Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to offer my strong support for the administration's recent, extraordinary efforts to broker a peace treaty between Israel and Syria. I cannot overemphasize the importance of bringing Israel and Syria into a peaceful, normal relationship. Their conflict is virtually the last remaining obstacle to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. If Syria and Israel are able to overcome their differences, sign an agreement, and establish diplomatic relations, it is nearly certain that other Arab states--Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, and Gulf countries-- would soon follow suit. From that point forward, the region's prospects for political, economic, and social advancement would become almost limitless. It is a sad irony that the peace talks being held in Wye, Maryland arose out of the tragic assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. If the Wye talks succeed in producing an agreement, it will surely add yet another dimension to the Prime Minister's legacy as a peacemaker. I only lament the fact that the price would have been so dear. It is too early to tell what result these talks may have, but already there have been suggestions from the participants that they are operating in an unprecedented environment of comity, seriousness, and creativity. While a positive atmosphere does guarantee success on the important questions of substance, it does lend hope to those who watched the failure of the previous, stale rounds of discussions. In the next few weeks, it is expected that the Syrian and Israeli delegations will consult with their governments, Secretary of State Christopher will shuttle to the capitals of the Middle East, and the talks will reconvene. At the same time, everyone associated with the talks knows that the Israeli and American electoral cycles afford precious little time for a deal to be concluded. Under these circumstances--a high level of activity, a small window of opportunity, and a new spirit of cooperation--progress is likely to occur quickly or not at all. Secretary of State Christopher and his Middle East peace team clearly understand their opportunities and their limitations, and have made every effort to steer Israel and Syria in the proper direction. While ultimately it remains the decision of the parties themselves to make peace, there is indeed a place for American leadership and engagement. Secretary Christopher, Ambassador Dennis Ross, and their colleagues at the State Department deserve the Nation's highest respect and gratitude for the energy, devotion, and intellect they have brought to the peace table.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on September 19, 1995, after 2 weeks of floor debate and over 40 rollcall votes, the Senate passed welfare reform legislation by a vote of 87 to 12. At that time, I voted for the welfare reforms measure. I did, however, make it clear in remarks here on the Senate floor, that I was doing so with some reluctance. I was concerned that the legislation did not go far enough in protecting our children and in providing adults with the important tools needed to help them move off welfare and into meaningful, long-term employment. I voted for the measure because it included the Dole-Daschle compromise amendment, providing additional protections for children and families. I said at that time that I would oppose the conference report if it were to return from the conference committee without the moderating provisions found in the Dole-Daschle amendment. This final bill erodes the important protective safety net and it is punitive and harmful. In particular, I am concerned that the conference report is weaker on work requirements than the Senate-passed bill because of a $5 billion reduction of funds available to put people back to work. The report significantly reduces important child care protections, one of the major components of the Dole-Daschle compromise, and cuts food assistance guarantees to children by cutting almost $35 billion. I will, therefore, oppose the conference report. Mr. President, the current welfare system clearly needs to be reformed. I firmly believe that any system in place for 60 years needs updating and rethinking. It remains my strong desire to see a welfare system that celebrates, not mocks, compassion. I continue to support the provisions of the work first proposal put forth by Senator Daschle which emphasizes the significance of work for adults and the importance of protecting, not punishing, the children who have not chosen their parents or their circumstances.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased--as all of my fellow Members should be--that the Senate will now be considering whether to give its consent to ratification of the START II Treaty. We can anticipate that the floor debate will be relatively brief by contrast with the time devoted to previous strategic offensive arms accords--the 1972 Interim Agreement and the 1991 START Treaty. This treaty deserves the Senate's careful consideration, and approval. In the nearly 3 years since it was negotiated, the treaty has been carefully weighed, and I believe it to be clear now to almost all Members that START II is a logical and significant successor to the first START Treaty, which is also assuredly in the national security interests of the United States. The Russian legislature has started, but not finished, its work on this treaty. The Russian Federation has just had elections, and the consideration and approval process, if successful, will involve many new members heretofore unfamiliar with START. I deeply believe that Russian legislators will carefully consider the present political, economic and military situation of their nation, will weigh priorities, and will see that START is a significant achievement that is clearly in their national interests. I believe very strongly that our activities and action in committee and the consideration being taken in the Senate today will serve to reassure their legislature that we are a serious party to this endeavor and will be of value as they consider their approach to the treaty. Mr. President, the START II Treaty, which builds upon START, was signed by the United States and the Russian Federation on January 3, 1993, and was transmitted by President Bush to the Senate on January 15, 1993. The treaty builds upon the reductions of offensive strategic nuclear arms required by START. The START Treaty, Members will recall, requires about a one-third reduction in the strategic offensive nuclear arms of the United States and, collectively, of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. The treaty specifically cuts the former Soviet Union's heavy ICBM totals in half. In addition the START Treaty and the subsequent Lisbon protocol obligates Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to give up all of their nuclear weapons and to join the START II Treaty, which is a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation. The START II Treaty has several critically important aspects: First, it will reduce by 2003, Russian and American deployed strategic warheads to a level at or below 3,500--a more than two-thirds reduction over pre-START levels. Second, it bans deployment of multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles [MIRVed ICBMs]. These missiles are generally considered to be the most threatening component of each nation's strategic arsenal. Third, it legally obligates Russia to destroy all 154 SS-18 heavy ICBMs and to destroy or convert all silo launchers for such missiles. The SS-18 missile is the largest and most destabilizing ICBM in the world. Half of them were eliminated by START. This treaty will finish the elimination process. These are three very important accomplishments. All of them are important to strategic stability. The details make that evident. The START II Treaty calls for reductions, in two phases, in ICBMs, ICBM launchers, ICBM warheads, SLBMs, SLBM launchers, SLBM warheads, heavy bombers and nuclear armaments on heavy bombers. The first phase of reductions is to be completed no later than seven years after entry into force of the START Treaty. The second reduction