[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I take the floor to express my strong 
support for Senate advice and consent to ratification of the Convention 
on Biological Diversity. The convention was ordered reported by the 
Committee on Foreign Relations on July 11, 1994. Since that time, 
attempts to bring it to the floor for consideration have been 
frustrated. I am hopeful nonetheless that the Senate will be able to 
act on this important convention prior to sine die adjournment.
  The convention has three unobjectionable goals; the conservation of 
biological diversity; the sustainable use of biological diversity; and 
the fair and equitable sharing of its benefits. It was negotiated over 
the course of 1\1/2\ years and was opened for signature at the Earth 
Summit in June 1992.
  The United States participated in the negotiation of the convention, 
but the Bush administration ultimately decided not to sign, citing 
concerns regarding the convention's financial mechanism, treatment of 
intellectual property rights, and treatment of biosafety issues. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Department of State's press release 
announcing the decision to be inserted in the Record following my 
remarks.
  Upon taking office, the Clinton administration shared the Bush 
administration's concerns with the convention, but recognized also that 
the convention would enter into force with or without the United States 
as a party. The issue thus became, How best could U.S. interests be 
served?
  The administration decided, correctly in my view, that the most 
prudent course of action was to explore avenues that would allow the 
United States to become a party to the convention, but that resolved 
U.S. concerns. Working in close consultation with the pharmaceutical 
and biotechnology industry, as well as environmental groups, the 
administration succeeded in this task.
  In transmitting the convention to the Senate, the administration 
requested that seven understandings be included in the Senate's 
resolution of advice and consent to ratification. These understandings 
address each of the concerns first identified by the Bush 
administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution reported by the committee appear immediately following my 
remarks.
  With these understandings in place, the pharmaceutical and 
biotechnology industries, industries that previously had opposed the 
convention came out in support of U.S. ratification. I ask unanimous 
consent that letters in support of ratification from the Biotechnology 
Industry Organization, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and 
Merck & Co, Inc. appear immediately following my remarks in the Record.

  Mr. President, the convention was ordered reported from the Committee 
on Foreign Relations on July 11, 1993, by a vote of 16 to 3. It also 
enjoyed the strong backing of environmental community as well as the 
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. No witness testified 
against the convention.
  Support for the convention is not limited to these industries alone 
however. The convention has received strong support from other sources 
as well, including a broad range of agriculture groups. These include: 
the U.S. Council for International Business, the American Seed Trade 
Association, Inc., the Archer Daniels Midland Co., and the American 
Corn Growers Association. I ask unanimous consent that letter from 
these and other organizations in support of the convention appear 
immediately following my remarks in the Record.
  I was surprised therefore when we attempted to bring the convention 
to the floor for consideration in August and an entirely new set of 
questions was raised, some of which were truly bizarre. For example, 
some opponents of the convention argued that the treaty would violate 
the Constitution by forcing Americans to worship nature. Mr. President, 
this sort of claim underscores the absurd and wildly unsubstantiated 
charges that are being raised by some groups or individuals about the 
convention.
  More substantive questions were raised by a number of Members in a 
letter to the majority leader asking that the Senate delay 
consideration of the convention until a series of questions that they 
had could be answered. That letter was sent on August 5. On August 8, 
the Department of State provided a comprehensive response to those 
questions. I ask unanimous consent that both the original letter and 
the administration's response be included following my remarks in the 
Record.
  I would note that most of the questions raised in the letter were 
never identified as issues of concern by the Bush administration, by 
Members of Congress, or by outside groups during the course of 
negotiations.
  In addition to responding to the questions raised by Members of this 
body, the administration also met with representatives of the National 
Cattlemen's Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation to 
discuss their concerns with the convention. These consultations 
resulted in a memorandum of record sent by Secretaries Babbitt, 
Christopher, and Espy to the majority leader on August 16. The 
memorandum reflects those consultations and explains why ratification 
of the convention is of fundamental national importance. I ask 
unanimous consent that these items appear in the Record immediately 
following my remarks.

  (See exhibit 1.)
  More recently Mr. President, the New York Times and the Washington 
Post both ran editorials calling for the Senate to act on the 
convention prior to adjournment. Just yesterday, this full page 
advertisement appeared in both the Washington Post and the Washington 
Times calling on the Senate to approve the convention. The ad is 
sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund and the many business and 
agricultural organizations concerned with America's interest in 
conserving biological diversity. I ask unanimous consent that 
editorials and advertisement also follow my remarks in the Record.
  Mr. President, throughout the process of trying to bring the 
convention to the floor, the administration has gone the extra mile, 
indeed the extra 30 miles, to respond to questions raised about the 
convention. I want to thank the administration for their efforts.
  I also want to thank the majority leader for his leadership in 
ongoing efforts to try to move the convention. It is a tribute to his 
commitment to environmental issues that at a time when the Senate has 
been grappling with up to five cloture petitions, he is willing to 
devote time and effort to the convention. Supporters of the environment 
will sorely miss his leadership in the years to come.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the Senate will yet be able to 
consider the convention. At that time, I will respond in a more 
substantive fashion to the concerns that have been raised. In the 
meantime, however, I urge my colleagues to look at the material I have 
submitted for the Record. I believe that a review of those materials 
will show that the importance of the convention is clear, that the 
questions about the convention have been answered, that the support for 
the convention is there, and that it is time for the Senate to act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

   Exhibit 1--Department of State: Office of the Assistant Secretary


                   CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

       Negotiations on a convention on biological diversity, held 
     under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, 
     concluded in Nairobi on May 22.
       The United States strongly supports the conservation of 
     biological diversity and was an early proponent of a 
     convention. The United States is disappointed that the 
     negotiations on this convention have produced a text which we 
     believe is seriously flawed in a number of respects. The 
     United States is not willing to sign a convention that does 
     not address U.S. concerns; principal U.S. objections are 
     listed below.
       The U.S. record on protecting biodiversity is unparalleled.
       The Endangered Species Act requires that threatened and 
     endangered species be identified and given special 
     protection;
       The United States has set aside nearly 180 million hectares 
     of public land where the diversity of native plant and animal 
     species is protected;
       The United States is a strong proponent of the Convention 
     on the International Trade in Endangered Species.
       However, issues of serious concern to the United States 
     were not adequately addressed in the course of the 
     negotiations of the framework convention. The United States 
     is particularly concerned about provisions related to:
       Intellectual property rights (IPR): The convention focuses 
     on IPR as a constraint to the transfer of technology rather 
     than as a prerequisite;
       Funding: The convention contains unacceptable language on 
     the transfer of funds from developed to developing countries:
       The role of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the 
     World Bank differs from that agreed to by the Participants in 
     the GEF less than a month ago.
       The United States is prepared to help others protect our 
     world's biological resources, but the funding system must be 
     workable.
       Biotechnology: The convention does not treat biotechnology 
     and biosafety appropriately.
       In every negotiation, no matter how important the subject 
     matter, the actual outcome must always be considered; the 
     United States does not and can not sign an agreement that is 
     fundamentally flawed merely for the sake of having that 
     agreement.
       As the record shows, the United States is committed to 
     protecting biological diversity. The United States will 
     continue to take measures domestically and internationally to 
     conserve and protect biological diversity.
                                  ____

