Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, yesterday, British Prime Minister Major and Irish Prime Minister Bruton took a significant step toward breaking the deadlock that had beset the Northern Ireland peace talks for the last several months. The two governments agreed to establish an international commission headed by former Senator George Mitchell which will make recommendations regarding decommissioning and to work to hold all party talks by the end of February 1996. Their announcement, on the eve of President Clinton's visit, revives the twin-track approach to achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. This is good news indeed. Both Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Bruton deserve a great deal of credit for moving the process along. The challenge now is to bring the various parties on board. All parties must recognize that it is in their interest to move forward. The situation in Northern Ireland today is completely different than it was just 16 months ago--prior to the cease-fire. There are, for example, fewer British soldiers occupying the streets of Belfast; no longer do Protestant and Catholic mothers have to worry that their sons and daughters will be struck down by terrorist violence; and both communities in Northern Ireland are beginning to focus their efforts on economic development rather than continued conflict. I am certain that President Clinton will reinforce this message--that the momentum needs to continue--during his visits to London, Belfast, Derry, and Dublin. The Clinton administration's unfailing support for the peace process has been a significant factor in getting us to this point. I am hopeful that his visit will contribute to the momentum. Finally, from a personal standpoint, I am particularly pleased that George Mitchell will head the international commission on the decommissioning question. I have a great deal of regard and respect for Senator Mitchell, and believe that he will bring a great deal of wisdom and creativity to this position. I can think of no better person for this important post.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last week, while the world's attention was focused on new hopes for peace in Bosnia, the Chinese Government formally arrested and charged its most famous dissident with sedition. Wei Jingsheng, who has been imprisoned without charge for the last 20 months, is known as the father of China's still-fragile democracy movement. Wei's formal arrest signals a renewed hardline approach on the part of the Chinese leadership to internal criticism of the Government. The timing of Wei's arrest is telling. It comes alongside China's push for entry into the World Trade Organization as a developing economy. The United States, joined by the European Union, Japan, and Canada, insists that China has a strong exporting economy that can meet the open-trade standards demanded of other member economies. China continues to reject this standard and argues that it is being excluded from the organization and isolated by the United States and the West. I strongly believe that we need to engage China and my reading of current United States policy is that we are doing so. The United States has no containment policy and we are not isolating China in any way. But if China wants the benefits of being an active member of the international community, it must accept the standards and play by the rules of that community. On human rights or on trade, China cannot expect to flagrantly violate international norms with impunity. United States criticism is not an attempt to isolate China, but the opposite; China's willingness to abide by international standards will make its acceptance into the international community all the easier. On trade, I commend the administration for continuing to insist that China meet the standards which are commensurate with its economic status. On human rights, I urge the administration to lead the West by working for a resolution censuring China's human rights abuses at the next annual meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. There has been growing world support for such a resolution in recent years as China's treatment of its own citizens and of Tibetans continues to fall far short of the criterion of the international community. Now is not the time to reduce our efforts to pass this resolution; Wei Jingsheng's arrest shows the necessity for continued international focus on China's behavior. China has urged the United States to overlook its human rights abuses and forgo working for a U.N. resolution, just as it has urged the United States to ignore its growing economy and allow its entry into the World Trade Organization using lower standards. In both cases, the U.S. response must be the same. If China wants to be respected as an important international actor, it must meet the expected behavior of one. If it wants the United States to stop criticizing its human rights practices, it must stop giving us reason to do so. Releasing Wei Jingsheng and other political prisoners would be an important first step.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I reluctantly opposed the Conference Report on the National Highway System Act, S. 440. Back in February, I was pleased to join as an original cosponsor of S.440 since it would designate a National Highway System [NHS] to improve the Nation's key roads, comprising some 159,000 miles. The tenets of this bill were exemplary. In addition to providing some $6 billion in highway funding to the States, S. 440 was intended to improve safety through our highway system, as well as increase mobility and economic productivity. As for my State of Rhode Island, this measure would bring more than $31 million in Federal highway funding to help upgrade 267 miles of key roadways, including all 70 miles of interstate highways. When the Senate debated S. 440 earlier this summer, I was pleased to strongly support the amendment offered by my colleagues from Delaware which would have enabled States to provide a small portion of their funds to assist passenger rail services. I am disturbed that that amendment, which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate by a 64-36 margin, did not emerge from the Conference Committee. I am also deeply disturbed, Mr. President, by the fact that the Senate provision to require a national maximum speed limit for trucks and buses was also dropped from the conference report. As an original cosponsor of S. 440, I am further disturbed that the final version which emerged from conference repeals Federal regulations on motorcycle helmet laws, while also allowing States to erect new billboards on scenic highways. Mr. President, I am aware that this was an exceptionally contentious conference with the House and do not in any way criticize the actions of my Senate colleagues. Indeed, Senators Chafee and Warner, longtime champions of highway safety provisions, fought hard to negotiate a fair compromise between the two divergent bills. I commend them for their tenacity and huge efforts to craft a good bill which would enhance our safety standards. I fully recognize the overall importance of this bill and the need to get the necessary funding back to the States. However, given the substantive changes that occurred in conference, my earlier enthusiasm has waned as my concern about safety provisions increased. Mr. President, my preference would have been for a leaner, cleaner NHS bill, something we in this Chamber supported with vigor. I am certain that we will attempt again to deal with the issues important to the Senate such as the Amtrak trust fund, speed limits on trucks and buses, and other motor vehicular safety laws. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record prior to the vote on S. 440.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Last week, the National Goals Panel issued an extensive report on the progress American schools are making towards meeting the national goals. That report was a mixed one. We have made gains in areas such as mathematics achievement and making sure that our children enter school ready to learn. In other areas, such as reading achievement and teacher preparation, we are only holding our own. And in some areas, most notably safe and drug free schools, our problems appear to be growing. In my opinion, there is a clear conclusion we can draw from this report. This is not the time to either relax or diminish the small, but critical Federal role in education. Quite to the contrary, it is time to strengthen our commitment if we are to sustain the gains we have made, move off of dead center in other areas, and reverse the decline in still others. Most clearly, this is not the time to have the largest education cut in our history. It is not the time to risk a 30-percent cut in Federal education spending over the next 7 years. It is not the time to freeze the title I program and halt progress in basic skills achievement. It is not the time to cut spending on education reform. And, it is definitely not the time to reduce our commitment to safe and drug free schools. With respect to higher education, I believe deeply that we should not put our student aid programs at risk. Yet, that