folks at home, because of republican mayors in democratic mayors and republican leaning groups like the national association of manufacturers, the chamber of commerce, the general contractors, the association of equipment dealers. i am giving you just a good flavor of the support that we have, so i would say up to now it has been very difficult, and our work should have been done. the fact that i am very happy today and that i think it will be done is good. i am honest about it. i welcome this change of heart on this bill. but this should have been done. it has already cost thousands and thousands of jobs nationwide ..

the use of international waters. 162 countries and the european community have ratified the treaty but the united states is not to read to the secretary of state hillary clinton and defense secretary leon panetta urged the senate to approve the treaty setting national security, job creation and oil exploration. they testified at the senate foreign relations committee. it's just under three hours. >> the hearing will come to order. thank you all very much for being with us today. secretary clinton, secretary panetta and general dempsey, welcome, we are privileged to have you here today.

we thank you for joining us. it's a rare occasion in any committee but in this committee when we have simultaneously a panel of witnesses that brings together americans top diplomat, our country's top descends official and our nation's top military officer. your presence here altogether powerfully underscores the importance that you put on this issue. our committee shares the sense of importance which is why i hope without respect to party or ideology we begin an open, honest and comprehensive discussion about whether the united states of america should join the law of the sea convention. i want to underscore the bird comprehensive. i heard from countless military and business leaders for some period of time who believe it is urgent that we ratify this

treaty, and i've also spoken with senators and some groups who oppose the treaty. i intend to make certain that the committee does its job properly and thoroughly. we will hear from all sides and we will last all the questions as we begin the process of educational hearings on this issue, the first since 2007. the senate has seen a fair number of new members selected since then from both sides of the aisle, and our committee also has new members, so i think if all the examination of the treaty is especially timely and relevant. some of us have had the opportunity in the past to evaluate this treaty and even to vote in this committee. i am personally deeply supportive and i believe it is now more urgent than ever that we ratify it because to remain outside of it is fundamentally directly counter to the best interest of our country. i am convinced beyond any doubt

that joining the other 160 nations that are party to the treaty will protect america's economic interest and our strategic security interest and i believe the evaluation we may go for the next week's will document the beyond any doubt. i promise of the committee and the senate that not withstanding my support we will conduct exhaustive and fair hearings to examine all of the arguments pro and con. some may ask why now, why consider a treaty that's been untouched the last five years and hanging around for more than 25? i think the question is why we wouldn't have this discussion now with today the of the worse of all worlds. we've effectively lift by the terms of the treaty for 30 years but as a nonparty, we are on the

outside looking in. we live by the rules when we don't shape for rules. it couldn't be more clear without joining the law we are deprived of critical benefits and protections under the treaty. a few quick examples. ratifying the treaty will walk in the favorable navigational rights that our military and shipping interests depend on every single day. it will strengthen our hand against china and others whose account claims in the pacific, the arctic or elsewhere. it will give our oil and gas company is the certainty they need to make crucial investments to secure the energy future and put it or telecommunications company on an equal footing with their foreign competitors and help secure access to minerals which we need for weapons systems, computers, sells phones and the like. it will also address issues of military effectiveness as our national-security focus shifts towards the asia-pacific region

it's more important than ever that we are a part of this treaty. china and other countries are sticking out the legal claims in the south china sea and elsewhere becoming a party to the treaty would give an immediate boost to u.s. credibility as we push back against excessive maritime claims and a legal restrictions on the commercial vessels that would help resolve maritime issues to the benefit of the united states and regional allies and we will hear from every single former chief of operations and coast guard to that effect. the treaty is also about energy security will be set on the sidelines russia and other countries are carving up the arctic and leading claims to the oil and gas in that region. we on the other hand can't even access to a treaty that provides international legitimacy for these types of arctic claims. instead of taking every possible

step to ensure our state in this resource area we are watching others assert their claims and doing nothing about it because we have no legal recourse, and it's also this treaty is also about rare earth minerals. china currently controls the production of rear earth terminals. 90% of global supply depend on from china. there is no way that enhances american security. we need this for cell phones and computers and weapon systems, u.s. industries placed securities from the deep seabed that they cannot do so through the united states says it is because we are not party to the treaty. listen to our top companies khan the ceo of lockheed martin urged that the senate passed law of the sea treaty and i wanted to give an interview from his letter.

he said the multi-billion dollar investments needed to establish an ocean based resource development business must be predicated upon clear legal rights established and protected under the treaty framework of law all of the sea convention including the international seabed authority and the others are acting upon it. countries including china and russia are moving forward aggressively within the framework and several of the country's currently holds exploration licenses from the international seabed authority. unfortunately, without ratifying the convention the united states cannot sponsor claims with four shape the deep seabeck rules of the isa yet that is the path forward the united states intends to ensure access for both u.s. commercial and government interest to new sources of strategic mineral resources and without objection

i will place the full letter into the record. also would point out quickly that today there is a full-page ad in "the wall street journal" paced by the u.s. chamber of commerce, the u.s. chamber of commerce states reasons the first of which is pure economics, jobs, the united states economy depends on the passage of this so there it is rare earth minerals, the arctic or a legal maritime claims, china is moving the ball over the line while we are sitting on the sidelines. to oppose this treaty is actually to enable china and russia to continue to utilize the treaty to their benefit and to our disadvantage. how does that make sense for american economic or strategic security? and the treaties also about telecommunications. the treaty provides a framework to lay and protect submarine

cables i don't need to tell people how critical the internet is to the national security we need to put ourselves on the best footing possible to protect the cables through which the internet flows and the treaty was that and that's why at&t, verizon, level three and others support this treaty. again, don't take my word for a recent letter at&t explained submarine cables provide the backbone of international transmission facilities of the global internet. electronic commerce and other international voice and data communications services that are major drivers in the 21st century global the information based economy. it has never been more important to our u.s. economic infrastructure and our participation in the global economy to strengthen the protection and reliability of international submarine cables. the wall of the sea convention particularly as assisted by the enforcement mechanisms available

to parties under article 297 is a critical element of this protection. i'd like to enter this record from this letter into the record as well. now, let me say a last thing about the process and timing for consideration of the treaty and i think it's important when going to say. obviously this is a presidential election year and it's one that's already proven difficult if not at times toxic. i do not want this treaty to become a victim to the trees or to the politics of the moment to read a number of colleagues on and off the committee have been very candid and suggested they would be more comfortable with we could avoid pushing the stila but it processes into the middle of an election. i would like to see the treaty stay out of the presidential politics. so heeding that advice and preferring that we encourage the kind of if ululated and

educational process which does justice to this committee and the united states senate ratification process i announced today that i do not currently intend to bring the treaty to a vote before the november elections faugh we will have extensive hearings into our due diligence for a vote but unless somehow the tel dan accord shift change we will wait until the passage of the election or subsided before we vote. i hope and expectation is that everyone will exhaust all avenues of inquiry and carefully consider the argument. the contentious political season will now give us a chance to do this committee has historically done best picture in is not to politicize but to spend serious time deliberating and debating all of the questions of substance. i am pleased to see that the internet is already beginning to

boast of some discussion of this but i will say upfront there's a lot of misinformation and there's a certain amount of mythologies, so i look forward to the process of clearing up that misinformation and the mythologies as my friend senator moynihan used to say then senator clinton and senator warner does your the famous phrase everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts before there are some with respect to this treaty and i look forward to the committee is publishing with the hour. ultimately this issue needs to be decided by the members of the committee asking tough questions of witnesses and not by the outside groups. so i'm pleased we are going to have an opportunity over the next several weeks to hear from the multiple witnesses as we begin today with our top national security leaders to rid the will be followed by military

commanders including those who are in charge by top business leaders, the chamber of commerce and others point to the experts and opponents once again i simply ask that everybody works hard to find out what is factual and what the realities are with respect to how this works so with that of like to welcome to these distinguished witnesses as the secretary of state hillary clinton has worked tirelessly to advance our security and economic interests abroad and everyone agrees has done a tremendous job of doing so, secretary defense leon panetta has served with great distinction across four decades of government with a broad respect from democrats and republicans for his pragmatic and thoughtful approach to national security and general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has done a tremendous job in his stewardship of the military to extraordinary challenge of

transition >> i join in welcoming sick to clinton, secretary connecticut general dempsey we are very pleased and honored cahal nine years ago the formulations committee had consideration of bill all of the sea convention by president george w. bush as one of the five urgent to these deserving ratification. foreign relations committee took up all five of those treaties during the 100th congress and all the law of the steven chu league and advice for the committee held two public hearings to examine the law of the sea convention, six visiones risch and fattah in the interagency group that helps to write when the resolution of the advice and consent which covered the treaty at that time and the private sector every major ocean

industry including shipping, fishing, we'll and natural gas drilling contractors, shipbuilders communication companies supported u.s. exception to the law of the sea in favor of it. during the more than four months of consideration of the treaty the committee received only one of - communication related to the treaty. none of the 19 members of the committee requested additional witnesses or hearings and the resolution of ratification past on february 25th, 2004 without a dissenting vote when he

which was issued on july 19th, 2010. however, now, for the law of the sea has increased in the administration during this congress the distinguished panel before us today surely underscores this for the substantial case of talal of the sea has been stronger today than it was in 2004 when my brother that was the chairman of the committee of that time. every year that goes by without the united states joining the convention results and a deepening our country's submission to the ocean law and practice is determined by foreign governments without united states and put. our navy and ocean industries offered rate every day in a maritime environment that is increasingly dominated by foreign decision making and almost any of the context of the senate would be outraged and subject americans about the

united states and put off for. regarding the united states as a party or not. international administration's related to the resource exploitation, navigation writes and other matters whether rejoin our not. because of this there is virtual unanimity in favor of this treaty among people who actually deal with the oceans on a daily basis and invest their money in job-creating activities on the oceans. by not joining the treaty, we are betting russian ambitions in the arctic we are making much of our navy more difficult in spite the longstanding and nearly unanimous please in the united states participation and the

wall of the sea will help them maintain navigational rights more effectively and with less risk to the men and women the command we're turning our back on the request of the important american industries that use the oceans and must abide by the rules established under this convention and we are diminishing our chances for energy independence by making u.s. oil and gas exploration and international waters less likely and we will not able to produce a bit in the amendment process to the treaty which is far more likely to impose new requirements on the navy and ocean industries if the united states is absent. we will fill the costs keenly in the arctic which is why successive alaskan governors and senators of both parties have supported the street. in 2007, mr. paul kelly testifying on behalf of the oil when the gas industry underscored how much we have to live in the arctic outside of

the treaty. in order under the law of the see the united states would have the opportunity to expand the economic sovereignty over more than two wondered 91,000 square miles of extended continental shelf. much of this is in the arctic which holds one quarter of the undiscovered oil and natural gas according to the survey. mr. kelly said, and i quote, by some estimates in the news ahead we could see a historic dividing of many millions of square kilometers offshore territory with management rights to all its living and nonliving sources. how much longer can the united states afford to be joining this process. suggestion is that somehow our maritime interests can be asserted solely through robust naval power are not relevant to the real world. the overwhelming majority of

ocean this do not involve enemies or are issues that weren't much reaction. as the admiral patrick testified at the first hearing in 2007, and i quote again, many of the partners that we've had in a global war and terror who've put life, limb and national treasure online or some of the same ones we have disagreements on with the view as their economic zone or other environmental law. it doesn't seem to me to be what is now to come but freedom of navigation operations against those trade partners that we are in our headquarters trying to pursue a more difficult challenge ahead of us, a global war on terror. even a mythical 1,000 ships yanna states navy could not patrol every economic interest or assert every navigational right. to do so would be prohibited and

district confrontational. the decision before this committee now house was the senate to continue to confine the united states to a position of self-imposed weakness and our ability to influence social affairs despite the fact that no other nation has a greater interest in the navigational freedoms in a larger exclusive economic zone or more advanced technological capacity to exploit ocean resources the senate should enthusiastically affirmed the leadership of the united states in this vital area of international relations by giving advice and consent to the law of the sea convention. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lugar i appreciate that very much. madam secretary, secretary leon panetta and joel dempsey. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, senator lugar, after both of your opening

comments, i think you've made the case both eloquently and persuasively for anyone that is willing to look at the facts. i am well aware that the treaty does have the determined opposition come unlimited but nevertheless quite vociferous and it's unfortunate because its opposition days and ideology and metallurgy not in fact evidence or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty. so i think you'll hear from both secretary leon panetta and general dempsey as well as myself further statements and information that really reinforces the very strong point that both of you have made. we believe it is imperative to act now.