                                            Biotechnology Industry


                                                 Organization,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1994.
     Re Convention on biological diversity
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pell: In his letter of November 19, 1993, 
     transmitting the Convention on Biological Diversity to the 
     Senate, President Clinton specifically noted that adequate 
     and effective protection of intellectual property rights is 
     an important economic incentive which not only encourages the 
     development of innovative technologies, but which improves 
     all parties' ability to conserve and sustainably use 
     biological resources. To this we add that the conservation 
     and preservation of biological materials is an important 
     social goal. These resources are necessary to sustain our 
     biosphere and offer tremendous opportunities for the 
     development of new products to address human and animal 
     health, nutrition, and other societal needs for us and future 
     generations.
       The biotechnology industry believes that the key element of 
     a fair and balanced Biodiversity Convention is a recognition 
     of the value of the products of nature, as well as the 
     contributions made by persons and institutions who modify 
     those products into useful articles of commerce. The value of 
     biological materials is enhanced when intellectual property 
     rights are created, protected and enforced by all nations. 
     Without adequate and effective intellectual property 
     protection there will be less incentive to make contributions 
     to developing nations whose territory encompasses much of the 
     worlds' biological material.
       The Biodiversity Convention as written is an admirable set 
     of policy goals which have at their core the conservation of 
     biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components 
     and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of 
     the utilization of genetic resources. Unfortunately, we feel 
     these enumerated goals may be difficult to reach because the 
     technology transfer provisions of the Treaty are vague and 
     subject to undesirable interpretations. We believe that 
     the submission of an interpretive statement by the United 
     States with the instruments of ratification is an 
     important step towards ensuring that the Treaty is 
     implemented in a manner that furthers the mutual interest 
     of all nations which have become signatory. The additional 
     submission by the Administration of its views on the 
     Treaty to the Senate further clarifies how the United 
     States will implement the Treaty.
       From the point of view of the biotechnology industry there 
     are two important questions which remain to be answered by 
     the Senate during the hearing process. We submit that for the 
     United States interpretive statement to have real world 
     significance, it must be accompanied by an expressed 
     willingness to withdraw from the convention in the event the 
     contracting parties reach interpretations on the issues of 
     intellectual property or governance which are counter to the 
     national interests of the United States. While we recognize 
     that the Convention already sets forth in its text the 
     withdraw option, what is missing from the Administration's 
     submission is a set of conditions under which that right 
     would be exercised. Intellectual property is the very life 
     blood of biotechnology and like other intellectual property 
     reliant industries we need to be assured that the United 
     States will withdraw from the convention if:
       It is interpreted in a manner fundamentally inconsistent 
     with the minimum level of intellectual property protection 
     contained in the recent GATT round (this means the standards 
     and not the transition rules attached thereto); or
       It is used to deprive any United States persons of a 
     recognized legal right to property.
       We urge the Senate to obtain a second assurance, i.e., that 
     the United States will not seek, and will in fact oppose, the 
     development of a biosafety protocol under the convention. We 
     believe that creation of any such entity would not result in 
     scientific oversight to further ensure human safety, but 
     rather in promotion of a political agenda serving a purpose 
     other than science. Furthermore we believe the Administration 
     should publicly commit to:
       The inclusion of broadly representative industry 
     participation in any and all international negotiations;
       Insistence on a factual, science based approach to 
     regulation as the essence of any national regulatory scheme 
     for biotechnology processes and products; and
       A clear statement that national laws regulating 
     biotechnology should be based on the products and not merely 
     on the fact that the process of biotechnology was used in 
     their development or creation.
       BIO is trade association representing more than 500 
     companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers 
     and other organizations involved in the research and 
     development of health care, agricultural and environmental 
     biotechnology products. We respectfully submit these comments 
     on behalf of our membership and want to indicate our 
     willingness to appear as a witness at any future scheduled 
     hearing.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Carl B. Feldbaum,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                            Merck & Co., Inc.,

                           Whitehouse Station, NJ, March 23, 1994.
     Senator Claiborne Pell,
     Senate Russell Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to you as Chairman and 
     Chief Executive Officer of Merck & Co., Inc. to urge your 
     support of a speedy ratification of the Convention on 
     Biological Diversity. Senate approval of the Convention would 
     send a strong message to the world community that the United 
     States views the conservation and sustainable use of the 
     Earth's biological resources as a critical component of 
     future growth and development.
       For Merck, the world's largest research-intensive 
     pharmaceutical products company, the loss of biodiversity 
     could literally mean lost opportunities for researching the 
     mechanisms of disease and discovering important new 
     medicines. Plants, insects, microorganisms and marine 
     organisms have yielded some of the greatest pharmaceutical 
     break throughs of this century, including Merck's Ivermectin, 
     an incredibly effective and safe anti-parasitic that prevents 
     the tropical disease Onchocerciasis, or river blindness. The 
     Company's ongoing agreement with the Instituto Nacional de 
     Biodiversidad (INBio) in Costa Rica embodies the principles 
     of resource conservation, sustainable development, technology 
     exchange and protection of strong private property rights for 
     which we believe the Convention would provide an 
     international framework.
       As you may know, early on in the discussions over U.S. 
     ratification of the Convention, the pharmaceutical and 
     biotechnology industries raised some serious concerns about 
     the potential for adverse interpretations of certain key 
     Articles that addressed intellectual property rights. Last 
     winter, Merck facilitated the creation of a working group of 
     six representatives of industry, environmental and policy 
     research organizations with interests in biodiversity and 
     biotechnology to address these concerns. The State 
     Department's Letter of Submittal to the Senate incorporates 
     the Interpretative Statement our working group sent to the 
     President and clarifies all ambiguities in a manner that 
     greatly enhances the potential for private sector 
     participation under the Convention.
       It is for these reasons that I support ratification of the 
     Biodiversity Convention at the earliest possible date. If you 
     need additional assistance to resolve any outstanding 
     substantive concerns, please contact me directly or call 
     Isabelle Claxton in our Washington office at (202) 638-4170.
           Sincerely,
                                                   P. Roy Vagelos.
                                  ____

                                                  U.S. Council for


                                       International Business,

                                     New York, NY, April 11, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to convey the views of the 
     United States Council for International Business (USCIB) on 
     the United Nations Framework Convention on Biological 
     Diversity. In this regard we are pleased to endorse 
     recommendations already conveyed to you by the Pharmaceutical 
     Manufacturers Association and BIO, both of which are our 
     members, emphasizing the importance of strong intellectual 
     property right protection and objecting to a priori 
     regulation of biotechnology under the treaty.
       The U.S. Council fully supports the goal of protecting the 
     world's biodiversity. Our membership includes companies that 
     have been leaders in studying and preserving biodiversity--
     most recently through innovative partnerships with 
     appropriate institutions within developing countries. In many 
     developing countries. U.S. companies play a crucial role in 
     furthering technology cooperation related to biodiversity 
     protection and biotechnology. In addition, U.S. companies are 
     a source of foreign investment which in turn brings funds to 
     relieve poverty and lessen pressure on biological resources 
     in those countries.
       The U.S. Council was pleased to note both in President 
     Clinton's November 19, 1993 letter of transmittal of the 
     Convention, and in the Department of State's November 16, 
     1993 letter of submittal of the Convention to the President, 
     strong statements of support for adequate and effective 
     protection of intellectual property rights.
       It should be remembered that the interpretive statement of 
     the United States is only necessary because the Convention 
     combines unduly broad, vague and ambiguous provisions which, 
     U.S. industry fears, may be employed by other countries to 
     the detriment of United States interests, e.g. to deny or 
     undercut intellectual property protection or to impose 
     unreasonable technology transfer or financial requirements.
       The United States should be a constructive force in 
     advancing its stated positions on the treaty in all 
     appropriate fora. In addition, the United States should 
     continue to strive to build support for its positions among 
     OECD countries and to ensure that the effectiveness of those 
     positions are not compromised by the actions of other 
     countries. In particular, the U.S. Government should be 
     insistent of intellectual property right protection and the 
     development of biotechnology for society's greater benefit.
       Hence, as the Senate prepares to provide its advice and 
     consent to ratification of the U.N. Convention on Biological 
     Diversity, we strongly recommend that you and the Committee 
     obtain appropriate commitments from the Administration that 
     it will:
       (1) vigorously defend intellectual property rights within 
     the terms of the Convention, and seek ways to build 
     incentives for protection of those rights into future 
     initiatives and instruments developed under the Convention, 
     and in other fora, such as the Global Environmental Facility 
     (GEF);
       (2) oppose any process under the U.N. Framework Convention 
     on Biological Diversity which seeks to regulate products of 
     biotechnology based on the assumption that all such products 
     are intrinsically dangerous to human health and the world's 
     biodiversity. There is no need for a biosafety protocol. In 
     any event, biosafety should be regulated on the basis of 
     science, not fear.
       The U.S. Council for International Business is the U.S. 
     affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the 
     Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD, 
     and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE). The 
     Council formulates policy positions on issues affecting the 
     increasingly globally-oriented U.S. business community 
     through committees and other working bodies drawn from its 
     membership of some 300 major multinational corporations, 
     service companies, law firms and business associations. It 
     advocates these positions to the U.S. Government and such 
     international organizations as the OECD, the GATT, ILO, UNEP 
     and other bodies of the U.N. system with which its 
     international affiliates have official consultative status on 
     behalf of world business.
       Our Environment Committee is the leader among American 
     business organizations on international environmental policy 
     and has been involved on behalf of American business in every 
     phase of UNCED, including its follow-up within the United 
     Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, and the 
     ongoing negotiations of the United Nations Biodiversity 
     Convention. Our Intellectual Property Committee has played a 
     major role in preparing business positions on this important 
     aspect of the GATT negotiations as well as on other 
     negotiations such as the U.S.-Canadian Free Trade Area and 
     NAFTA.
       The U.S. Council is ready to discuss these matters further 
     with you, other members of the Committee, or with appropriate 
     members of your staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Abraham Katz,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                               American Seed Trade


