Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, there is a commonly held belief abroad in the land that all taxes are inherently burdensome. This is implicit in an event recently noted, known as ``Tax Freedom Day.'' I was moved to ponder this matter after reading an article in The Washington Post, entitled ``Why Do We Call Taxes a Burden'?'' by Professor Rashi Fein. Professor Fein makes the point, most excellently, that our language shapes our actions. A ``burden'' is by definition oppressive. Our facile use of the term in connection with our taxes thereby encourages us to act to ease those taxes. By such thinking, in fashioning a budget resolution, all manner of actions become justified. Let us jettison support for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, hiring of police officers, heating assistance to the poor, protection of our environment, education loans, United States humanitarian operations, civilian and military retirement pensions, national defense, prosecution of drug smugglers, and Amtrak. Thus, so this form of reasoning goes, will our ``burden'' be lifted. Yet who among us would not assert that some, if not all of the aforementioned programs are worthy in motive and intent, albeit perhaps not flawless in execution? Professor Fein posits that the weighing of appropriate tax and expenditure policies is difficult when our language encourages us to think of our taxes as burdens not connected to the benefits we derive from them. Police protection, clean air and water, an educated populace, and a strong national defense benefit each and every one of us. Moreover, Federal entitlements--benefits citizens are entitled to collect if they meet certain demographic or income definitions--reach 49 percent of U.S. households, including 39 percent of families with children and 98 percent of the elderly. As a moral proposition, we must be careful of our words, for our words become our actions. And, as the adage goes, actions become character, and our character becomes our destiny. In considering amendments to the budget resolution, let us not join in vying to reduce our tax ``burden'' lest our destiny become a society ``less organized and less civilized.'' Mr. President, I ask that the article entitled ``Why Do We Call Taxes a Burden'?'' be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the Washington, Post, May 17, 1996] Why do we Call Taxes a `Burden'? (By Rashi Fein) I learn a lot watching C-SPAN. The other night, one of Washington's leading economists was asked about using the tax system to help reduce environmental damage. The response? It certainly would be difficult, because it would increase the ``tax burden.'' ``Tax burden'' is a phrase with which we are all so familiar that we don't stop to think what it means--nor what it implies. At first blush it seems value-free. But plainly a ``burden'' is something to be lifted. We don't refer to the monies we spend on movies, popcorn, milk or shoes as ``burdens.'' We refer to them--and think of them--as expenditures, some (movies and popcorn) optional, others (food, shoes) necessary. We don't speak of our ``consumption burden.'' Why, then, a ``tax burden''? Is it that our tax payments are not optional but our food expenditures are? That can't be it: We have to buy food. We can choose between steak and hamburger (or yogurt and tofu), but we can't choose between eating and starving. Indeed, the penalty for not eating far exceeds the penalty for nonpayment of taxes. yet we do not speak of the ``food burden.'' More likely, we think of taxes as a burden because we're not quite certain what it is we're buying when we pay them. We miss, somehow, the connection between our tax dollars and the fire protection, the highways, the security against foreign powers and the biomedical research that our dollars buy. The problem is that few of the benefits we derive can be seen, touched or smelled. Moreover, the benefits we derive from government expenditures most often accrue to everyone; they do not come packaged in discrete units--this box of defense for me, this piece of highway for you. And many of us assume that we'd continue to get whatever it is we're getting from government even if we didn't pay our taxes. Without spending our dollars, we'd have no milk on our tables, but we can't really imagine that schools and roads would disappear if you and I didn't buy them with our tax dollars. Clearly, government doesn't determine how many potholes to fill only after it deposits our tax dollars. If I don't buy that book, that restaurant meal, that aspirin--or if I cheat on my taxes--does government really subtract from the pothole-fixing budget or the salaries of judges? That's a tough connection to make--but without that connection, my taxes come to seem irrelevant, hence unnecessary, hence a ``burden.'' Of course, no government program would suffer if you or I consumed less (and thus paid less in sales tax) or if I cheated on my return (and thus paid less in income tax). But if you and I both underpaid, everyone else would have to pay more. And it surely stretches language beyond acceptable usage to call not taking advantage of one's neighbors a ``burden.'' Burdens are by definition oppressive, and our facile use of the term in connection with our taxes thereby encourages us to do everything we can (within the law) to ease them. Cheating on our taxes comes to seem acceptable (at least understandable), even though tax evasion is precisely analogous to shoplifting. If we take fire protection, guarantees on educational loans, clean air and water but fail to pay for them, we are stealing. Our language shapes our attitudes. To weigh appropriate tax and expenditure policies in difficult when our language encourages us to think of our taxes as burdens not connected to the benefits we derive from them. Some weeks ago, I received a brochure encouraging me to open an IRA. In that brochure, a 1040 tax return was labeled ``pain,'' while the application for an IRA was labeled ``pain killer.'' By implication, taxes (like pain) are to be avoided. By implication, I can continue to enjoy the benefits of government expenditures without paying for them. We can debate ``value for money,'' the wisdom of particular government policies, programs and expenditures. We can argue as to whether we're spending too much here, not enough there. But that debate is distorted if we enter it with the view that any government expenditure--which means my tax dollar-- is inherently burdensome. I feel as I do because I remember what Justice Holmes wrote in 1904: ``Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society'' and what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in 1936, ``Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.'' Now, at century's end, our economists tell us taxes are a burden, and our pension funds tell us taxes are a pain. Is it any wonder that our leaders vie to reduce the burden and the pain, even if in so doing our society becomes somewhat less organized and less civilized?

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, since the Soviet Union broke up in December 1991, Russians have undergone five very painful years of political and economic transition. Life is difficult and uncertain for many average Russians. In Russia's most recent elections, held last December, Communists gained control of the Russian legislature and pro- reform parties were marginalized. Earlier this year, that Parliament voted to abrogate the treaty which disbanded the Soviet Union. While rejecting the Parliament's vote, President Yeltsin is nevertheless pursuing closer ties with its former Soviet neighbors. President Boris Yeltsin has also made several key personnel changes in the last few months, dismissing some of the key reformers. War continues to rage in Chechnya. At the same time, Russia has agreed to adhere to stringent economic requirements to continue to receive funding from International Monetary Fund. Against this backdrop, on June 16, in less than a month, Russians will go to the polls to elect a President. Whatever the outcome, this election will have profound implications for the course of reform in Russia, the future of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the development of United States-Russian relations, and in fact, global stability. I fear that we are not giving enough thought and attention to what is taking place in Russia and particularly to how the impending election might affect United States-Russian relations. Accordingly, majority and minority staff members of the Foreign Relations Committee were recently tasked with visiting Russia to get a sense of the issues and the candidates in the lead-up to the elections. They have prepared a report based upon their visit which I would commend to my colleagues. The report makes no predictions about the outcome of the election. Rather, it presents some of the issues confronting the candidates and the electorate, including economic and key foreign policy issues. I would ask that the report summary be placed in the Record at the end of my remarks. The bottom line is that no one can predict what will happen in Russia in the coming weeks and months. I believe, however, that it is important to be as informed as possible about developments in Russia so as to avoid uninformed or knee-jerk reactions to events there. I believe the committee staff report makes a useful contribution to the discussion. I am pleased to note that the staff trip was conducted and the report was written on a bipartisan basis. I would like to thank Senator Helms and his staff for the high level of cooperation they have offered on this venture. I know that we share the goal of supporting continued reform in Russia, and as Russia heads into a period of uncertainty, I am hopeful that we can continue to work together to promote that goal. summary of key findings On June 16, 1996, the Russian Federation will hold Presidential elections. By any estimation, this election--just over a month away-- will have profound implications for the course of reform in Russia, the future of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the development of United States-Russian relations, and in fact, global stability. No clear favorite candidate has yet emerged. The Russian presidential election comes in the wake of five very painful years of political and economic transition. Ironically, just as the Russian economy shows evidence of imminent growth, the Russian electorate's hostility to reform and pro-reform candidates is peaking. The Russian people appear to fear change more than they dislike President Boris Yeltsin. However, voter discontent runs deep and