is precisely what the Republican budget does. If we cut education by more than 30 percent over the next 7 years, it is clear that every education program will be in harm's way. We have already engaged in a hard-fought battle to protect students and their families from cuts in the guaranteed student loan program, and I am pleased that in large part, we have been successful. While I had reservations about the Direct Loan Program when it was originally proposed, I am encouraged by how well the program has operated [[Page S 17259]] in its initial stages. Students are getting their loans more quickly and with less problems. The competition between direct lending and the regular guaranteed loan programs has also produced dramatic improvements in the private sector program. Because of this, I believe it unwise to move back and place a 10 percent cap on direct lending. This would mean that between two-thirds and three-fourths of current direct lending schools would be dropped from the program, and to my mind, that would be most unfortunate. I also fear that we will face difficult battles with respect to our other student aid programs, and that Pell grants, supplemental grants, Perkins loans, college work study, and the TRIO programs could well be placed on the chopping block. Mr. President, education is a capital investment in our future. The climb up the economic ladder for American after American is directly related to their level of educational achievement. Every study we know shows a correlation between an educational attainment and an increase in income. If we pull back on education, we pull back on the American people. That is not the direction in which we should be moving. I agree wholeheartedly with President Clinton when he says that, today, we face both a budget deficit and an education deficit, and that both must be addressed. I favor reducing the budget deficit. I do not favor doing it on the backs of senior citizens, the unfortunate in our society, our children who need a good, solid general education, or our students and families who are already hard-pressed to make ends meet in paying for a college education. In my view, one of the best ways we can reduce the budget deficit is through a strong and vibrant economy driven by a well-educated, well- trained work force. It is time that we increased our investment in education. It is not a time for retreat. Mr. President, it is time to calm the shrill voices of partisanship that have echoed through our Chamber. It is time to move away from the abyss of brinkmanship. It is time for all parties to come together, and to fashion a budget that enjoys wide bipartisan support. For comity to be practiced. And most of all, it is time that we got on with governing in a way that the American people can respect. student loan provision Mr. President, I want to call to my colleagues' attention and call into question an important student loan provision included in the budget reconciliation conference agreement reached by the majority without the involvement of the minority. This provision with which I am concerned requires State guaranty agencies to use 50 percent of their reserves to purchase defaulted loans. Once purchased, the agency has 180 days before it can submit claims for reimbursement. The idea is that this will allow additional time to bring defaulters into repayment, thus decreasing the total amount of claims for reimbursement. There are at least two problems with this provision. First, it appears to assume that these reserves are the property of the State guaranty agency and not the Federal Government. If that is the case, we may well be relinquishing any claim for almost $1 billion in outstanding and quite possibly excess reserves that are Federal property and could be returned to the Federal Government to produce savings in the guaranteed student loan program. If we assume they are not the property of the State guaranty agency, then we are simply permitting Federal funds to be used to purchase defaulted loans guaranteed by the Federal Government in the first place. If this is the case, we will be engaging in a shell game that produces illusory savings. Second, the provision allows defaulted loans that are purchased with these funds to be considered reserves. This diminishes the required reserve ratio, also reduced in this legislation, used to help determine whether or not an agency is strong and solvent. It would quite possibly allow an otherwise bankrupt agency to use defaulted loans as assets to meet the decreased reserve ratio. To my mind, this is not good public policy. Further, in my view, it is difficult, under any circumstance, to see how a defaulted loan can be construed as an asset. This is potentially bad paper. We may never be able to collect the debt, and yet under this provision, Federal law would decree that a defaulted loan, a debt, is an asset. Requiring agencies to purchase defaulted loans with reserves that may or may not be their property is a roll of the dice. They may well be bad investments with minimal chance of collection. To say that they should be considered assets is, to my mind, very unwise. And, to take the chance that they also take reserves out of the reach of the Federal Government is equally imprudent. Also, I am concerned that during the 180-day period that State guaranty agencies hold the defaulted loans, the Federal Government may well continue to pay special allowance and other interest payments on these loans. I wonder whether or not this produces an unwarranted windfall for these agencies by giving them income on a defaulted loan. Finally, I would point out that had we had the opportunity to be involved in the budget reconciliation negotiations between the House and Senate, this would have been pointed out at the staff level. Unfortunately, for the first time in seven reconciliation and budget reduction conferences involving the guaranteed student loan program, the minority was not permitted to come to the table and make its case. This is an unfortunate departure from the bipartisanship that has been the traditional practice in education, and in this instance, I am afraid it has resulted in a highly questionable provision. submitting changes to the budget resolution revenue allocations

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, from October 23 to November 3, 1995, the United States was host to an intergovernmental conference convened under the auspices of the U.N. Environment Programme to adopt a Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution. My colleagues know that I have long had a strong interest in the protection of the environment, and in particular of our oceans. In fact, in 1973, legislation was enacted that I introduced to create the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. I was pleased that the Congress and the President agreed with my strong feeling that increased cooperation with respect to the protection of our oceans be given greater focus and visibility at the State Department. As far back as 1977 I introduced a resolution that required countries to conduct environmental impact assessments before carrying out activities that might impact the environment of another country or of a global commons area. The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) was to be the recipient of these impact assessments and in July 1995, I introduced Resolution 154 calling on other nations to adopt a similar approach. UNEP has retained its key role in the protection of the environment worldwide and the Washington Conference on Marine Pollution was but the latest example of its ongoing efforts to encourage all countries to cooperate in the protection of the environment. This Conference was convened as a result of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. It recognized the fact that more than 80 percent of marine pollution originates from terrestrial sources and its aim was to ensure that all the Parties would coordinate their efforts in trying to reduce such sources of pollution. The two outcomes of the Conference were the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment form Land-Based Activities, adopted at the end of the Conference, and the Washington Declaration, which was adopted by its high-level segment. Both the Programme of Action and the Declaration complement the legal regime set up by the Law of the Sea Convention which was signed by President Clinton and is still pending before the Committee on Foreign Relations. I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to an article published in the Washington Post on November 4, 1995, which highlights the risks now weighing on our oceans and the need to take urgent action. I ask unanimous consent that this article be included in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have always been a very strong supporter of the Law of the Sea Convention because it sets up a new Constitution for the Oceans and because it is the perfect tool to put an end to such destructive measures as ocean dumping and other forms of direct pollution. In that respect, the Law of the Sea addresses the marine sources of oceans pollution. The Washington Conference aimed to [[Page S 17199]] complement this approach by