning to Asia, one simply cannot neglect China. China is the most important country in the region, and the United States-China bilateral relationship is one of the most critical in the world. Our relations with China are so complex and multifaceted that it is difficult to do them justice in so brief a discussion. I would only say that in such an intricate relationship, there are bound to be successes as well as failures. I, for one, credit the Clinton administration for pursuing a better trade relationship with China, which can promote cooperation, and ultimately progress, in other areas. I think the agreements on trade the administration has achieved so far constitute a good foundation, but the key challenge from here is to ensure that agreements are enforced and commitments honored in order for broader progress to come. Elsewhere in Asia, the administration's actions with regard to North Korea deserve special mention and commendation. It is indeed no small matter that the Clinton administration has, in essence, prevented one of the world's most dangerous rogue states from going nuclear. In doing so, the administration has set a strong precedent and learned invaluable lessons that it can apply to other aspiring nuclear powers. In the Middle East, the Clinton administration has made a superb effort to stabilize the region and broaden international acceptance of Israel. Israel's peace agreements with Jordan and the Palestinians represent achievements that are, in my view, irreversible. I am sure that the election of a new government in Israel will prompt some changes in the calculus for a comprehensive peace, which ultimately should include Lebanon, Syria, and the Persian Gulf States. But I would argue that whatever changes occur are more likely to have an impact on the timing, rather than the inevitability, of normal relations between Israel and the Arab States. In the Western Hemisphere, the Clinton administration can say with pride that democratically elected governments exist in every country of the region save one. And the one exception, Cuba, has become the target of particularly vigorous sanctions effort, which the administration hopes will hasten the fall of the Castro regime and open the way for the transition to democracy. Although I must confess to having opposed the tightening of sanctions, I cannot argue with the administration's intent. The administration's effort to restore Haitian President Aristide to power represents, of course, a milestone in the hemisphere's transition to democracy. In Haiti, much as in Bosnia, this administration inherited a seemingly insoluble problem, to which it brought energy, courage, creativity, and ultimately, a resolve to use justifiable force, and thereby achieved its goal. Finally, Mr. President, I would say a word about Africa, where United States interests have not been so easily defined as they have elsewhere, and which consequently has suffered occasionally from a lack of attention from Washington. Not so with the Clinton administration, which has made a real effort to promote stability, encourage the emergence of democratic trends, and disburse U.S. assistance effectively to promote sustainable development. The obvious high point is, of course, the peaceful transfer of power and the domestic election of President Mandela in South Africa. But there are equally important-- if lesser known--success stories such as Botswana, which enjoys a freely elected government and recently graduated altogether from United States assistance. To sum up, each of the highlights that I have touched upon represent significant achievements in their own right. In and of themselves, they command respect and recognition of a job well done by the Clinton administration in the foreign policy area. Collectively, they provide overwhelming evidence that the administration is up to the challenge of leading the United States into the next millennium, which holds promise for tremendous opportunity for our country and its citizens.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, to burn a church is to destroy more than a building. Burning a church strikes at the soul of a community, at it most sacred place. These fires bring terror and tears to communities that often have known all too much of both. And we are all diminished in spirit by the despicable doings of a hate filled few. Yet even from such a cowardly and vile act, great good has sprung. I note that upon the publicizing of these burnings, there has been an outpouring of support for the beleaguered congregations, both to fund the rebuilding of the churches and to assist in the apprehension of the perpetrators. Reconstruction of the churches has become a community affair, with volunteers from across the Nation. Those who would burn a church should remember that to do so serves only to awaken a moral imperative to speak out and act against such violence. George Washington reflected the spirit of the Nation when he wrote in a letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue of Newport, RI, that the Government of the United States ``gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.'' Today, 206 years later, Washington's words echo with renewed fervor across an outraged land.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to note with regret the sudden death last week of Le Mai, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Vietnam. Le Mai hosted me for dinner just 3 weeks ago when I was in Hanoi. I found him to be warm, intelligent, and above all eager to continue the process of improving relations with the United States. Mai's death comes at a particularly difficult time in Vietnamese politics. The Communist Party is scheduled to hold a crucial party congress at the end of this month, where several important decisions regarding the near future of the country will be made. Mai would have been a strong force pushing Vietnam toward a more open economic system. He told me in Hanoi that Vietnam's biggest mistake so far was imposing a demand economy. He argued that the laws of capitalism ``just are'' and that Vietnam has developed much since economic reforms were started in the late 1980's. He also would