Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, each year on this day, we solemnly join Armenians worldwide in observing the anniversary of the genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1923. Eighty-one years ago today, Ottoman leaders launched a systematic campaign to eradicate the Armenian people from Ottoman Empire territory. In that year, hundreds of Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were rounded up and exiled, or murdered. During the next 8 years, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were executed. Many were raped, tortured, or enslaved. In addition to those killed, an estimated 500,000 Armenians were exiled from the Ottoman Empire. Many of those exiles found their way to freedom in the United States where they and their descendants have made--and are continuing to make--a significant contribution to the cultural, political, and commercial life of this country. Despite the many challenges they have faced over the years, the Armenian people have demonstrated a high degree of independence, resilience, and national pride. I believe the anniversary of the genocide offers an opportunity to reflect upon the challenges Armenia is facing today. In particular, Armenia continues to struggle under blockades by its neighbors, and as a result, it continues to depend heavily on humanitarian assistance. I would note that the United States has responded to Armenia's plight. Armenia receives more assistance per capita than any other Newly Independent State. I know we all look forward to the day when Armenia--a country of great human resources-- will be a donor, rather than a recipient of assistance. In fact, despite the blockades, Armenia has made significant economic progress during the past year. Its currency has stabilized, inflation has decreased, and the economy showed a positive growth rate. Armenia is also working hard to enact the necessary legal and regulatory framework for true reform to take root. Regrettably, a lasting diplomatic settlement to the Nagorno-Karabagh crisis also remains elusive. I hope that the memory of the Armenian genocide, as well as the continuing of the suffering of the Armenian and Azeri peoples, will spur a peaceful resolution to the dispute. There are, in fact, some hopeful signs. For the past 2-years, a cease-fire has held in Nagorno-Karabagh. Over the weekend, President Ter Petrosian of Armenia and President Aliyev of Azerbaijan issued a joint communique agreeing that direct dialog between the parties must be intensified to facilitate an end to the conflict. Armenia is continuing to talk with its neighbors not only about how to resolve the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict, but about the importance of economic development of the region. In fact, just this week in Luxembourg, the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia each signed bilateral cooperation agreements with the European Union. I would note that Armenia is also engaging in a dialog with Turkey about a range of bilateral and regional issues. This is a courageous, and very practical, decision. Both countries acknowledge that it is in their interest to talk, and I believe that we should do what we can to encourage such discussions between Yerevan and Ankara. Sadly, the legacy of the Armenian genocide has not succeeded in deterring subsequent acts of genocide in other parts of the world nor did it represent an end to the suffering of the Armenian people. However, it is only by continuing to remember and discuss the horrors which befell the Armenian and other peoples that we can hope to achieve a world where genocide is finally relegated to the realm of history books, rather the newspaper headlines. I hope my colleagues and leaders throughout the world will join me in commemorating the anniversary today, and thus ensure that the tragedy of the Armenian genocide will not be forgotten.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the resumption of violence in Liberia is of great concern to me. A factional standoff over an ousted government minister has led to widespread looting, arson, and murder, plunging the country into a state of chaos. This spasm of violence is the first major interruption of the Abuja Accords, which have held peace together in Liberia since last August. The deterioration of Liberia is disheartening. Since 1989, the civil war has caused the deaths of more than 150,000 people and has displaced more than 800,000. Thousands of children have been conscripted to the armed forces. The resumption of violence threatens the lives of even more Liberians. The potential of a massive humanitarian disaster is high, as supplies of food and water dwindle, sanitary conditions deteriorate, and outbreaks of cholera erupt. Mr. President, The United States has a special responsibility toward Liberia. Founded in the early 19th century by freed slaves, the United States and Liberia have had almost 150 years of uninterrupted friendship. In World War II, the airfields and ports of Liberia were a key part of the link to supply the battlefields in North Africa and Europe. During the cold war, the people of Liberia were at many times the only reliable ally of the United States in Africa. Liberia served as a ``listening post'' and headquarters to the United States intelligence services. At the United Nations, Liberia consistently voted for the United States position even when this position was unpopular with other developing nations. In addition, I would like to add that I have a special interest in this war-devastated country as so many emigrants from Liberia have settled in Rhode Island. Just this morning, a delegation of approximately 400 Liberian-Americans who live in my State participated in an impressive demonstration of their eagerness for peace to be restored to this tragically war-torn country. These Rhode Islanders, led by longtime community leader Lady Bush, marched several miles into downtown Providence where they demonstrated in front of the Federal Courthouse Building and met with members of my staff and the staff of my colleague, Senator Chafee. The demonstrators presented a petition, entitled ``Plea for an Immediate End To the Human Carnage in Liberia.'' It urges active U.S. Government efforts to end the fighting and places the blame for the latest outbreak of terror and fighting squarely on the assorted warlords whose forces control various portions of the capital and the country. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that petition be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it is understandable that the international community is hesitant about investing anything more in Liberia. It is up to the faction leaders who constituted the last Council of State and who control the rival forces to stop the looting and killing and to rebuild a sense of national unity. The rival warlords must demonstrate that they are ready for peace. The people of Liberia should not have to endure any more violence. If the United States pulls out of Liberia, it will certainly put the last nail in the coffin for this poor, African nation. Moreover, if the situation in Liberia continues to unravel, the regional implications will be of monumental proportions. I believe the United States must have an immediate response to this crisis. As a result, I am cosponsor of the resolution introduced this afternoon by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. Among others, this resolution urges the administration to support West African peacekeepers, to influence other nations to support the peacekeeping force, and to lead efforts in the United Nations to sanction those parties which violate the U.N. arms embargo on Liberia. I would like to add that it is imperative that the international community, at its highest levels, make public their views on the atrocities in Liberia. The international community, moreover, must actively engage with ECOMOG and ECOWAS, to find a lasting solution. And most importantly, I call upon the competing warlords to stop the pillaging of Liberia. There has already been too much bloodshed, too much hope lost. Exhibit 1 Liberian Community Association of Rhode Island, Inc., Providence, RI, April 18, 1996. Petition of the Liberian Community Association of Rhode Island to the Government of the United States Subject: Plea for an Immediate End To the Human Carnage in Liberia Whereas the Republic of Liberia was founded and funded by humanitarian societies in the United States, with the appropriation and assistance of the American Government as a safe haven for emancipated people of color; And whereas throughout its one hundred forty nine years of independence, the people and Government of these United States of America have manifested friendly and benign interest in Liberia's right to exist as a sovereign state, lending aid in times of national exigencies and emergencies; And whereas Liberia has always shown its gratitude and appreciation to the Government and people of the United States by being staunch ally and trusted African friend during times and circumstances critical to the national interest of the United States; And whereas the on-going genocidal civil conflict in Liberia resulted from the rash, diabolical, dictatorial, and military rules which set the stage for subsequent atrocities and infrastructure destruction, causing the displacement at home and abroad of over one half the population, many of whom are stranded in the United States; And whereas the civil war since 1989 has resulted into the slaughter of a quarter million people, most of whom are civilians; women, children and the elderly; And whereas the war-lords do not have the fortitude to honor the many peace accords that they themselves signed, resulting into the carnage that began on April 5, 1996 and continues to date, described by the international press and the United States Government as the worst in three years; And whereas the EMOMOG has proven that it cannot enforce the cease-fire, monitor the disarmament process and protect innocent civilians; And whereas the rebels and government troops, some as young as six are still heavily armed; And whereas the recent carnage that began April 5, 1996 is so war torn that the United States is evacuating its citizens from Liberia; And whereas the recent massacre of women and children is so contiguous that Americans, Americans of Liberian descent, and Liberians residing in Rhode Island convened on April 14, 1996 and after deliberation resolved that the organization petitions the United States Government to intervene to help bring the carnage to an immediate end. We therefore, appeal to the United States to: 1. intervene directly to bring the carnage to an end; 2. use it economic, diplomatic and military leverages to encourage the warring factions to call for, and honor a true cease-fire and disarmament; 3. convene a meeting of the war-lords in the United States to work out modalities for the enforcement of the cease-fire as in the case of Bosnia; 4. to help plan, monitor, and enforce the disarmament process; 5. impose an embargo on the shipment of arms to any of the warring factions; 6. freeze all assets of the war-lords, their family members, and representatives; and 7. deny all war-lords, their family members and representatives visas to travel to the United States except for a conference to resolve the conflict. We call on all peace loving countries of the world, the United Nations and other international organizations to join the United States, a country of goodwill that has practically resolved all conflicts in modern times, to do the same for Liberia. We are pleading. Please help us.