addressing the impact of terrestrial, and indirect, sources of marine pollution. The Programme of Action adopted by the Conference contains a series of practical steps that governments can adopt, while the Washington Declaration provides us with a framework to further our international cooperation. At the national level, countries can, and should, restrict negative impacts by better and stronger regulation of sewage discharges and by controlling the production and use of pesticides, fertilizers and other persistent organic pollutants that are known to cause considerable damage to marine life. At the international level, cooperation needs to be increased, with a view to imposing more stringent controls on the most dangerous of substances, such as DDT, PCBs, and other persistent organic pollutants. The Washington Declaration recognizes this by calling for the development of a global legally binding instrument for the reduction or elimination of persistent organic pollutants. At this stage, it is still unclear what form such a treaty should and will take, but it is of the utmost importance that the United States become an active participant in these negotiations. By definition, marine pollution is a global problem, and while it cannot be solved by individual nations, we all have a responsibility to cooperate in attempting to save our oceans. The United States has always been at the forefront of similar efforts in the past and we cannot shrink from our responsibilities in these times of crisis. The Law of the Sea Convention and the Washington Programme of Action are the two vital instruments through which we can finally put an end to the excessive pollution of our oceans. This is a chance for the United States to prove that it really intends to address and solve the very important issue of marine pollution by ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention, by implementing the Programme of Action in earnest, and by becoming a leader in the negotiations of a treaty on the regulation of persistent organic pollutants. Exhibit 1 Experts Seek Global Treaty On Toxic Ocean Pollutants (By Gary Lee) Alarmed by rising levels of pollution in the world's oceans, a conference of environmental experts from 102 countries yesterday called for new global controls on the use of DDT and 11 other toxic chemicals that are often discharged into waterways. The Washington gathering, sponsored by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), urged industrial and developing countries to negotiate a global treaty restricting the spread of a dozen persistent organic pollutants, a group of industrially produced chemicals that frequently wind up in oceans and other water supplies. Participants in the two-week meeting, which ended yesterday, approved a program of action that included the call for a treaty. Persistent organic pollutants were targeted for more stringent international regulation because they are highly toxic, remain in the environment for long periods and can spread thousands of miles from the point of emission, conference delegates said. After accumulating in fish and other marine mammals, such chemicals work their way through the food chain and may eventually be consumed by people. They can cause severe health problems, said Clif Curtis, an adviser to the international environmental organization Greenpeace. Studies have linked some of the compounds to cancer, neurological damage and defects of the reproductive system and immune system in various animals, including humans. Creatures occupying positions near the top of the food chain--such as fish that eat smaller fish, marine mammals, seabirds and humans--are at greater risk of such effects because more of the toxic substances accumulate in their tissues. Greenpeace advocates a worldwide ban on the production and use of persistent organic pollutants. The campaign for new restrictions on the chemicals is part of a growing movement to save the oceans, considered by many environmentalists to be the world's last under-regulated biological frontier, from further degradation. ``The oceans of the world are interdependent,'' Vice President Gore told the gathering in a speech this week. ``The only way to stop the degradation of marine environment from land-based activities is to share the solutions.'' ``If we're going to take the cleanup of the oceans seriously, [persistent organic pollutants] must be banned,'' said Salef Diop, an adviser to the Senegalese environment ministry and delegate to the conference. While the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty and other international agreements regulate ocean dumping and other forms of direct pollution, the UNEP conference focused on restricting land-based activities that indirectly contribute to the pollution of oceans--such as the use of organic pesticides that are washed into rivers and end up in the ocean. The conference pointed out in its recommendations that individual countries can help fight ocean pollution through national policies, such as the reduction of sewage discharges and control of pollution from nonpoint sources like farmland. Land-based activities are responsible for 80 percent of ocean pollution, according to Magnus Johannesson, a senior environmental official from Iceland. The substances pinpointed by the conference as requiring more stringent controls include the pesticides DDT, toxaphene, chlordane, heptachlor, endrin, aldrin, mirex and dieldrin, as well as byproducts of industrial combustion such as dioxins, furans, hexachlorobenzene and the group of chlorinated substances known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Although dozens of other chemicals pose a threat to oceans, these 12 are most widely used and most toxic, according to environmentalists. After controls are in place, others could be added to the list if scientific consensus indicates that they are harmful to marine life, conference delegates said. The U.S. has already moved to ban the use or spread of many of the compounds, but at least two--chlordane and heptachlor--are still produced by American companies for export abroad, Clinton administration officials said. Although banned in the United States in 1972, DDT is still widely used in India and some other developing countries to protect crops against insects. Heptachlor and toxaphene are also used heavily in some countries. Safer alternatives exist, but some research will be needed to determine whether they can be substituted cost-effectively in those countries that still rely on chemicals that end up as persistent organic pollutants, conference delegates said.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last Friday, amid the strong protests of the American and British Governments and countless human rights organizations, the Nigerian Government executed Ken Saro-Wiwa, a noted author, environmentalist and human rights activist, and eight of his colleagues. I must say that these executions represent a flagrant violation of human rights and I am outraged. These executions reflect the refusal of the brutal regime of General Abacha in Nigeria to abide by the most basic international norms. Moreover, such actions deserve a swift and harsh response from the U.S. Government. Since seizing power in a military coup in June 1993, General Abacha has systematically eliminated any perceived rival by intimidation, lifelong imprisonment and most appallingly, by means of execution. Mr. Saro-Wiwa and his eight colleagues now join the ranks of Nigerians whom the Abacha government has successfully silenced. Despite these brutal deaths, I am confident that the causes for which these leaders died cannot, nor will not, be destroyed. Ken Saro-Wiwa spent much of his life fighting against the military government and the rampant pollution of the land and water in his home, Ogoniland, caused by unregulated oil production. Threatened by his persistent and popular campaign, the Nigerian Government charged Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues for the murder of four pro-government activists. The State Department and human rights groups report that Mr. Saro-Wiwa was nowhere near the murder scene and was denied a fair chance to defend himself. Further, there is evidence that witnesses were paid to testify against Mr. Saro-Wiwa. Topped with a military tribunal appointed to try the case, Ken Saro-Wiwa never had a chance. Mr. President, Nigeria is a critically important country for United States interests in Africa. Nigeria has made significant contributions in the course of regional and international affairs, such as its involvement in restoring peace in Liberia, in resolving the regional drug issue, and last year's commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment for General Obasanjo and other alleged coup plotters. This latest action, however, undermines international and American confidence in General Abacha's announced transition to democracy. The impact of Nigeria's problems, inflicted primarily by the Abachan regime, threatens to extend throughout West Africa, harming the political and economic prospects of its neighbors. General Abacha's refusal to heed the calls of the international community, including those made from these chambers, [[Page S 17200]] demonstrates his unwillingness to engage in quiet diplomacy. Humane principles and a commitment to democratic ideals compel us to respond forcefully to the Abachan regime. While the Clinton administration has called on the United Nations to consider an embargo on sales of military equipment to Nigeria, Congress should consider taking the lead in identifying and enacting strong measures that hurt the Abachan regime. Mr. President, I would like to conclude with reiterating my outrage at General Abacha and his regime's complete disregard for basic human rights and international legal standards. I believe that relations between our two countries cannot be normalized until the appalling abuse of human rights, especially toward the Ogoni people and their leaders, comes to an end.