Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise merely to congratulate the minority leader on his speech, and to join him in his emphasis about the importance of education. It is important for the future of our children, our young people, and our country. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in February, I led a congressional delegation on a trip to Jordan, Syria, Israel, and Cyprus. I was pleased to be joined on this trip by the distinguished Senators from Virginia and Oklahoma--Senators Robb and Inhofe. On our trip, Senator Inhofe, Senator Robb, and I focused primarily on the Middle East peace process, including prospects for a peace treaty between Israel and Syria, as well as the implementation of Israel's peace agreements with Jordan and the Palestinians. During our stop in Cyprus, we examined the conflict between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots and the likelihood of a peaceful, negotiated settlement. Since our return, the Middle East--and specifically Israel--has been wracked by an unimaginable wave of violence and terror. The murder of scores of innocent Israelis, as well as Palestinians, Americans, and other civilians, has cast an unmistakable pall over the peace process. To be frank, I am not sure that any supporter of the peace process, be they in Israel, the Palestinian autonomous zone, or the United States, has a clear idea of what the future holds. My own hope is that the process can survive this unspeakable assault. Our recent trip reaffirmed for me the clear fact that the terrorists are the enemies of peace. If the terrorists succeed in destroying the peace process, then they will be rewarded for their depravity. I do not think such an outcome would be right or fair. Mr. President, the Senate already has responded to some of the terrorist bombings in Israel. Scarcely a week ago, the Senate passed a resolution to condemn the perpetrators, to commiserate with the victims, to express continued support for our ally, Israel. In a shocking indication of how frequent these incidents have become, however, the Senate will soon consider yet another resolution that condemns two more bombings that have occurred since the passage of the last resolution. Above and beyond these resolutions, I would expect that there may be some deep soul searching in both the Congress and the administration about the American role in coordinating the peace process. In this regard, I thought it might be useful to share with my colleagues the report that our Senate delegation made on its recent trip to the Middle East. As I said a moment ago, our trip preceded the recent wave of terror, but I think that our observations, conclusions, and recommendations remain timely and important. Mr. President, I ask that our delegation's executive summary be printed in the Record. The summary follows: Letter of Transmittal February 23, 1996. Hon. Jesse Helms, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington,

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today the number 93 symbolizes a notable milestone in Senate history. It is the 93d day after Senator Strom Thurmond's 93d birthday, which was the same span of days and years reached by my venerable predecessor Senator Theodore Francis Green on the day of his retirement on January 3, 1961. Tomorrow, Senator Thurmond will be 93 years and 94 days old and he will assume Senator Green's mantle as the oldest sitting Senator in history. I join in extending hearty congratulations to Senator Thurmond on his remarkable durability and I wish him well in years to come. But I do hope we will not lose sight of the extraordinary long and distinguished career of the previous record holder. The career of Theodore Francis Green will always be an inspiration and a model for productive senior citizenship. He was a classic late bloomer whose political career did not really begin until he was 65 years old. And his most prolific years were in the two and a half decades that followed. Born in Providence in 1867--a year before Ulysses Grant was elected President--Senator Green was descended from a distinguished line of forebears dating back to the founding of colonial Rhode Island. Five of them served in Congress. He began his own public life when he raised and outfitted his own company in the Spanish-American War. He served a single term in the Rhode Island General Assembly in 1907, but then endured 25 years of political rejection and disappointment. He ran for Governor three times without success, in 1912, 1928, and 1930-- counted out he said by the opposition--and he lost a race for Congress in 1920. And then in 1932, at an age when his contemporaries were contemplating retirement, he was elected Governor of Rhode Island, swept in on the New Deal tide. Reelected to the governorship in 1934, he engineered on inauguration day the so-called Bloodless Revolution which in a single afternoon ended Republican dominance of the State government and earned him the pejorative of ``Kingfish Green'' in some circles. The coup was never successfully challenged and he went serenely ahead with his reform agenda. In 1936, Theodore Francis Green was elected to the U.S. Senate, beginning 24 years of continuous service during which he became a colorful and beloved fixture of Washington life. He was a strong supporter of the New Deal and of social legislation in the post-war era. A dedicated internationalist and a tireless world traveler, he ascended to the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the age of 89 in 1957. He was not particularly impressed by his own longevity. ``My age is nothing to be proud of,'' he said. ``It's just an interesting incident.'' But the secret of longevity, he said is moderation. ``I don't get worried and don't get excited. It would take more or less of a bomb to upset me.'' There was, however, another factor that kept him going and that was his almost ceaseless thirst for physical activity. It can hardly be coincidental that Theodore Green and Strom Thurmond--both devotees of physical fitness--should be the record holders for Senate seniority. Green's prowess was legendary and he was sometimes referred to as Tarzan, notwithstanding his modest 150-pound physique. He was a wrestler and a mountain climber and a handball player. He continued high diving until he was 82 when he was finally convinced by doctors and friends to give it up. And he continued to play tennis until he was 87, and they quit only because he could not find time in his busy schedule to play. But to the end he continued to work out and swim several times a week in the Senate gymnasium or at the YMCA. And most of he walked, daily-- except in the worst weather, from his bachelor quarters at the University Club to his office in the Russell Building. Every morning at about 8:35 he would start out on the 2-mile walk, a familiar stooped figure with his pince-nez eye glasses, usually proceeding down through Lafayette Park and up Pennsylvania Avenue. It usually took about 45 minutes. The daily walk was prompted as much by an aversion to automobiles as it was by a love for exercise. The only car he ever owned was acquired for ceremonial purposes and it spent most of its days on blocks in his Providence garage. He never learned to drive. But he loved trolleys and legend has it that he once showed up, impeccably attired in top hat, white tie and tails, to take a society matron to a concert, traveling by street car. Like the new holder of the longevity record, Senator Green had great appreciation for women. He often liked to joke that he looked forward to every leap year in hopes that some lovely lady would claim him. Even as he approached 90, he was regarded as one of the better dancers among Washington bachelors. And Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once said that Theodore Green was ``the most charming dinner partner your wife could have.'' When Senator Green claimed the longevity title in 1956, Senators Lyndon Johnson and William Knowland, the majority and minority leaders, presented him with a gavel supposedly made from the oldest tree on the Capitol grounds and proclaimed he had outlived all the surrounding flora. Senator Green often spoke of serving till he would be 100, but in 1960, aware of failing eyesight and hearing, he decided to step down. He died 6 years later, in his 99th year, in the house where he had lived all his life in Providence. As I said at the time of his death, I was then and have always been greatly in his debt. I benefited by his wise advice and counsel and gained by following his example. He truly was my role model. And I shall always appreciate his willingness to serve as chairman of my campaign committee when I ran in 1960 to succeed him. He was truly a great gentleman and statesman and his legend lies on in affectionate memory of the people of Rhode Island. And, Mr. Speaker, for myself as the longest serving Senator from Rhode Island, I know I share in this memory. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I bring to the attention of my colleagues National Sportsmanship Day which was celebrated on March 5, 1996. This event was celebrated in nearly 6,000 schools in all 50 States and 61 countries. My pride stems from the fact that this celebration, which is recognized by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, was established by the Institute for International Sport in 1991. The Institute, housed at the University of Rhode Island, has brought us the hugely successful World Scholar-Athlete Games, which will be held again in 1997, as well as the Rhode Island scholar-athlete games. Now in its sixth year, National Sportsmanship Day has grown not only into a national movement, but an international one as well. National Sportsmanship Day was conceived to create an awareness among the students of this country--from grade school to university level--of the importance of ethics, fair play, and sportsmanship in all facets of athletics as well as society as a whole. The need to periodically refocus our young people on sportsmanship and fair play is sadly evident on the playing field in these days of taunting, fighting, winning at all costs mentality, and the lure of huge sums of money for athletes hardly ready to cope with life's normal challenges. To commemorate National Sportsmanship Day, the Institute for International Sport sends to all participating schools packets of information with instructional materials on the themes surrounding the issue of sportsmanship. Throughout the country, students are involved in discussions, writing essays, creating art work, and in other creative ways engaging each other on the subject. Mr. President, as it has in past years, the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports has recognized National Sportsmanship Day. I ask unanimous consent that the letter signed by the council's cochairs Florence Griffith Joyner and former congressman Tom McMillen be inserted in the Record following my remarks. Mr. President, I would also commend and urge my colleagues to encourage students to focus on National Sportsmanship Day and the lessons contained therein.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last week Rhode Islanders learned some sad news. We learned that one of our community's leading and most respected activists is leaving our State for a new position in Tennessee. We will miss Barbara Baldwin, the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island for the last 9 years, when she leaves Rhode Island at the end of May. It is often said that everyone in Rhode Island knows everyone else in Rhode Island. That's almost true--we are a small State and it is relatively easy to get to know people who become active in the State and in their communities. But Barbara made an immediate mark on Rhode Island when she arrived here in 1987. And since then she had led Planned Parenthood with dignity, serenity, courage, and energy. She is totally dedicated to ensuring quality health care to women, and is wholly committed to preserving reproductive rights. Barbara has also been an important political adviser and friend to me over these last 9 years, and to many other government officials and politicians. But mostly, she has been a leader for the women of Rhode Island, and has gained the respect of both those who share her views and those who don't. Rhode Islanders will miss Barbara, and we wish her well in her move to Tennessee. But we want her to know that the door to our State will always be open to her, and we hope that some day she will return.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as President Soares, one of Portugal's greatest modern leaders, prepares to retire, I would like to offer my personal congratulations. President Soares is a good friend who has my admiration for all he has done to make Portugal a vibrant and democratic part of Europe. During the dark days of Portugal's authoritarian regime, President Soares demonstrated an enormous amount of courage. He was an active opponent of that rule--and for that he paid dearly. I particularly remember that when those dark days ended in 1974, President Soares returned to Portugal to help lead the new government. I followed his career closely in the ensuing years--when he served as foreign minister twice and prime minister three times before becoming President in 1986. I have deep regard for President Soares' leadership in the 1980's in preparing Portugal for entry into the European Community, and in more recent years, in ensuring that Portugal remains firmly planted in the European Union and NATO. I have a huge respect for Portugal and her people, and have been fortunate to work with President Soares over the years. My State of Rhode Island has a large and vibrant Portuguese community. Portugal is an important ally. Our two countries share a commitment to democracy, freedom, and peace--values which are important not only as we confront a changing Europe--but as we approach challenges in the Middle East and Africa. Portugal is a great friend of the United States, and it is in the spirit of this friendship that I pay tribute to President Soares, and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, we should not be asked to consider this resolution. Senate Resolution 227 is, to my mind, simply a license to continue a wild goose chase, and to do so at the expenditure of public funds which could well be spent for true public needs. When the Whitewater matter first came before us 2 years ago, I said that it involved distant dealings with marginal involvement of Federal interests, and that it simply did not rise to the level of scrutiny appropriate for Senate inquiry. Nothing has happened since to change my initial judgment one iota. The Senate investigation has dragged on for 294 days at a cost of $1.34 million and has not yielded a single result worthy of further action. This investigation in my view is an exercise in political harassment. Its indefinite continuance would be an embarrassment to the Senate. And I might add that continuance of the investigation holds little promise of benefit to the majority party, given the widespread public indifference to the matter. In short, Mr. President, we are being asked to approve not just the use of Senate funds but indeed the exploitation of the full constitutional authority of the Senate to continue a so-called inquiry into matters of little consequence, and to do so for clearly partisan purposes. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the submission of Senate Concurrent Resolution 43 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I believe we all want to promote a peaceful transition to democracy and economic liberalization in Cuba. Where we clearly differ is on how we get there. Despite the recent tragic loss of life in the shootdown of two unarmed civilian aircraft by the Cuban Air Force, I continue to believe that the Cuba legislation before us takes us further away from achieving the goal of democracy and economic reform on the island of Cuba. If anything, the conference agreement takes us even further down that wrong road than either the House- or Senate-passed versions of the bill did. It is naive, in my view, to think that this bill or any sanctions legislation we might pass will succeed in forcing Castro to step aside when all similar actions in the past over many, many years have failed. All we are likely to ensure is that the living conditions of the Cuban people are made even worse, making a mass exodus from for Miami the only attractive option. Taken to its most extreme, this bill could even provoke serious violence on the island. In some ways, this legislation is even more problematic than earlier efforts to tighten the screws on Castro. I say this because its implications go well beyond United States and Cuban relations. It now allows that our foreign allies and friends can be sued in American courts for undertaking activities totally lawful in their own countries. It mandates that the Secretary of State deny entry into the United States those foreign businessmen and women and their families. Clearly, these measures can only alienate our allies and undermine American global foreign policy objectives. Thirty-five years of policies of United States isolation have failed to change Castro, or convince our allies of the wisdom of our policy. Is it not time to try something else? I think of the success we had in Eastern Europe, when freedom, free thinking and democracy came over those countries as they opened. Is it not time to try a similar approach in Cuba, particularly when we think that it has now been 35 years that we have been trying this approach and we have had absolutely no success? We are just about where we were--a little worse off with our relationship--35 years ago. I continue to hold the view that contact and dialog between Havana and Washington is more likely to bring about democracy on the island of Cuba, not isolation and impoverishment. Perhaps if we took that approach, our allies would be more likely to support our policy with respect to Cuba, which virtually none of them do at this time. The bill before us has gone through a number of changes since it was first introduced. However, no version to date resolves the fundamental problem that I have with the direction it takes U.S. policy. It take us further down the road and leads to no where rather than reversing course, as we should have done years ago and can still do, and open up. When we have a free exchange of ideas in which we have free competition between democratic ideas and Communist ideas, democracy usually, one can say always, wins out. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations--Senator Helms-- and others in submitting a resolution to condemn the recent terrorist attacks in Israel. I have not doubt that all of my colleagues were as stunned and dismayed as I to learn about the horrifying bombings. All too often in the past several years, we have been forced to watch the gut-wrenching pictures on CNN of the Chaos, carnage, and misery of yet another terrorist bombing in Israel. The frequency of these occurrences, however, does nothing to lessen their devastating impact. Each time a bombing occurs, the Israeli Government must reexamine its approach to security and its commitments to the Palestinians. The Israeli people again must come to grips with the fact that the peace has a heavy toll. The Palestinians must reaffirm that they are worthy of taking charge of their own destiny, and that they are living up to their commitments to end terrorism. And the United States must step back and ask yet again if we are doing the right thing. As painful as these realities are, we must not let them obscure our interests in the Middle East peace process. Having just led a congressional delegation on a trip to the region--where Senators, Robb, Inhofe, and I met with Prime Minister Peres and PLO Chairman Arafat among other--I have a renewed sense of the importance of the peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. We must also remember that the perpetrators of these heinous bombings are in fact the enemies of peace, and more to the point, the enemies of those Palestinians who have committed themselves to peace with Israel. My own hope is that the world--and specifically the parties to the peace process--will not let them succeed in destroying the peace. While we must indeed hold Arafat's feet to the fire, and insist that he do more to stop terrorist acts, we must acknowledge the progress that the Palestinians have made to stop violence and terror. Clearly they have not yet succeeded, but we should not minimize the improvements they have made since signing their peace agreements with Israel. Above all, this is a moment to commiserate with the families of the victims, to express our profound sorrow and regret to our ally, Israel, and to reaffirm our basic and fundamental commitment to the true success of the peace process. Our resolution intends to do just that, and I hope that the Senate will move to adopt the resolution as quickly as possible.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator from Washington. Mr. President, I oppose the conference report on the District of Columbia appropriations Bill. I do so, however, with profound respect for Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, and the hard work he has devoted to this legislation. Far more often than not, Senator Jeffords and I are on the same side of the issue when it comes to education. Therefore, it is with deep regret that I find myself on the opposite side in this case. Philosophically, I am drawn to the concept of choice. It is one of the precepts upon which the Pel Grant Program is based. As I see it, however, the problem is not only when but also how we move toward greater choice in education. My difficulty with this provision is that it comes at the wrong time and does it in the wrong way. With current Federal education funding so much at risk and with Federal education programs suffering such a disproportionate share of cutbacks, I do not believe it is prudent that we move in this direction at this particular time. Given our scarce Federal resources, I am of the mind that they should continue to be directed primarily to the public schools that educate almost 90 percent of our Nation's elementary and secondary school children. Further, private schools today choose which students they want to educate. They are not required to accept students who are difficult to teach in terms of behavior or educational deficiencies. They operate in a manner that is wholly different from the rules under which the public schools are required to function. In the absence of Federal funding, this may be acceptable. However, if they are to become the beneficiaries of a federally supported scholarship or voucher program as proposed in this legislation, I believe we should expect more of our private schools. It is unforunate, indeed, that there is no guarantee in this bill that students with disabilities, students with discipline problems students with language deficiencies, or homeless students will have access to private school education. Private schools could continue to choose not to accept them. Thus, these students could well be left in the public schools, and the public schools, in turn, left with even less resources to devote to their education. It is a choice program that leaves public education in the lurch, and I fear it would set a very unfortunate precedent. At this particularly critical time, I believe it very important that we continue to devote our resources primarily to the public schools charged with the responsibility of eduating all children, regardless of their disadvantage, their deficiencies, or their disability. In that vein, I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this conference report. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out on behalf of freedom of the press in Hong Kong. As we approach Hong Kong's July 1, 1997 transfer to control under the People's Republic of China, there is great fear that one of the fundamental tenets of a free society-- freedom of the press--will not survive the transition. China's track record on press freedom leaves much to be desired; the current Hong Kong Government should be actively working to shore up legal support for the press before it hands over control to Beijing. The grand experiment of democracy in the United States would have surely failed were it not for a free press. Our founders realized that its importance was not only for general education, but also for exposing the dangers of would-be oppressive officials and prodding leaders into more ethical behavior. Our Nation's history has proven that the scrutiny of public light forces public officials both to serve the interests of the public and to serve honestly far better than they would without that scrutiny. Benjamin Franklin once said that ``whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.'' It is precisely this fear--that the PRC will attempt to overthrow Hong Kong's current way of life by stifling its press, with the quiet acquiescence of the current authorities--that I wish to address today. Hong Kong boasts of one of the freest media systems in all of Asia, with more than 70 daily newspapers. The press is privately owned, offering Hong Kong citizens access to a broad range of political and social views. But journalists in and out of Hong Kong cite the present administration's sluggish pace in revising anachronistic press laws as one of their key sources of fear for the press after 1997. Current Hong Kong laws which restrict press freedom are rarely applied by the government, but an authoritarian regime could easily use them to prohibit the expression of any objectionable ideas. These laws--which are inconsistent with Hong Kong's own Bill of Rights-- include the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, which gives the Governor broad powers of censorship during loosely defined ``emergencies''; the Crimes Ordinance, which defines any publication or speech ``intending'' to foster hatred of the government as seditious; and the Official Secrets Act, which makes unauthorized publication of information illegal. Some of the democratically elected members of the Legislative Council, along with independent journalists groups such as the Hong Kong Journalists Association, have repeatedly urged the government to repeal or amend these laws. These same reformers have also urged the Hong Kong Governor's office to enact legislation which would provide greater access to information, similar to the United States Freedom of Information Act. But the current administration continues to move slowly, to the point of delay. There is no reason to believe that the successor Chinese administration will be any more willing to undertake these reforms; it is likely to oppose them outright. The time to make these changes is now. Above all, the government should refrain from introducing any new laws which in any way restrict the press' right to function independently. A recent call by pro-Beijing Legislator Law Cheung-kwok for hearings to consider regulating newspaper prices, a move that appears to be aimed specifically at controlling the Oriental Daily News, is exactly what the Hong Kong government should not be doing. Joseph Pulitzer argued that ``publicity may not be the only thing that is needed, but it is the one thing without which all other agencies will fail.'' There is no point of having a freely elected democratic government if there is no way to freely report on its actions and to expose its abuses. A free press is the only guarantor of the people's right to know what their government does and the best guarantor of their right to offer alternative views. Hong Kong's press must remain free and unrestricted if the colony's current rights are to be maintained. The colonial government has the immediate responsibility of ensuring that it does.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I strongly oppose any further reductions in funding the National Endowment for the Humanities. The agency has responded to a 36-percent budget cut for fiscal year 1996 with major restructuring of programs and staff. Using the House appropriations figures contained in the last two continuing resolutions, NEH is now operating at a 40-percent reduction--$99.5 million instead of the anticipated $110 million. The agency has already eliminated 90 positions from its 260-person staff, streamlined its administrative structure, and cut programs. The suspended programs include: archaeology projects, summer stipends for teachers, dissertation grants, the NEH/National Science Foundation grants, the Kettering Foundation partnership, and, most disturbing to me, the National Conversation initiative. Further staff reductions are now probable. The recent furlough and uncertainty over its budget is preventing the agency from planning, carrying out its mission, and ensuring that the taxpayers dollars are spent wisely. For example, NEH has had to cancel peer review panels. As NEH can fund only 18 percent of the more than 8,500 applications it receives each year, competition for funding is fierce. Ensuring that these funds are awarded to the best proposals is a responsibility that NEH takes seriously. The Humanities Endowment peer review system has been heralded as a model for adoption at other agencies. The forced cancellation of peer panels as a result of government shutdown has weakened that system and prevented the agency from meeting its high standards of rigorous review. Should funding run out on March 15, NEH will have to cancel its March 25 round of grant awards. Applicants who have put thousands of hours and effort into their grant applications will be denied the opportunity for funding for an entire year. Changing the Humanities Endowment appropriations means that: Work on the George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Dwight Eisenhower, and First Federal Congress Papers will be terminated before completion. Summer seminar programs for teachers will be canceled entirely. One hundred fellowships will be eliminated. The widely-read Humanities Magazine, already forced to cancel its January issue, will have to cancel more. In July, all grants to film, libraries, and museums will have to be canceled. This includes a Utah Humanities Council exhibit scheduled to travel to 32 small, rural museums from West Virginia to Oregon, and a Buffalo Bill Historical Center exhibit slated for 10 Western sites. State Humanities Councils, in addition to losing anticipated funding for this year, are facing enormous difficulties in planning for the next. Technical assistance and consultation to hundreds of small- and medium-sized cultural institutions will be suspended. The drastic effects of government shutdown and budget impasse on American scholarship and the entire humanities field is not necessarily as obvious as it is in other areas of concentration. This is because NEH grants, with their heavy emphasis on research, rarely see results for several years. But continuity in support for research projects is critical, and NEH represents the single largest source of financial support for the humanities nationwide. The next largest, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, provides one-third of the amounts granted by NEH. When we eliminate the staff and resources funded by NEH and needed to preserve brittle books, the destruction does not stop. We have lost volumes of important manuscripts forever. The same is true for NEH's important United States Newspaper Preservation project to preserve city and small town newspapers on communities in all 50 States. Mr. President, I cannot underestimate the gravity of this situation. If allowed to continue, it will mean that future generations of Americans will be deprived of the knowledge of our Nation's rich history. We owe it to our people to maintain this legacy, and not to let it slip away. We simply cannot afford to lose artifacts, texts, wisdom, and insights that tell where we came from, who we are, and how we might make wise decisions for the generations ahead. I urge my colleagues to consider how very serious this situation is, to understand the long-term ramifications of cuts in the NEH budget, and to join in a bipartisan effort to enable this agency to continue its good, worthwhile, and extremely important endeavors.