no country is better served by this convention as the world's foremost maritime power we benefit from the convention favorable freedom of navigation proficient as the country with the world's second largest coastline we benefit from its position on offshore natural resources as a country with an exceptionally large area of sea floor to benefit to extend our continental shelf and that its legal and gas rights on that shelf as a global trading power we benefit from the mobility that the convention accord to all commercial ships and as the only country under this treaty that was given a permanent seat on the group there will make decisions about the deep seabed mining and we will be in a unique position to promote our

interest. now the many benefits of this convention have attracted a wide-ranging coalition of supporters obviously as we heard from both senator kerry and senator lugar, republican and democratic presidents have supported u.s. accession. military leaders to see the benefits for our national security, american businesses including strongly to u.s. chamber of commerce, the economic benefits it has the support of every affected industry including shipping, fishery, to the conditions and energy and environmental groups as well. we have a coalition of environmental conservation is this industry and security troops all in support of this convention, and i would ask that my longer witness' statement along with the letters that i have received in support of the treaty be entered into the record.

>> without objection. >> one could argue that 20 years ago, ten years ago, maybe even five years ago, joining the the convention was important but not urgent. that is no longer the case today. for new developments mekouar participation in a matter of utmost security and economic urgency. first, for years american oil and gas companies were not technologically ready to take it is vintage of the convention provisions regarding the extended u.s. continental shelf. now they are. the conventional help countries to claim sovereignty over their continental shelf far out into the ocean beyond 200 miles from shore. the relevant area for the united states is probably more than

one-and-a-half times the size of texas. in fact we believe it could be considerably larger. u.s. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing and able to explore this area. but the have made it clear to us that they need the maximum level of international legal certainty before they will or could make a substantial investment and we believe create many jobs in doing so needed to extract fees far offshore resources. if we were a party to the convention, we would gain international recognition of our sovereign rights including by using the convention procedures get there for people to give our oil and gas companies this legal certainty, staying outside the convention, we simply cannot to

read the second development concerns deep seabed mining which takes place in that part of the ocean floor that is beyond any country's jurisdiction. it now for years technological challenges meant that deep seabed mining was only theoretical. today's advances make it a very real. but it's also very expensive. and before any company will explore and mine site it will naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and the minerals that will recover. the convention offers the only effective mechanism for gaining this title. but only a party to the convention can use this mechanism on behalf of its companies. so as long as the united states is outside the convention, our companies are left with two bad

choices. either take their mining business to another country or give up on the idea. meanwhile, as you heard from senator kerry and senator lugar, china, russia and many other countries are already securing the licenses under the convention to begin mining for valuable metals and rare earth elements. and as you know, rare earth elements are essentials for manufacturing high-tech products like salles phones and flat screen televisions. they are currently in tight supply and produce almost exclusively by china. so while we are challenging china's defense export restrictions on these critical materials, we also need american companies to develop the resources. but as it stands today, they will only do that if they have a secure right that can only be provided under this convention. if we expect to be able to manage our own energy future and

the need for rare earth metals, we must be a party to the law of the sea convention. the third development that is now urgent is the emerging opportunities in the arctic. as the air gets warmer it is opening up to new activities such as fishing, will and gas exploration, shipping and tourism. this convention provides the international framework to deal with these new opportunities. we are the only arctic nation outside of the convention. russia and the other arctic states are advancing their continental shelf claim in the arctic as a party to the convention we would have a much stronger basis to assert our interest throughout the entire arctic region. the fourth development is that the convention bodies are up and running. the body that makes recommendations regarding the

country's continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles is actively considering submission from over 40 countries without the participation of a u.s. commissioner. the low at the address in the deep seabed mining is now drawing up the rules to govern in the extraction of minerals to great interest to the united states and american industry. is simply shouldn't be acceptable to us but denied it states will be absent from either of those discussions. our negotiators obtained a permanent u.s. seat on the key decision making body for deep seabed mining. i know of no order international body that accords one country and one country alone. us a permanent seat on its decision making body but until we joined the reserves seat remains empty. those are the stakes for the

economy coming and you will hear from secretary leon panetta and general dempsey that our security interests are intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation. the french were to gain from public order and the world's ocean than any other country. they rely on a navigational rights and freedom reflected in the convention to the combat areas to stay in the forces during conflict and return home safely all without permission from other kump to the country's we have to rely on what is customary international law as a legal basis for invoking and enforcing these norms. but it no other situation at which our security interests are at stake do we consider customary international law good enough to protect rights that are vital to the operation of

the united states military. so four we've aníbal to children to other countries behavior should stand on the firm most persuasive legal footing available including a critical areas such as the south china sea. i'm sure you followed the claims the countries are making in the south china sea although we do not have territory there we have vital interest particularly freedom of navigation and i can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the convention's rules in a greater ability to enforce them. now i know a number of you have heard arguments opposing the convention and let me just address those head-on. critics claim we would surrender u.s. sovereignty under this treaty but infected is exactly the opposite. we would secure sovereign rights over a fast new areas and

resources in putting our 200-mile exclusive economic zone and fast continental shelf area extending off the coast and at least 600 miles of alaska's three times as much concerned the treaty's provisions for binding dispute settlements would impinge on our sovereignty we are no stranger to similar provision including in the world trade organization which has allowed us to bring the trade cases many of them currently pending against abusers are around the world as with the wto the u.s. has more to gain in this precision like being able to hold others accountable under clear and transparent rules. some critics and soak the concern we would be submitting to mandatory technology transfer and the objections to the treaty. those concerns might have been relevant decades ago but today they are not. 1994 the negotiators made

modifications specifically to address each of president ronald reagan's objections including mandatory technology transfers which is why president ronald reagan's and secretary of state george shultz has since written we should join the convention in light of those modifications having been made. some continue to assert we do not need to join the convention for u.s. companies to drill beyond 200 miles or to engage in the deep seabed mining. that's not what the companies say, so i find it quite ironic in fact somewhat bewildering that a group organization individual would make the claim that is refuted by every major company in every major sector of the economy who stands to benefit from the street. under the current circumstances they are clear they will not take on the cost and risk these

activities under uncertain legal frameworks. they need the indisputable internationally recognized rights available under the treaty. so, please, listen to these companies not to those that have other reasons or claims that are not based on the facts. these companies are refuting the critics that say go ahead. you will be fine. but they are not the ones being asked to invest tens of millions of dollars without the legal certainty that comes with joining the convention. now some this characterized the payments for benefit of research rights beyond 200 miles at, quote come a u.n. tax, and this is my personal favorite of the arguments against the treaty that will be used to support state sponsors of terrorism. honestly i don't know where these people make these things up. but anyway, the convention does not contain or authorize any

such taxes. in the loyalty he doesn't go to the united nations, it goes to a fund for distributions to parties of the convention, and we, we actually in the convention, would have a permanent veto power over how the funds are distributed and we could prevent them from going anywhere we did not want them to go. i just want to underscore this is simple arithmetic. if we don't join the convention of our companies will miss out on opportunities to explore the vast areas of continental shelf and deep seabeds if we to join the convention, we unlock economic opportunities worth potentially hundreds of billions of dollars for a small percentage royalty a few years down the line. i've also heard we shouldn't join this convention because, quote, it is a u.n. treaty and of course that means the black helicopters are on their way. the fact that a treaty was

negotiated under the auspices of the united nations, which is after all a convenient gathering place for the countries of the world has not stopped us from joining agreements that are in our interest. we are party to dozens of agreements negotiated under the u.n. auspices and everything from counterterrorism and law enforcement to health, commerce and aviation and we often pay fees under the treaties recognizing the benefits we get to work the minimal fees. on the national security front some argue we would be handing power over the u.s. navy to the international body. obviously absolutely contrary to any history or law governing the navy none of us would be sitting here if there were even a chance you could make the most absurd argument but could possibly lead

to that conclusion. that is concerning the u.s. military activities are clearly excluded from dispute settlements under the convention and neither is it true that the convention would prohibit intelligence activities. the intelligence community has once again in 2010 as it did in 2007, as it did in 2003 confirmed that is an absolutely not true so whatever arguments may have existed for dealing in u.s. succession no longer exist and truly cannot be even taken with a straight face. the benefits of joining have always been significant, but today the cost of not joining are increasing. so much is at stake and i therefore urge the committee to listen to the experts, listen to our businesses, listen to the chamber of commerce, listen to

our military and to give advice and consent to the treaty before the end of this year. thank you mr. chairman. >> madame secretary think you for the testimony and i appreciate the detail that you went into. mr. secretary? >> chairman, senator lugar, thank you for the opportunity to appear here as the first secretary of defense to testify in support of the united states succession to law of the sea convention. i've been involved with ocean issues much of my career, and i strongly believe that accession to this treaty is absolutely essential but only to our economic interest or diplomatic interest, but i am here to see that it is extremely unfair to to our national security interest as well. i join a lot of the military voices in the past and present.

have spoken so strongly in support of this treaty. a fundamental point is clear. if the united states is to assert its historical role as the global maritime power, and we have without question the strongest navy in the world and if we are going to continue to assert our role as a maritime power it's essential that we receive this important convention. being number secateurs clinton, churn random seat fix their presence to estimate to the conviction of our diplomatic and military leadership that this convention is absolutely essential to strengthening our position in the world with the outline some of the critical arguments with regard had. first of all, as has been

pointed out as the world's strongest preeminent maritime power, we are a country that is one of the coast lines and one of the largest extended continental shelves in the world. we have more to gain by approving the convention that almost any other country has been under the 61 countries that have approved with the only industrial power that has failed to do that and as a result we don't have to see to the table. if we are sitting at this international table of nations we can defend our interests and our claims, we can lead the discussion in trying to influence the bodies the developed and interpret law of the sea. we are not there and as a result, they are the ones that are developing the interpretation of this very important treaty. in that way we would ensure that our rights are not rolled away

by the excessive claims and a running his interpretations of others who would give us the power and authority to support and promote the peaceful resolution of disputes within eight rules based order. second, we would secure the navigational freedoms and global access for military and commercial ships, aircraft and undersea fiber optic cables. the treaty remains the firmest legal foundation upon which to base our global presence as the secretary has pointed out, and it's true on, above and below the sea by joining the convention we would help lock in rules that are favorable to the freedom of navigation in the global mobility gifford, it would help secure a truly massive increase in the country's resources and economic jurisdiction not only to 200 nautical miles off the coast but

to a broad extant the continental shelf beyond the zone adding almost another third to the nation in terms of jurisdiction. fourth, a succession would ensure our ability to read the benefits again as the secretary pointed out of the opening of the arctic. joining the convention and maximize international recognition and acceptance of our substantial extended continental shelf claims in the arctic command as again pointed out, you're the only arctic nation that is not a party to this convention. more importantly come from our navigation and military point of view accession would secure the freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight rights throughout the arctic and would strengthen the freedom of navigation arguments with respect to the northern sea route and the northwest passage. finally, let me say we've gone

through an effort to give a defense strategy for the future. a defense strategy not only for now, but into the future as well, and it emphasizes the strategically vital art that extends from the western pacific and eastern asia into the indian ocean region and south asia on to the middle east. we undercut our credibility in the number of focused multilateral venues that involve that work i just defined. we are pushing for example the rules based order in the region and the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes in the south china sea and the streets of tammuz and elsewhere. how can we argue that other

nations must abide by international rules when we haven't joined the very treaty that codifies those rules? we would also help strengthen the world wide passenger rights under international law and would further isolate iran as one of the few remaining parties to the convention. these are the key reasons from the national security point of view from accession, reasons that are critical to our sovereignty, critical to the national security. again, as the secretary pointed out, i anderson and the arguments that have been made on the other side, but at the same time i don't understand the logic of those arguments. the myth that somehow this would surrender u.s. sovereignty nothing could be further from the truth not since we acquired the land of the american west and alaska if we had such an opportunity to expand u.s.