phase, to be completed no later than January 1, 2003, requires each party to achieve the following final reduction limits: Between 3,000 and 3,500, for the aggregate number of warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers; Between 1,700 and 1,750, for warheads on deployed SLBMs; Zero, for warheads on deployed MIRVed ICBMs; and Zero, for warheads on deployed Russian heavy ICBMs (SS-18s). Mr. President, the START II Treaty was considered thoroughly in hearings that I chaired in May and June 1993, and that Senator Lugar, 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; General 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. Non-governmental 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. Earlier this month, the committee considered and approved a resolution of ratification in an 18 to 0 vote. The resolution contains six conditions and seven declarations, none of which will require any renegotiation of the provisions or the further agreement of the Russian Federation. These are the key points of the conditions and declarations: Condition 1, on noncompliance makes it clear that the Senate would view as a most serious matter actions by the parties to START or by the Russian Federation with regard to START II that are inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaties or in violation of the treaties. In such an event, it specifies courses of action to be taken by the President with regard to the Senate and the noncompliant party. Condition 2, makes it clear that the Senate, in approving START II, is not obligating the United States to accept any modification of the 1972 ABM Treaty. Condition 3, makes clear that Russian ratification and implementation of START II is not contingent upon a United States-Russian agreement for financial aid. Condition 4, makes clear that specified exchanges of letters are of the same force and effect as treaty obligations. Condition 5, recognizes that the administration has reached an agreement with the Russians under which there will be strict accountability for all ballistic missiles associated with START. The Senate reaffirms its view that space-launch vehicles containing items limited by START are subject to the relevant treaty terms. Condition 6, embraces the administration's view that the START and START II provisions on national technical means do not preclude the United States from pursuing options to urge the Russian Federation to dismantle its electronic eavesdropping facility at Lourdes, Cuba. Declaration 1, deals with cooperative threat reduction. Vigorous continuation of the Safe and Secure Dismantlement talks is urged. The resolution makes clear the importance of confirming the irreversibility of the process of nuclear weapons reduction. Declaration 2, urges the President to regulate reductions so as to avoid any strategic imbalance endangering the national security. Declaration 3, expressed the sense of the Senate that the President should consult with the Senate as to whether START II remains in the national interest should any nation other that Russia expand its strategic arsenal so as to jeopardize the United States'--security--interests. Declaration 4, recalls earlier commitments to reduce armaments and calls upon the United States and Russia to seek further strategic offensive arms reductions and calls upon the other three nuclear-weapon states to give careful and early consideration to corresponding reductions. Declaration 5, urges the President to insist that Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine abide by the guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Declaration 6, states that the Senate will consider agreements obligating the United States to reduce or limit the Armed Forces or armaments in a militarily significant manner only pursuant to treaty power as set forth in the Constitution. Declaration 7, affirms the applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally based principles set forth in condition 1 of the resolution of ratification of the INF-Treaty. The START and START II Treaties and the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty limiting strategic defensive arms, truly represent a continuum of arms control that has already had considerable benefits to the nations involved and promise still more over the next 7 years. There is no question that all of this effort, more than two decades- long, characterized by new initiatives that build upon earlier achievements step-by-step, has been critically important in the effort to curb the costly and essentially pointless arms competition that characterized much of the postwar period prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. While I, together with many others, am pleased that we finally have reached a point at which we can anticipate the elimination of the most destabilizing weapons--land-based missiles with multiple warheads, it also is saddening to realize that this Nation's leaders might have been wiser earlier. The pointless and wasteful MIRV competition that has been central to the arms race well might have been averted. It is useful to recall that the Committee and the Senate endeavored in 1970 to forestall the development of MIRVed systems. Senate Resolution 211 stated in part: Whereas development of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles by both the United States and the Soviet Union represents a fundamental and radical challenge to such stability; Whereas the possibility of agreed controls over strategic forces appears likely to diminish greatly if testing and deployment of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles proceed; Resolved further, That the President should propose to the Government of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics an immediate suspension . . . of the further development of all offensive and defensive nuclear strategic weapons systems, subject to national verification or such measures of observation and inspection as may be appropriate. Senate Resolution 211 was introduced by Senator Edward Brooke and 39 cosponsors with three later additions on June 17, 1969. The Foreign Relations Committee reported favorably Senate Resolution 211 on March 24, 1970, and it passed the Senate on April 9, 1970, on a vote of 72 to 6. I remember well making the case to several senior administration officials that we would do well to do our best to avoid a race in multiple-warhead missiles. Nonetheless, the administration did not agree with the Senate on the matter, believing instead that the United States enjoyed a technological lead over the Soviet Union, and would do better if MIRVs were allowed. Accordingly, the United States never proposed, in any serious way, that MIRV's be banned in SALT I. Two decades later, Soviet MIRVs have become a matter of considerable concern, and much effort in START and further effort in connection with the de-MIRVing Treaty have been required to deal with the problem. Now, 25 years later, it is clear how prescient the Senate was. Now that we are coming full circle, only five of Senate Resolution 211's cosponsors--Senators Dole, Hatfield, Inouye, Kennedy, and I--remain in the Senate. The achievements of SALT, START, and the ABM Treaty demonstrate that the United States and the successors to the Soviet Union are fulfilling pledges made repeatedly since the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty to reduce their nuclear arsenals. These pledges were seen as justification by other nations for decisions to refrain from nuclear weapons testing, join the non-proliferation treaty as non-nuclear weapon states and, earlier this year, to agree upon the permanent extension of the Non- Proliferation Treaty. I hope very much that we will have the wisdom to understand what has been achieved, the resolve to preserve our achievements, and the foresight to build upon them.

Mr. PELL. Certainly.

Mr. PELL. I concur in your thought.

Mr. PELL. No, no further suggestions. Just to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Stevens, on guiding this legislation through. I thank my own staff, Bill Ashworth, very much indeed.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank my colleague.

Mr. PELL. I would like 2 minutes.

Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering overriding President Clinton's veto of the securities litigation reform bill. After careful reflection, I have decided to continue my long history of support for this legislation. In doing so, I wish to point out that I do not do so lightly. I admire and honor our President immensely and have always respected the prerogative of our President in his use of the veto power and especially so when this power is responsibly and sparingly used, as has been the case with President Clinton. I do believe the President has acted upon personal principle with regard to this bill and that his decision was arrived at in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree and believe that this particular bill should become law. I have been a longtime supporter of legal reform, especially measures which seek to reduce the excess and frivolous litigation so prevalent in our society. On this measure, I was one of the first Democrats to join as a cosponsor some 4 years ago and have been active in promoting it ever since. As with any piece of legislation, the final product is one of compromise and, indeed, does not contain every provision that I would like. Nevertheless, it is a good, carefully considered, bipartisan effort at addressing the very real and growing problems associated with excessive and frivolous lawsuits besieging publicly held companies. As such, this bill deserves to be implemented into law. I do regret being in the opposition in this matter but as a longtime advocate for this legislation, I believe that this bill is both responsible and necessary to address the need for litigation reform with regard to our securities industry. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the defense authorization conference report today with some regret. I did not care for the bill as it left the Senate, and I voted against it then. Now the conferees have contended at length and come back with I believe a more objectionable bill. I know that a number of the Senate minority conferees tried to return with a workable bill devoid of excesses, but, unfortunately, they did not prevail. I am particularly concerned by the provisions setting the stage for a national missile defense. This legislation requires that the United States build an ``operationally effective'' defense of all 50 States by the year 2003. Such a new system almost certainly would require deployments of ballistic missile defenses at multiple sites, since such a defense would likely be well beyond any capabilities we could put into our presently mothballed single ABM site at Grand Forks, ND. The cost could quickly mount into the tens of billions of dollars over the next 7 years. An immediate problem with all of this is that it could send a message to the Russians that we do not intend to live up to the ABM Treaty. This could well undermine any prospects we might have that they, in turn, will ratify and abide by the terms of the START II Treaty. That treaty has just been approved by the Committee on Foreign Relations in an 18 to 0 vote and is awaiting Senate action. Heretofore, both we and the Russians have been comfortable with mutually agreed steps to curb and reduce nuclear armaments secure in the knowledge that the ABM Treaty ensured that our deterrent worked and would work at lower levels. It would be very much against our interests if the train of reductions were to stop now. A renewed strategic arms buildup might even be in prospect. If all of that happened, the new National Missile Defense System would be woefully outmatched, since it would be designed to deal with accidental launches and new and emerging threats and not with a major continued Russian threat. One might ask why we need new defenses against accidental launches when we did not need them before. Mr. President, we should pause to think of these new threats. First, it is important to understand that there is no official intelligence analysis to indicate that we are likely to have any new missile threat over the next decade or so. Any nation thinking of moving in that direction would have a very hard time finding a supplier or suppliers. It is extremely difficult to develop missiles indigenously, and any nation doing so would certainly be caught at it. We should ask ourselves how we would react if some nation were trying to get a small fleet of missiles to attack us with. We and others could apply serious political and economic pressures to make that nation cease and desist. If we and others had to act militarily to end the threat, we could. That fact alone would add strength to our diplomatic efforts. The least reasonable response would be to spend billions of dollars deploying a last-ditch, Fortress America ballistic missile defense that would, at best, make little or no contribution to our national defenses and would, at worst, start a process under which strategic stability and the very fruitful process of arms control could be dealt a terrible blow. shipments of spent nuclear fuel appear

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank my friend very much.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I do not believe there is justification for the partial shutdown of the Federal Government. It is really occurring only because of a widely perceived and grossly exaggerated assumption that the long-term Federal budget must be concluded in the same timeframe as the annual appropriations bills. There is no real basis for a linkage between the two beyond the budget for the current fiscal year. The fact that there is an assumption of linkage beyond that point is, at best, an artful strategy or, at worst, a hoax on the public and on our democratic Government. Appropriations and reconciliation are two completely different processes. On the one hand, it is notable that significant agreement already has been reached on a great many major reductions in Government expenditures in the 13 major appropriations bills that have been or are being processed. But they are all badly behind schedule, through no fault of our President, and six of them are heavily burdened by extraneous provisions dealing with matters like striker replacement and the abortion issue--matters that should be addressed in separate legislation on their own merits. And now the passage of interim spending authority has been arbitrarily made a condition of budget reconciliation. But the reconciliation process is an entirely separate matter. Unlike the appropriations process, the failure of which leads to a cutoff of current funding, the reconciliation process is not driven by immediate need. Absent passage of a reconciliation bill, current law stands. The Government continues to operate at existing levels until reasonable agreement can be reached about changed priorities and a new level of commitment. That the two processes were declared to be compressed into the same timeframe is simply a transparent device to force acceptance of policy choices that are not in accord with the priorities of the American people or the President. The second continuing resolution passed in November tightened the time frame by specifying that a 7-year balanced budget plan should be enacted in the first session of this Congress, which presumably ends January 2. But the remaining period of 2 weeks includes the traditional holiday season and it seems to me that any comprehensive solution forced this week would inevitably be flawed by haste. Mr. President, the time for budgetary hostage-taking is over. The country will not stand for it and both parties put themselves at risk of public rejection because of what appears to be petty and small- minded squabbling. As I see it, the solution must come in two separate steps: First, the appropriations process must be concluded without any further delay. All remaining bills should be sent to the President forthwith in whatever form a majority can approve. Vetoed bills should be returned promptly so that revised versions can be enacted. A realistic continuing resolution should be passed providing funding authority at least until January 12 to allow for the process of revising and repassing vetoed legislation. Second, separately, the terms of the second continuing resolution must be modified to provide for an expanded time frame for reconciliation extending into the second session. The President is entitled to adequate opportunity to secure the best budget he can obtain that will reflect his highest priorities, while still honoring those of the congressional majority. As a practical matter, it will be necessary to reach closure on at least the first stages of a long range budget by the statutory date for presentation of the fiscal year 1997 budget by the first Monday in February. Mr. President, I offer these views from a vantage point of some detachment. I have not endorsed the idea of a balanced budget and I do not subscribe to the mantra that it should be achieved in the arbitrary timeframe of 7 years. I do believe we should curb deficit spending, and that includes borrowing to pay for a tax cut. And I do not believe the agenda of the United States should be set by a willful subgroup of the House majority. Clearly, we all are going to have to give ground. We in the minority, for example, must acknowledge more candidly the need for constraints on the Federal medical programs. The majority must relent their drive to curtail great advances we have made in social legislation, particularly education. And both sides, I believe, must acknowledge the patent futility of cutting taxes at the very time we seek to curtail deficits. Tax cuts must be deferred for the present, even if it means a delay in more favorable treatment for capital gains, and I support more favorable treatment for capital gains. I think the image that the country has of us is that of children squabbling. I hope the sooner we can get down to business and reach a compromise, the better off we are. Plus the Government only moves when there is compromise. And in this case we are denying it the opportunity to work. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the news that Dr. Ned A. Ostenso, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, plans to retire in 3 weeks, on January 3, 1996. During his distinguished career, Dr. Ostenso has made invaluable contributions as a research scientist, administrator, and leader in shaping America's understanding of the oceans and in directing our Nation's marine and atmospheric research. As a researcher, he played a major role in defining the structure of the Arctic Ocean Basin, providing quantitative studies of mid-ocean ridges--including the first paper on the relationship of sea-floor age to crustal thickness--and defining the nature of Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. His research activities have resulted in more than 50 published scientific papers. Among Dr. Ostenso's numerous honors in earth and marine sciences, a seamount in the Arctic Ocean was named after him. In addition, while serving with the team that made the first transit of Antarctica during the International Geophysical Year, Dr. Ostenso discovered an Antarctic mountain peak that today bears his name. Long after we are gone, Dr. Ostenso's name will be remembered both on land and at sea. In the 1970's, Dr. Ostenso represented the United States Navy on mutual defense environmental data agreements with Australia, Germany and New Zealand. In 1972, he represented the United States Navy in negotiating, and later administering, the U.S./U.S.S.R Bilateral Agreement in World Ocean Studies. Later, he served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as Assistant Presidential Science Advisor. He was Deputy Director and Senior Oceanographer of the Ocean Science and Technology Division, Office of Naval Research. In January of 1977, Dr. Ostenso moved from the Navy to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] to assume 12 years of leadership of the Sea Grant College Program. I am best acquainted with Dr. Ostenso's extraordinary skill through my own role as the Senate author of the National Sea Grant College and Program Act. Under his leadership, Sea Grant improved and expanded during a dozen exciting and challenging years, including five reauthorizations. As Sea Grant Director, Dr. Ostenso improved Sea Grant's science through rigorous peer review and broadened Sea Grant's reach by bringing new colleges and universities under its umbrella. Under his leadership, Sea Grant expanded to a total of 29 programs in 31 coastal and Great Lakes States. Sea Grant is highly regarded for its support of excellent research and effective educational and technology transfer programs. An economic study of the National Sea Grant Program showed that, in the year studied, 1987, Sea Grant's impact on the national economy was $840 million. In today's dollars, this impact would likely exceed $1 billion per year. For example, Sea Grant research over the last two decades has given the country a profitable marine aquaculture industry with an estimated 1995 value of $300 million. For 6 years, Dr. Ostenso served as Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which included responsibility for Sea Grant, the National Undersea Research Program, and the Environmental Research Laboratories. During his tenure, the 12 institutions comprising the Environmental Research Laboratories made a number of significant contributions leading to: Modernization of the National Weather Service; an understanding of the physics and chemistry of the polar ozone holes that has led to sensible national policies; a national climate program that is just now beginning to predict weather on season and yearly time scales; and a vast improvement to our understanding of severe weather events that has had a direct impact on more accurate and timely warnings. As Assistant Administrator, Dr. Ostenso oversaw a major shift in the focus of the National Undersea Research Program [NURP]. Under his guidance, NURP changed from a primary focus on the procurement of undersea vessels and associated hardware to an increased emphasis on more scientifically oriented national, subsurface research. NURP now supports merit-based research grants to provide the scientific basis for addressing critical natural resource issues--such as the preservation of natural marine sanctuaries. The program also continues to provide access to an extensive array of manned and unmanned undersea vehicles. Dr. Ostenso also served as NOAA's acting chief Scientist for 1 year. He was instrumental in obtaining OMB and congressional support for a 15-year NOAA fleet replacement and modernization program. Over the years, Dr. Ostenso has served on a number of national and international committees and panels. The most recent was his appointment by Vice President Gore and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to serve on an Environmental Task Force to assess the dual use of defense and intelligence data and systems for civilian environmental studies. Dr. Ostenso has played a pivotal role for years in guiding the American Geophysical Union [AGU]. Most recently he supervised the construction of their handsome new facilities on Florida Avenue here in Washington, DC. He also is former vice president of the American Oceanic Organization, president of the American Polar Society, and a member of many organizations, including the Antarctica Society, Arctic Institute of North America, Cosmos Club, Explorers Club, and Geological Society. I am confident that I speak for many of my colleagues when I express admiration and thanks to Dr. Ned A. Ostenso, Ph.D., for his invaluable contributions to the United States of America and to the world scientific community. He has our best wishes.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator very much indeed. Mr. President, I support the Managers Amendment to S. 908 negotiated by Senators Kerry and Helms. I was opposed to S. 908 as reported by the Foreign Relations Committee, and regretted at the time it was reported that the committee appeared to have abandoned a long tradition of bipartisanship in crafting the State Department authorization bill. Consequently, I am pleased with the results of the negotiations that are reflected in this managers amendment. I congratulate Senator Kerry, who so ably managed this bill on behalf of the Democrats. He did this in a skilled, professional and brilliant way. I also congratulate Senator Helms for his willingness to work with Senator Kerry and Democratic members of the committee to achieve this constructive resolution to many of the serious disagreements related to S. 908. The managers' amendment makes significant improvements in the bill with respect to two critical areas: the reorganization of the foreign affairs agencies and those provisions related to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. As we all know, much of the opposition to this bill focused on the mandatory abolition of AID, USIA, and ACDA and the transfer of some of their functions and personnel to the Department of State. I was particularly concerned that ACDA would be abolished because I feared that it would eliminate the independent voice on arms control issues that every President should have, and a concept which every President since President Kennedy has supported. I am pleased that the compromise takes a different approach. No agencies are abolished, except in the event that the President fails to send a reorganization plan to the Congress. The driving force of reorganization is the requirement that the plan save $1.7 billion over 5 years. In my view this is the correct approach as it encourages the President to reorganize while at the same time preserving his prerogative to determine how that reorganization is done. As reported by the committee, S. 908 also contained a number of troubling provisions designed to restrict U.S. participation in the U.N. system. For example, some placed conditions on the payment of our assessed contributions to the United Nations for membership and peacekeeping. The managers' amendment which Senators Helms and Kerry are offering improves a number of these provisions and deletes others. I applaud these changes because we cannot exert leverage at the United Nations if we cannot fulfill our financial and other obligations in full. Finally, with the adoption of this