Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in November of last year, Mr. Sam Halperin of the American youth policy forum addressed a statewide conference in Rhode Island on implementation of the new School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. His thoughts bear careful consideration not only as we move this act from legislative provision to program but also as we approach reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act. Mr. Halperin is a distinguished educator whose views merit careful consideration. He has served as Deputy Commissioner in the old Office of Education, Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the director and first president of the Institute for Educational Leadership. I would ask that the full text of Mr. Halperin's remarks be placed in the Record.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I call the Senate's attention to an important historic landmark. It is the 10th anniversary of Mikhail Gorbachev's accession to power in Moscow, an event which set in motion a mostly non-violent process of change that brought down the Iron Curtain and Soviet domination of Eastern Europe in 1989, followed two years later by the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself--arguably the most important developments in the second half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, the momentous upheaval of 1989-91 did unleash some violence--most notable and tragically in the former Yugoslavia, and also in the Caucasus, between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in Georgia, and, most recently, in Chechnya. We should not ignore the tragedy or the dangers to European security posed by the fighting in the former Yugoslavia and in the Caucasus, but we should not lose sight of how much safer we are now than during the Cold War's global confrontation with the Soviet Union and the nuclear balance of terror with its doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. Now, 10 years after Gorbachev's rise to power, Russia appears to be at another historic crossroad. One path leads toward democratization and integration into the global market economy; another points back toward authoritarianism and a sullen, isolated militarism. Russia's future lies first and foremost in the hands of its own people and their leaders. We should have no illusions about our ability to control events there. But we do have some influence. The outcome in Russia is still very important to the United States. Russia will play a major role in determining the future security environment in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Russia is a key player in implementing the START I and II strategic force reduction treaties and in preventing nuclear proliferation. The U.S. budget deficit, the peace dividend, defense conversion, the future of NATO, and the United States role in the world will all be strongly affected by developments in Russia. Also, although Russia's economy is now severely distressed, it is potentially an important market and trading partner. Russia is the only country in the world that has more bountiful natural resources than the United States, including vast oil and gas reserves. It has a large, well-educated labor force and a huge scientific establishment. Furthermore, many of Russia's needs--food and food processing, oil and gas extraction, computers, communications, and transportation--are in areas in which the United States is highly competitive. Thus, although the former Soviet military threat is greatly diminished, we ought not turn our backs on Russia now. Moscow's clumsy but brutal use of military force to regain control of the secessionist republic of Chechnya has triggered a new political crisis for the regime of President Boris Yeltsin, whose support in Russian public opinion polls has fallen below 10 percent. Many observers fear that if Chechnya becomes a protracted guerrilla war, it will drag down both Yeltsin and the prospects for reform. It may be too early to write Yeltsin's political obituary. He has made some remarkable recoveries in the past. But we also cannot ignore the possibility that the post-Yeltsin transition has already begun. In any case, these developments call attention to the importance of the other major locus of political power in Russia--the parliament. The Yeltsin Constitution of December 1993 created a very powerful presidency, but there is also a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches that resembles our own system in many ways. The constitutional checks and balances on presidential power in Russia are more limited than in the United States, but the parliament does have real authority. Historically, the threat of authoritarianism and totalitarianism comes from excessive and ultimately unlimited executive power. This has certainly been Russia's experience. Whether or not Yeltsin regains his democratic equilibrium, and regardless of who succeeds him or when, in the long run, the best institutional protection against a turn toward authoritarianism in Russia is a healthy, independent, and democratically elected legislature. Congress may be able to help the one year-old Russian parliament become more effective and democratic. The new Russian Federal Assembly is a bicameral legislature. The lower (and more powerful) chamber, the State Duma, has 450 seats, half chosen from single-member constituencies and half from national party lists based on proportional representation. The upper chamber, the Federation Council, nominally has 178 seats, two from each [[Page S5397]] of the 89 regions and republics of the Russian Federation. Many of its Deputies are regional leaders. It does not meet on a continuous, full-time basis and is more like the French or German upper chamber than the U.S. Senate. Deputies in both chambers serve 4-year terms. The first Federal Assembly, however, was elected in December 1993 for only a 2-year term, with new elections due this December. After the December 1993 election, it seemed that the Duma might be dominated by an anti-democratic coalition of hardline ultranationalists and communists. In its first year, however, the parliament avoided extreme confrontation with Yeltsin and, despite some missteps, supported some of the Government's key economic reform legislation. Surprisingly, the parliament approved Government budgets for 1994 and 1995 that imposed relatively strict fiscal discipline and sharply restrained defense spending despite intense pressure from the military- industrial complex. The parliament also enacted key parts of a new commercial code and laws protecting property rights. There is strong parliamentary opposition to the Government's actions in Chechnya. Many Deputies were angered by Yeltsin's failure to consult them in advance or seek parliamentary approval of a state of emergency. Both chambers voted their disapproval of the assault several times by lopsided majorities, calling for the cessation of hostilities and a political resolution of the conflict. Parliamentary opposition, however, has had minimal impact on Russian policy in Chechnya, in part because the Constitution gives predominant power to the president on national security issues. The Federal Assembly is a political training ground in which an important segment of the post-Yeltsin generation of politicians is learning democratic principles and skills that are not part of traditional Russian political culture, such as compromise and coalition-building, respect for the rule of law and representative government. Most Russian Deputies are overwhelmed by the enormity and urgency of their legislative responsibilities and the meagerness of their experience and resources. They know that they have a great deal to learn and the majority are not only willing but eager to benefit from foreign experience, including U.S. experience. Despite, or perhaps because of, the legacy of the cold war, many Russian Deputies view the U.S. Congress as an important and appropriate model. They are also stuck by similarities in the size and demographic diversity of our counties and our constitutional systems based on separation of powers, bicameralism, and federalism. Imperfect as our own institutions are, from a Russian perspective they are impressive examples of stability and continuity, functioning federalism, and peaceful resolution of competing political, economic, social, ethnic, and spiritual interests. There is already a significant level of mostly informal travel between Washington and Moscow by Members of Congress and Russian Deputies. This is healthy and should be expanded as much as possible. There are already overtures from the Russian side for committee-to- committee consultations on issues of mutual interest. Staff consultations, exchanges, and training are another