sovereignty. the continental shelf is said to encompass at least 385,000 square miles 33 ander 85,000 square miles of sea bed as the secretary pointed out it is one and a half times the size of texas the would be added to the sovereignty would be added to the jurisdiction. some claim joining the convention would restrict the military operations and activities and limit the ability to collect intelligence and territorial seas. nothing could be further from the truth. the convention in no way harms our intelligence collection activities. no way does it constrain our military operations. on the country, u.s. succession to the convention secures our freedom of navigation and overflight rights as bedrock

treaty law. some allege the convention of subject us to the jurisdiction of the international courts and that this represents a surrendering of our sovereignty. once again this is not the case. the convention provides a party may declare it does not accept any dispute resolution procedures for disputes concerning military activities, and we would do the same. as so many other nations have chosen likewise to do. moreover, it would be up to the united states to decide precisely what constitutes a military activity. and not others. others argue that the maritime interdiction operations would be constrained and again this is simply not the case. the partners routinely conduct a range of interdiction operations based on u.n. security council resolutions.

on the treaties and port state control measures and on the inherent right of self-defense the u.s. would be able to continue conducting the full range of maritime interdiction operations. in short lot of the sea convention provides a stable recognized legal regime that we need to conduct our operations today and in the future performance. frankly i don't think this is a close call puree law of the sea convention supported as pointed out by major u.s. industries, by the chamber of commerce, the energy oil shipping and communications companies, by our fishing interests and by environmental organizations along with past and present republican and democratic administrations strong bipartisan of the security of the national security leadership

by finally exceeding to the convention, we helped make our nation more secure and more prosperous for generations to come. america is the strongest power in the world. we have the strongest navy and make no mistake, we have the ability to defend our interests anytime, anywhere. but we are strong precisely because we play by rules, because we play by the rules. for too long the united states has failed to act on the st. brough. for too long we've undermined our moral and diplomatic authority to fight for our rights and our maritime interest and for too long we have allowed our inability to act on the national security. without reason the time is now for the senate to do what others have failed to do conjoined law of the sea convention and help

us remained the strongest maritime power in the world. thank you. >> thank you. again, also important testimony we appreciate very much and respect the fact you're the first secretary of defense to testify in favor of this treaty. churn random si pure this ducks before mr. trump and and senator lugar and other distinguished members of the committee, i join secretary clinton and secretary leon panetta offering my support for all of the sea convention. my voice joins past and present senior defense leaders to include our joint chiefs of staff it echoes every chairman of the joint chiefs of staff since the convention was sent to the senate in 1994. the support has been so consistent because of what the convention does for the armed forces and for our national security. joining the convention would strengthen our ability to apply seapower. it codifies the navigational rights and freedoms necessary to project and sustain our military force. these include the right to transit through international

straits, the right to exercise high seas freedom and for an exclusive economic zones and the right of innocent passage through foreign to editorial sees and it reinforces the sovereign immunity of the worship as they conduct operations. bye contrast, we currently rely on customary international law and a search through our physical presence. this plays into the hands of the foreign states that seek to bend the customary international law to restrict movement on the oceans and puts the worshiped and aircraft on the point to constantly reach a wench claims. we can defend our interests and we will do that with military force if necessary the force of arms does not have to be and should not be our only national security instrument. joining the convention would provide another way to stave off the conflict with less risk of escalation. the convention also offers an opportunity to exercise global leadership over 160 nations are party to it as you've heard

including every permanent member of the u.n. security council and every arctic nation. absence separates us from our partners and allies. it limits our ability to build coalitions and work cooperatively to solve these pressing security problems that face us. although the terms of the convention are favorable to the united states interest we are not positioned to further guide its interpretation or its implementation. we need to join it in order to strengthen our leadership role in global maritime affairs. to close come america is a maritime nation, both militarily and economically. our prez dirty and security depend on the bounty of and access to the world's oceans. by joining the conventional forces would enjoy a firm legal standing for operations on come over and under the world's waters coming and would provide an additional tool for navigating and increasingly complex and competitive security environment. i look forward to questions. thank you. >> thank you very much general.

as i mentioned earlier we will be having chief of naval operations coast guard and the common commanders of the various forces all of whom are affected by this will come in and people to answer questions for senators. but general dempsey, if i could ask you, opponents of the convention have argued that u.s. secession is somehow going to lead to an unacceptable restriction on the u.s. military. secretary panetta addressed this a little bit suggesting it would harm our national security. this has been a refrain repeated in a number of editorials and elsewhere. i want to ask you some questions about that if i may. first, do they know something that you don't know? [laughter] >> well, i can't speak for them but i know what i know, and i know that it will not do any of the things you just suggested. >> month? and you are certain of that?

>> i'm certain of that. >> that is shared by all of the combat forces crux sticky probably noticed that i'm not exactly dressed as someone who would speak with authority on the issue of maritime operations. but i am a student and in fact prior to my testimony and even before, i've made a point to consult with those that are experts and have become to the best of my ability an expert as well. islamic president reagan decided in 1983 that the convention's provisions relating to the traditional uses of the oceans generally confirmed existing maritime law and practice and fairly balanced the interests of all states. he therefore announced that the united states including the u.s. will act in accordance with those provisions notwithstanding we haven't ratified it. has that policy unchanged since president ronald reagan first made the announcement in 1983?

>> it hasn't changed for the united states military, no, sir. >> so in light of the fact and i ask this both of the secretary defense and you as the chairman of the joint chiefs in light of the fact we are already following the convention, would joining of require the military to make any change in existing policy or procedure with respect to the use of the oceans? >> would not commit some acquitted place any restraint whatsoever on any of our strategic goals? >> and what not to the estimate as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to you believe joining the convention of harm the u.s. military in any way? >> i believe it would not harm us in any way. >> haven't you expressed rather than harm us it would in fact enhance our strategic goal and interest. >> it would give us the opportunity to be able to engage when it comes to navigational freedoms and navigational rights. we can argue for those now.

we can do what we do, but very frankly we've undermined our moral authority by not having a seat at the table with these nations to make the arguments for these rights.

>> having served in a key intelligence position in our secretary of defense, this word in no way inhibit our ability to conduct intelligence operations. >> general dempsey. >> it would not affect our intelligence operations. >> is it not accurate directions are about to send their to the arctic and the chinese are currently laying claims that may in fact impinge on u.s. interests and claims mr. secretary? >> that's correct. >> general dempsey. >> our ability to affect that is in fact enhanced by joining the treaty, is it not? >> as i said, sir, the convention would allow us to have another instrument to engage in a nation that would potentially threaten our interests. >> mr. secretary, secretary

panetta, we heard arguments come in the doesn't need to some degree the whole issue for gun diplomacy by not embracing this treaty, can you speak, mr. secretary spencer of the direct line commanders for sending people into conflict since we should leave aside a legal wretched men and rely the fact that we have the strongest navy and our military horse quiet >> well, look, first and foremost there is no question that the strongest navy in the world. but if we are going to engage in diplomacy everywhere we go in order to assert our rights, then

the end result of that is going to be conflict and it could very well jeopardize our national security. if we resort to that as our primary means of asserting our rights, sending destroyers and, sending the carriers and in order to do that. the better approach is to have those carriers, have those sisters make are you clear the power we have, but then sit down and engage these other countries in a rules-based format that allows us to make the kinds of arguments that we have to make when we engage with 160 other nations as to navigational rights. i mean, that is the way we do it. we are strong because we play by the rules, not because we go against those rules. >> madam secretary, is the fact that we ran into this and

discussions and i think you have, too, that the lack of buyer presence in the treaty is in fact fernandes by various countries today. they need less about our inability to assert our rights. and partly put that into this context. some opponents of the convention and say we don't need it in order to get the legal certainty on the continental shelf. we can get up a series of bilateral agreements like mexico, russia and so forth. can you speak to that? >> first, we have not been able to withdraw the benefits because we are not a party to the treaty. we cannot fully secure our sovereign rights to the vast resources of our continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. we cannot sponsor u.s. companies.

to mind deceit keypad for valuable metals of rare earth elements. we did not count on customary international law that it won't change or be subject to be in the lord or undermine it over time that we cannot control because they are not taking our seat at the table. we'll make it features stability on what the legal framework is if we are a party to the convention. many of the provisions tried in the convention are very favorable to us. finally, to your point directly, chairman kerry, we do find and i certainly personally find that when i am, for exam overcame on claims to the south china sea that affect our treaty allies

like the philippines or japan or others, the fact that we are not a party really undermines our position. and i would at the third man in the world who hope we never are a party and make them come on and plot the way forward, set the rules come in for some sh is pushing us further and further at a disadvantage. >> thank you very much. senator lugar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. each of you have been covering the ground that i am about to cover it can. let me just say that again and again during testimony 2004, 2007, we have to talk to the opposition is not being hurt, not being understood. so let me introduce some of the opposition today is that we have the benefit on the editorial page of speefour of the