                                            Association, Inc.,

                                                   April 14, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to express the views of the 
     American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) and its members on the 
     United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. On behalf 
     of the more than 600 members, I am pleased to add our 
     fundamental support for ratification of this important 
     intellectual property rights document, as it has been 
     interpreted by the ``interpretation statement'' that was 
     added by the United States and signed by President Clinton.
       The ASTA, a national trade association representing the 
     American seed industry, supports the basic goal of 
     conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in 
     the Convention. Further, we acknowledge the importance of 
     biological diversity for the evaluation and maintenance of 
     life systems. For these and other reasons, ASTA member 
     companies are actively engaged in the research necessary to 
     develop new or improved genetic resources in the form of seed 
     varieties. These efforts include the development of improved 
     varieties of wheat, corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and others, all 
     of which benefit American and international agriculture.
       ASTA members invest millions of dollars each year in 
     research and development projects that yield improved genetic 
     strain of crop plants with better nutritional aspects and 
     enhanced pest resistance, as well as improved tolerance to 
     varying climatic conditions. These plants and their seeds are 
     sold throughout the United States and the entire world. ASTA 
     members expect to continue to invest heavily in the reserach 
     of new and improved plant varieties, with the modern methods 
     of biotechnology expected to play an increasing role.
       Like other associated organizations, the ASTA was pleased 
     to learn of the President's strong statements regarding 
     intellectual property rights. The ASTA remains committed to 
     strong and meaningful statements and policies affecting 
     intellectual property rights and continues to devote a 
     significant amount of time and effort in advancing such 
     causes. In particular, our own efforts to amend the Plant 
     Variety Protection act of 1970 (S. 1406 and H.R. 2927) 
     reinforces this strong pursuit for members of the seed 
     industry and the plant breeding community in general.
       ASTA is concerned, however, that careful attention should 
     be focused on potential interpretations of the text.
       Therefore, as the United States Senate prepares to discuss 
     the merits of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, 
     the ASTA strongly recommends that you and the Commission 
     secure from the Administration commitments that will:
       (1) Continue to unconditionally defend intellectual 
     property rights of the Convention;
       (2) Oppose any process under the U.N. Convention on 
     Biological Diversity which would seek to regulate products of 
     biotechnology based on an unfounded assumption that such 
     products are intrinsically dangerous to human health and 
     compromise the world's biodiversity; and
       (3) Oppose the creation of a system of liability for 
     perceived past wrongs to the genetic base of a participating 
     party.
       The ASTA Biotechnology Committee, comprised of member 
     companies with established biotechnology programs, has 
     reviewed the Convention, and in consultation with our Board 
     of Directors, has determined it is of significant interest to 
     the seed industry. In general, the ASTA views this 
     Convention's impact on intellectual property rights as 
     significant as language found in the GATT and NAFTA.
       The ASTA would welcome the opportunity to discuss these 
     matters with you and other committee members if necessary.
           Sincerely,
                                                 David R. Lambert,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                            Biotechnology Industry


                                                 Organization,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building; Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to testify 
     on behalf of BIO, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, at 
     the Senate hearing, April 12, 1994, concerning U.S. 
     ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity. As 
     you are aware, BIO, which is the trade association that 
     represents more than 500 companies, academic institutions, 
     state biotechnology centers and other associations involved 
     in the research and development of health care, agricultural 
     and environmental biotechnology products strongly supports 
     speedy Senate ratification of the Convention.
       We have received your follow-up question to be submitted 
     for the record in which you ask, ``What would be the impact 
     if the U.S. were to decide not to ratify the Convention, or 
     if no decision has been reached before the deadline for 
     countries to participate in the first Conference of 
     Parties?''
       Preliminary meetings of signatory parties are already 
     taking place leading up to the first Conference of Parties 
     scheduled for November 28-December 9, 1994 in Geneva, 
     Switzerland. We believe it is essential that the U.S. 
     position on the protection of intellectual property, the 
     rights of parties under existing contracts and the 
     undesirability of creating a formal biosafety protocol be 
     appropriately represented at the Geneva Meeting. The position 
     of our government will be best put forward by having official 
     representatives at the conference table. It would be 
     unconscionable for the U.S. to stand aside while other 
     nations decide matters of importance to our economic future.
       We are very appreciative of your willingness to consider 
     these views.
           Very truly yours,
                                                Richard D. Godown,
                                            Senior Vice President.
                                  ____



                                   Archer Daniels Midland Co.,

                                                  August 11, 1994.
       Dear Senator: Attached is the case for Senate ratification 
     of the Convention on Biological Diversity which will have to 
     occur in the next few days. Failing this, the United States 
     will be excluded from the next international meeting being 
     held on this subject.
       Archer Daniels Midland Company considers that it is 
     fundamentally important to American agribusiness, agriculture 
     and other industries that the United States include itself in 
     this Convention. It will be a sad day for us if these 
     meetings have to occur without an participation on our part.
       We see no downside risk for our country in ratifying this 
     Convention.
       Please consider the contents of this memorandum. We hope 
     that you will be able to support and advocate our 
     participation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    ------ ------.
                                  ____


                               Fact Sheet


         agriculture and the convention on biological diversity

       This Convention deals with issues of interest to U.S. 
     agriculture and agribusiness. U.S. ratification of the 
     Convention benefits U.S. agriculture in three important ways.
       I. What the Convention will do:
       1. Protect access to plant genetic resources
       The U.S. depends on access to foreign germplasm for plant 
     breeding programs of such key crops as corn, wheat, soybeans, 
     potatoes, cotton, and most vegetables.
       All of these crops originated in other parts of the world, 
     and the major sources of the variation essential to future 
     improvements, though traditional breeding and biotechnology 
     are located outside U.S. boundaries.
       Access to this germplasm is essential to continuing to 
     improve the productivity of U.S. crops. Experts estimate that 
     this use of biodiversity to increase yields has added a value 
     of $3.2 billion to our $11 billion annual soybean production 
     and about $7 billion to our $18 billion annual corn crop.
       Access to foreign germplasm also helps efforts to reduce 
     the need for pesticides and chemicals because such germplasm 
     can improve the ability of crops to combat disease and plant 
     pests.
       Becoming a party to the Biodiversity Convention will ensure 
     that U.S. companies continue to have access to genetic 
     resources.
       Already some U.S. researchers have been excluded from 
     germplasm collections in foreign countries.
       The Convention will facilitate access to genetic resources 
     in these and other countries.
       As a Party the U.S. will also have improved access to 
     material in national seed banks and the collections of 
     international centers.
       2. Encourage conservation of biodiversity in developing 
     countries.
       All countries, but especially the U.S., will lose if 
     genetic resources of value to agriculture are lost through 
     inadequate or non-existent conservation practices.
       While the U.S. has an extensive and effective set of 
     conservation laws on the books, this is not the case in most 
     developing countries.
       The Convention lays out a general framework relating to 
     conservation of natural resources (eg., parks, zoos, seed 
     banks).
       The Convention recognizes that if developing countries can 
     benefit from providing their genetic resources to others they 
     will have incentives to make these resources available for 
     use now and in the future.
       The Convention provides for development of voluntary 
     agreements between the providers of such resources and those 
     who wish to use them.
       3. Limit regulation of biotechnology.
       Ill-conceived regulation of biotechnology can place undue 
     restrictions on U.S. exports of biotechnology products.
       One of the many reasons the U.S. biotechnology industry and 
     the Administration believe it essential to promptly ratify 
     the Convention is to ensure that any biosafety protocol, 
     should one be developed under the Convention, is 
     scientifically based and analytically sound, and does not 
     place undue restrictions on U.S. biotechnology products.
       As a world leader in biotechnology the U.S. must 
     participate as a member of the Convention to guide these 
     discussions and protect our interests.
       II. What the Convention will not do:
       1. Affect farmers', ranchers', or foresters' ability to 
     produce food and fiber from their land.
       The Convention will not affect U.S. livestock, poultry, 
     sheep, or hog policies.
       References to alien species in Article 8(h) are intended to 
     address harmful or nuisance species such as insect pests, 
     noxious weeds, kudzu, and zebra mussels.
       Such species have had profound adverse impacts on U.S. 
     agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and livestock.
       Livestock are considered domesticated species and do not 
     fall within the scope of Article 8(h).
       Impact domestic land-use and environmental policies
       The Administration, in presenting the Convention to the 
     Senate, determined that no changes to existing statutes, 
     regulations, or programs are required. Nor is additional 
     implementing legislation required.
       The Convention will not place any additional requirements 
     on private land use or otherwise encroach upon 
     constitutionally protected rights.
       The Convention will not dictate U.S. environmental policy. 
     Unlike many treaties which set out very specific 
     requirements, the Convention on Biological Diversity is a 
     framework which is general and flexible.
       Such flexibility is beneficial to the U.S. As a framework 
     agreement, the U.S. has maximum flexibility in determining 
     for itself how to implement the Convention.
       Additionally if, in the future, more specific protocols to 
     the Convention are negotiated, the U.S. will decide at that 
     time, for itself, whether it is in its interest to become a 
     Party to those protocols.
       Joining the Convention in no way commits the U.S. to a 
     particular course of action or dictates a particular outcome 
     of the ongoing discussions within the U.S. on these issues, 
     nor is there any international body under the Convention or 
     elsewhere that can determine U.S. policy.
       The Convention's conservation provisions require no new 
     action by the U.S.
       Reference in Article 8 (d) to promoting the protection of 
     ecosystems does not commit the U.S. to adopting any new 
     policy.
       The Administration has made its position clear on this. As 
     stated by the President in his letter of Transmittal to the 
     Senate. ``Biological diversity conservation in the United 
     States is addressed through a tightly woven partnership of 
     Federal, State, and private sector programs in management of 
     our lands and waters and their resident and migratory species 
     . . . These existing programs and authorities are considered 
     sufficient . . . under the Convention.''
                                             American Corn Growers