nostalgia for the better, more stable and predictable times, whether based on reality or not, is the order of the day. Many equate democracy with a breakdown of order, rampant crime and corruption, and oppression by the mafia. At this point, it appears that the Communist candidate, Gennadiy Zyuganov, has the largest amount of support among the electorate. Zyuganov has a chameleon-like ability to tailor his message to a particular audience. It is, therefore, difficult to distinguish his true beliefs from his campaign rhetoric, and by extension to predict how the Communist Party, if it captures the Presidency, would manage the Russian economy, political system, and foreign policy. Many in Russia conclude that an electoral victory by the Communists would inevitably result in dictatorship. Such fears may not be overblown: anecdotal information indicates that some reformers are keeping their exit visas current through the presidential election. The gloomier analysts even predict a prompt reopening of the gulags and the reemergence of political trials. Two trends in the Russian economy may serve to sustain market reforms in Russia even if an anti-market candidate is elected President. The first is the growing base of small businesses. The second is the increasing flow of economic power to the regions. President Yeltsin has predicted that he will prevail in the first round of the June 16 election, gathering enough of the vote to win the election outright. While such an outcome is nearly impossible, Yeltsin is widely viewed as a likely second place finisher--which is sufficient to get him into the run-off. While President Yeltsin's core supporters within the electorate are outnumbered by those committed to the Communists, it is widely believed that he has much more opportunity to broaden his support as the campaign wears on. Vladimir Zhirinovsky must be considered a serious contender if for no other reason than that he has consistently exceeded the expectations of most analysts. While he is reviled by most opponents, Zhirinovsky has a loyal, if somewhat fractious electoral base. His high negative rating makes his chances of victory near impossible. A widely split vote among pro-reform candidates, however, could propel him into the second round, thereby creating the nightmare scenario for Russia's democratic reformers: a runoff between Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky. Grigory Yavlinsky considers himself to be the last, true democratic reform leader in Russia. Certainly, he is the last democrat with anything resembling a popular constituency in Russia today, although many question whether his popularity extends much beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg. The key to Yavlinsky's electoral strategy is to build a coalition-- the so-called ``third force''--with fellow candidates Svyatoslav Fyodorov and General Alexandr Lebed. The three--all of whom have collected the necessary one million signatures to be listed on the ballot--have tentatively agreed to support the most popular among them. The problem is that each of the three believes himself to be that person. Aside from the campaign performance of the various candidates for the Presidential election, other factors which may influence the outcome include voter turnout and the ever present threat of fraud. Even if the June election is relatively fair, charges of fraud will likely be made by those who fail to make the second round. Russian politicians readily admit that foreign policy will not play a major role in the upcoming presidential election campaign. That being said, Russia's identity and role in the world is a theme that all candidates are exploiting--and to which voters seem to be responding. Given the resonance that nationalist themes have among the electorate, it is not surprising that the current government is emphasizing Russian integration with other countries of the former Soviet Union, rethinking its relationship with the United States, and opposing NATO expansion. Russian officials go to great lengths to emphasize that the government is pursuing integration with its neighbors as distinct from reintegration. According to these officials, the distinction is that reintegration would imply a reimposition of a command economy and reestablishment of the Soviet Union, while integration implies a voluntary relationship on the model of the European Union. After the break-up of the Soviet Union in December 1991, there was general euphoria in Washington and Moscow about the prospects for a United States--Russian partnership on a wide range of foreign policy, arms control, and other issues. By 1994, however, several events had occurred which collectively served to dampen enthusiasm in both capitals about the prospects for close United States-Russian cooperation. Both Washington and Moscow had unrealistic expectations about the possibilities for United States-Russian relations. Still, many Russians, while readily admitting that things had changed, are reluctant to abandon the notion of a Russian-United States partnership--particularly on issues of mutual interest such as arms control and the fight against organized crime and terrorism. Even those who admit to a cooling in relations with the United States point to United States-Russian collaboration in Bosnia as a success story and a model for future cooperation. Given previous United States- Russian divisions over Bosnia--with the Russians traditionally taking positions sympathetic to the Serbs--Russian satisfaction with the current IFOR arrangement is particularly noteworthy. While Russian officials continue to voice their opposition to NATO expansion, their arguments are often contradictory and muddled. It is difficult to gauge whether apparent Russian apprehensions are genuine or calculated. Russian officials offer an unapologetic though naive defense of Russia's relationship with Iran. They regard Russia's relations with Iran as normal, and perceive Iran neither as enemy nor ally. Russian officials completely dismiss suggestions that Iran may use technology acquired from Russia to develop a nuclear weapons program. Russian foreign policy analysts are divided over whether close relations can be forged with the People's Republic of China. Nonetheless, despite this skepticism, many endorse expanded cooperation with China as a useful counterbalance to the United States on issues such as NATO expansion.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague and thank the Chair. I just wanted to rise to say, if this amendment was agreed to, it would circumvent some of our humanitarian programs. It would cause damage to the Kurdish minority in the country. I very much hope we could defeat this amendment.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I oppose amendment 4002. Not only does it demand that the President do something that is not within his power, but it also encourages a course of action that would undermine United States interests with regard to Iraq. Some time ago, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 986 to enable the sale of Iraqi oil and to use the proceeds for specific purposes--mostly to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq. Some of the funds would also be channeled to the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq--also known as UNSCOM--which is charged with monitoring and dismantling Iraq's special weapons programs, and to the Compensation Committee--which is settling international claims against Iraq. This resolution would urge that the President renegotiate the terms of the deal so that the proceeds would go to the United States Department of Defense in order to fund Operation Southern Watch--the no-fly zone in southern Iraq, and Operation Provide Comfort--the no-fly zone in Iraqi Kurdistan. The President does not have the power to renegotiate the deal. Resolution 986 was passed some time ago by the Security Council and cannot be altered. The United States voted for the resolution because it was concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, who were suffering under Saddam Hussein's authoritarian regime. At the time the U.N. resolution passed, it was becoming increasingly clear that the anti-Iraq coalition was beginning to fracture, and some of our allies were beginning to call for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. The Security Council resolution offered a rock-solid compromise: Iraqi oil could be sold, the proceeds used for humanitarian and security purposes, and strict monitoring procedures would be put in place such that Iraq could in no way benefit from the arrangements. If we were to reopen the compromise to discussion now, we may well be opening the door for erosion of the sanctions regime against Iraq. I doubt very much that the Senate would wish to do this. Furthermore, if the President were to try to do what is contemplated in the amendment--and I repeat, he has no standing to do so--then we would put other important objectives toward Iraq in doubt. We would suggest that we do not support the work of UNSCOM, which has done invaluable work in seeing that Iraq will no longer be able to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. We would suggest that the international community--including United States businesspersons--does not have the right to be compensated for claims against Iraq. We would suggest that Kuwait--the unfortunate object of Saddam Hussein's obsessions--does not have a right to be compensated for war damage. And worst of all, we would suggest to innocent Iraqis that we oppose them as a people and do not care about their treatment by Saddam Hussein. I well recall the many times that President Bush said during the Persian Gulf war that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people, and called upon them to oppose Saddam Hussein. If we cavalierly suspend efforts to provide humanitarian assistance, the Iraqi people will only draw the conclusion that the United States is against them and wants to punish them for the sins of Saddam. I can think of no more effective way to bolster Saddam's standing in the eyes of the Iraqi people than to follow the course of action recommended in this amendment. I do not quarrel with the thought that the President should seek compensation wherever possible for U.S. operations that support U.N. missions. But in the case of Provide Comfort and Southern Watch, both operations clearly serve U.S. interests. We shouldn't insist on U.N. compensation for operations that are so important to our own country-- and jeopardize other humanitarian and security objectives in the process. Mr. President, I defer to none when it comes to Iraq. I