have been a strong force pushing his government toward more friendly relations with the West. He recognized that his country needed political, as well as economic reforms and said he wanted closer relations with the United States in part to help his fellow countrymen better understand our system. Le Mai was one of the principle architects of the normalization process between the United States and Vietnam and his dedication to moving that relationship further forward was evident in our discussions. He stressed the need for the United States to have an active presence in Southeast Asia, economically, politically and even militarily. He understood the lingering problems that many in both countries have with the bilateral relationship because of the war, but argued that it was important for governments to try to forge policies to get past people's emotions. He recognized, too, the responsibility that he and other leaders in both countries had in creating those policies, telling me that ``our generation fought the war, so it is our duty to solve the problems'' that resulted from it. His death is a loss to his country and to the ongoing process of improving relations between our two countries. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I oppose strongly the amendment on nuclear testing offered by the Senators from Arizona and Nevada, Mr. Kyl and Mr. Reid. The United States is currently in the forefront of nations seeking a comprehensive ban on nuclear explosions. Members of the administration have worked assiduously to remove obstacles to such a ban both in the United States and among the other nuclear powers. Currently, we are in the final stages of an effort that could culminate an agreement on the text by June 28, with the opening of the text for signatures occurring this coming September. Getting us to this point, at which a comprehensive treaty ban is almost in hand, has been both slow and tortuous. I recall well that President John F. Kennedy hoped to bring about a complete ban on nuclear testing. By building upon the positive aspects on both sides, he was able to bring about the breakthrough that produced the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which limited nuclear testing to the underground environment and spared the world further exposure to radiation and fallout from the tests by the three signatories, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. In 1974, President Nixon achieved the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, and President Ford accomplished the Peaceful Nuclear Explosives Treaty in 1976. In 1990, while I was chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the committee and the Senate approved ratification of those two treaties. The complete ban has been an oft-stated goal of the United States for more than three decades and it has been pursued with varying degrees of enthusiasm. In recent years, as some questions of safety and reliability of nuclear weapons have been resolved and as our scientific community has, with methods of ensuring the safety and reliability of the stockpile without resort to nuclear testing, it has become increasing clear that nuclear testing is no longer an imperative and that national interests of the United States would be served by an end to nuclear testing. When the administration succeeded last year in securing the unconditioned and permanent extension of the nonproliferation treaty, we were successful largely because many nations who have foresworn nuclear weapons trusted us and the other nuclear powers to move expeditiously to a complete end of nuclear testing. That goal appears now to be within both reach and grasp. As a result of legislation sponsored by Senators Hatfield, Exon, and Mitchell in 1992, the United States has been operating under a moratorium on nuclear testing that will extend through this September. According to that legislation, the United States can only resume nuclear testing if another nation does so. Russia has not tested since 1992 and indicates it does not intend to resume nuclear testing. Earlier this year, France finished its latest and controversial series of nuclear tests in the Pacific and declared its commitment to achievement of a comprehensive ban. That leaves only China, which has indicated that it will conduct only one more test before September and then will join the other nuclear powers in stopping testing. The Kyl-Reid amendment would revoke the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell language, under which the United States has been engaged in the moratorium and moving toward a complete ban. It is correct that the amendment does not require testing, but it does open the way to renewed testing and send a completely wrong signal at this final stage of the negotiation on a complete ban. It would serve to undermine U.S. commitment to success in the negotiation. It could serve to disrupt the negotiation completely, and it could precipitate an end to prospects for a complete ban for years to come. Mr. President, in January, John Holum, the director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, delivered a message from the President to the delegates negotiating the test ban at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. The President made the point: ``A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is vital to constrain both the spread and further development of nuclear weapons. And it will help fulfill our mutual pledges to renounce the nuclear arms race and move toward our ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear arms.'' The President concluded: ``I pledge the full and energetic support of the United States to conclude promptly a treaty so long sought and so long denied. Let us, now, take this historic step together.'' The last several weeks in Geneva have been marked by heated negotiations as delegates attempt to remove final roadblocks. The next few days will be similarly hectic as delegates try to meet the June 28 deadline for success. John Holum told us today, ``We are close to achieving our goal in Geneva. This window of opportunity is the best, and perhaps the last, chance to achieve this goal.'' Mr. President, the Senate has had the wisdom to agree to the SALT I interim agreement, the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, START I and the START II Treaty. These treaties first capped the arms race, and ensured the viability of strategic deterrence. Through the START I Treaty which is now in force and the START II Treaty which awaits Russian ratification, the world's two superpowers will have reduced their nuclear arsenals by approximately two-thirds. If we are wise and prudent we will move beyond that level still further to substantially lower levels of nuclear armament. A complete ban on nuclear testing will help to reinforce and invigorate that process. I hope very much that the Senate will decide today to keep the United States on the course it so wisely chose in 1992 in deciding to initiate a moratorium on nuclear testing. House Provision on Antipersonnel Landmines