                                                  Association,

                                  Washington, DC, August 24, 1994.
       Dear Senator: There has been much discussion lately about 
     the Convention on Biological Diversity. The American Corn 
     Growers Association believes that ratification of this treaty 
     will be in the best interest of production agriculture.
       For U.S. agricultural interests to be addressed, we must 
     first have a seat at the table. Only through ratification by 
     August 30th will the United States be able to partake of the 
     discussion and debate. In addition, by being a party to the 
     Convention, the U.S. will ensure continued access to genetic 
     resources. This is important to agriculture because access to 
     foreign germplasm for plant breeding programs for such crops 
     as corn help advance our ability to provide quality products 
     to our agricultural producers.
       Of concern to some was the fear that the Convention could 
     be used in place of current U.S. laws. This is not the case. 
     The Convention's conservation provisions will not require any 
     new environmental laws or regulations. Nor does the 
     convention prohibit our country from enacting or amending 
     current environmental laws.
       The American Corn Growers Association supports the 
     Convention on Biological Diversity and request that you 
     support it as well by voting to verify.
       Please feel free to contact our office if you have any 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Gary Goldberg,
                                               National President.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Committee on Foreign Relations,

                                   Washington, DC, August 5, 1994.
     Senator George Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mitchell: We have a number of concerns 
     regarding the Convention on Biological Diversity (Treaty Doc. 
     103-20). We request that the Senate delay consideration of 
     the Convention until these concerns can be addressed. If a 
     delay is not possible, we will not be able to accept any time 
     agreement limiting debate.
       The treaty itself is vague in many areas and some of its 
     provisions are contradictory. It appears that the treaty may 
     have implications for U.S. domestic law and environmental 
     policies. Before committing the United States to this 
     Convention with the Senate's recommendation of ratification, 
     we would like further information in a number of areas, 
     including, but not limited to, the following:
       Why does this convention prohibit state parties from making 
     reservations to any of its provisions?
       Will the understandings set forth in the resolution of 
     ratification protect the U.S. interpretation in the event of 
     a dispute?
       Will the U.S. vote in decisions taken under this convention 
     be commensurate with its financial contribution to the 
     funding mechanism? If not, why not?
       Could the eradication of ``alien species which threaten 
     ecosystems,'' called for by Article 8, affect U.S. livestock 
     policies?
       Who will interpret ``as far as possible and appropriate,'' 
     a clause which appears in several places in the convention? 
     Will the United States be subject to mandatory dispute 
     settlement?
       How can the Senate, in fulfilling its Constitutional 
     responsibilities to advise and consent, review the provisions 
     of the treaty not decided until the meeting of the Conference 
     of Parties?
       How will the ratification of this convention influence the 
     Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act 
     and other domestic environmental legislation?
       Will the provisions regarding access to genetic resources 
     (Article 15) impede United States access to germplasm and 
     other genetic resources contained in international collection 
     centers?
       By what means will the Conference of Parties promote the 
     transfer of technology to developing countries (Article 16)?
       Is it likely or possible that the Conference of Parties may 
     call for a biological safety protocol that will require a 
     license for the transfer of any biologically modified 
     organism?
       These are just some of the issues that should be further 
     clarified before we can responsibly recommend ratification.
       We understand that the primary argument for speedy 
     ratification is to ensure that the United States has a vote 
     at the Conference of Parties in November 1994. However, we 
     believe that the United States, as a major contributor to the 
     funding mechanism under this convention, will wield 
     considerable influence at the Conference of Parties even 
     without a formal vote. If anything, the U.S. negotiating 
     position will be strengthened by the continuing scrutiny of 
     the Senate. We note that this is the course successfully 
     followed by the United States in the Law of the Sea 
     Convention process.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         ------, Malcolm Wallop, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, 
           Conrad Burns, Kit Bond, Lauch Faircloth, Thad Cochran, 
           Dan Coats, Larry Pressler, John W. Warner, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, Bob Smith, Robert F. Bennett, Arlen Specter, 
           John C. Danforth, Slade Gorton, Pete V. Domenici, ----
           --, Al Simpson, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, ------, 
           Dirk Kempthorne, Strom Thurmond, ------, Don Nickles, 
           Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Larry E. Craig, Phil Gramm, 
           Connie Mack, Hank Brown, Bob Packwood, Ted Stevens.
                                  ____



                                      U.S. Department of State

                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1994.
     George J. Mitchell,
     The Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Leader: The Committee on Foreign Relations, with 
     broad bipartisan support, reported favorably the Convention 
     on Biological Diversity to the full Senate on June 29, 1994. 
     In response to requests for additional information by a 
     number of Senators, I am writing to share with you and your 
     colleagues the Administration's response. I am hopeful that 
     this information will provide the Senate the background it 
     needs to move forward expeditiously in providing advice and 
     consent.
       The Clinton Administration has worked with affected 
     industry to address several concerns that existed at the time 
     the Convention was opened for signature. Based on the seven 
     understandings developed through cooperation with industry 
     and set forth in the proposed Resolution of Ratification, the 
     Administration urges the Senate to give its advice and 
     consent to this treaty. The understandings set forth in the 
     Resolution or Ratification clearly address concerns that were 
     previously expressed about the Convention's provisions on 
     technology transfer, finance and biosafety. In response to 
     these efforts, the affected industries, state and local 
     government officials and others now strongly support 
     ratification of the agreement.
       We have endeavored to answer all questions about the 
     Convention and U.S. participation. The attached responses to 
     the good questions raised by a number of Senators will 
     further clarify the record and, we believe, provide Senators 
     with the assurances they need to support this agreement. Most 
     importantly, these responses make clear that: 1) no 
     implementing legislation is required--the US meets and 
     surpasses all treaty provisions--and the treaty provides 
     flexibility for future changes to U.S. law; 2) the treaty 
     does not and can not force the United States to undertake any 
     action incongruent with its interests (and preserves the 
     appropriate role of the Congress to provide advice and 
     consent to any significant agreement); and 3) because no 
     changes to existing statutes, regulations or programs are 
     required, the Convention will not have any effect on farmers, 
     ranchers or foresters.
       I want to note that the timing of Senate consideration is 
     critical--the Administration and key industries believe that 
     it is essential that the U.S. complete work in time to enable 
     submission of our articles of ratification by August 30, 
     1994, thus enabling us to participate fully at the first 
     Conference of the Parties so that we can fully protect US 
     interests. Failure to achieve ratification could have 
     significant negative consequences for US interests.
       Senate advice and consent would help complete the 
     significant efforts and sound principles undertaken on a 
     bipartisan basis by this and the previous Administration. 
     Having addressed the appropriate and legitimate concerns 
     raised in the past, it is now in the economic interests of 
     the United States to ratify this agreement. We are hopeful 
     that, pursuant to the recommendation of the Foreign Relations 
     Committee, which made a favorable recommendation on a 16-3 
     vote, the Resolution of Ratification can be deliberated in a 
     timely manner and that the full Senate will give its advice 
     and consent to ratification. The Administration stands ready 
     to provide any information that is necessary to facilitate 
     this action.
           Sincerely,

                                             Wendy R. Sherman,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____


                   Convention on Biological Diversity

(The Administration's Responses to Questions Raised in a Letter to the 
                   Majority Leader on August 5, 1994)

