May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6709

continued. It is not as broad as amendments which are already a part of this

bill for other States.

Mr. President, with the permission of

the other Senator from Washington, I

will yield back the remainder of our

time.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to

table the amendment and I ask for the

yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motion.

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. INHOFE] is

necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

THOMAS). Are there any other Senators

in the Chamber who desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 54,

nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

YEAS—54

Abraham

Ashcroft

Baucus

Biden

Bingaman

Bond

Bradley

Brown

Burns

Campbell

Chafee

Coats

Cohen

Coverdell

Craig

D’Amato

DeWine

Dodd

Dole

Faircloth

Frist

Gramm

Grams

Gregg

Hatch

Hatfield

Heflin

Hutchison

Kassebaum

Kempthorne

Kerrey

Kyl

Lautenberg

Lieberman

Lugar

McCain

McConnell

Moynihan

Murkowski

Nunn

Packwood

Pell

Pressler

Reid

Robb

Roth

Santorum

Simpson

Smith

Snowe

Specter

Thomas

Thurmond

Warner

NAYS—45

Akaka

Bennett

Boxer

Breaux

Bryan

Bumpers

Byrd

Cochran

Conrad

Daschle

Domenici

Dorgan

Exon

Feingold

Feinstein

Ford

Glenn

Gorton

Graham

Grassley

Harkin

Helms

Hollings

Inouye

Jeffords

Johnston

Kennedy

Kerry

Kohl

Leahy

Levin

Lott

Mack

Mikulski

Moseley-Braun

Murray

Nickles

Pryor

Rockefeller

Sarbanes

Shelby

Simon

Stevens

Thompson

Wellstone

NOT VOTING—1

Inhofe

So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1079) was agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move

to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I

would like to express my deep dismay

over the defeat of the Murray-Gorton

amendment.

Frankly, it was my intention if the

Murray-Gorton amendment were successful, to move an amendment which

would be a slight change to take California’s situation into consideration.

I cannot help but note that there

have been a number of specific amendments to deal with a number of States.

Nine States have received some preferential treatment in this bill. For my

State, and I speak for Senator BOXER,

as well, California has a unique situation.

We have a State law which mandates

a 50-percent reduction in solid waste by

the year 2000. How can a State do that

if it does not have some flow control

over its waste?

Eight local governments in my State,

based on last year’s bill, made agreements and incurred debts totaling $125

million which are unaddressed by this

bill. Those counties are very concerned.

The California Association of Counties had asked that if the Gorton-Murray amendment were successful, an

amendment be introduced based on

that amendment which would clarify

certain gray areas in the bill. The gray

areas are contracts and franchises that

have been consummated after the

grandfather date, but based on last

year’s bill.

I very much regret that these issues

are not taken into consideration, particularly by a Congress that is very

concerned about States’ rights.

I, for one, and Senator BOXER as well,

will have to vote against this bill,

based on the fact that we believe our

State is seriously disadvantaged by it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I gather

from what the Senator said she, therefore, will not proceed with the amendment?

We had a reserve amendment slot for

the Senators from California, and I

gather the Senators will not proceed on

that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I could have a

couple of minutes to think about this I

would appreciate it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is

the regular order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill

is open to amendment.

AMENDMENT NO. 1083

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk on behalf of

Senator KEMPTHORNE, and I ask for its

immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE], for Mr. KEMPTHORNE, proposes an

amendment numbered 1083.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent further reading be

dispensed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 35, line 5, after the word ‘‘agreements’’, insert the words, ‘‘or permits authorizing receipt of out-of-State municipal

solid waste’’.

One page 45, lines 15 and 16, after the word,

‘‘tax’’, strike the words, ‘‘assessed against or

voluntarily’’; on lines 16 and 17, after the

word, ‘‘subdivision’’, insert the following: ’’,

or to the extent that the amount of the surcharge is offset by voluntarily agreed payments to a State or its political subdivision’’.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is a

technical amendment that has been

cleared with the other side.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.

We have reviewed this amendment

and we find it acceptable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all

time yielded back?