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. president, I am deeply upset by this morning's news from Lebanon. As many of my colleagues have heard, Israeli shells hit a United Nations base in the village of Cana near the city of Tyre, within which approximately 500 Lebanese civilians had taken refuge from the recent fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. According to early press reports, the shelling caused the death of at least 75 Lebanese refugees--and perhaps many more than that--including men, women, children, and the elderly. At least 120 have been wounded, and two Fijian peacekeepers were killed. Both the United Nations and Israel agree that minutes before the Israeli attack, Hezbollah guerrillas had fired Katyusha rockets at Israel from a position roughly 300 meters from the refugee camp. Clearly the Israelis were responding to the Katyusha attack, and unintentionally hit the refugee camp. Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Barak, have issued assurances that Israel is not targeting civilians and would not have fired intentionally on a U.N. base. If today's early news reports are correct, then we have witnessed a tragedy in the classic sense of the word--the deaths of these innocent civilians need not have occurred. Hezbollah has no right to launch rockets in such proximity to a refugee camp, apparently hoping to use the refugees as a shield against Israeli retribution. Israel, by the same token, has no right to respond as it did if it had any inkling that civilians would be harmed. If either party had put the best interests of the refugees first, then some 75 innocent noncombatants would be alive right now. I do not dispute that Israel has a right to its own self-defense. I have taken care not to criticize Israel for its actions in Lebanon for the past 8 days because I understand well the threat that Hezbollah poses to Israel's security. I am keenly aware of--and condemn-- Hezbollah's actions and intentions towards Israel. There can be no doubt that Hezbollah aims squarely to undermine the Middle East peace process, and I, in fact, agree with the widely held public sentiment that Israel was prodded into this latest operation in Lebanon. The overwhelming carnage of the past 8 days, however, compels me to call attention to what increasingly looks to be a disproportionate Israeli response. We cannot wring our hands about Hezbollah attacks against civilians and say nothing of Israeli excesses, whether or not they were intentional. Human life, after all, means as much on one side of the border as the other. In the effort to root out Hezbollah, the Israelis appear to be attempting to cripple Lebanon's civilian economy and infrastructure. But as it tries to turn Lebanon against Hezbollah, Israel is running the risk that Lebanese Government and people will lose any stake in settling their differences with Israel peacefully. I fail to see how such an outcome serves Israel's long-term interests. In being critical of Israel, I do not wish to absolve the Lebanese Government or Syria of their own responsibilities. Lebanon does not have the luxury of throwing up its hands and saying that it has no control over Hezbollah, and then complaining when Israel takes matters into its own hands. That is having it both ways. And I reserve special criticism for Syria. Syria has both the power and the means to shut down Hezbollah, but cynically lacks the will and has allowed Hezbollah's terrorism to go unchecked. President Clinton has just announced that U.S. Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross--and subsequently Secretary of State Christopher--will go to the region to try to end the violence. I join the President in calling for an immediate cease-fire. After today's tragedy, I would urge Israel--our friend, ally, and presumably the most advanced democracy in the region, to show greater restraint. As the stronger and more enlightened party, Israel even should contemplate a unilateral cease-fire. I understand fully that Israel faces enormous security risks, but its obligations to avoid miscues such as today are equally great. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today, as the Senate considers the conference report to S. 735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, I regret that as I did when this bill was presented for passage in the Senate, I again must oppose the final version of the bill. I do so for two basic reasons. First, the conference did nothing to change those provisions of the bill which drastically curtail the Federal judicial protections afforded those given the death penalty in State courts. This is a departure from a longstanding tradition in English and American jurisprudence and, as an opponent of the death penalty, I feel I cannot in good conscience support it. Second, the conference removed several of the most effective antiterrorism measures that were included in the Senate version of the bill. These include giving the FBI the ability to employ court-approved multipoint wiretaps, adding terrorism crimes to the list of those for which wiretaps can be approved, including terrorism crimes under RICO statutes, and permitting the use of military expertise to cope with either chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Without these provisions, I believe that the bill has been severely compromised and, in the process, the chance to do something truly meaningful about domestic and international terrorism in this bill has been lost. Accordingly, I believe that the conference report fails to correct the deficiencies of the legislation that left the Senate last summer and furthermore, has eliminated many of its most effective counterterrorism provisions. Thus, I continue to oppose passage of this legislation.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, Tax Day has come and gone, and I would wager that few outside of Washington, DC, marked its passing because they were so absorbed in the last minute preparation and filing of income tax returns. Most paid scant heed to this congressionally created day of moment, which, in my view, panders irresponsibly to popular aversion to taxation. It is far more responsible, in my view, to emphasize the positive aspects of public finance. Most Federal taxes flow right back to Americans in benefits and services. Federal taxes here includes both Federal income taxes and Federal payroll or Social Security taxes. Payroll taxes are used to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits to our elderly and disabled. Income taxes are used to fund the operations of our Government which include the provision of student loans for education, maintenance of our national parks and museums, low-interest mortgage loans for first-time home buyers, veterans benefits, unemployment compensation, and our military defense, among other things. I am advised that Federal entitlements--benefits citizens are entitled to collect if they meet certain demographic or income definition--reach 49 percent of U.S. households, including 39 percent of families with children and 98 percent of the elderly. Moreover, in my view, Americans are not overtaxes in comparison with other nations. The highest statutory marginal individual income tax rate in the United States, 39.6 percent, is relatively low by international standards. France, Germany, Italy, and Japan have tax rates that are substantially higher, reaching 56.8 percent. By another measure, using total tax receipts as a percent of gross domestic product [GDP], the United States has an average tax rate of 31.5 percent. The United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Canada, and France are all significantly higher, with several having average tax rates in excess of 40 percent of GDP. Of course, constant restraint and diligence must be exercised to make sure that waste, fraud, and abuse are avoided at all times. But overall, I believe that our Federal Government has had, and continues to have, a positive impact on the lives of most Americans. In the words of Justice Holmes, ``taxes are what we pay for civilized society.'' In the end, we get what we pay for.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Thomas F. Weaver, a man who devoted his life to ideas and to education. Tom died earlier this month at home in Rhode Island and his sudden passing came as a shock to all who knew him. Although he was in his midsixties, Tom was an active athlete and an inspired educator. As chairman of the department of environmental and natural resource economics at the University of Rhode Island [URI], his aggressive intellect, his warm spirit, and his enthusiasm all reflected the energy of a much younger man. Tom worked closely with my staff for more than a decade in planning the $24 million construction of buildings that will comprise URI's Coastal Institute on Narragansett Bay. Indeed, the building to be erected on the university's main campus will include a policy simulation laboratory that would have been his pride and joy. Although the Coastal Institute will be the result of work by many talented and committed individuals, Tom stood out as the workhorse who followed every development. He helped nudge the process along to assure that USDA matching construction funds were secured. My staff and I were only too glad to help. The University of Rhode Island is now perfectly positioned, as both a land grant and a sea grant college, to develop the Coastal Institute. It is my hope, and a hope I know Tom shared, that these closely related natural resources disciplines will meet and grow at the Coastal Institute. The University of Rhode Island's Coastal Institute went though the most rigorous USDA feasibility review, including a peer review. Its funding has been approved step by step in a painfully rigorous appropriations process that began in the 1980's. Tom was there every step of the way, providing information, drafting testimony, and helping me to pave the way for approval. As I advised Congress, using information that Tom polished with my staff, the primary mission of the Coastal Institute will be to carry out research and analyze policies to better enable society to manage its coastal resources wisely. In Tom's words: The strength of the Coastal Institute will be multidisciplinary teams addressing complex problems in a holistic manner. The Institute will take advantage of the information superhighway and long distance interactive communication. The Rhode Island-funded half of the Coastal Institute facilities are nearing completion of URI's Narragansett Bay campus. The federally funded half are in the bid preparation stages for buildings there and on URI's Kingston campus. I am deeply saddened that Tom did not live to see the completion of the Coastal Institute. It will be an institution that is unique in the world and will include, housed in the building on the Kingston campus, a policy simulation laboratory that also will be unique. The private sector has been involved almost from the start, thanks to Tom, in the concept and design of the policy simulation laboratory. When the lab is up and running, the private sector is expected to be an active participant in its programs. The policy simulation laboratory will represent, more than anything else at the Coastal Institute, the vision of Tom Weaver. He conceived it, helped design it, and looked forward to running it as a unique resource for educators, businessmen, and government officials. The Coastal Institute represents an extraordinary mix of scientists and researchers from disparate academic disciplines. As I mentioned, it combines two of the greatest strengths of the university--which has an international reputation for both land grant and sea grant programs. Anyone who knows of academic politics at the university level can imagine how difficult it must have been to forge that alliance. With help from countless friends and diplomatic guidance from colleagues, Tom's determination was one of the forces that made it happen. I have focused on Tom's work on the Coastal Institute, simply because I shared his enthusiasm for the academic adventure, the scientific possibilities, and the very real benefits that it will provide. But he was a far more complex man. My staff and I noticed that Tom, who always kept his eye on the goal, could be stunned by a well-deserved compliment. He was so busy driving toward his objective and encouraging others, that he never seemed to notice the excellence of his own hard work and leadership. I know he will be missed by all who knew him or were touched by his teaching, but I hope everyone who uses the policy simulation laboratory will remember him. They will be there working side by side with his determined spirit. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, before entering the Senate I was closely associated with the International Rescue Committee [IRC], serving as a vice president in charge of IRC's Washington office. During my time with IRC, I had the privilege of knowing the legendary Dr. Tom Dooley, who helped to found Medical International Cooperation [MEDICO] as a division of the IRC with the goal of providing medical assistance to the underserved in Southeast Asia. In 4 short years with MEDICO, Dr. Dooley established 17 medical programs in 14 countries and raised millions of dollars for their support. Dr. Tom Dooley truly became a legend in his own time. Tragically, Dr. Dooley died of cancer in January 1961, one day after his 34th birthday. However, Mr. President, Dr. Dooley's magnificent work did not cease with his death. A dedicated colleague, Verne Chaney, M.D., gave up a lucrative private practice of thoracic surgery in Monterey, CA, to establish the Dooley Foundation. This year marks the 35th anniversary of the Dooley Foundation and Dr. Chaney has served as its president throughout the 35 year of its existence. I want to take the occasion of this anniversary to recognize and pay personal tribute to the outstanding contribution which Verne Chaney has made in fighting disease, ignorance, and suffering in so many underserved areas of the world. Dr. Chaney, a native of Kansas City, MO, and an honor graduate of the Virginia Military Institute, developed an interest in medical assistance work very early in his career. Even before graduating from the Johns Hopkins Medical School in 1948, he spent two summers in Newfoundland and Labrador as a volunteer assisting local doctors in small cottage hospitals. One day after the Korean war broke out on June 25, 1950, Dr. Chaney resigned his position as resident in surgery at the Johns Hopkins Hospital to volunteer with the Army Medical Corps. He was assigned to a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital [MASH] in Korea. He then volunteered for assignment to a battalion aid station with the 23d Regiment of the 2d Infantry Division where he served for 13 months. Captain Chaney was highly decorated, receiving the Silver Star, Bronze Star (V), Purple Heart, and the French Croix de Guerre. After an honorable discharge, he continued his residency in thoracic surgery at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and the University of North Carolina. Soon after completing his residency, Dr. Chaney volunteered to work at the Hospital Albert Schweitzer in Haiti as chief of surgery. After 15 months, Dr. Chaney returned from Haiti and entered into the private practice of thoracic surgery in Monterey, CA. A defining moment in Dr. Chaney's life occurred in the summer of 1960, when he met Dr. Tom Dooley. Dr. Dooley was recruiting for MEDICO and asked Dr. Chaney to volunteer for 3 months in Cambodia and Vietnam to perform surgical procedures and to train host country health personnel. Dr. Chaney quickly agreed and was assigned to work in a hospital in Kratie, Cambodia, and at a tuberculosis hospital in Quang Ngai, South Vietnam. He was also asked to provide clinical services at the An-Lac Orphanage in Saigon. After finishing his first assignment with MEDICO, Dr. Chaney returned to private practice in Monterey, CA. On the night of Tom Dooley's death he was asked by Tom's brother, Malcolm, to accept the position of medical director for MEDICO's projects in Asia. Taking a leave of absence from his practice, Verne Chaney spent the next year overseeing medical programs in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Laos, Malaysia, and Vietnam. In the fall of 1961, MEDICO had a severe financial problem; and was forced to cut back its overseas projects, later becoming a division of CARE. However, Dr. Chaney was determined to continue independently the overseas projects started by Tom Dooley and in September 1961, he established the Dooley Foundation in San Francisco, CA. Under the aegis of the Dooley Foundation, medical assistance projects were continued in Cambodia, Hong Kong, Laos, Vietnam, and with Tibetan refugees in northern India. In spite of his heavy responsibilities with the Dooley Foundation, Dr. Chaney, in 1965, volunteered to work for several months with Dr. Albert Schweitzer in Lambarene, Gabon, to provide medical and surgical services. With the end of the Indochina war in December 1975, and the takeover by the Communists, the Dooley Foundation was forced to leave the region. However, the foundation found new opportunities for service. Over the years, project activities have included the training of nurses and physical therapists in Nepal; assistance to refugees from Laos and Cambodia in Thailand; medical and educational assistance to Tibetan refugee children in India; medical assistance to a clinic for nomads in Niger; and medical assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons in El Salvador, Honduras--partially financed by a contract with USAID--Nicaragua and Afghan refugees in Pakistan. New medical assistance projects are pending in Laos, Cambodia, and Mongolia. Mr. President, as Dr. Chaney looks back on his 35 years of service with the Dooley Foundation, he can indeed take great satisfaction in the accomplishments of the foundation. However, it is also appropriate to note that the need to serve the world's underprivileged continues. So long as there are children and villagers in the developing nations of the world who are without adequate nutrition, sanitation, and clean water; so long as immunizations against preventable diseases are lacking; so long as mothers are ignorant of proper hygiene and nutrition, there is need for the person-to-person humanitarian care which has been provided by the Dooley Foundation and for the inspiring leadership and service of physicians like Verne Chaney. In closing Mr. President I want to quote Dr. Chaney directly: ``but the task is never done--though battles are won--the war against hunger, disease, and ignorance is unending and must be fought by men and women united by a consciousness of the brotherhood of man.'' As Edmund Burke said, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Mr. President, our country has always been very proud of the American tradition of selfless humanitarian service to the less fortunate of the world--which dedicated Americans like Tom Dooley and Verne Chaney so beautifully exemplify. Their devotion to serving others is an inspiration for all of us.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I regret that I am unable to support this conference report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1996 and 1997. I recognize that House and Senate Republican conferees have attempted to find a middle-ground between the respective bills passed by each House and that this conference report is an improvement over the House-passed bill. Although there are some provisions in the bill that I support, I believe the bill is fundamentally flawed in four areas--reorganization of the foreign affairs agencies, funding for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and for our contributions to the United Nation, and American policy toward China. This bill requires the President to abolish one of the foreign affairs agencies--AID, USIA, or CDA. There is no doubt that this is an improvement over the original language in the House bill, which mandated the abolishment of all three of these agencies. However, this conference report falls far short of the Senate bill, which sought to force consolidation through savings rather than the mandatory abolition of agencies. The Senate bill preserved the President's constitutional right to determine how to organize those agencies which carry out the foreign policy directives of the President of the United States. The conference report takes that away. I cannot support a bill which crosses this line and abolishes an important foreign affairs agency simply for the sake of abolishment. On an issue such as this I feel it is important for the Congress to acknowledge the prerogative of the President to organize the foreign affairs agencies in a manner which best serves the nation's interests and the President's foreign policy priorities. As a strong supporter of ACDA and its mission, I am deeply disturbed by the inadequate funding levels for ACDA in this bill. The fiscal year 1996 authorization of $35.7 million represents a 28 percent reduction from the fiscal year 1995 level. The fiscal year 1997 authorization of $28 million is not only a 44 percent reduction from the fiscal year 1995 level, but cuts ACDA so deeply that it can no longer carry out its core missions, such as being our watchdog on proliferation, verifying arms control agreements, and monitoring compliance with new agreements. This is a foolish and costly approach at a time when our needs in the area of arms control are increasing, not decreasing. The conference report also fails to authorize the necessary funds for the United States to pay assessed contributions to the United Nations and its related agencies. I agree that we need to do all that we can to force the United Nations to adopt serious management and financial reforms but failing to meet our treaty obligations is not the way to achieve this goal. It simply diminishes our influence and encourages other nations to take the same, ill-advised approach. Finally, section 1601 of the conference report amends the Taiwan Relations Act [TRA] of 1979, to say that the provisions of the Act relating to arms sales to Taiwan supersede any provision of the joint communique, signed between the United States and China in 1982, limiting such arm sales. I believe this provision was added out of genuine concern for the people of Taiwan, a concern I share. But I also believe that this is the wrong approach to Taiwan's security problem and the wrong time to take it. Our relationship with the People's Republic of China is at one of its lowest points in history, certainly the lowest point