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, like most of my colleagues, I am deeply distressed and, indeed, saddened that the legislative and executive branches of our Federal Government have reached an impasse over the future funding of Federal activity, as embodied in the continuing resolution for the current fiscal year and in the temporary debt limit extension bill, with the debate over the long-term budget reconciliation bill still to come. While it is not surprising that we should arrive at this point-- considering the differences in philosophy which are at stake--it does seem to me that deadlock could have been avoided, and still can be, if only more respect can be granted to the traditional norms of behavior that are the underpinning of our democratic system. Comity and civility, transcending differences of party and ideology, have always been crucial elements in making government an effective and constructive instrument of public will. In times such as these, when the pendulum of history seems to be reversing its swing and when there is so much fundamental disagreement about the role of government, it is all the more essential that we preserve the spirit of civil discourse. Last year, before retiring from the Senate to become president of the University of Oklahoma, David Boren sent a letter to his colleagues lamenting the fact that ``we have become so partisan and so personal in our attacks upon each other that we can no longer effectively work together in the national interest.'' It was a thoughtful warning that has meaning far beyond the U.S. Senate. The fact is that the democratic process depends on respectful disagreement. As soon as we confuse civil debate with reckless disparagement, we have crippled the process. A breakdown of civility reinforces extremism and discourages the hard process of negotiating across party lines to reach a broad-based consensus. The Founding Fathers who prescribed the ground rules for debate in Congress certainly had all these considerations in mind. We address each other in the third person with what seems like elaborate courtesy. The purpose, of course, is to remind us constantly that whatever the depth of our disagreements, we are all common instruments of the democratic process. That process is not well served by spin doctors and sound bytes. Nor is it well served by blustering assertions of no compromise. This certainly should be kept in mind with respect to the current dispute over the continuing resolution. This legislation is necessitated by the failure of this Congress to enact appropriation bills in a timely fashion, and President Clinton has every right to insist that a temporary continuation of spending authority come to him unencumbered by an extraneous policy matter. Whatever the level of future Medicare premiums is to be, it should be determined by reasoned debate and [[Page S 17032]] not be set by the forced process of a take-it-or-leave-it add-on to a continuing resolution. Similarly, with respect to the debt limit extension, no amount of partisan oneupmanship is worth the cost of bringing the credit rating of the U.S. Government to the brink of world-wide doubt and disrepute. The way to curb future borrowing is through reduction of deficits, which we are all committed to accomplishing. But in the meantime, the United States must honor its commitments, and it seems to me highly irresponsible to attach any conditions to an extension that would limit the Government's ability to do so. It does seem to me, Mr. President, that there are the makings of negotiated agreement on these issues, and on the larger issues that face us in the reconciliation bill, if only we can return to the basic ground-rules of civil discourse and reasoned deliberation. President Clinton for his part has long since indicated his commitment to the goal of a balanced budget. So the differences between the two sides are differences of degree--quantitative questions of how many dollars will be cut over what span of years--which certainly are susceptible to compromise. Edmund Burke, the eloquent British statesman whose 18th century comments are so often relevant to democratic government today, once said that ``All government is founded on compromise and barter.'' Those words have meaning for us all today, including those who feel they have a mandate for radical change. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, finally, there is good news from former Yugoslavia. On Sunday in Croatia, Croatian leaders and rebel Serbs signed an agreement ending the territorial conflict over Eastern Slavonia, the last part of Croatia still occupied by Serbs. As late as last week, Croatian Government officials, including President Tudjman, were threatening to retake the territory by force. I am pleased that Croatia has recognized the folly of carrying out those threats, and has opted instead for a diplomatic solution. There are still serious questions about this agreement that need to be answered. For example: Who will participate in the transitional administration to be established by the United Nations to govern the region? Will there be separate military and civilian administrations? How does this agreement relate to the continuing negotiations on Bosnia? What, if anything, does Serbia get in return for its agreeing to this accord? Despite these and other questions, this much is clear: The agreement will avert a military confrontation between Croatia and Serbia over Eastern Slavonia, and together with last week's agreement on the Federation, offer needed momentum to the Dayton negotiations. Our Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith and U.N. Envoy Thorvald [[Page S 17012]] Stoltenberg deserve a great deal of credit for their work in bringing the parties to and keeping them at the table.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, 30 years ago today, president Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Higher Education Act. We should not let this anniversary pass without recognizing the profound effect this act has had in opening the doors of higher education for millions of deserving Americans who otherwise would have found a college education beyond their financial reach. I have said many times that education is a capital investment. No piece of Federal legislation is more compelling evidence of the benefit of that investment than is the Higher Education Act. Every study we know demonstrates that an individual's climb up the economic ladder is directly related to the amount of education he or she receives. Without question, the opportunities provided because of the higher Education Act and its reauthorizations over the past 30 years demonstrate not only the importance of this investment but also the gains we have made because of this act. It is through the Higher Education Act that vital programs such as guaranteed student loans, aid to developing colleges, and educational opportunity grants have developed into the critical initiatives that they are today. It was within the context of this legislation that we developed the Pell grant program, which combined with the guaranteed loan program, has become far and away the largest source of aid for low- and middle-income students. Today, Federal student aid constitutes more than 75 percent of all aid available to students to pay for a college education. Over the years, it is unquestionable that without Federal student aid, literally millions of American students would have been unable to attain a college degree and to pursue productive, meaningful careers that otherwise would have been beyond their reach. I am honored to have been here when this act began, and to have strongly supported its establishment. Through my work on the Education Subcommittee, I am honored to have played a part in refining it over the years. And I am especially honored to be here today to acknowledge its very significant achievements.