       1. Why does this convention prohibit state parties from 
     making reservations to any of its provisions?
       The purpose of the ``no reservations'' clause is to prevent 
     parties from picking and choosing which provisions they are 
     willing to accept.
       2. Will the understandings set forth in the resolution of 
     ratification protect the U.S. interpretation in the event of 
     a dispute?
       The United States is protected in the event of any dispute 
     because the Convention does not require the United States to 
     submit to binding dispute resolution.
       The understandings are an authoritative statement of the 
     United States' interpretation of the Convention. They will be 
     deposited with the United States instrument of ratification 
     and will be circulated by the United Nations to all parties.
       3. Will the U.S. vote in decisions taken under this 
     convention be commensurate with its financial contribution to 
     the funding mechanism?
       The United States objective is a rule of procedure relating 
     to the funding mechanism that fully protect its interests as 
     a major donor. The United States has supported a rule in the 
     rules of procedure requiring that all decisions related to 
     the funding mechanism be made by consensus. Only as a party 
     will we be able to block consensus on the rules of procedure; 
     as an observer we would have no such ability.
       It should also be noted that the Global Environment 
     Facility (GEF) currently operates the financial mechanism. 
     The GEF is responsible for actual decisions on biodiversity 
     project funding. The instrument restructuring the GEF also 
     gives the United States a vote commensurate with our 
     contribution.
       4. Could the eradication of ``alien species which threaten 
     ecosystems,'' called for by Article 8, affect U.S. livestock 
     policies?
       No. The Convention will not affect U.S. livestock policies. 
     Cattle (as well as poultry, sheep, and hogs) are considered 
     under the Convention to be ``domesticated species''--not 
     alien species--and thus not subject to Article 8(h).
       5. Who will interpret ``as far as possible and 
     appropriate,'' a clause which appears in several places in 
     the convention?
       This phrase is a common one in international agreements. It 
     is a phrase that protects, not restricts, the interests of 
     parties. In this Convention the phrase was deliberately 
     inserted in order to give each party substantial flexibility 
     in determining how best to implement the Convention. The 
     United States will decide for itself how it will implement 
     the Convention and how it interprets the phrase ``as far as 
     possible and appropriate.''
       6. Will the United States be subject to mandatory dispute 
     settlement?
       No. Dispute resolution involving the United States under 
     the Convention is limited to non-binding conciliation. 
     Binding dispute resolution (either through arbitration or 
     submission of the dispute to the International Court of 
     Justice) is optional.
       The United States will not opt for binding dispute 
     resolution under the Convention.
       7. How can the Senate, in fulfilling its Constitutional 
     responsibilities to advise and consent, review provisions and 
     processes of the treaty that are not included in the treaty, 
     but will be decided at the Conference of Parties?
       It is common practice in international agreements to assign 
     certain functions to the Conference of the Parties. Under 
     treaties such as this, the rules of procedure are always 
     decided at the first Conference of the Parties, typically 
     after the Senate has given advice and consent. Examples 
     include the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone 
     Layer; the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 
     Ozone Layer; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; 
     the Antarctic Environmental Protocol; the Cartagena 
     Convention (Caribbean); the SPREP Convention (South Pacific); 
     CITES; London (Dumping) Convention; Convention for a North 
     Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES); Convention for 
     the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific 
     Ocean; and the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in 
     the North Atlantic Ocean.
       In addition, the Administration stands ready to apprise, 
     and seek the views of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
     and any other interested Members on the status of U.S. 
     participation in the Convention whenever the Committee deems 
     appropriate. This will enable the Senate to remain fully 
     advised of key developments related to the Convention.
       8. How will the ratification of this convention influence 
     the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy 
     Act and other domestic environmental legislation?
       The conservation provisions of the Biodiversity Convention 
     are broad, framework provisions. They deliberately leave to 
     individual countries to determine how the Convention should 
     be implemented, as far as possible and as appropriate for 
     each country.
       There are many ways that the United States could craft a 
     statute and still remain in compliance with the conservation 
     provisions. Thus, the Convention will not require any change 
     to any U.S. statute, regulation, or program. No additional 
     implementing legislation is required. At the same time, the 
     Convention would not foreclose amendment of domestic 
     environmental legislation.
       9. Will the provisions regarding access to genetic 
     resources (Article 15) impede United States access to 
     germplasm and other genetic resources contained in 
     international collection centers?
       No. The United States and all other countries will continue 
     to have open access to collections of the International 
     Agricultural Research Centers of the Consultative Group on 
     International Agricultural Research. The Convention should 
     also serve to facilitate access to collections recently 
     closed to us where some countries have been waiting for a 
     mechanism to establish benefit sharing arrangements. Overall, 
     the Convention will enhance access to germplasm.
       10. By what means will the Conference of Parties promote 
     the transfer of technology to developing countries (Article 
     16)?
       Following a dialogue with U.S. industry and others, we have 
     developed an interpretation of the Convention and an approach 
     for its implementation that we believe is fully consistent 
     with U.S. public and private interests.
       However, the Convention is clear: the Convention does not 
     compel the involuntary transfer of technology to developing 
     countries. The Convention promotes transfer of technology by 
     encouraging voluntary, mutual agreements between the 
     countries of origin of genetic resources and those entities 
     that seek to commercially utilize those genetic resources.
       11. Is it likely or possible that the Conference of Parties 
     may call for a biological safety protocol that will require a 
     license for the transfer of any biologically modified 
     organism?
       One of the many reasons the U.S. biotechnology industry and 
     the Administration believe it is essential to promptly ratify 
     the Convention is to ensure that any biosafety protocol--
     whether it includes a licensing requirement or not--is 
     scientifically based, analytically sound, and does not place 
     undue restrictions on U.S. exports of biotechnology products. 
     Industry believes the United States can more effectively 
     represent its interests in this regard as a party, rather 
     than as an observer. Although the United States would not be 
     obligated to become a party to a biosafety protocol with 
     unacceptable provisions, the existence of a protocol among 
     other countries could have significant adverse impacts on 
     U.S. industry.
                                  ____



                                       The Secretary of State;

                                      Washington, August 16, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     The Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Leader: As you are aware, several issues have been 
     raised recently by agricultural organizations regarding the 
     Convention on Biological Diversity, which is now before the 
     full Senate for advice and consent to ratification.
       Representatives of the Departments of State, Agriculture 
     and Interior have consulted with several agricultural 
     organizations to answer their questions and address any 
     concerns. The enclosed Memorandum of Record reflects those 
     consultations and explains why ratification is of fundamental 
     national importance. The Memorandum represents the Clinton 
     administration's views as expressed during these 
     consultations.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that from 
     the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no 
     objection to this Memorandum of Record.
       We hope that this information will help the Senate to 
     complete the ratification process as soon as possible. For 
     the reasons expressed throughout this year, we believe 
     failure to ratify the Convention before adjournment would be 
     detrimental to our interests, most especially those of our 
     important agribusiness and biotechnology industries.
           Sincerely,
     Bruce Babbitt,
                                        Secretary of the Interior.
     Mike Espy,
                                         Secretary of Agriculture.
     Warren Christopher,
                                               Secretary of State.
       Enclosure.
                                  ____


                          Memorandum of Record

       Pursuant to questions posed to the Administration by 
     several agricultural organizations (Tab A), the Department of 
     State, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of 
     the Interior state the following on the importance of rapid 
     ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity and 
     further elaborate on the letter and questions and answers 
     submitted to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders by the 
     Department of State on August 8, 1994 (Tab B).


                        benefits to agriculture

       U.S. ratification of the Convention benefits U.S. 
     agriculture by providing leverage to limit the restriction of 
     U.S. exports of biotechnology products, safeguarding U.S. 
     access to agricultural genetic resources, and encouraging 
     conservation of such resources in other countries.
       The majority of important U.S. agricultural crops and 
     livestock originated in other parts of the world, and the 
     major sources of the variation essential to future 
     improvements, through traditional breeding and biotechnology, 
     are located outside U.S. boundaries (Tab C).
       Access to this germplasm is essential to continued 
     improvement in the productivity of U.S. crops. For example, 
     experts estimate that our use of plant genetic material to 
     improve agronomic traits and increase yields has added a 
     value of $3.2 billion to our $11 billion annual soybean 
     production and about $7 billion to our $18 billion annual 
     corn crop. Access to foreign germplasm also helps efforts to 
     facilitate the development of crops resistant to diseases and 
     plant pests. Bioengineered products are making an ever 
     increasing contribution of major economic value to 
     agricultural advancement.
       The U.S. must ratify the Convention by August 30 so that it 
     can participate fully to shape discussions on the regulation 
     of biotechnology that will occur at the first Conference of 
     the Parties in November. There is strong pressure among 
     countries who are already Party to the Convention to push 
     ahead with development of a biosafety protocol on the safe 
     transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms 
     resulting from biotechnology.
       Ill-conceived regulation of biotechnology can place undue 
     restrictions on U.S. exports of biotechnology products 
     whether in the agricultural or pharmaceutical areas. One of 
     the many reasons the U.S. biotechnology industry and the 
     Administration believe it essential to promptly ratify the 
     Convention is to ensure that any biosafety protocol, should 
     one be developed under the Convention, is scientifically 
     based and analytically sound, and does not place undue 
     restrictions on U.S. export of biotechnology products.
       As the world leader in biotechnology the U.S. must be at 
     the table as a party to the Convention to guide these 
     discussions and protect our interests.
       Also likely to be addressed at the first Conference of 
     Parties in November are issues concerning access to genetic 
     resources. The U.S. depends on access to foreign germplasm 
     for plant breeding programs of such key crops as corn, wheat, 
     soybeans, potatoes, cotton, and most vegetables. These crop 
     improvements enhance our ability to provide quality forage 
     for our livestock. In addition, introduction of genetic 
     material from foreign animal breeds into our domestic 
     livestock is crucial for improving livestock productivity, 
     meat and fiber quality and other essential traits.
       By becoming a party to the Biodiversity Convention, the 
     U.S. will ensure continued access to genetic resources. 
     Questions of sovereignty over genetic material and concern 
     that holders of such material receive appropriate 
     compensation for providing such material have begun to 
     jeopardize U.S. access to foreign material, particularly in 
     the developing world. Already some U.S. researchers have been 
     excluded from germplasm collections in foreign countries on 
     the basis of such concerns.
       The Convention will provide a forum to facilitate access to 
     genetic resources in these and other countries. As a Party to 
     the Convention, the U.S. will be able to work with other 
     countries of the world to develop effective means to 
     safeguard the open exchange of such material, building on the 
     principles of open access and mutual agreement to such 
     exchange. This will ensure and improve our access to 
     important genetic material, whether in private hands, 
     national collections or international centers.
       The Convention also encourages conservation of such genetic 
     resources in other countries. All countries, but especially 
     the U.S., will lose if genetic resources of value to 
     agriculture are lost through inadequate or non-existent 
     conservation practices. The U.S. enforces an extensive and 
     effective set of conservation laws, yet this is not the case 
     in most developing countries. The Convention lays out a 
     general framework relating to conservation of natural 
     resources.
       The Convention recognizes that if developing countries can 
     benefit from providing their genetic resources to others they 
     will have incentives to make these resources available for 
     use now and in the future. The Convention provides for 
     development of voluntary agreements between the providers of 
     such resources and those who wish to use them.