since the Tiananmen massacre. We have major disputes with the Chinese on a number of serious issues, ranging from trade to human rights to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While we will not back away from any of these issues, it is important that both governments act prudently and not unnecessarily damage the relationship further. But this bill does the opposite, by undercutting the basis for United States-Chinese relations. Section 1601 constitutes a unilateral revision of one of the cornerstones of the bilateral relationship. Adopting a measure like this would certainly cause a backlash from Beijing, by playing into the hands of hard liners in the Chinese leadership and aiding them in their attempt to promote an anti-Western, anti-United States agenda. I also think this approach is likely to fail in its fundamental purpose of advancing Taiwan's security. For almost 3 weeks, we saw tensions rise in the Taiwan Strait as China tested M-9 missiles and held massive military exercises in an attempt to intimidate a Taipei it fears is heading toward a declaration of independence, aided by foreign powers. Just this week, after Taiwan's historic presidential election on Saturday, we are seeing some initial positive signs that both governments are reaching out to each other in order to move back toward a more stable relationship. A reversal of U.S. arms sales policy at this time would certainly hamper those efforts. It is very much in Taiwan's security interest that all three capitals work to defuse tensions, not inflame them. Section 1601 would further damage already strained relations with Beijing and likely endanger, rather than strengthen Taiwan. It is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Mr. President, for these reasons, I intend to vote against this conference report. The President has indicated that he will veto this bill over the issues I have discussed as well as some others, and I ask unanimous consent that the administration's statement to that effect be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dole in submitting this resolution on Kosova. Congressman Engel has taken the lead in submitting a companion resolution in the House. I remain concerned about the situation in Kosova, where the majority Albanian population continues to suffer severe human rights abuses. If left unchecked, the situation in Kosova could be the spark that ignites another powder keg of violence in the former Yugoslavia. Since 1989, more than 100,000 ethnic Albanians employed in the public sector have been removed from their jobs and replaced by Serbs. The Belgrade Government has severely restricted the access of ethnic Albanians in Kosova to all levels of education, and has pursued a general campaign of intimidation and repression. This country has invested a great deal in creating and maintaining peace in Bosnia. Our diplomats and our military personnel are to be commended for the fine job that they are doing with regard to Bosnia. I am concerned, however, that if the situation in Kosova is not resolved, our diplomatic, economic, and military investment in Bosnia will be for naught. A comprehensive solution to the former Yugoslavia must address Kosova. This resolution is designed to focus attention on Kosova--as a key component to stability in the region. It expresses the sense of Congress that among other things, the situation in Kosova must be resolved before the outer wall of sanctions be lifted against Serbia. In other words, Serbia would continue to be denied access to international financial institution assistance and to be denied full diplomatic relations with the United States and its allies pending the resolution of Kosova and other issues. There are signs that international consensus on maintaining this outer wall is cracking, and this resolution is therefore useful in keeping attention focused on Kosova. I believe it is important to send a signal to Serbian President Milosevic that he cannot hope to bring Serbia back into the international community's fold unless and until he agrees to address the issue of Kosova. The resolution also welcomes the progress that has been made toward the establishment of a USIA office in Kosova. As one who sponsored legislation several years ago that authorized the creation of such a center, I am particularly interested in ensuring that the United States establish a presence in Kosova. Secretary Christopher should be commended for securing President Milosevic's approval to establish such a center. The resolution also calls on Serbia to allow international observers to return to Kosova, and urges the President to appoint a special envoy to help in negotiating a resolution to the Kosova issue. I believe it is in our interest to maintain a spotlight on Kosova, and I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, when the line-item veto was last before us, I said that I found myself in opposition both on philosophical as well as practical grounds. I must be quick to acknowledge that my reservations on practical grounds have been met. The conferees deserve credit for replacing the cumbersome and unworkable scheme of separate enrollment in the Senate version of the legislation, with at least a workable plan for enhanced rescission authority. But my underlying philosophical reservation remains. As I said when the bill was last before us, I simply believe that Congress should be extremely chary in yielding its power of the purse to the executive branch. I hold this view on the basis of my Senate service under eight Presidents of both parties during my 35 years in the Senate, and notwithstanding the cordial relationships I have had with all of them. I continue to believe that the executive branch, which under our Constitution, quite properly is a separate power center with its own agenda and its own priorities, inevitably will seek and use any additional power to achieve its objectives. And the pending grant of veto power over specific items, I fear, will surely give even the most benign and well-motivated Chief Executive a new means for exercising undue influence and coercion over individual members of the legislative branch. I hold this view, notwithstanding my loyalty and respect for President Clinton, who I know would use such a grant of authority wisely. But it is the balance of institutional forces that must be considered, and it is in this connection that we have been well served by the erudition of the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], who has reminded us so eloquently of the need to protect the legislative prerogatives. I agree with him and I commend him for his great service to the cause of constitutional government.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying respect to the memory of former Senator Edmund Muskie. He was a very productive Member of this body and he made great contributions to its deliberations and to the welfare of our Nation. I admired him very much. I first came to know Ed Muskie when he was Governor of Maine and a delegate to our party's national conventions. I always found him to be a person of great common sense and practicality, traits that reflected his years of experience in the Maine State Legislature and before that as a city official in Waterville. He was always a highly effective advocate for the interests of New England, and in that role as in other aspects of his wide ranging Senate career, he was capable of displaying his sense of righteous indignation in the interests of producing results. Perhaps his greatest and most lasting contribution was his work in securing enactment of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and his subsequent service as the first chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Here his practical vision saw the need for a consolidated legislative budget that coordinated and reconciled legislative appropriations with executive spending. Ed Muskie's Senate career came to a sudden and surprising conclusion with his elevation to the office of Secretary of State in the Carter administration at the height of the Iraq crisis in 1980. It was a measure of Senator Muskie's statute in the Senate and in the Nation that President Carter turned to him at a time when circumstances called for a steady and authoritative hand. It was a fitting climax to a career of exceptionally distinguished public service. I join my colleagues in honoring the memory of Edmund Muskie and I extend my sympathy to his wife Jane, family and many associates in Maine and across the country.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of my colleagues Burundi, a small Central African country. There are 6 million people who live in Burundi. Each week, a civil insurgency tightens its grip on this poor African nation, causing the deaths of hundreds of people. The killing frenzy in Burundi has barely touched international headlines, as it has been dwarfed by the calamities striking Israel and Bosnia. But consider the situation if it were to occur in the United States. The United States has a population of about 260 million. Sliding the scale to the figures of the United States, we would see 30,000 Americans dying a week; 1,560,000 a year. Burundi, my colleagues, is on the brink of national suicide. The hostilities in Burundi are between the Tutsi-controlled army and Hutu rebels. The current turmoil is the fallout of the explosion of tensions between Tutsi's and Hutu's in 1993. That year, the country's first popularly elected President, a Hutu, was assassinated. In the chaotic aftermath of his death, tens of thousands of Burundians were killed, hundreds of thousands were displaced. Today, Burundi is ruled by a coalition of moderate Hutus and Tutsis who agreed to share power through the mediation of U.N. Secretary General's former special representative, Ambassador Ahmedou Abdallah. The moderates who lead this Government have tried to contain the violence. Their efforts, however, continue to be threatened by extremists on both sides. A breakdown in Burundi could have catastrophic effects in the country, the region, and in the international community. The world witnessed at great length the tragedy that wrecked Rwanda 2 years ago. Rwanda shares the ethnic makeup of Burundi and is just barely coming to grips with the horror it endured. A collapse in Burundi could crack the fragile peace now established in Rwanda and even worse, could trigger a regional genocide. The international community cannot afford to sit back and watch another egregious slaughter. The international community, with leadership from the United States, can help. First, we should support last Saturday's meeting of African leaders in Tunis. This meeting was brokered by former President Jimmy Carter. Second, there must be diplomatic efforts to persuade the extremists on both sides that violence is not a credible option. If violence resumes, the United States, in conjunction with its European allies, should be prepared to impose an arms embargo, block international financial transactions by Burundi's extremists and stop all trade with Burundi with the exception of humanitarian relief. And third, we, the Congress, should stand behind the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and private American voluntary and relief projects whose programs promote peace and national reconciliation. Burundi represents a great opportunity for the world community to exercise preventative diplomacy. The United States should do its share of constructive engagement and assist in heading off a regional genocide before it is too late.