"washington times" said tuesday, may 22nd 2012, frank gaffney writes about the situation. on the other hand, members of the u.s. senate trouble than those two study or it least read the text, would immediately see it for what it really is a diplomatic dina siler a throwback to a bygone era when u.n. negotiations were dominated by communists of the soviet union and their fellow travelers in third world. these adversaries of the holy american equities. they start to establish control over 70% of the world service, create an international governing petition served as a model for bringing national states such as our studio and redistribute the planets while in technology for the world to themselves. last codifies such arrangements to subject to mandatory dispute resolution and enforce them via

stacked deck adjudication panels. i would suggest either not senators will not have leaders, so i choose just the morris and his wife eileen has just published an important book that addresses among other outrages lots of the primates temple of the title, a foreign country are ripping off america and the land in our economy and how our leaders help them do it. now, over on the next page, its owner rights, without loss we are told we will not be able to develop the hydrocarbon resources. underneath the continental shelf, sounds pretty dire. the time the fluctuating price and other forms of fuel fortunately is not true. under international and long

stay in u.s. are to have access to these areas. dating back to harry truman's issue a proclamation and congresses slowness establishing america's maritime lines and boundaries and no one has challenged them. as you pointed out, we do have a navy and perhaps opponents of the treaty would say, why get involved in all of this nonsense? on the flight out. if in fact he's got a problem, what is this navy for? i try to mention this briefly in my comments that even a thousand level we cannot cover all the disputes of the world. in other words, even after your asserting sovereignty, we don't care for these people. communists who have negotiated all of this for seven years and so forth and we have the navy, we don't really have enough of

what we ought to have been maybe as an additional hearing on how many ships, how much more military budget, how much more infrastructure we need to do it our way and to say, let rest five by themselves. i take your time to listen to what this because essentially he presented a very strong piece to be from industry will present a strong piece and they will be present a strong piece and they will be present a strong piece and they will be present a strong piece and they will be booking after their own stockholders in their own insurance pair once again without regard of sovereignty and the ability to shoot it out if we really are good. i don't know who else will come in perhaps as some peaceful types. we will see peace in the world is important. perforate silicate assurer thrift as to this particular argument. how would she do have the

military problem. in other words, we have a navy and they are not going stand by replacing an pivoting as you describe it. and what are the limitations if there are any? our ability to shoot it out. >> senator lugar, at 10 i think it is a question of looking at the facts that were dealing with. the fact is that we are dealing with a world in which there are a myriad of threats that we confront now. we are not just dealing with the soviet union. we are dealing with the myriad

of threats in the south china sea with rising powers in the pacific with north korea, with durand, transit industries for ms., turmoil in the middle east, with a whole series of challenges, not to mention more, not to mention terrorism. all of those are the threat we confront. we are now in a world in which frankly in order to do with community challenges, it is not enough for the united states navy to travel around the world, asserting that strength as a way to solve the marriott at the essay justifying. the only way we are going to do this in today's world is to engage in alliance is in partnerships, work with other countries to develop some kind of rules-based approach to dealing with those threats so other countries as well understands threats that

confront and can react. that is the world we are part of. that kind of world we live in and it is for that reason that the law of the seas becomes important because it is one of those vehicles in which to engage the world. 160 nations have succeeded and we say to with them. we will not participate. 160 nations will determine in terms of philosophy and we won't be there. so that is the reason from a national security point of view, from the point of view of what is the best interests of the united states that we have ec to this convention so that we are part of a rules-based international order. we say that every time we argue with durand, every time we argue with north korea would argue on the basis they are not abiding by international rules. they are not abiding by the international standards we have established. and here we are trying to make the same argument with regards

to navigation and we aren't even a member of the convention. that is the reason we need to see this convention. >> thank you. >> let me just say to senator lugar that neither president truman's proclamation or any act of congress has ever delineated the outer edge of the extended continental shelf of the united states. currently other countries can prohibit the united states from coming into dcs. we can't because we are not a party to the treaty. the only way to protect that outside of this is to have -- to see to the treaty and finally, no company is going to put millions of dollars into the effort to go out and do the mining or do the drilling if they don't have the legal certainty protection of the treaty. this further reasons of

mr. fuller in hangar and we'll have others who oppose him have a chance to exploit this. senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman for beginning a series of hearings. a couple years ago i tried the beginning and i think it is even more important today than it was then and i appreciate all of our distinguished witnesses and service to our country. general dempsey, when you took an oath to as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and when he took a note to serve situationally joined and from which you come to protect the united states of america. is that not correct? >> i did, sir. >> is there anything in this treaty do you believe undermines the that she took both in your service as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs is a quick >> there is none. >> you believe the treaty clearly continues to provide to

your ability and our behalf of all of those of the different services to serve this country to protect the united states of america doesn't undermine any of those abilities? >> it protects our abilities to do a need to do for this country quick >> secretary panetta, do you have concerns that this treaty would impinge on the rights of ability for you as the secretary of defense for the territory of the united states or conversely, with the impact of the department of defense from the service branches or navigate up operations? >> no, it would not. to enhance our ability to be able to navigate because they would he able to be at the table to protect our interests and our claims. >> in fact, doesn't this treaty if we were to ratify it, give us the wherewithal to extend our reach to a third more than that territory we have beyond

economic zone. is that correct quick >> that's absolutely correct. >> century many female duo been following iran would a laser like focus. in recent months we have heard karen threatened to close the straits of hormuz and the europeans sanctioned. beyond our own ability to respond in the national interest and security of the united states, which the administration made very clear at that time but that threat to place, my understanding of the treaty is that such an action would violate to guarantee the right of innocent passage even in a nation that territorial waters and u.s. military vehicles -- vessels, is that a correct statement? >> that is a correct statement. >> the other thing i focused a great deal on in our

subcommittee wrote his proliferation of narcotics trafficking and my concern about proliferation of mass destruction. what benefits would the u.s. derived from joining the treaty with respect to countering and intricate teen narcotics and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to and from states and nonstate actors of proliferation concern such as iran and syria. for example, joining the treaty advanced interdiction efforts under the proliferation security initiative such as providing a basis for taking action against vessels suspected of engaging in proliferation activities? >> right now, zarqawi is customary international to assert our right to visit. this would be documented in the convention at the lab of see them preserve their right to visit, which would help them enhance our use for the security initiative. >> do we believe joining the

treaty would help our efforts to bring countries into the proliferation security initiative and further undertake our efforts in need of interdiction efforts? >> i believe it would come a senator. turning the convention would likely strengthen the psi by attracting a cooperative partners. >> now finally, this treaty allowed us on a provisional basis to participate and influenced the work of various entities such as the commission on the limits on the continental shelf in the international seabed authority, the body that regulates the exploration, development of international areas beyond national jurisdiction such as oil, gas and a living resources under seabed of that soil. however, because we have not ratified the treaty, we have been relegated to observe the status on the commission. what impact has the failure to ratify hat and our ability that

influence the actions on the continental shelf commission and the international seabed activities? >> senator, first of all there are a number of observers who actually viewed as convention is a huge win for the united states. in fact, it is called by some the u.s. landgrab because of what it would mean for our ability to extend the jurisdiction far beyond our shores. unfortunately, our failure to accede to it limits our capacity to do so. coming up in 2013, we believe will be the seabed mining by the faction on rules for mining, something that if we were exceeded by then, we would heavily influenced and was

certainly influence in favor of foreign trade center can any. so the convention bodies that are determining the rules are proceeding without as and when you're on the sidelines and do not have the authority needed to do much more then tried to wave our arms and get attention and to make points, but we would have charrette influence than we would have, as i said in my testimony what amounts to a veto because of the consensus rules if we were actually present. >> so clearly because of a gift of god that allows us to have access to an atlantic pacific arctic in both territorial waters that this is critically in our interests and also an energy interest in private-sector interest as well in terms of ratify and peered inside a fair statement?

>> that maps are a true fair. >> thank you are much. >> affected outmanned by saying that because of guam, because of the hawaiian islands of the aleutians be of mixture of you reach, which is why there is such a brat to your gibbet is available to us, which is unique. no other country in the world has a significant and extended zone as we do it we are not taking advantage of that. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think each of you for your testimony and service to our country and secretary clinton, i noticed you enjoyed your testimony more than does. but enough is because january is just rather corner and not, but she seemed very happy today. i'm glad to have you here. you know, i have been around here a while now and sort of a lazarus moment. this thing has been around for 30 years. we are in the middle of a pretentious presidential race

and we have a treaty that's coming up this book majority leaders on the democratic side and republicans that have not wanted during the floor. so i have met 10 up slightly. i want everyone to know that i began initial plays. i too want to make my decision on the treaty based on facts and not that's an certainly plan to go about learning as much as i can about the facts of where this treaty places are nation. so i listened to testimony and again i enjoyed all three of you. i am listening to cases be made about oil and at the depths of expiration when you're talking about, we are talking about really big oil. and i just find it interesting and i don't think this is a pejorative comment. administration has not particularly been a great fan of

big oil. as a matter of fact, we've restrict that our homeland to their access in many ways. so i just find it an interesting point that is being made by an administration is anything but friendly to big oil well on this particular treaty such a big deal is made out of that and if you could just answer me briefly, secretary clinton, i'd appreciate it. >> always happy when i was hearing before this committee to be back in the senate. so thank you for the warm welcome. e-mail, i really believe that the united states has an opportunity in developing our natural resources, which we are currently doing, particularly with unconventional paths in the sets and progress we make in

that arena, which are extremely important to our future. yes, there are discussions and debates over wares to do it, in his backyard and the like, but we're making progress in for the first time in many years we are a net exporter. as someone is spent a lot of my time promoting american jobs around the world and finding how interested people are in perhaps being able to import from us, i think that is all to the good. it is also important that we take advantage, that we have the opportunity to take advantage of what may be possible in the future. i don't want to close the door on any item that is what i fear we are doing. it is the opportunity cost of not exceeding to the convention now. i am not an expert in oil and gas exploration and drilling, but with the oil and gas industry tells us is that they are in a position to take advantage of this and actually

our natures are, the various limited number of such companies anywhere in the world. and to shut the door on their ability to do and not just a link is economically smart. so i think if you look at the whole picture, we are positioned well and i want us to continue to be so in the future. >> so second point, i know the administration has tried to push legislation mandating to cardan and i know cap-and-trade was discussed for a while and that obviously then pass muster here in the senate and said the epa has taken steps to in many ways the pieces of that happened through regulation. one of the things that the treaty does do is regulate pollution in the auch and from then paste source says and one of the things you didn't mention the comments about some of the negativity towards a treaty is a lot of people believe then again

i'm asking the question after reading i'm not saying i'm one of those, but a lot of people believed the administration and the antenna is up, the administration wants to use this treaty as a way to get america into a machine relating to cardan since it's been unsuccessful doing so domestically. i wonder if he might respond to that. and if the treating your opinion does put us in a situation either respond to international or be subject to lawsuits from people because of carbon emitted from the united states ocean bed. >> i appreciate your raising that somehow the convention as a backdoor kyoto protocol. it is our assessment. it is our legal assessment. there is nothing in the convention that commits the united states to implement any commitments on greenhouse gases

under any regime and it contains no obligations to implement any particular climate change policy. it does have required hearings to any specific emission policy and we would be glad to present for the record a legal analysis to that effect. >> out of the exit this treaty? is there a way to typically treaties have ways of exiting and again briefly want to ask another question. how would one at this treaty if we became a party to a quick >> again i will submit to the record, but it is my understanding is just as he exceeds a certain treaties, we can end our membership. there is no continuing obligation to be a member of the treaty that you freely join. >> lastly, is this treaty subject to the typical resolution of ratification that

happens in the senate when treaties are -- >> that is correct. >> you're saying the senate has the ability to put stipulations upon our entrance? >> we always have a resolution for ratification that is prepared. i think there was one prepared in past times when it was part of the work leading up to a potential vote. >> on that note in this is not directed at you in any way. we did have a resolution of ratification under the s.t.a.r.t. treaty treaty and i know we've had conversations about this in the past. i know that there are pieces that is outside the jurisdiction of the state department, but i will say i think the gentlemen on either side of you, i know the gentleman to your last mention the nuclear armament is

very important to a nation especially for going to reduce the numbers of those. i want to say one more time and i know this is not the state of the carbon but the resolution has not been honored as for what it's worth, it is not the really good way to build trust with folks on the future treaty resolution. so again, none of this is directed at you, but the types of modernization at sandia to moscow motson pantex and other places have been waiting for an military leaders and civilian military figures have said is very important have not occurred for the resolution of ratification not direct it at you, but just to say it is not the kind of thing that builds a lot of faith in those resolutions. >> of i could respond, senator because i know this is a continuing to turn of yours. for the record, i just want to state that in fy 12, the