introduced the first-ever sanctions bill against Iraq in 1988, well before it was popular or politic to oppose the Saddam Hussein regime. I am certain, however, the U.N. Security Council Resolution 986 is well-crafted and, if implemented, will serve U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. We should not try to tinker with it now, particularly for reasons that are as suspect as those put forth in the amendment. I strongly oppose this resolution, and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, now is not the time to make the largest cuts in education in U.S. history. There is simply no growth in this budget for our Nation's many important education programs. To my mind, if we jeopardize the education of our Nation's children we are jeopardizing the economic well-being of our country. A commitment to education is a strong Federal investment that will ensure that America's children and families are prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Programs like Safe and Drug Free Schools, Head Start, Goals 2000, and title I are oftentimes the only hope for so many of the children growing up in disadvantaged communities. At this time, when student enrollments are at an alltime high, and expected to be at their highest level since 1971, we should be increasing the support that we send to States so that they may further their own initiatives in key areas of education. By making such drastic cuts in funding to these invaluable elementary and secondary education programs, the future of millions of children will be threatened. Over the last 30 years, the dream of a college education has been brought within reach of almost every American. As the population of traditional college age students will rise by 12 percent over the next decade, we as a nation must help keep the doors open to college and other postsecondary education opportunities. This budget would turn our backs on the college-bound students of America. By cutting $6.2 billion over the next 6 years, 1.3 million students will lose Pell grants, while 800,000 students would lose work-study opportunities by the year 2002. In the span of a little more than a decade, we have gone from a situation where grants were 75 percent of a student's aid package and loan's only 25 percent to one where loans make up 75 percent of the package and grants only 25 percent. To my mind, this is not the direction which we should be moving. Now is the time to continue to assist college students in their quest for a brighter future. I am gravely concerned about the direction this budget resolution would takes us. I firmly believe that the drastic education cuts proposed would not guarantee that we as a nation are prepared to meet the challenges of the next century. Our commitment to education cannot stop here, therefore, I ask my colleague to carefully look at the implications of this budget resolution.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I offer a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to advance the Inauguration dates for the President and Members of Congress from January 20th and 3rd to December 10th and 1st respectively. In offering this resolution here in the 104th Congress, I note for my colleagues that this is an effort I first began in 1981 and with each succeeding set of national elections, I believe that the rationale and wisdom for changing these dates becomes more compelling. The current date for the Inauguration of the President was set by the 20th amendment to the Constitution in 1933. Prior to that, the Inauguration date had not changed since being fixed by an act of the Continental Congress in 1788 commencing the proceeding of the Government of the United States under the newly ratified Constitution. Under that act, March 4th was chosen simply because it happened to be the first Wednesday in March of 1789 and it was thought at the time that that amount of time was needed for each State to appoint Presidential electors to the Electoral College and for them to meet and cast their ballots. Additionally, there were practical and controlling considerations over the difficulty and length of time it took to travel to and from the Capital City, the necessity for time to allow newly elected officials to tend to the long-term organization of their private affairs prior to their extended departure from home for Washington, and the lack of sophisticated means for the verification of polling results and for communication of news. Thus, in the founding days of our country, March 4th was seen as the earliest possible date by which the Government could, in an orderly and practical manner, bring about the will of the electors as expressed in congressional and Presidential balloting from the previous November. By 1933, however, it had become clear that it was no longer necessary to postpone the Inauguration of the President and Members of Congress until March 4th. Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska, the Champion of the 20th amendment to the Constitution which advanced the Presidential and congressional Inauguration dates to their current status, said on the Senate floor in 1932: When our Constitution was adopted, there was some reason for such a long intervention of time between the election and actual commencement of work by the new Congress. We had neither railroads nor telegraphic communication connecting the various States and communities of the country. Under present conditions, however, the result of elections is known all over the country within a few hours after the polls close, and the Capital City is within a few days' travel of the remotest portions of the country. . . . The only direct opportunity that the citizens of the country have to express their ideas and their wishes in regard to national legislation is the expression of their will through the election of their representatives at the general election in November. . . . In a government ``by the people'' the wishes of a majority should be crystallized into legislation as soon as possible after these wishes have been made known. These mandates should be obeyed within a reasonable time. Those words ring true today. With the further advancement in travel, communications, polling, and the ascertainment of election results since 1933, their remains no justification for the present lengthy hiatus between Election Day and Inauguration Day. We now know election results within minutes of the last closing of the polls, indeed, usually before they close through news projections, and travel to Washington is an affair that can be accomplished in a day. The Electoral College could easily complete its duties within a few days time and there is no impediment to the commencement of the terms of the Members of Congress by December 1st. necessary because of the role of the House of Representatives in the ratification of the results of the Electoral College. It is clear then that no structural or logistical justification exists for delaying the implementation of the decision of the voters made at the polls in early November. With no physical barriers to a more rapid installation of the President and Members of Congress, are there policy reasons for waiting 2 months and more before swearing them into office? In my opinion, the typical arguments of preservation of tradition and the need for time for transition organization are less than compelling. Indeed, I believe that these justifications pale in comparison to the drawbacks of the current state of affairs. First and foremost, currently when a new President is elected, during the protracted transition period to a new administration that follows, it is unclear for almost 3 months who speaks for the United States on matters of national importance or crisis. As the undisputed leader in world affairs, and in a world ever more closely intertwined and influenced by daily events occurring throughout the international community, this is a needless peril into which we place ourselves. It is never wise not desirable for any country, particularly one with extensive power and influence such as ours, to tolerate any confusion or question about who runs and speaks for the affairs of State. Yet, whenever we elect a new President, we needlessly allow just such a situation to occur. We would substantially reduce the potential hazards of the current lengthy delay in the transition of our Government were this proposal adopted. Another pitfall of the current lengthy interregnum is that under the present system, the next fiscal year's proposed budget is submitted by the outgoing administration only to be subject to amendment and revision once the new administration takes office. This is a needless duplication of effort and inevitably results in an unnecessary delay of the budget process. Indeed, given the record of the current Congress with regard to the Federal budget, it is clear that any additional time or lack of either redundant or pointless effort would be welcome. If the new Congress were to be sworn in on December 1 and the President on December 10, the new administration would start with a clean slate with regard to the budget and the process would be off to a much smoother and more sensible start. Another clear benefit of an advance in the dates of inauguration for the President and Members of Congress would be that with the recently completed campaign season more fresh in the memories of the new administration and Congress, the opportunity would be greater to take quicker action on the proposals which collectively brought them to office. The populace, having listened to an extensive campaign and spoken their minds through the ballot box, deserve to have the views they supported formulated into legislation and acted upon in a reasonable and timely fashion. Waiting for 3 months to even begin the process seems to me to be simply too long. Other reasons for advancing the Inauguration of the President and Congress, while slightly more speculative, seem likely. For example, with the advance, the President would prudently be inclined to have a good idea of who he or she would choose for key positions in the Cabinet prior to the election. Indeed, the composition of the Cabinet could well become part of the preelection debate, something which I feel would be healthy given the enormous influence Cabinet members have over the day-to-day functions of the executive branch. Another potential benefit would be that given the much shorter period between Election Day and the commencement of the terms of the new Congress, the incentive or need to hold so-called lameduck sessions of Congress would be greatly reduced. This would produce the desirable result of discouraging