[Senate Executive Report 106-16]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                              Exec. Rept.
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                      106-16

======================================================================



 
       CONVENTION (NO. 176) CONCERNING SAFETY AND HEALTH IN MINES

                                _______
                                

               September 5, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Helms, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany Treaty Doc. 106-8]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred 
the Convention (No. 176) Concerning Safety and Health in Mines, 
adopted by the International Labor Conference at its 82nd 
session in Geneva on June 22, 1995, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with two understandings, two 
declarations and two provisos, and recommends that the Senate 
give its advice and consent to the ratification thereof as set 
forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of 
ratification.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary..........................................................2
 IV. Entry Into Force and Denunciation................................4
  V. Committee Action.................................................4
 VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................4
VII. Explanation of Proposed Convention...............................5
VIII.Text of the Resolution of Ratification...........................5

 IX. Appendix--Text of Informal Public Meeting of July 20, 2000.......7

                               I. Purpose

    The purpose of the Convention (No. 176) Concerning Safety 
and Health in Mines (``the Convention'') is to obligate 
ratifying states, in consultation with employers' and workers' 
organizations, to formulate, carry out and periodically review 
a coherent policy on safety and health in mines, and to develop 
national laws and regulations to ensure implementation of the 
Convention's provisions.

                             II. Background

    The Convention was adopted by the International Labor 
Organization (``ILO'') on June 22, 1995, and entered into force 
in June 1998. Since its adoption, fourteen countries have 
ratified Convention No. 176.
    In its preamble, the Convention declares that ``workers 
have a need for, and a right to, information, training and 
genuine consultation on and participation in the preparation 
and implementation of safety and health measures concerning the 
hazards and risks they face in the mining industry.'' The 
preamble also recognizes the desirability of preventing mine-
related injuries and damage to the environment from mine 
operations.
    Convention No. 176 is a non-self-executing treaty. However, 
the United States is already in compliance with the Convention 
by virtue of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. 
For that reason, there is no need for the United States to 
alter its law or practice with respect to mine safety, and no 
such alterations were proposed or anticipated in connection 
with ratification.
    The President submitted the Convention to the Senate for 
advice and consent on September 9, 1999.

                              III. Summary


                               A. GENERAL

    The International Labor Organization has dealt with labor 
and social problems of the mining industry for years, from the 
adoption of the Hours of Work (Coal Mines) Convention (No. 31) 
in 1931 to the Safety and Health in Mines Convention (No. 176), 
adopted by the International Labor Conference in 1995 (``the 
Convention'').
    Adoption of the Convention in 1995, which has set the 
principle for national action on the improvement of working 
conditions in the mining industry, is important for several 
reasons: because special hazards are faced by mineworkers; the 
mining industry in many countries is assuming increasing 
importance; earlier ILO standards on occupational safety and 
health, as well as existing legislation in many countries, are 
inadequate to deal with the specific needs of mining. The 
Convention came into force in June 1998, one year after the 
second ratification by an ILO member State. As of July 2000, 14 
countries had ratified the Convention.
    In submitting the Convention to the Senate, the Executive 
Branch stated that the Convention will not require implementing 
legislation for the United States. Current U.S. law--the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977--is the culmination 
of several decades of statutory development, and far exceeds 
the basic minimum standards laid down by the Convention.

                           B. KEY PROVISIONS

    The Convention consists of twenty-four articles, divided 
into five parts.

Part I--Definitions

    Part I of the Convention (Article I) defines the terms 
``mine'' and ``employer'' for the remaining articles.

Part II--Scope and Means of Application

    Part II of the Convention (Articles II-V) identifies the 
scope and application of the Convention. Articles IV and V 
provide that national laws and regulations shall regulate the 
application of the Convention, designate an authority ``to 
monitor and regulate various aspects of safety and health in 
mines,'' and implement specific oversight actions to ensure 
safety and health in mines.

Part III--Preventive and Protective Measures at the Mine

    Part III of the Convention (Articles VI-XV) includes three 
subparts. Subpart A identifies the responsibilities of 
employers with respect to eliminating or minimizing health and 
safety risks in mines. Such responsibilities include ensuring 
proper mine design and construction, adequate ventilation, 
regular inspections, and two means of egress from a mine. 
Employers must also take measures to prevent, detect, and 
combat fires and explosions; prepare an emergency response plan 
for reasonably foreseeable industrial and natural disasters; 
and provide regular health surveillance of workers who are 
exposed to occupational health hazards specific to mining.
    Subpart B identifies the rights and duties of workers and 
their representatives. Among other things, workers have the 
right to report accidents, dangerous occurrences, and hazards; 
request and obtain an inspection when there is a safety or 
health concern; remove themselves from the mine when 
circumstances appear to pose a serious danger to their safety 
or health; and remain informed of workplace hazards that may 
affect their safety or health.
    During its review of the Convention, the U.S. Government's 
Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labor Standards 
(``TAPILS'') consulted the International Labor Organization's 
Standards Branch about the proper interpretation of Convention 
Articles XII and XIII. These two articles concern 
(respectively) responsibilities of an employer in charge for 
acts of an independent contractor and notice of inspections. 
Two understandings based upon this consultation are included in 
the resolution of ratification recommended by the Committee. 
The entire TAPILS Report on the Convention may be found 
beginning on page 20 of Treaty Doc. 106-8.
    Subpart C states that measures shall be taken, in 
accordance with national laws and regulations, to ``encourage 
cooperation between employers and workers * * * to promote 
safety and health in mines.''

Part IV--Implementation

    Part IV (Article XVI) identifies the responsibilities of 
Members to implement the Convention. Members shall take all 
necessary measures to ensure the effective enforcement of the 
Convention and provide appropriate inspection services to 
supervise the application of measures taken pursuant to the 
Convention.

Part V--Final Provisions

    Part V (Articles XVII-XXIV) includes standard final 
provisions. These articles contain rules for the Convention's 
entry into force, additional rules for ratification, and rules 
for denunciation.

                 IV. Entry Into Force and Denunciation


                          A. ENTRY INTO FORCE

    The Convention entered into force in June 1998. For each 
State ratifying the Convention after that date, the Convention 
enters into force twelve months after registration by such 
State of its instrument of ratification with the Director-
General of the International Labor Office.

                            B. Denunciation

    The Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any 
Party may denounce it ten years after the Convention enters 
into force for the denouncing Party. Otherwise, if a Party does 
not denounce the Convention within one year after the 
Convention has been binding upon that Party for ten years, the 
Convention will continue to be binding upon that Party for an 
additional ten years. An act of denunciation must be registered 
with the Director-General of the International Labor Office, 
and shall not take effect until one year after the date on 
which it is registered.

                          V. Committee Action

    The Committee on Foreign Relations held an informal public 
meeting on the Convention on July 20, 2000 (a transcript of the 
session and questions for the record will be found in the 
appendix to this report).\1\ The Committee considered the 
Convention on July 26, 2000, and ordered it favorably reported 
by voice vote, with the recommendation that the Senate give its 
advice and consent to the ratification of the proposed 
Convention subject to two understandings, two declarations and 
two provisos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ On the day the Committee was scheduled to conduct a hearing on 
the treaty, permission to do so pursuant to Senate Rule 26(5)(a) had 
not been granted. Therefore, the Committee proceeded in informal 
session. The transcript is appended to this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments

    The Committee on Foreign Relations recommends favorably the 
proposed Convention. The Committee understands that the 
Convention is closely modeled on the United States Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977. The Committee has received 
communications indicating that both the United States mining 
industry and the mine labor force support ratification of this 
Convention, in part because the Convention is expected to have 
the effect of obliging other ratifying parties to bring their 
domestic standards up to Convention standards--that is to say, 
closer to the U.S. safety standards. The Committee recognizes 
and will welcome the competitive benefits that should flow from 
making the nation's mine safety standard the global mine safety 
standard.
    On balance, the Committee believes that the proposed 
Convention is in the interest of the United States and urges 
the Senate to act promptly to give its advice and consent to 
ratification.

                VII. Explanation of Proposed Convention

    For a detailed analysis of the proposed Convention, see 
Senate Treaty Doc. 106-8, and in particular, the Statement of 
United States Law and Practice with Respect to International 
Labor Organization Convention No. 176 Concerning Safety and 
Health in Mines, which begins on page 31 of Treaty Doc. 106-8.

              VIII. Text of the Resolution of Ratification

    Resolved, (two thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), that the Senate advise and consent to the 
ratification of Convention (No. 176) Concerning Safety and 
Health in Mines, Adopted by the International Labor Conference 
at its 82nd Session in Geneva on June 22, 1995 (Treaty Doc. 
106-8) (hereinafter, ``The Convention''), subject to the 
understandings of subsection (a), the declarations of 
subsection (b) and the provisos of subsection (c).
    (a) Understandings.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following understandings, which shall be 
included in the instrument of ratification:
          (1) Article XII.--The United States understands that 
        Article XII does not mean that the employer in charge 
        shall always be held responsible for the acts of an 
        independent contractor.
          (2) Article XIII.--The United States understands that 
        Article XIII neither alters nor abrogates any 
        requirement, mandated by domestic statute, that a miner 
        or a miner's representative must sign an inspection 
        notice, or that a copy of a written inspection notice 
        must be provided to the mine operator no later than the 
        time of inspection.
    (b) Declarations.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following declarations, which shall be binding 
on the President:
          (1) Not Self-Executing.--The United States 
        understands that the Convention is not self-executing.
          (2) Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the 
        applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally 
        based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in 
        Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and 
        Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the State Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the 
        Senate on May 14, 1997.
    (c) Provisos.--The advice and consent of the Senate is 
subject to the following provisos:
          (1) Report.--One year after the date the Convention 
        enters into force for the United States, and annually 
        for five years thereafter, the Secretary of Labor, 
        after consultation with the Secretary of State, shall 
        provide a report to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
        of the Senate setting forth the following:
                  (i) a listing of parties which have excluded 
                mines from the Convention's application 
                pursuant to Article II(a) of the Convention, a 
                description of the excluded mines, an 
                explanation of the reasons for the exclusions, 
                and an indication of whether the party plans or 
                has taken steps to progressively cover all 
                mines, as set forth in Article II(b);
                  (ii) a listing of countries which are or have 
                become parties to the Convention and 
                corresponding dates; and
                  (iii) an assessment of the relative costs or 
                competitive benefits realized during the 
                reporting period, if any, by United States mine 
                operators as a result of United States 
                ratification of the Convention.
          (2) Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in the 
        Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other 
        action by the United States of America that is 
        prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as 
        interpreted by the United States.

                           IX. A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              




                  INFORMAL PUBLIC MEETING ON TREATIES

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF SEA 
  TURTLES (TREATY DOC. 105-48); INTERNATIONAL PLANT PROTECTION 
  CONVENTION (IPPC) (TREATY DOC. 106-23); FOOD AID CONVENTION 1999 
  (TREATY DOC. 106-14); ILO CONVENTION CONCERNING SAFETY AND HEALTH IN 
  MINES (TREATY DOC. 106-8); UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT 
  DESERTIFICATION IN THOSE COUNTRIES EXPERIENCING SERIOUS DROUGHT 
  AND/OR DESERTIFICATION, PARTICULARLY IN AFRICA (TREATY DOC. 104-29)

                              ----------                              


                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, prepared 
  statement......................................................    10
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from Vermont, prepared 
  statement......................................................    11
Sandalow, Hon. David B., Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans 
  and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 
  Department of State............................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Responses to additional questions submitted by Senator Helms.    29
Wayne, Hon. E. Anthony, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic 
  and Business Affairs, Department of State......................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Responses to additional questions submitted by Senator Biden.    31