managers' amendment and the passage of S. 908, the Senate will proceed to the confirmation of a large number of ambassadors and the consideration of Start II. I have previously expressed my deep concern and regret over the holding up of the important business of the Foreign Relations Committee and the nation because of significant differences of opinion over just one piece of legislation, particularly if that one piece is unrelated to the main body of the legislation and other matters that are being held up. In my 30 years of service on the committee and 8 years as chairman, this was unprecedented. With this action today, however, I am very optimistic that the new year will bring a return to the committee's traditional bipartisan approach to addressing the foreign policy issues before the Senate. We clearly will not agree on all these issues, but I hope we will agree to disagree and work where feasible to reflect the concerns of all members in the committee's deliberations. This managers' amendment, and the committee's 18 to 0 vote on Tuesday, December 12, to report the Start II treaty to the Senate, are examples of our potential for the new year. As ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I pledge to work with our chairman to address the issues before our committee in the new year in a bipartisan and constructive manner. Although we have agreed to disagree on many policy issues, we are friends and colleagues with a long-standing mutual respect for each other. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on December 4, 1995, Madeleine Albright, our Ambassador to the United Nations, signed on behalf of the United States the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. As the Ambassador said in her speech at the time, this Agreement offers a tremendous advancement in our global efforts to better conserve and manage living marine resources. I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Albright's speech be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. This Agreement was the result of 3 long years of negotiations and will best serve the interests of the United States by putting an end to the lawlessness of high seas fisheries.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the United States has long held the view that fishing activities should be carried out in a sustainable fashion, and with due regard to appropriate conservation and management measures. The Straddling Stocks Agreement ensures that the precautionary measures we have already adopted will be respected and implemented by our international partners. The United States has clearly led the way in this respect and it was of the utmost importance to ensure that our efforts would not be undermined by the destructive practices of other States. This Agreement is only the latest step in our ongoing efforts to establish a mosaic of international legal agreements that will set up a strong regime for the management of our marine living resources. Foremost among these is the Convention on the Law of the Sea, transmitted to the Senate on October 6, 1994 (Treaty Document 103-39). More than a year later, this historic treaty is still pending before the Committee on Foreign Relations. I am hopeful that the Committee will be able to consider this Convention early next year. The principles embodied in the Straddling Stocks Agreement are not only consistent with the Law of the Sea, but it is to be applied concurrently with that Convention. Mr. President, in the past year, I have repeatedly addressed the Senate to highlight the ways in which the Law of the Sea Convention has been improved, and now meets our fisheries interests, our national security interests, and our economic interests. This hard-fought treaty was the result of more than 20 years of negotiations, in which both Democratic and Republican Administrations participated actively. As a result, all the concerns that the United States had expressed when the Convention was first open for signature in 1982 have now been addressed. An agreement modifying the deep sea-bed mining provisions of the Convention was concluded and signed by the United States in 1994. Similarly, the Straddling Stocks Agreement addresses some of the high seas fishing issues that had been left open by the Convention. I expect the administration will forward the Straddling Stocks Agreement to the Senate early next year. In order to optimize the effects of the Straddling Stocks Agreement, it is urgent that the United States also become a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. The Straddling Stocks Agreement specifies that the settlement of disputes will be carried out by the Law of the Sea Tribunal, which will be established in Hamburg shortly. Fortunately, the judges on this Tribunal have not been designated yet, but the United States must be a party to the Convention if an American judge is to be designated. This is but one of the many reasons why the United States should ratify and become a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. We now have another incentive to take urgent action on this issue and I trust that all my colleagues who have shown such an interest in the Straddling Stocks Agreement will join me in my efforts to see the Straddling Stocks Agreement and the Law of the Sea Convention ratified promptly. Exhibit 1 Statement of Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright Mr. Chairman, distinguished ministers, fellow ambassadors and delegates, and ladies and gentlemen. This is a memorable occasion for all members of the international community who have labored to conserve fishery resources and strengthen the law of the sea. On this historic day, the United States, joined by other members of the international community, will sign the Agreement, adopted by consensus by the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. This Conference concluded its work after three years of intense negotiations and outstanding international cooperation. The United States is pleased to have participated in this effort. We are convinced that this Agreement offers a tremendous advancement in our global efforts to better conserve and manage living marine resources. As both a coastal State and a State whose vessels fish on the high seas, we are keenly aware of the need for a balanced approach in the Agreement, one that recognizes the legitimate concerns of both groups. The United States believes that the Agreement strikes a reasonable balance between conservation and fishing concerns, and between the interests of coastal States and States whose vessels fish on the high seas. We support the Agreement because it establishes new and effective rules to conserve and manage marine fisheries and provides for States to resolve their disputes through compulsory binding dispute settlement procedures. The Agreement, if widely ratified and properly implemented, will both improve the health of our ocean ecosystems and ensure a lasting supply of fish to feed the world's population. The United States wishes to acknowledge the skill, leadership and energy of Ambassador Satya Nandan for crafting the Agreement. We are truly indebted to you. This Agreement is particularly noteworthy because it directly contributes to a broader global effort to promote international cooperation, reduce conflict and achieve more effectively the sustainable use of living marine resources. The Agreement is consistent with and builds upon the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which entered into force last year. It complements the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance With International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, which itself is an integral component of the International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries which was adopted last month in Rome. Together, these instruments provide a strong basis to move forward in achieving sustainable use of living marine resources in the world's oceans and seas. Looking to the future, we see many exciting challenges before us. Our first task is to bring this Agreement into force as soon as possible. We hope that all nations that sign the Agreement today will soon deposit their instruments of ratification. We urge those nations which are not able to sign the Agreement today to do so as soon as possible. Also ahead are the challenges of implementing effectively the provisions of the Agreement in various regional and subregional organizations and arrangements throughout the world. The status of the world's fish stocks demands that implementation of the Agreement begin immediately wherever straddling and highly migratory fish stocks are harvested. In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Fish Stocks Agreement is a laudable accomplishment. The tasks before us are not only possible, but absolutely necessary. At stake are important issues involving biological integrity of marine ecosystems and food security. The United States is confident that we will succeed. Let us hope that our imagination and strength are as vast as the oceans we so cherish.