the opportunity for Members who had lost at the polls to still meet, vote, and decide upon matters on behalf of the constituents who just turned them out. Again, in a democracy, it is the will of the people that should be afforded the greatest chance of being heard and reducing the likelihood of a lame-duck session of Congress would forward that goal. For all of these reasons, I again propose the constitutional amendment. For those unfamiliar with my earlier efforts to advance the Inauguration dates, a couple of points. First, there is nothing magical about the dates of December 10th for the President and December 1st for Members of Congress. Indeed, when I first pursued this effort, I proposed earlier dates ranging from early to mid-November. However, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1984, there was a general feeling that perhaps that left too little time after the election for an orderly transition. Likewise, there was resistance to interference with the Thanksgiving holiday so early December presents itself as the earliest reasonable and desirable timeframe for setting these Inauguration dates. Incidentally, for those who wish to cling to tradition, establishing a swearing-in date of December 1st for Congress would be somewhat of a return to previous practice. The Constitution originally established the meeting day for Congress on the first Monday of December and this was the practice until the 20th amendment changed it in 1933. Thus, it was not until 1934 that Congress began its sessions in early January. Under my proposal, Congress would resume the commencement of its sessions in early December. Thus, I offer my joint resolution to advance the Presidential and congressional Inauguration dates. This proposal is good government, it makes common sense, and is both feasible and practical. Furthermore, I believe that failing to change the dates needlessly risks confusion over who speaks for the national government, facilitates undesirable legislative scenarios such as the convening of lame-duck sessions of Congress, and unnecessarily delays the chance for those chosen by the electorate to take their rightful offices and act upon the issues of the day. I urge my colleagues to take the time to carefully consider this proposal and that they join me in this effort to make these straightforward and eminently reasonable changes in our governmental process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point a brief history of the 20th amendment as prepared for the Judiciary Committee in 1985 be included in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I offer a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to advance the Inauguration dates for the President and Members of Congress from January 20th and 3rd to December 10th and 1st respectively. In offering this resolution here in the 104th Congress, I note for my colleagues that this is an effort I first began in 1981 and with each succeeding set of national elections, I believe that the rationale and wisdom for changing these dates becomes more compelling. The current date for the Inauguration of the President was set by the 20th amendment to the Constitution in 1933. Prior to that, the Inauguration date had not changed since being fixed by an act of the Continental Congress in 1788 commencing the proceeding of the Government of the United States under the newly ratified Constitution. Under that act, March 4th was chosen simply because it happened to be the first Wednesday in March of 1789 and it was thought at the time that that amount of time was needed for each State to appoint Presidential electors to the Electoral College and for them to meet and cast their ballots. Additionally, there were practical and controlling considerations over the difficulty and length of time it took to travel to and from the Capital City, the necessity for time to allow newly elected officials to tend to the long-term organization of their private affairs prior to their extended departure from home for Washington, and the lack of sophisticated means for the verification of polling results and for communication of news. Thus, in the founding days of our country, March 4th was seen as the earliest possible date by which the Government could, in an orderly and practical manner, bring about the will of the electors as expressed in congressional and Presidential balloting from the previous November. By 1933, however, it had become clear that it was no longer necessary to postpone the Inauguration of the President and Members of Congress until March 4th. Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska, the Champion of the 20th amendment to the Constitution which advanced the Presidential and congressional Inauguration dates to their current status, said on the Senate floor in 1932: When our Constitution was adopted, there was some reason for such a long intervention of time between the election and actual commencement of work by the new Congress. We had neither railroads nor telegraphic communication connecting the various States and communities of the country. Under present conditions, however, the result of elections is known all over the country within a few hours after the polls close, and the Capital City is within a few days' travel of the remotest portions of the country. . . . The only direct opportunity that the citizens of the country have to express their ideas and their wishes in regard to national legislation is the expression of their will through the election of their representatives at the general election in November. . . . In a government ``by the people'' the wishes of a majority should be crystallized into legislation as soon as possible after these wishes have been made known. These mandates should be obeyed within a reasonable time. Those words ring true today. With the further advancement in travel, communications, polling, and the ascertainment of election results since 1933, their remains no justification for the present lengthy hiatus between Election Day and Inauguration Day. We now know election results within minutes of the last closing of the polls, indeed, usually before they close through news projections, and travel to Washington is an affair that can be accomplished in a day. The Electoral College could easily complete its duties within a few days time and there is no impediment to the commencement of the terms of the Members of Congress by December 1st. necessary because of the role of the House of Representatives in the ratification of the results of the Electoral College. It is clear then that no structural or logistical justification exists for delaying the implementation of the decision of the voters made at the polls in early November. With no physical barriers to a more rapid installation of the President and Members of Congress, are there policy reasons for waiting 2 months and more before swearing them into office? In my opinion, the typical arguments of preservation of tradition and the need for time for transition organization are less than compelling. Indeed, I believe that these justifications pale in comparison to the drawbacks of the current state of affairs. First and foremost, currently when a new President is elected, during the protracted transition period to a new administration that follows, it is unclear for almost 3 months who speaks for the United States on matters of national importance or crisis. As the undisputed leader in world affairs, and in a world ever more closely intertwined and influenced by daily events occurring throughout the international community, this is a needless peril into which we place ourselves. It is never wise not desirable for any country, particularly one with extensive power and influence such as ours, to tolerate any confusion or question about who runs and speaks for the affairs of State. Yet, whenever we elect a new President, we needlessly allow just such a situation to occur. We would substantially reduce the potential hazards of the current lengthy delay in the transition of our Government were this proposal adopted. Another pitfall of the current lengthy interregnum is that under the present system, the next fiscal year's proposed budget is submitted by the outgoing administration only to be subject to amendment and revision once the new administration takes office. This is a needless duplication of effort and inevitably results in an unnecessary delay of the budget process. Indeed, given the record of the current Congress with regard to the Federal budget, it is clear that any additional time or lack of either redundant or pointless effort would be welcome. If the new Congress were to be sworn in on December 1 and the President on December 10, the new administration would start with a clean slate with regard to the budget and the process would be off to a much smoother and more sensible start. Another clear benefit of an advance in the dates of inauguration for the President and Members of Congress would be that with the recently completed campaign season more fresh in the memories of the new administration and Congress, the opportunity would be greater to take quicker action on the proposals which collectively brought them to office. The populace, having listened to an extensive campaign and spoken their minds through the ballot box, deserve to have the views they supported formulated into legislation and acted upon in a reasonable and timely fashion. Waiting for 3 months to even begin the process seems to me to be simply too long. Other reasons for advancing the Inauguration of the President and Congress, while slightly more speculative, seem likely. For example, with the advance, the President would prudently be inclined to have a good idea of who he or she would choose for key positions in the Cabinet prior to the election. Indeed, the composition of the Cabinet could well become part of the preelection debate, something which I feel would be healthy given the enormous influence Cabinet members have over the day-to-day functions of the executive branch. Another potential benefit would be that given the much shorter period between Election Day and the commencement of the terms of the new Congress, the incentive or need to hold so-called lameduck sessions of Congress would be greatly reduced. This would produce the desirable result of discouraging the opportunity for Members who had lost at the polls to still meet, vote, and decide upon matters on behalf of the constituents who just turned them out. Again, in a democracy, it is the will of the people that should be afforded the greatest chance of being heard and reducing the likelihood of a lame-duck session of Congress