                  Statements Submitted for the Record

Herman, Hon. Alexis M., Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor......    36
National Fisheries Institute, statement of Richard Gutting, Jr., 
  president......................................................    35
National Wildlife Federation.....................................    37
United States Council for International Business.................    39
                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met informally, at 2:50 p.m. in room SD-419, 
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Chuck Hagel presiding.
    Present: Senator Hagel.
    Senator Hagel. Good afternoon. I need to read an 
announcement here as a result of an action taken this morning 
that affects committee hearings meeting today, so I will 
dispose of this and then we will get down to business.
    An objection has been lodged in the cloakroom to the 
conduct of any legislative business today. However, Senator 
Helms has agreed to proceed with this hearing on an informal 
basis on the grounds that no legislative business will be 
conducted.
    So it shall be said, so it shall be written, and that is 
according to the words of the chairman.
    Now, in today's hearing we will consider five treaties that 
have been transmitted by the President to the Senate for advice 
and consent. The treaties include the Inter-American Convention 
on Sea Turtles, the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, 
the International Labor Organization Convention Concerning 
Safety and Health in Mines, the International Plant Protection 
Convention, and the Food Aid Convention.
    We have invited two Assistant Secretaries from the 
Department of State to help the committee understand the 
implications of these treaties for the United States. Our first 
witness is the Honorable David B. Sandalow, Assistant Secretary 
of State for Oceans and International Environmental and 
Scientific Affairs, who is becoming a weekly guest of the 
committee, and we are pleased to have you back, Mr. Secretary.
    Before coming to the State Department, Secretary Sandalow 
served as Associate Director for the Global Environment at the 
National Security Council, and as Senior Director for 
Environmental Affairs at the White House Council on 
Environmental Quality. Prior to his work at the White House, he 
worked in the General Counsel's Office at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and again we are glad you are here, and we 
appreciate you taking the time.
    Our second witness today is the Honorable Earl Anthony 
Wayne, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business 
Affairs. Prior to being confirmed in his current position this 
past May, Secretary Wayne served as Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of State for European Affairs and as Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Europe.
    Secretary Wayne has also served as Deputy Chief of Mission 
at the U.S. Mission, and to the European Union under Ambassador 
Stewart Eizenstat, and as Director for Western European Affairs 
at the National Security Council, and to you, sir, welcome.
    We have five important treaties to consider this afternoon. 
The first treaty, the Inter-American Convention on Sea Turtles, 
is intended to protect sea turtles and the habitats on which 
they depend. The United States currently has laws in place to 
protect sea turtles from drowning in fishing nets. We require 
U.S. shrimp fishermen to install devices in their nets that 
allow the turtles to escape, and we ban the importation of 
shrimp that are harvested in ways that harm turtles.
    One potential benefit of this treaty for the United States 
is that it would impose the same requirements for protecting 
sea turtles on our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere, thus 
leveling the playing field for our shrimping industry.
    The second treaty under consideration today is the United 
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. The objective of 
this treaty is to combat desertification in countries 
experiencing serious drought, particularly in Africa. The 
treaty does not seek to roll back existing natural deserts but, 
rather, seeks to maintain the productivity of dry lands.
    In the United States we have had direct and painful 
experience with large areas of farmland turning into a Dust 
Bowl as happened to parts of where I am from, the Midwest, in 
the 1930's. Many African countries are now suffering from the 
same phenomenon, and this treaty seeks to address this problem.
    The third treaty under consideration today is the ILO 
Convention Concerning Safety and Health in Mines. The United 
States' laws requiring safety in mines are the most 
comprehensive in the world, and our understanding is that this 
ILO Convention is a pared-down version of our own laws.
    The Convention sets forth the responsibilities of mine 
employers, and the rights and duties of mineworkers and their 
representatives. The Convention covers areas such as 
supervision and inspection of mines, procedures for reporting 
and investigating accidents, and occupational diseases.
    Again, one potential benefit of this Convention would be to 
put foreign mining companies on a level playing field with our 
own companies in terms of production costs by requiring them to 
purchase safety equipment and undertake safety measures that 
our own companies currently must undertake.
    The fourth treaty under consideration today is a revised 
version of the International Plant Protection Convention. The 
original Convention first entered into force internationally in 
1952, and for the United States in 1972. The Convention is 
intended to promote international cooperation to control and 
prevent the spread of harmful plant pests.
    This revised treaty is intended to bring the Convention 
into alignment with the World Trade Organization agreement on 
the application of sanitary measures known as the SPS 
agreement. The SPS agreement for its part calls for the 
harmonization of sanitary measures on the basis of 
international standards.
    This Convention could assist U.S. agriculture exporters 
through the establishment of science-based sanitary import 
standards. These standards are necessary to ensure that 
countries do not discriminate against imports of agricultural 
products based on arbitrary sanitary standards.
    At the same time, some members of the committee have 
concerns about some aspects of the Convention, particularly the 
idea that a new United Nations Secretariat within the Food and 
Agricultural Organization may be needed for implementation. We 
look forward to hearing from the administration on this aspect 
of this Convention.
    The last treaty under consideration today is the Food Aid 
Convention of 1999. This 1999 Convention is the latest in the 
line of agreements, dating to 1967, which have been ratified by 
the United States.
    The objective of this Convention and its predecessors is to 
establish a reliable level of food aid commitments that would 
cover as wide a range of donors and donation foodstuffs as 
possible to meet the critical needs of developing countries. 
Under this Convention, the United States will contribute at 
least 2.5 million tons of foodstuffs annually during its 5-year 
duration.
    The 1999 Convention contains several innovations in 
comparison with its predecessors. First, it expands the list of 
covered commodities beyond grains and legumes, to include 
edible oils and milk powder. It encourages donor States to 
fortify their food contributions with vitamins and minerals by 
counting this cost toward their contribution.
    The Convention also encourages donors to provide food aid 
to difficult-to-reach destinations by allowing transport costs 
to be counted toward donor contributions.
    Finally, the Convention promotes local agricultural 
development in recipient countries and improves coordination 
among donors.
    We will now hear from our two distinguished witnesses. 
Secretary Sandalow, I understand you will be addressing the 
Inter-American Convention on Sea Turtles and the U.N. 
Convention to Combat Desertification, and Secretary Wayne, I 
understand you will address the Treaties on Plant Protection, 
Food Aid, and Mine Safety, and then we will move into a series 
of questions.
    With that, again, thank you each for coming forward, and I 
would ask Mr. Sandalow if you will proceed.
    [The following statements of Senators Feingold and Jeffords 
were submitted for the record:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Russell D. Feingold, U.S. Senator from 
                               Wisconsin

    I want to speak very briefly about the Convention to Combat 
Desertification. Desertification is the severe degradation of land in 
arid and semi-arid regions which renders the land infertile, and life 
on that land unsustainable. This Convention addresses some of the 
fundamental causes of famine and food insecurity in Africa, and this 
committee's consideration of it could not be more timely. Just two days 
ago, a front page story in the Washington Post reminded readers of the 
13 million people in six countries around the Horn of Africa at risk of 
starvation from this year's drought. Now is an excellent time to send a 
clear signal to the people of Africa--the U.S. wants to be a part of 
the most effective prevention strategies possible to combat these 
terrible crises.
    As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I 
have had the opportunity to see first-hand how valuable the provisions 
of this Convention will be to the people of Africa, where nearly one-
quarter of drylands are moderately or severely desertified. It does not 
require the U.S. to make additional assistance commitments, but it will 
leverage our efforts, making each aid dollar more effective. 
Desertification and food security are issues that cut across borders 
and affect entire regions, and one of the primary benefits, in my view, 
to U.S. participation in this Convention is the opportunity to take 
advantage of multilateral coordination.
    The Convention focuses on bottom-up decision-making and governance, 
encouraging communities to take control of their own destinies. And it 
creates a mechanism for public-private partnerships that will tap the 
expertise of U.S. universities and farmers and provide excellent 
opportunities for U.S. businesses. For these reasons, it is supported 
by the business community, the development community, and the 
environmental community. The Convention enjoys bipartisan support; I 
have been a supporter for several years, as has Senator Jeffords of 
Vermont. The United States and New Zealand are currently the only OECD 
countries that have not ratified the Desertification Convention. I 
understand that New Zealand is working to rectify that, and I am 
delighted to see the Senate moving to consider this Convention today.

                                 ______
                                 

Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from Vermont

         statement on the convention to combat desertification
    Mr. Chairman: For over two years, I have been involved with efforts 
to raise awareness of the threat posed by widespread desertification in 
70 percent of the world's agriculturally-used arid lands and of the 
importance of ratifying the Convention to Combat Desertification. I 
commend Senator Helms and his staff for their work on this treaty and I 
thank you, Senator Hagel, for bringing it before the Foreign Relations 
Committee today. I believe that American participation in this 
convention will prove beneficial to us and many other nations.
    On March 21, 1998, President Clinton announced at the Mokolodi 
Nature Reserve in Botswana that Senator Russ Feingold and I had agreed 
to join him in a renewed push for U.S. ratification of the 
Desertification Convention. Enactment of this Convention has been a 
priority for many African nations for some time. I have seen first-hand 
the effects of desertification in Indonesia and across Africa and have 
been impressed by the insidiousness of this often ignored phenomenon. 
In both regions, farmers are fighting to hold on to arable land in the 
face of huge environmental changes brought on by over-cutting of 
vegetation, overgrazing of arid lands, changes in regional weather 
patterns, increased population pressures or a mixture of all of these 
factors. I have also seen the poverty and dislocation that then grip 
these desertified areas. In many cases, the resulting migration and 
instability prevents countries from moving ahead in economic and social 
development. The best laid plans for sustainable development can be 
washed away if the effects of desertification wash over a region.
    The Convention is truly unique among international treaties. The 
driving force being this Convention has been the countries most 
effected by desertification. By the time negotiations began on the 
desertification treaty in 1994, the U.S. and other developed nations 
were rightfully weary of carrying the burden of support for 
environmental treaties. U.S. negotiators insisted that no new 
responsibilities or financial obligations be placed on our government. 
The treaty breaks ground by placing the burden of compliance on the 
affected countries. Moreover, it does not require domestic implementing 
legislation from the United States.
    Our victory over our own period of desertification--the Dust Bowl 
in the southwestern Great Plains in the 1930's and the poverty and 
massive human migration that resulted from it--is one of the big 
success stories of land reclamation. Since the 1930's, our 
universities, agri-businesses and farmers have developed the world's 
most advanced technology and greatest expertise in combating 
desertification. Other countries want to gain from our extensive 
experience and U.S. businesses would like the opportunity to broaden 
their markets. This Convention will facilitate closer collaboration 
between those needing our technology and advice, and U.S. businesses 
and organizations who are eager to provide it.
    The next meeting of the Conference of Parties, the Convention's 
decision-making body, begins on December 11, 2000, in Bonn, Germany. 
Important decisions on the details of implementing the Convention will 
be made at that meeting. It looks as if all other OECD member nations 
will be present at that meeting. Because 90 days must pass before a 
nation is a full-fledged party and eligible to participate at these 
talks, the United States must complete the ratification process by 
September 11 if we wish to participate at the Conference of Parties. I 
urge this committee to move forward on this ratification of the 
Convention in time to be a full participant at these meetings.
    I appreciate the excellent work that has been done on this treaty 
by many people at the Agency for International Development, the 
Department of State and on this committee. I hope the committee will 
move expeditiously to send this treaty to the full Senate for 
ratification.
    I thank the Chairman.

  STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. SANDALOW, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
STATE FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC 
                  AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. Sandalow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 
especially grateful for your willingness to hold this hearing 
today. I am pleased to be here to discuss the two treaties you 
mentioned, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and 
Conservation of Sea Turtles, and the Convention to Combat 
Desertification.
    However, it is with great sadness that I must extend the 
Department's deep regret and sorrow at the sudden death of 
Senator Paul Coverdell. His deep and abiding interest in 
foreign policy and his unwavering patriotism will long be 
remembered. Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator 
Coverdell's family.
    Senator Hagel. Thank you.
    Mr. Sandalow. Mr. Chairman, I have a written statement for 
the record which, with your permission, I will submit.
    Senator Hagel. It will be included.
    Mr. Sandalow. Let me turn first to the Sea Turtle 
Convention. Sea turtles have lived on this Earth since the days 
of the dinosaurs. They are grand and majestic creatures. 
Unfortunately, all species of sea turtles in the Western 
Hemisphere have become threatened or endangered, some 
critically so. To address these threats, U.S. laws and 
regulations extend strict protection to sea turtles. However, 
because sea turtles migrate widely, effective protection of 
these species requires cooperation among many nations.
    Recognizing this, Congress passed legislation in 1989 
calling for negotiation of multilateral agreements to protect 
sea turtles. With this mandate, the United States joined with 
Mexico in leading a 3-year effort to negotiate the Convention 
that lies before the Senate today.
    The Convention takes a comprehensive approach, seeking to 
protect sea turtles from a wide range of threats. Under the 
Convention, parties must reduce the accidental deaths of sea 
turtles in commercial fishing operations. The Convention also 
prohibits the intentional taking of and domestic and 
international trade in sea turtles, their eggs and products. 
Finally, the Convention fosters international cooperation in 
research and management of sea turtles.
    As you said in your statement, Mr. Chairman, since 1990 
U.S. law has required U.S. shrimp fishermen operating in areas 
where sea turtles occur to use turtle excluder devices, or 
TED's. This simple, cost-effective equipment can greatly reduce 
the risk that shrimp trawl fisheries pose to sea turtles. For 
this reason, the Convention specifically obligates parties to 
require the use of TED's in a manner that is comparable to the 
U.S. TED's program.
    The Convention will thus help ensure that the U.S. fishing 
industry and foreign fishing industries face comparable 
regulatory requirements with respect to activities that may 
affect sea turtles. The Convention has the broad support of 
both the United States fishing industry and the environmental 
community.
    Mr. Chairman, I do not want to presume any knowledge about 
the great State of Nebraska, but it is my impression--now, you 
can correct me on this if I am wrong--that the shrimping 
industry is not a major economic force in your State. So I 
thought you might treasure this opportunity for a real, bona 
fide view of a turtle excluder device, which we have here.
    My colleague here, who has been quite a leader on these 
issues, can offer a detailed explanation when time permits.
    Mr. Chairman, significantly, no new legislation is 
necessary for the United States to ratify the Sea Turtle 
Convention. For many years the United States has been a leader 
in the conservation of endangered sea turtles. The Convention 
in many respects is an outgrowth of that leadership. The 
administration respectfully urges this committee to support 
U.S. ratification of the Sea Turtle Convention.
    I will turn now to the Convention to Combat 
Desertification, from sea to shore, from oceans to dry land. 
The term, desertification, refers to the loss of soil fertility 
in dry lands. This is a pressing problem around the world. 
Every year, soil degradation threatens the sustenance and 
livelihood of millions of farmers, especially in Africa. In 
part, this is the result of natural weather patterns. In part, 
it is the result of agricultural practices that deplete soils 
of vital nutrients and degrade lands that can be used for 
farming and grazing.
    In the fight against poverty and hunger, sound dry land 
management must be part of our arsenal. The Convention to 
Combat Desertification is a unique, innovative tool at our 
disposal. The Convention makes developing nations responsible 
for designing and carrying out their own national action 
programs to combat desertification. It especially emphasizes 
the role of local communities in this effort.
    In addition, the Convention promotes the coordinated and 
effective use of foreign assistance to help promote sound dry 
land management. It establishes a global mechanism to inventory 
relevant programs and improve the coordination of cooperative 
activities at the national level. The Convention also maintains 
a roster of experts available to work in this area.
    The Convention can also provide direct benefits to 
countries such as the United States with considerable 
scientific and technical expertise in dry land management. 
Parties to the Convention may make nominations to a roster of 
experts which is widely used around the world as a source of 
information. Private companies, research universities, and 
technical institutions such as, to pick a random example, the 
National Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, stand 
to benefit.
    So far, I have told you what the Convention does, Mr. 
Chairman. Let me also tell you what the Convention does not do. 
First, the Convention does not establish a mandatory funding 
mechanism, nor does it obligate parties to provide specific 
resources in connection with these activities.
    Second, the Convention would not require the United States 
to enact any implementing legislation, change any laws, or 
alter our land management practices in any way.
    Finally, the Convention does not establish a dispute 
mechanism, a dispute settlement body or process to which 
parties are bound.
    Becoming a party to the Convention would manifestly serve 
U.S. interests in several ways. First, becoming a party will 
help us fight hunger and poverty around the world. The United 
States has both a humanitarian and economic stake in such 
action.
    Second, the Convention can help the United States promote 
our democratic values.
    Third, the Convention is good for U.S. business. It would 
increase opportunities for U.S. business, along with experts in 
research universities and public institutions, to export 
technology and expertise through networks established by the 
agreement.
    Fourth, the Convention can contribute to stability and 
decrease political strains around the world. Dry land 
degradation can exacerbate ethnic tensions and contribute to 
conflict. Every year, many thousands migrate over our borders, 
for example, from land-degraded countries such as Mexico.
    Finally, ratifying the Convention can help the United 
States build strong and constructive relationships with Africa. 
Many African nations have identified U.S. membership in the 
Convention as a priority. For many years, the United States has 
been a leader in the global war to combat desertification.
    Senegal's Ambassador to the United States, Mamadou Mansour 
Seck, whose country suffers repeatedly from droughts, has said 
much progress could be made with the help of the United States, 
which has successful community based soil and water 
conservation programs and is recognized as one of the world's 
leaders in fighting desertification. The technical resources of 
American universities, research institutions and businesses are 
urgently needed in the Convention-generated partnership with 
communities around the world.
    Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be able to recognize 
Ambassador Seck, who is in the audience today, reflecting his 
commitment to this treaty.
    Senator Hagel. Mr. Ambassador, welcome. We are glad you are 
here. Thank you for what you are doing.
    Mr. Sandalow. Mr. Chairman, the Convention was concluded in 
1994, and it entered into force in 1996. More than 165 
countries are parties to the Convention. The administration 
respectfully urges the committee to support U.S. ratification 
of the Convention.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 
answering questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sandalow follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. Sandalow

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
    I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you U.S. ratification 
of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of 
Sea Turtles and the Convention to Combat Desertification.
 inter-american convention for the protection and conservation of sea 
                                turtles
    All species of sea turtles found in the Western Hemisphere are 
threatened or endangered, some critically so. Because sea turtles 
migrate extensively, effective protection and conservation of these 
species require cooperation among States within their migratory range. 
Although the international community has banned trade in sea turtles 
and sea turtle products pursuant to the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (``CITES''), the 
Convention is the first multilateral treaty that actually sets 
standards to protect and conserve sea turtles and their habitats.
    Congress called for the negotiation of multilateral agreements for 
the protection and conservation of sea turtles in Section 609 of the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990 (Public Law 101-162). In close 
cooperation with Mexico, the United States led a three-year effort to 
negotiate the Convention with other Latin American and Caribbean 
nations. Substantive negotiations on the Convention concluded on 
September 5, 1996, at a meeting in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil.
    The Convention will enhance the conservation of this hemisphere's 
sea turtles and harmonize standards for their protection. The Letter of 
Transmittal and related materials that accompanied the transmittal of 
the Convention to the Senate review the salient provisions of the 
Convention. To summarize, the Convention requires Parties to:

   protect and conserve sea turtle populations and their 
        habitats;

   reduce the incidental capture, injury and mortality of sea 
        turtles associated with commercial fisheries;

   prohibit the intentional take of, and domestic and 
        international trade in, sea turtles, their eggs, parts and 
        products; and

   foster international cooperation in the research and 
        management of sea turtles.