fruitful avenue. Frankly, on the American side the constraints are not so much financial but the commitment of time by busy Members. But I would urge my colleagues to think about the potential payoff on a modest investment of time in such endeavors. Russian Deputies are so eager to learn about U.S. legislative procedure and about the U.S. experience on a wide range of legislative issues. Here is an opportunity to influence positively and perhaps even help to shape the procedures, policies, and perspectives of the legislature of the world's other nuclear superpower. This should be done not in spite of the conflict in Chechnya, but all the more because of it. The Chechen crisis underlines the increased importance of the Russian parliament. The Congressional Research Service is already embarked on an ambitious program of technical assistance to the Russian Federal Assembly. Funded by the Agency for International Development, $3.5 million over 3 years, beginning in May 1994, with congressional approval, the CRS program aims to: Help the Russian Federal Assembly create its own research and analysis capability independent of the executive branch. Enhance the automation and interconnectivity of both chambers of the Federal Assembly and the Parliamentary Library. Strengthen the collections and capabilities of the Russian Parliamentary Library. Provide training in Moscow and Washington for Russian parliamentary staff specializing in automation, research and policy analysis, and legislative drafting. Bring a leadership delegation from both chambers of the Federal Assembly to Washington to learn and observe first hand about development and oversight of legislative research and policy analysis. CRS has considerable experience in such activity, having been directed by Congress to provide similar parliamentary assistance through the Gift of Democracy, to Poland, program, which was subsequently expanded under the House of Representative Special Task Force on the Development of Parliamentary Institutions in Eastern Europe, to include assistance to the parliaments of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Albania. There is a comparable AID-funded program in Ukraine. These programs have made significant contributions to the development of democratic parliamentary institutions in Central and Eastern Europe and now hope to do the same in Russia. At the same time, these programs provides CRS and the Congress with literally unique access to and insight into political developments in those countries. It is an activity from which all parties benefit in a variety of ways. The Russian parliamentary leadership delegation that has been invited by CRS to visit Capitol Hill in the first week of April 1995 is led by Mikhail Mityukov, First Deputy Chairman of the Duma and Valerian Viktorov, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council, and includes the chairmen of five important committees from both chambers. On behalf of the Congress I would like to welcome these distinguished visitors in the spirit of interparliamentary cooperation and exchange. I would also encourage my colleagues to meet with their Russian counterparts to help them gain a deeper appreciation of our legislative experience as well as our shortcomings so that they may benefit both from our example and from mistakes as they build the foundation of their own legislature. At the same time, this will give Members an unusual opportunity to discuss legislative issues of mutual interest with senior Russian Deputies and to learn first-hand about developments in Russia as it struggles to redefine itself politically, economically, socially, and spiritually. This is not only a historic moment for Russia but also a historic opportunity for both our countries to redefine the relation between us. Cooperative interparliamentary relations can play a role in this redefinition.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, 2 years ago, when President Clinton marked his 100th day in office, I said the occasion ``should not be regarded as a magical threshold for defining achievement or failure.'' The same thought applies now. This is a logical time to take stock, but the real measure of success can't be taken for many months--not until the rest of the Democratic process, namely the Senate and the President, bring their perspectives to bear. I give the new House leadership credit for lots of energy and activity in the flush of electoral victory, but this should not be mistaken for definitive accomplishment. The fact is the Contract With America is a contract made by Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. It is not a contract made by the Senate and certainly not one made by Senate Democrats nor by the President of the United States. Since the contract seems to be the product of pollsters and campaign consultants, it is not surprising that nearly everyone can agree with at least several of its objectives. But when we look at the fine print of some of them and when we get down to the hard job of deciding on the means for achieving those objectives, there are bound to be vast philosophical disagreements. I certainly agree with the objectives of fiscal responsibility, welfare reform, continued action on crime control, job creation, fairness for senior citizens, and promotion of family values. And I even agree with some of the means proposed, such as unfunded mandate reform and capital gains tax relief to create jobs, child support enforcement to advance family values and an increase in the Social Security earnings limit for the benefit of senior citizens. But I find myself in profound disagreement with several of the major objectives as well as the means to implement them. These include: The balanced budget amendment, which I opposed because it would have cut too much too soon. The line-item veto, which I opposed because it yields too much congressional power to the President and because it is administratively unwieldly. Term limitations. Increased defense spending. Reinstatement of the death penalty and cuts in spending on social programs (such as midnight basketball) to control crime. Tax cuts without deficit reduction. Welfare reforms without compassion. Reduced support for the United Nations. Any reduction in support for education or elimination of support for the arts and humanities. So, Mr. President, it is far too early to tally up score cards on a contract made by one party in one House of the legislative branch. Many of us simply don't subscribe to substantial parts of it and don't believe that implementation of it in toto would be good for the country. The streamroller needs to be slowed down and the contract needs to be pruned, modified, and in some cases excised. This is the role that the Senate is so admirably equipped to do. And only when it has done so will the revised elements of the contract be candidates for Presidential consideration. Then and only then, when the executive branch has concurred, can the final score be tallied. As I said 2 years ago, the true measure of success should be taken over the extended timeframe of this whole process, without drawing hasty conclusions here and now. One hundred days is only the first milestone of a long journey.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am supporting the Dole-Daschle compromise and the final passage of the supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill because I believe, on balance, the bill does take a significant step towards fiscal control and economy in government. I am particularly pleased that the compromise restores nearly a billion dollars in House rescissions that would have jeopardized programs that benefit children and education. Head Start, Title I Education, impact aid, WIC, Goals 2000, School to Work and Drug Free Schools are all programs that constitute investments in our national future, and restoration of funding for them lends balance and merit to the bill. I am very pleased that the Senate bill restores funding for the LIHEAP program and housing modernization, two programs that are important to my State. And finally I would note that the Senate bill would restore more than half of what the House bill would cut from our foreign aid programs-- not a perfect outcome, but certainly far preferable to the House version. Mr. President, none of us are going to be completely satisfied with the painful compromises that must be made in the current season of downsizing of government. But this bill does what had to be done with less pain than might otherwise have been inflicted. I commend the managers and give the bill my support.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Feinstein, Senator Feingold, and Senator Simon. The amendment will insure continued funding for the National Center for Research in Vocational Education. The Center is a consortium of institutions of higher education in California, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, and Virginia. The Center is widely recognized for the important research work it does in vocational education, and it would be very unfortunate, indeed, if funding to permit it to continue its work were curtailed. As my colleagues know, we will soon be considering reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act. The work of the Center has provided the authorizing committee invaluable information to help guide and facilitate our work. But even more critical, their research efforts are vital to improving the quality of vocational education throughout our Nation. I view the amendment as an important placeholder so that when the Senate and House conferees meet on this legislation, they will have the opportunity to give this matter full and complete consideration. I am very hopeful they will ultimately decide to retain funding for the Center, but without this amendment there will be no chance whatsoever to provide continued funding for the Center and the important work it does. citizenship training and naturalization services