would forward that goal. For all of these reasons, I again propose the constitutional amendment. For those unfamiliar with my earlier efforts to advance the Inauguration dates, a couple of points. First, there is nothing magical about the dates of December 10th for the President and December 1st for Members of Congress. Indeed, when I first pursued this effort, I proposed earlier dates ranging from early to mid-November. However, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1984, there was a general feeling that perhaps that left too little time after the election for an orderly transition. Likewise, there was resistance to interference with the Thanksgiving holiday so early December presents itself as the earliest reasonable and desirable timeframe for setting these Inauguration dates. Incidentally, for those who wish to cling to tradition, establishing a swearing-in date of December 1st for Congress would be somewhat of a return to previous practice. The Constitution originally established the meeting day for Congress on the first Monday of December and this was the practice until the 20th amendment changed it in 1933. Thus, it was not until 1934 that Congress began its sessions in early January. Under my proposal, Congress would resume the commencement of its sessions in early December. Thus, I offer my joint resolution to advance the Presidential and congressional Inauguration dates. This proposal is good government, it makes common sense, and is both feasible and practical. Furthermore, I believe that failing to change the dates needlessly risks confusion over who speaks for the national government, facilitates undesirable legislative scenarios such as the convening of lame-duck sessions of Congress, and unnecessarily delays the chance for those chosen by the electorate to take their rightful offices and act upon the issues of the day. I urge my colleagues to take the time to carefully consider this proposal and that they join me in this effort to make these straightforward and eminently reasonable changes in our governmental process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point a brief history of the 20th amendment as prepared for the Judiciary Committee in 1985 be included in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the good news of a major landmark in Rhode Island history and in the life of Justice Florence Kerins Murray. This month we celebrated the 40th anniversary of her appointment as the first woman justice in Rhode Island history. I have known and admired Justice Murray for much of my life, and I would like to share some of the many highlights of this remarkable woman's dramatic career with you. She was born in Newport on October 21, 1916, educated in Newport public schools and received her B.A. from Syracuse University. After a brief teaching career at the Prudence Island School, she earned her LL.B. in 1942 from Boston University Law School and was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar. With World War II in progress, Justice Murray enlisted in the Women's Army Corps, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1942. Serving in a variety of posts she left the corps as a lieutenant colonel at war's end, only to be recalled to duty for a special assignment in 1947. Returning to Rhode Island, she sat for the State bar, was admitted, and practiced law alone and in association with her husband, Paul F. Murray, to whom she was married in 1943 at St. Mary's Church, Newport. They are the parents of a son, Paul M. Murray. She began her distinguished political career in 1948, serving simultaneously on the Newport School Committee and in the Rhode Island State Senate until 1956. She focused on issues ranging from the welfare of children and youth to facilities for the elderly. In 1956, Florence Murray was appointed by Governor Dennis J. Roberts as an associate justice of the Rhode Island Superior Court, the first woman justice in Rhode Island history. Twenty-two years later she became the first woman presiding justice of that court. In 1979, she was elected to her present position on the Rhode Island Supreme Court, one of the first women to serve on a State court of last resort in the United States. Justice Murray's career is marked by service and leadership in the regional and national Trial Judges Association, and the National Judicial College--where she served as chair of the board of directors of the college. The recipient of numerous awards for outstanding service, including nine honorary doctorates, Justice Murray was honored at a ceremony 6 years ago in which the Newport County Courthouse was rededicated as the Florence Kerins Murray Judicial Complex. Once again, it was a first. The program notes from the ceremony state the rededication ``marks the first time that a major court facility in the United States has been designated in honor of a woman jurist.'' Justice Murray is truly a wonderful, remarkable individual who has earned her place in the history of both Rhode Island and the Nation. I know that I reflect the thoughts of countless Rhode Islanders as we wish her well on the 40th anniversary of her appointment as a Rhode Island State Justice.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to reiterate that we should not rush headlong, like lemmings to the sea, to repeal the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax. When this tax was enacted in 1993, it was specifically dedicated to deficit reduction, and experience to date indicates that the gas tax has been helpful in this regard. Under President Clinton, the deficit, which was at a high of $290 billion in 1992, has been brought down to an estimated $144 billion in the current year. Why repeal this tax, when to do so will slow down or reverse this favorable trend and add billions of dollars to the deficit? Rather, we should consider raising, not lowering the gasoline tax in order to further reduce our deficit. I join the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] in expressing the thought that we should not accept even a temporary repeal. It has been suggested that the funds with which to finance this repeal may be found by cutting education spending, requiring banks to pay more to the savings association insurance fund, cutting Energy Department expenses, and/or, selling off unused wavelengths on the broadcast spectrum. The disparity of these suggestions seems to indicate that there exists no credible consensus as to exactly how we will be able to pay for this ill-advised tax cut. Probably for these same reasons, the States show no inclination to cut the tax. Across the country, State gasoline taxes often exceed the Federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. The State tax on gasoline in my home State of Rhode Island is the second highest in the Nation, at 28 cents. Yet no State legislature thus far has moved to cut their gasoline tax, reasoning wisely, that it helps stave off operating deficits, enabling States to balance their budgets. A task, I might add, which they seem to perform better than we. I recognize that higher gas prices impact adversely upon commuters and those whose daily livelihood depends upon the availability of low priced fuel. But it should be noted that the price of gasoline today, when adjusted for inflation, is as low as at any time since World War II. With prices relatively low, demand for gasoline has been steadily rising; motorists today are driving more, at higher speeds, and in cars that are less fuel-efficient than in years past. In consequence, we now depend on foreign suppliers for close to half of the oil we consume. Partly as a result of this dependency, we now have a temporary shortage of supply, making it unlikely that prices will go down in response to this tax decrease. Rather, the forces of the market, inexorable as they are, will delay a drop in the price of gasoline until sometime later this summer, when supplies are expected to increase. To quote the Los Angeles Times, ``the grim lessons about over-dependency of the 1970's are being forgotten, and the conservation ethic is slipping away.'' Finally, there is absolutely no certainty that the oil companies will pass this rebate on to the consumer. Economists across the spectrum, ranging from William Niskanen of the Cato Institute to Phillip K. Verleger at Charles River Associates, agree that the 4.3-cent-a-gallon cut will benefit the oil industry, not the consumer. The total effect of this gesture will be to add $2.9 billion to the Federal deficit over the next 7 months, while transferring the same $2.9 billion to the pockets of refiners and gasoline marketers. I urge my colleagues to resist the siren's song of the inevitability of this tax cut. Economist Michael Toman of Resources for the Future is quoted in the Washington Post as describing such a cut as ``nutty.'' I would simply add that it is wrong-headed and ill-conceived. It should be rejected. Mr. President, several weeks ago, when the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee met to mark up S. 295, the TEAM Act, I once again spoke of my longstanding interest in innovations in the conduct of labor-management relations. As I said at that time, I have been particularly interested in the efforts of many European countries to involve workers in policy deliberations at all levels of corporate bureaucracy. In Europe, this practice is referred to as ``co- determination,'' and means that management and labor sit on the same board. While it is not suggested that what works in Europe would work here in the United States, the notion of worker involvement is no less valid. Now, after years of regrettably bitter, contentious, and even violent interaction and with the ever-increasing demands of a high- technology workplace in a global economy, a more collaborative process has developed that brings workers and employers together on an ongoing basis. Companies ranging from Texas Instruments and IBM to Harley- Davidson motorcycles have instituted ongoing employer-employee work councils. There is, I believe, little disagreement about the value of these councils. There is, however, considerable debate about the current legality of these groups. We are told by some that this disagreement produces a chilling effect that hinders the continued and future development of employer-employee work councils. I have tried for some time to find the proper balance. During the last Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 2499, that, among other aspects, established a formal election process for employee representatives. While not introducing legislation during this Congress, I have continued to explore other avenues in this area. I