administration did live up to the application that we agreed on by requesting 7.6 to 9 billion for nsa weapons that cavity, congress did not procreate that full amount, that did create a shortfall. so i'm halfway 2013, we continue to honor a commitment by requesting 7.6 billion. that is 363 million or 5% above the amount appropriated by congress for fy 12. it is one of the very few accounts in the entire government to receive an increase of that size. i would like to have everybody on the same page concerning this. >> it's okay. i appreciate that. and yet this year that request was not made and i want to say that the resolution states that

if those funding requirements are not met, it is incumbent upon the administration to come forth with a report showing how that affects the overall process that does not have been independent of that is directed at you. his directed overall administration. but it does relate to overall trust issues. i thank you for your testimony about ford's future hearings. >> i take very seriously this concern of yours. we will submit the report. >> senator cardin. >> mr. chairman, let me thank all of our witnesses. i think we found the presentation that i've ever received on the treaty and i thank you for that. i thank you for particularly addressing criticisms that have been made about this treaty because it is in this treaty we

hear some of this compliance. i want to go into an issue that i think secretary clinton, you alluded to. that is that this is not a static situation that is changing. it's changing all the time. there are now groups that are meeting that will affect u.s. interests that we are not a party to. we do not have a representative they are. the love of sushi sea is changing because of the treaty and there is now discussions as to what should be the appropriate use for sealand sunwear shed the mineral rights to and where should the international regimes and the united states is perhaps the most significant player in these issues and yet our interests are not being that the senate has these types of changes are being debated here can you elaborate more asked to what type the discussions are currently taking place that we truly are not part

of, not involved as far as having a representative at the table during these discussions that very much could affect, u.s. companies could affect the commercial operations, could affect all the entries that you have mentioned. >> senator, you're absolutely right. with respect to demarcating, claiming and asserting sovereign jurisdiction. countries are doing that. as bernardi said we stand to do gain more than we have not done so. going beyond the continental shelf, which is of great importance to sr to offend deep seabed mining that will influence whether a number of supporters as they treaty, senator kerry mentioned one, lockheed martin who are interested in the rare earth

minerals can participate because in the absence of setting the right rules and being a party to the treaty, it may or may not be advantageous to ssa should eat. we have a seat on that body and we are not filling that. so we will really only have ours also hold respond to ball at the bodies that are now gearing up and working under this convention began to make decisions that are not in our interest. i think secretary kennett and made a great comment. you know, we like to use their military power to promote our national security. we have a lot of economic interest at stake here that will be very hard for us to exercise, even with the largest and most professional military in the world, if we don't get in under

the convention's rules. we have a chance to shape those roles. >> normally on these international treaties and organizations, the u.s. participation is what upon internationally with great importance because it adds to the comprehensive nature of the organization and you mentioned the arctic area without having the united states are missing one of the key players, so i know that there's strong international interest for us to become a party to the treaty. but i would suspect there's some interest in other countries. we hope you don't ratify this treaty because it gives our company better rich as some of these issues simply says that a stronger position on some of the economic and legal issues says that if ex-u.s. operations. am i correct? i assume they're strong

international support for u.s. interests, but in some respects then maybe saying bothell the void. >> the united states was certainly among the relatively small group of nations that drove the treaty in the first place, that and that the modifications in 1994 to to make sure that nothing in the treaty would be a verse to our interest. and so we have a lot at stake. re: invested a lot in it. i think most of the world wants to see a back seat because they know that with the united states that the principal driver of a rules-based international system are beaten and died, hoping to devise and execute those rules is in their interest as well. but have to agree with you, senator that there are nations that he perfectly happy to be in the drivers seat of database and then letting them be in the

drivers seat by our failure to be party to the convention. >> we just had the nato summit in chicago and one of the issues that was raised pretty vocally by this committee is when our nato partners to carry out their responsibilities, the responsibility for international security should rest with all of our partners, not just principally with one country, the united states. secretary kennett, it seems to me that our allies have to have some concern about the u.s. participation in this treaty as it relates to the coordination of our security issues as it relates to the sea. >> that is absolutely correct. you know, we said these countries. we develop strategies. we develop plans, military operations. we develop naval operations

working with them as well. and if we are not operating based on the same rules, a process at a disadvantage. i'm sure this is true for secretary clinton. i can't tell you -- i've been in meetings with those who are considered allies as well as those considered competitors. and make the argument with regards to navigational rights could make the argument with regards to our ability to exercise rights in the open seas and they have said in these meetings how can you assert that when you're not even or exceeded to commit the law of the seas convention and that's been thrown right in her face? i'm sure that i've took it to you to have that argument. that is the concern. >> it does make our arguments

for harrogate amish are difficult particularly when there really is your pointed out an argument as to why we've taken so long and why we have not in fact read a treaty. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator. senator risch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary clinton, in your opening statement, you addressed the p. who oppose the ratification of the treaty and particularly spoke to the ideology and the philosophical opposition some people have to pay us. and i hope you weren't scoffing at us. i am one of those that fall into the category because i have some deep-seated reservations on that he says. indeed, most wars we have fought that fight over ideology and

philosophy. indeed our country was founded on that because we had a difference with great britain over that. i would consider that important. get this down even narrower, my problem is this sovereignty. there is 280 pages here. as you read it, there's some good stuff in here. if we give up one scintilla of sovereignty that this country has thought, blood for an given up our treasure in the best that america has, i can't vote for her. i want to talk about a couple of those as we can. he defended his not being in here that requires if you look a

article xxii the signatories to this treaty, quote, shall adopt laws in wake laws in re collations and take other measures to implement applicable rules and standards established to competent international organizations or to rheumatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the environment from or through the atmosphere. what i've written all over it is any time the human cause they can't insert after you, even though we disagree, paid that in this treaty, we have said that we will adopt it, even though we don't approve of that particular treaty. with all due respect and i read thousands of pieces of legislation, and this is written in plain english and i don't know how you can argue that

after this is adopted by congress or by the senate if it is, how we are going to get around the fact that we have agreed that we will adopt these laws and regulations. >> well, senator, i join you in being absolutely 100% supportive and protect you that american sovereignty. i spent much of my adult life in whatever i found myself in and arguing on behalf of our country and our way and will continue to do so, but i would strongly argue that number one, our sovereignty will be greatly by joining this treaty.

a number two, with the specific question you asked, our reading of fact in the information about the meaning of it goes back to the very beginning of the treaty because we have had american negotiators at the table from the very beginning is that there is nothing of what you read that requires any particular standard. there is nothing that requires any fat jack that is going to be put to death used settlement. it calls on parties to participate in discussions, comp system the way concerning environmental issues that icon to impact the use shame. for the record, i will give you a longer written response because they really do want to

put your mind at ease as much as i'm able to because i believe so vehemently that exceeding today's treaty is an american sovereign interest or would not be sitting here. >> thank you. i want to see the additional explanation. i tell you this language is just so black and white and straight over at bethesda america shall adopt laws and regulations that are in conformance with anything at that date. well, let's turn to another provision that i have real difficulty with. as i understand it comes 17 enemies next, we have never seated our aredia saris taxiing american people or american companies that concern. if you read article lxxxii, subsection four, he talks about -- of the server capability to assess the best

tax dinner requiring attacks that these companies that operate out in the waters muddied up noritake. section forces the payments for contributions shall be made to the authority, which shall distribute them to states parties to this convention on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interest to develop the state, particularly the least developed and landlocked among them. by as we as americans give up our taxing authority can a handy money over to the united nations to develop some kind of formula that we have no idea what is going to say underline in today's to some formula specifically set out here. the next senator, were not doing that. the convention does not provide

for or authorized taxation of individual corporations or otherwise. there is a royalty arrangement that kicks in after five years drilling and extraction from the ocean, payments that would be related to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles go through, not to one of the bodies. they are held there until agreement is reached as the disbursement of the fun disagreement is ever reached. the distribution formula has to be agreed to. the united states with its permanent seat would have to agree to it. in the payments would mean that we were actually extracting valuable resources from the next tended continental shelf.

this is supported by the american oil and gas industry because it only applies to such areas are beyond two medical males. and i would note two, senator, there is nothing unprecedented about payment he made under treaties for various benefits because here the benefit is being absolutely legally assured of sovereign rights over a vast area of comment ocean and the legal certainty that comes with that appeared that we are ready make payments to the international telecommunications union, for example, because it helps to regulate use of spectrum and associated orbital flights to protect u.s. radio communications from harmful interference. so there are precedents that demonstrate why this is in our interest. nothing is agreed to a loss of a buddy in the convention agrees to it, standing on the outside may be sent the degree to which

will later be sent and we don't like, but we will not have been able to veto it, which we could if we were on the inside. do not intend this to. thank you, mr. chairman. other just say i find very little comfort in taking the seat of secretary pineda talks about in a group of 160 countries, most of whom don't like us, and many of hate us a nice having one vote amongst 168 they eight they were going to have a tough time. >> senator, it is a consensus which means it has to be unanimous aired our vote counts as much as 159 of the votes and not every other country will be represented on this body, but the united states will be peered >> on this provision, but there's others that we don't have veto throughout everything the conference status. >> the point is senator there is a veto with respect to the distribution of any money west whether. and i think as we go forward in

this, we will have the legal experts and who will define precisely how this works. but i think you'll come to see. >> the other thing i was going to say is the application of the section you raised with respect to the shell is only with respect to if you a party signed up to an international out that applies with respect to that. so in fact, it is not an ad hoc provision that says you have to go out and stop this. if you party signed an international agreement and we have it. >> again, i will have a panel of experts to come in and clearly defined that because it's very important family wants you to be satisfied with respect to that and i believe he will be. but i think it is important to have it done that way. senator boxer is back. >> thank you you forgive me

please at have to go deal with the transportation bill. that isn't moving very ahead very well. mr. chairman, senator lugar, thank you for this important hearing and i want to say to panel what an honor it is to be in the same room with you all can get everyday to your country 21st of may and we'll appreciate it so much. this is a very important issue and i thank the chairman because we are just late in the game at this and so we need to make up for lost time. senator lugar went to the hasty. i well remember in 07 but was voted 72 not for two report and it wasn't taken out because there were threats of filibusters and everything else. when you're at their majority leader you want to go something you can get done. i am hopeful this time we are going to get it done because of

everything that was said, the convention has the unequivocal support of the national security community, business community, tech community, oil and gas company and environmental groups. i tell you it is tough to find that type of coalition. what we've got it here. here's the puzzling part to be a say to my colleagues at this convention should bring us together, not tear us apart. the chairman has said in his best opinion that we go for this after the election so be it. but i find that kind of shocking since again i am confounded there is so much support they consider this controversial. u.s. secession would help give the u.s. navy maximum navigational rate and in a dangerous world help protect u.s. rates in the art take for

greater flexibility to u.s. tech companies to live their fiber-optic cables under the sea. the convention to provide for a peaceful recognition of dispute. so the love the sea protects u.s. national interest in joining us the right right thing to do. it brings me to my question for you, madam secretary. it has to do with china and we have a little nap here if you will bear with me. it tells the story. china has been aggressive claims to a massive portion of the south china sea, one of the busy shipping lanes that each respect to philippines is entitled to the undertow of the sea convention. it's called the exclusive economic zone. the red line shows that china is claiming for itself. as cc it goes far beyond china

some 200 exclusive economic zone and reaches far into other nations of, a significant territorial grasp that comes close to the land borders with countries in the region. this dispute has argued that to confrontation on more than one occasion. in fact just last month the chinese navy sent surveillance ships to block the efforts of the philippine coast guard is trying to stop activities of chinese fishermen who were within 200 miles of the philippine coastline. the secretary clinton, i understand you've been personally involved in trying to help resolve territorial dispute within the south china sea. i would ask you this question. as he was there to join the convention had an impact on your efforts to resolve disputes in the south china sea? if you could explain to us why and how and i thank you.