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Feinstein, Senator Feingold, Senator Simon, and Senator Moseley-Braun. The amendment will ensure continued funding for the National Center for Research in Vocational Education. The Center is a consortium of institutions of higher education in California, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, and Virginia. The Center is widely recognized for the important research work it does in vocational education, and it would be very unfortunate, indeed, if funding to permit it to continue its work were curtailed. As my colleagues know, we will soon be considering reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act. The work of the Center has provided the authorizing committee invaluable information to help guide and facilitate our work. But even more critical, their research efforts are vital to improving the quality of vocational education throughout our Nation. I view the amendment as an important placeholder so that when the Senate and House conferees meet on this legislation, they will have the opportunity to give this matter full and complete consideration. I am very hopeful they will ultimately decide to retain funding for the Center, but without this amendment there will be no chance whatsoever to provide continued funding for the Center and the important work it does.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on March 23, together with Senators Kerry, Feingold, and Snowe, I submitted Senate Resolution 91 condemning the Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq. Since then, Senators Biden, D'Amato, Sarbanes, and Simon have become cosponsors. With such strong bipartisan support, I hoped to move this resolution to Senate passage. Until today, I had intended to offer it as an amendment to the pending legislation. Given the fluidity of the floor situation--particularly the difficulties involving the Jordan debt amendment, and the need to send that matter to the President as soon as possible--I think it best not to offer a foreign policy amendment to this bill. I remain deeply concerned, however, about Turkey's continued military operations in northern Iraq, and I wish to address that subject now. In the past several days, I have had occasion to pursue this issue at the highest levels of both the United States and Turkish Governments. I have had an exchange of letters with both the President and the Secretary of State, and just this morning, I and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee met with the Turkish Foreign Minister. Specifically, I am disturbed by Turkey's continued military presence in Iraqi Kurdistan, and by the Government's unwillingness to set a date certain for withdrawal. Turkey should withdraw now. While I appreciate Turkey's legitimate desire to combat the terrorist threat posed by the PKK, I believe the military action in Northern Iraq goes beyond mere self-defense, and furthermore offers virtually no prospect of eradicating PKK terror. The vast majority of terrorist attacks in Turkey Turkey itself. Turkey's repressive treatment of its own Kurds has forced thousands of civilian Kurds to flee to Northern Iraq. This has made it easier, in fact, for a small number of PKK terrorists to use civilian settlements in Northern Iraq as cover. The Turkish incursion puts at risk thousands of Kurdish civilians living in Northern Iraq. To my mind, the Turkish incursion is a violation of international law, that must be brought to an end. Furthermore, reports indicate that Turkey has made difficult access to areas of the conflict to representatives of international relief organizations, such as the International Red Cross. At a minimum, Turkey should take immediate steps to ensure the protection of innocent civilians and refugees. It also appears that Turkey has restricted journalists' access to critical areas of the conflict. I must say that I took small comfort in the thought that Turkey is arranging tours for journalists and that it must place limits on access to the ICRC to ensure that the PKK does not receive assistance. I believe that the ICRC has vast experience in these matters, and certainly is as capable as the Turkish Government in determining how best to assist civilians caught in the fighting. I will say that in my consultations with the U.S. Government on these matters, I have been pleased to see an acknowledgment of--and a concerted effort to--address my concerns. The President has assured me that United States officials in Washington and Ankara are pressing Turkey daily to protect innocent civilians and to withdraw at the earliest possible date. The Secretary of State acknowledges that Turkey has been denying access to journalists and nongovernmental organizations, and informs me that the United States is working at the highest levels to rectify this situation. I am pleased to learn that United States embassy officials are visiting Iraqi Kurdistan this very week, and that Secretary Talbott and Secretary Holbrooke will travel to Ankara where they will pursue our concerns. I await their reports anxiously. I welcome the apparent shift in the administration's approach to the troubling aspects of the invasion. The administration seems much more willing to question Turkey's motives and behavior, and to confront Turkey on these troubling issues. Although I still intend to pursue adoption of my resolution at the earliest practical time, I do believe U.S. policy is moving in the right direction. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as in mornings business.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as we review all options for reducing Federal expenditures, I am very much of the mind that we should not reduce Federal education assistance. In my opinion, education is an investment in our people and in the future strength and health of our Nation. This is particularly true for programs that are targeted to enhance the educational opportunities of those citizens who need our help the most. It is without doubt that every aspect of our lives depends upon a well-educated citizenry. I fear that cutbacks in Federal education aid diminish achieving that goal, and weaken our ability to retain our leadership in the world marketplace. As we debate this rescission bill, however, it is also important that we keep things in perspective. While I regret some of the cutbacks that are part of the package under consideration, it is only fair that we acknowledge that the legislation before us is far better than that so recently approved by the House. In education, for example, the cutbacks are a full $1 billion less than those in the House bill. In many areas, there is very good news. There are, for example, no cuts in student aid, no reduction in Pell grants, no cutbacks in campus-based aid, and no curtailment of funding for the SSIG Program. Aid for the vitally important Dropout Prevention Program is continued. Cutbacks in safe and drug-free schools are a full 80 percent less than those in the House-passed bill. There are few, if any, cutbacks in literacy programs that reach out to help those in need of these services. Cuts in library services and construction are very small. And, funds are provided for a new and very important program of aid in civics and economic education exchanges with the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Thus, while I may have differences on some of the cutbacks contained in this legislation, I find I can support a majority of the provisions with considerable enthusiasm. I believe we must look carefully at the details of this bill. While some provisions could be improved, most are quite encouraging. I want, therefore, to commend Chairman Hatfield, the members of the Appropriations Committee, and especially their staff for the very long, hard, and thoughtful work they have put into this legislation.