                       private sector involvement

       As stated in the Report of the Secretary of State 
     transmitted to the Senate by the President, ``the 
     participation of the private sector greatly enhances the 
     attainment of economic value from genetic resources.'' 
     Historically, the private sector in the U.S., including 
     foresters, farmers, and ranchers, has had a vital and 
     critical role in protecting and enhancing biological 
     diversity. In addition, as stated above, agriculture 
     producers need biological diversity to ensure adequate plant 
     and animal genetic resources for improving and protecting 
     domestic production of food and fiber. Access to the world's 
     genetic resources is critical to agricultural production. For 
     these reasons it is imperative that the U.S. agricultural 
     sector participate in future international conferences on 
     implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
       We recognize that the private agricultural sector--by 
     harnessing biological and natural resources--has produced 
     enormous benefits for the U.S. and its people. The 
     agricultural industry has similar productive contributions to 
     make during consideration of these issues internationally. In 
     this regard, the Administration will conduct briefings and, 
     consistent with applicable law, solicit views on upcoming 
     issues prior to meetings of the Conference of the Parties and 
     other critical events. The Administration will work to 
     facilitate the participation of representative stakeholder 
     interests, including those from agriculture, as observers at 
     such meetings and, if appropriate and within delegation size 
     constraints, as private sector advisors on the U.S. 
     delegation. In addition the U.S. will use the opportunity of 
     future meetings of the Convention to emphasize the importance 
     of private sector arrangements with regard to the use and 
     conservation of biodiversity.


          the convention may not be used in place of u.s. laws

       The provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention 
     provide a broad framework for the conservation of biological 
     diversity. The United States already has some of the world's 
     most comprehensive and advanced programs for protecting 
     public lands and enforcing environmental laws. In fact, the 
     laws and regulations of the U.S. related to public land 
     management and private land practices impose a higher 
     standard than that called for in the Convention. For example, 
     with regard to protected areas, the President cited, in 
     his letter of Transmittal, the ``extensive system of 
     Federal and State wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries, 
     wildlife management areas, recreation areas, parks and 
     forests'' that already exists in the U.S.
       Concerns have been expressed that the implementation of the 
     Convention's conservation provisions may require new 
     environmental laws or regulations or that the Convention 
     itself could be used as the basis for regulatory action. The 
     Administration has determined that neither is the case.
       Implementation of the conservation provisions of the 
     Convention will not require any change to any U.S. statute, 
     regulation, or program. As stated in the report to the 
     Secretary of State transmitted to the Senate by the 
     President, ``No additional legislation is required to 
     implement the Convention. The United States can implement the 
     Convention through existing Federal Statutes.''
       The Convention will not provide new authority for any 
     administrative, civil, or criminal action not permitted under 
     domestic law.


 the convention does not prevent amendment of environmental legislation

       Concern has been raised that ratification of the Convention 
     by the U.S. could prevent any amendment of U.S. environmental 
     laws. The conservation provisions of the Biodiversity 
     Convention are broad, framework provisions. They are 
     deliberately flexible enough to allow individual countries to 
     determine how the Convention should be implemented, as far as 
     possible and as appropriate for each country. There are many 
     ways that the United States could craft relevant statutes and 
     still remain consistent with the conservation provisions of 
     the Convention. As noted above, in many respects existing 
     environmental laws and regulations impose a much higher 
     standard than what is required by the Convention. Although 
     some basic environmental statutes are necessary to implement 
     the Convention, we do not anticipate scenario in which the 
     Convention would impede amendment of a domestic environmental 
     statute.


     the convention does not provide for a private right of action

       Concerns have been expressed that domestic laws and 
     regulations would be subject to challenge by private persons 
     as not being in compliance with the Convention.
       The Convention sets forth rights and obligations among 
     countries. The Convention does not, expressly or by 
     implication, create a private right of action under which a 
     private person or group may challenge domestic laws and 
     regulations as inconsistent with the Convention, or failure 
     to enforce domestic laws or regulations promulgated 
     thereunder.


                     no binding dispute resolution

       Concerns have been raised that the Convention might allow 
     other governments to force changes in U.S. domestic laws and 
     policies through binding dispute resolution. This is not the 
     case. Dispute resolution involving the United States under 
     the Convention is limited to non-binding conciliation. 
     Moreover, such procedures may be initiated only by a Party to 
     the Convention; they are not available to private persons or 
     groups. Binding dispute resolution (either through 
     arbitration or submission of the dispute to the International 
     Court of Justice) is optional. Accordingly, the Department of 
     State, in reply to a question from Senator Pell for the 
     record, stated that ``the United States will not opt for 
     compulsory dispute resolution under the Convention.'' This is 
     consistent with past practice in environmental agreements in 
     which the U.S. has not accepted binding dispute resolution.


         effect of amendments or protocols on the united states

       Concerns have been raised about the possible future impact 
     of protocols to the Convention on U.S. domestic environmental 
     laws. No amendment or protocol is binding on the United 
     States without its express consent. Amendments to the 
     Convention (apart from annexes which are restricted to 
     procedural, scientific, technical, and administrative 
     matters) will be submitted to the Senate for its advice and 
     consent.
       With respect to protocols, we would expect that any 
     protocol would be submitted to the Senate for its advice and 
     consent; however, given that a protocol could be adopted on 
     my number of subjects, treatment of any given protocol would 
     depend on its subject matter.


                              attachments

       Tab A--Letter to Majority Leader Mitchell on August 5.
       Tab B--State response to Mitchell letter of August 5.
       Tab C--Examples of the Value of Biodiversity to U.S. 
     Agriculture.
                                  ____