Mr. CHAFEE. All time is yielded

back.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1083) was agreed

to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, here is

the situation now.

We have two more amendments that

were provided for, and then we would

hope be able to go to final passage. One

is the Levin amendment and the other

is the Domenici amendment. We are

working on both of those.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is my

understanding that the Levin amendment is withdrawn and Senator LEVIN

will not offer his amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. All right, that takes

care of that.

I received word that the Senator

from California will withdraw the socalled Boxer amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the

Senator will yield, that is my understanding.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, that

is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, I

suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished managers of

the bill are in the process of working

on what may come next. While that is

going on, I ask unanimous consent I be

permitted to speak in morning business. I assure the distinguished managers when they reach a point where

they want to interrupt, I will yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

IS AMERICA GOING TO LEAD?

fMr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is

an important question hanging over us

like Damocles’ sword today. It will

loom over us as we consider the budget.

It will confront us directly as we debate the reorganization of our foreign

affairs agencies. The question is ‘‘Is

America going to lead?’’

This is not a question that keeps people awake at night anymore. After all,
S6710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

people ask, ‘‘We won the cold war,

didn’t we? There is no longer any real

threat to America’s security, is there?’’

Mr. President, there have been few

times in history when the United

States can less afford to be complacent. The world today is anything but

a predictable, peaceful place. While we

are fortunate that the military threat

to our security has receded, it is more

true today than ever that American

prosperity is linked to conditions in

the rest of the world.

Millions of American jobs depend

upon persuading other countries to

open their borders to U.S. exports, and

helping them raise their incomes so

they can afford to buy our exports. Ensuring that we have clean air and clean

water depends upon international action to protect the environment. Keeping Americans healthy depends on

joint action to fight the spread of infectious diseases in other countries.

Imagine if we are unable to contain the

recent outbreak of a deadly virus in

Zaire—very quickly you would see Senators clamoring for more aid to stop it

from reaching our shores.

Stemming the flow of illegal immigrants and refugees to the United

States depends on promoting democracy and economic development in the

countries from which the refugees are

fleeing. These are just a few examples

of why we continue to have an enormous stake in what happens in the rest

of the world.

Fortunately, the United States, the

only remaining superpower with the

largest economy and the most powerful

military, can influence what happens

in the rest of the world.

But influence is not automatic. It requires effort, and it costs money.

Perhaps most important, the United

States needs to maintain its leadership

in and its financial contributions to

the international organizations that

make critical contributions to promoting peace, trade, and economic development. Organizations like the United

Nations, the World Trade Organization,

the International Monetary Fund and

the World Bank, to name a few. These

organizations are the glue that holds

our international system together.

They may not always act in precisely

the way we would like, but they are

dedicated to spreading the values that

Americans hold dear—freedom, democracy, free enterprise, and competition.

The American people also want to

help alleviate the suffering of people

facing starvation or other calamities,

like refugees fleeing genocide in Rwanda, or the hundreds of thousands of victims of landmines—the people who are

injured and killed every 15 minutes

around the clock, around the world,

from the 80 to 100 million antipersonnel

landmines spread in 60 to 65 countries.

Finally Mr. President, the polls show

that most Americans believe we should

help developing countries and countries making the transition from communism to democracy and market economics. It is through this aid that we

fight poverty, that we stabilize population growth, that we educate people

who have never known anything except

tyranny in the basics of representative

government, and that we encourage

countries to open their economics to

trade and competition.

We do these things, not out of a sense

of altruism, but because it is in our national interest. Yet, in the rush to reduce Federal spending, some are dismissing spending on international affairs as a luxury we cannot afford, or

even a waste.

The United States cannot pay these

costs alone, but no one is asking us to.

The United States now ranks 21st

among donors in the percentage of national income that it devotes to development assistance. Twenty-first. Right

behind Ireland. We are not even the

largest donor in terms of dollar

amount anymore. Japan, which has a

keen sense of what is in its national interest, has passed us. They passed the

United States in this area. Do you

think Japan is doing this out of a sense

of altruism? Ha. They do it because

they know it creates jobs and it helps

their economy.