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the effort to defund the National Endowment for the Arts. Playing games with the budget appropriations in this manner is contrary to the Nation's welfare. The intent to incapacitate and slowly dismantle the agency by obstructing the planning and grantmaking processes appears to be a deliberate attempt to terminate Federal support for the arts and to deny Americans access to their cultural heritage. Some may believe that the arts will be able to generate the local support necessary to sustain themselves, but I am fearful the opposite will be true. Local dollars are already stretched to capacity. Major arts funders such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts in Philadelphia, and the James Irvine Foundation in California have stated publicly that foundations will not and cannot replace Federal funding. Corporate giving has declined in recent years despite economic growth and there is little, if any, reason to believe that will change. The commercial entertainment industry continues to resist investing in the source of much of its talent. Further, removal of both the national recognition and the stimulation of partnerships offered through Federal grants will produce a dramatic reduction in State and local support. The Rockefeller Foundation surveyed 40 foundations and found every donor but one unable to increase their cultural portfolios. Dr. Alberta Arthurs concluded her report of the study by stating, ``The cultural situation we have created in the last 30 years is a dense and delicate balance of private and public interests and funds. If this is to be disturbed, what will replace it?'' Opponents of the Arts Endowment know that a replacement is unlikely. The cry to privatize is but a code word for eliminate. These are the same people who advocate for new tax laws that would end deductions for individual and corporate contributions to the arts. The National Endowment for the Arts has been remarkably successful in furthering the ideals for which it was created. The arts are no longer viewed as the privileged domain of a relatively few practitioners and connoisseurs; they are no longer considered as incidental or peripheral to our way of life. Every single community in our country now has access to its indigenous and creative national culture. Without Arts Endowment funding, many popular programs simply would not exist, let alone be made available to millions of Americans in all parts of our Nation. The major arts institutions serving well-to-do patrons in urban areas will survive, but how many children, elderly, disabled, inner- city and rural dwellers will be able to participate? How will new audiences gain access to our common culture? Targeting the Arts Endowment is not about balancing the budget. It is about throwing out the solid arts networks built over 30 years because of unease caused by a few controversial grants. The Arts Endowment has already cracked down on such grants, and it has certainly borne its fair share of cuts. Recently, the agency eliminated 47 percent of its staff positions and reorganized its administration and grantmaking to adjust to a 40-percent reduction in its budget. Anything more would severely damage the availability and accessibility of countless arts programs in communities nationwide. It must not happen. I would urge my colleagues to stop playing politics with the Endowment, honor the appropriations that both Houses have passed, and enact a bridge that will enable this agency, already hampered by severe funding reductions, to get on with its valuable work in an orderly fashion.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of citizens of the town of Westerly, RI, and the members of its town council in promoting Neighbor Day. In 1993, a feud between teenagers took a tragic turn at a local arcade, leaving one youth dead and another charged with murder. Since then, this community has come together to ensure that such senseless violence is not repeated there or anywhere else. For the past 4 years, Westerly has honored the spirit of neighborliness, tolerance, and civility by designating the Sunday before Memorial Day as Neighbor Day. Now, the Neighbor Day tradition is spreading. The Rhode Island General Assembly has designated Neighbor Day for statewide observance, and the Westerly Town Council would like to see the tradition become nation- wide and ultimately worldwide. I hope my colleagues will join me and keep the sentiments of the people of Westerly close to our hearts and minds always, but particularly, this year, on May 19--the day Westerly will celebrate Neighbor Day. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that resolution of the Westerly Town Council, urging local recognition of Neighbor Day, be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, earlier this week, the International Body chaired by the Honorable George Mitchell, the distinguished former Senate majority leader, issued its report regarding the Northern Ireland peace process. Specifically, the International Body was charged by the British and Irish Governments with examining the twin tracks in the peace process--namely the decommissioning of weapons and all-party talks. As my colleagues are aware, the current sticking point in the peace process is the relationship between the decommissioning of weapons and the convening of all-party talks. The International Body has done an excellent job of reaching out to the various parties to hear their views on this difficult matter, and of characterizing the opposing views on that issue. I would particularly like to commend my friend George Mitchell for the fine work he has done in this regard. The report lays out a very balanced set of recommendations focusing on six principles. Among other things, it recommends that the parties to the conflict ``affirm their total and absolute commitment'' to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues, to the ``total disarmament'' of all paramilitary organizations, and that they renounce and oppose any effort to use force or threaten to use force to influence the all-party negotiations. The report recognizes that ``there is clear commitment'' to decommission weapons as part of the process of all-party talks. It suggests that the parties consider decommissioning during, rather than before or after the process of all-party negotiations. The report also includes a series of further confidence building measures that might be taken. On the question of elections, it suggests that ``elections held in accordance with democratic principles express and reflect the popular will'' and that ``an elective process could contribute to the building of confidence.'' The report does not suggest, however, that elections proceed all- party talks. I know there is real concern among the various parties about the British Government's subsequent proposal that elections be held prior to all-party talks as such elections might further delay the process. Perhaps most importantly, the report reminds us that ``for nearly a year and half, the guns have been silent in Northern Ireland'' and that ``the people want that silence to continue.'' For that to happen, there must be continued momentum in the peace process. The timely release of this report has gone a long way toward keeping the process moving. Delays at this juncture could scuttle the very real progress that has been made to date. In establishing the International Body, Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Bruton took decisive action to break the deadlock that had beset the negotiations. Let us hope that they, as well as all parties in Northern Ireland, will continue their courageous steps for peace.