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, at this time when the fiscal year 1997 appropriations level for the National Endowment for the Arts is being determined, I would like to illustrate the importance of the arts to the education of our children and to the growth of the local economy through two examples from my home State of Rhode Island. The May 23 issue of Nature describes the Starting With the Arts [SWAP] Program for 96 first-graders in four Pawtucket, RI, classrroms. The program is based on the internationally recognized Kodaly curriculum that emphasizes musical and visual arts skills. After 7 months, the SWAP children scored better in math than their counterparts who had standard classes--and equally well in reading--even though their kindergarten scores indicated that they were behind. At the end of second grade, math comprehension and problem-solving skills were highest in students who received 2 years of the special program, next best in those who had 1 year, and worst in those who received the standard curriculum. The findings of a nationwide survey on the attitudes of Americans toward the arts, conducted by Louis Harris and released this month, found that 9 in 10 Americans believed that when children get involved in the arts in school, they ``become more creative and imaginative,'' ``develop skills that make them feel more accomplished,'' and ``learn to communicate well.'' Over 8 in 10 Americans also feel that exposure to the arts ``helps young people develop discipline and perseverance'' and helps them ``to learn skills that can be useful in a job.'' The Pawtucket youngsters confirm these beliefs. My second example stems from a 2-hour public forum organized as part of the 16th International Sculpture Conference in Providence last week. At this meeting, numerous civic, cultural, and business leaders came forward to show how the arts have served to stimulate the economic revival of downtown Providence. What is happening in Rhode Island is happening nationally. Nonprofit arts organizations create nearly $37 billion in economic activity in the United States every year, and support 1.3 million American jobs. The arts are one of the best and the cheapest ways of improving the economy. The arts stimulate business development, spur urban renewal, attract new businesses, and improve the overall quality of life in our cities and towns. Roger Mandle at the Rhode Island School of Design has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of design to both the economy and greater ease in every day life. Existing and available cultural resources are frequently cited as one of the prime reasons businesses select to move to a community. The arts can literally turn a community or neighborhood around. One of the best illustrations of the impact of the arts on the economy is tourism, and tourism is the fastest growing economic market in the United States today. In Providence, the Providence Performing Arts Center and Trinity Square Repertory Company have brought countless audiences to their theaters, with many people spending money on restaurants, shops, parking, and the like that would not do so otherwise without the presence of the arts. Recent discussions among the museums in the downtown area have led to the exciting concept of a Museum Mile connecting these cultural institutions through a collective effort in marketing, fundraising, parking, transportation. The result will attract visitors from all over the country to Providence. When the arts is good, more people are employed, and more taxable income generates more revenue for our State and local municipalities. There are more artists per square mile living in Providence than in any other city in the United States, and this number is likely to increase with the passage of proposed State legislation that would provide State income and sales breaks to artists living or working in the central business district. One bill would exempt these artists from paying sales tax on plays, books, musical compositions, paintings and sculpture. A second bill would provide these artists with a personal tax exempt. The Rhode Island House Finance Committee has voted its approval. In praising the effort, Mayor Vincent A. Cianci, Jr. states: ``These bills, while supporting our artists and arts, promote economic development and tourism and will create a more dynamic synergy among the Arts and Entertainment District, Capital Center and the Province Place mall.'' Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider these examples from Rhode Island, to understand the far-reaching positive impact of the arts on both education and economy, and to join together in a bipartisan effort to appropriate $136 million for the National Endowment for the Arts as requested by administration. It is important that this agency is funded sufficiently to be able to continue its worthwhile and extremely effective endeavors to improve the quality of life for all Americans. The recent Harris Poll referenced above shows that Federal support for the arts remains solid and strong. Surprisingly, Harris also found that a 61 percent majority of Americans--to 37 percent saying ``no''-- would be willing to be taxed $5 more in order to pay for Federal financial support for the arts. Fully 86 percent of all American adults are exposed to the arts in the course of a year. These people believe the arts to be important and would sorely missed them if they were not there.