[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6712-S6714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


RATIFICATION OF THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION WILL PROMOTE THE ECONOMIC 
                     INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Law of the Sea Convention entered into 
force on November 16, 1994, and was transmitted to the Senate for its 
advice and consent on October 6, 1994 [Treaty Document 103-39]. On this 
occasion I applauded the President's transmittal of this historic 
treaty and spoke to the ways in which it will protect the economic, 
environmental, scientific, and most importantly, the national security 
interests of the United States (Congressional Record, Vol. 140, No. 
144, p. 14467). On March 14, 1995 I addressed the importance of 
ratification of the Convention to the fishery interests of the United 
States (Congressional Record, Vol. 141, No. 47, p. 3862). Today I would 
like to address how ratification of the convention will best serve U.S. 
economic interests.
  The Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea was initiated as 
early as 1973 by the United States and the U.S.S.R. to protect 
navigation rights and freedoms, at a time where coastal States were 
claiming excessive areas of jurisdiction. Most of the provisions of the 
convention have long been supported by the United States, and at the 
conclusion of the law of the sea negotiations in 1982, the Reagan 
administration indicated that it was fully satisfied with, and 
supported the entire convention, except for the deep seabed mining 
part. The recently negotiated part XI implementation agreement, which 
is also before the Senate [Treaty Document 103-39] addressed all the 
reservations that the United States and other industrialized countries 
had. I will speak to the deep seabed mining issues in a forthcoming 
statement.
  The convention directly promotes United States economic interests in 
many areas: It provides the U.S. with exclusive rights over marine 
living resources within our 200 miles exclusive economic zone; 
exclusive rights over mineral, oil and gas resources over a wide 
continental shelf that is recognized internationally; the right for our 
communication industry to place its cables on the sea floor and the 
continental shelves of other countries without cost; a much greater 
certainty with regard to marine scientific research, and a 
groundbreaking regime for the protection of the marine environment. 
With regard to national security, the Department of Defense has 
repeatedly expressed its strong support for the ratification of the 
convention because public order of the oceans is best established by a 
universally accepted Law of the Sea Treaty that is in the U.S. national 
interest.
  The extension by other nations of their national claims were not 
always limited to matters of resources use but also represented a 
potential threat to our interests as a major maritime nation in the 
freedom of commercial and military navigation and overflight. The 
United States is both a maritime power and a coastal Stage and, as 
such, it benefits fully from the perfect balance that the convention 
strikes. It gives extensive rights to States over the resources located 
within their EEZ's, but also recognizes the need to maintain freedom of 
navigation on the high seas, 
[[Page S6713]] through archipelagic waters thanks to the concept of 
transit passage and even through the territorial seas of other States 
based upon the principle of innocent passage.
  Mr. President, seaborne commerce represents 80 percent of trade among 
nations and is a lifeline for U.S. imports and exports. Ninety-five 
percent of U.S. export and import trade tonnage moves by sea. With 
continuing economic liberalization occurring globally, exports are 
likely to continue to grow as a percentage of our economic output. In 
addition, on some sectors, such as oil, our dependence on imports will 
continue to grow. Thus our economic well being--economic growth and 
jobs--will increasingly depend on foreign trade. Without the stability 
and uniformity in rules provided by the convention,we would see an 
increase in the cost of transport and a corresponding reduction of the 
economic benefit currently realized from an increasingly large part of 
our economy.
  Consequently, the United States would stand to lose a great deal if 
it was no longer assured of the freedom of navigation: trade would be 
impaired, ports communities would be impacted and our whole maritime 
industry could be put in jeopardy. The convention addresses these 
concerns and failure of the United States to ratify would impose a 
tremendous burden on this industry.
  Within its EEZ, the United States has exclusive rights over its 
living marine resources. Foreign fleets fishing in our waters can be 
controlled or even excluded, and our regional management councils are 
in a position to adopt the best management plans available for each of 
the fisheries on which our industries depend. The settlement of 
disputes provisions of the convention do not apply to the measures 
taken by the coastal State within its EEZ. Consequently, the United 
States has discretionary powers for determining the allowable catch, 
its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses to other States 
and the terms and conditions established in its conservation and 
management measures.
  The provisions of the convention generally reflect current U.S. 
policy with respect to marine living resources management, conservation 
and exploitation. As such, they incur little new U.S. obligation, 
commitment, or encumbrance. The U.S. Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act of 1976, commonly referred to as the Magnuson Act, was 
crafted to parallel closely most of the law of the sea's provisions for 
living resources. But the convention also ensures that some of the 
stricter measures that the U.S. has adopted, precautionary in nature, 
are also incumbent on other States, in their EEZ's and, more 
importantly, on the high seas. As such, some measure of increased 
stability in international living marine resources policy can be 
anticipated as a beneficial aspect of U.S. participation of the law of 
the sea regime.
  The convention also provides a jurisdictional framework for the 
negotiation of a new regime for straddling stocks and highly migratory 
fish stocks on the high seas. A conference is currently under way at
 the United Nations to establish such a regime, and I am happy to note 
that at the last session, held a few weeks ago in New York, the U.S. 
delegation expressed its satisfaction at the progress already achieved. 
The negotiators involved are cautiously optimistic that an agreement 
will be reached by the end of this year, which should help prevent the 
kind of incidents that recently pitched Canada and the European Union 
in the latest case of gunboat diplomacy. The convention will provide 
both the basis and the framework for this new agreement.