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I know I speak for many of my constituents when I say that the continuing resolution before us is a welcome breakthrough in the protracted deadlock that has stalled our National Government for the past 2 months. But as welcome as that breakthrough is, I would be remiss if I did not state my disagreement--in the strongest terms--with the provisions of the resolution dealing with education. And I join in wholehearted support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. In doing so, I recognize that the pending resolution is a product of considerable compromise across partisan and ideological lines and that no one among us is completely satisfied with its terms. But the Federal commitment to education, to my mind, should be the very last area of concession. As I have said before, we should treat education as a vital capital investment of the Nation's future. It is an investment which is closely tied to our objective of deficit reduction because a well-educated citizenry is essential to preserving a strong and vibrant economy. The continuing resolution before us would finance programs of the Department of Education at 75 percent of fiscal year 1995 levels, which I view as an unduly and unwisely low level of funding. If extended over the fiscal year it would cut education funding by $3.1 billion and adversely impact many programs of proven merit. I am particularly concerned about the impact of a 25-percent cut in title I spending, which provides compensatory education for disadvantaged children. I am told that the result could be reduced services for 1.1 million children and the layoff of some 90,000 support personnel. And the damage would go beyond that. Goals 2000, Safe and Drug Free Schools, vocational education, adult education, Perkins loans, and other programs would suffer from loss of a quarter of their funding. In Rhode Island, the loss to the six programs affected by the cuts would amount to $5.6 million, of which $3.5 million would be taken from title I funding. And as the Senator from Massachusetts has reminded us so cogently, with every passing week without a correction of these adverse impacts, school districts across the country and educational institutions at all levels are facing a dilemma in planning their commitments for the coming year. The effect of the CR on education therefore is another step in the drastic defunding of Federal education programs. There is still room to hope that the direction of this unwise course of action can still somehow be changed before the expiration of the pending resolution on March 15. Far better that we do so now if we can. So I support the Kennedy amendment and hope that we can remedy the faulty provisions of the resolution before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wanted to rise in full support of the amendment by the distinguished Senator from New York. If ever there was a valid reason for stalling an increase in the debt limit, I believe it has evaporated. The basic agreement has been achieved on the objective of controlling the deficits that contribute to the debt. While policy disagreements still persist on some issues, including Medicare, there appears to be sufficient agreement on other budget issues to provide $700 billion in long-term savings. Surely, there has been more than adequate demonstration of good faith. The apprehensions of Moody's Investor Service with respect to the credit rating of the U.S. Federal securities should dispel any glib assurances that the Secretary of the Treasury can still perform acts of fiscal wizardry to stay under the present limit. We can only wonder what the motive might be of those who would delay further. There is no good purpose economically or fiscally. I want to commend the Senator from New York for raising this matter and bringing the amendment to the floor. The full faith and credit of the United States should not be clouded for another single day, and the Senator from New York is acting responsibly. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this is indeed a fine day for the U.S. Senate. The Senate has just given its advice and consent to ratification of the Treaty Between the United States and the Russian Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, known as the START II Treaty. Mr. President, the START II Treaty was considered thoroughly in hearings that I chaired in May and June 1993, and that my colleague from Indiana chaired in January, February, and March 1995. Witnesses included Secretary of State Warren Christopher; former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; Secretary of Defense William Perry; Gen. John Shalikashvili, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; John Holum, Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; Ambassador Linton Brooks, chief negotiator of the treaty; Thomas Graham, Jr., Acting Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. James Woolsey and Douglas MacEachin, Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency. Nongovernmental witnesses included Steven Hadley, an attorney with Shea and Gardner; Sven Kraemer, president, Global 2000; Michael Krepon, president, Henry L. Stimson Center, and Jack Mendelsohn, deputy director of the Arms Control Association. When it is considering treaties such as this, the committee makes a particular point to receive the considered and independent judgment of the Nation's military leaders for whom it is of critical importance that there be no missteps in arms control. General John M. Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was unequivocal of his endorsement of the treaty: The START Treaty offers a significant contribution to our national security. Under its provisions, we achieve the long- standing goal of finally eliminating both heavy ICBMs and the practice of MIRVing ICBMs, thereby significantly reducing the incentive for a first strike. For decades, we and the Russians have lived with this dangerous instability. With this treaty, we can at long last put it behind us. The Joint Chiefs and I have carefully assessed the adequacy of our strategic forces under START II. With the balanced triad of 3500 warheads that will remain once this Treaty is implemented, the size and mix of our remaining nuclear forces will support our deterrent and targeting requirements against any known adversary and under the worst assumptions. Both American and Russian strategic nuclear forces will be suspended at levels of rough equivalence; a balance with greatly reduced incentive for a first strike. By every military measure, START II is a sound agreement that will make our nation more secure. Under its terms, our forces will remain militarily sufficient, crisis stability will be greatly improved, and we can be confident in our ability to effectively verify its implementation. This Treaty is clearly in the best interests of the United States. On the behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I recommend that the Senate promptly give its advice and consent to the ratification of the START II Treaty. The resolution that the Senate has approved today reflects a careful, bipartisan effort within the Committee on Foreign Relations. It also deals with concerns raised by non-committee Members in amendments approved on the Senate floor on December 22, 1995. Senate consideration and consent to ratification has taken about 3 years. This is longer than I and others would have wished, but I would remind others that the Senate has a long history of moving deliberately on arms control treaties. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons in war, took 5 decades for the Senate to approve. Our action this evening comes at a most propitious moment. The Russian Prime Minister, Victor Chernomyrdin, will arrive in Washington this weekend for the first top-level United States meetings since the Russian elections in December. Approval of the START II Treaty should prove a fortuitous move if it serves to spur comparable action in the Russian Duma. There is to be a G-7 summit meeting in Moscow in April. I would hope very much that the newly constituted Duma can act on the treaty by that time, so as to permit exchange of instruments of ratification and entry into force. Mr. President, the START II Treaty is a major achievement by itself, but it cannot be viewed alone. It must be seen as part of a critically important continuum that began with SALT I, continued through SALT II and led to START I and START II. There have been related agreements such as the INF Treaty, which required the elimination of the intermediate-range nuclear missiles of the United States and the Soviet Union. There are complementary efforts such as the safe and secure dismantlement program in Russia and attempts to negotiate a missile material production control regime. It can truly be said now that arms control has become an integral part of our national security. We have learned well that the control and reduction of weapons and the maintenance of a sound defense structure are key ingredients of our national security. Our own efforts in such ventures as START II serve to demonstrate to the world that we are committed to the reduction of nuclear arms and are pursuing a path that could lead to their elimination. In closing, I would point out that the resolution of ratification adopted by the Committee in an 18 to 0 vote recalls the obligation undertaken by the United States and the other nuclear-weapon states ``to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general complete disarmament under strict and effective international control'', and states clearly that ``the Senate calls upon the parties to the START II Treaty to seek further strategic offensive arms reductions consistent with their national security interests and calls upon the other nuclear weapon states to give careful and early consideration to corresponding reductions of their own nuclear arsenals.'' Mr. President, we should be well pleased with our action today, but we must not be satisfied. We must be both steadfast and unrelenting in our efforts to spare our citizens and the world from the terrible catastrophe of war, particularly war through means of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, I want to say what a wonderful job the chairman, Mr. Helms, and my fellow floor manager, Senator Lugar, have done. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his kind remarks. I think this is truly a historic day. I am glad my retirement from the Senate is coming after this and not before.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the wonderful example of Mary P. Brennan, an extraordinary woman who combined the best qualities of politics and public service. Mary Brennan, who retired last month as marketing director for Green State Airport after an extraordinary career in politics and public service, lost her battle with breast cancer earlier this month. In a time when politicians and public servants are the targets of unusually harsh criticism, Mary was a sterling example of how some people were created to ennoble both politics and public service. If you knew Mary, you felt special. It did not matter if your station were high or low, you received the warmth of her charm, the depth of her compassion and the inspiration of her ``can do'' spirit. When she retired after 11 years as marketing director at Green State Airport, it was noted that often she would take 30 minutes to make her way across the airport terminal because she would bump into so many people she knew. All who knew her, whether in her earlier job as executive aide to former Gov. J. Joseph Garrahy or her most recent job as marketing director, knew that she would put in 150 percent effort. When asked why she worked so hard for so many people, Mary replied: ``If you care about people, you want to service them to the utmost. You start something right, you finish it right.'' She was loyal to public service and she valued loyalty above all other virtues. ``When you make a commitment to someone,'' she said, ``you keep it.'' Mr. President, we will miss Mary tremendously in Rhode Island. I will think of her when I fly into Rhode Island. It also is easy to hark back to an earlier decade and picture her hard at work in the Rhode Island State House. Governor Garrahy delivered a heart-felt eulogy that I would like to share with my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that his remarks and obituaries from the Providence, RI, Journal and the Woonsocket, RI, Call be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, our attention should be drawn to a horrifying report issued this month by the respected human rights organization, Human Rights Watch/Asia, titled ``Death by Default: A Policy of Fatal Neglect in China's State Orphanages.'' The allegations raised in ``Death by Default'' are more than a little disturbing; they are shocking. Mr. President, I ask that the report's ``Summary and Recommendations'' be submitted for the Record. The report paints a grim picture of the lives of China's youngest, least fortunate citizens. With well-documented details from one institution--the Shanghai Children's Welfare Institute--and publicly available statistics for orphanages nationwide provided by China's Ministry of Civil Affairs, the report indicates that orphans in most of China's state-run institutions are living in horrible conditions with little hope for survival. Statistics provided by the Ministry allow Human Rights Watch to conservatively estimate a national death rate in China's orphanages of 25 percent. Critics of the report charge that terrible conditions and high death rates are to be expected in a developing country because of a lack of adequate funding, but ``Death by Default'' again uses official documents to show otherwise. The report shows, for example, that from 1989 to 1992 employees' salaries at state-run orphanages nationally increased at close to twice the rate of expenditures for the children. The question does not seem to be one of having funding, but one of how that funding is used. This report relies heavily on documents and pictures taken by a former doctor and a former inmate at the Shanghai Children's Welfare Institute for its most harrowing sections. It provides pictures of emaciated children and children tied to their beds, and stories of medical neglect, dying rooms, beatings and rapes by orphanage officials, and children carrying the corpses of other children to the orphanage's morgue. These nightmarish allegations are made worse by documented accounts of how the doctor and others tried in vain to raise the issue of conditions at the orphanage with city government officials. An investigation into the situation was apparently stonewalled and later stopped completely by senior officials. The report notes that conditions at the Shanghai Children's Welfare Institute have since improved remarkably and it is now open to visitors, even foreigners. But the report strongly indicates that the Shanghai No. 2 Social Welfare Institute, which is not open to the public, may be carrying on many of these same abuses. Mr. President, I have not visited either of these institutes in China and cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of ``Death by Default.'' But I can say that the evidence it presents to support its allegations is compelling enough for me to join Human Rights Watch/Asia in calling on government officials in Beijing to reopen the investigation into the Shanghai Children's Welfare Institute and to review conditions at state-run institutions nationally. I also urge the U.S. Embassy in Beijing to raise the issue of child welfare with Chinese Government officials at the highest levels. The U.S. Government cannot credibly claim to champion human rights issues globally if it ignores the brutal treatment of young children documented by this report. This is not the first public report on the state of China's orphanages. The British Broadcasting Corporation and other media organizations have looked at conditions in them before. But I want to commend Human Rights Watch/Asia for again bringing this serious matter to public attention with such a carefully researched document. I hope it is widely read and its recommendations taken in Beijing.