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in recent weeks, there has been much press attention given to a heretofore obscure procedure used to terminate late-term pregnancies. With this attention has come substantial public distress and alarm regarding the nature of this procedure, a discomfort that indeed, I share and understand. I must certainly agree that the procedure, as described by the proponents of the pending legislation, is repugnant on its face and one that is hopefully resorted to in only the rarest circumstances. But today as the Senate considers legislation to ban the use of this procedure, we must make sure that our deliberations are thoughtful, reasoned, and considered. It is very unfortunate that we are here debating this bill without having the benefit of the normal, established procedure of committee referral, hearings, and review from which a comprehensive record would have evolved detailing the pros and cons of the many complex and controversial issues at stake. This is particularly troubling because the issue at hand is so divisive and charged with emotion that, absent a thorough airing of the issues involved, it would be all too easy to retreat to a position on doctrinaire certitude and defiantly declare normal victory regardless of whether or not it is appropriate public policy. The Senate has a long and established tradition of careful deliberation precisely because of its rules and procedures for legislating such difficult issues with thorough and adequate review. It is only rarely that we circumvent those procedures and then [[Page S 16790]] only when the matters are noncontroversial and relatively noncomplex. Here, the bill was introduced and not referred to any Senate committee. Consequently, no hearings have been held in the Senate despite a myriad of questions that need to be answered about the bill's provisions. These include: What are the alternatives? What are the ramifications for other abortion procedures as a consequence of the current vague definitions in the bill? Is it wise or desirable to create a Federal criminal statute governing medical procedures? I believe that it would be premature to attempt to come to a conclusion about whether to support or oppose this legislation without having the answers to these and other troubling questions. Therefore, I intend to support the motion to refer this legislation to the Judiciary Committee where I hope it will be thoroughly reviewed and made the subject of public hearings to discuss the issues involved. At that point, the Senate will have a much more adequate record than it does now upon which it can make the reasoned, careful decision that is incumbent upon us as elected representatives to make.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today I wish to pay my respects to a man who will be remembered as one of history's giants. I know that all of us in the Senate--indeed, throughout the Nation-- were shocked and saddened by the news of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Having just returned from accompanying President Clinton to the Prime Minister's funeral, I can also bear witness to the devastating, emotional impact of the assassination on the fabric--indeed, on every fiber--of Israel's society. Yesterday, the Senate passed a resolution paying tribute to Prime Minister Rabin's legacy and expressing support for the people of Israel and the government of acting-Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Those are fine and appropriate sentiments, and I was pleased to cosponsor the resolution. It is indeed proper for the Senate to act quickly to reaffirm its unique and unwavering commitment to the State of Israel. Yet in a certain sense, the words in the resolution we passed yesterday could never do justice to the rich, complicated, and ultimately heroic life of Yitzhak Rabin. Prime Minister Rabin did not inspire love as much as confidence. Even if they disagreed with him, his countrymen could be assured of his commitment to their safety and security. To me, the grieving Israelis, whose pictures we have seen on television and in the papers, are probably not moved entirely by sentiments and emotions--although that is surely part of it. But I think the real reason they seem so fragile is because they have lost their anchor, and as a result are uncertain of their world. It is a measure of Rabin's greatness that his passing could have so profound an impact. Prime Minister Rabin was the quintessential soldier--his thinking strategic, his analysis solid and calculating, his style terse, and his authority unquestioned. These qualities, which served him so well on the battlefield, were also the distinguishing characteristics of his political career. Although the ends he pursued seemed contradictory-- decisive military victory on the one hand, peaceful coexistence on the other--the means by which he pursued them never changed. He brought to the peace table the same dogged determination, the same self-confidence that he possessed in the war room. One of the quirks of world politics is that revolutionary change often springs from the most unexpected sources. The political pundits of the 1970's, for instance, would never have guessed that President Nixon would be the first to visit China. A decade later, [[Page S 16728]] no one could have predicted that President Reagan would be the one to sign far-reaching arms control agreements with the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union. By the same token, it was equally improbable that Rabin, who arguably was more concerned with the security of Israel than many of his compatriots, would take such unprecedented risks for peace. It defies expectation even more that this gruff soldier-turned-statesman could speak so ardently and passionately in defense of his decisions. I think that many amongst us will always associate Prime Minister Rabin with his historic appearance on the White House lawn in September 1993, when he shook Yasir Arafat's hand in full view of the world. I well remember that sun-spilled morning, a day full of hope and promise. Some moments in history are so dramatic, so full of vitality, that they will never fade. Such was that day. For me, the defining moment came when Prime Minister Rabin uttered the unforgettable words I now shall quote: We are destined to live together on the same soil in the same land. We, the soldiers who have returned from battles stained with blood; we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our eyes; we who have attended their funerals and cannot look into the eyes of their parents; we who have come from a land where parents bury their children; we who have fought against you, the Palestinians, we say to you today in a loud and a clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough! Those, Mr. President, are not the words of a warrior, but of a poet. I do not know if there is more unlikely an author for such stirring prose than Prime Minister Rabin, but it serves to remind us of the depth of his character, the multifaceted nature of his personality. The complexities that so were evident in Rabin go to the very heart of leadership. In every democracy, there often emerges a struggle between the will of the people and the best instincts of their representatives. Prime Minister Rabin's decisions on the peace process were not always popular or well-received, but he was able to move his country in a new direction because of the strength and courage of his convictions. He came to believe as relentlessly in peace as he did in military strength, and brought a reluctant nation along with him. That, Mr. President, is the essence of leadership. The United States has lost a trusted and valued friend, and Israel has lost one of its fiercest, and most noble lions. While nothing has changed that is fundamental between us, our two countries will never look at each other quite the same. That will be the result of having lost, in such a sudden and unthinkable way, one such as Prime Minister Rabin. Our Nation mourns his loss, and grieves with his family and friends. Soldier, diplomat, leader, a peacemaker, Nobel laureate--to be successful at any one of these is more than enough for a rich and fulfilling life. Prime Minister Rabin excelled at all of them, and for that, history will forever remember and revere him.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today I wish to address an issue which holds great significance for the international world order. The subject is the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, a body which can contribute greatly to the reconciliation of the parties to this brutal conflict. As a guarantor of respect for the rule of law and for the protection of human rights, this tribunal supports the principles upon which any lasting peace must be founded. As the peace negotiations among the Bosnian Serbs, Croats, and Moslems begin tomorrow in Dayton, OH, today is an opportune time to reaffirm that the work of the tribunal is a separate but equally important step in the effort to rebuild civil society in the region. No matter the outcome of this round of negotiations, the work of the War Crimes Tribunal must go forward with strong U.S. support. Mr. President, over the last few days, we have been horrified by a series of front page stories and photos of the terrible atrocities that have occurred in Bosnia. These press reports indicate that United States intelligence has been instrumental in locating mass graves in Bosnia. Those revelations, when paired with refugee accounts of the terrifying trek from Srebrenica to Central Bosnia, suggest that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Moslem men and boys were murdered by the Bosnian Serbs. The United States should