>> well, thank you for a match coming senator boxer for raising that issue. i personally engage in bilateral and multilateral discussions. on south china sea issues and the claims that china has made and i'm not saying any other than what i have said repeatedly to the chinese themselves in our review and we are trying to help resolve these disputes peacefully and particularly to kids a support to the country that are being threatened by these claims. yet as a non-party to the convention of the non-party we see the legal high ground they put ourselves on the defensive

and we are not as advocate for our friends and allies and agrees to and i don't think that's any free power to define ourselves. so the comment thread in sending secretary pineda straits. about resolving these disputes, we cannot have a chinese rule. they have to be buying diet to treaty obligations and that framework set forth in the convention. our credibility and strategic position would be strengthened where remember. >> thank you. >> by last question i get to secretary pineda.

i know you spoke about iranian threats to close the straits of hormuz. you alluded to that. i have a specific question. according to the u.s. energy information administration dayside hormuz is the most important chokepoint due to its daily oil flow at approximately 20% of the worlds oil traveling through the street or for the analysts say that even a partial blockage of the street could raise the world price of oil at $50 a barrel within days. so would you elaborate more on how you a succession to the sea convention could help us address the threat from iran? >> senator, they have not had a chance to look at straits of hormuz, it is very tight areas located there. under the law as the scum ics, there is an international

passage way that is allowed so that ships can carry oil through the streets. and it gives us the argument that we absolutely have to have, which is that we need, in order protect the worlds oil supply supply from which goes through the straits of hormuz, we have to do it based on the international rules provided to the law of the seas that allows for transit in that area. and if iran were to engage in efforts to lock the straits of hormuz comment that is the very reason we have made clear that it is a red line that we would not tolerate. we have to keep a straight soaping. >> thank you very much, senator boxer. if i recognized or not, let me just mention. >> where arty working on and will work closely and

reservations to specifically atop the resolution of ratification appropriate reservations and are working on some of them now if a hearing process goes on in things are flushed out, whether they are ready to work with you to do that. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and also thank you for the conversation we had on the floor a couple days ago we did agree to hold a hearing with those who are in opposition to the ratification of the law of the sea treaty, which i had. so i appreciate that very much. i remember very well back in 2004, when this committee passed out to ratification. i believe was 16 to nothing, unanimous and we looked at it and it that time and still today i am a member -- a senior member of the armed services committee

and the environment that we had these hearings and we had witnesses that totally change this around. so i really believe that it's important enough that you are going to be doing that. now, in a limited time that we have, i'm going to quickly go over too wide and then i'll have a question for secretary pineda and for general dempsey. ..

>> i have read the work of the u.s. dinner agency continental shelf task force, that the resources they are maybe talking about how to quantify the amount of money that we would be losing, whether we say it is an arrangement or a tax, it is a tax record cost money, and they say it could be somewhere between billions and trillions of dollars that we would not have in the united states and would be transferred in accordance with the u.n. international authority. the way we arrive at this, and

to put this in context, i would say that between 12 and 18% of royalties is about as much as they are going to allow and still continue to develop those resources. the united states would receive in that area, according to this task force, somewhere between 12.5 and 18.75% in royalties. the problem with this is under article 82, the law of the sea treaty would require the u.s. to give up after it. time, between seven and 12 years, about 7% of this. if we take the conservative side of with a -- of what the task force that said, it will equate to $70 billion with royalties that would be paid to the isaias opposed to the united states. of course, they would go to the organization for redistribution

to the developing world. this is the first time in history that an international organization, the u.n., in this case, would present taxing authority over this country. i have heard the be no arguments by senator risch. there are two entities that would make the determination that there is a 36 member council, the assembly, but the point is, under article 160, it is going to cost us. well, let's see, under article 82, the payments and contributions shall be made annually with respect to all production at a site after this period of time. it will be paid regardless of where you think it should go or where you think it will go. the second thing that i want to cover is the environmental end. we, for the 10 years now, have

rejected in both the house and senate, primarily the senate, because it started with backdoor kyoto protocol, attacks on american people between three and $400 billion. we have rejected this over and over again. there may be, at most, 25 senators who would vote for a cap and trade bill now. what they are attempting to do is to do what they can do through legislation under this treaty. under this treaty, any country can sue the united states in the international tribunal court of law of the sea. not in the united states courts, or take the u.s. before arbitration. let me say this. already people are out there planning their lawsuits. i would also quote from article 212th, adoption -- adopt laws and regulation to prevent, reduce and control merchants of the maritime environmental form or through the atmospheric

effort to what we are talking about their is a basis for the lawsuit. under the treaty and says states are responsible for the development of the international obligation. well, we know what would have been. in fact, we have statements about lawyers, trial lawyers around the country, saying that they wanted them here is from cg burns, citing that the lawsuits would come forth. the united states is the most logical state to bring action against. with that, it is understandable. by groups such as greenpeace and the natural resource defense council and environmental defense, they all have this as their top priority. let's get back to the $70 billion. the question i would have would be for secretary panetta and for general dempsey.

we are talking about $70 billion that would've be better to have the 70 billion go to kingston, jamaica, to bail out some of the developing nations, or the following list. the ohio class ballistics of submarine, $3 billion, to maintain the navy's ship and aircraft and ground modernization programs, eliminate the navy's gap by providing 240 f-35 fighters, that's $3 billion. eliminate the gap in the for class carrier, and all five of these, the navy's request for six more ships. six more backdoor kyoto protocol is ships. do you think it is better to give the money there to use for these programs?

>> senator, the budget we cemented supports the strategy we have developed. >> what i am saying is that this is money that we have documented pretty well. >> you are familiar with all these issues. you know that they have been requested and there is a gap. in familiar the filling these in the best interest of our national defense or sending the money? >> senator, i will only comment that i support this convention on law of the sea because it enhances security of the maritime domain. >> secretary panetta? >> i share, obviously, the chairman's viewpoint with regards to why we consider this important. i guess what i would ask, senator, i know you have come up with the $70 million.

>> it is 70 billion. >> $70 billion. what about the billions of dollars in economic benefits that would flow from these companies providing energy and being able to go at sea and provide economic benefit? sure, there could be royalties, but what about the economic benefit of these companies -- >> mr. secretary, it would be coming from companies that are already in this area that is a controversial area that i described in a very exact way. we have been doing it before with bilateral treaties, with china, with russia, we can continue to do it and there would be no loss there. the loss of the $7 billion from and that would affect our national security. i'm looking forward, mr. chairman, to the hearing where we have those in opposition.

>> well, i promised you that, and we will have plenty of people here to do that. let me just say to you, senator, with all due respect, there is no way to contemplate what you have just contemplated in terms of the numbers. first of all, there is no chilling in the extended shelf. the royalties only come from extended shelf. they only come after a certain period of time. and they are in a range of 1% to the high end, depending on how much you extract. there is no way to tell today how much is going to be extracted or has been extracted. >> but the force has come up with a figure? >> i understand and we will examine the nature of the task force in the interest of the task force and all of those kinds of things. we will look at all of that. but the fundamental premise here still remains this. ronald reagan renegotiated this with the oil companies and gas companies at the table. and they signed onto these royalties. which are far less than the royalties that they pay today,

to us in the gulf of mexico or elsewhere. and they pay them into an international entity that we will have a veto over as to where or how it will be spent. >> ronald reagan opposed this in his last effort, as you well know. >> senator, what is important here, is we are here from -- we are hearing from george schultz and some of these people. it is important to recognize that you are here protecting companies from paying a royalty they want to pay. you are here protecting companies from being able to chill with a cantril without this. they would rather have 93% of something then 0% of nothing. >> but they currently are producing and currently able to do it through bilateral treaty. >> they can't do it because there is no bilateral treaty

apply to the extended shelf. it is only through the international rules that come through the law of the sea do you can do that. unless you have this in place, no company is going to jail. and you will sit here and say why are we importing it from other places, why are we buying it from other countries and not showing it ourselves. we are going to have this thoroughly vetted in the course of the next two months, this will be coming out of everyone's ears and people will be tired of it and they will understand it. but we will look at every aspect of that, i promise you. those companies will coming here and they will tell you why they are not prepared to invest millions of dollars put at risk without the certainty of the claims that come through this treaty. we look forward to that debate. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. thank you all for being here. general dempsey, in an atlantic council formed earlier this month, you said that the

convention gives us a framework to counter excessive planes by seeking to legally restrict movement of vessels and aircraft. i was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on that. tell us specifically where we see excessive claims and how they affect our ability to freely move around in the sea? >> if i could, senator, if we were here 20 years ago, we would've all been predicting that the growing world population, the rise of regional powers like china and india, would place extraordinarily challenging demands for resources, and that could become destabilizing. here we are 20 years later, and it is playing out. the reason i am supportive of the convention on law of the sea, is that it provides clarity on the definition of maritime zones, it provides clarity on navigational rates.

from that clarity, comes stability. as we now began to rebalance our security interests into the pacific, this becomes very important. >> i appreciate that it is a sensitive topic to speak to some of those excessive claims, and the senator had an interesting map to show what china is looking at versus other countries in the region. but are we seeing, in fact, those kinds of claims from china and other countries in the pacific that are affecting our freedom of movement in those areas? or that we concerned might in the future? >> let me answer to mike in the future. the demand on resources, the competition for resources, are becoming far more pronounced and could potentially become more dangerous. it is not only to in the south

china sea, but it is also true elsewhere. i do think it is wise at this point. >> i know that we have heard some objections from some of our colleagues, and i am sure we are all getting letters reflecting different perspectives on the treaty. i would like to read you something from a letter that i got from a constituent and ask you if you could respond to it. it says, and i am quoting from the letter, even the freedom of navigation provision adds nothing to the existing customary law of the sea. seafaring nations, including the united states, have observed for centuries. given that we haven't today had any major disruptions at sea, can you respond to that and talk about why the sense now is that it is imperative to ratify the

treaty? >> i can't. the customary international law evolves. and i can give you an example of something on the land domain in the moment. it evolves and it is subject to individual interpretations. reading this back to my earlier answer, the rise of new nations containing new resources, brazil, russia, china, and the list goes on and on, their rights because in but that's in a position where must we have this convention with which to form a basis to have a conversation about resources of the sort you are talking about, it does cause us to be increasingly at risk to instability. that is my job. instability. the secretary can speak eloquently about the economic issues, but i am speaking about the security issues. that is what has changed. i will give you the example of the land domain that i have

mentioned. we are party to the geneva convention, from which we derive our laws law conflict. there were 20 customary international law is related to the use of force, but we consciously and deliberately signed onto the geneva convention as a mechanism by which to have this conversation among a community of nations. that is what is different today than was different 20 years ago. this competition for resources, which is migrating increasingly into the maritime domain. >> thank you, general dempsey. as you pointed out, secretary clinton, you were very eloquent and talking about the economic urgency of ratifying the treaty. one of the areas that you mentioned was the arctic -- that we are the only arctic nation that hasn't ratified the treaty. there were a lot of people that pointed out when we acquired