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this resolution is a thoughtful, appropriate response to recent developments in the Taiwan Strait. With this resolution, the Senate deplores the People's Republic of China's recent missile tests and military exercises in the Taiwan Strait as an unwarranted and dangerous attempt to intimidate Taiwan as it prepares to hold direct presidential elections this Saturday. It calls on China to return to negotiations at the highest levels between the two governments, negotiations which have successfully resolved a number of issues in the past. The resolution also reiterates our long-standing policy that maintaining peace and stability in the region is in the interest of the United States and that we expect Taiwan's future to be resolved peacefully and in a way that satisfies the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. As a sponsor of this resolution, I urge all parties involved to move away from provocative measures and to find new ways to de-escalate tensions. It is incumbent upon all parties to avoid taking steps which could lead unexpectedly, through mistake or miscalculation, to a conflict that no one wants. Now is the time for calmer voices to prevail and I hope that all governments will listen for them. I think this is a thoughtful and appropriate response, worked in a bipartisan way. It is a resolution we can support with pride.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the Metric in Construction 1995 Year End Report by the Construction Metrication Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences located here in Washington, DC. I found the information outlined in the ``Status of Federal Construction Metrication'' chart to me most interesting. In many portions of the Federal Government, projects have been constructed in metric for 2 years or more and, contrary to the beliefs of many, the sky has not fallen in. I also recommend the rest of the council's report to my colleagues. As the report says, 93 percent of the world's population uses the metric system. I continue to believe that the United States will remain at a competitive disadvantage with our global trading partners until we join that 93 percent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Metric in Construction 1995 Year End Report be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee completed a long and, unfortunately, contentious markup of S. 1423, the Safety and Health Reform and Reinvention Act that amends the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. While I am very aware of the importance of not overburdening businesses with mountains of paperwork and regulation, I am also cognizant, as a cosponsor--along with my old friend Senator Jacob Javits--of the legislation that created OSHA, of the important need to protect the health, safety, and lives of employees. Much of the debate and discussion that took place during Labor Committee hearings and markups was really over the balance between protections for employees and burdens on employers. During one committee hearing on the topic, a businessman testified in support of a proposal that would prohibit fines on a business if it were to be found in substantial compliance with OSHA regulations. The witness went on say that substantial compliance ``does not mean perfection or even near perfection. It does mean better than average.'' Mr. President, I would not expect perfectly safe conditions or perfect health protections for myself and we probably should not attempt perfection under OSHA rules. We should not, however, settle for better than average safety. I am sure that none of my colleagues would feel comfortable flying on an airline that advertised as having better than average safety. Would any of us feel comfortable using a piece of machinery or operating an electrical device knowing that there was an average chance of being electrocuted or being injured? I do not believe ``better than average'' is good enough for America's workers. Another concern of mine centers on the ability of workers to request on-site inspections by OSHA. I recently received some interesting material from the Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety and Health [RICOSH]. One of these cases is a good example of the value of OSHA inspections. Without an onsite inspection, problems that occurred at a Narragansett, RI jobsite may well have taken a different turn. During construction, workers noticed that the temporary support structure for a poured concrete floor had become dangerously overloaded. The workers placed a call to OSHA. At first, the owner and his engineer and architect all insisted that the 2 x 4's would support a concrete slab. Instead, they suggested to OSHA that the deflection was the result of moist sea breezes causing the support timers to swell combined with expansion caused when the Sun warmed one side of the timbers. At first glance, these all sound like credible explanations. Upon inspection, Mr. President, it was learned that structural calculations were based on a 2\1/2\ inch concrete slab. In reality, the slab was 3 inches thick. Obviously, the inspection was the key to discovering the actual cause of the deflection in the concrete slab. Just imagine the number of injuries and even deaths that may have taken place if because of a phone or fax interview, instead of an inspection, OSHA had determined that the culprit was sunny days and humid nights. Mr. President, I feel that I also must comment on the commotion during the last markup session. After approving three very good amendments--two Democratic and one Republican--by voice vote on the first day of the markup, the committee was asked to vote again on the amendments at the beginning of the last markup. Unfortunately, all three of the votes were along party lines and two of the previously approved amendments failed. I regret very much that this commotion took place and hope that in the future, cooler heads prevail.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, legend has it that more than 200 years ago, the bey of Tunis, as token of esteem and friendship, sent one of his finest stallions to U.S. President George Washington. Unfortunately, customs officials in the nascent republic denied entry to the horse, which spent its remainder of its days in the port of Baltimore. After this somewhat rocky start, I am happy to report that U.S.-Tunisian relations have improved considerably. Today, in fact, marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Tunisia as an independent country, a time during which Tunisia has enjoyed a strong and healthy relationship with the United States. Today I wish to congratulate Tunisia for its many accomplishments, and to highlight some of the instances of cooperation between our two countries. In recent years, Tunisia has taken positive steps towards the establishment of a more democratic system of government. Although the ruling party continues to dominate the political scene, Tunisia has made an effort to broaden political debate, including recent passage of an electoral law that reserved 19 seats of the National Assembly for members of opposition political parties. Because the government has placed a high priority on funding social programs, today Tunisia has literacy and life expectancy rates that are among the highest in the region. I hope that the United States will continue to work with Tunisia on efforts such as these to open up the political process and to improve the living standards of the population. This should help Tunisia to overcome some of the difficulties it continues to encounter in balancing secular and Muslim interests in the country. Tunisia also has a very impressive economic record. In the last 10 years, the government has turned to economic programs designed to privatize state-owned companies and to reform the banking and financial sectors. As a result, Tunisia's economy has grown at an average rate of 4.5 percent over the last 3 years, and its economic success has had a beneficial impact on Tunisia's international standing. Tunisia joined GATT in 1990, and in 1995, the government signed a free-trade accord with the European Union. In contrast to some of its Arab neighbors, Tunisia has achieved particular success in the promotion of women's rights. Under the direction of President Ben Ali, the number of Tunisian women and girls receiving an education--up through the university level--has risen dramatically. Women are protected under the law from forced early marriages and domestic violence. I applaud these steps and urge the Tunisian government to continue its efforts to expand personal freedoms for all of its citizens. Tunisia and the United States have also explored ways to cooperate on international security issues. In fact, the 14th Annual Joint Military Commission of Tunisia and the United States met in Tunis over the last 2 days. Tunisia also has played an active role in U.N. peacekeeping missions, contributing military contingents to operations in Cambodia, Somalia, the Western Sahara, and Rwanda. Finally, Tunisia has been a welcome force for moderation I the Middle East peace process. The government has taken an active role within the Arab community in promoting better ties with Israel. In April of this year, Israel and Tunisia will establish official interests sections to facilitate political consultations, travel, and trade. Tunisia has condemned the recent suicide bomb attacks in Israel and has called for greater international efforts to fight terrorism. As I alluded to earlier, the relationship between the United States and Tunisia goes back nearly 200 years, to the very beginnings of American independence. Tunisia was among the first to recognize the United States as a sovereign country. As Tunisia celebrates the 40th anniversary of its own independence, I ask my colleagues to join me in offering a sincere expression of congratulations.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Extreme, official No. 1022278, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a coastwise endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12106 through 12108. The Extreme is 70.9 feet in length, 18 feet in breadth, has a depth of 10.8 feet, and is self-propelled. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Extreme to engage in coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. When the owners purchased the boat, they were unaware of the coastwise trade and fisheries restrictions of the Jones Act. They assumed that there would be no restrictions on engaging the vessel in such limited operation. Although the vessel was constructed in North Carolina, it was built for a foreign customer; thus it did not meet the coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owners of the Extreme are therefore seeking a waiver of the existing law because they wish to engage the vessel in limited commercial use. Their desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If they are granted this waiver, it is their intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and my statement be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Extreme, official No. 1022278, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a coastwise endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12106 through 12108. The Extreme is 70.9 feet in length, 18 feet in breadth, has a depth of 10.8 feet, and is self-propelled. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Extreme to engage in coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. When the owners purchased the boat, they were unaware of the coastwise trade and fisheries restrictions of the Jones Act. They assumed that there would be no restrictions on engaging the vessel in such limited operation. Although the vessel was constructed in North Carolina, it was built for a foreign customer; thus it did not meet the coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owners of the Extreme are therefore seeking a waiver of the existing law because they wish to engage the vessel in limited commercial use. Their desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If they are granted this waiver, it is their intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and my statement be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Thank you. First, I want to express to you my deep appreciation for the efforts you have made on behalf of this program, which provides critically important help in both civics and economic education to the emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Also I want to personally thank your staff member, Bettilou Taylor, for the amount of time and work she put forth in this area. I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide guidance on how the funds for this program should be used. In a colloquy with then-Chairman Harkin in 1994, we agreed that the Department, given the limited funds, should award one grant in each area--one in civic education and one in economics education. I am pleased that the Department of Education complied with this request, and I believe it is a practice that should be continued. Further, given the delay in reaching an agreement on a fiscal 1996 appropriations bill, I believe it advisable that the Department award continuation grants to the two organizations that received awards last year. These organizations, the National Council on Economic Education in New York and the Center for Civic Education in California, have had their grants for less than a year and should be given ample opportunity to implement fully the programs they have initiated over the past several months.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this weekend will mark the anniversary of one of humanity's darkest moments. Eight years ago, on March 16, 1988, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's forces, besieged by Iranian forces on the Faw Peninsula and losing ground to Kurdish insurgents in northern Iraq, commenced an attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja. There, Iraqi forces used poison gas resulting in the death of as many as 5 to 6 thousand Kurds, most of whom were innocent noncombatants. In the 8 years since the poison gas attack, Halabja has become the single most important symbol of the plight of the Kurdish people--the very embodiment of Iraq's brutality towards the Kurds. The unforgettable images of the victims--a man frozen in death with his infant son; a little girl wearing a scarf, her face swollen in the first stages of decomposition--remain seared in the Kurdish psyche. Much as the Bosnians will never forget the ethnic cleansing of Srebrenica, the Kurds will never forget the attack on Halabja. Incredibly, as we now know, Halabja was not the only instance when Iraq employed chemical weapons against the Kurds, nor was it the end of Iraqi repression against the Kurds. Although clearly the most dramatic, Halabja was but one of a series of Iraqi atrocities against the Kurds. Beginning in the mid to late 1980's--and culminating in the infamous Anfal campaign of 1988--Iraqi forces systematically rounded up Kurdish villagers and forced them into relocation camps, took tens of thousands of Kurds into custody where they were never heard from again, and destroyed hundreds of Kurdish villages and towns. By some estimates as many as 150,000 Kurds are missing from this period and presumed dead. Collectively, these actions amount to an Iraqi campaign of genocide against the Kurds. I, along with the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, have tried very hard to call attention to the persecution of the Kurds, including by introducing the first-ever sanctions bill against Iraq in 1988 for its use of poison gas against the Kurds. Since then, a wealth of evidence has been uncovered documenting Iraq's brutality against the Kurds, much of which was written in Iraq's own hand. The Foreign Relations Committee--particularly through the vigorous efforts of former staff member, now United States Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith--led an effort to retrieve more than 18 tons of Iraqi Secret Police documents captured by the Kurds in 1991, which charts out Iraq's criminal behavior in excruciating detail. Human Rights Watch, the independent human rights organization, has done a superb job of analyzing those documents to mount an overwhelming case that Iraq has engaged in genocide against the Kurds. This is a story that must be told. As some of my colleagues may know, the issue of genocide has a particularly strong resonance for me. Just after World War II, my father, Herbert Claiborne Pell, played a significant role in seeing that genocide would be considered a war crime. Although he met stiff resistance, my father ultimately succeeded and I learned much from his tenacity and commitment to principle. The world must oppose genocide wherever and whenever it occurs; Halabja cannot be forgotten, and Iraq must be held accountable for its atrocities against the Kurds. We simply cannot afford to let this opportunity pass by. I wish I could say that there is a happy ending to the tragic story of the Kurds in Iraq, that there was a lesson learned by the Iraqi leadership. Sadly, I cannot. Although the Iraqi Kurds now control a significant portion of Kurdistan--a consequence of the Persian Gulf war--Saddam's ill treatment of the Kurds continues. Iraqi agents continually carry out terrorist acts against Kurdish targets, and Iraq maintains an airtight blockade of the Kurdish-controlled provinces. Since there also is a U.N. embargo on all of Iraq, the Kurds are forced to live under the unbearable economic weight of a dual embargo. In addition, Kurds in other portions of the region--particularly in Iran and Turkey--have been subjected to serious abuses of human rights and outright represssion, demonstrating that the Kurdish plight knows no boundaries. The situation has become so dire that for the past 18 months, the Iraqi Kurds --once united in their quest for autonomy and their hatred for Saddam Hussein, have resorted to fighting amongst themselves. The situation does not seem right or fair to me. Nor does there seem to have been a proper response by the international community to the horrifying legacy of Halabja. I think there should be a much greater effort to look at ways to help the Iraqi Kurds dispel the painful memories of the past, to graduate from the status of dependency on the international donor community, and to confront our common enemy--Saddam Hussein. Only then can Iraqi Kurdistan emerge as the cornerstone of a free and democratic Iraq. At a minimum, the international community--and the United States in particular--must reaffirm its commitment to protect the Kurds. Under Operation Provide Comfort, an international coalition including United States, British, and French forces, continues to provide air cover and protection to the Iraqi Kurds, and to facilitate the supply of humanitarian relief. The recent political changes in Turkey, however, have cast new doubt on the long-term viability of Provide Comfort, and overall economic conditions in Kurdistan continue to deteriorate. The current situation does not serve United States or international interests, nor does it help to rectify the sad history of repression against the Kurds. Our work in Iraq--both against Saddam and in support of the Kurds--is not yet done.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this weekend, I had the honor of leading a congressional delegation to Lisbon for the inauguration of Portugal's new president. I was pleased to participate in this event marking the passing of the torch from Mario Soares to Jorge Sampaio, which was a strong signal of Portugal's continued commitment to democracy. The delegation's presence at the inauguration contributed to continued good relations between Portugal and the United States. Portuguese-United States relations remain solid. The new government, headed by Prime Minister Antonio Guterres, has demonstrated his continued commitment to a strong United States-Portuguese relationship. The new agreement on cooperation and defense providing for United States access to the Lajes Base in the Azores and Portuguese-United States cooperation in the implementation force in Bosnia are also important signs of the strong ties between our two countries. President Sampaio delivered a truly inspirational inaugural speech in which he described a Portugal firmly rooted in Europe and committed to a foreign policy that places a priority on good relations with Portuguese-speaking countries throughout the world. He paid tribute to his predecessor Mario Soares as the symbol of the constant struggle for freedom and democracy both at home and abroad. President Sampaio called on the Portuguese people to work for a more cohesive Portugal, and pledged to do his part to encourage consensus in Portuguese society. Ever aware of Portugal's past political experiences, President Sampaio underscored that he will respect the wishes of the Portuguese people and to exercise his constitutional powers with impartiality. Mr. President, I commend President Sampaio's speech to my colleagues, and ask that it be printed in the Record. The speech follows: Mr. President of the Assembly of the Republic, Heads of State, Prime Ministers and High Representatives of Friendly States and Peoples, Prime Minister, Members of the Government and High Portuguese Authorities, His Eminence the Cardinal of Lisbon, Members of Parliament, Ladies and Gentleman: After twenty years of democracy and a decade of European integration, Portugal has completed a cycle in her contemporary history. The democratic regime has been consolidated. Accession to the European Community has proved to be the right choice and has provided the country with conditions for development and structural changes which would otherwise have been impossible. Such major conditions for Portugal's modernization may seem obvious and even natural to the new generations coming of age today. It is good that it should be so. However, it required several generations to fight for Freedom and Democracy, generations whose courage and determination gave the example to be followed. The 25 of April Revolution, which I would feelingly like to remember here, represents the end of a long journey during which people paid for their dedication to the cause of democracy with their freedom and their lives. Being elected President of the Republic represents an incomparable responsibility and honour in a politician's life. Circumstances have contrived, however, to give me the added pleasure of receiving the badge of office from that outstanding figure of Portuguese democracy; the outgoing President, Mario Soares. Dr. Mario Soares is the symbol of the constant struggle for Freedom and Democracy