    The Convention specifically obligates Parties to require the use of 
turtle excluder devices, or TEDs, in a manner that is comparable to the 
requirements in effect in the United States. A 1990 study by the 
National Academy of Sciences indicated that the incidental capture and 
mortality of sea turtles in shrimp trawl fisheries was one of the 
primary threats to sea turtles in this region of the world. Fortunately 
for sea turtles, the installation of TEDs in shrimp trawl nets allows 
virtually all sea turtles that are caught in those nets to escape 
unharmed--without appreciable loss of shrimp catch. Many nations in the 
Western Hemisphere have followed the U.S. decision to require the use 
of TEDs in shrimp fisheries where there is a likelihood of catching sea 
turtles. Implementation of the Convention will thus reinforce TEDs 
programs in some nations and require the establishment of such programs 
in other nations. In this way, the Convention will both advance the 
protection of sea turtles and help to level the economic playing field 
for shrimp fisheries throughout the Western Hemisphere.
    The United States signed the Convention, subject to ratification, 
on December 13, 1996, in Caracas, Venezuela. The Convention will enter 
into force following the deposit of the eighth instrument of 
ratification with the Government of Venezuela, which serves as the 
depositary for this treaty. At this time, four governments have 
deposited such instruments--Venezuela, Peru, Brazil and Costa Rica. A 
number of other governments, including Mexico, Honduras and Ecuador, 
have informed us that they expect to be in a position to ratify the 
Convention in the very near future. We thus anticipate that the 
Convention will enter into force quite soon.
    The Administration believes that U.S. interests will best be served 
if the United States is among the first eight States that bring the 
Convention into force. By doing so, the United States ensures itself a 
seat at the table during the first meeting of the Parties to be 
convened pursuant to Article V of the Convention. At that meeting, the 
Parties will consider a number of significant issues relating to the 
implementation of the Convention. Decisions reached at meetings of the 
Parties are to be adopted by consensus. Through our participation at 
the first meeting of the Parties, the United States can thus play a 
pivotal role in ensuring that activity under the Convention proceeds in 
a way that fully accords with U.S. interests and priorities.
    Existing legislation, including the Endangered Species Act, 16 
U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq., and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1081 et seq., 
provide sufficient legislative authority to implement U.S. obligations 
under the Convention. Accordingly, no new legislation is necessary in 
order for the United States to ratify the Convention.
    The Convention is in many ways a model agreement. It represents a 
cooperative effort on the part of Congress and the Executive Branch to 
build international support for the protection of endangered and 
threatened sea turtles. As noted above, the Convention will also help 
to ensure that the U.S. fishing industry and foreign fishing industries 
face comparable regulatory requirements with respect to their 
activities that may affect these species. Moreover, the Convention is 
already serving as a model for use in the negotiation of comparable 
conservation agreements in other regions of the world where sea turtles 
are at great risk. In that regard, I am pleased to inform the Committee 
that the first round of negotiations to establish a sea turtle 
conservation arrangement for the Indian Ocean and South East Asian 
region just concluded on July 14, 2000.
    For many years, the United States has been a leader in the 
conservation of endangered and threatened sea turtles. The Convention 
is in many respects an outgrowth of that leadership. By ratifying the 
Convention, the United States can preserve its leadership role in the 
effort to conserve and protect sea turtles in a comprehensive manner. 
The Administration therefore urges this Committee to support U.S. 
ratification of the Convention as soon as possible.
                  convention to combat desertification
    Turning to the Convention to Combat Desertification, the term 
``desertification'' refers to the loss of soil fertility in drylands. 
This is a pressing problem around the world. Every year, soil 
degradation threatens the sustenance and livelihood of millions of 
farmers, especially in Africa. In part, this is the result of natural 
weather patterns. In part, it is the result of agricultural and other 
practices that deplete soils of vital nutrients and degrade land that 
can be used for farming and grazing.
    In the fight against poverty and hunger, sound dryland management 
must be part of our arsenal.
    The Convention to Combat Desertification is a unique and innovative 
tool at our disposal. The Convention makes developing nations 
responsible for designing and carrying out their own National Action 
Programs to combat desertification. It especially emphasizes the role 
of local communities and nongovernmental organizations in this effort. 
The Convention's community-based ``bottom-up'' approach reinforces 
democracy-building initiatives and the development of civil society in 
many countries.
    In addition, the Convention promotes the coordinated and effective 
use of foreign assistance to help promote sound dryland management. It 
establishes a ``Global Mechanism'' to inventory relevant programs and 
improve the coordination of cooperative activities at the national 
level. The Convention also maintains a roster of experts available to 
work in this area. These steps are helping to cut through bureaucracy 
and eliminate waste in the delivery of foreign assistance.
    The Convention can also provide direct benefits to countries--such 
as the United States--with considerable scientific and technical 
expertise in dryland management. Parties to the Convention may make 
nominations to a ``roster of experts'' which is widely used as a source 
of information. Private companies, research universities and technical 
institutions (such as the National Drought Mitigation Center in 
Lincoln, Nebraska) stand to benefit.
    So far, I've told you what the Convention does. Let me also tell 
you what the Convention does not do.
    First, the Convention does not establish a mandatory funding 
mechanism nor does it obligate Parties to provide specific resources in 
connection with its activities.
    Second, the Convention would not require the United States to enact 
any implementing legislation, change any laws, or alter our land 
management practices in any way. For decades, the United States has 
been a leader in dryland management; the Convention is in many ways 
designed to help countries learn from the U.S. experience and others 
like it.
    Finally, the Convention does not establish a dispute settlement 
body or process to which Parties are bound. The United States would not 
be bound to the jurisdiction of any dispute settlement body or process 
under the- Convention.
    Becoming a Party to the Convention would manifestly serve U.S. 
interests in several ways.
    First, becoming a Party will help us fight hunger and poverty 
around the world. The Sahel drought of 1968-73 contributed to the 
deaths of 250,000 people and forced millions from their homes. By 
helping to prevent crises before they happen, the Convention can 
prevent desperate suffering and save hundreds of millions of dollars in 
costs for emergency relief. The United States has both a humanitarian 
and economic stake in such action.
    Second, the Convention can help the United States promote our 
democratic values. The Convention's innovative focus on local decision-
making and its emphasis on countries' taking responsibility for dryland 
management are contributing to democratic institution-building around 
the globe.
    Third, the Convention is good for U.S. business. It would increase 
opportunities for U.S. business--along with experts in research 
universities and public institutions--to export technology and 
expertise through networks established by the agreement. By promoting 
sound agricultural practices and economic growth in many developing 
countries, it can also generate higher demand for U.S. exports of 
seeds, fertilizers, agro-chemicals and farm equipment.
    Fourth, the Convention can contribute to stability and decrease 
political strains around the globe. Dryland degradation can exacerbate 
ethnic tensions and contribute to conflict. In some countries, soil 
erosion and degradation leads to massive internal migrations, forcing 
whole villages to flee the farms for the city. Every year, many 
thousands migrate over our borders from land-degraded countries such as 
Mexico.
    Finally, ratifying the Convention can help the United States build 
stronger and more constructive relations with Africa. Many African 
nations have identified U.S. membership in the Convention as a 
priority.
    For many years, the United States has been a leader in the global 
war to combat desertification. Senegal's ambassador to the United 
States, Mamadou Mansour Seck, whose country has suffered repeatedly 
from drought, made this recent plea:

          Much more progress could be made with the help of the U.S., 
        which has successful community-based soil and water 
        conservation programs and is recognized as one of the world's 
        leaders on fighting desertification. The technical resources of 
        American universities, research institutions, and businesses 
        are urgently needed in the Convention-generated partnerships 
        with communities around the world.
          Unchecked, desertification will continue to foster food 
        crises, poverty, conflict, migration, floods, and other 
        environmental disasters. No nation is immune from the 
        consequences.
          Africa's 750 million people look to the U.S. for leadership 
        on many issues, and desertification is one of the closest to 
        our hearts. We look forward to welcoming the U.S. as a full 
        partner to the Convention.

    The Convention was concluded in 1994 and entered into force in 
1996. More than 165 countries are Parties to the Convention.
    Ratification is in our economic interest, in our security interest, 
and in the interest of the millions of lives that may be saved by 
preventing desertification and the famine and violence that too often 
follow. The administration respectfully urges this Committee to support 
U.S. ratification of the Convention as soon as possible.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to 
answer any questions.

    Senator Hagel. Mr. Secretary, thank you as well for your 
creative enlightenment for this land-locked Nebraska boy, who 
barely knows what a turtle looks like, and I am grateful. I do 
learn faster and better if I see it.
    So thank you. It is good to have you with us, Mr. 
Secretary.
    Secretary Wayne.

  STATEMENT OF HON. E. ANTHONY WAYNE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
  STATE FOR ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. Wayne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 
express first my thanks to you for holding this hearing, and 
for holding the hearing that you had last week, and accepting 
my testimony for the record along with Assistant Secretary 
Sandalow's. Unfortunately, I was in Japan or we could have had 
a double tag team 2 weeks in a row here.
    Senator Hagel. Well, we missed you. It was a nice party, 
and it is all show business. You know that, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Wayne. Exactly. Exactly.
    Well, I very much appreciate the opportunity to present the 
views of the administration on the three treaties submitted for 
your advice and consent, the Food Aid Convention 1999, the 
International Plant Protection Convention, and the 
International Labor Organization Convention 176 on Safety and 
Health in Mines. We recommend speedy ratification of all three, 
and hope you share our view that they are in the best interests 
of the United States.
    In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I will submit a 
longer statement for the record, and would like to offer a few 
shortened comments on each of the Conventions.
    Senator Hagel. Your statement will be included in the 
record.
    Mr. Wayne. Thank you. First, I would like to address the 
Food Aid Convention, FAC for short, 1999. This replaces the 
previous FAC, which had been negotiated in 1995. That agreement 
expired on June 30 of last year. Since then, the U.S. and other 
parties that have not yet ratified have continued to work as 
``provisional parties.''
    The Convention was submitted to the Senate on October 13 of 
last year. It provides a means to ensure that food aid reaches 
the world's most needy, despite fluctuations in world prices 
and supplies. No implementing legislation would be required to 
carry out U.S. obligations. No new costs would be associated 
with the Convention, and the personnel to administer it are 
already in place.
    The decision to renegotiate the 1995 Convention was taken 
as a followup to the World Food Summit and the World Trade 
Organization's Singapore Ministerial in 1996. At those two 
meetings it became clear that more was needed to provide for 
the developing countries, and the ministers at the WTO 
conference instructed the FAC to establish a level of food aid 
sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of developing 
countries.
    After nine rounds of negotiations during the succeeding 2 
years, a text was agreed and entered into force on July 1 of 
last year. The annual minimal commitments made by the FAC 
members are aimed at establishing a food aid ``floor'' which 
gives developing nations the security of knowing that aid will 
be forthcoming even in the event of high prices or fluctuating 
supply.
    Another objective of the new FAC is to achieve greater 
efficiency. Members have agreed to place greater emphasis on 
monitoring and evaluating food aid operations. They have 
pledged to support recipient countries in their efforts to 
develop their own food strategies, so a longer term planning 
would be involved here.
    Under the new Convention, members can make their 
commitments either by weight, by value, or a combination of 
both. The United States has pledged to provide a minimum of 2.5 
million tons in wheat equivalent each year. The European Union 
has pledged to provide 1.32 million metric tons, plus 130 
million Euros. The total annual minimum commitment from all the 
members of the FAC is just under 5 million metric tons, plus 
the 130 million Euros that the EU has promised.
    All of the food aid to the least developed countries will 
be in the form of grants. However, members have the option of 
providing food aid to low income or lower middle income 
countries using long-term concessional loans such as our Public 
Law 480 Title I program. Members have also agreed not to link 
any of their FAC food aid to commercial exports of goods and 
services in the recipient countries.
    Now, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the United States remains 
the world's food aid leader. We have provided over 40 million 
tons of food aid, or 54 percent of the world's total over the 
past decade. The EU is the second largest provider, providing 
20 million tons in that time period.
    The FAC, the new FAC of 1999, is a flexible mechanism. It 
has expanded, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the list of foods 
that can now be donated. The idea here is that we can have a 
more equitable sharing of the food aid burden, as more 
countries can now participate. You do not just have to be a 
large grain producer. As you noted, powdered milk, vegetable 
oil or vitamin-reinforced foods can be given. So we hope very 
much that the FAC will expand and more countries will 
participate, helping to build that ``floor'' of food aid up a 
bit.
    Although the intention of the FAC is to help alleviate 
poverty and hunger among the world's poorest nations, it seems 
clear to us that food aid benefits American farmers as well. 
U.S. farmers are the most productive in the world, so 
productive, as you well know, that they produce far more food 
than Americans consume. Food aid programs use U.S. surpluses to 
address deficits around the world. Last year alone, the U.S. 
Government purchased over 9 million tons of commodities from 
American farmers.
    Mr. Chairman, the Food Aid Convention 1999 provides an 
excellent mechanism for directing surplus U.S. food production 
to alleviate the suffering of the world's poorest people. I 
urge you and the Senate to provide your advice and consent to 
ratify this Convention.
    Next, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the revised 
International Plant Protection Convention, or the IPPC. The 
IPPC itself was established in 1952. The goal of this 
organization is to prevent the spread of plant pests by 
committing Governments to establish national pest surveillance 
programs, inspect imports and certify exports, communicate 
plant importation requirements, announce emerging pest threats, 
and work jointly on pest control and eradication programs. This 
objective must be met without disrupting trade between 
countries, and regulatory action affecting trade must have 
technical justification.
    Evolving plant quarantine practices and conflicts and the 
expanding agricultural trade have led to this latest revision 
to the IPPC. This is the first revision in 20 years. Some of 
the new revisions include clarified and strengthened 
requirements that phytosanitary measures be based on science, 
incorporation of important principles of transparency, 
nondiscrimination, and science-based regulatory actions, making 
it more difficult for countries to use arbitrary and 
unjustified health requirements to restrict trade.
    A greater role for plant quarantine officials in 
development and adoption of international standards is created 
in the new IPPC, as well as improved procedures for exchanging 
information to reduce the risk of pest spread, and minimize 
unnecessary trade disruptions.
    We believe the revised IPPC will expedite development of 
international plant health standards. As you know, this has 
become a key part of our strategy of creating a stable trade 
system that consists of sound quarantine principles and is 
predictable for the American farmer trying to export to foreign 
markets. International standards are critical for achieving a 
trade system balancing protection with predictability and 
fairness in trade practices.
    Also of strategic significance to agriculture is the advent 
of new products derived from biotechnology, as we focused on 
last week in your hearings. We are facing serious challenges in 
the way countries view these new food and agricultural 
products. We see the IPPC framework as providing science-based 
standards to assure that these products are treated fairly, and 
that U.S farmers can continue to export new agricultural 
products overseas.
    No changes in law or administrative action will be required 
to implement the IPPC. Existing plant protection statutes 
already enable the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service to discharge its 
responsibilities under the Convention, and appropriate staff 
and regulations are already in place. Accepting the IPPC 
revisions will send a clear signal to our trading partners that 
the U.S. remains committed to strengthening agricultural trade 
through international standards and rules.
    Ratification of the treaty will help eliminate and prevent 
unjustified trade barriers and help U.S. farmers and exporters 
of agricultural products. We hope you will give this treaty 
favorable consideration.
    The third treaty I would like to discuss is the 
International Labor Organization's ``Convention 176 Concerning 
Safety and Health in Mines.'' This was submitted to the Senate 
by the President on September 9, 1999. The administration 
strongly supports ratification of this Convention, which will 
help improve working conditions for miners around the world, 
while promoting a level, competitive playing field for the 
American mining industry.
    The Convention requires states to establish and review mine 
safety and health laws and policies. It establishes 
responsibilities for employers and specific rights and duties 
for miners. The provisions of the Convention are fully 
consistent with existing U.S. mine safety and health laws and 
regulations. In fact, as you alluded to in your opening 
statement, Mr. Chairman, Convention 176 was patterned after the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
    Once again, no new legislation, personnel, or organization 
is needed to implement this Convention. Representatives of 
labor and industry as well as the Federal Government examined 
this Convention using the ground rules adopted by the Senate in 
1988 for review of similar Conventions and concluded that there 
were no legal impediments to U.S. ratification.
    Ratification of Convention 176 represents an opportunity to 
advance mining safety and health, and can help the American 
mining industry compete by ensuring mining companies around the 
world must meet basic safety and health standards, and it would 
also promote market opportunities for U.S. companies that 
manufacture mining equipment that meets safety and health 
standards. For these reasons, both the United Mineworkers of 
America and the National Mining Association support 
ratification of Convention 176.
    The United States began the 20th century with thousands of 
miners losing their lives annually in mining accidents, but 
close the century with fewer than 100. Ratification of 
Convention 176 will help raise safety and health protection for 
miners throughout the world. We strongly request your favorable 
consideration of this important Convention.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wayne follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. E. Anthony Wayne

    Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Department of State I appreciate the 
opportunity to present the views of the Administration concerning three 
treaties submitted to you for advice and consent: first, the Food Aid 
Convention, 1999; second the International Plant Protection Convention; 
and third the International Labor Organization Convention 176 on Safety 
and Health in Mines. The Administration recommends speedy ratification 
of all three of these treaties and hopes you will share the view that 
all three are in the best interests of the United States.
                   i. food aid convention (fac), 1999
    The Food Aid Convention (FAC) 1999 replaces the Food Aid Convention 
of 1995, which expired June 30, 1999. The Convention provides an 
international forum for donors to discuss food assistance to needy 
countries. Parties to the 1995 Convention are the major food aid donors 
and include the United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada, 
Australia, Norway, Switzerland and Argentina. The Food Aid Convention 
1999, like its 1995 predecessor, commits the United States to donate or 
sell on concessional terms at least 2.5 million tons of food aid 
annually. The treaty was submitted to the Senate October 13, 1999.
    We believe the Food Aid Convention (FAC) 1999 will play a critical 
role in helping to ensure that food aid from major donors reaches the 
world's neediest people on a regular and predictable basis irrespective 
of fluctuations in world food prices and supplies. No implementing 
legislation is required to carry out U.S. obligations under FAC 1999. 
Administrative duties overseas are handled by the Secretariat of the 
International Grains Council (an inter-governmental organization 
concerned with grains trade based in London since 1949) and in the U.S. 
by the Department of State. In both cases, personnel are already in 
place.
    For your background information, 1996 saw both the World Food 
Summit in Rome and the World Trade Organization's Singapore 
Ministerial. Developed and developing countries alike agreed at the 
World Food Summit that enhancement of world food security was 
necessary. At the WTO Conference, Ministers recommended that the 
parties to the Food Aid Convention ``establish a level of food aid 
commitments, covering as wide a range of donors and donable foodstuffs 
as possible . . . sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of developing 
countries.'' In response, parties to the 1995 Food Aid Convention 
decided to open the FAC for renegotiation in December 1997.
    Parties held nine rounds of negotiations during 1998 and early 1999 
and completed the new Food Aid Convention in April 1999. It has an 
initial three-year duration, but can be extended for successive 
periods, not exceeding two years in each extension. The Food Aid 
Convention, 1999 entered into force on July 1, 1999. Argentina, 
Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, Luxemburg, 
Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Australia, Switzerland, and Canada have 
ratified the Food Aid Convention, 1999. The United States signed the 
Convention on June 16, 1999 and is being treated as a provisional party 
pending Senate consent and advice and deposit of the U.S. instrument of 
ratification. A number of other states are still applying the 1999 
Convention only provisionally: Belgium, EC, France, Germany, Japan, 
Norway, Spain and the U.K.
    The 1999 Convention's stated objectives are to ``contribute to 
world food security and to improve the ability of the international 
community to respond to emergency food situations and other food needs 
of developing countries.'' FAC parties will make food aid available to 
developing countries with the greatest need on a predictable basis, 
irrespective of fluctuations in world food prices and supplies. Food 
aid is directed to the alleviation of poverty and hunger of the most 
vulnerable groups. FAC parties make specific annual minimum 
commitments, thus setting a ``floor'' for food aid. Needy developing 
countries thus gain some security in knowing that food aid will be 
forthcoming even in the event of high world prices and scarce supply.
    The new FAC aims at achieving greater efficiency in all aspects of 
food aid operations. FAC parties have agreed to place greater emphasis 
on the monitoring and evaluation of food aid operations. They also have 
agreed to support the efforts of recipient countries to develop and 
implement their own food aid strategies.
    While focusing upon the least developed countries, the Convention 
also recognizes that even lower middle income countries experience food 
emergencies and also have vulnerable groups within their borders. Thus 
these states remain eligible recipients under the new Convention, and 
the Convention remains a flexible instrument.
    Grains continue to represent the bulk of eligible products under 
the 1999 Convention. However, the list has been broadened to include 
edible oils, skimmed milk powder and milk products. Another important 
innovation is the inclusion of ``micro-nutrients'' including fortified 
products (e.g., vegetable oil fortified with Vitamin A) and vitamin 
supplements.
    Under the new Convention, the specific annual commitments of FAC 
parties can be commodities (in metric tons), cash value, or a 
combination of both. (The United States will provide commodities.) The 
United States has pledged to provide a minimum of 2.5 million metric 
tons (in grain equivalent) annually. The European Union, which 
contributes cash and commodities, has pledged to provide 1.32 million 
metric tons plus 130 million Euros cash. (The other six parties to the 
Convention have made their pledges in metric tons of commodities.)
    The total annual minimum commitment of FAC parties is slightly 
below five million metric tons (in grain equivalent) plus 130 million 
Euros. Donors have agreed, to the extent possible, to bear the cost of 
transportation, particularly in the case of emergency food aid or when 
food aid is directed to least developed countries.
    All food aid to least-developed countries covered by parties' 
minimum annual commitments will be in the form of grants. However, 
parties will continue to have the option of providing food aid to low-
income and lower middle-income countries in the form of long-term 
concessional loans (such as under the U.S. P.L. 480 Title I program), 
thus retaining another important element of flexibility. Parties agree 
not to tie the provision of their FAC food aid to commercial exports of 
goods and services to recipient countries.
    To promote local agricultural development, donors agree to consider 
purchasing food from a developing country for supply to a recipient 
country or to buy food in one part of a developing country for supply 
to another part. This process helps strengthen regional and local 
markets and enhances the longer-term food security of recipient 
countries.
    The United States remains the world's food aid leader, providing 
over 40 million tons, or 54 percent of the world's total, from 1990 
through 1999. The EC provided the second largest amount through the 
same period with 20 million tons or 27 percent of the total. The Food 
Aid Convention, 1999, by expanding the list of eligible food aid 
commodities, has made a significant step toward sharing the burden of 
food aid more equitably. Countries which are not grain exporters are 
now able to donate useful commodities such as milk powder or vegetable 
oil. While no new donors have joined the FAC, outreach is planned to 
encourage those nations which have become middle-income countries to 
shoulder a greater share of the world's food aid needs.
    U.S. food aid, under the Food Aid Convention, is an extremely 
valuable tool to alleviate suffering and raise standards of living 
among the poorest of the poor. Food aid not only feeds hungry people, 
but also provides a key resource in programs like ``food for work'' 
that help make poor nations less vulnerable to future food shortages. 
Examples include making drainage ditches and roads in agricultural 
areas in Bangladesh and reforestation projects in Peru and Bolivia to 
reduce erosion. We have had many successes, and in some cases made the 
difference between life and death. Food aid has prevented mass 
starvation in Ethiopia and assisted rebuilding in countries such as 
Honduras harmed by natural disasters like hurricane Mitch. Our food aid 
programs have enabled us to feed the hungry in other places devastated 
by wars and natural disasters, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Eritrea, 
Albania, Mongolia and Rwanda.
    Yet we must be careful not to create the misperception that U.S. 
food aid benefits only people in far off lands. In reality, U.S. food 
aid also helps our farmers right here at home. The most productive in 
the world, U.S. farmers produce more food than Americans can consume. 
Food assistance programs are an effective way of linking U.S. surpluses 
with the deficits that exist around the world. Last year alone, the 
U.S. government purchased over nine million tons of commodities from 
U.S. farmers, including wheat, corn, soybeans, pork, planting seeds, 
rice, lentils, dry beans and milk, to provide as food aid worldwide.
    Clearly, the roots of U.S. food aid run deeply into, the soil of 
America's farms. We are aware of no domestic opposition to the Food Aid 
Convention. Mr. Chairman, I urge you and the Senate to provide your 
advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the Food Aid Convention, 
1999.
          ii. international plant protection convention (ippc)
    Mr. Chairman, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) 
was established in 1952 and has been revised twice since then (1979 and 
1997). It is administered and supported through the United Nations Food 
and Agricultural Organization (FAO) based in Rome. The revised 
Convention was submitted to the Senate on March 23, 2000. Originally, 
the Convention's main goal was to promote cooperation among countries 
in preventing the spread of plant pests associated with the movement of 
commodities, people, and conveyances.
    The Convention, in its early years, provided crucial direction in 
the area of plant health and the United States has been a leading force 
in furthering the work of the IPPC. The IPPC parties committed 
governments to establish national regulatory systems capable of 
conducting pest surveillance; inspecting imports; certifying exports as 
free of pests; informing other countries of their plant health import 
requirements; notifying parties of emerging pest threats; and working 
together in joint pest control and eradication programs. These 
safeguarding objectives were, and continue to be, fully in line with 
our goals of trying to deter and prevent the spread of harmful plant 
pests into the United States. The IPPC has 110 signatories. Fifteen 
countries have already ratified the revised Convention and deposited 
their official letters of acceptance with the FAO including Sweden, 
Australia, New Zealand and several developing countries.
    Preventing the spread of pests, without disrupting trade between 
countries, is what brought quarantine officials together at the IPPC, 
and continues as the organization's guiding principle. Since its 
inception, the IPPC has maintained and promoted the concept that 
regulatory actions that affect trade MUST have a technical 
justification. This concept foreshadowed the obligation contained in 
the Uruguay Round Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) 
measures--that health-related requirements in trade be based on 
science.
    Why revise the Convention? The last revision to the Convention 
occurred over 20 years ago. Since then, plant quarantine practices and 
concepts have evolved. In addition, the expansion in agricultural trade 
has created a greater need by industry and governments for harmonized 
approaches to risk management. Both exporters and regulatory agencies 
need an international framework harmonized decision-making processes to 
govern trade in grain, fruit, vegetables, and other agricultural and 
forest products. Moreover, the threat from invasive species has 
intensified in recent years as global commerce has expanded.
    The recent Uruguay Round Agreement on SPS sets out the rights and 
obligations of countries to take protective measures and promote fair 
trade practices. This is consistent with U.S. support for a science-
based, rules-based system, which prevents the use of arbitrary and 
unjustified technical measures as disguised barriers to trade. In this 
new environment, IPPC signatory countries, including the United States, 
agreed on the need to modernize the IPPC.
    Throughout the negotiations to revise the Convention, we held two 
key objectives. First, we sought to reinforce and clarify within the 
Convention itself the obligation that regulatory measures that affect 
trade be firmly based in science. Second, we wanted to ensure that the 
IPPC was positioned to play a full and active role as a global standard 
setting body in the area of plant health. We feel that we accomplished 
these objectives. However, this revision to the IPPC does not impose 
any new obligations on the United States.
    Let me give you some examples of what the revised text provides:

   First, it clarifies and strengthens the requirements that 
        phytosanitary measures be based on science. The existing 
        Convention is unclear about the nature of the technical 
        justification required to support a measure. The revised text 
        is quite explicit about what it means to base a measure on 
        science. We incorporated specific provisions on the use of risk 
        analysis as a basis for regulatory decision making.