       Examples of the Value of Biodiversity to U.S. Agriculture

       Prior to European settlement, the U.S. was largely void of 
     plant or animal species of current commercial importance. 
     Native plant species were pecan, blueberry, cranberry, 
     tobacco, and sunflower. Animal species included longhorn 
     cattle and buffalo. Americans have been and continue to be 
     dependent upon the rest of the world for plant and animal 
     genetic resources as a germplasm base for commercial 
     agriculture. Based on commercial acreage, over 99 percent of 
     U.S. crops are planted to plant species introduced from other 
     countries. While the U.S. has developed a National Plant 
     Germplasm System and is developing a similar system for 
     animal germplasm, it is estimated that the germplasm 
     repositories in the U.S. now represent only about 50 percent 
     of available world resources.
       The Convention on Biological Diversity stresses the 
     sustainable use and management of biological diversity for 
     agricultural, medicinal and industrial purposes. The 
     convention will allow the U.S. to collaborate with countries 
     by working together to preserve biodiversity of interest to 
     all nations. U.S. agriculture has significantly benefitted 
     from conservation of biological diversity in foreign 
     countries and will continue to benefit through U.S. 
     ratification. Numerous examples of agricultural benefits of 
     biodiversity can be cited, but a few are worth mentioning.
       In 1970, a severe disease epidemic, later identified as the 
     southern leaf blight fungus, threatened the U.S. corn crop. 
     The salvation of our corn crop was found in diverse varieties 
     resistant to the disease which were maintained by U.S. plant 
     breeders. The genes that provided leaf blight resistance had 
     originally been introduced from Mexico. We do not know where 
     or when the next epidemic will hit important U.S. crops, such 
     as late blight of potato, the disease which caused the Irish 
     potato famine and is now a renewed threat to potato 
     production worldwide. Potatoes are one of the world's leading 
     non-cereal sources of calories. We do not always make the 
     connection between the French fried potatoes we consume and 
     biodiversity, but the connection is very real. At least 13 
     species of potatoes have been used in developing the 
     varieties currently grown in the U.S. Many more wild potato 
     species are under investigation as sources of disease and 
     insect resistance, stress tolerance and nutritional quality 
     for developing and developed nations. Diversity found in 
     cultivated varieties or wild species of potatoes could be the 
     key to resistance to the new strains of the late blight 
     fungus that have recently caused serious production losses in 
     the U.S. There has also been a recent discovery of resistance 
     to the Colorado Potato Beetle and the source of resistance 
     can be traced to wild potato species in South America. It is 
     the interest of the U.S. that Parties to the Convention 
     assure that these wild genetic resources are adequately 
     protected. Ratification of this treaty will allow the U.S. to 
     sit in the table with other Parties when world conservation 
     priorities are established.
       The peanut, a native of South America, is an important cash 
     crop for our Southern states and a favorite food of American 
     consumers. However, due to its susceptibility to a horde of 
     insect and disease pests, the peanut is largely dependent 
     upon germplasm introduced from abroad for its continued 
     productivity and improvement. In a recent breakthrough, three 
     species of wild peanuts found in Bolivia and Paraguay have 
     been successfully hybridized with cultivated peanuts to 
     produce breeding lines with high levels of resistance and 
     even immunity to root knot nematodes and certain leafspot 
     diseases. These are the most virulent pests affecting U.S. 
     peanut production and the use of germplasm not native to 
     the U.S. will greatly reduce the need to use chemical 
     pesticides. The Convention specifically calls for all 
     nations to safeguard their resources and make them 
     available to contracting Parties.
       We know that our insurance policy against such epidemics is 
     found in collections of cultivated and wild relatives, such 
     as those maintained by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
     and having access to additional germplasm now not available 
     in the U.S. This biological diversity insurance policy 
     includes not only that housed in collections outside the 
     country of origin of the species, but also the genetic 
     resources preserved within the country of origin, such as the 
     perennial relative of corn [Zea diploperennis] protected in a 
     Mexican reserve and known to be tolerant or immune to seven 
     of nine tropical corn viruses. Resources such as these and 
     others will be of high priority for Parties to the 
     Convention.
       The food industries not only benefit from conservation of 
     crop plants and their wild relatives, but also from countless 
     beneficial microbes. One example is the new, award winning 
     development of a FDA approved food additive, Gellan Gum, by 
     Merck & Co., Inc. This product performs in a variety of ways 
     as a gelling agent and suspending agent and is now used in 
     confections, beverages, bakery goods, and jams worldwide. 
     This product with current estimated annual sales worldwide of 
     $10 million was not developed from a little known Amazonian 
     plant, but from a newly discovered species of bacteria 
     [Pseudomonas elodea] growing in a Pennsylvania pond. The 
     value of undiscovered biological resources in our own 
     backyard may be as important as that found in tropical 
     rainforests. This treaty signifies our intent to sustainably 
     use our own biological resources as well as continued 
     reliance on the rest of the world.
       The U.S. wheat crop is now under siege from a foreign 
     insect known as the Russian Wheat Aphid. Over 26,000 samples 
     of wheat were examined for possible resistance to this 
     serious new threat. Only four sources of multiple resistance 
     to this pest were discovered, all originating from countries 
     of Southwest Asia and Eastern Europe. These varieties had 
     been maintained by the USDA for 20-35 years before the 
     present value was recognized. We might assure that today's 
     genetic resources still exists for tomorrow's unforeseen need 
     such as that demonstrated by these native varieties from 
     Southwest Asia.
       Soybeans are one of the most important agriculture products 
     and exports for the U.S. All the progenitors and relatives of 
     soybeans are native to foreign countries. Together with 
     researchers in Australia, U.S. scientists have recently 
     discovered new species related to the soybean that may 
     provide future sources of disease resistance to U.S. soybean 
     varieties. We are totally dependent on other nations to 
     protect and preserve the ecosystems where these and other 
     significant wild crop relatives occur. This treaty signifies 
     the intent of contracting parties to conserve and manage such 
     resources for the benefit of all humankind.
       We need not look far to find examples of domestic 
     biodiversity benefiting agriculture. In California the entire 
     walnut industry, with an annual average value of over $250 
     million, literally rests on a rare plant species. The entire 
     walnut production depends on using a rare native California 
     walnut [Juglans hindsii] as a rootstock on which to graft 
     varieties of the walnut of commerce. Without this native 
     species walnuts would not be as productive in the soils of 
     California.
       The contribution of our native wild grape species as 
     rootstocks for grapes worldwide is perhaps the most important 
     contribution of U.S. biodiversity to world agriculture. The 
     grape industry estimates that 95 percent of wine grape 
     production in Europe uses American rootstocks. Our commitment 
     to protecting our own biological resources is as of much 
     concern to foreign countries as our concern for protection of 
     biological diversity in foreign countries, especially that of 
     developing countries.
       While foods of animal origin today supply two-thirds of the 
     protein, one-third of the energy, 80 percent of the calcium, 
     60 percent of the phosphorus and significant quantities of 
     trace elements and ``B'' vitamins to the average Americans' 
     diet, the ancestors of almost all of the animal germplasm 
     needed to supply these nutrients were imported from other 
     countries. Suitable native breeds of livestock simply were 
     not available. Therefore, the importation of specific breeds, 
     stains and flocks of livestock and poultry was an absolute 
     necessity to the development of U.S. animal industries.
       As an example, three beef cattle breeds--Angus, Hereford, 
     and Shorthorn--which were imported from Great Britain between 
     1830 and 1865 have served as the foundation for the modern 
     beef industry. From the 1960's to present, the additional 
     importation of exotic beef cattle germplasm has greatly 
     facilitated the production of today's lean beef. In the dairy 
     area, today's high producing Holstein cow was developed in 
     North America from European ``black and white'' ancestors.
       The original genetic stock for the major white breeds of 
     swine in the U.S. were imported from Great Britain and 
     northern Europe about 1900. These breeds were used 
     extensively in breeding programs to produce today's lean pig. 
     Approximately 5 years ago, Chinese swine were imported and 
     are not being evaluated for genetic resistance to diseases 
     and increased litter size. The transfer of these traits into 
     our domestic breeds will help improve production efficiency 
     of the U.S. swine industry.
       Recent examples of how imported germplasm has assisted the 
     U.S. sheep industry are the importation in the 1960's of the 
     Finnish Landrace breed which produced multiple births, and 
     the importation of the Texel sheep in the 1980's to improve 
     lean lamb production. It is important to U.S. animal 
     industries to continue to have access to animal genetic 
     stocks of the world.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 26, 1994]

                        The Biodiversity Treaty

       One of the casualties of the mismanagement of this session 
     of Congress and the current rush to adjourn could be the 
     international Convention of Biological Diversity. It would be 
     a major loss.
       The Clinton administration signed the agreement in June of 
     1993; the Bush administration had declined. The principal 
     goal is to preserve the present array of living species in 
     the world, and diversity within each species. Scientists 
     estimate that 20 percent of currently living plant and animal 
     species could otherwise be lost by the year 2020. Much of the 
     loss would occur through the destruction of forests and other 
     development in the Third World. But the rest of the world 
     would feel the effect. The United States, for example, is 
     heavily dependent on plant strains from abroad to maintain 
     the vitality of basic corps--corn, soybeans, wheat--and their 
     ability to resist disease. The same is true for other food-
     producing countries.
       The convention would seek to preserve not just the species 
     themselves but international access to them. Safety and other 
     standards could also be set for world trade in plant and 
     animal strains produced through biotechnology, a subject of 
     huge importance to U.S. industry. And because there are costs 
     to conservation, richer countries, including the United 
     States, would make contributions to help and induce poorer 
     countries to conform.
       The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the 
     convention this June by 16 to 3. All Democrats and five 
     Republicans--Richard Lugar, Nancy Kassebaum, Hank Brown, 
     James Jeffords and Judd Gregg--voted aye. Three other 
     Republicans--Jesse Helms, Larry Pressler and Paul Coverdell--
     voted no. Some agricultural groups then expressed alarm about 
     some aspects of the pact, as have conservative organizations 
     that see it as an environmental wedge and threat to U.S. 
     sovereignty. Bob Dole and 34 other Republicans wrote majority 
     leader George Mitchell asking that floor consideration be 
     delayed until some questions could be answered. The 
     administration provided answers; most of the agricultural 
     groups have since withdrawn or muted their objections, and 
     such influential agribusiness organizations as the Archer 
     Daniels Midland Co. have joined the biotechnology and 
     pharmaceutical industries in support. But a filibuster or 
     possibly even the threat of one could still derail the 
     convention.
       The Republicans asked, among other things, whether the 
     convention would preempt and force changes in U.S. law. The 
     administration says U.S. law is already well in advance of 
     what the convention requires. It also says the convention 
     couldn't be used by environmental groups as a basis for 
     domestic litigation, as some critics profess to fear. Nor 
     would there be a lack of control over the U.S. financial 
     contribution to the undertaking.
       A first conference of the parties to begin the 
     implementation of the convention is scheduled Nov. 28. The 
     United States will have a delegation there no matter what, 
     but plainly in a stronger posture if the Senate has voted 
     aye. Surely the Senate can find the means to brush aside the 
     remaining weak objections and cast that vote before it goes 
     home.
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 1994]