place a high priority on collecting information related to these atrocities and on making all evidence available to the War Crimes Tribunal. Just as the tribunals at Nuremberg punished the aggressors and facilitated the reconciliation efforts after World War II, so too must this War Crimes Tribunal redress the horrors that have occurred in Bosnia. I am proud to say that my father, the late Herbert C. Pell, a former Congressman from New York City, was President Franklin Roosevelt's representative on the U.N. War Crimes Commission that laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Nuremberg tribunal. Today, we must support this new tribunal to ensure that the injustices of the war in Bosnia are corrected. The objectives of the tribunal are threefold: To deter further crimes by the war parties, to punish those responsible for war crimes, and to ensure justice during and after the process of reconciliation and reconstruction of Bosnia. Through the public identification, trial, and conviction of war criminals, the international community hopes to contribute to the peace process by demonstrating the strength and effectiveness of international human rights law. The U.N. Security Council created the tribunal in May of 1993, and the court convened for the first time in November of that year. Yet the progress of the tribunal has been slow. While 42 Serbs and one Croat have been indicated by the tribunal, only one person is actually in custody. The difficulties of taking defendants into custody are manifold, but this is not the only reason for the lack of progress. The biggest obstacle facing the tribunal is funding. Recently, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali placed restrictions on the work of many U.N. agencies--including the tribunal--to avoid a financial crisis in the United Nations. These fiscal restraints have seriously affected the tribunal by freezing the revenues needed to fund its work. Unfortunately, much of the responsibility for the U.N.'s debt can be laid at our own door. Throughout my tenure as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I consistently argued against the mounting American debt to the United Nations that today has reached $1.2 billion. Today, despite significant efforts on the part of the U.N. Secretariat to meet American demands for reforming its bureaucracy, Congress is again voting for cuts in funding for the United Nations and its agencies. A serious consequence for the tribunal of this loss of funding is the postponement announced last week of the only trial actually scheduled on the court's docket. Lawyers for Dusan Tadic, who is current the sole defendant in custody at The Hague, have requested and received a postponement of the trial until next year because of a lack of resources needed to prepare an adequate defense. Justice Richard Goldston, the chief prosecutor for the tribunal, has warned that the court will be unable to guarantee the accused's right to a fair and speedy trial without the appropriate resources. In addition, the tribunal has already been unable to send investigators into the field or to recruit lawyers and other personnel. Clearly, under the current financial crisis, the principles of the tribunal could be compromised. Therefore, Mr. President, I believe that the United States should continue to offer financial and political support for the War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Last year, I supported Senator Leahy's amendment to the 1995 foreign operations appropriations bill that offered $25 million in goods and commodities to the United Nations for its efforts to investigate war crimes. Our contributions have been deeply appreciated and well used by the tribunal in its work. I would urge my colleagues to continue this type of support and demonstrate our firm commitment to international human rights law. As the world waits for the results of the negotiations in Ohio this week, let us remember that the work of the International War Crimes Tribunal is of equal significance in the reconstruction of the State of Bosnia. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am informed that there will be a Republican objection to the unanimous-consent request regarding the short-term extension of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, also known as MEPFA. MEPFA was enacted by the Congress in 1994, to give the President much-needed flexibility to help Israel and the Palestinians implement their historic peace treaty. Under the terms of MEPFA, the President can waive certain restrictions against the PLO. In essence, this means the President can provide assistance to the Palestinians, and the PLO can operate an office in the United States. MEPFA is a vital component of American support for the peace process--both practically and symbolically. On a practical level, U.S. assistance for the Palestinians has helped the fledgling Palestinian Authority to get off the dime and provide desperately needed services to the people of the West Bank and Gaza. Both Israeli and Palestinian officials agree that if their peace agreement is to succeed, there must be a dramatic improvement in the everyday lives of the Palestinian people. They must be aware of the fruits of peace. U.S. assistance, much of which is channeled through the World Bank's fund for the Palestinians, has helped the donor community secure additional funding from other sources. With the United States leading by example, other nations have come forth with significant donations to help the Palestinians. The United States has also used MEPFA to influence the Palestinian leadership to move in certain directions. MEPFA guarantees that our aid be transferred only if the Palestinians are complying with the letter and spirit of their peace agreements with Israel. Using our assistance as leverage, the United States has been able to ensure that the Palestinians stand by their word on critical issues such as preventing terrorism against Israel. Israel's leaders have said that the Palestinians are doing much better when it comes to preventing terrorism, a fact which United States officials confirm. And that, in my view, is the bottom line for the success of the Israel-PLO peace treaty. If the PLO prevents acts of terrorism, then Israelis will feel more secure, more comfortable with the peace agreement. Only then will Israelis and Palestinians establish a truly lasting peace. On a symbolic level, MEPFA is a very powerful instrument. MEPFA symbolizes the U.S. commitment to be the honest broker of the peace process. MEPFA is a signal to the Palestinians--and indeed to the rest of the world--that the United States is willing to suspend its laws against the PLO to give peace a real chance. In a certain sense, it resembles the dictum put forth during the Reagan administration regarding the former Soviet Union--``trust, but verify.'' In effect, we have said to the Palestinians we will trust them to fulfill their agreements, and that they will receive our blessing as long as they remain faithful. The objection lodged earlier today puts all of that at risk. Our Republican colleagues are endangering the Middle East peace process by refusing to allow a brief, short-term extension of current laws. At a time when our traditional ally, Israel, is taking enormous risks for peace, the objection sends just the wrong signal. The objection says that some of us are unwilling to support our best friend in the Middle East, at the very time it needs us the most. It is even more perplexing to realize that the Senate has already debated, and for all intents and purposes, resolved the substance of this issue. The Senate passed a long-term extension of MEPFA as part of the foreign operations bill, and this short-term extension is only necessary to get us to the point where the foreign ops bill becomes law. Under these circumstances, its hard to imagine that the objection raised goes directly to the merits of the bill. I would hope that the points I have made would help to convince my colleagues of the importance of acting on this measure today, and if possible, immediately. It troubles me that there is a willingness among some of my colleagues to jeopardize the Middle East peace process. I would hope on an issue of such critical importance to our Nation's security, we could put aside differences and deal directly with the matter at hand. I am very concerned that we are running out of time--MEPFA expires at midnight tonight, and the House could go into recess early this evening. I hope very much that we can resolve this issue quickly, but if we cannot, there should be no doubt about the consequences and about where the responsibility lies. I am ready to pass this short-term extension here and now, and in all sincerety, I would ask anyone with an objection to come to the floor so that we might reach an agreement.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kerry], and the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. Sarbanes], for their remarks and their thoughts. I absolutely agree it is inappropriate to link MEPFA to the State Department legislation. I do not recall in the years I have been in the Senate, 35, or as chairman of the committee, any similar action being taken.