alaska, which gives us access to the arctic, there were a lot of people who thought that was probably come as we remember. history has shown very differently. can you talk differently about where we are with respect to the other countries who have ratified the treaty, who boarded the arctic, and where they are in terms of their exploration and any other activities they may be doing in the arctic? and also how we compare to that, and how much -- to what extent we might be left behind if we don't ratify the treaty? >> thank you for that, senator, because i actually think that the arctic is one of these areas where potential instability, as well as economic competition are going to be played out. the largest single portion of the u.s. extended continental shelf is in the arctic, and the up other arctic coastal nations, russia, canada, norway, denmark,

greenland, are in the process of establishing the outer limits of their continental seashell in the arctic, using the provision of the treaty. i think we all remember russia planting a flag under the water, claiming the arctic. we don't think that has any force of law, certainly, but it demonstrates the intense interest of staking a claim in the arctic. further, as the arctic warms and freeze up -- and as it frees up the shipping routes, it is more important that we put our navigational rights on a treaty putting and have a larger voice in the interpretation of the rules, rules, because it is one beautified arctic nations. you will see china, india, brazil, you name it -- all of them vying for navigational rights and roots through the arctic. the framework that we should establish and support is the one

based in the convention that will help us deal with expanding human activity in the arctic, which is why i think that the time is so pressing for us to make this decision. >> secretary panetta would you like to add to that at all? >> no, she did it all? thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator shaheen. it is an appropriate moment in the record, a letter from the commander of the united states northern command, general jacob e. the commander states, national security is dependent upon cooperative partnerships and peaceful opening of arctic waters as an interest of arctic nations. the united states is the only arctic nation that is not a ceded to the convention. consequently combination with being excluded from strategic

discussions from our maritime partners and resolving sovereignty, sea boundary, and natural resource issues future. it will require the formation of coalition task forces. our nations a session to the convention will set the conditions for partnership and cooperation. it goes on and says a few of those things and i put that in the record. >> senator dement. >> thank you for the process of hearings. i appreciate the panelists in their testimony today. the fact is that most of the testimony today dealt with navigation issues and things that affect the navy on the waters around the world. that is about we need to deal with this and there are a lot of theoretical advantages that have

been discussed and mentioned by the general place by the rules. and the idea that we get into a rules-based system with other nations that establish some international rules of engagement, theoretically we could have some honest debate on how we come out on that it doesn't always come out okay. we brought china into the wto because we thought we could get them in a rules-based system, and we would have a fairer system. it hasn't worked out that way. only a few months ago, a lot of us here on the plano was willing about china manipulating currency and not playing by the rules. we note when we try to deal with those that not all members play by the rules. they are not always been effective and we have a history of arms treaty when we find that the other players are not playing by the rules. we can have a reasonable debate that there is a possibility that when we enter into an agreement as a nation with other nations that don't play by the rules, we could put ourselves at a disadvantage. we could talk about that later.

the concern i have is almost 300 other pages of the treaty that has not been dealt with much today. for a few clarifications, we don't have a veto and the assembly of this convention. we can have a veto in the council. just as sudan has, one of the world's leading sponsors of terror. but we cannot have a veto in with the assembly decides to hold. also, the oil companies don't pay the royalties. the united states does. the treaty specifically says that the state members pay that and the taxpayer will ultimately pay it. i just want to make a few points and asked a short question. of course, 160 other nations want to send this through. we need to think it through as has been said, maybe we have a lot to gain, but we will pay more than any other nation that is part of this agreement because of the royalties that have been discussed.

of course, they want to have us in this. they also get to define the rules of engagement for the u.s. navy all over the world. that may be a theoretically a good idea, but there has been a lot of testimony that the international rules of engagement on the ground troops in afghanistan have put our folks in harms way. we do need to debate that. and we do know from the treaty that very clearly subjects are states, are electric utilities, our businesses to environmental lawsuits that will be arbitrated by panels that could be slanted against us. it is very clear from the treaty, if we have a dispute with another nation, we appoint to arbitrators. they appoint to arbitrators, and the secretary general of the united states appoints the fifth. those are odds i don't want to deal with when it comes to doing business in america. i would just ask, and we have talked about this already, and i

will direct it to the general, because i respect his advocacy for what he feels like is important to the navy. this treaty is much bigger than that and involves a lot of other things. given the fact that american oil companies have already leased a lot of land 200 miles out on the gulf to begin the development of that. we have begun that without the law of the treaty. we can keep a straight open and we can commit to do that whether we are in this treaty or not. general, how is it in the interest of the united states, to turn the royalties over to an international bureaucracy, and i know that senator inhofe asked this, but given the fact that we are facing billions of dollars of shortfalls in cuts in our military, and this is something that is real money, something that is going to be paid to an international body at a time our country is almost hopelessly in debt, and it would be distributed to countries that may be our enemies, like sudan. again, i respect your advocacy

for the naval aspect of this, the navigation aspect of this. what we are trying to do what deal with is the whole treaty and what it might do as far as cost to the american taxpayer and american business and our ability to operate around the world. i know it is a loaded question, but maybe you have an opinion you like to swing back at me. >> well, what i would like to say, sir, the economics, i believe to the economic experts. from the security's perspective, i would want to have a further conversation about where in the treaty you see our rules of engagement or our activities being limited. because they are not limited in any way. by the way, sir, we never see the rules of engagement on the ground to include in afghanistan to add any other nation on the face of the earth or any international organization. >> i appreciate that answer. on one hand we are arguing that we need this war our military to operate freely around the world

in a rules-based system, then the treaty allows us on a military or defense front to completely opt out of this thing anytime we want. so why do we need to get into all of this, in order to be able to operate our navy is we have for years, around the world? >> well, i will take a shot at it, and then you can pass it off to the secretaries. right now, our freedoms of navigation -- right now, the description of maritime zones and the freedoms of navigation or the rights of navigation, are codified in international customary law. i am not comfortable with that. any longer, because of the reasons that i gave to senator shaheen. on the way to the security in the maritime domain is being tried in challenged by the rising powers from the opening of the arctic, and other areas around the world, were that customary international law is now being subjected to individuals interpretations. i think it is in her benefit to

become part of that conversation. >> general, just as a follow-up. some of those countries that are interpreting the law are already parties to the law of the sea treaty. they are not following the rules, at least in the terms of arbitrary interpretation. are they going to abide by the rules by the way we see them -- my concern is that we will abide, that they are already violating the rules that they ascribe to. and i don't know how this creates a system of rules that we can count on. >> go ahead, sir. >> senator, you know, i think the question you have to ask yourself is whether or not it's eating to this convention gives us the best of both worlds. he gives us the ability to protect our military activities and conduct what we have to do in terms of our ability to operate indices, it gives us the ability to avoid any kind of

dispute resolution with regards to military activities, so it does give us the ability to opt out, that which we don't want to participate in. at the same time, gives us the ability to engage when we have to engage. better to have a seat at the table than not at the table, when you were dealing with issues that affect our claims, that affect our economy, that affect our rights. that is the key here. >> secretary, is there any table in the world that we are not sitting at right now? >> well, yes, we are not sitting in the seat that is reserved for us in the seabed mining table. to be clear, senator, any assembly decision, because you referenced back, has to go to the council, we have a permanent seat on the council, other members will rotate. i really want to do everything i can, and i know my colleagues feel the same way. we need to try to explain, over

the next months, in the process that chairman terry has started, why we do think as secretary panetta says, this is in our interest, and it is for us the best of both worlds. otherwise, we will put our economic interest in players that it is advantageous, uncompetitive position. i think what you are hearing from general dempsey and secretary panetta is that when we are now facing new threats, that largely arise out of the incredible race for natural resources that will be primarily based in the ocean, we need to be able to play any card at our disposal, and we think we will have more cards if we are in number than if we are not a member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all.

>> thank you. i would just point out to the senator that we will go into this further, but the veto -- you are correct, it is not within the assembly. but there is a restriction specifically defined within the treaty as to what it could go -- as to what could go to the assembly, and the royalties are specifically with reserved to be sent by consensus. consensus is specifically defined as requiring any formal objection. >> i would like to get into that. it begs two questions. first of all, sudan is on the council. if we have a veto, they have a veto. their interest is very different than our interest. is there a question about whether they are on the council or not? >> they are a member and have it

acceded to the convention. >> and they are on the council of -- >> well, you know, a lot of states, 160 of them, are technically within and all member body. but all the important decisions are made by the council, and there is absolutely nothing in this convention which says -- >> i'm speaking to the council and i'm looking at the list right now and sudan is on it. if we have a veto, they have a veto. it is just something we need to look into. again, the details, we have talked about some theoretical advantages that might address the navigation issues, but that only assumes other countries that they are playing by the rules. there is very little indication within the treaty convention of the members already, but that is happening, or that we can count on it in the international community as we go forward. again, i want to thank them.

>> let me just say to the senator, for the period of time that sudan is on the council, it is possible that they can veto something, and therefore you could wind up with good luck and they would look at the united states and and or congress. [laughter] but the fact is they are not a permanent member of the council. we are. as a permanent member of the council, in fact, we are the only permanent member. so we stand in a very special status that we are not currently able to exercise, and i think with respect to the senator's fears, and other fears, what you are trying to protect is something that would go against the interests of our country. that is what we need to be able to protect. if sudan votes to do something or blocks us from doing something that we are interested in doing, then there are plenty of other avenues of recourse for that as well.

as you are dealing with the oceans and question of royalties and other things, the fact that we would preserve the right to protect our interests, i think what the senator and others have raised his issues, they don't want money going to dictators or bad countries. we can walk that. we can block that until the cows come home. i think we can be protected. we will go into that. the veto is not used in the united states, because no one doubts the president and has not. we have the ability to be able to do it through the language that is they are and that will become more clear as we go forward. >> thank you, chairman kerry. i appreciate all of you for being here. senator webb and i think chairman kerry and the ranking

member are great. we sent him a letter in regards to the testimony today. when i was brand-new to the senate, one of the meetings i took was when the outgoing chief of naval operations. when i asked him what is the single most important thing that you can do to help the navy over the next decade, he said without said without hesitation, gratify the law of the sea treaty. i was taken back by that. as it turned out, the admiral's assessment is important to this treaty, by every living chief of naval operations, not to mention every living secretary of state and defense, and strongly supported by both of you and chairman dempsey today. i note that senator warner, former chairman of the armed services committee and secretary of the navy is with us today. i have a copy of a letter that he submitted to than chairman

biden and ranking member lugar commenting on incoming admiral and how he had given strong testimony in support of the treaty in 2006. my concern, mr. chairman, members of the panel, is that this is the treaty that time forgot. we are locked in a debate that is literally decades out of date. i understand some of the concerns raised by members of this committee. there were some laws and issues when first negotiated in 1982. many of them hammered out and resolved by 1994 by amendments. certainly by the time this was previously considered, several times by this committee during your service here, senator and now secretary. secretary. i believe it is well past the time when the questions and concerns raised today were compelling, and if i have to face questions about whether this is a critical firefight in the defense of american

sovereignty or a wound in a rapidly emerging global theater where our competitors are taking advantage of our absence, the empty seat at the table, i would rather take my naval strategic advice from the chief of naval operations and the secretary of the navy and from the editorial pages of the washington times. frankly, if i could come i have a few questions i would like to ask you. i think what you have laid out here today is an overwhelming response to the question. is the ratification of this treaty in the best interest of the united states? senator menendez before me asked a series of questions. does this in any way put the security of the united states at threat? is a compromise security? does it undermines our intelligence gathering ability? my recollection was you all said no. let me put it in the opposite form. does failure to ratify this treaty, general dempsey, in any way, compromise the ability of the united states to project