   Second, it incorporates important principles of 
        transparency, nondiscrimination, and science-based regulatory 
        actions throughout the text, thereby making it more difficult 
        for countries to use arbitrary and unjustified phytosanitary 
        requirements as barriers to trade.

   Third, it formalizes the IPPC standard setting procedure 
        within the Convention in order that plant quarantine officials 
        may play an active role in the development and adoption of 
        international phytosanitary standards.

   Fourth, it clarifies some of the basic procedures for 
        information exchange to ensure that information on potentially 
        harmful pests as well as import regulations are notified 
        between parties to reduce the risk of pest spread and minimize 
        unnecessary trade disruptions.

    Why is the revised IPPC important to agriculture? The primary 
benefit we expect from IPPC activities in the coming years is to 
expedite the development of international plant health standards. This 
development will contribute to greater harmonization of phytosanitary 
measures used in trade, thereby providing greater predictability for 
our exporters. In fact, a 1998 survey of a cross-section of U.S. 
industry involved in plant-related commodities (including food 
producers, horticultural industries, and nurseries) made clear 
industry's interest and need for more standards to govern their trade 
and provide greater predictability with respect to foreign regulatory 
practices that affect their business decisions.
    Having a common, or harmonized, set of concepts, terms, and 
approaches in the phytosanitary area is essential for facilitating 
industry and intergovernmental discussions and resolving disputes over 
pest and disease issues that affect trade. A common vocabulary or 
agreement on basic quarantine practices, provide a solid basis for 
trying to sort out and resolve our differences over these issues. This 
common vocabulary allows us to engage with our foreign regulatory 
counterparts on disease risk issues related to the movement of citrus 
to Mexico and Korea, or tobacco to China, or wheat to Brazil.
    Mr. Chairman, we believe that IPPC standards and activities in the 
years ahead will have a significant impact on agricultural trade. 
International standards will help prevent disputes from occurring in 
the first place and, when they do, they will serve as important 
benchmarks for use by WTO dispute panels that may be formed to decide 
phytosanitary trade disputes. In fact, an IPPC standard (i.e., 
guidelines for conducting pest risk analysis) was a crucial tool in the 
recent WTO dispute between the U.S. and Japan concerning trade in 
fruit, in which we obtained a favorable ruling. This standard was 
critical in the panel's evaluation of Japan's phytosanitary practices 
which were harming our agricultural trade interests.
    The IPPC standard-setting functions have become more visible as a 
result of the WTO's SPS Agreement, somewhat overshadowing the 
institution's equally important role in sharing information 
internationally. The IPPC contains several provisions regarding 
specific kinds of information to be exchanged between parties. These 
include:

          1. Pest Reporting: Parties are required to inform each other 
        of the occurrence or outbreak of pests within their territory 
        which may pose a potential threat to other parties.

          2. Phytosanitary Measures: The IPPC requires parties to share 
        copies of new or amended phytosanitary legislation or 
        regulations with other parties who may be affected. This 
        requirement includes providing on request the rationale for 
        these new or amended phytosanitary measures.

    Also, the newly revised text of the IPPC requires parties to 
establish official contact points. Generally, the chief plant 
protection officer at the national level is the official contact point. 
(Each party submits a contact point to the Secretariat, which compiles 
a directory.) The intent of establishing a system of official contact 
points is to facilitate the exchange of information directly between 
parties. These contact points are critical for making it easier to 
communicate on urgent issues related to export certification, pest 
issues, and other phytosanitary matters.
    Standard setting has become a key part of our strategy of creating 
a stable trade system that consists of sound quarantine principles and 
is predictable from the standpoint of an American farmer trying to 
export his products to foreign markets. International standards are 
critical for achieving a trade system that balances the need for health 
protection with a need for predictability and fairness in trade 
practices.
    A top priority for the United States overall is to increase and 
expedite the development of phytosanitary standards to govern trade in 
fruit, vegetables, and other plant commodities. U.S. horticultural, 
grain, and nursery industries have indicated that increasing the number 
of regional and global standards to provide greater predictability in 
trade is a high priority for them. The revised Convention allows us to 
pursue these strategic objectives.
    Also of strategic significance to agriculture is tbe advent of new 
products derived from biotechnology. We are currently facing some 
serious challenges in the way countries are viewing and treating these 
new food and agricultural products. While some environmental groups 
have raised questions regarding the scope and application of the 
Convention to protection of plants and the environment, we have 
clarified to these groups and assured them that the Convention does 
indeed help protect plants and the environment. We see the IPPC 
framework as the appropriate forum for developing science-based 
standards to assure that trade in these products is not hindered by 
unjustified phytosanitary standards and that U.S. farmers will continue 
to benefit from being able to export new agricultural products to 
overseas markets.
    Today, we have an opportunity to demonstrate continued U.S. 
leadership and interest in international standards by acceptance of the 
revised Convention as soon as possible. Completing the acceptance 
process within the United States this year will send a clear signal to 
our trade partners that the United States remains fully committed to 
strengthening agricultural trade conditions through the development and 
use of science-based international plant protection standards and 
rules. Ratification of the treaty will help eliminate and prevent 
arbitrary or unjustified barriers to trade and help U.S. farmers and 
exporters of agricultural products.
    No changes in law or administrative action will be required to 
implement the IPPC. Existing plant protection statutes already enable 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) to discharge its responsibilities under the Convention. 
Appropriate staff and regulations are already in place.
    We hope that you will give this treaty your favorable consideration 
and thank you for the opportunity to present our position.
  iii. international labor organization (ilo) convention 176 on mine 
                           safety and health
    The International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 176 
``Concerning Safety and Health in Mines'' was submitted to the Senate 
by the President on September 9, 1999. Representatives of the U.S. 
Government, as well as U.S. worker and employee organizations, played a 
leading role in the negotiations leading to the ILO's adoption of the 
Convention, on June 22, 1995. The Administration strongly supports 
ratification of this Convention, which will help improve working 
conditions for miners around the world, while promoting a level, 
competitive playing field for the American mining industry.
    Convention 176 obligates ratifying states to formulate, carry out, 
and periodically review a consistent policy on safety and health in 
mines. So far 14 countries have ratified Convention 176: Armenia, 
Austria, Botswana, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lebanon, Norway, 
Philippines, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Zambia. In 
addition, ratifying states are to develop national laws and regulations 
to effect implementation of the Convention's provisions. 
Responsibilities for employers are established in the provisions of the 
Convention, as are specific rights and duties of workers and their 
representatives. The obligations, policies, responsibilities, rights 
and duties of the Convention are fully consistent with existing U.S. 
mine safety and health laws and regulations. No new legislation, 
personnel, or organization is needed to implement the Convention.
    Convention 176 was patterned after U.S. law: the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977, a statute that has proven its 
effectiveness in protecting miners' safety and health. The Tripartite 
Advisory Panel on International Labor Standards (TAPILS), which 
includes representatives of the American Federation of Labor-Congress 
of Industrial Organizations and the U.S. Council for International 
Business, as well as the Derartments of Labor, Commerce and State 
conducted a detailed examination of the Convention. TAPILS also 
examined how U.S. law and practice conform to its provisions.
    TAPILS conducted its review using the three ground rules adopted by 
the Senate in 1988. These rules require that each convention related to 
labor be examined on its merits by the TAPILS participants; that any 
differences between the Convention and U.S. law and practice be 
addressed in the normal legislative process, and that there is no 
intention to change state law and practice through the ratification 
process. These ground rules work to assure that the legal consequences, 
if any, of ratification are identified and addressed prior to 
ratification. Since the requirements of the Convention are fully 
consistent with existing U.S. mine safety and health policy and law, 
TAPILS concluded that there are no legal impediments to U.S. 
ratification of Convention 176.
    Ratification of Convention 176 presents an opportunity to advance 
safety and health in the mining industry throughout the world by 
establishing uniform safety and health standards. Ratification of 
Convention 176 would also help the American mining industry compete in 
this increasingly global economy. The United States is among the 
leading exporters of coal in the world. Wide ratification of this 
Convention would help ensure that mining companies around the world 
must meet basic safety and health standards. It would also promote 
market opportunities for American companies that manufacture mining 
equipment that meets safety and health standards. For these reasons, 
both the United Mine Workers of America and the National Mining 
Association support ratification of Convention 176. The U.S. Council 
for International Business, representing more than 500 members 
including the ``Fortune 250,'' is also in support of ratification of 
the Convention.
    As the President stated on September 9, 1999, ``Mining has long 
been recognized as one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Men, 
women and sometimes even children are exposed to hazards that can claim 
their lives or destroy their health. . . . Despite the considerable 
advances in safety and health throughout this century, mining remains 
one of the most hazardous occupations worldwide.''
    Recent events attest to his remarks. In March 2000, a methane 
explosion in the Ukraine resulted in the deaths of 80 coal miners. New 
reports indicate that mining accidents in China killed more than 3,000 
miners in 1999, and that more than 2,700 miners were killed in the 
first half of 2000. The United States began the 20th century with 
thousands of miners losing their lives annually in mining accidents, 
but closed the century with fewer than 100. Ratification of Convention 
176 will help raise safety and health protections for miners throughout 
the world. We strongly request your favorable consideration of this 
important Convention.

    Senator Hagel. Gentlemen, thank you.
    In the interests of time, I am going to ask a question on 
each of the treaties and then I will submit for the record 
questions that you can respond to in writing. Some of my 
colleagues, including the chairman, Chairman Helms, have asked 
that questions be submitted in writing and I will do that.
    First, Secretary Sandalow, on the Inter-American Convention 
on Sea Turtles--this is actually a question from Chairman 
Helms. Some members of our committee are concerned, and I 
expect this can be applied to each of these treaties, that we 
are going to create bigger and more and deeper bureaucracy.
    What can you tell us about this treaty? Will it create more 
bureaucracy? Expand on that, if you would. You have touched on 
some of the dynamics of increased bureaucracy, as you both did 
in your statements, but if you would not mind, could each of 
you hit that question and give me an answer.
    Mr. Sandalow. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I 
will start with the Sea Turtle Convention. This is an 
exceedingly lean and mean instrument. It is envisioned that 
there would be a very small secretariat. The secretariat would 
involve voluntary contributions from the United States, no more 
than roughly $100,000 a year in that area. It is not a United 
Nations instrument. The investment that we would make in 
voluntary contributions associated with this type of treaty 
would be paid back in spades in benefits to our business and to 
the global environment.
    With respect to the desertification, this, too, is a treaty 
that will not create bureaucracies. It will help cut through 
bureaucracies. It is a U.N. instrument, but it is designed 
specifically to make sure that moneys are better spent and the 
bureaucracies are better managed, so the treaty involves, or 
creates a mechanism for donor coordination, which ensures that 
foreign assistance dollars are better spent, and it empowers 
communities on the ground to make sure the projects that come 
forward are better projects.
    Senator Hagel. Would it be necessary for any new United 
States law or legislation to be introduced to comply with this 
treaty?
    Mr. Sandalow. Not under either of the treaties that I spoke 
of today, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Hagel. Could you address enforcement of this 
Convention, specifically additional Convention measures, 
moneys, people, anything in the way of enforcement of the five 
treaties we are talking about.
    Mr. Sandalow. There are no mandatory procedures under these 
Conventions, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wayne. Similarly, we do not believe there will be any 
additional personnel or new bureaucracy created in the three 
treaty Conventions that I spoke about.
    In the case of the FAC, the secretariat is provided by an 
international, intergovernmental organization that exists. The 
International Grains Council, which handles the flow of grain 
trade normally, and it has also taken on the responsibilities 
of the FAC.
    In the case of the International Plant Protection 
Convention, the secretariat is provided by existing FAO 
resources. That secretariat already exists. We do not foresee a 
new secretariat being created, and we do not foresee any new 
money being called for.
    In the case of the ILO Mine Safety and Health Convention, 
the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration 
will continue to carry out its normal functions. No additional 
requirements would be laid upon them here. Internationally, the 
ILO would take on the responsibility of monitoring the 
compliance with this Convention, but we do not see the need for 
a new bureaucracy or new resources in the ILO to do that.
    Senator Hagel. Thank you.
    Secretary Sandalow, you mentioned that the National Drought 
Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska would be assisted with 
the ratification of the Desertification Convention. Could you 
go into a little more detail on how that would happen?
    Mr. Sandalow. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
    Among other ways, the Convention provides for a roster of 
experts which is maintained by the secretariat under the 
Convention, and that roster of experts has become the 
clearinghouse and a central source of information for those who 
are looking for technical assistance with respect to drought 
mitigation and dry land management issues around the world.
    Should the United States become a party to this Convention, 
we would be entitled to nominate the National Drought 
Mitigation Center in Lincoln to take a place on that roster of 
experts, and anybody around the world looking for assistance 
could come to the center.
    Senator Hagel. Thank you.
    Secretary Wayne, on the ILO Convention concerning Safety 
and Health in Mines, is any additional legislation required 
from the United States to comply with this treaty?
    Mr. Wayne. No, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, our safety standards 
are higher than the safety standards in this ILO Convention. 
Indeed, what we are doing here is bringing other countries up 
closer to our standard-setting level, which is the model in the 
rest of the world, so we would not have to have any 
implementing legislation, indeed, for any of the three 
Conventions that I talked about, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Hagel. A question that one of my committee 
colleagues had asked regarding this treaty, would this 
Convention in any way conflict with the prerogatives of our own 
judges or our own laws in the area of mine safety or health. Is 
there any conflict that you might see potentially arising?
    Mr. Wayne. No. In our examination of it we have not seen 
any conflict, and indeed part of the mandate of the tripartite 
organization, which is called the Tripartite Advisory Panel on 
International Labor Standards, was to examine this Convention 
to see if it would interfere in any way with U.S. law, 
including State law, or U.S. prerogative, and they found that 
no, that indeed there would be no new demands for changes in 
U.S. law or regulation, and this was a panel of Government, 
industry, and union representatives.
    Senator Hagel. Thank you.
    Under the Food Aid Convention we encourage private 
voluntary organizations to carry out the purposes of this 
Convention. Do you believe that we have tapped into those 
organizations to the maximum extent?
    Mr. Wayne. Well, Mr. Chairman, what I know for certain is 
that these PVO's are essential partners, very active partners, 
and are used on a regular basis, consulted with on a regular 
basis, CARE, Catholic Relief, many others. I think that 
partnership is always evolving, but it is an extremely close 
one, and I think they indeed are well-used in this process and 
deeply integrated into it.
    Senator Hagel. I'd like to ask another question on the Food 
Aid Convention and distributing food aid, this time relating to 
the age-old question of trying not to penalize the people to 
get to the corrupt ruler, Iraq being a good example. This 
question is a specific question that one of my colleagues on 
the committee asked that I raise with you.
    How would this aid be distributed in countries like North 
Korea? What assurances are there that that food is not diverted 
to troops or for Government use?
    Mr. Wayne. Mr. Chairman, you are correct that this is a 
very important question. It is a question that we have center 
before our thought whenever we are dealing with difficult 
situations like this, or in difficult regimes, whether it be a 
civil war or a regime of concern, a State of concern.
    And when we have provided food for humanitarian need in 
those situations, it has either been through the U.N. World 
Food Program, or through private voluntary organizations, and 
with the clear stipulation that very careful monitoring is 
required, very careful accounting to ensure that the food goes 
to the people and is not diverted either to government or to 
the military. I know that there has been much work to improve 
these monitoring and accounting systems to make sure that 
everything is accounted for and it really gets to the intended 
recipient.
    Senator Hagel. Thank you.
    Gentlemen, we could go on, but coming in right behind you 
we have a most distinguished nominee to be Inspector General of 
the U.S. Agency for International Development, so I do not want 
to hold him up. I would ask that if you could respond to 
written questions which we will submit, and if you could turn 
those around in a timely manner we would appreciate it.
    I have not consulted with Chairman Helms on how fast we can 
move on these, but I assume he will bring them up in the next 
business meeting, but being just a modest member of the 
committee with absolutely no authority or power, I cannot speak 
for the chairman, of course, but I think that is his intent.
    Secretary Sandalow, your net was a very instructive prop, 
and I might ask that you leave it. We might find a very 
effective use for that here. Good to see both of you again. 
Thank you for your service to our country.
    Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wayne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

             Additional Questions Submitted for the Record


    Responses of Assistant Secretary of State David B. Sandalow to 
         Additional Questions Submitted by Senator Jesse Helms

                       desertification convention
    Question 1. As a so-called ``developed country'' under the 
Convention, would the United States be absolutely bound to specific 
funding requirements or specific requirements to provide resources, 
including technology, to so-called ``affected countries ?''
    Answer. The Convention and its annexes do not bind the United 
States to specific funding requirements or other specific requirements 
regarding the provision of any resource, including technology, to any 
of the ``affected countries,'' as defined in the Convention.

