[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 INTRODUCTION OF A HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OPPOSING UNITED STATES 
                 SUPPORT FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY

                                 ______


                            HON. JACK FIELDS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 19, 1994

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, Senator Judd Gregg and I are 
introducing joint resolutions expressing the sense of Congress that the 
United States should refrain from signing the folly known as the Law of 
the Sea Treaty.
  In 1983, President Reagan soundly rejected this treaty because it was 
not in the best interests of the United States. While recent United 
Nations-led discussions have led to some improvements in the seabed 
mining provisions of the treaty, these changes have not gone far 
enough. The treaty is still a bad deal for the United States and for 
our industrialized allies, whose interests continue to be sacrificed 
for the benefit of those countries who contribute the least to this 
international effort. Furthermore, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a 
terrible precedent for future negotiations involving outer space.
  The most egregious example of this is found in the portions of the 
treaty which establish a seabed mining regime. For example, the treaty 
retains the Enterprise, a Third World-dominated mining concern, which 
will operate in direct competition with the industrialized countries 
that currently sponsor seabed mining. The Enterprise will have 
significant advantages over private miners, including the choice of a 
free, fully prospected mining site from each miner filing a claim. In 
addition, the treaty still requires that seabed mining revenues be 
shared with the Third World and even national liberation movements, 
like the PLO.
  The treaty also creates an enormous seabed mining bureaucracy, 
including an authority, an assembly, a council, a secretariat, several 
technical commissions, an international tribunal for the Law of the 
Sea, and a sea-bed disputes chamber. Third World interests dominate all 
these bodies. The United States has no veto; yet, we are to bankroll a 
quarter of the start-up costs of this new, unwieldy system.
  In 1983, when the treaty was properly rejected by President Reagan, 
the marine scientific community expressed unhappiness with the research 
components for the treaty and the energy industry balked at sharing 
revenues with the Third World from the development of offshore oil and 
gas resources. All of these provisions remain in the treaty. Moreover, 
recent concerns have also been expressed about the preemption of 
Federal and State laws and our other international obligations by the 
Law of the Sea Treaty, including our ability to use economic sanctions 
to enforce environmental and fishery laws.
  Despite these many defects, Secretary of State Warren Christopher 
announced on June 30 that the United States has committed itself to 
signing the Law of the Sea Treaty, and will sign a seabed mining 
agreement on July 29.
  I have heard arguments that we need this Treaty to aid our national 
defense objectives. However, I note that the United States recognizes 
the freedoms of navigation embodied in the treaty as customary 
international law; that we have never been denied access to any 
strategically important navigational area; and that many of the 
countries that control these areas have not ratified the treaty.

  Our hope today is that we can keep the administration from quietly 
sneaking this badly flawed treaty by the American people and that by 
emphasizing its many deficiencies, two-thirds of the Senate will not 
ratify this massive giveaway of U.S. strategic interests.
  The United States has existed for over 200 years without a law of the 
sea treaty to protect its interests in the oceans. I see little, if 
anything, to be gained by jumping aboard this leaky boat and I urge my 
colleagues in the Senate to follow the outstanding leadership of my 
good friend, Senator Gregg, and to vote no on this treaty when it is 
submitted for ratification.

                          ____________________