Six years ago, when I became chairman of the Foreign Operation Subcommittee, the foreign operations

budget was $14.6 billion. We cut that

budget by 6.5 percent, not even taking

into account inflation, while the remainder of the discretionary spending

in the Federal budget increased by 4.8

percent. Those cuts were a calculated

response to the end of the cold war.

Foreign aid today is substantially less

than it was during the Reagan and

Bush administrations. Our entire foreign aid program, including funding for

the Eximbank and foreign military financing and other activities that have

as much to do with promoting U.S. exports as with helping other countries,

today accounts for less than 1 percent

of the total Federal budget.

We must recognize that there is a

limit to how far we can cut our budget

for international affairs, and still

maintain our leadership position in the

world. Just when many people though

U.S. influence was reaching new

heights, we are seeing the ability of the

United States to influence world events

eroding.

This budget proposal amounts to a

classic example of penny-wise and

pound-foolish. Our allies are scratching

their heads, wondering why the United

States, with the opportunity to exercise influence in the world more cheaply than ever before, is turning its back

and walking away.

We are inviting whoever else wants

to—friend or foe—to step into the vacuum and pursue their interests at our

expense.

Mr. President, the United States

stands as a beacon of liberty and hope

for people throughout the world. But

we should be more than a beacon. A

beacon is passive. We should be

proactive, reaching out to defend our

interests and to help our less fortunate

neighbors. We should continue to invest in the world. We should continue

to lead.

If there is going to be a leader for democracy, if there is going to be a leader for economic development, if there

is going to be a leader for human

rights, if there is going to be a leader

setting the goal, as an American I prefer that it be our country. And as a

U.S. Senator I know of no country better suited to do that.

Mr. President, I want to say a few

words about Republican proposals to

reform the U.S. foreign affairs agencies. Senator HELMS, the distinguished

chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has launched a broad

proposal to reform foreign policymaking in the Federal Government.

This proposal includes provisions for

completely restructuring the way we

administer our foreign aid programs.

Senator HELMS asserts that U.S. foreign policymaking has become so decentralized that it no longer serves the

national interest. He proposes to merge

most foreign affairs functions into the

Department of State.

As the former chairman and now

ranking Democrat on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I have had

some opportunity to be involved in the

U.S. Government’s conduct of foreign

policy, and I have some thoughts about

Senator HELMS’ proposal.

While I have long advocated better

coordination among the executive

branch agencies in foreign policymaking, I believe Senator HELMS’ proposal would result in U.S. national interests being less well, not better,

served.

Why is the Foreign Agricultural

Service administered by the Department of Agriculture and not by the

State Department? Because farmers

know they can count on USDA to represent their interests better than the

Department of State and all experiences have proven that.

Why, 15 years ago, did we take the

commercial function away from the

State Department and create a Foreign

Commercial Service in the Department

of Commerce? It was because State had

for years neglected export promotion,

sacrificed export interests to its foreign policy priorities, and treated its

commercial officers as second-class

employees. It was because the American business community was clamoring for something better, knowing that

if we could increase our exports we

would increase jobs here in the United

States.

The reason we have separate foreign

service bureaucracies is that many of

our foreign policy interests are actually domestic policy interests that are

best pursued abroad by technical experts from domestic policy agencies,

not be foreign policy generalists from

the State Department. I do not know

about farmers from other States, but I

can tell you that Vermont farmers are

not at all anxious to see the State Department expand its influence over
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6711

U.S. foreign agricultural policy. They

fear that shifting power from domestic

agencies to the State Department will

not strengthen representation of United States interests in United States

policy but rather will strengthen representation of French interests and Argentine interests and Russian interests.

Let me focus on the specific question

of restructuring America’s foreign assistance program. I have been advocating reform of our foreign aid program

ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall,

so I welcome this opportunity for discussion of this issue.

Senator HELMS says that our foreign

aid program should further our national interests. I absolutely agree. I

do not know of anyone who disagrees.