Mr. PELL

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

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the latest news on what has been identified as the worst oilspill in Rhode Island's history. As many of you may know from news accounts, the barge North Cape, carrying a cargo of about 4 million gallons of heating oil, and the tug Scandia grounded off the southern Rhode Island coast in the early evening on Friday. The grounding followed a fire that broke out Friday afternoon on the tug, later engulfed the vessel and required the subsequent last minute evacuation of the captain and crew by the U.S. Coast Guard. That evacuation was successful because of the enormous courage and skill of the Coast Guard rescue team, who did not hesitate to put themselves at great personal risk to rescue the captain and crew. Coast Guard Fireman Adam Cravey and Seaman Walt Trimble, who were the first to arrive at the scene aboard a 44-foot Coast Guard boat, found six men wearing survival suits huddled on the bow of the tug--which was engulfed by fire. The six jumped into the water to swim to the Coast Guard boat and Fireman Cravey, who was in a wet suit and was tethered to the Coast Guard boat, jumped in to assist them. All were safely ashore about 2\1/ 2\ hours after the first emergency call. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that this rescue was conducted under extremely difficult conditions, including high winds and rough seas, in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic. I understand that the Coast Guard had warned mariners from Maine to New Jersey of a period of potentially dangerous winds from 40 to 50 knots, with higher gusts, and seas from 15 to 25 feet. It was under extraordinarily difficult winter storm conditions that the Coast Guard effected the rescue and attempted, unsuccessfully, to prevent the barge and burning tug from running aground. The barge, dragging the burning tug, grounded in shallow water off Matunuck Point Beach, near Point Judith. Pounded by strong winds and high seas, the 340-foot, single-hull barge began to spill oil early Saturday from holes in at least two places. Current estimates of the spill are in the range of 828,000 gallons. Transporation Secretary Frederico Pena, Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Kramek, and other Federal officials came to us in Rhode Island to evaluate the spill on Saturday, as efforts continued to contain the escaping oil and off-load what oil remained aboard the barge. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Almond appealed for Federal help on Sunday, declaring a state of emergency and identifying the spill as ``the worst in Rhode Island's history and one of the worst ever off the coast of New England.'' The toll on marine life apparently has already been heavy. Thousands of oil-coated lobsters, dead and living, have washed up along several hundred yards of beach near the barge. Dozens of seabirds have died and scores more have been coated in oil. The barge is close to Moonstone Beach, a breeding ground for the endangered piping plover and the Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, an environmentally fragile habitat. An estimated 75,000 waterfowl live in the refuge area, including rare harlequin ducks. Fishing also was banned in a 105 square-mile area, from Point Judith south to waters east of Block Island. A number of shellfishing areas also were closed. The good news is that Rhode Islanders rose to the occasion. Hundreds of Rhode Islanders, their efforts coordinated by Save the Bay, volunteered to help the emergency response crews by cleaning everything from beaches to birds. The Coast Guard was magnificent in its response. Additional good news came with a phone call from President Clinton to Governor Almond, assuring him that funds would be made available for the cleanup and fishing industries. This tragedy has not yet played itself out, but we should ask some hard questions when we have all the facts. Among the most obvious questions, that have crossed my mind: Why were the tug and barge underway in such treacherous and dangerous weather conditions? Should we have weather related restrictions on the transportation of toxic or hazardous materials in coastal waterways? Could this incident have been avoided by better fire-safety procedures or by a more rapid response? Could it have been mitigated by more aggressive prevention and containment measures? It is unfortunate, Mr. President, that this barge was not of the new double-hulled design--which I have long advocated. I understand that it leaked from 9 of its 14 containment holds. A double-hull might have made all the difference between an incident and a disaster. Finally, I think that everyone would benefit from a thorough review of the coordination of our emergency response to oilspills. We should make sure that every agency with a role in this crisis, worked smoothly with every other agency. It has been a difficult time in Rhode Island and, unfortunately, our difficulties are not over. We do not yet know the extent of our disaster. On the Federal level, we should do all we can to expedite the assistance and expertise that is required for that recovery. In closing, I emphasize the fine job the Coast Guard did and my own respect for their gallant service. I yield the floor.