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Illinois very much indeed.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to those paying tribute to our colleague, Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama who earlier today announced his intention to retire from the Senate at the end of this Congress. I must say that his announcement today has taken me somewhat by surprise as I had not thought that he had resolved in his mind whether or not to seek another term. Having done so, I wish him well and note that he will be sorely missed in the Senate. His wit, his wisdom, and his unshakable demeanor have endeared him to all of us. Senator Heflin has served his home State of Alabama well and with distinction over the last 18 years. I have often relied on his experience and reason in the areas of his work on the Judiciary and Ethics Committee. He always brings to the topic at hand the level head he acquired through years of sitting on the bench. His integrity has never been challenged and my respect for him has only grown since he joined the Senate. When I think of his tenure in the Senate I affectionately remember the finer traditions of the Senate marked by comity and discourse rather then rancor and partisanship. The Senate needs more people like Howell Heflin and I regret, but understand, the decision he has made. I wish him and his wonderful wife well as they anticipate their return to Alabama and commend him for a particularly honorable and distinguished career in the Senate.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to object to any amendment affecting Cooperative State Research Service funding that would rescind funds, already obligated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for building educational facilities at the University of Rhode Island. USDA already had obligated $6.2 million, appropriated in fiscal year 1993, fiscal year 1994, and fiscal year 1995 for the Federal matching share of funds to build the University of Rhode Island's Coastal Institute. I have been personally involved in this project since the 1980's, but it will be destroyed if these funds are rescinded. Both the Senate Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee decided not to rescind this $6.2 million. These funds represent the authorized, appropriated, and obligated Federal share of an ongoing agricultural education building project. Rhode Island already has completed construction of one Coastal Institute building and I plan to attend a formal groundbreaking for the second building in about 3 weeks. These buildings constitute the State match--totaling $12.56 million--for a third building to be built with anticipated Federal matching funds. Mr. President, it strikes me as poor policy for the Federal Government to require Rhode Island to spend $12.56 million to receive a like amount of Federal funds only to reneg on the Federal share once the State had spent more than enough funds to meet its match. I also want to emphasize that this is not a project that came in through a backdoor. The University of Rhode Island's Coastal Institute went through the most rigorous USDA feasibility review, including a peer review, and its funding has been approved step by step in the appropriations process for more than 5 years. I would like to tell you just a bit about why the USDA approved matching funding for the Coastal Institute and what the facilities can do for both Rhode Island and the Nation. First and foremost, I want to underscore why the coastal area is clearly an agricultural concern. The coastal area includes the continental shelf, the shore area-- including highly productive estuaries and wetlands, and the land areas which make up the first tier of inshore watersheds. This encompasses rich agricultural lands, forest resources, and both urban and rural communities. Coastal lands are among the most productive and the most heavily populated on the earth. The primary mission of the Coastal Institute is to carry out research and analyze policies to better enable society to manage its coastal resources wisely. This research and analysis includes such USDA priorities as agricultural production, aquaculture production, rural welfare, watershed management, and the maintenance of water quality. USDA is concerned about nonpoint source pollution from agriculture and rural homes--pollution which hurts the productivity of our coastal estuaries. The Coastal Institute will investigate the origins, transport, and fate of these contaminants and will develop improved practices to reduce them. It also will evaluate policy alternatives for implementation that recognize the legitimate interests of all groups involved, especially the rural and farm communities. USDA also must address management of water resources in complex coastal areas. The Coastal Institute will investigate salt and other loadings of drainage water from irrigated agriculture and subsequent effects on soils, rivers, streams, and adjacent wetlands. It also will investigate salt water intrusion as a result of ground water withdrawals--a worldwide problem. The Coastal Institute will follow through by evaluating improved management practices and mitigating policies. The Coastal Institute also will focus on fish and aquaculture as an area of intensive research. The Coastal Institute will be working to develop aquaculture first, as a source of affordable fish for consumers; second, as a way to reduce our annual trade deficit of almost $3 billion in fisheries products; third, as a potential market for feed products such as soymeal; and fourth, as a means to provide employment and increase the welfare of our rural communities. Mr. President, I regret to say that, in general, the United States is lagging behind other nations in technological innovations that will allow the expansion of aquaculture systems. Scientists of the Coastal Institute will continue: first, to develop environmentally sustainable aquaculture technologies for new species and for multiproduct aquaculture systems; second, analyze international trade and third, evaluate the impact of U.S. regulatory policies on the industry. The facilities which are being built by Rhode Island, along with those recommended for Federal financing, are not a duplication of facilities anywhere. The emphasis of the Coastal Institute is on a multidisciplinary teams to address complex problems in a holistic manner. The facility is designed to take advantage of the information superhighway and long distance interactive communication. The private sector has been involved in the concept and design of components of the facility, such as the policy simulation laboratory, and is expected to be an active participant in its programs. The Coastal Institute is the outgrowth of decades of research which has gained international stature. The facilities are a logical next step and are in the Nation's interest.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, five years ago, when Iraqi forces crossed the border and invaded Kuwait, the international community--with the United States at the forefront--condemned the aggression and vowed that it would not stand. This week, more than 35,000 Turkish forces invaded Iraqi Kurdistan under the assertion of being engaged in hot pursuit of Kurdish terrorists. The truth is that Turkey's action is no less a violation of international law than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The official United States position is that Turkey faces a legitimate threat from the Kurdish Workers Party--also Turkey that advocates the establishment of an independent Kurdish state. The PKK is a terrorist organization, and Turkey has a right to defend its citizens against the unlawful use of terror. Where I draw the line, however, is Turkey's use of terrorism as a pretense for its full-scale invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan and as justification for its consistent pattern of human rights violations against innocent Kurdish civilians in southeast Turkey. There is no way that the Turkish forces can distinguish between the Turkish Kurds and Iraqi Kurds that presently reside in Northern Iraq. Nor can they reasonably determine which Turkish Kurd is an armed terrorist, and which is an innocent civilian refuges. The result is that innocent Kurds--be they Iraqi or Kurdish--are being harassed, terrorized, and killed by Turkish forces. I think that there is a fundamental truth that Turkey attempts to obscure in its approach to the Kurdish issue. The fact is that Kurdish experiment