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the budget resolution conference report now before us once again reflects the impact of what I fear is an extreme conservative agenda that I believe is not shared by the majority of my constituents, or indeed of the Nation. I cannot support it. I note at the outset that I was happy to support the bipartisan centrist alternative budget that was offered last month by Senators Chafee and Breaux. In my view, the alternative plan took a more moderate approach based on a far more reasonable ranking of priorities. I should also note that the budget resolution which passed the Senate on May 23 was somewhat better than the pending conference report. Although I did not vote for the bill, I was pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, added $5 billion to discretionary spending, of which $1.7 billion was earmarked for education. Unfortunately, that enlightened step was quickly undone by the conferees, and the budget now before us resembles all too clearly last year's ill-conceived and misguided reconciliation bill that resulted in 2 Government shutdowns and 13 continuing resolutions. It is dismaying to contemplate a repetition. The budget before us is all wrong, in my view. It continues the preposterous inconsistency of scheduling tax cuts and continuing tax breaks while at the very same time purporting to move toward a balanced budget. It pads the defense budget by more than $11 billion. And to offset these costly steps, it depends on excessive and unwise cuts in Medicare and Medicaid as well as in welfare and education. I am, of course, most particularly distressed by the cavalier and to my mind dangerous treatment of the Federal investment in education, which this budget would cut by 20 percent across the board by 2002. The impact would be felt at all levels of education, at a time when enrollments particularly at the secondary levels are climbing to historic highs. At the college level, the Republican budget would cut the Pell grant program by $6.2 billion over 6 years. An estimated 1.3 million students would lose Pell grants, and the value of the maximum grant would decline by $400 per student. College work study opportunities would be lost by 800,000 students by 2002. The Direct Student Loan Program would be capped, forcing colleges and students out of the program. And national service would be cut, denying opportunity to some 40,000 over the 6-year period. At the secondary level, in fiscal year 1997 alone, the pending budget will have a very harmful effect on several programs of proven merit: Cuts in education for disadvantaged children would deny funding for math and reading skills for some 344,000 children. Safe and drug free school antidrug and antiviolence programs would be cut by $30 million next year. Cuts in Head Start would deny preschool education to at least 12,500 children next year. Funding under Goals 2000 would be cut for 500 schools helping 250,000 students meet higher education standards. Reduction in funding for bilingual education would eliminate services for some 38,000 students with limited proficiency in English. Cuts in summer jobs for youth and dislocated workers assistance will result in lost opportunities for skill enhancement for some 81,000 young people. Mr. President, these reductions might have been justified if every last dollar had been shaved from programs less essential than education, or if national defense was seriously at risk or if every taxpayer in the country was being taxed to the limit of his ability to pay. But the fact is that none of these conditions obtain. On the contrary, this budget provides tax cuts and tax breaks that may reach $180 billion for the wealthiest individuals in the Nation while at the same time cutting education programs by $25 billion,. This is an unconscionable inversion of reasonable priorities and it ought to be rejected out of hand. I can only hope that our successors will bring a more enlightened and responsible attitude to the task.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I welcome the news that negotiations on Northern Ireland are back on course. Fractious though they might be, the talks involving the British and Irish Governments, as well as representatives of Northern Ireland's political parties, offer hope to all of us who long for a permanent peace in Northern Ireland. The talks, which opened Monday, had hit a significant impasse over the role of our former colleague George Mitchell, who was chosen by the British and Irish Governments to chair the negotiating sessions. Due to the courage shown by all those involved, but particularly Prime Minister Major and Unionist leader David Trimble, the impasse has been resolved and a possible deadlock has been averted. The talks will proceed with Senator Mitchell at the helm. I regret that there are still some Unionists, however, who object to Senator Mitchell's chairmanship, for the sole purpose, I suspect, of obstructing the peace process. Having served with George Mitchell for many years in the Senate, I can personally attest to his even-handed and judicious approach to the issues. Here in the Senate, he was admired by members of both parties for his ability to build bridges and cut across partisan lines. George Mitchell is quite frankly, one of the most fair-minded individuals with whom I have had the pleasure of working. Senator Mitchell has already demonstrated great wisdom and balance with regard to the peace process in Northern Ireland. In January, Senator Mitchell issued an excellent report examining the link between the decommissioning of weapons and all-party talks. As head of the international body charged with studying this issue. Senator Mitchell drew upon his background as a judge. He did an excellent job of reaching out to the various parties to hear their views on this difficult matter, and of characterizing the opposing views on that issue. For this reason, the report was hailed across the board. It provides a solid set of principles for the