But I do not agree with his definition

of the problem. The problem is not that

the Agency for International Development is ignoring America’s national interests. The problem is that since 1961

when the Foreign Assistance Act was

enacted, much of our foreign aid was

allocated to winning allies in the fight

against communism.

All you had to do was say, ‘‘I am

anti-Communist, pro-American,’’ no

matter what kind of a dictator you

were, money flowed to you.

Billions went to right-wing dictatorships with little or not commitment to

democracy or improving the living conditions of their people, or even allowing business competition. Much of that

aid failed by the standards we apply

today. But it is unfair and disingenuous to judge AID’s effectiveness today

against the failures of the past when

our goals were fundamentally different.

AID needs a new legislative mandate.

We meet to get rid of cold war priorities and replace them with priorities

for the 21st century.

The Secretary of State has full authority under statute to give policy direction to AID, and the State Department influences AID’s activities every

day. If AID’s projects deviate from

State Department policy, it is not because AID is out of control, it is because the people at State are not paying enough attention to what AID is

proposing to do.

Senator HELMS also does not give sufficient credit to the Clinton administration for its efforts to improve AID

performance. Over the past 2 years, we

have seen dramatic progress at the

Agency for International Development

and the Treasury and State Departments in redefining our foreign aid priorities and focusing resources where

they can achieve the most in advancing

U.S. interests abroad, in spite of the

constraints of an obsolete Foreign Assistance Act.

AID Administrator Brian Atwood has

made extensive changes at AID. He initiated an agency-wide streamlining effort that has resulted in the closure of

27 missions and a reduction of 1,200

staff. He is installing state-of-the-art

data processing systems that link

headquarters in Washington with

project officers in the field in real

time. This will ensure that information

available at one end of the management pipeline is also available at the

other, increasing efficiency and improving decisionmaking.

Mr. Atwood has decentralized decisionmaking so the people closest to

problems have a full opportunity to design solutions. AID is improving its

performance because, for the first time

since the mid-1980’s, it has hands-on

leadership that is committed to making our foreign aid programs effective.

Can AID improve its management

performance further? Yes. But would

the State Department do better? I

doubt it. I believe that abolishing AID

and asking regional assistant secretaries at the State Department to manage

its functions would be a serious mistake. These assistant secretaries are

chosen for their expertise in broad foreign policy. Many do not have experience managing money and programs.

And they are overworked now trying to

deal with the daily emergencies and

complexities of our political relationships with countries in their regions.

Even former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, a Republican whom

I respect and whose counsel I have

sought, expressed doubt about this proposal in his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee on March 23.

‘‘The State Department is not well

suited, either by historical experience

or current bureaucratic culture, to assume many of these new responsibilities,’’ Secretary Eagleburger said. And

he was trying to be supportive of the

Helms proposal.

I would put the matter a little less

delicately: The State Department’s

specialty is making policy; it has never

and probably never will manage programs well. Secretary Eagleburger offered the hope that, with every careful

selection of Under Secretaries, it

might do better. I am reluctant to

trade a bureaucracy that is doing reasonably well and getting better at delivering foreign aid for one that has no

competence on the outside chance that

it might get better. If we disperse responsibility for foreign aid among assistant secretaries of State, I bet that

we will start hearing more stories

about misguided and failed projects,

not fewer, and more questions about

why we have foreign aid, not fewer.

AID today is performing a wide array

of tasks that enjoy overwhelming support among the American people:

Every year, AID manages programs

worth a billion dollars aimed at protecting the Earth’s environment. Does

protecting the Earth’s forests, oceans,

and atmosphere matter to us? Does it

further our foreign policy interests? A

century from now we are not going to

have any foreign policy if we do not

join with other countries today to protect the environment.

Every year, AID manages hundreds of

millions of dollars in international

health programs. Is this money wasted? We might as well ask whether

AIDS and tuberculosis are infectious.

Every year, AID commits a large

part of its budget to promoting free

markets and democratic development

in countries where the United States

has important interests. This is not diplomacy. It is hands-on assistance that

requires people with special expertise

on the ground who can get the job

done. Working with foreign governments and private organizations on the

nuts and bolts of solving real problems.