both at home and abroad. A struggle which knew no vacillations or concessions. The political cycle which coincidentally closes with the end of his term of office will forever be linked to his name. In the last decades no-one has marked Portuguese political life so persistently and profoundly. Today, as President of the Republic, I would like to say how deeply grateful our country is to you, Dr. Mario Soares, for a lifetime dedicated to seeking the best for Portugal and the Portuguese. Owing to the many areas in which you left your mark it is difficult to sum up your life in one word. There is one word however, which stands out above all others. You are a man of Freedom. It was essential that my first gesture as President should be to award you the Grand Collar of the Order of Freedom, at another ceremony which will take place today. Mr. President of the Assembly of the Republic. I would like to thank you most feelingly for the warm word you addressed to me in your eloquent speech. This is the seat that represents the sovereign will of the Portuguese people. I know this house well, having survived intense years of parliamentary activity here, believe me, Mr. President, the Assembly of the Republic may always rely on the solidarity and institutional cooperation of the President of the Republic. I would like to say how honoured I am by the presence today at this inauguration of Heads of State, Prime Ministers and high representatives of friendly countries. I would like to welcome you all warmly and to thank you for your distinguished presence at this ceremony. Mr. President of the Assembly of the Republic, Ladies and Gentlemen, the coming years are decisive for Portugal's future. The country faces the challenge of ensuring important modernization efforts without causing political and social breaches which may undermine national cohesion. Our national strategy must encompass the firmness of Portugal's participation in the European Union, the achievement of a sustained effort to modernize the productive sections and constant attention to social policies. I regard Portugal's future with confidence. We are a quasimillenary country. We are possessed of a culture which, century after century, has maintained its diversity and richness. Our language was spread by the Portuguese ``to the seven corners of the world'' and today is spoken by over two hundred million. It was our people's courage and determination that created the wealth of our history, our culture and our language. It is that courage that will always give me faith in the future. I have acquired and developed a profound knowledge of the Portuguese and this is without any doubt the heritage that I most value in a political career which began more than thirty five years ago. I know that the Portuguese people will always be able to find the energy and means required to guarantee Portugal's future. I also know that this new political cycle goes hand in hand with the Portuguese people's more demanding attitude in their relationship with the political system, particularly with the need for greater transparency and renewed capacity to provide concrete answer to the expectations and concerns in people's day-to-day lives. The Portuguese know how I conceive the presidential function. It is built on a concern to which I will pay the greatest attention. In a world and a time increasingly subject to massification, to violent desegregating tensions and to the loss of the collective memory, the values of identify must be reinforced. It is necessary to exercise a magistrature that will defend, guarantee and strengthen national cohesion. I feel that there are factors nowadays in Portugal which are affecting that cohesion. There are unequivocal signs that social inequalities are on the increase. The profound regional asymetries in national development and the phenomena of minorities' exclusion and marginalization have accumulated and increased to worrying levels. There is an increased loss of solidarity between generations. The role of the family, even its articulation with the educational system, require profound thought. One of the indications of the loss of national cohesion is the growing signs of insecurity, increased factors of discord, accumulated inter-regional tensions, intolerance and intransigence that I see with concern to evolve. The strengthening of national cohesion requires far- reaching reforms both to achieve policies of decentralization and to adjust educational and social policies. Also both to restore citizens' trust in the political system and to guarantee the effectiveness of the State's role. The strengthening of national cohesion signifies that a solution must be found to strengthen municipal and local institutions as well as organized forms of society representation. In the search for that solution the unity of the State must never be questioned. However, the strengthening of national cohesion also means finding an institutionally stable solution of consensus for the problem of formulating the Continent's political and administrative decentralization. This problem has been awaiting a solution for far too long. I would like to welcome the organs of the autonomous Regions and give them my assurance that I will cooperate with them wholeheartedly. The regional autonomies were decisive in transforming the lives of the populations of the Azores and Madeira archipelagos. The model of regional autonomy has given proof of its legitimacy and all our efforts must be to ensure its improvement and consolidation. National cohesion also depends on how we respect our acquired social rights, guaranteeing some level of security for families; and their expectations for retirement, particularly for the underprivileged, outcast and jeopardized by a process of modernization which is often pursued with total disregard for the values of solidarity. As President of the Republic I will do all I can to encourage the consensuses in Portuguese society. Only these that can pave the way for a new strategic concentration, able to meet the demands of national cohesion at a time of accelerated change and accelerated national mobilization. The mandate I received from the Portuguese people is very clear. The President of the Republic must be a guarantor of political and institutional stability and perform his office in such a way as to ensure institutional balances. I am, of course, aware that it is my duty to respect the democratically expressed wish of the Portuguese and to see that it is respected. Just as I will also faithfully respect the spheres of competence of the other organs of sovereignty. I shall commit myself to create the required conditions to ensure that Parliament and the Government carry out their duties and fulfill their mandates. Loyalty and institutional cooperation by contributing to political stability will also play a decisive role in allowing the Portuguese to see themselves mirrored in the institutions of the Republic. The Government led by Mr. Antonio Guterras, which emerged from elections which gave it the unequivocal vote of the Portuguese people, can naturally rely on my institutional cooperation. I will exercise my constitutional powers with impartiality. It is incumbent upon me to work with all majorities and all legitimate governments. The principle of institutional cooperation cannot be synonymous with unanimity. Normal functioning of the political institutions demands that all of us: President, Assembly and Government, must exercise their powers with rigour, and respect the manifestation of reciprocal competences. I will remain constant to the form of my institutional cooperation with the government. I will also be firm in the exercise of the powers vested in me by the Constitution. With the Assembly of the Republic, the centre ``par excellence'' of national democratic life, I will uphold a relationship of respect and solidarity and will maintain a constant dialogue with all parties. The opposition will have in me an attentive observer, responsive to the protection of its important constitutional rights as a means of preserving conditions in which the democratic alternatives can freely be chosen. I would like here to greet the Portuguese Armed Forces, the guarantor of national defence and security, whose institutional loyalty was decisive in consolidating the democratic regime which emerged after the 25 of April revolution. On becoming, by reason of office, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces I would like to reiterate my total commitment to the success of the peace mission in Bosnia and Hercegovina, on which the stability of Europe at the end of the millennium partly depends. Mr. President of the Assembly of the Republic, Ladies and Gentlemen, the essence of Portugal's destiny is played out in Europe. This, today, is an incontrovertible factor of the country's international position. It is not moved by apprehensive and defensive policies but rather counsels firm political policies upheld by the clear determination of our national interests. Both the difficulties of recent years and the demands of this new phase of European construction require the reinforcement of suitable internal consensuses which can withstand the permanent demands of the Portuguese strategy for Europe. That strategy can no longer be based on secretiveness and the ``fait accompli'', factors which undermined previous consensuses. Today it will invariably have to depend on, transparent policy about the options to be made and their requirements. Today it will have to be based on the enlarged participation of the social and political forces and on the citizens' opinion. Only thus will the Portuguese understand that the European Union is a community of sovereign states, from which we cannot, therefore, just merely wish to reap benefits without having to share responsibilities. The challenges facing the European Union at the turn of the century--the intensification of economic integration within a framework of international cohesion, and the expansion of the Union's borders to embrace the new European democracies-- present challenges for Portugal. The answer to these challenges lies not in hesitation but in the identification of pre-eminent objectives for the establishment of national consensuses and for a firm, determined Portuguese foreign policy. A strong, united Europe will be a Europe which is open to the outside world, ready to guarantee a framework of regional stability. This condition is important for the continuance of the transatlantic community, namely the alliance between the United States and Europe. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization continues to be the cornerstone of our security, although present circumstances demand the emphatic development of the European pillar as sign of the European allies' real capacity to assume added responsibilities in collective defence. Naturally, the relations with Portuguese-speaking countries have a special position in our foreign policy. Those relations represent a link with our own extensive history which is shared with the peoples of Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea. Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe and of course with the people of East Timor. The language, the rich variety of cultures expressed in that same language, history and the effective solidarity between the peoples of these seven states and of the territory of East Timor make it necessary to form a Community of Portuguese-Speaking States and Peoples. I shall dedicate great attention to this project. Unfortunately, East Timor will not be able to take part in this project as a free and self determined State. Portugal has an unalienable historical responsibility towards East Timor and the Timorese community. As the territory's administrating power Portugal has a clear political duty vis-a-vis the international community: it must guarantee the completion of the decolonization process through a free and democratic referendum supervised by the United Nations in which the Timorese may, with dignity, exercise their right to self-determination. To fulfill this objective the competent organs of sovereignty must always seek the ways and means which are best suited to the evolution of international circumstances. Portugal must continue to fight for the cause of East Timor in all international fora and to support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General in fulfilling his mandate, seeking a just and internationally accepted solution for the question of East Timor, with the participation of all the interested parties. National commitment to this issue is, in fact, provided in consonance with an essential reference value of the Portuguese state's foreign actions: the defence of peoples freedom peoples and the defence of human rights. The President of the Republic has particular responsibilities with Macao, I believe that there must be close agreement with the Government both for the administration of the territory and the framework of our relations with the People's Republic of China. The Portuguese policy is very clear: guarantee the stability and prosperity of the territory of Macao as well as the protection of the rights and interests of its inhabitants, never forgetting that Portugal has an unalienable responsibility to protect the rights of all Portuguese citizens in Macao. Mr. President of the Assembly of the Republic, Ladies and Gentleman, the modern evolution of societies and political systems implies a new perception of relations between the citizen and the political power. This relation must be based on information and on the proximity of the political decision, implying new forms for citizens' democratic participation and the enlargement of their rights. Unless such new demands are incorporated within the political system it will not be possible to adapt representative democracy to the complexity of social relations at the end of the millennium. The tendency in modern societies is to develop a culture of civic intervention and of salutary intransigence when protecting the citizen's legitimate rights in relation to the state. The pressure on the Portuguese political system is already great, due to the fact that a persistent centralizing policy has postponed the natural development of institutional reforms to decentralize power. Guaranteeing the stability of democracy signifies a constant commitment to defend the prestige of the representative institutions and the citizens' political participation. I have and assume the obligation to encourage a culture of democratic demand. But I also believe that it is essential to ensure respect for the rule of law and the defence of the prestige of the institutions which define and apply such rule of law, as a means to guarantee the trust citizens place in the institutions of the Republic. The respect for the state of law is a fundamental basis of the democratic regime. On this there can be no compromise. As President I will be close to the people. This intention will be the mark of my term of office. I will listen carefully to the Portuguese. To all Portuguese. I will be particularly attentive, however, to those who are excluded from the system and policies and who, because of the way in which the modernization process in this country has occurred, have been relegated to the statute of expendability. There are no expendable Portuguese. The very idea is intolerable. I will pay particular attention to the problems of Portuguese families. I am aware of the multiple issues affecting them and cannot fail here to express my concern with all forms of family violence--in which women and children are the principal victims. Within the competencies of my office I will support all efforts which contribute to finding ways for parents to invest increasingly in their children's education as well as to conciliate mothers' and fathers' careers with family life, for I am fully aware of the growing importance of affectivity in the construction of our individual lives. Solidarity must be a fundamental value of Portuguese society. It must be present during the formulation of the policies of modernization, employment and the reform of social security. It is the only way to modernize the country whilst maintaining national cohesion and the sense of sharing a collective future. The most worrying expression of the loss of solidarity is the evolution in recent years of increasing signs of political, social and even religious intolerance. Portugal, which is a cohesive country with no ethnic, regional, linguistic or religious issues, must know how to preserve this unique asset without which (as we have seen in many countries) everything would be at peril: civic peace, progress, solidarity, prestige and our position before the world. The Portuguese are well aware of this fact. A strong patriotism conspicuously based on democratic values, culturally enlightened and civically assumed, is the best protection we have against aggressive nationalism, xenophobia and racism and is also the most efficient reply to insecurity and fear of the future. I would like here and now to express with great fervour how proud I am to be Portuguese and to declare my love for Portugal which I want to serve with all my capabilities, honouring the mandate I have received from the Portuguese. Our culture, which is both rich and varied in its popular and erudite forms and so strong in its characteristic traits, is the manifestation of a great People (accessible to others, to the universe, to all that is new, to the unknown) and of a nation that for five centuries united the human species and globalized communication; a nation which, although small, was able to travel to the ends of the seas and the Earth, where it left its marks, the greatest of which is the language and the memories which endure, and of which we constantly receive grateful signs. Today I would like to encourage the Portuguese--and particularly the young Portuguese--to study and become acquainted with our history, our culture, our heritage, both natural and created, our geography, the roots and foundations of our identity. We must provide our new generations with an exigent education which will prepare them to face the challenges of the open market. But we must also provide them with prospects for the future, with opportunities, with the capacity to look hopefully to the start of their professional and family life. Without all this it will be difficult to solve many of the problems which affect young people in Portugal today. It is by strengthening our identity that we can procure the energy and the trust to set off boldly on the adventure of the future, fearless and with audacity, in the firm conviction that we were great whenever we put aside the small-minded, petty issues which divide and diminish us. We performed great feats and took our place as a People and a Nation whenever we were able to unite and concentrate on the essentials, opening up to modernity, to the values of freedom and universalism, practising a culture of tolerance towards and curiosity for all that was different, in a way, which is peculiar to us, of affection and human closeness. It is a lesson for our times. Now, more than ever, they must assume such values. That is precisely why this is the unique contribution we can give to the construction of a Europe of solidarity and citizenship, to the edification of a World of peace and liberty. When I stood for office I stated unequivocally: there are no presidential majorities. I will be President of all the Portuguese. Of all, without exception. Long live Portugal.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, we are currently in the middle of a very tense period in the relationship between the United States, the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan. Military tensions, in particular, are rising. Last week, China began a week-long series of ballistic missile tests and announced it will conduct an additional set of live fire military maneuvers as well. I urge China to cancel these tests and maneuvers. Together they constitute the fourth set of major military exercises the People's Liberation Army has undertaken in the straits since last July. They are provocative, destabilizing, and only damage China's image in the eyes of the world. There is no reason to disbelieve China's public claim that it is not planning an actual attack on Taiwan at this time. But I do not believe that these are merely routine military maneuvers, as Chinese officials have portrayed them. These tests, and the military exercises that preceded them last year, are clearly meant to intimidate the people of Taiwan in the run-up to the first fully democratic presidential election in the history of Chinese civilization. But the escalation in both scope and nature of this week's exercises raises the risk that conflict could start through miscalculation or accident. It is essential that all parties work to prevent an armed conflict that no one wants. Chinese Premier Li Peng stated in a speech to the National People's Congress that the Taiwan issue was an internal affair and warned other countries not to interfere. In this regard I support the long-standing United States position that the issue of reunification be handled by the Chinese people on both sides of the straits, but that policy was founded on the understanding that the question of Taiwan would be resolved peacefully. When the leadership in Beijing threatens to use force against Taiwan, it challenges that understanding and Beijing itself creates an international issue. Beijing must understand that the United States does not view Chinese threats toward Taiwan as an internal Chinese affair. The United States has a strong interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits. It has a strong interest in the continued prosperity of the region--Taiwan is the world's 14th largest trading economy and the 7th largest United States trading partner. These exercises are disrupting shipping and continued military maneuvers will inevitably make investors and traders think twice about doing business in the region. China has repeatedly sought to be considered a responsible member of the world community in a number of international fora. But if it wants the international respect it feels it deserves, it must follow that community's norms of behavior. Threatening Taiwan is not acceptable to that community. Beijing should stop these missile tests and military maneuvers and re-open talks with Taiwan through its own Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits and Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation. Negotiations between these two entities were successful in resolving a number of issues between Beijing and Taipei before China cut them off last year. China should again use these talks, and not the military, to persuade the people and the Government on Taiwan.