  Representatives of the oil and gas industry served as active advisers 
to the U.S. Government throughout its negotiation of the convention. In 
1973 the National Petroleum Council published a detailed analysis of 
industry objectives in relation to this treaty, all of which have been 
achieved. The National Petroleum Council determined that it was 
important to its industry that the convention reflect the following 
principles:
  Confirmation of coastal State control of the continental shelf and 
its resources to a distance of 200 nautical miles, and beyond to the 
edge of the continental shelf;
  Establishment of a continental shelf commission to advice States in 
delimiting their continental shelves in order to promote greater 
certainty and uniformity regarding resources ownership;
  A constructive mechanism for the settlement of disputes;
  And guarantees that the principles of freedom of navigation essential 
to the movement of tankers and other commercial vessels will not be 
undercut by the extension of coastal State jurisdiction.
  Working in close coordination with our offshore oil and gas industry, 
our negotiators successfully obtained convention provisions that serve 
U.S. interests both in regards to development of energy resources off 
our coasts as well as the interests of our nationals operating abroad. 
The convention goes further than the Truman Proclamation, in which our 
country asserted our rights over oil and gas resources on the 
continental shelf, because it specifies the outer limits of the area.
  This new certainty is very important for our oil and gas industry 
because offshore development is enormously capital intensive and 
security of tenure is the key. The convention's standards and 
procedures avoid uncertainty and disagreement over the maximum seaward 
extent of our jurisdiction. The resulting clarity advances both our 
resource management and commercial interests, as well as our interest 
in stabilizing claims to maritime jurisdiction by other States.
  At the same time, the convention ensures the protection of the marine 
environment in relation to pollution, including the allocation of 
enforcement responsibility between flag, port, and coastal States. It 
here again strikes the right balance between the need to ensure the 
development of the oil and gas industries and greater certainty that 
the environment is adequately protected.
  The convention also provides significant benefits to the 
communication industry. As we know, our country is a proud leader in 
the technology and communication revolution. In that respect, we depend 
upon ships to carefully lay fiber optic cables on the sea floor. When 
these cables are broken, U.S. companies and consumers incur huge repair 
costs. For example, one such cable, connecting the United States and 
Japan, can carry up to 1 million simultaneous telephone calls and is 
valued at over a billion dollars. As one of our major growth 
industries, telecommunication firms have ambitious plans for replacing 
existing coaxial cable on our ocean floor and expanding the existing 
cable network globally.
  Our telecommunication industry had long suffered from the poor legal 
protection afforded to cables laid
 on the seabed. The Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 1958 provided 
that the laying of cables and pipelines is a high seas freedom, and 
that coastal States may not impede laying or maintenance of cables on 
the continental shelf. Yet it did not contain clear provisions designed 
to prevent mariners from working dangerously close to cables.

  The Convention on the Law of the Sea incorporates the language and 
principles of the 1958 Geneva Convention. Most important, it also goes 
further in providing that States are to make it a punishable offense, 
not only to break a cable, but to engage in conduct likely to result in 
such breaking or injury. For the first time, cable owners and 
enforcement authorities are able to act to prevent cable breaks from 
occurring. Consequently, the protection afforded submarine cables is 
substantially increased by the convention.
  Mr. President, the negotiations on this new ``Constitution for the 
Oceans'' took more than 9 years, and when the first version, open for 
signature in 1982, did not meet all our concerns, the Democratic and 
Republican administrations refused to sign it. It was only after 12 
more years of negotiations that all the concerns of the United States 
were addressed. Significant U.S. economic interests are now protected 
by this convention and we now need to reap the benefits of these long 
years of negotiations.
  President Clinton said it best in his transmittal letter to the 
Senate, ``Early adherence by the United States to the Convention and 
the Agreement is important to maintain a stable legal regime for all 
uses of the sea, which 
[[Page S6714]] cover 70 percent of the surface of the globe. 
Maintenance of such stability is vital to U.S. national security and 
economic strength.''
  I strongly agree and look forward to the Senate giving its advice and 
consent to this historic convention during the 104th Congress.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________