negotiations. I am confident that Senator Mitchell will continue to demonstrate even-handedness and great insight as he takes up the gavel at Stormont Castle, the site of the talks. The talks on Northern Ireland will proceed without the participation of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army. Sinn Fein is barred from the negotiating sessions because the IRA has failed to commit to a cease-fire. That is as it should be. The ground rules for the talks make clear that all parties must offer their total commitment to the principles of democracy and nonviolence. But there is a place reserved at the table for Sinn Fein. The IRA need only recommit itself to nonviolence to take its seat at that table. Genuine all-party talks cannot take place without Sinn Fein or without the Unionist parties which have thus far eschewed the process. A great deal of progress has been made toward achieving a lasting peace. Let us hope that the momentum can be continued.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as one who has spent much of his Senate career seeking to broaden and expand educational opportunity, I want to commend President Clinton for the education proposal that he today placed at the forefront of his domestic agenda. I also take special pride in the fact that he set forth his proposals in his commencement address at Princeton University, which is my alma mater. While we have not had the opportunity to examine the package in any detail, I am particularly drawn to two of the President's proposals. The first of these is the Hope scholarship plan. Its thrust and purpose is most certainly consistent with my longstanding belief that we ought to guarantee 2 years of education beyond high school to every student who has the drive, desire, and talent. As I have said many times, the idea that 12 years of education is sufficient education for our young people is, quite simply, an outmoded, turn-of-the-century concept. As we approach the turn of a new century, it is truly high time that we discarded that notion. The vast majority of leaders in the growth industries of our Nation recognize that a skilled work force requires at least 2 years of education beyond high school. But while we have talked about trying to change an outdated policy, it is President Clinton who has brought the talk to an end and laid out a plan to make the concept of 14 years of education a reality. The Hope scholarship plan would provide a $1,500 tax credit for the first year of education after high school, and another $1,500 for the second year if they worked hard, stayed off drugs, and earned at least a ``B'' average. It is a plan that would reward efforts and achievement, twin objectives with which I strongly concur. It is a plan that would make a tuition-free education possible for 67 percent of all community college students. For students with financial need, it would work in concert with the Pell grant and further ease the burden of paying for a college education. While it would have its most profound impact on students attending community college, it would also be of immense help to students pursuing a 4-year degree. Students and their families could opt for either the $1,500 tax credit or a $10,000 tax deduction. It would be their decision as to which option better suited their needs. With respect to the proposed $10,000 tax deduction, I am especially pleased that the administration has refined its original proposal. It will now be targeted to hard-pressed middle-income wage earners. These are the very families who today find that paying for their children's education is increasingly beyond their financial reach. The other proposal to which I am drawn is the President's proposed 33-percent increase in the maximum Pell grant over the next 7 years. For fiscal year 1997, the President has already proposed increasing the maximum grant from $2,470 to $2,700, a 1-year increase of almost 10 percent. And, according to today's announcement, the maximum grant would continue to receive yearly increases, and would reach a maximum award of $3,128 by fiscal year 2002. Unfortunately, the proposal will not redress the terrible imbalance between grants and loans that has become so pronounced over the past decade and a half. Where a deserving student's financial aid package was once 75 percent grants and 25 percent loans, today it is the opposite--almost 75 percent loans and only 25 percent grants. Yet, even though the President's proposal may fall short of the mark, it is certainly a welcome step in the right direction. It also stands in stark contrast to the budget resolutions approved by both the House and Senate. They would freeze the budget authority for the Pell Grant Program. In all candor, however, we should take the President's Pell grant proposals as only the first step. We ought to give it our careful and thoughtful consideration, and then do him one better by enacting legislation that truly addresses the enormous and growing debt burden incurred by literally millions of college students as they struggle to pay for a college education. While I realize I may sail against the political winds, I continue to believe deeply that the Pell grant ought to be made an entitlement, which would free it from the pitfalls of yearly appropriations. Mr. President, I believe deeply that education is a capital investment. What we put into the education of our children is returned to us many times over. Every study we know shows that there is a direct relationship between more education and higher personal income. Better education means better jobs, and better jobs mean a stronger and more vibrant economy. We must be careful, however, that the cost of an education and the debt undertaken in getting it do not overtake us. I welcome the President's proposals. I applaud the initiative he has taken. I congratulate him for placing a priority on education. While we had little advance notice of these proposals and virtually no time in which to mull them over, I hope very much that we will give them careful and thoughtful consideration, and that they will not be overwhelmed by election year politics. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.