                     Biodiversity Pact on the Ropes

       Chances that the Senate will ratify an international 
     agreement aimed at preserving the world's biological 
     diversity are diminishing as fast as the organisms the pact 
     is designed to protect. Republican opposition and Democratic 
     lethargy are combining to frustrate approval of the 
     biodiversity convention, thus keeping the U.S. out of step 
     with most of the rest of the world in the fight to save a 
     wide range of biological species and habitats.
       The convention was one of the major treaties approved at 
     the 1992 world environmental summit meeting in Rio de 
     Janeiro. It sets no firm requirements to save species or 
     habitats but commits the signatories to develop national 
     plans aimed at doing so. The treaty also seeks to promote an 
     equitable sharing of benefits between the developing nations 
     that possess biological resources and the industrialized 
     nations that seek to use them for medical or agricultural 
     purposes.
       President Bush positioned the U.S. as an environmental 
     outcast when he refused to sign the treaty because of 
     ambiguous subsidiary clauses that seemed to threaten 
     important American interests. Mr. Bush was right to be 
     worried, and this page largely agreed with his reservations. 
     One clause could be construed as giving poor countries 
     control of the mechanism through which money would be raised 
     and distributed for conservation projects. Other clauses 
     looked as if they might threaten the protection of patents 
     and intellectual property rights or impose undue 
     restrictions, based on bogus safety concerns, on 
     biotechnology exports.
       Fortunately, these and other concerns have been addressed 
     through clarifying interpretations issued by the Clinton 
     Administration. President Clinton has signed the treaty and 
     the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has strongly 
     recommended ratification. Even some of the groups originally 
     concerned about the treaty--notably the biotechnology and 
     pharmaceutical industries--are now supporting prompt 
     ratification. So are scientific and environmental 
     organizations.
       Even so, ratification has been held up by Republican 
     opposition, triggered initially by Senator Jesse Helms, the 
     ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and 
     then swelling to include 35 Senate Republicans, led by Bob 
     Dole, the minority leader. The Republicans argue that the 
     Administration's interpretations are not binding on other 
     signatories and that some clauses could be construed to 
     undermine this nation's ability to strike its own balance 
     domestically between environmental values and competing 
     interests.
       The opponents fretted, for example, that clauses requiring 
     nations to promote the protection of habitats and species 
     might be used to push for ``absolute'' protection of the 
     environment in the U.S., at the expense of commercial or even 
     recreational purposes. That seems a far-fetched leap from a 
     vaguely worded treaty with lots of weasel words, especially 
     since the Clinton Administration insists the treaty neither 
     requires nor prohibits changes in American environmental 
     laws.
       The opposition has already delayed ratification beyond the 
     deadline that would have allowed the U.S. to participate as a 
     signatory at a critical organizing meeting in late November. 
     Americans can still participate as observers. Better yet, if 
     the Senate ratifies the convention, they could attend with 
     the added influence of a belated signatory.
       Delay is not only pointless; it could be harmful. The U.S. 
     needs to join this effort not only to enhance the global 
     environment, but for its own good as well. Otherwise, 
     American leadership in biotechnology and agriculture may be 
     threatened as other countries deny the U.S. access to their 
     genetic and biological resources.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1994]

                 Biodiversity is Crucial to Our Future

       The Convention on Biological Diversity is the first 
     comprehensive international agreement committing governments 
     to conserve the earth's biological resources and use them in 
     a sustainable manner. By producing clean water, oxygen, and 
     food, biodiversity plays a critical role in maintaining the 
     planet's life support systems.
       The agreement is now before the Senate for approval. To 
     date the Convention has been signed by over 160 countries and 
     ratified by over 90, including the entire European Union, 
     Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. The United 
     States is one of the few industrialized nations yet to ratify 
     the agreement.
       Unfortunately, the Biodiversity Convention has stalled in 
     the Senate because of partisan politics. This must stop. 
     Neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue, the Convention 
     is important to our nation as a whole, including U.S. 
     business interests and agriculture.
       Though the Convention is currently in limbo, the 103rd 
     Congress is still in session, meaning the Senate still has 
     time to consider the agreement and vote its approval.
       The following are examples of the wide support the 
     Convention has received from the environmental, business, and 
     agricultural communities.
       Th Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), representing 
     over 500 biotechnology companies, university labs, and 
     others, ``strongly supports speedy Senate ratification'' 
     because the U.S. must be ``at the conference table'' to 
     protect U.S. interests in ``matters of importance to our 
     economic future.''
       BIO, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, and the 
     American Seed Trade Association: ``As representatives of 
     major U.S. industries which are successfully working to 
     create new medicines, food, and agriculture products, plus a 
     substantial number of jobs for U.S. citizens, we declare our 
     support for the Biodiversity Convention . . . Senate 
     ratification should proceed at the earliest possible time.''
       Merck & Co., a U.S. pharmaceutical company, one of the 
     largest in the world, urges ``support of a speedy 
     ratification of the Convention,'' noting that biodiversity 
     has generated ``some of the greatest pharmaceutical 
     breakthroughs of this century.''
       New York Biotechnology Association: ``. . . ratification of 
     the Convention on Biological Diversity is a matter of prime 
     importance to the further development of the biotechnology 
     industry in the State of New York.''
       Archer Daniels Midland Company, one of the largest 
     agribusiness companies in the country, states that ``. . . it 
     is fundamentally important to American agribusiness, 
     agriculture, and other industries that the United States 
     include itself in this Convention. It will be a sad day for 
     us if these meetings have to occur without any participation 
     on our part. We see no downside for our country in ratifying 
     this Convention.''
       Farmers Union: ``The National Farmers Union (NFU) and its 
     253,000 family farm members strongly urge you to ratify the 
     Convention on Biological Diversity before you adjourn in 
     October.''
       The American Corn Growers Association ``. . . believes that 
     ratification of this treaty will be in the best interest of 
     production agriculture. For U.S. agricultural interests to be 
     addressed, we must first have a seat at the table.  . . . In 
     addition, by being a party to the Convention, the United 
     States will ensure continued access to genetic resources. 
     This is important to agriculture because access to foreign 
     germplasm for plant breeding programs for such crops as corn 
     will advance our ability to provide quality products to our 
     agricultural processors.''
       American Soybean Association: ``[We] hope for expedited 
     consideration of the treaty.''
       National Cooperative Business Association: ``We believe 
     that prompt consideration [or ratification] by the Senate in 
     September is critical if U.S. interests are to be brought to 
     bear on the implementation of the Convention. [We] hope that 
     its approval is not delayed any further.''
       American Farm Trusts represent thousands of farmers, rural 
     residents, and others concerned with protection of farmland 
     and conservation of natural resources. Ratification of the 
     Biodiversity Convention would be a key step in the 
     establishment of a sustainable national agricultural system, 
     which is essential to the livelihood of the American farmer. 
     Protection of biodiversity will help ensure the protection of 
     strategic farmland--a primary resource for the future of 
     American agriculture.
       World Wildlife Fund: ``The Biodiversity Convention is the 
     first concerted effort by the world community to conserve the 
     planet's irreplaceable, but vanishing biological wealth. An 
     enlightened self-interest, for the benefit of both present 
     and future generations, should compel prompt ratification by 
     the U.S. Senate.''
       There's still time for the 103rd Congress to ratify the 
     Biodiversity Convention before the scheduled October 7 
     recess.
       This message is brought to you by World Wildlife Fund and 
     the many business and agricultural organizations concerned 
     with America's interest in conserving biological diversity.
       For more information: 1250 24th Street N.W., Washington, DC 
     20037.

                          ____________________