with self-rule in Northern Iraq threatens and undermines Turkey's identity. By conducting this invasion, Turkey has exposed that it cares little about Iraq's territorial integrity, and only wants to keep the Kurdish people in check. The United States apparently has given the green light to Prime Minister Ciller's military adventure. Moreover, it is nearly certain that the Turkish military is using equipment and supplies of United States origin in its brutal war against the Kurds. Turkey's militaristic policy towards the Kurds goes beyond the pale of civilized behavior. It is time for the United States to take a principled stand, express its opposition to Turkey's invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, and cut off supplies of United States military equipment to Turkey. If, as reports today suggest, this operation is to extend for the next 3 to 5 weeks, then it is an outright falsehood to say that Turkey is engaged in hot pursuit. We should condemn this invasion for what it truly is--a clear act of aggression and a threat to international peace. In this regard, I am submitting today with Senators Kerry, Feingold, and Snowe a resolution that does just that. In addition to condemning the invasion, the resolution calls upon the President to oppose Turkey's action, and urges the United States to lead an effort at the United Nations Security Council calling for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal. The resolution denounces both Turkey's consistent pattern of human rights violations against the Kurds and the violence perpetrated by terrorists, including the PKK. Finally, the resolution calls for the continuation of Operation Provide Comfort, which is crucial to the protection of civilians in Iraqi Kurdistan. Mr. President, I would urge my colleague to join me in sponsoring this resolution.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it is with great pride in the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor and great hope for its continued success that I join Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts in introducing legislation to reauthorize the corridor. partnership project, nothing succeeds like success. The Blackstone NHC is a wonderful example of success. Our bill both reauthorizes and expands the Blackstone NHC--the largest national park or affiliated area in New York or New England: 250,000 acres, including 20 towns or cities in 2 states. The expansion is a logical one. We should increase the boundaries to include the communities of Burrillville, Glocester, and Smithfield in Rhode Island, and Worcester and Leceister in Massachusetts. All are within the watershed of the 46-mile long Blackstone River. More than a decade ago, I convened the first planning meeting for the corridor involving Federal, State and local officials. Ever since then, the corridor has been a bipartisan project enthusiastically supported by both the Rhode Isand and Massachusetts congressional delegations. Senator Chafee introduced the initial authorization. I introduced the existing authorization, and I am delighted that Senator Chafee is working hard to continue our bipartisan, bistate effort. All of us want the corridor to showcase the cradle of the American Industrial Revolution. I would like to underscore what I consider a very important point. The Heritage Corridor Commission has used its relatively meager Federal resources to leverage dramatic expenditures and results. The Blackstone NHC is an extraordinary bargain for the taxpayers. With only a modest Federal contribution, the corridor has leveraged funds by sometimes as much as a 20 to 1 match. My own State of Rhode Island has invested more than $7.7 million and has acquired more than 250 acres of land in the Blackstone River Valley. A linear park and bikeway are in the planning stage, as is completion of an Anadramous fisheries restoration program that has met with initial success. We continue to look for examples of imaginative, efficient, and cost- effective concepts. We need to look no further than the Blackstone Valley--not only for where those concepts were born but where they continue to be practiced and developed to this day. The legislation that we are submitting today is intended to safeguard the integrity and coherence of the Corridor Commission by including areas that are functionally, ecologically, and historically integral components of the Blackstone Region. In Rhode Island, the three communities that would be added are highly motivated to join in the success of corridor and worked hard to develop comprehensive town plans. Glocester also developed strategies, including local historic district zoning, to turn the village of Chepachet into a visitor destination. Calling the area a corridor is somewhat of a misnomer, since it must be understood that we are not talking about some narrow strip of land and water. Its boundaries comprise an area more than 25 miles wide and 46 miles long; a management unit that now would include an entire watershed. When future generations of Americans want to understand how communities and industries are made and grow, if we do our job right, they will understand the entire system by a visit to the Blackstone Valley. We already have noticed a real transformation in confidence that is occurring in the Blackstone Valley. It is a transformation that is coming about because our citizens are realizing the value of our heritage. The lessons of history are increasingly part of the fabric of the valley. I want to add the National Park Service has played a strong role and completely positive role in the corridor. These are people we trust, who understand the meaning of the words ``public service.'' There have been no complaints about Federal intrusion, only praise for Federal creativity and skill. I am pleased to note that this new authorization by Senator Chafee builds on the foundation that we established--with Senators Kennedy and Kerry--and improves the final product. It is worth noting that our own bipartisan commitment and collaboration mirrors the spirit of the corridor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I recently had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Henry Foster, President Clinton's nominee for the position of Surgeon General. I did so because, as a member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I will be called upon to cast one of the first votes on this nomination before it is brought to the floor of the Senate. And I wanted to know what kind of man this is, who has been demonized by some and canonized by others. Mr. President, what I found before me was a man of substance, who has worked very hard all his life to achieve the kind of success that is neither materialistic nor public. Dr. Henry Foster was raised in the rural South at a time of segregation so intense that he was forced, even while in medical school, to drink from a separate water fountain. He suffered the indignities of segregation with the kind of dignity, intelligence, and vision that enabled him both to see that he could achieve something very important in his life--and to do it. He spoke of his father's teachings of the value of education and hard work, and he incorporated those values into everything he has done in his life. Dr. Foster's credentials alone certainly render him a qualified candidate for Surgeon General. A practicing obstetrician-gynecologist for 38 years, Dr. Foster is also a medical educator who has devoted much of his professional life to reducing infant mortality and preventing teen pregnancy. He has served as both Dean of the School of Medicine and acting President of Meharry Medical College in Nashville-- one of the Nation's most prominent historically black colleges. Dr. Foster is currently on sabbatical from Meharry and is scholar-in- residence at the Association of Academic Health Centers in Washington, DC. He has been the recipient of many awards and honors--too numerous to mention here--but ranging from induction into the Institute of Medicine to receiving a ``Thousand Points of Light'' award from President George Bush for his ``I Have A Future'' program that promotes self-esteem and positive life choices among at-risk teens. But as has been pointed out by his detractors, qualifications alone may not be sufficient for a person to hold a position of leadership and trust in our government. Especially with a position attracting as much attention as Surgeon General, it is important that the person appointed be an example of the best that our country has to offer. Mr. President, from what I know of Dr. Foster, and from what I expect the Labor Committee hearings to bring out, Dr. Foster is such a person. In addition to excellent academic and leadership qualifications, Dr. Foster has traveled an admirable path, in