[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]

 
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 72--RELATIVE TO THE CONVENTION ON THE LAW 
                               OF THE SEA

  Mr. GREGG submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                            S. Con. Res. 72

       Whereas many of the minerals underlying the seabed have 
     strategic and military importance to the United States;
       Whereas the Convention on the Law of the Sea will come into 
     force on November 16, 1994, having been ratified by 61 
     countries as of the date of adoption of this resolution, none 
     of which is industrialized;
       Whereas a new seabed mining agreement amending the 
     Convention on the Law of the Sea will be open for signature 
     on July 29, 1994, and the President intends to sign the 
     agreement;
       Whereas the Convention on the Law of the Sea, even as 
     amended, continues to discriminate against the United States 
     and the industrialized allies of the United States, is 
     antithetical to business interests, and will discourage 
     United States investment in seabed mining;
       Whereas the signature by the President of the new seabed 
     mining agreement will bind the United States provisionally to 
     the seabed mining agreement and portions of the Convention on 
     the Law of the Sea for a period of not to exceed 4 years, 
     even if the Senate has not given advice and consent to the 
     ratification;
       Whereas the provisional application of the seabed mining 
     agreement and portions of the Convention of the Law of the 
     Sea will force the United States to finance 25 percent of the 
     operations of the large bureaucracy created by the Convention 
     on the Law of the Sea, including the international seabed 
     authority, which will eventually support a direct competitor 
     to mining interests of the United States and private mining 
     interests, and distribute revenues from seabed mining to 
     developing countries and groups of national liberation;
       Whereas provisional application of the Convention on the 
     Law of the Sea will coerce seabed miners of the United States 
     into participating in the regime by filing mining claims and 
     paying exploration and application fees in an amount equal to 
     $250,000 to the international seabed authority;
       Whereas the plain language of section 5(a) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 prohibits the 
     participation by the United States in any international 
     organization or any international activity of such 
     organization for which provision has not been made by any 
     treaty or statute for longer than 1 year without approval of 
     Congress; and
       Whereas the possible ultimate failure by the United States 
     to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea will cause 
     chaos for the United States seabed mining industry: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the 
     President should refrain from signing, on behalf of the 
     United States, the seabed mining agreement that will be open 
     for signature on July 29, 1994, relating to the Convention on 
     the Law of the Sea.
       Sec. 2. As used in this resolution, the Term ``Convention 
     on the Law of the Sea'' means the United Nations Convention 
     on the Law of the Sea (open for signature at Montego Bay on 
     December 10, 1982).
       Sec. 3. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of this 
     concurrent resolution to the President.

 Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today, Congressman Jack Fields and I 
are submitting concurrent resolutions expressing the sense of the 
Congress that the United States should not sign the United Nations Law 
of the Sea Treaty.
  On June 30, 1994, Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, 
that the United States will sign the seabed mining agreement--also 
known as the Boat Paper--relating to the United Nations Law of the Sea 
Treaty, when it is opened for signatures on July 29, 1994.
  In 1982, President Reagan rejected the proposed U.N. Law of the Sea 
Treaty, but today, President Clinton wants to sign this document, which 
I believe is still not in the best interest of the United States. The 
United Nations claims to have changed and overcome many of the items 
President Reagan objected to 12 years ago, but these changes are still 
not enough. The problem still lies within the seabed mining provisions 
of the treaty.
  We must ask, ``Is signing this treaty in the interest of the United 
States?'' Only 60 countries have ratified the treaty, but no other 
industrialized nation has signed it. In this agreement Third World 
countries will receive preferential treatment at the expense of 
industrialized nations. Even though the treaty has been amended, since 
1982, it continues to discriminate against the United States and other 
industrialized nations. There will be total domination by Third World 
developing countries in all aspects of the bureaucracy created by this 
treaty.
  The Preamble of the Law of the Sea Treaty says it all, ``the 
achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just 
and equitable international economic order which takes into account the 
interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the 
special interests and needs of developing countries. * * *''
  In article 144 of the treaty, in laymen's terms, developed nations 
will be ``encouraged'' to transfer their mining technology and other 
technologies to the Authority and to developing nations. In addition to 
this transfer, developed nations will be ``encouraged'' to assist 
citizens of developing nations obtain the jobs skills necessary to more 
effectively compete with developed nations' mining operations. 
``Encouraged'' means ``mandated'' in UN parlance.

  In Article 266 of the treaty, again, in laymen's terms, developed 
nations are called upon to assist with developing the marine scientific 
and technological capacity of developing nations; and accelerating the 
social and economic development of Third World nations.
  In addition to these general provisions and as stated before, the 
most significant problem still lies within the seabed mining provisions 
of the treaty and the bureaucracy established to make it work. Under 
these provisions:
  First, the United States will have no veto, but will pay for more 
than 25 percent of the start up costs of the International Seabed 
Authority and its bureaucracy--an assembly, a council, a secretariat, a 
chamber--which will be dominated by undeveloped countries. (Article 
158)
  Second, the United States will have to assist in the establishment of 
the Enterprise, the seabed mining arm of the Authority, which will 
operate in direct competition within sovereign countries and private 
miners.
  Third, the United States will have to participate in international 
revenue sharing with Third World countries. (Article 140)
  Fourth, the United States will not be able to guarantee access for 
our miners to the seabed. We may even be discriminated against.
  Fifth, United States miners will have to pay one-quarter of a million 
dollars in application fees for both exploration and exploitation, plus 
royalties and unspecified annual fees. (Boat Paper, Section 7); and
  Sixth, the United States may be required to allow foreign countries, 
including Third World, to fish within our 200 mile EEZ (Exclusive 
Economic Zone). (Article 62)
  The United States sovereignty and economic well-being will be 
jeopardized should the Clinton administration sign the treaty on July 
29.
  Furthermore, a Clinton administration signature will bind the United 
States to the seabed agreement and portions of the treaty for up to 4 
years, even absent of Senate ratification.
  Again, the question remains, is the Law of the Sea Treaty in the best 
interest of the United States? I believe that the United States should 
not sign the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty because Third World 
countries obviously want to use it to impose an unfair and unearned 
redistribution of wealth. Industrialized nations, including the United 
States, are being asked to shell out a lot of money for little in 
return. No other industrialized nation, save the United States, under 
the Clinton administration, has taken the bait. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to not support the treaty's ratification when it comes 
before the full Senate. Support for this resolution will send a strong 
message to the Administration of the Senate's lack of support for the 
Law of the Sea Treaty.

                          ____________________