had hoped to offer an amendment during the Labor Committee markup that would give employees the right to select their own council representatives; ensure that council agendas were open to both employees and employers and, finally, prohibit the unilateral termination of a council. I decided not to offer language of this nature, however, because of a lack of support from both the majority and organized labor. S. 295, the TEAM Act, is certainly not the answer. The bill, as passed by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, amends the National Labor Relations Act to allow the employer, I repeat, the employer ``to establish, assist, maintain, or participate in any organization of any kind, in which employees participate to address matters of mutual interest.'' At no point in this section of the TEAM Act is there any mention of employee rights, nor are employees given the right to designate their representatives. I must say I was very encouraged on Tuesday to hear that the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] suggested an amendment to the TEAM Act allowing workers to select their representatives. I regret that we find ourselves faced with the current deadlock. Not only are Senators prohibited from amending any of the three issues under consideration but American workers are faced with the choice of giving up their rights in return for a raise. It is clear that the path out of this predicament is to separate the minimum wage increase, the gas tax repeal, and the TEAM Act, allow each to be amended and then individually voted on. Furthermore, the only solution to the stalemate over the TEAM Act--as I have said for many years now--is to allow employees to freely select the employee representatives of the work councils. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document titled ``Co- determination in European Countries,'' prepared by my staff, be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on this vote, I have a live pair with the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Leahy]. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``nay.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``yea.'' I therefore withhold my vote.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the University of Rhode Island debate team was honored last week at the Rhode Island State House, where the team members received citations for their recent outstanding performance at the National Forensics Association [NFA] Individual Events Nationals at Western Illinois University. I understand that this competition, which was one of the largest in the history of NFA, drew 2,000 competitors representing 29 States. In the Lincoln-Douglas debate there were 92 competitors representing 33 different colleges and universities. Rebecca Makris, Derek Young, Jonathan Cross, and Tara McErien represented the University of Rhode Island. During the six preliminary rounds the team defeated teams from Northeastern University, Simmons College, Oakland University, Colorado State University, Cornell University, Ohio University, Morgan State, and Central Michigan University. Overall the winning record of the team placed them at 10th in the Nation and Rebecca Makris compiled an outstanding record, earning her a place as the 4th best debater in the competition. Kristen Maar, director of the debate, states: ``This is quite an accomplishment for the team and the University. The debaters that qualified for this national tournament were the best in the country, and to have Rebecca place fourth overall is a true achievement.'' Coincidentally, the debate topic this year and the debate topic next year reflect some of my own interests in the Senate--the topics ``United Nations'' and ``Education Reform.'' This year's topic was ``Resolved: That participation in one or more of the six principal bodies of the United Nations should be significantly restricted by altering the U.N. charter and/or rules of procedure.'' The debate season will begin again in September, with the resolution dealing with education reform. The exact wording of the resolution will be released on August 1, 1996. I want to commend the URI team for its excellent job and all the participants this year for their focus on the United Nations and key issues affecting our global future. I look forward to learning more about next year's debate.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Pell pertaining to the introduction of S. 1730 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on this vote, I have a live pair with the Senator from Vermont. If he were here, he would vote ``nay.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``yea.'' I therefore withhold my vote.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, earlier this year I shared with my colleagues news on what has been identified as the worst oilspill in Rhode Island's history. That January spill was the genesis for the legislation that I am joining the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] in introducing today. As many of you may know from news accounts, the barge North Cape, carrying a cargo of about 4 million gallons of heating oil, and the tug Scandia grounded off the southern Rhode Island coast. The grounding followed a fire that broke out on the tug, later engulfed the vessel and required the subsequent last-minute evacuation of the captain and crew by the U.S. Coast Guard. That evacuation was successful because of the enormous courage and skill of the Coast Guard rescue team, who did not hesitate to put themselves at great personal risk to rescue the captain and crew. It was under extraordinarily difficult winter storm conditions that the Coast Guard effected the rescue and attempted, unsuccessfully, to prevent the barge and burning tug from running aground. The barge, dragging the burning tug, grounded in shallow water off Matunuck Point Beach, near Point Judith. Pounded by strong winds and high seas, the 340-foot, single-hull barge began to spill oil from holes in at least two places. Transportation Secretary Frederico Pena joined me and other Federal officials in Rhode Island to evaluate the spill, as efforts continued to contain the escaping oil and off-load what oil remained aboard the barge. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Almond called for Federal help, declared a state of emergency and said the spill was ``the worst in Rhode Island's history and one of the worst ever off the coast of New England.'' The toll on marine life was heavy. Thousands of oil-coated lobsters, dead and living, washed up along several hundred yards of beach near the barge. Dozens of seabirds died and scores more were coated in oil and their habitats fouled. The barge grounded close to Moonstone Beach, a breeding ground for the endangered piping plover and the Turstom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, an environmentally fragile habitat. Fishing was banned in hundreds of square miles, from Point Judith south to waters east of Block Island. In addition a number of shellfishing areas were closed and both took a long time to reopen. The good news is that Rhode Islanders rose to the occasion. Hundreds of Rhode Islanders, their efforts coordinated by Save the Bay, helped by cleaning everything from beaches to birds. Additional good news came with a phone call from President Clinton to Governor Almond, assuring him that funds would be made available for the cleanup and fishing industries. Mr. President, I raised a number of questions at the time and observed how unfortunate it was that the barge was not of the new double hulled design, which I have long advocated. I understand that the barge leaked from 9 of its 14 containment holds. A double-hull might have made all the difference between an incident and a disaster. At the time, I also observed that everyone would benefit from a thorough review of the coordination of our emergency response to oilspills. The bill we are introducing today is a result of such an inquiry, conducted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Senator Chafee's excellent leadership. Our bill offers insurance incentives for oil barge owners who expedite conversion of their barges to double-hulled vessels. It also sets a deadline for the U.S. Coast Guard to issue new standards for oil barge design and operation. The bill requires oil barges to have crews and workable anchors or a retrieval mechanism. It gives oilspill victims and scientists easier access to the oilspill liability trust fund and sets standards for the closing and reopening of fishing grounds after a spill. Although it is not a panacea and will not prevent future oilspills, our bill goes a long way toward improving the safety of oil barges and setting a clear course for the response when a spill does occur. As we all know, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This bill codifies what we have learned and lessens the chance that the tragedy that struck us in January will be repeated.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, earlier this year I shared with my colleagues news on what has been identified as the worst oilspill in Rhode Island's history. That January spill was the genesis for the legislation that I am joining the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] in introducing today. As many of you may know from news accounts, the barge North Cape, carrying a cargo of about 4 million gallons of heating oil, and the tug Scandia grounded off the southern Rhode Island coast. The grounding followed a fire that broke out on the tug, later engulfed the vessel and required the subsequent last-minute evacuation of the captain and crew by the U.S. Coast Guard. That evacuation was successful because of the enormous courage and skill of the Coast Guard rescue team, who did not hesitate to put themselves at great personal risk to rescue the captain and crew. It was under extraordinarily difficult winter storm conditions that the Coast Guard effected the rescue and attempted, unsuccessfully, to prevent the barge and burning tug from running aground. The barge, dragging the burning tug, grounded in shallow water off Matunuck Point Beach, near Point Judith. Pounded by strong winds and high seas, the 340-foot, single-hull barge began to spill oil from holes in at least two places. Transportation Secretary Frederico Pena joined me and other Federal officials in Rhode Island to evaluate the spill, as efforts continued to contain the escaping oil and off-load what oil remained aboard the barge. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Almond called for Federal help, declared a state of emergency and said the spill was ``the worst in Rhode Island's history and one of the worst ever off the coast of New England.'' The toll on marine life was heavy. Thousands of oil-coated lobsters, dead and living, washed up along several hundred yards of beach near the barge. Dozens of seabirds died and scores more were coated in oil and their habitats fouled. The barge grounded close to Moonstone Beach, a breeding ground for the endangered piping plover and the Turstom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, an environmentally fragile habitat. Fishing was banned in hundreds of square miles, from Point Judith south to waters east of Block Island. In addition a number of shellfishing areas were closed and both took a long time to reopen. The good news is that Rhode Islanders rose to the occasion. Hundreds of Rhode Islanders, their efforts coordinated by Save the Bay, helped by cleaning everything from beaches to birds. Additional good news came with a phone call from President Clinton to Governor Almond, assuring him that funds would be made available for the cleanup and fishing industries. Mr. President, I raised a number of questions at the time and observed how unfortunate it was that the barge was not of the new double hulled design, which I have long advocated. I understand that the barge leaked from 9 of its 14 containment holds. A double-hull might have made all the difference between an incident and a disaster. At the time, I also observed that everyone would benefit from a thorough review of the coordination of our emergency response to oilspills. The bill we are introducing today is a result of such an inquiry, conducted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Senator Chafee's excellent leadership. Our bill offers insurance incentives for oil barge owners who expedite conversion of their barges to double-hulled vessels. It also sets a deadline for the U.S. Coast Guard to issue new standards for oil barge design and operation. The bill requires oil barges to have crews and workable anchors or a retrieval mechanism. It gives oilspill victims and scientists easier access to the oilspill liability trust fund and sets standards for the closing and reopening of fishing grounds after a spill. Although it is not a panacea and will not prevent future oilspills, our bill goes a long way toward improving the safety of oil barges and setting a clear course for the response when a spill does occur. As we all know, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This bill codifies what we have learned and lessens the chance that the tragedy that struck us in January will be repeated.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on another matter, last month, the White House announced that it has accepted an invitation from the Portuguese Government to participate in the international exposition to be held in Lisbon in 1998. This is good news indeed. I commend President Clinton for this decision. I have long encouraged the administration to take this step. Last year, I sponsored a resolution calling for U.S. participation in Expo '98. In March of this year, I visited the site of the expo while in Lisbon for President Sampaio's inauguration. During my visit, I took the opportunity to learn in detail the goals and themes of the expo from Antonio Cardoso Cunha, commissioner-general and chairman of Expo '98. Earlier this week, we welcomed Portuguese Foreign Minister Jaime Gama to Washington. Accordingly, I believe it is a particular appropriate time to bring Expo '98 to the attention of my colleagues and to express my enthusiasm for working with our Portuguese allies on this important project. The theme of Expo '98 appropriately, will be ``The Oceans, a Heritage for the Future'' and will focus on environmental topics. As the resident of a coastal State which shares with Portugal a rich maritime tradition, I cannot imagine a more appropriate or more unifying theme. The U.N. General Assembly has declared 1998 as the International Year of the Ocean in an effort to alert the world to the need to improve the physical and cultural assets of the world's oceans. A fundamental goal of Expo '98 will be to focus on the growing importance of the world's oceans and to foster a debate on the sustainable use of marine resources and environmental protection. The United States, of course, has a vested interest in being part of this debate. Our participation in this exposition, which marks the 500th anniversary of the historic voyage from Europe to India of the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama, should be a source of pride for those of Portuguese heritage, as well as a source of great interest for all those with a concern for the oceans and a sense of history. Portugal, of course, has a great history of sea exploration, and in fact, helped to create important trade links between the peoples of Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Lisbon, the capital of Portugal since the 12th century, is a vibrant cultural and economic center, and its location on the Atlantic makes it a fine choice for an expo focused on the sea. Expo '98 offers opportunities for U.S. business as well. The organizers of Expo '98 will provide all facilities relating to each national pavilion free of charge. Accordingly, participating countries will have to provide only the contents of its representation. The U.S. exhibit will be financed completely by the private sector. Such an arrangement is a win-win situation--for the U.S. Government and for U.S. businesses which may be able to receive increased international exposure through their participation. I am hopeful that a commissioner general who will be responsible for coordinating the U.S. effort and for securing corporate sponsorships will soon be appointed so that we can move ahead quickly. I add also, having it this year brings attention to the Law of the Sea Treaty, which needs to be acted upon. I remember myself in 1940 seeing the last time we had a world exhibition in Lisbon and seeing the amount of the world's surface that was under Portuguese rule. On a personal note, I remember attending an exhibition in 1940 while visiting my father who was posted as the U.S. Minister to Lisbon. At that time, I attended the Exhibition of the Portuguese World, which focused on the contributions of Portugal's far flung colonies. Lisbon was a wonderful site, and the Portuguese people were perfect hosts for such an exhibition. With such a firm tradition of hospitality already well established, I know that Portugal will prove the ideal choice for hosting the 1998 expo. I am pleased that the United States sill be joining dozens of other countries--including Germany, Greece, the United Kingdom, Morocco, India, Pakistan, and Cape Verde--to name a few--in participating in the last expo of this century. As a long-time friend of Portugal and the Portuguese people, I look forward to working together to make Expo '98 a success. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I believe that we should not have a roll- back of the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax. Actually, retention of this tax is the sensible, national interest course to follow as we struggle to reduce the deficit. I fear that, like Sisyphus in Hades, we are doomed forever to roll the heavy stone of the deficit uphill, only to have it always roll down again, weighted down by yet another quick-fix tax cut. In our effort to reduce the deficit, we grapple daily with the stark reality that funds for education, the environment, Medicare, and the earned income tax credit, are all being scaled back. And now, a clarion call to lower the gas tax is being heard. Repealing the gas tax is projected to save the average motorist the grand total of about $27 a year in taxes. Note too, there is no certainty that the oil companies will actually pass this rebate on to the consumer. The effect of this gesture is to reduce revenues by $4.8 billion, thereby making it all the more difficult to reduce the Federal deficit. While I recognize that higher gas prices effectively reduce the take home pay of commuters and those whose daily livelihood depends upon the availability of low priced fuel, gasoline in the United States has become one of the ``great bargains of the Western world'' to quote Daniel Yergin in today's New York Times. Over the last few years, prices, adjusted for inflation, have been as low as at any time since World War II. The price of about $1.30 a gallon is exquisitely cheap when compared with the almost $5 a gallon paid in France. Rather than providing a potentially illusory benefit of $27 per motorist, I suggest we concentrate on those issues having a far more profound impact on the lives of working Americans. We have yet to satisfactorily grapple with proposals to increase the minimum wage, the projected shortfall in Medicare funds in 2001, and the fact that our education programs are such that the mathematics scores of some of our students, particularly in the Southeast region, continue to be lamentably low. Repealing the gasoline tax is the last thing we should think of doing--and we should quickly reject the idea.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am distressed at the latest outbreak of violence in Liberia. Yesterday, young gang members fired upon the U.S. Embassy, prompting the marines to return fire. Fortunately, no Americans were injured. Since this exchange, the situation in Monrovia has calmed down and the State Department has called this an isolated incident. Nevertheless, this spasm of violence demonstrates the intractability of the conflict in Liberia and the need for a diplomatic solution. I believe the United States should remain committed to securing a peaceful solution in Liberia. I applaud the work of Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, George Moose, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State William Twaddell. Their diplomatic efforts to implement a cease-fire are important to U.S. national interests. In addition, I commend the administration's response of providing $30 million in logistical assistance to the West African Peacekeeping force, ECOMOG. Such assistance is necessary to keep ECOMOG actively engaged in the on-the-ground peace process. Mr. President, I call upon the various warlords to respect the cease- fire and to pursue a peaceful solution. In addition, it is important to remind the warlords that an attempt by any faction to seize power by force or to undo the Abuja Accords will receive a strong American response. While the ultimate resolution of the crisis remains the responsibility of the Liberians, the United States has an important role to play. The United States is the most influential foreign power in Liberia. The United States must remain committed to seeking peace in Liberia. An engaged United States can help a Liberia that wants peace.