    Question 2. Would ratification of the Convention obligate the 
United States to help fund two new United Nations bureaucracies--a 
permanent secretariat and ``Global Mechanism''--devoted to the treaty's 
implementation?
    Answer. The Convention creates a Secretariat and a Global 
Mechanism, but does not prescribe a level of funding for them. As a 
party, the United States would be expected to make annual contributions 
to the Convention's budget to support the administrative expenses of 
the Secretariat and the Global Mechanism. Nothing in the Convention or 
the budget decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties makes 
these contributions mandatory. The United States regards them as 
voluntary.

    Question 3. Would ratification of the Convention require alteration 
of U.S. domestic legal processes for determining bilateral and 
multilateral foreign assistance funding levels or foreign assistance 
recipients?
    Answer. Ratification would not alter our domestic legal processes 
for determining bilateral and multilateral foreign assistance funding 
levels, or the recipients of those funding levels.

    Question 4. Would the United States be forced to overhaul its land 
management practices in order to meet its obligations under this 
Convention?
    Answer. Ratification will not require the United States to alter 
its national land management or agricultural practices. The CCD does 
not call for any land use restrictions, or require additional 
legislation or regulations for U.S. implementation. Our current land 
use practices are in accord with the Convention obligation to establish 
strategies to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of 
drought.

    Question 5. Are the dispute settlement provisions of article 28(2) 
of the Convention mandatory? Would the United States be absolutely 
bound by recommendations resulting from conciliation exercises 
undertaken pursuant to the Convention?
    Answer. Paragraph 2 of article 28 permits a Party, when joining the 
Convention, to declare that it accepts binding adjudication before the 
International Court of Justice and/or binding arbitration. We do not 
intend for the United States to make such a declaration, and therefore 
the dispute settlement provisions of article 28(2) would not be 
mandatory for disputes involving the United States. With respect to 
conciliation procedures under article 28(6), any recommendations 
resulting from such procedures would not be binding on the United 
States.

    Question 6. Would the Convention obligate the United States to 
provide even more resources to the Global Environment Facility?
    Answer. The Convention does not obligate the United States to 
provide increased levels of funding to the GEF. The GEF Council decided 
to integrate desertification projects into the appropriate focal areas 
already existing in the GEF. Results of the last two rounds of GEF 
Council meetings indicated to us that desertification projects have 
been integrated well into the existing GEF ``focal area'' of 
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The GEF is continuing to 
improve integration of desertification into other appropriate focal 
areas, such as international waters and climate change.
                  inter-american sea turtle convention
    Question 1. Will the Convention impose a mandatory obligation upon 
the United States to co-finance a permanent secretariat to implement 
the treaty?
    Answer. No. The Convention does not actually establish a 
secretariat. Rather, Article VI of the Convention calls upon the 
Parties to consider the establishment of a secretariat at their first 
meeting.
    If the Parties decide to establish a secretariat, Article VI, 
paragraph 2 calls upon them to ``consider the possibility of appointing 
the Secretariat from among competent international organizations that 
are willing and able to perform the functions provided for in this 
Article.'' The idea behind this provision is to avoid costs associated 
with the creation of an independent secretariat.
    Even if the Parties were to decide to establish an independent 
secretariat, the Convention does not impose a mandatory obligation on 
the United States to co-finance the secretariat. Article VI, paragraph 
2 instead provides that the Parties ``shall determine the means of 
financing necessary to carry out the functions of the Secretariat.'' 
The Administration anticipates that any such determination would either 
involve voluntary contributions from the Parties or the seeking of 
contributions from existing international environmental organizations, 
or a combination of both approaches.
    In accordance with Article V, paragraph 5, any decision on 
financing a possible secretariat would be made by consensus of the 
Parties. Thus, the United States could prevent the adoption of a 
decision on this matter that would be adverse to our interests.

    Question 2. How does the Administration propose to enforce the 
Convention? Is there anything that would prevent the U.S. Coast Guard 
from boarding, inspecting or even seizing a foreign flag, U.S. flag, or 
no-flag vessel in connection with enforcement?
    Answer. Each Party is responsible for enforcing the provisions of 
the Convention in its land territory and in waters over which it 
exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction with respect to 
living marine resources. Generally speaking, these waters extend to the 
seaward limit of any exclusive economic zone that a Party has 
established which, under international law, may be no more than 200 
nautical miles from coastal baselines.
    Each Party is also responsible for enforcing the provisions of the 
Convention with respect to vessels on the high seas that are authorized 
to fly its flag. Nothing in the Convention would prevent the U.S. Coast 
Guard from boarding, inspecting or even seizing a foreign flag, U.S. 
flag, or no-flag (stateless) vessel for violating the provisions of the 
Convention in waters over which the United States exercises 
jurisdiction; i.e., to the seaward limit of the U.S. exclusive economic 
zone. In accordance with international law, the United States would 
have no authority to enforce the provisions of the Convention in waters 
over which any other State exercises jurisdiction, except with the 
consent of that State.
    Under international law, vessels on the high seas are generally 
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State whose flag they are 
authorized to fly. Again, the Convention does not alter this general 
rule. The United States can, however, take action to enforce the 
provisions of the Convention with respect to stateless vessels on the 
high seas.
    Existing legislation, including the Endangered Species Act, 16 
U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq., and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1081 et seq., 
provide sufficient legislative authority to enforce the provisions of 
the Convention in U.S. land territory and in applicable U.S. waters, as 
described above.

    Question 3. Will proper implementation of this Convention require 
new legislation to supplement existing law--such as the Endangered 
Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act?
    Answer. No. Existing legislation, including the Endangered Species 
Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq., and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1081 et seq., 
provide sufficient legislative authority to implement U.S. obligations 
under the Convention. Accordingly, no new legislation is necessary in 
order for the United States to ratify or implement the Convention.

    Question 4. Will entry into force of this Convention in the United 
States further interfere with the rights of waterfront property owners, 
public or private, to use or alienate their property?
    Answer. No. Nothing in the Convention requires the United States to 
take any action that would affect the rights of waterfront property 
owners, public or private, to use or alienate their property, beyond 
existing requirements of domestic law.
    Article IV of the Convention sets forth the basic measures to be 
taken by each Party. It requires that each Party take measures it 
considers ``appropriate and necessary.'' The provisions of Article IV 
reflect the intention to address the many different sources of threat 
to sea turtles, while also leaving each Party a reasonable degree of 
discretion to implement the measures in ways that make sense in light 
of its particular legal regime and environmental situation.

    Question 5. Are there ``traditional communities'' in the United 
States that would qualify for an exemption from the Convention's 
restrictions?
    Answer. Article IV, paragraph 2(a) of the Convention requires 
Parties to prohibit the ``intentional capture, retention or killing of, 
and domestic trade in, sea turtles, their eggs, parts or products.'' 
Article IV, paragraph 3 allows each Party to make exceptions to this 
rule ``to satisfy economic subsistence needs of traditional commun-
ities . . .''
    Under the Endangered Species Act, there is no community (or 
individual) in the United States that is currently permitted to engage 
in any activity covered by Article IV, paragraph 2(a) in order to 
satisfy ``economic subsistence needs.'' Accordingly, under existing 
domestic law, the United States would not be able to apply the 
exception for traditional communities.

    Question 6. In terms of enforcement, would the United States be 
obligated to respect under all circumstances and in all places a 
determination by another Convention party that all or part of its 
fishing fleet is entitled to a ``traditional communities'' exemption?
    Answer. As explained in the answer to the previous question, 
Article IV, paragraph 2(a) of the Convention requires Parties to 
prohibit the ``intentional capture, retention or killing of, and 
domestic trade in, sea turtles, their eggs, parts or products.'' 
Article IV, paragraph 3 of the Convention allows each Party to make 
exceptions to this rule ``to satisfy economic subsistence needs of 
traditional communities . . .''
    Fishing fleets are not, generally speaking, engaged in the 
``intentional capture, retention or killing of, and domestic trade in, 
sea turtles, their eggs, parts or products.'' Rather, the activities of 
fishing fleets that are covered by the Convention are the unintentional 
(or incidental) capture of sea turtles in the course of fishing for 
other species. See Article IV, paragraph 2(h).
    Hence, the ``traditional communities'' exception does not apply to 
the activities of fishing fleets. The activities that would come within 
the ambit of the exception would involve limited harvesting of sea 
turtles when they are nesting and of sea turtle eggs.
    The Convention does not give each Party an unfettered right to 
apply the ``traditional communities'' exception. Under Article IV, 
paragraph 3, such exceptions must not undermine efforts to achieve the 
objective of the Convention to protect, conserve and recover sea turtle 
populations and the habitats on which they depend. See Article II. 
Moreover, a Party considering the application of a ``traditional 
communities'' exception must take into account the recommendations of 
the Consultative Committee established pursuant to Article VII, must 
establish a management plan that includes limits on levels of 
intentional taking and must include in its Annual Report, referred to 
in Article XI, information concerning any such management plan.
    Under this scheme, the United States would have the right to 
question the application of the ``traditional communities'' exception 
by another Party.

                               __________

     Responses of Assistant Secretary of State E. Anthony Wayne to 
     Additional Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

    Question 1. Please describe the standard-setting process under the 
IPPC.

   What is the level of U.S. participation under the Interim 
        Commission?

   By what means does the U.S. Government consult with affected 
        U.S. parties?

    Answer. Currently, IPPC standards may be proposed in a number of 
ways. The IPPC Secretariat may initiate the development of a draft 
standard by forming a working group to develop a standard deemed a 
priority by the members of the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary 
Measures (ICPM). Draft standards or discussion papers may also be 
submitted to the IPPC Secretariat for consideration by regional or 
national plant protection organizations or other interested parties. 
The IPPC Secretariat refers draft standards to the Standards Committee, 
which considers the drafts and recommends action. Drafts approved by 
the Standards Committee are then submitted to member countries for 
consultation and comment. Comments made during country consultation are 
then considered by the Secretariat, which revises the standard before 
resubmitting it to the Standards Committee.
    If the Standards Comittee approves the revised draft, it is 
submitted to the ICPM, the governing body of the IPPC, for adoption. 
Each member country is represented on the ICPM by a single delegate. 
Although experts and advisers may accompany the delegate to the 
meetings of the ICPM, only the delegate or an authorized alternate may 
vote on proposed standards or other initiatives. Parties involved in a 
vote by the ICPM are to make every effort to reach agreement on all 
matters by consensus. Only after all efforts to reach a consensus have 
been exhausted may a decision on a standard be passed by a vote of two-
thirds of delegates present and voting.
    Step 1.--Proposals for a new International Standard for 
Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) (Discussion paper with topic or draft) or 
for the review of an existing ISPM are submitted to the Secretariat.
    Step 2.--Proposals are submitted to the ICPM for prioritization. 
The priorities identified by the ICPM are communicated to the 
Secretariat.
    Step 3.--Specifications for priority standards are drafted by the 
Secretariat. These are submitted to the Standards Committee for 
approval/amendment and subsequently made available for comment (60 
days). Specifications are finalized by the Standards committee taking 
comments into account.
    Step 4.--The standard is drafted or redrafted by a Working Group 
designated by the Standards Committee and in accordance with the 
specification, and submitted to the Standards Committee.
    Step 5.--The draft standard is reviewed by the Standards Committee 
and distributed to Members and Regional Plant Protection Organizations 
for consultation. As part of the consultation process, Members may 
comment by written submission. In addition, where appropriate, the 
Standards Committee may establish Open-ended Discussion Groups, as for 
further comment. Comments will be summarized by the Secretariat and 
submitted to the Standards Committee.
    Step 6.--The draft standard is revised by the Standards Committee 
in response to comments. The final version is submitted to the ICPM for 
adoption.
    Step 7.--The ISPM is established through formal adoption by the 
ICPM.
    Step 8.--The ISPM is reviewed by the specified date or such other 
date as may be agreed upon by the ICPM.
    A delegation from the United States participated in the first 
meetings of the Interim Commission, held 3-6 November 1998 and 4-8 
October 1999. The U.S. delegation was headed by the Deputy 
Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, USDA, who is designated as the official U.S. 
delegate to the ICPM.
    All proposed standards are reviewed by the United States during the 
country consultation phase of standard setting in the IPPO. 
Furthermore, technical experts from the United States have participated 
directly in a number of working groups, including working groups on 
dispute resolution, the phytosanitary aspects of living modified 
organisms (LMOs)/products of biotechnology, and official control. In 
addition, U.S. technical experts review all IPPO draft standards.
    Documents and positions developed by USDA and by the North American 
Plant Protection Organization have served as the basis for many of the 
standards adopted to date.
    The U.S. Government solicits input from affected U.S. parties on 
IPPO standard setting and other activities in a number of ways. First, 
a notice is published annually in the Federal Register, describing the 
on-going activities under the IPPO, and the standards that are being 
considered for adoption. This notice is generally published in the fall 
of each year, before the annual meeting of the IPPO. Second, APHIS 
publishes proposed IPPO standards on its web page (http: //
www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/standards/), along with guidelines for 
submitting comments on the proposed standards. The comments can be 
submitted electronically from the web page. Last, the National Plant 
Board and the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) 
industry advisory group are notified of all standards during the 
country consultation phase so that their members can review and comment 
on proposed standards.