That is what AID does.

Mr. President, we have a strong need

to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act

to redefine the framework for foreign

aid. AID can continue to downsize and

improve its efficiency. But we should

not abolish an agency that is aggressively adapting itself to the changed

world we live in and to the shrinking

foreign aid budget.

Let me close with this, a personal observation.

I have served here during the administrations of President Ford, President

Reagan, President Bush, and President

Clinton. Each one of those, each President, Republican and Democrat alike,

has come to Members of the Congress,

Republican and Democrat alike, and

sought bipartisan support on foreign

policy. We follow the dictates of Senator Vandenberg that politics end at

the water’s edge.

We have had some major debates on

this floor, and we have had major debates in the Cabinet room of the White

House. But we have come together. We

have observed a number of things, not

the least of which is that the President

of the United States is our chief foreign policy spokesperson.

Throughout all of my years in the

Senate, it has been an unwritten rule

that, when the President of the United

States is abroad, when he is making

foreign policy or conducting foreign

policy, he receives support at home. If

we disagree with him, we wait until he

gets home and we tell him so. I am concerned, when the President of the United States recently went abroad for

meetings in Russia and Ukraine, that

many would not wait until he came

back but had to take to the floors of

the House and the Senate to criticize

what he was doing. I think that is

wrong. We never did that with President Bush. We never did that with

President Reagan. We never did that

with President Carter. We never did

that with President Ford. And we never

did that before I was here, to my

knowledge, with other Presidents. It is

wrong. It gives the wrong signal. It

does not mean that we passively agree

with everything and anything that any

President says. Of course not. We wait

until he at least gets back to the country to tell him so. We do not undermine him or say things here in this

country that almost guarantees that

he cannot be successful in the other

country.

Frankly, Mr. President, the President of the United States and the
S6712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

President of Russia ought to meet on a

regular basis every year concerning the

nuclear warheads of both sides. We

should not set as a standard that the

only time they can meet is if they

come back with some enormous agreement. As a practical matter, that guarantees failure. They have to meet with

or without agreement because there is

too much at stake, and we ought to

take the lessons of those Congresses in

the past to at least let the President

come home before we tell him we disagree with him. Let us not have foreign

leaders when he is meeting with them

see a cacophony of criticism coming,

often from those who are not really

fully informed of what is going on.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues for allowing me to

have this time.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

I yield the floor.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have

now reached a point where the Senate

is about to give our small towns the

right to say no. I hope the House will

follow suit quickly so that we can send

the bill to the President this year.

We have debated this bill extensively. We have heard a lot of statistics. We have heard a lot about policy.

So I would like to use a small example

to remind the Senate of why this is so

important.

Miles City, MT, is a small prairie

town of 8,500 people on the Yellowstone

River. Not too long ago, its people

faced the prospect of what was probably a Noah’s flood of garbage imports.

A garbage entrepreneur from Minneapolis came out to look them over.

He had a rather remarkable plan:

Empty coal trains run out of Minneapolis. Each one of them has about

110 cars—open-roofed cars, 50 feet long,

10 feet wide, 11 feet high. He wanted to

fill them to the brim with garbage and

bring all that garbage to Miles City

and dump it in Miles City. Think of it.

A giant garbage snake over a mile long

ripening in the sun for anywhere up to

5 days on the run out of Minneapolis,

shedding rotten food, broken glass, and

used diapers into the Yellowstone

River at every bend in the track,

steaming into town on a hot summer

day with as much trash in one single

trip as Miles City throws out in a

whole year.

It is crazy; it is humiliating; and

Miles City should have the right to say

no. So far, the people of Miles City and

their representatives in the Montana

Legislature have been able to stop

these plans. But, with no disrespect to

the legislature, it is a weak reed.

Every time waste companies have

challenged State laws restricting outof-State waste, the State laws have

been overturned by the courts. So we

cannot rely on State legislatures. We

need a Federal law. Without congressional action, according to the Supreme Court, neither the people of

Montana nor of any other State can

stop these garbage trains.