Mr. PELL. I think it was 1964.

Mr. PELL. Correct.

Mr. PELL. No, and that is the point that bothers me.

Mr. PELL. I think we should deal with the question of the extension of MEPFA on its merits and the merits clearly lie with the quick passage of the short-term extension. We should not, as Senator Kerry noted, trifle with the peace process for the sake of reorganizing our bureaucracy. We should pass MEPFA now with no linkage. In this regard, I am particularly struck by the words of the Senator from Maryland. I know I am correct in saying I am the only former Foreign Service officer in the Senate. Because the Foreign Service was only created in 1926 under the Rogers Act, I think I am the only Foreign Service officer ever to have served in the Senate. I would also point out this linkage that is being created by the chairman of the committee not only sets a bad precedent, but is a linkage that should never have been made in the first instance. It has not been done in the past and it would be a great sin to move this way now. I also congratulate the Senator from Massachusetts on his handling of this debate on this matter. As chairman, and now ranking member, of the International Operations Subcommittee, he has done an outstanding job. I promised to limit myself to 4 minutes, and I think I have complied.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I am very, very pleased to be an original cosponsor of this critically important amendment. What we are talking about here is a capital investment in the future of our Nation. Passage of this amendment would accomplish the objective of taking students and their families, not completely, but partially out of harm's way. First, it would strike the first-time-ever fee on institutions of higher education. This fee of .85 percent, based on the total amount of money borrowed by students and parents at every institution of learning, is an unprecedented move and a cost that would undoubtedly be passed along to students in higher fees. Once established, I am afraid that it will increase over time. Second, this amendment would strike the increase on the interest rate in the Parent Loan Program. Some argue that the increase would be so small as to be insignificant. I disagree. A parent who borrows for 4 years of college at a typical 4-year public university will borrow a total of $27,000. If those loans are repaid over 10 years, the increase in the interest rate will mean those parents will have to pay an additional $1,400. If they take advantage of extended repayment, the cost could well increase to $2,800. Neither of these figures is insignificant. A parent who borrows at a private university will borrow more than $66,000. Repayment over a 10-year period will mean an additional $3,400 that parents will have to pay because of the increase in the interest rate. If repayment is extended over 20 years, the additional cost to the parent will be nearly $6,900, or $7,000. Third, the amendment would strike the 20-percent cap on the Direct Loan Program. This would leave alone the direct loan conference agreement of 2 years ago. It would mean that we would continue to have a spirited competition between direct and regular loans, a competition that has brought students improved services, better rates and more benefits. And fourth, the amendment would strike the elimination of the interest subsidy during the grace period. This is of vital interest to students who have just completed their education and are out looking for a job. Proponents argue that the cost of eliminating the grace period will be small, but to a student who is just beginning a job, every dollar counts. In terms of the package, I point out that while one change might appear small, the combined impact of the four changes addressed in this amendment is considerable. Students and their families will feel the impact of these changes. Instead of taking them out of harm's way, it will place them directly in the line of fire. We can avoid that outcome if we adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it. If ever there was a capital investment amendment to improve the competitive ability of our Nation, this is it. I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to yesterday's summit meeting between President Clinton and Chinese President Jiang Zemin in New York. Last summer, relations between the two countries fell rapidly and unexpectedly to their lowest point since the Tiananmen massacre, largely over the visit of Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui to Cornell University, his alma mater. Most of us in the Senate, myself included, supported that visit as a private one for a distinguished alum. I continue to believe that the Chinese leadership in Beijing overreacted to the visit and allowed the bilateral relationship to unravel unnecessarily. I was sorry that Beijing chose to react to Lee's visit by withdrawing the Chinese ambassador to the United States, suspending ongoing bilateral discussions on proliferation, canceling visits of United States officials to China and visits of Chinese officials to the United States, and by canceling bilateral discussions with Taiwan. But now, after several months of discord, it appears we have the opportunity to bring some stability back to the relationship and I support the President's decision to hold this summit in New York. I did not believe that this summit meeting would produce a significant breakthrough on any of the issues with which we continue to disagree with Beijing, including Tibet, ballistic missile proliferation, nuclear testing, suppression of dissent in China, and trade issues. It did not. Recent press reports state that Chinese leaders had demanded certain concessions from the United States, such as written assurances that members of Taiwan's top leadership will never again be granted a visa to the United States or that the United States will refrain from criticism of China's human rights record in international fora. The administration rightly gave no such assurances. These are important policy issues, with significant domestic and international ramifications for both governments. Both governments seem convinced that the other is being unreasonable and obstinate. It is unrealistic to expect any major accords could have come under current circumstances. This is an unfortunate state of affairs between two of the world's most influential countries and hopefully a passing one. But for the time being we must focus on keeping the relationship steady and effective. That is why a summit meeting between the two presidents was so important at this time. The United States raised all of the issues that we believe to be important and let the Chinese leadership know our commitment to them, and we should continue to do so. But it was also right to listen to President Jiang's concerns and to strive for mutual understanding, if not mutual agreement. Those who criticize our President for failing to win major concessions likely fail to recognize the realities of the current relationship and the necessity of strengthening contacts at all levels that will outlast this period and carry forward a stronger relationship in the future. I commend the President for holding the summit yesterday and hope that this meeting will mark the beginning of a more solid and productive period of United States--China relations.