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in October, Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed represented U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali at the 94th Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Bucharest, Romania. At the Conference, Ambassador Reed delivered an exceptional speech concerning the current financial crisis at the United Nations. As a longtime friend and supporter of the United Nations, I can think of no issue more important to the U.N.'s future. Moreover, the United Nation's fiscal health has critical implications for our own country's foreign and domestic agenda. In his address, Ambassador Reed--formerly one of the United States' most accomplished diplomats and now a high-ranking U.N. official--made a compelling argument about the necessity for resolving this crisis. I commend the speech to my colleagues and ask that excerpts be printed in the Record. The excerpts of the speech follows: Mr. President, the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations has arrived at one of the turning points in modern history. The United Nations is the only machinery we have for collective cooperation among all Nations. It is the only global tool for promoting peace and security. It is the only worldwide institution for furthering development. It is the only universal mechanism for protecting human rights. It is the only shared framework for strengthening international law. But today I feel compelled to share my distress with you on a subject which is unavoidable, the survival of the United Nations. For almost four years, we have tried to convince the governments of member states of the United Nations to pay their assessments on time. For four years we have warned of the financial consequences of the failure to pay assessments. We have argued, we have pleaded. The organization has cut expenses. We have streamlined operations. We are working hard to reduce waste, duplication and overlap. Peace-keeping is expensive. The operation in the former Yugoslavia costs five million dollars per day. In Every major statement and document of the Secretary- General, he has drawn attention to the financial crisis and proposed steps to remedy it. In meeting after meeting with foreign ministers and heads of state over these years, he has pleaded with them to address this deteriorating situation. As of October 1995, 70 countries had not paid their regular budget assessment. Today, the United Nations is owed a total of $3.4 billion by its member states. I appeal to you as parliamentarians to help me resolve this crisis. I ask you to try to convince your governments to pay their arrears, and to pay future contributions on time, and in full. I make this appeal to you because the United Nations is your organization. I make this appeal here because without peace, and without the global efforts of peace, and without the global efforts of the United Nations, all your efforts for development will be to no avail. The United Nations is not one of the luxuries of international life. The work of the United Nations is of vital, critical importance: Saving children from starvation and disease. Providing food, clothing and shelter for refugees. Delivering humanitarian relief to devastated areas. Working to stop the cycle of natural disasters in lands repeatedly afflicted by them. Countering the new international threats of crimes, drugs, disease. Defending human rights in individual cases as well as through international commitments. Advising, training, monitoring and institution-building in countries seeking to democratize. Maintaining ceasefires, preventing conflicts from erupting, peacemaking between adversaries and peace-building in devastated countries. These activities are going on now. They are being conducted on the ground in locations all over the world. They are carried out by dedicated, hard-working national and international staff members. The financial crisis is being felt on the frontlines of all these efforts. If emergency measures to restore the financial health are not taken quickly, human suffering will dramatically increase. People will die. The structural ability of the United Nations to continue this work will be damaged. It will not soon or easily be reconstructed, if ever. Unless substantial assessment payments are received by the end of November 1995, the Secretary-General will have no choice but to request that an emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly be convened immediately to consider the financial crisis--and future of the organization. The financial crisis of the United Nations is now destroying its very foundations. We can no longer pretend otherwise. That is why we appeal today to you--the world's parliamentarians for assistance. You must be our voice. You must be our advocate. You must be the protectors of our common future. Mr. President, this is an emergency--the Secretary-General and all of us in the secretariat believe that positive change can be achieved, and he is convinced that this change can be the vehicle for fulfilling the aims and aspirations of the charter. He is convinced that working together in partnership we can save succeeding generations from the scourge of war; we can enhance the dignity and worth of the human person; and we can promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, after a great deal of reflection, and with some reservations, I have decided to support the President's decision to send United States troops to Bosnia to help enforce a peace settlement. When the peace agreement was initialed in Dayton 3 weeks ago, I wholeheartedly welcomed the peace, congratulated the peacemakers, but expressed my skepticism about the need for U.S. ground troops to enforce that peace. When President Clinton first suggested almost 2 years ago that United States troops might become involved in Bosnia, I outlined my strong concerns about such a course of action in a letter to the President. I noted two minimum conditions that I thought should be met before we even considered committing troops to Bosnia. I said that the mission should be a multinational one, conducted either under U.N. or NATO auspices, and that the United States should provide less than a majority of troops to that effort. Both of those conditions have, of course, been met, but for me, that is only a starting point. My qualms about sending United States troops to Bosnia stem from my fear that we will become stuck in a Balkans quagmire. To my mind, throughout history, the Balkans have been a place of war and strife, and I worry about involving United States troops in conflicts that are centuries old. But I also have said that it was up to the President to make the case for sending troops, and that I would listen with an open mind. During the past 3 weeks, the President and other members of the administration have put forth their case to me in private and in public, and I have been listening. I found President Clinton's address to the Nation to be particularly compelling. I believe the President did an excellent job of laying out exactly what is at stake in Bosnia. I agree that the Dayton Agreement, which was brokered by very talented U.S. diplomats, offers us the chance, as the President said ``to build a peace and stop the suffering'' in the heart of Europe, which is of course very important to U.S. national security interests. In that speech and in subsequent presentations, the President and other members of the administration have defined the limited peacekeeping role our troops will be asked to play. They have been appropriately reassuring to the families of the young men and women who will be sent to Bosnia. Our troops know already that they are the world's best equipped and trained fighting force. The President, in a clear statement to any would-be troublemakers, has stated flatly that our troops will be well trained, heavily armed, and ready to retaliate against any threat to their own safety. While our troops will have broad discretion to respond to any challenges or threats, there also will be limits on their role and mission in Bosnia. In a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on December 1, Secretary Christopher, Secretary Perry, and General Shalikashvili testified that there are limits to what our troops will be asked to do. The fact that there will be limits has gone a long way in convincing me to support our President's decision. Our troops are not going to fight a war, but rather to help implement a peace to which the parties themselves have agreed. Their objective is to achieve a concrete set of military goals outlined in the Military Annex to the Dayton agreement. They are not, I have been reassured, going to get dragged into the conflict itself. I have also been assured that our military will not be engaged in rebuilding Bosnia. That is a responsibility of the parties themselves, with such civilian assistance from the international community as the Dayton Agreement provides. Mr. President, I do continue to have some questions about the implementation of the peace plan. While these concerns will not cause me to withdraw my support of the President's decision, they are serious. First, I would like to see a more precise rendering of the circumstances under