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I merely wanted to rise to express my gratitude to the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] for his kind words. Having worked with him for thirty years, I have great admiration and respect for the gentleman from Oregon. I have come to know and revere him as a man of courage, conscience, and conviction. It is an honor to be a recipient of the We The People award, it makes it doubly an honor to share it with my friend and colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Kennedy amendment to S. 1664. I support the Kennedy amendment because it would protect the multitudes of students who are eligible for Federal student aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act. Under current law, only legal immigrants are eligible to receive Federal financial aid to attend college. However, provisions in the bill that stands before us today would require that for Federal programs where eligibility is based on financial need, the income and resources of the sponsor of a legal immigrant would be deemed to be the income of the immigrant. Simply put, the resources of an immigrant student would be artificially inflated, therefore, most legal immigrants would not qualify for Pell grants or student loans. I have always sought to expand educational opportunities for the students of this country. To my mind, any person with the desire and talent should be afforded the opportunity for at least 2 and possible 4 years of education beyond high school. The students that have legally immigrated to this country should not be excluded from the vast opportunities that a higher education can provide them. Half of the college students in this country rely on Federal grants or loans to help pay for college. Student aid more than pays for itself over time. A college graduate earns almost twice what a high school graduate earns--and pays taxes accordingly. Denying a postsecondary education to economically disadvantaged legal immigrants is profoundly unfair and economically shortsighted. Legal immigrants pay taxes and can serve in the military. Legal immigrants also contribute significantly to the national economy. For these reasons I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the Kennedy amendment, therefore, eliminating the deeming requirements as they apply to Federal student aid programs.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, one of the great benefits that accrues to those of us who have served in the U.S. Senate over a period of time-- measured not in years but in decades--is that of perspective. Serving here since my election in 1960 has provided me with a gift of hindsight that only time and experience can produce. It was 25 years ago this week that I participated in a historic Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. We scheduled that hearing to provide leaders of the anti-war movement with a legitimate forum to focus their collective anger and voice their passionate resistance to a heart-rending war that was dividing this country. I remember this hearing clearly. It was held during the historic encampment of Vietnam veterans in our Capital City and the committee invited the veterans to testify. It was from the witness table in our hearing room, in what was then the New Senate Office Building, that the veterans sounded their call for an end to the war. What stands out most in my mind, however, was the testimony, the eloquence and the authority of a tall, lanky young man who testified on behalf of his friends and peers. A decorated hero, he was speaking for those who were paying the ultimate price for a disastrous foreign policy. The large hearing room was crowded and the tension was electric. As I sat behind the raised dais, with Senators William Fulbright, our chairman; Stuart Symington, George Aiken, Clifford Case, and Jacob Javits, I remember looking at the drama before us and saying that the young man who was testifying should be on my side of the dais. He had just returned from the war and had been decorated for heroism, having been injured in combat (three Purple Hearts) and saved the lives of his Swift Boat crewmen (a Silver Star and two Bronze Stars). As an early and outspoken opponent of the war myself, I knew him and had worked to win support for him and his fellow anti-war veterans. After his testimony, when it became my turn to address him, I welcomed him with these words: ``As the witness knows, I have a very high personal regard for him and hope before his life ends he will be a colleague of ours in this body''. That young man was John Kerry. Mr. President, since that historic time, one which truly marked a milestone in the shift of public opinion, I have come to know John much better. I am happy to find that history has proven me right--both in my opposition to the war in Vietnam and in my glimpse of a young man's future. When John Kerry, as the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, joined us on the Foreign Relations Committee, I could not have been more delighted with my prescience. During my service Chairman of the Committee, I asked him to handle the State Department authorization bill--one of the major annual bills that come before the committee--because I knew he had the knowledge, the mastery of the legislative process and the negotiating skills to do the job. I was right. Senator Kerry has skillfully managed that bill several times now. And in the past year he negotiated with the Chairman Jesse Helms, over an intensely difficult question, and acquitted himself superbly. Perhaps his greatest contribution, however, has been his chairmanship of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. Thanks to John Kerry's doggedness and leadership, we are finally on the path to healing the wounds and closing the last chapter on a painful time in American history--that of the Vietnam war.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, yesterday the Palestine National Council voted by an overwhelming margin to revise its so-called Charter by removing clauses referring to the destruction of Israel. The vote is further evidence of sea change in Palestinian attitudes and ideology, and provided a welcome respite from the otherwise troubling situation in the Middle East. In September 1993, during the signing of the historic Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat made a commitment to Israel to amend the Charter--the spirit and letter of which was clearly at odds with the peace agreement. Yesterday, Arafat, who is now Chairman of the autonomous Palestinian Authority, secured near- universal Palestinian backing for his pledge. In voting to carry out this commitment, the Palestinians remain eligible under the terms of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, also known as MEPFA, to receive United States assistance. The vote also appears to open the way for the resumption of substantive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians leading to a final status agreement. As one of the original authors of MEPFA, I was particularly pleased by yesterday's events. In February, I led a congressional delegation to the Middle East, where the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Senator Robb], the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma [Senator Inhofe], and I met with Chairman Arafat to urge that the Charter be amended. While I was somewhat skeptical after that meeting that Chairman Arafat would deliver on his promise, yesterday's vote helps to convince me that there is a forceful and sincere desire on his part to implement the peace agreements with Israel. To be sure, Mr. President, there remains much concern about the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations. The issue of terrorism remains the most important factor in determining the success or failure of the peace process. We can, and should, continue to press the Palestinians to root out completely the terrorist element--which they will only be able to do with the support and good will of Israel. The vote yesterday, in my opinion, will do much to bolster Arafat's standing in Israel's eyes. And that bodes well for the future.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit the use of steel jaw leghold traps in the United States. While this bill does not prohibit trapping, it does outlaw a particularly savage method of trapping. Anything--wild animals, family pets, children--that comes in contact with a leghold trap is subjected to its bone-crushing force. Other, more discriminating trapping methods exist and should be used. I think it is also instructive to note that well over 60 nations around the globe including all the nations of the European Community have already outlawed the use of this device and have also prohibited the sale of fur caught by leghold traps. I should make it clear to my colleagues that I oppose the cruel treatment of any animal and support efforts to curb the unnecessary use of animals for purposes such as medical testing, especially when alternative testing procedures are available or when the tests are conducted for nonvital reasons and result in inhumane animal treatment. I do, however, support the humane use of animals which may provide crucial information for life-saving technologies when no other alternative testing mechanism exists.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit the use of steel jaw leghold traps in the United States. While this bill does not prohibit trapping, it does outlaw a particularly savage method of trapping. Anything--wild animals, family pets, children--that comes in contact with a leghold trap is subjected to its bone-crushing force. Other, more discriminating trapping methods exist and should be used. I think it is also instructive to note that well over 60 nations around the globe including all the nations of the European Community have already outlawed the use of this device and have also prohibited the sale of fur caught by leghold traps. I should make it clear to my colleagues that I oppose the cruel treatment of any animal and support efforts to curb the unnecessary use of animals for purposes such as medical testing, especially when alternative testing procedures are available or when the tests are conducted for nonvital reasons and result in inhumane animal treatment. I do, however, support the humane use of animals which may provide crucial information for life-saving technologies when no other alternative testing mechanism exists.