the early years forfeiting a life of great wealth in a more comfortable, ivory tower setting and returning to his roots--this time to poor, rural Alabama--to help an under-served population that needed his care. Since then, Dr. Foster has helped train the minds and influence the careers of hundreds of Meharry Medical College students, many of whom have followed in Dr. Foster's footsteps. While Dr. Foster's life and career have not been without their controversial moments, there are few, if any, individuals of prominence and principle in this country who have not experienced such moments in life. I have reviewed carefully the information available to me about those times in Dr. Foster's life and the actions that he took, and I have asked him about others. I am satisfied that Dr. Foster is telling the truth about discrepancies that arose shortly after his nomination was announced, and I am comfortable that Dr. Foster's actions can be explained in the context of both the times and the nature of his work. While I realize that it is still possible to learn information that might raise questions or cause concern about Dr. Foster's suitability for this position, I must say that I doubt that this will occur. I have been most impressed by the strong support he has received from the medical community, from public health and social service advocates, and from many individuals--including several Rhode Islanders who have contacted me to say that they personally know and admire Dr. Foster. Mr. President, it is my hope that prompt hearings can be held on Dr. Foster's nomination. I believe that the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, and its able Chairwoman, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, will hold fair, even-handed and comprehensive hearings on Dr. Foster's nomination. In my view, it is very much our duty to hold such hearings on any nominee forwarded to us by the President of the United States. As my colleagues know, I have voted to confirm many nominees of Presidents not of my own party, and I have voted to confirm numerous nominees who did not share my view of the world and who would not have been my choice. But I believe that every President deserves great deference in the choice of nominees and--at the least--deserves to have the Senate consider every nominee in a prompt fashion. I urge my colleagues to meet and talk with Dr. Foster, and to discover a person of compassion, and humor, and dedication, whom I believe deserves the chance to serve his Nation.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, at the end of this month, Dr. Samuel Broder, Director of the National Cancer Institute, will formally leave his post to return to private life. This is an enormous loss to the National Cancer Institute, the American people, and the fight against cancer. Dr. Broder has served with distinction at the National Cancer Institute since 1972, first with the Metabolism Branch in the Division of Cancer Biology and Diagnosis, and since 1981 with the Division of Cancer Treatment. In 1989, he was appointed by the President to serve as Director of the institute, capping his career there as laboratory researcher, attending clinical oncologist, and administrator. As a strong supporter of the National Cancer Institute, and in particular, of its information dissemination programs, including the International Cancer Research Data Bank, I am personally grieved to see Dr. Broder move on to the well-deserved quiet and independence of private life. He has been a strong leader and administrator, fighting hard for the NCI's autonomy and priorities. And he has worked hard to create a balance between the critically important research that NCI conducts and supports, and the information dissemination and cancer prevention and control activities that make the NCI a national treasure for all citizens. Dr. Broder's own scientific accomplishments in the areas of cancer and AIDs are well-known to all in the scientific community. He came to the job of Director with the respect of his colleagues, a solid understanding of the science he was to direct and the Institute he was to lead, and a deep dedication to the fight against cancer. It is my hope that Dr. Broder will find professional and personal satisfaction in his new position and in his new life in Florida. I have no doubt that this is not the last that we will hear of him, because I believe that a person of his talent and dedication will continue to make enormous contributions to the cause of eradicating cancer wherever his path may take him. My family and I wish him and his family the very best and hope that his legacy at NCI will result in the choice of a successor who is as knowledgeable, responsive, and dedicated to the mission of the NCI as he has been. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I find myself in opposition to the line item-veto legislation before us, both on philosophical as well as practical grounds. Philosophically, I simply believe that Congress should be extremely chary in yielding its power of the purse to the executive branch. I hold this view on the basis of my Senate service under eight Presidents of both parties during my 34 years in the Senate, and notwithstanding the cordial relationships I have had with all of them. The fact is that the executive branch, under our Constitution, quite properly is a separate power center with its own agenda and its own priorities. Inevitably, it will seek and use any additional power to achieve its objectives. And the pending grant of veto power over specific items, I fear, will surely give even the most benign and well motivated Chief Executive a new means for exercising undue influence and coercion over individual members of the legislative branch. So my preference would be to simply retain the present system of Presidential recommendation of rescissions. I fully recognize that under that system our appropriations bills do sometimes cater to narrow special interests. It was for that reason that I favored the substitute offered by the minority leader to require congressional action, by majority vote, on proposed rescissions. It is unfortunate that the majority saw fit to withdraw its support for the earlier version of this approach, as originally proposed by Senator Domenici. It is even more regrettable that the only viable compromise that could be devised involves the dismemberment of all appropriations bills into hundreds of separate bills. Quite apart from the constitutional questions which have been raised with respect to the form of presentation of bills, the compromise is mind boggling in its complexity. Separate enrollment, it seems to me, is so cumbersome and unwieldy as to invite ridicule on this body for even considering it. More to the point, it invites bureaucratic confusion or at worst tampering with the legislative process. It is the kind of jerry-built solution which seems almost certain to spawn more problems than it was designed to fix. We should reject it, or failing that, hope that the conferees in their wisdom will set it aside.

Mr. PELL. Three minutes.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, I do not believe that this is the appropriate vehicle for offering this amendment today. I am supportive, as I know we all are, of making sure that the Senate is kept appropriately informed on the administration's efforts to stabilize the Mexican peso. But I do not believe that the amendment as currently drafted properly balances the Senate's right to information with the administration's requirements to carry out its responsibilities to implement this program with another sovereign government. Madam President, I would also call to the attention of my colleagues that this amendment in the form of a resolution is to be the subject of a Foreign Relations Committee business meeting next week. I believe that the committee markup is the more appropriate forum to work on some of the difficulties posed by this amendment. I know that the Department of Treasury has some difficulties with the amendment as it is currently drafted and has requested to meet with Senator Brown's staff and other interested staff to discuss changes in the amendment. In fact, both sides have already agreed to meet tomorrow to try to work some of this out. amendment and sitting down with Treasury representatives to work out language that meets the Senator's needs but also addresses some very legitimate concerns of the Department. Let me repeat, this is identical to legislation that has been scheduled for markup this coming Monday in the Foreign Relations Committee, on which the Senator from Colorado sits, and contributes a great deal. While I understand the Senator's desire to have this legislation acted on quickly, I think it would be a very unfortunate precedent to preempt the Committee markup in this way. We also have the point that this is, after all, authorizing legislation being attached to an appropriations bill. So I hope that this could be withdrawn with the understanding that it would be taken up again next week or the week after.