which the implementation force will carry out or provide direct support for such civilian tasks as creating secure conditions for elections, assisting humanitarian missions, preventing interference with the movement of civilians, and mine clearing. General Shalikashvili and Secretary Christopher told the Foreign Relations Committee that the implementation force--or I-For--has the authority to engage in such activities but that this authority would be used rarely and at the discretion of local I-For commanders. I would hope that before the main body of troops are sent to Bosnia, we will have a better sense of the specific guidelines being given to local commanders about involving I-For in these activities. Otherwise, I fear that there may be an uneven enforcement of the peace plan, and more importantly, that we may see mission creep develop. Related to this issue is my concern that there be a strong and effective civilian program that will ensure that free and fair elections are held, refugees are resettled, and that reconstruction begins. Moreover, I hope that there will be tight coordination between the civilian and military aspects of the implementation program. Although I do not want to see I-For involved in the civilian aspects of the peace implementation, I do, after all, want to ensure that we achieve the maximum progress possible on the civilian side. Without such progress, the exit strategy for our troops becomes much more murky and problematic. If sufficient progress is not made on elections, refugees, reconstruction, and related matters by the time I-For does withdraw in a year's time, I fear that there will be backsliding on the military side and that United States troops will have done nothing more than preside over a year long cease fire. Finally, I hope that the administration will define more clearly how it hopes to achieve a military balance in Bosnia once I-For leaves. I do not think anyone would quibble with the goal of achieving a balance, but we need more details about how that is to come about, consistent with the Dayton Accords and U.N. Security Council Resolutions. To me, it is unfathomable that we would want to see more arms in that part of the world. Moreover, I am uneasy about any U.S. plans to arm and train one side--the Federation--while participating in an Implementation force which is supposed to be even-handed. One need only remember the ill-fated U.S. military involvement in Lebanon to be reminded of the danger of taking sides in such a situation. While it might ultimately make sense for the United States to coordinate such an effort, for U.S. citizens--be they military personnel or private contractors--to actually engage in arming and training may make our troops particular targets. To this end, I welcome President Clinton's assurance that providing arms and training to Federation forces will not be done by either I-For or U.S. military forces. Before our troops are sent to Bosnia, we should know definitively how we plan to proceed on this issue. Mr. President, Balkan history has been a source of my skepticism about sending troops to Bosnia. I have spent long years of service in Europe: first as a Coast Guard lieutenant based in Sicily during World War II, then as a Foreign Service officer in Prague, Bratislava, and Genoa as the Iron Curtain was drawn between East and West, and as an official with the International Rescue Committee working in Vienna with refugees fleeing Hungary's Communist regime. Because of my experience, I am deeply and personally conscious of how important Europe's freedom and stability is to the United States. I am also acutely aware of how fragile the current peace engulfing most of Europe is. If left unchecked, the Bosnian war could threaten the peace on the rest of the continent. The people of Bosnia have suffered untold misery and horrors. To them, the Dayton Agreement is long-awaited and good news. For us, the agreement offers an historic opportunity to end Europe's worst conflict since World War Two. We all hope it presages a lasting peace. That is why I believe we must support the President's call to participate, with our NATO allies, in an effort to stem the tide of war in Bosnia.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today, the Senate is undertaking the solemn task of the considering an amendment to our Nation's Constitution. Indeed, the proposed language we are considering would, according to the Supreme Court and numerous legal observers, amend the Bill of Rights, the very core of personal liberties and freedoms enshrined and protected in our national charter. The Congress has considered this issue before and while it has assented to statutorial protection of the flag, it rejected amending the Constitution for the same purpose, positions that I supported. I do so again today, believing that the our flag should be cherished and revered and find deliberated acts to desecrate it offensive. I also believe that the flag can be protected without infringing upon our first amendment guarantee of free expression. In the Congress' last attempt to do so our approach was rejected by the Supreme Court. I believe that this time, however, the more carefully constructed statutes protecting the integrity of the flag offered by Senators Biden and McConnell today stand a much better chance of passing constitutional muster and hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting them. However, when it comes to amending the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration, I simply believe that that approach goes too far. The principles enshrined by our Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights have not been altered in over 200 years and I cannot support the effort to do so here. Make no mistake: I love and respect the American flag and all that it symbolizes. Nevertheless, as I have often said, I simply believe that our flag will wave more proudly if as we seek to protect it, we also protect the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, I cannot support the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit flag descration.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I once more express reservations about the premise upon which we are proceeding in attempting to balance the budget in 7 years. I am mindful that both my party and the President have agreed to undertake this herculean task of reaching an accord where the difference between what the President has proposed and what the congressional majority seeks is pegged at some $730 billion in entitlement savings, discretionary spending levels, and tax cuts. While I fully support their determination to curb deficit spending, I remain skeptical of the specific objective they have set. With due respect for the Democratic leadership, I must express my continuing discomfort with the view that it is imperative that the Federal budget be balanced by a date certain. I have always believed, and continue to believe, that the Federal budget is not supposed to be in perpetual balance, but that as John Maynard Keynes wisely noted, it should remain a flexible instrument of national economic policy, registering a surplus in good times and engaging in stimulative spending in bad times. To insist on a balanced budget means requiring tax rates to be increased during a recession and outlays for such programs as help for the unemployed to be decreased. This is not a palatable solution, and it is one with which most economists would find fault. My views, I realize, are not widely held. Hence, I was most heartened to read the words of Robert Eisner, professor emeritus at Northwestern University and a past president of the American Economic Association in the Wall Street Journal of November 28. In an article entitled ``The Deficit Is Budget Battle's Red Herring,'' Professor Eisner states, and I most strongly concur, that balancing the budget is a ``brief armistice in a much larger war.'' What we are really engaged in is a fundamental disagreement about the role of Government in our lives. The real objective of the so-called revolution is the effective dismantlement of progressive government as we have come to know and benefit from for half a century. Federal spending on health care for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled is being drastically reduced. Cutbacks are contemplated in our investment in education, the environment, the arts and sciences, and foreign relations. These cuts typify the great differences in priorities and values which distinguish the opponents from the proponents of progressive government. And all of this occurs while we focus on that red herring, the balanced budget. Professor Eisner accepts the premise that government should provide activities and services that the private economy would not provide or would not provide adequately. And he recognizes that many of us believe that the programs developed over the last 50 years are ``indispensable both to stable economic growth and the social compact on which our economic system and our society depend.