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today the Senate will act on H.R. 1606, legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office Building located at 24 Corliss Street, Providence, RI, as ``The Harry Kizirian Post Office Building.'' I was pleased to join my colleague, Senator John Chafee, in cosponsoring the Senate version of the bill, S. 786. It is a fitting tribute for Congress to name this particular structure after Harry Kizirian because it was the first post office in the United States to use a fully automated sorting system, under Harry's supervision. Harry Kizirian himself is a Rhode Island landmark because of his extraordinary contributions to the United States, to Rhode Island, and to Providence. When Harry was just 15 years old, his father died, and he went to work part-time as a postal clerk to help support his widowed mother. He then worked his way up through the leadership positions in the Postal Service. After being nominated by former Senator John O. Pastore, Harry was confirmed by the Senate in 1961 as postmaster of Providence, RI, a post he held for more than 25 years. World War II interrupted Harry's career for a short time. He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after he graduated from Mount Pleasant High School and subsequently became Rhode Island's most decorated marine. He fought in Okinawa and was shot in battle. He earned the Navy Cross, the Bronze Star with a ``V'', the Purple Heart with a gold star and, finally, the Rhode Island Cross. After the war, Harry returned to Rhode Island and to his job at the Post Office. In addition to his military service and his work in the Postal Service, he had served on numerous committees and boards in Rhode Island. Harry served on the board of directors of Butler Hospital, Big Brothers of Rhode Island, the Providence Human Relations Commission, Rhode Island Blue Cross, and Rhode Island Heart and Lung Associations. He was also a member of the Community Advisory Board of Rhode Island College, the Providence Heritage Commission, the Commission on Rhode Island Medal Honor Recipients, DAV, and the Marine Corps League. Harry Kizirian's name has become synonymous with the qualities he exemplifies--dedication, loyalty, leadership, and hard work. I am delighted to honor him, not only for his lifetime of service to the Postal Service, but also for his involvement with and commitment to his community. Congratulations, Harry.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations and say well done. I am glad Harry Kizirian is honored in this way. Amendment No. 2947 (Purpose: To amend chapter 2 of title 39, United States Code, to adjust the salary of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service, and for other purposes)

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as we all know, the Senate is about to embark on a massive reordering of national priorities under the rubric of the reconciliation process. In the short space of the 20 hours prescribed by statute, we will decide the fate of Medicare, Medicaid, welfare programs, education assistance, and a host of other Federal programs and agencies. We surely did not anticipate such abbreviated consideration of a sweeping reconfiguration of government when we enacted the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which established the reconciliation process. It is regrettable that we must do so now, and I suggest that in doing so we exceed the spirit if not the letter of the act. But we are now confronted with the determination of the majority to proceed nonetheless, and in anticipation of the time constraints, I would like to state my continuing reservations about the bill. I have already expressed my distress and concern about the decimation of hard- won Federal education programs and the emasculation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. What remains to be said is that this mammoth bill embodies priorities in many other areas which are diametrically opposed to my own. It overturns decades of progress in social policy and it imposes a regressive tax plan that is both misguided and untimely. It bears unfairly on children, on poor people and on the elderly and the disabled. And it would undo environmental gains and open pristine wilderness areas to commercial exploitation. It would do all this in a headlong pursuit of a goal which I believe has been blindly accepted, namely the mantra that the budget must be balanced by a date certain. To my mind, this is an unrealistic objective that results not from careful and rational assessment, but from well-orchestrated sloganeering in the guise of the so-called contract devised by the House majority leadership. And that, I would submit, has led to false expectations in the electorate as well as among some legislators themselves. Far more preferable, in my view, would be a measured and continuing effort to reduce deficit spending, while at the same time preserving the essential gains in social policy of the last half century. It is unrealistic to assume, I submit, that some $900 billion can be cut from Federal spending levels provided under present law between 1996 and 2002 without imposing unacceptable hardship on many segments of the population. Here, the arbitrary goal has dictated the cuts; again, the more rational course would be to to decide what can and should be reduced and then arrive at a figure. And it is equally unrealistic--and absurd on the face of it--that tax cuts of $245 billion could be proposed at the very time the stated objective is to reduce deficits. Inevitably, such as proposal suggests that spending cuts have been inflated to accommodate the tax cuts. It seems appalling to me that the proposed tax cuts will actually add to the deficit in some years, meaning that the Treasury will actually have to borrow funds to make up for the lack of revenue. Overall, these unwise tax cuts will add some $93 billion to the national debt, according to the Wall Street Journal. Here again, a far wiser course would be one of moderation. While I reject [[Page S 15592]] most of the proposed tax cuts as untimely at best and pandering at worst, I would agree that there is one area of tax relief that could be reasonably undertaken at this time, and that is reduction in the capital gains tax rate. The provisions of the bill allowing individuals to exclude 50 percent of capital gains from taxation, while dropping the corporate capital gains rate from 35 to 28 percent, would cost the Treasury some $40 billion in revenue foregone over 7 years. As I see it, this would be a worthwhile expenditure. It would help release some $1.5 trillion in locked-up capital gains to pursue investment opportunities that create jobs and growth in the U.S. economy. By one estimate, this would result in a rise in gross domestic product of 1.4 percent and result in $12 million in increased Federal tax revenues. And I might note that the individual beneficiaries of capital gains tax relief are by no means limited to wealthy stockholders. A recently updated U.S. Treasury study shows that nearly one-half of all capital gains are realized by taxpayers with wage and salary incomes of less than $50,000. And these would include every homeowner who has benefited from an increase in the value of his house over recent years. Notwithstanding my support for this one tax provision, I must reiterate my view that the overall tax package is untimely and inappropriate. Together with the other major flaws of the bill, there is compelling reason to vote against the bill, and good cause for the President to veto the measure, as he has promised to do, in the likelihood that Congress approves it. Our task will not end there. Assuming the probability that the President's veto cannot be overridden, the real work will have to begin to devise a compromise that can be enacted. My hope is that reason, compassion, and responsibility will prevail and that the many excesses of this bill will be recast into a more moderate measure. I yield the floor.