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Madam President, this is an extraordinarily delicate moment in the Middle East peace process. Israel's agreement with the Palestinians is hanging precariously in the balance between success and failure, and one more act of terrorism against Israel could cause the agreement to unravel completely. At the same time, Israel's negotiations with Syria are moving slowly, and could be eclipsed by the pending Israeli electoral cycle. While Secretary of State Christopher's recent trip to the Middle East appeared to yield some progress on the Palestinian and Syrian tracks, the truth is that we cannot be assured of the establishment of a comprehensive peace in the coming year. One element of the peace process, however, that has been an unqualified success is Jordan's peace treaty with Israel. By all accounts, the pace and scope of the agreement's implementation have exceeded expectations, and the accord shows real promise of bringing about a peaceful, normal relationship between Israel and Jordan. The Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty is a true milestone in U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. We cannot lose sight of how well the peace treaty serves our national security and foreign policy concerns. Much like the Egypt-Israel peace treaty that arose from the Camp David agreements, the Israel-Jordan treaty resolves a major component of one of the most intractable conflicts in history. As a result, it should make a significant contribution to advancing our interests in the Middle East, namely, ensuring the safety and security of Israel, promoting regional stability, and preserving our access to--and the free flow of--oil. That being the case, it is completely reasonable to provide full debt relief to Jordan as compensation for implementing its peace treaty with Israel. To me, a $275 million appropriation--when viewed in the context of this historic peace treaty--is a fair price to pay in support of peace. Moreover, if the United States leads by example in forgiving its debt, then we might be able to use that as leverage over other donor countries to enter into similar debt relief arrangements. Madam President, I can think of many occasions in the past 30-some years when I have stood in this very spot to commend King Hussein for promoting peace in the Middle East. Now that the King has taken the final step in signing and implementing a treaty--with, I might add, no small amount of prodding from the Congress and successive U.S. administrations--I believe we should send a signal of our appreciation. That is why I support full debt forgiveness for Jordan.

Mr. PELL. I think the arguments have been pretty well outlined here. I am prepared to vote.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on this vote, I have a pair with the distinguished Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray]. If she were present and voting, she would vote ``nay.'' If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I withhold my vote.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I welcome the decision by Croatian President Franjo Tudjman to allow an international force to remain in Croatia. As one who has long opposed sending United States ground troops to Bosnia or Croatia, the good news about President Tudjman's decision seemed to be tempered, however, by a report in this morning's New York Times. According to that article, Secretary Perry announced that United States troops would be sent to Croatia to help with the reconfiguration of U.N. forces. Upon further examination, however, it appears that this morning's report may have been premature, as the President has not-- repeat not--yet made a decision with regard to a commitment of United States troops. Moreover, the administration continues to assure me that if United States troops were deployed, it would not be for the purpose of helping with a reconfiguration or withdrawal of U.N. troops from Croatia. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding this issue, and accordingly, the administration needs to clarify its intentions with regard to troop commitments. Before any decision is made to send U.S. troops, I fully expect the administration to follow through on its commitment to consult with the Congress. The issue of United States troops aside, President Tudjman's decision walks us back from the brink of disaster in Croatia and indeed, the entire former Yugoslavia. I can sympathize with President Tudjman's fear that a continuation of the status quo might have contributed to a permanent separation of Croatia, creating in effect, another Cyprus. Despite Croatia's legitimate concerns, it would have been a grave mistake for U.N. troops to withdraw at this time. Following President Tudjman's January announcement that UNPROPFOR would have to begin withdrawing by March 31, there were Army were girding for war. A renewed war in Croatia would almost certainly have drawn in Serbia as well as the Bosnian Serbs--leading to a greater Balkan conflict. While the United Nations does not have a flawless record in Croatia, UNPROFOR's presence since early 1992 has prevented the reemergence of full-scale war. Let us hope that the reduced U.N. force, under a new mandate, will help maintain the peace. The reduced U.N. force also will have as part of its mandate the patrolling of Croatia's borders with Serbia and Bosnia-Hercegovina--which will go a long way toward legitimizing Croatia's international borders. We are not out of the woods yet, however. Neither the Krajina Serbs, who control 30 percent of Croatia, nor Serbian President Milosevic, who serves as their patron, have indicated their views of the new mandate. Their response will be key to determining the ultimate success of the U.N. mission. The larger question, however, is where we go from here, and how a reduced and newly reconfigured U.N. force fits into the big picture. It appears that renewed war in Croatia will be averted in the near future--thanks in no small part to United States efforts. But now we must ask whether we are going to continue simply to put out fires in former Yugoslavia or whether we have long-term interests to pursue there. I am afraid that if we do not answer this question affirmatively, we will find ourselves in a continual crisis mode. We may find ourselves meeting one deadline after another--the next of which is the end of the Bosnian cease-fire on April 30--without a clear sense of purpose. I hope this impending deadline does not divert all of our attention from the remaining unresolved issues in Croatia. The two conflicts are after all, interconnected, and we must address them simultaneously. Before President Tudjman's January announcement that the United Nations would have to leave, an international plan to resolve the status of Croatia's U.N. Protected Areas [UNPA's] was on the table. By all accounts, the so-called Z-4 plan satisfies many of the concerns of both the Croatian Government and the Krajina Serbs. It calls for the restoration of Croatian sovereignty to all the U.N. areas, with considerable autonomy for the local Serbian population. Now that the immediate crisis has been averted, I hope that we will not miss out on an opportunity to address the underlying issues in Croatia. Now is a good time to revisit the Z-4 plan.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, many of my colleagues know that I have had an abiding interest in oceans issues in general and the Law of the Sea Convention in particular. Consequently, I was delighted when on October 7, 1994, the President transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (Treaty Doc. 103-39). We are now in the unique position to become full participants in this Convention and finally reap the benefits of decades of constructive negotiations conducted by Democratic and Republican administrations. There is no doubt in my mind that this Convention will serve the interests of the United States best from a national security perspective, from an economic perspective, from an ocean resources perspective and from an environmental perspective. I have addressed many of these perspectives during earlier remarks in the Senate. Today, I speak to the importance of this Convention to our Nation's fishery resources. Some have argued that the United States should not ratify the Convention because of a perceived negative impact which it might have on international fisheries agreements negotiated by the United States with its international partners. I submit that quite the opposite is the case. Ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention will be an important step towards assuring the continued benefits of these other agreements and protecting the fishery interests of our country. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an address delivered by Ambassador David Colson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, which addresses precisely this issue. In it, he shows the paramount role that the Law of the Sea Convention will play in the implementation of the important international agreements to which the United States is already a party: The 1992 Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, approved by the Senate on August 11, 1992, Treaty Doc. 102-30, Ex.Rpt 102-51; the U.N. General Assembly Resolution on Large-Scale High Seas Driftnet Fishing (approved by the Senate on November 26, 1991, Treaty Doc. 102- 7, Ex.Rpt 102-20), the recently concluded Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea, ``the Donut Hole Agreement'' (approved by the Senate on October 6, 1994, Treaty Doc. 103-27, Ex.Rpt 103-36) and the FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (approved by the Senate on October 6, 1994, Treaty Doc. 103-24, Ex.Rpt 103-32). The United States has long taken a pro-active approach to fisheries, both within its own exclusive economic zone and on the high seas. Through these recent successful negotiations, we have ensured that our international partners will be submitted to no less stringent rules. The United States will put an end to overfishing and further depletion of threatened stocks only if we can ensure that sound management practices are applied by the other major fishing nations. This is why the administration has negotiated in earnest to achieve what are widely perceived as breakthrough advances in strong and responsible arrangements. Concerns have been expressed that ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention would jeopardize these agreements. Ambassador Colson shows that, far from hindering these processes, the entry into force of the Convention will actually benefit their implementation. In the case of salmon, a very important commercial, recreational, and subsistence resource, the Law of the Sea Convention has provided a foundation upon which to build understandings for the States of the North Pacific region. The Law of the Sea Convention, in essence, prohibits fisheries for salmon on the high seas. It also recognizes that states in whose waters salmon originates have the primary interest in these stocks. The Anadromous Stocks Convention, approved by the Senate in 1992, achieved the major goal of ending all high seas fishing, thanks in great part to the clear mandate and requirements of the Law of the Sea Convention. Further, the implementation of this agreement will be facilitated by the entry into force of the Law of the Sea, as the prohibition on high seas salmon fishing will apply to all member states, not just the signatories to the Anadromous Stocks Convention. The use of large-scale high seas drift nets in another issue that the United States has attempted to solve in international fora. A resolution was passed unanimously by the U.N. General Assembly that created a moratorium on the use of those drift nets on the world's oceans and seas at the end of 1992. The drift net moratorium builds upon basic principles of the Law of the Sea Convention, which provides for a limited and qualified right to fish on the high seas, making it subject to the obligation to cooperate in the conservation and management of high seas living resources. Enforcement will be facilitated in view of the fact that the Convention's standards would be violated by any high seas large-scale drift net fishing that occurs contrary to the moratorium. With regards to the Bering Sea issue, problems arose for the United States when a straddling stocks fishery began outside our exclusive zone and Russia's. Concerns about stocks conditions led to measures to restrain fisheries in the U.S. zone and increasingly urgent calls by American fishermen for the Government to take steps to control the foreign fishery on the high seas. The Donut Hole Agreement approved by the Senate on October 6, 1994 was the result of lengthy negotiations between the United States and the other states involved in fishing in the area. resolves various issues to the satisfaction of the United States and other states concerned. Again, this agreement could not have been negotiated without the framework and foundation provided by the Law of the Sea Convention. The dispute settlement provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention will facilitate the implementation of the Donut Hole Agreement by providing an additional enforcement mechanism to ensure that no vessel undertakes conduct in the Bering Sea contrary to its provisions. It will thus serve as both a deterrent and as a means to bring about final resolution should problems arise in the Donut Hole in the future. Finally, the very important FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas approved by the Senate on October 6, 1994 could not have been successfully negotiated had the Law of the Sea Convention not come before it. The High Seas Agreement is part of the FAO's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and rests upon basic principles regarding high seas fishing and flag state responsibility found in the Law of the Sea Convention. The Law of the Sea Convention does not set up the high seas as a sanctuary for irresponsible fishermen but spells out that states fishing on the high seas have a duty to cooperate with other states to ensure responsible conservation and management actions. This is also true of the current negotiations at the U.N. Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. It is hoped that the final outcome of this conference will be a legally-binding agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The general principles embodied in this agreement will here again ensure more responsible fishing on the high seas and will build upon the framework provided by the Law of the Sea Convention. Only last week, a Canadian vessel fired warning shots and seized a Spanish fishing vessel that was operating on the Grand Banks off the coast of Newfoundland. Had Canada and Spain both been party to the Law of the Sea Convention, this dispute could have been settled without the firing of shots. Regrettably, such incidents are the result of the growing uncertainty that prevails with regard to high seas fisheries and will only be avoided if the Convention on the Law of the Sea becomes a widely recognized instrument on which the Straddling Stocks Conference can build to establish a lasting regime for those fisheries. Another instance where the ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention would be beneficial to the United States is in the settlement of disputes with other states. Recently, the Canadian Government levied a fee of $1,100 for United States vessels that transit from Puget Sound and the States of Oregon and Washington to Alaska. The State Department concluded that this transit fee was inconsistent with international law, and particularly with the transit rights guaranteed to vessels under customary international law and the Law of the Sea Convention. Had the United States and Canada both ratified the Law of the Sea Convention, the Canadian actions would have been in clear contravention of the convention. As such, the Canadians might have been more hesitant to take the steps they did. In any event the full force of the convention and the international community could have been brought to bear for a prompt resolution of the dispute. Mr. President, it is clear in my mind that the long-term benefits of these very important fishery agreements will only be realized and mutual enforcement ensured if the underlying principles of the Law of the Sea Convention--the constitution of the seas--are ratified by the United States. The convention entered into force on November 16, 1994. To date 73 countries have ratified, including Australia, Germany, Iceland, and Italy. Other major industrialized nations, such as Canada, the European Community, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Japan, have signed the convention and indicated their intention to ratify it in the near future. Mr. President, I commend the address of Ambassador Colson, which so ably sets forth the importance of the ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention to the fishing interests of the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the address be printed in the Record together with the current list of countries who have to date ratified the Law of the Sea Convention.