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Professor Eisner's article be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President. A month ago, the Senate chose to refer to the Senate Judiciary Committee a bill which would ban from use a medical procedure currently used to terminate late-term pregnancies. I supported that referral because it was unclear what all of the ramifications of such a ban were and the Senate deserved the opportunity to have a complete record upon which to make an informed decision regarding this complex and controversial issue. Today, we have that record before us. I thank the members of the committee for their thorough and detailed work in exploring this difficult matter and based on that record, I have come to the conclusion that I will oppose this legislation. I do so because I believe that the bill goes too far in its virtual ban of the use of this procedure, despite the fact that in many cases medical professionals believe that it is the safest means to terminate troubled and tragic late-term pregnancies. I believe that medical doctors, following the constitutional guidelines under which abortion is legal and following consultation with a woman and her family, should be able to choose the medical procedure he or she deems most appropriate to terminate a pregnancy without facing criminal or civil penalties. Indeed, criminalizing a medical procedure in the manner proposed in the bill would be the first such time we have done so in our country's history. I do not come to this position lightly. I, and I believe virtually all Americans, am disturbed with the harsh realities that this issue forces our human conscience to acknowledge. In the end, however, I believe that it is not the place of Congress to interject itself in this manner into the tragic personal decisions that women and families must face. I do believe it should be a rarely used procedure and in that regard have been informed that there is no recollection of it being used in my State of Rhode Island. Indeed, there are only a handful of practices throughout the country that utilize it and the total number of cases amount to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of total abortions. I also believe that the heightened scrutiny that this procedure has received will reduce those occasions when it is used inappropriately. In the end, however, I believe that it should remain an option available to doctors when they deem it medically necessary in order to terminate a pregnancy. By way of conclusion, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the New York Times written by a woman who went through this procedure. I believe it eloquently makes the case that it would be wrong to enact the outright ban contained in this bill for this procedure and, accordingly, that this option should remain available to women and families of this country.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today the Senate considered an amendment authored by my friends and colleagues, Senators Pryor and Chafee meant to clarify confusion that has resulted from the implementing legislation Congress wrote following approval of the GATT Treaty last year. Specifically, the issue involves when the patent terms on domestic pharmaceutical products expire and when generic companies can begin to market copies of those products to the general public. Since this issue has been brought to public attention, many contradictory charges have been levelled which have served to create a sense of confusion over whether or not certain entities are receiving unfair advantage over the other. Unclear are such issues as: What was the intent of our GATT negotiators, and did this intent change as the negotiations went on? What was the intent of Congress on this matter or, as the Federal courts have found, was there no intent expressed at all? How do our trading partners feel about our addressing this issue now, long after we approved the implementing legislation approving GATT? Who benefits and is that benefit justified or fair? The answers to these questions are not clear at present. And given the enormous stakes on both sides, I find that reaching a satisfactory conclusion difficult given the incomplete record. Moreover, this is not an abstract policy issue for me as a Senator from the State of Rhode Island, where Glaxo-Wellcome, one of the pharmaceutical companies with much at stake here, has a manufacturing facility. Prior to making a decision that could affect so many Rhode Islanders, I feel that a clear airing of the ramifications of this proposal is required. Given the assurances that these hearings will occur within 120 days, I feel confident that this issue will be addressed and when it does, we will have an adequate record on which to base our decisions. I do wish to note that by supporting the effort to refer this to the Judiciary Committee for hearings, I am not stating my opposition to the proposal per se. I will wait to come to the conclusion once the hearings have been completed and when the full weight of the proposal is more clear.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, I would just like to say how fortunate the United States is to have in its setting an individual with the manner, negotiating skill and tact, as that of the Senator from Massachusetts. He has carried the load in a wonderful way. I feel guilty not having shared it more. And his willingness to compromise is the essence of politics and the essence of progress. He and the Senator from North Carolina have conducted themselves ably. I would like to put in a word for the assistant of the Senator from Massachusetts, Nancy Stetson. By coincidence, she is from the State of Rhode Island.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the warm reception President Clinton received last week when he visited Ireland and the United Kingdom was a fitting tribute to his commitment to peace in Northern Ireland. President Clinton's involvement in the Northern Ireland issue helped bring about the paramilitary cease-fires of 1994 and he continues to impact positively on the efforts for peace there. On Friday evening, the Irish Government hosted a dinner for President and Mrs. Clinton at Dublin Castle. Irish Prime Minister John Bruton spoke of the President's foreign policy successes, especially his commitment to bringing peace to Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Bruton mentioned in particular United States diplomatic efforts and economic support, including the International Fund for Ireland and the Washington Conference on Investment which the President hosted in May in Washington. President Clinton commended the Taoiseach for work with Prime Minister Major which led to the recent announcement of the launch of the twin-track process. I commend to my colleagues the toasts given by the President and Taoiseach and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to note the extraordinary impact of design on community and product development. Many years ago I helped establish an Institute of Research and Design in Rhode Island. But to my regret, I was not able to get it properly launched. The organization was intended to help my State take advantage of the enormous economic benefits of new designs created by our citizens. Design impacts our economy, environment, education and social sphere. It is a strategic national resource with potential to improve the global competitiveness of U.S. products. Design is a tool to analyze problems, develop critical thinking and communicate solutions. It offers numerous opportunities for creative partnerships with government, manufacturing and technology industries, social and community planners, scientists and educators. As the following speech documents, all of us make design decisions in nearly every life activity. Because of the presence of the internationally-acclaimed Rhode Island School of Design [RISD], Rhode Island attracts a large number of people to the State to discuss design issues. Last March, RISD hosted a National Design Conference, sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, that explored the main challenges for design in the coming century and ways in which design strategy can be better employed to increase American economic competitiveness. In mid-November, the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies held its annual meeting in Providence where the professional and volunteer leadership of the Nation's State and jurisdictional arts agencies discussed the challenges of leadership in the changing environment of public support for the arts. NASAA devoted the better part of a day to discussions of design programming, and featured Roger Mandle, president of the Rhode Island School of Design since 1993, as a keynote speaker. An art historian, educator and current member of the National Council on the Arts who served as deputy director at the National Gallery of Art for 5 years following 11 years as director of the Toledo Museum of Art, President Mandle possesses a comprehensive perspective of the societal importance of arts and design. Rhode Island and the Nation as a whole have benefitted enormously from his work. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that this important address delivered by Roger Mandle be printed in the Record following my statement.