Some interstate movement of garbage makes sense. In Montana, two

towns have made arrangements to

share landfills with western North Dakota towns and some trash from Wyoming areas of Yellowstone Park is disposed in Montana. These arrangements

save money for the communities involved and shared regional landfills

can be a policy that makes sense. But

it only makes sense when the communities involved agree to it. No place

should become an unwilling dumping

ground. Nobody should have to take

garbage they do not want from another

community— not Miles City, not anybody.

This bill is a very good start, and I

strongly support it. But like any other

bill, it is not perfect. In particular, I

am concerned that it would allow

waste to be imported until a community gets wise to it and has to say no.

I believe we should take a goodneighbor approach. Waste from big

cities should not be allowed into our

communities until the people agree to

accept it. I do not want the people of

Miles City to wake up one morning

with a garbage train in the station. I

want the garbage broker to come to

town first and ask the people’s permission before using the community as a

trash dump. That is just common courtesy.

I hope we can move in that direction

as the bill goes ahead, and for now I

urge the Senate’s support for this critical new law.

Finally, Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senators who have

worked so very hard over the years in

finally developing a balanced bill. Senator COATS from Indiana has been a

bulldog, and Senators LAUTENBERG and

SMITH, and our new chairman, Senator

CHAFEE, have worked tirelessly.

Brokering the agreements that brought

the bill to this point was not easy, but

they met the challenge.

In closing, let us stand up for small

towns and give them the right to protect their people from unwanted trash.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor

and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the

quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

RATIFICATION OF THE LAW OF

THE SEA CONVENTION WILL

fPROMOTE THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Law of

the Sea Convention entered into force

on November 16, 1994, and was transmitted to the Senate for its advice and

consent on October 6, 1994 [Treaty Document 103–39]. On this occasion I applauded the President’s transmittal of

this historic treaty and spoke to the

ways in which it will protect the economic, environmental, scientific, and

most importantly, the national security interests of the United States

(CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 140, No.

144, p. 14467). On March 14, 1995 I addressed the importance of ratification

of the Convention to the fishery interests of the United States (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141, No. 47, p. 3862).

Today I would like to address how ratification of the convention will best

serve U.S. economic interests.

The Third U.N. Conference on the

Law of the Sea was initiated as early

as 1973 by the United States and the

U.S.S.R. to protect navigation rights

and freedoms, at a time where coastal

States were claiming excessive areas of

jurisdiction. Most of the provisions of

the convention have long been supported by the United States, and at the

conclusion of the law of the sea negotiations in 1982, the Reagan administration indicated that it was fully satisfied with, and supported the entire

convention, except for the deep seabed

mining part. The recently negotiated

part XI implementation agreement,

which is also before the Senate [Treaty

Document 103–39] addressed all the reservations that the United States and

other industrialized countries had. I

will speak to the deep seabed mining

issues in a forthcoming statement.

The convention directly promotes

United States economic interests in

many areas: It provides the U.S. with

exclusive rights over marine living resources within our 200 miles exclusive

economic zone; exclusive rights over

mineral, oil and gas resources over a

wide continental shelf that is recognized internationally; the right for our

communication industry to place its

cables on the sea floor and the continental shelves of other countries

without cost; a much greater certainty

with regard to marine scientific research, and a groundbreaking regime

for the protection of the marine environment. With regard to national security, the Department of Defense has repeatedly expressed its strong support

for the ratification of the convention

because public order of the oceans is

best established by a universally accepted Law of the Sea Treaty that is in

the U.S. national interest.

The extension by other nations of

their national claims were not always

limited to matters of resources use but

also represented a potential threat to

our interests as a major maritime nation in the freedom of commercial and

military navigation and overflight. The

United States is both a maritime power

and a coastal Stage and, as such, it

benefits fully from the perfect balance

that the convention strikes. It gives

extensive rights to States over the resources located within their EEZ’s, but

also recognizes the need to maintain

freedom of navigation on the high seas,