    Question 2. What role does the U.S. Government envisage for the 
phytosanitary aspects of genetically modified organisms?
    Answer. The United States Government sees that addressing 
genetically-engineered products is consistent with the IPPO mandate to 
protect plant health, particularly the plant pest concerns that may be 
presented by genetically-engineered products/LMOs. Furthermore, we 
believe that these fall within the scope of the IPPC as the standard 
setting body for plant protection, as recognized by the WTO. 
International standards for LMOs/products of biotechnology in the IPPO 
context can also raise the international confidence level with the 
introduction of LMOs into the environment. The IPPO's risk analysis and 
regulatory approach is appropriate for assessing and managing, if 
necessary, the potential of genetically-engineered products/LMOs to 
both directly and indirectly damage or injure both cultivated and wild 
plant species and products relative to their traditional counterparts.
    During the October 1999 meeting of the Interim Commission on 
Phytosanitary Measures, many developing countries expressed a need for 
more guidance under the IPPO regarding phytosanitary issues related to 
genetically-engineered products/LMOs. The development and use of 
genetically-engineered products/LMOs have raised specific concerns 
related to potential plant pest risks. These concerns include the 
potential for an LMO to become a weed or to spread to, establish in and 
displace other species in natural habitats, including through gene flow 
to weedy or wild relatives. In addition, concerns related to the 
potential for negative impacts on non-target organisms beneficial to 
plants have been expressed.
    Although transgenic plants generally differ from conventionally 
cultivated plant species by only a few traits, they are subject to a 
regulatory review in most developed countries. This review is, in part, 
to determine whether the novel traits and genetic modification 
(including any plant pest components or vectors used in the genetic 
modification) pose an additional plant pest risk compared to their 
unmodified counterpart.

    Question 3. The Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures 
Exploratory Working Group on Phytosanitary Aspects of Genetically 
Modified Organisms, Biosafety and Invasive species met last month in 
Rome.

   What was the level of U.S. participation in this session? 
        What are the U.S. objectives in the process?

   Given the differences in attitudes and regulatory experience 
        between the United States, on the one hand, and the European 
        Union and other nations on the other, can you describe the 
        internal dynamics of the interim Committee and the Working 
        Group? Are there identifiable voting blocks? What is your 
        assessment of the recent history of these entities, and what 
        are the prospects for consensus on these issues?

    Answer. The United States was represented by the APHIS 
Administrator's Science Advisor (Dr. Sally McCammon), the U.S. 
Alternate to the North American Plant Protection Organization Executive 
Committee (Mr. Narcy Klag), and the Director of Biotechnology Trade 
Issues in Plant Protection and Quarantine (Dr. Cathleen Enright).
    It is important to note that an inter-agency working group 
developed and agreed upon the positions advanced by the U.S. delegation 
at this IPPO meeting. In addition to USDA, the Departments of State and 
the Interior, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Office of Science Technology Policy at the 
White House participated in this inter-agency group. Other interested 
government agencies, including the Council on Environmental Quality, 
the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Transportation, and the Treasury, 
the Food and Drug Administration, and the Agency for International 
Development were made aware of this process.
    With respect to U.S. objectives in this process, in the long term, 
the development of these standards will make clear that phytosanitary 
issues related to genetically-engineered products/LMOs and invasive 
species fall within the scope of the IPPO. In the absence of such 
standards under the IPPO, implementation of international procedures 
related to biotechnology, i.e., the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 
and invasive species could lead to a dual system of regulation; 
governance under existing IPPO plant health standards, and 
phytosanitary measures taken under the Protocol for instance, that may 
be inconsistent with IPPO principles.
    To date, the issue of potential environmental impacts associated 
with biotechnology and invasive species has been discussed largely in 
environmental fora among environmental ministries. This has led to some 
confusion among many IPPO members in the Plant Protection and 
Quarantine (PPQ) agricultural community who have not been involved in 
the international activities related to biotechnology, yet on whose 
shoulders any responsibility to implement international procedures 
related to biotechnology and invasive species will likely fall.
    In October 1999, these IPPO members expressed the need for more 
guidance under the IPPO regarding phytosanitary issues related to LMOs 
and invasive species. In order to meet the needs of IPPO members, and 
most importantly, in order to affect discussion of these issues in a 
science-based organization, the U.S. advocated the development of two 
standards at the June Working Group meeting: 1) a standard for the 
assessment of plant pest risk potential presented by genetically-
engineered products; and 2) a standard for the assessment of the 
potential environmental impacts of quarantine pests, including species 
that are invasive.
    Recommendations consistent with our position were agreed to by the 
working group. Adoption of these recommendations at the April 2001 
meeting of the ICPM is our near term goal.
    The approach taken by the majority of the working group 
participants, including the UK, Germany, France, and the EC was 
consistent with the U.S. position. There is general concern among the 
European participants, represented by Ministries of Agriculture, that 
their authority to protect the environment from potential plant pests 
is being severely tested by domestic environmental agendas led by 
Ministries (e.g., Environment, Natural Resources) who are unaware of 
the scope and objectives of the IPPO, and of the expertise resident in 
the PPQ community for protecting the environment.
    During the development of the two standards, we believe we will be 
able to work effectively with our North American Plant Protection 
(NAPPO) counterparts, as well as with key members of the Cairns Group. 
To date, standards developed under NAPPO and forwarded to the IPPO for 
international adoption have been viewed favorably by other Regional 
Plant Protection Organizations operating under the IPPO, including the 
European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). The IPPC venue may 
actually hold more promise for consensus between the U.S. and EU on the 
issues of biotechnology and invasive species than has been observed 
recently in the international environmental arena.

    Question 4. In article II(1), in the term pest, please elaborate on 
the meaning of the term ``pathogenic agent.''
    Answer. A pathogenic agent would be an organism other than an 
insect which is harmful to plants. Viruses, fungi, and bacteria which 
cause plant diseases or other damage to plants would be considered 
pathogenic agents.

    Question 5. In article II(1), the term ``quarantine pest'' contains 
the phrase ``potential economic importance to the area endangered 
thereby.'' This contrasts with article II(2) of the current IPPO text, 
which uses the phrase ``potential national economic importance to the 
country'' in the definition of ``quarantine pest'' (emphases added). Is 
a change in meaning implied by the new definition? If so, what is the 
change?
    Answer. The new definition does not imply a change in meaning. 
Instead, it reflects the concept of ``regionalization'' which is 
included in the WTO SPS Agreement (Article 6). Under the SPS Agreement, 
members are to ``ensure that their . . . phytosanitary measures are 
adapted to the . . . phytosanitary characteristics of the area--whether 
all of a country, part of a country, or all of parts of several 
countries--from which the product originated and to which the product 
is destined.'' The new definition reflects this obligation under the 
SPS Agreement. This new definition is also included in IPPO standards 
that were recently adopted, for example, in the FAO Glossary of 
Phytosanitary Terms (adopted 1990, revised 1999) and the Guidelines for 
Pest Risk Analysis (1996). According to these standards, an area is an 
officially defined country, part of a country, or all or parts of 
several countries.

    Question 6. Is there a common understanding among the parties about 
the meaning of the term ``economically unacceptable impact'' in Article 
II(1) (definition of ``regulated non-quarantine pest''?)
    Answer. The nature of regulated non-quarantine pests, including 
what is meant by economically unacceptable impact, remains to be 
elaborated by the contracting parties. A working group will consider 
the development of a standard to guide the application of phytosanitary 
measures for this category of pests. This working group is to meet in 
July 2000. The question of what is meant by ``economic importance'' has 
also been considered by other working groups, including the working 
group on GMOs, Biosafety and Invasive Species. The United States 
considers that this economic component can allow for the non-monetary 
quantification of environmental effects.

    Question 7. What is a ``biological control agent'' as the term is 
used in Article VII(1)(d)?
    Answer. A biological control agent is a living organism used to 
control a harmful organism. A biological control agent would be used in 
place of or in conjunction with chemical controls such as pesticides. 
For example, ladybugs are predators of aphids, and could be used as 
biological control agents to manage aphid infestations of plants.

    Question 8. What should this Committee understand about the 
``interpretations'' about the treaty text as ``agreed by the Thirteenth 
Session of the Committee on Agriculture?'' (set forth on pages 27-28 of 
the APHIS document ``IPPO: Current and Revised Convention Texts,'' Feb. 
1998).

   Are these interpretations accepted by other parties to the 
        IPPO?
    Answer. These are interpretive statements clarifying the meaning of 
various terms contained in the revised Convention. The FAO Conference 
members concurred with the FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG), which 
earlier agreed by consensus on the interpretative statements, as part 
of COAG's discussion of the revised Convention, and are aimed at 
helping parties in their consideration of ratifying the revised 
Convention.
    The interpretations are shared by other parties to the IPPO, since 
the COAG and Conference reports were adopted by consensus. In the FAO 
Conference Report Containing Final Resolutions Regarding Adoption of 
the Revised IPPC, the Conference ``takes note of the agreed 
interpretations.''

                                 ______
                                 

             Additional Statements Submitted for the Record


    Prepared Statement of Richard Gutting, Jr., President, National 
                          Fisheries Institute

 the inter-american convention for the protection and conservation of 
                              sea turtles
    Thank you Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, for the opportunity to provide comment on 
this very important Convention. I am President of the National 
Fisheries Institute, a non-profit trade association that represents 
nearly one thousand U.S. fish and seafood companies. I testify before 
you today as a representative of the industry, just as I represented 
the interests of the U.S. fish and seafood industry at the negotiation 
of the Inter-American Sea Turtle Convention some years ago. I am 
extremely pleased that this Committee has convened a hearing to discuss 
something of such importance to my industry.
    As you have already heard, the Inter-American Convention for the 
Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles is a truly extraordinary 
agreement; it represents a cooperative effort on the part of the U.S. 
Congress, Executive Branch, and perhaps even more remarkably, a 
cooperation of domestic seafood companies and environmental 
organizations. We support the Convention, and urge you to take steps 
that will hasten its ratification.
    In the past, marine turtles provided us with nutritional, economic, 
and spiritual sustenance. Indeed, sea turtles are part of the cultural 
fabric of almost all U.S. coastal communities. Dramatic decline of sea 
turtle populations threatened to rob us of these wonderful reptiles. In 
response to these concerns, and in an effort to implement the 
protection required for threatened and endangered creatures under the 
Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service published 
regulations in 1987 which severely impacted the domestic shrimp 
fishery. As I am sure you are aware, included in the protection methods 
was the mandated use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TED's) in mechanized 
shrimp trawls. The TED's are essentially escape hatches for turtles 
that accidentaly are captured in shrimp trawls--unfortunately, some of 
the shrimp catch also ``escapes'' through the TED. As an industry, we 
recognized that one of the many causes leading to the threatened and/or 
endangered status of our sea turtles was a result of our fishing 
methods. Because of our impact upon sea turtle populations, we have 
struggled with the Administration to comply with TED's regulations.
    In the years since 1987, we have begun a deliberate transformation 
from impediment to contributing conservationist. In the past decade, we 
have successfully maintained a 98% compliance rate (according to U.S. 
Coast Guard records) with the Turtle Excluder Device regulation. Beyond 
our mandatory obligations, the U.S. shrimp industry has contributed 
significantly to the highly successful Kemp's ridley sea turtle 
conservation project in southern Texas and within Mexico. This 
particular Gulf of Mexico sea turtle has demonstrated a remarkable 
population recovery since 1978--due to the cooperative efforts of the 
U.S. and Mexican governments with the shrimping industry. This is 
exactly the kind of cooperation that the Inter-American Convention 
would foster. The U.S. shrimp industry has become a key proponent of 
sea turtle conservation, providing funds, labor, and public outreach 
(through brochures, advertisements, and newspaper articles about our 
conservation activities), as well as working with the U.S. Congress to 
maintain funding for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle project through the 
Department of the Interior.
    In 1990, Congress called for the protection and conservation of sea 
turtles through a variety of international methods in Section 609 of 
Public Law 101-162. We fully support the initiative, as it is 
consistent with our desire to protect sea turtles, provides a level 
playing field for American shrimpers, and insures that the shrimp 
available in U.S. markets is environmentally friendly. It was in this 
spirit of industry support of sea turtle conservation that I 
participated in the U.S. Delegations to the Inter-American Sea Turtle 
Convention negotiations.
    We have worked closely with the Department of State in its efforts 
to implement Section 609 of P.L. 101-162, and are pleased with the 
increased transparency and stakeholder participation they have brought 
to this issue. In particular, we are encouraged that this effort to 
implement, the Inter-American Convention, establishes a Consultative 
Committee that heavily involves industry input into the process--as 
significant stakeholders in an international business, this 
representation is critical to us. Most importantly, the ratification of 
the Convention will help to ensure that the U.S. fishing industry and 
foreign fishing vessels share the same regulatory restrictions with 
respect to our activities that may affect the sea turtle. The 
Convention will also help resolve international and domestic lawsuits 
that have surrounded the implementation of this law, and have burdened 
our industry.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for allowing 
me to provide a statement.

                                 ______
                                 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Alexis M. Herman, Secretary, U.S. Department 
                                of Labor

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
    I appreciate the opportunity to express for the record the 
Department of Labor's strong support of United States ratification of 
International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention Number 176, the 
``Convention Concerning Safety and Health in Mines.'' Wide ratification 
of the Convention would help raise safety and health protection for 
workers in one of the world's most dangerous occupations. It would also 
enhance the ability of the mining industry in the United States--where 
miners are already protected by a strong and effective Federal 
statute--to compete on a more level playing field in the global 
economy.
    The Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labor Standards 
(TAPILS), which includes representatives of both the American 
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and the 
U.S. Council for International Business, as well as the Departments of 
Labor, Commerce, and State, carefully reviewed the provisions of 
Convention 176 using the ground rules established by the Senate in 
1988. They unanimously concluded that ratification of the Convention by 
the United States would not require any change to existing U.S. law or 
regulation. This conclusion is reflected in detailed reports submitted 
to the Senate.
    Convention 176 was patterned after our own Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), a statute that has proven its 
effectiveness in forging a commitment among industry, labor and 
government to protect American miners from injury, illness and death. 
In the late 1960's, before the Mine Act was passed, an average of about 
400 miners died annually in occupationally related accidents. Last 
year, in contrast, fewer than 100 miners were killed in mining 
accidents. The basic elements of the Mine Act, which are embodied in 
Convention 176, are critical to advancing safety and health 
improvements in the mining industry worldwide.
    In the negotiations that led to adoption of the Convention, 
representatives of the United States government, American workers 
represented by the United Mine Workers of America, and American 
employers represented by the National Mining Association worked 
diligently to ensure that the Convention would be effective, widely 
ratifiable, and consistent with current U.S. law.
    Convention 176, like our own Mine Act, contains responsibilities 
for government, employers and workers. Ratifying states are to 
formulate, carry out, and review mine safety and health policy, 
including designating a competent authority to monitor and regulate 
safety and health in mines. Employers are responsible for ensuring 
adequate underground ventilation; preventing fires and explosions; 
providing emergency response, evacuation plans, and training; and 
conducting accident investigations. Workers must comply with safety and 
health measures, be afforded the right to report accidents and 
dangerous conditions, and be allowed to exercise safety and health 
rights without discrimination or retaliation. Workers' representatives 
also have the right to participate in mine inspections. These 
principles deserve much of the credit for the remarkable progress in 
improving mine safety and health in the United States.
    In developing Convention 176, the U.S. government, industry and 
labor agreed that the adoption and enforcement of a common set of 
safety and health laws by the international community would help ensure 
safe and healthy working conditions for miners throughout the world, as 
well as help the American mining industry compete in the global 
economy. Currently, the U.S. is among the leading exporters of coal in 
the world. Wide ratification of Convention 176 will help ensure that 
the mining industries of all countries--not just nations like the 
United States--observe basic safety and health standards. American 
companies are world leaders in meeting mine safety and health 
requirements and in developing the equipment and technologies that make 
this possible.
    It is clear that mining is part of the global economy and that the 
United States can help raise safety and health standards around the 
world. In recent years, our Mine Safety and Health Administration 
(MSHA) has provided mine safety and health assistance and advice to 
several countries. In July 1998, MSHA sent mine rescue personnel and 
equipment to Austria following a mudslide at a talc mine that trapped 
ten miners. In 1999, MSHA hosted the first International Mine Rescue 
Conference and Competition, which focused on the coal mining industry. 
The second international competition is occurring this month and 
focuses on the metal and nonmetal mining industry. The participation of 
the international mining community in these events demonstrates that 
mine workers and mine operators throughout the world increasingly 
recognize the importance of basic mine safety and health principles. 
That growing awareness should be encouraged.
    Miners remain at terrible risk in other countries. In January 2000, 
the Christian Science Monitor reported that 313 miners lost their lives 
in South Africa in 1999. A June 2000 New York Times article reported 
that China produces one-fourth of the world's coal, but accounts for 
four-fifths of the world's coal industry fatalities. The Associated 
Press has reported, based upon government figures, that 289 Ukranian 
coal miners were killed in 1999. A methane explosion in March of this 
year resulted in the deaths of 80 coal miners in the Ukraine. It has 
been more than thirty years since an explosion of this magnitude 
occurred in the United States, in large measure because of the basic 
safety and health elements of our law. These tragic deaths--many of 
which our own history tells us are preventable--have deepened our 
conviction that establishing minimum safety and health standards is 
critical to raising labor standards globally.
    As the President stated when he sent Convention 176 to the Senate, 
``mining has long been recognized as one of the most dangerous jobs in 
the world. Men, women--and sometimes even children--are exposed to 
hazards that can claim their lives or destroy their health.'' In the 
findings and purposes of the Mine Act, as well as its preceding 
statute, the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, the 
Congress declared that ``the first priority and concern of all in the 
coal or other mining industry must be the health and safety of its most 
precious resource--the miner.'' To date, 14 countries have ratified 
Convention 176. We are hopeful that with this Committee's support the 
United States also will ratify this Convention. U.S. ratification would 
underscore the importance of Convention 176 and encourage other 
countries to ratify it as well, thereby helping to improve miners' 
safety and health throughout the world.

                                 ______
                                 

         Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation

    The National Wildlife Federation \1\ is the United States' largest 
not-for-profit conservation, education, and advocacy organization, with 
over four million members and supporters, ten field offices and forty-
six state and territorial affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For more information about the Inter-American Convention and 
NWF's work on sea turtles, please contact Amanda Johnson at (202) 797-
6801 or [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For over sixty years, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) has 
been supporting common-sense solutions to complex environmental 
problems that work for both people and wildlife. NWF's members are 
mainstream and main street Americans who share a commitment to finding 
innovative and cooperative ways to protect endangered species while 
allowing for economic growth and development.
    NWF strongly supports Senate ratification of the Inter-American 
Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, as it is 
the first regional agreement providing broad coverage for protecting 
endangered sea turtles and their habitats throughout the Western 
Hemisphere. We respectfully request the Senate to move expeditiously to 
ratify this critical sea turtle protection agreement during the current 
session.
                       i. endangered sea turtles
    Sea turtles have inhabited our oceans and coastlines since the time 
of the dinosaurs, for more than 100 million years. They are highly-
migratory, air-breathing reptiles that can swim thousands of miles in 
one year, traversing oceans all over the world. Female sea turtles 
return to land only to nest, inhabiting beaches worldwide. Beautiful 
and ancient, sea turtles also perform useful functions in the ocean 
ecosystem, such as circulating nutrients while swimming between 
different layers of the ocean and cropping seabed grasses to allow for 
new growth and greater health of the plants on which they feed.
    At one time sea turtles were innumerable, but in recent decades 
populations worldwide have been decimated, largely from human 
activities. The primary threats to sea turtle survival are: drowning 
caused by entanglement in fishing gear; habitat destruction caused by 
development in and around nesting beaches; poaching and predation of 
sea turtle hatchlings; and harvesting and trading of sea turtles and 
their eggs.
    Today, all species of sea turtles found in U.S. waters are listed 
as endangered or threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. All 
sea turtle species are internationally recognized as vulnerable, 
threatened, endangered or critically endangered under international 
agreements including the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangercd Species (CITES). Many sea turtle populations are continuing 
to plummet, and some are likely to become extinct within the next few 
years.
    The United States and other countries have expended significant 
resources protecting endangered sea turtles. U.S. laws prohibit 
intentional taking of sea turtles and their eggs, limit development and 
require fishermen to use devices which minimize the incidental capture 
of sea turtles in fishing operations. Yet sea turtle species are highly 
migratory, and travel thousands of miles through different national 
jurisdictions during their lifetimes. As a result, U.S. and other 
nationally-based sea turtle protection programs can only reach a 
certain level of effectiveness. Due to their migratory nature, sea 
turtles can only be adequately protected by international conservation 
policies and agreements which address the varied threats to sea turtle 
survival.
 ii. the inter-american convention for the protection and conservation 
                             of sea turtles
    The Inter-American Convention is the first regional agreement with 
broad coverage for protecting sea turtles and their habitats. The 
stated objective of the Convention is to ``promote the protection, 
conservation and recovery of sea turtle populations and of the habitats 
on which they depend, based on the best available scientific evidence, 
taking into account the environmental, socioeconomic and cultural 
characteristics of the Parties.'' The Convention calls for member 
countries to adopt comprehensive measures requiring the use of Turtle 
Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp fisheries; prohibit international 
trade in sea turtles and their products; promote the conservation of 
sea turtle habitats and nesting beaches; and engage in cooperative 
research efforts on sea turtle populations and the threats they face. 
The Parties have also agreed to meet regularly to confirm compliance, 
consider recommendations, make any necessary changes to the agreement, 
and submit annual reports on their efforts and programs.
    The United States played a leading role in negotiating the Inter-
American Convention, pursuant to U.S. Public Law 101-162, Section 609 
which calls for the development of multilateral agreements to protect 
sea turtles. Representatives of both the shrimp industry and the 
environmental community, in addition to U.S. Senate staff, served on 
the delegation. The Convention was signed by the United States in 
December, 1996, and by eleven other countries: Belize, Brazil, Costa 
Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Peru, 
Uruguay, and Venezuela.
    The Convention cannot enter into force until it is ratified by at 
least eight signatory nations. As of June 1, 2000, the Convention had 
been ratified by only four countries: Venezuela, Peru, Brazil and Costa 
Rica. Mexico, Honduras and Ecuador are close to completing the 
ratification process as well. The Convention was transmitted to the 
Senate for U.S. ratification in May, 1998.
       iii. senate ratification of the inter-american convention
    The Inter-American Convention receives wide-spread, nation-wide 
support from environmental organizations as well as the U.S. fishing 
industry for the following reasons:

   The Convention is a critical step in achieving 
        comprehensive, lasting protection for endangered sea turtles 
        throughout the Western Hemisphere.

   The Convention levels the playing field for all 
        participating nations by requiring fishermen in other countries 
        to use Turtle Excluder Devices to protect sea turtles, which 
        are already mandatory for U.S. fishermen.

   Current U.S. laws already address each of the requirements 
        of the Convention, so no new legislation is necessary to 
        implement the Convention in the United States after it is 
        ratified.

   Implementing the Convention throughout the Western 
        Hemisphere will not require a significant amount of U.S. 
        resources, though a limited amount of technical and financial 
        assistance will help to further the conservation objectives of 
        the Convention.

   U.S. ratification of the Inter-American Convention will 
        strengthen U.S. authority in the global effort to extend and 
        strengthen sea turtle conservation efforts.

   The Convention is consistent with other international 
        agreements, including the World Trade Organization agreements, 
        the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and 
        numerous fisheries-related agreements.

    The United States Senate has an historic opportuhity to help 
provide comprehensive, long-lasting protection for some of the world's 
most critically endangered and ancient species. The National Wildlife 
Federation strongly urges the Senate to ratify the Inter-American 
Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles without 
delay and thereby help to ensure that this precedent-setting agreement 
is implemented throughout the Hemisphere.

                                 ______
                                 

   Prepared Statement of the United States Council for International 
                                Business

              ilo convention on safety and health in mines
    The U.S. Council for International Business represents the 
interests of its members on international economic policy issues at the 
major international economic institutions and to the executive and 
legislative branches of the U.S. Government. As the U.S. member of the 
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), it consults with various 
bodies of the United Nations. As the U.S. member of the Business and 
Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), it represents business views in the 
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). More 
particularly relevant to this issue, the USCIB is the U.S. member of 
the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and has been the 
organization representing U.S. business in the International Labor 
Organization (ILO) since 1979.
    Since the United States joined the ILO in 1934, it has taken a 
careful and cautious approach to the ratification of ILO conventions. 
In large part, this has been due to an agreement among the U.S. 
Council, AFL-CIO and the U.S. Government that domestic labor and 
employment law should not be made through the ratification of ILO 
treaties. In practice, this means that ILO conventions should be 
consistent with U.S. law and practice if they are to be ratified by the 
United States. The business community continues to be of the view that 
many ILO conventions, including some of the core conventions, are at 
variance with U.S. law, both at the federal and state levels.
    Reflecting those considerations, U.S. business has been cautious in 
supporting ratification of ILO conventions. In historical perspective, 
it is an exceptional event. Our decision whether to support 
ratification of the ILO Convention on Safety and Health in Mines (No. 
176) was based on whether the United States can ratify it without 
changing existing federal and state law.
    After thorough legal review, it is our view that ratification of 
Convention 176 will not require any changes to federal or state 
statutes on safety and health of workers in the mining industry. The 
legal review accompanying President Clinton's submission of the 
treaty--in which U.S. business participated--supports this opinion by 
providing a detailed analysis of the Convention. The legal review 
determined that Convention 176 is a non-self-executing treaty. If 
ratified, Convention 176, as a non-self-executing treaty, would not be 
enforceable in U.S. courts. As existing legislation already brings the 
United States into compliance with Convention 176, no new legislation 
is required. U.S. ratification of this Convention, however, allows us 
to demonstrate global leadership on safety and health in the mine 
industry, and wide ratification will provide mineworkers around the 
world an opportunity to work in safer and healthier workplaces.
    The U.S. business community places a great deal of emphasis on the 
in-depth legal review of a convention's requirements and current U.S. 
law and practice undertaken by Tripartite Advisory Panel on 
International Labor Standards (TAPILS), which is composed of legal 
representatives of the Department of Labor, State, and Commerce, and 
the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Council. Absent a change in the current 
situation with respect to U.S. law and practice, there is no basis for 
any one to bring a complaint against the United States in the ILO or 
other fora with respect to this Convention.
    With this in mind, the U.S. business community supports U.S. 
ratification of the ILO Convention on Safety and Health in Mines, 
adopted by the 1995 International Labor Conference in Geneva. We 
believe this comprehensive, multilateral approach represents the best 
means to strengthen safety and health in mining around the world. The 
U.S. business community supports ratification of this Convention for 
several reasons.
    Convention 176, which applies to all mines, would require ILO 
member States that ratify it to consult with employers and workers in 
order to formulate, carry out and periodically review a coherent policy 
on safety and health in mines and develop provisions in national laws 
and regulations to ensure implementation. The Convention recognizes the 
desirability of preventing mine-related injuries and deaths as well as 
damage to the environment as a result of mining activities. Though 
mining employs only 1 percent of the world workforce, the industry 
accounts for a significant percentage of fatal accidents at the 
workplace. ILO estimates point to approximately 15,000 mining related 
deaths annually. In the United States, according to the National Mining 
Association, more than 320,000 people work directly in mining. As a 
result of the broad U.S. safety and health regulations for the mining 
industry, U.S. miners reported only 5.19 injuries per 100 workers in 
1997, a lower rate of occupational injuries than grocery and department 
stores, hospitals, restaurants and hotels.
    U.S. ratification is essential to establishing global scope of 
understanding of the need to protect those working in mining 
industries. The discussion and ratification of Convention 176 will have 
a positive impact on extending the safety and health precautions that 
protect mineworkers in the United States to other countries around the 
world.
    In addition, recognizing the need to strengthen the ILO's ability 
to address credibly violations of fundamental workers' rights, U.S. 
business spearheaded and supports the ILO Declaration on Fundamental 
Principles and Rights at Work. This Declaration, adopted by the ILO in 
June 1998, represents a political commitment by all 176 ILO member 
states to respect and uphold certain fundamental principles. We 
anticipate that the Declaration's follow-up will bring serious 
international pressure to bear on countries with a persistent pattern 
of abuses in the areas it covers. Together, the Declaration and U.S. 
ratification of the Safety and Health in Mines Convention demonstrate 
U.S. support for the central role of the ILO in addressing basic 
workers' rights.
    We believe that a comprehensive, multilateral approach represents 
the best means to alleviate injury and fatalities in mining. ILO 
Convention 176 provides a well-crafted binding multilateral instrument 
that addresses the core problems without being so detailed that it 
creates barriers to ratification and implementation. The Convention 
will provide powerful tools to reduce injury and death to mineworkers. 
We urge you to take the lead in securing advice and consent of the 
United States Senate to ratification of ILO Convention 176.

                                  