force around the world, to support and sustain our allies, and to meet the threats within the constraints that we have? in a balanced and responsible way. are we at risk as a result of failure to ratify the treaty? >> based on our current application of customary international law, we will assert our sovereignty and ability to navigate. however, what it does do, and therefore, it won't deteriorate our ability to project force -- it will not deteriorate. what could cause -- if we do not ratify overtime -- what could happen is we can put ourselves at risk of confrontation with others who are -- who are interpreting customary international law to their benefit. the risk of confrontation goes up. our ability to protect power is unaffected. >> failure to ratify puts us at some greater risk of conflict. you are confident that we continue to have the resources to meet back, but we are, as a

word, unilaterally, or choosing choosing not to use one potential tool for our national defense? >> i would agree with that phrase. >> if i might, secretary -- >> senator, let me make the point. it does put us at risk. the risk is this. if we face a situation that involves navigational rights, if we are not a party to this treaty and can't deal with it at the table, then we have to deal with it at c. with our naval power. once that happens, you clearly increase the risk of publications. >> if i might, senator, interviews, and you are saying that they are allies, our willingness and ability to fight for their territorial issues to fight for their freedom of

navigation -- >> the majority of our allies is seeded to this convention. they are part of it. they have a difficult time understanding why we aren't there at the table alongside of them making the arguments we need to make. sure, they know where strong naval power -- they know that we are a strong naval power and we can assert ourselves when we want to. but they also know that in today's world, they are dealing at the table, trying to negotiate resolutions to conflicts, in a rules-based manner. that is the way to deal with issues like that. and somehow, they are concerned, and i think rightly so, that a great power like the united states is not there alongside them. >> secretary clinton, if i might, during a previous debate, senator murkowski and circulated

endorse the convention. this would reach from 200 miles to 600 miles and provide particular date unshed predictability. a whole new emergence of things for opportunity and in the arctic, if we remain the only arctic nation to not exceed the treaty and ratify the treaty, it puts us at some risk in terms of defending shipping lanes and commercial opportunities for our own country. what challenges is the state department facing in the passage of the arctic, and are we at some risk if we fail to ratify the treaty? >> i think one of the reasons there has been such a strong bipartisan support coming from alaska, over the last decade, is because they are truly on the frontline. we know there are natural resources that are likely to be exploitable in if we have the

opportunity to do so. senator, the fact that we are in arctic nation, we are the only arctic nation that has not taken the step of a seating to the convention, and thereby being able to demarcate our continental shelf and our extended continental shelf is seen in alaska as a missed opportunity and a strategic disadvantage that is increasingly going to make us burnable as the water and weather is warm and there will be ships all over the world sporting exploring, sporting, fishing, but what right we should be american sovereign territory. nobody wants to see that happen. >> madame secretary, mr. secretary, chief, i am grateful for your testimony today. i'm stuck in listening to this

testimony in reading the background materials and reporting on it. reflecting how a fight over some of the details of this treaty that was largely resolved in our favor in 1994 -- however remains frozen in time. i conclude from what i've heard so far today that the real risk we face is that we are letting others draw boundaries and set rules and we are putting our national security is at risk by failing to read by the treaty. >> thank you, senator. senator lee. >> thank thank you, i think the witnesses for joining us. i'm one of the people that have concerns with this treaty. i assure you that my concerns are rooted in more than mythology and an editorial page. they are rooted, first and foremost, in america's national sovereignty, and i think that is not something that is to be discounted here. one of the exchanges that i appreciate during the course of our discussion today has

surrounded what is described as a veto. a veto on the council. i want to drill down on that issue and make sure i understand it correctly. my reading of article 158 of the treaty is that it creates a free basic body that creates the assembly and council and it creates the secretariat secretary as outlined in section one of article 158. now, in article 160, we have a basic definition of the purpose, and it describes that as follows, it should be the supreme organ of the authority, meaning the international seabed authority, based in kingston, jamaica, then we moved to article 162. which describes the purpose of the council. this is the body -- the 36

member body, not to be confused with 160 member plus assembly. the council, as i understand that, it is empowered to do a number of things, including to exercise the power outlined in section two of article 162, subsection -- subsection 01. rules and procedures on the equitable sharing and other payments pursuant to article two. these are the escalating royalties to begin at 1% five years into the operation of the treaty, escalating gradually up until they get to 7% were they remain there after once they achieve that level. it appears to me, based on my reading of article 162, that the

power of the council, the body in which the united states has a ceded, and what you described as veto power, it appears also to me as i look back at 160, section 160, subsection two, that it is up to the assembly and not the council to decide upon the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits from activities in the area. secretary clinton, i was wondering if you can help me understand my reading is correct or am i missing something? >> senator, the assembly cannot take up an issue unless recommended by the council. any decision that would impose any obligations on the united states or otherwise deal with substance must go through the council. the secretariat has no

decision-making authority. in effect, the practical consequences of this is that the united states would have the right to reject or veto any decision that would result in a financial and budgetary complications. that is due to the fact that u.s. is unique in having a permanent seat on the seabed authority council, which is the main decision-making body and that important decision must be made by consensus. so it is our very strong conviction that we should have been influenced to influence the deep -- the seabed -- that gives one country in one country only come out a membership on the key

decision-making body. as example of a decision, subject to u.s. approval, would be any rules, regulations or procedures for implementing the seabed mining regime, or amendments there, too, any revelations relating to the payments of oil and gas production on the continental shelf, beyond 200 on all miles. adoption of any amendments unsent amendments to the seabed mining regime, and finally, i think it is worth saying, and this really echoes something that the chairman said, royalties under this convention are not a net loss to the united states, but a net gain, because companies will not drill that part out so there is no money that would be coming to the treasury order to profit profit of the companies, and we have gained from both domestic oil

production and the prophets. i am a recovering lawyer, so i have been in this position in my past life. there is a way to raise questions about this, but this debate has gone on for 20 years, and when you look at the people from jim baker to paddy rice to george shultz to michael chertoff, who have supported this in both administrations, republican and democratic, just don't think we are all missing something, senator. i think that we are trying our best to make a case that the united states will be advantaged and, in fact, our sovereignty will be advanced. >> thank you, secretary clinton. i appreciate your analysis on that and that is your position of the menstruation.

i, too, am a recovering lawyer, we have to call ourselves recovered rather than ex- lawyer, as i read this, as it affected the assembly shall be considered the supreme organ. i also see that the assembly, and not the council, has ultimate power to decide upon the equitable sharing of financial and other benefits. that causes me to ask a question. would it there are those who disagree with your opinion? that the treaty does not come as you point out, adopt any framework to tie the united states into a climate change control regime or any kind of system that could limit the emission of greenhouse gases.

this is the assembly takes a different position? could they reach a different conclusion and read several provisions of the treaty, including articles 207, and 212, coupled with the dispute resolution provisions of an act six. could it not be interpreted and be concluded differently than the conclusions he reached today? we do not believe that they could, on either the -- concerns such as these are not only going to be properly vetted, they can be taken into account with a resolution of ratification, you know, there is no obligation that the united states in the area of climate change would be

forced to accept or adopt by anything done by the assembly under the convention of the law of the sea. that could certainly be clarified and insisted upon in the ratification resolution language. >> i see that my time has expired. it is not just the assembly, we could get involved in a tribunal, and at that point, if this is a ratified treaty, arguably, our courts would be bound to enforce the judgment of an international tribunal convened under the authority of. thank you. >> senator lee, i'm just checking in on that. it is my understanding that we would not be subject to that

because we would be able to choose arbitration and the arbitration is actually limited. but i see you are ready to leap. [laughter] >> arbitration, so we get to choose to arbitrators, and the other side gets to choose to as well. if we can't come to an agreement as to the pit, and that person has chosen by the secretary-general, and it is limited to what it is. we will go through this. we will clarify it and as the secretary just said, secretary clinton, we are not going to subject ourselves, this exercise is not to diminish our sovereignty. it is to grow our sovereignty. we believe this treaty, in its hole, will preserve sovereignty. we hope the weekend convince you that in the end. we have the ability through the ratification also supervise some of that.

secondly, i believe it will be clarified, eating your initial question if you look at 160 g., they are only able to make those decisions in the assembly, while consistent with the convention and the rules and regulations. and the procedures of the authority. the rules and regulations and procedures of the authority are specifically set by the council, and it is rare, and that is how it has worked and that is how it does work. in the end, the assembly is simply implementing what has been put forward, and we have a veto over what that rule or regulation will be if implemented. again, this will be clarified appropriately, and we will have the experts here who can make that clear. in fact, i would like to ask, i think that would be helpful, secretary, if your legal teams, would put their heads together,

and if you want to leave the record open for a week, if you could submit your formal, legal understanding that, to answer the senators questioned, that will be particularly helpful to the record. >> we would be happy to, senator. >> senator lugar, do you have any additional questions? >> on that basis, let me thank all of you. this has been a terrific opening engagement. i appreciate, obviously come the focus of everybody on it. i am confident that these questions are going to be answered as we go forward. there is going to be plenty of opportunity. we will have more of the active commanders of each of the areas of concern who will speak to their experience in the field. we will have businesses themselves come forward and we will have some other groups and entities that are concerned and have plenty of opportunity to be able to bet this as we go forward. i think you and i think your

testimony was excellent. we will build the most expensive and exhaustive record that has been built on this. and i think we will provide her our colleagues in the senate with ample opportunity to be able to make sound decisions. with that, we thank you very, very much joining us today, and we thank you for the jobs you are doing, all of you. we appreciate it very much, and we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] up next on c-span 2, afghanistan war commander general john allen, holds a news

briefing at the pentagon. and then, the new book, "it's even worse than it looks: how the american constitutional system collided with the new politics extremism." later, secretary of state clinton and defense secretary panetta asked the senate to ratify the law of the sea treaty. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will talk about jobs and the economy with democratic senator bar package. and we will be joined by "washington post" writer eli saslow. the author of 10 letters from the stories of americans tell their president. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> welcome to wichita, kansas.

we are here in the city of wichita, with waking up the city for 22 years. we think we have a heck of a start. today the mayor will talk about the problem with having in the city with taxicabs. 9:20 a.m., hang onto that he will. >> june 2 and 3rd, "book tv" in american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of wichita, kansas. >> we have a modest looking paper wrapped binding. an alphabetical list of the members of the senate and house of representatives done in 1831. i believe this was issued only, as it says here, for the members immediate use only. they didn't have syrups machines, but they were not supposed alone this out because, as you can see, it would tell you exactly where everybody lives, so you could go and punch

them if you didn't like them. >> watch for "book tv" in american history tv in wichita on june 2 and 3rd on c-span 2 and 3. >> commander john allen held a news briefing at the pentagon where he talked about u.s. and pakistan relations, and plans to end combat operations in afghanistan in 2014. the doctor who helped the cia locate osama bin laden was sentenced to 33 years in prison for conspiring against the state. this isn't a half-hour. this is a half-hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. it is good to see many of you here today, i saw many of the recently. i would like to have a brief statement beforehand, and i will tell you that i left the senate heartened by the overwhelming

commitment in afghanistan through 2014 and beyond, and particularly the afghan national security forces. i believe that the nato summit in chicago sent three unmistakable messages to the world. to the afghan people, that we are committed to your future. to the region, the international community will not abandon afghanistan. and to the taliban, you cannot wait us out. among the important outcomes of this event was the resounding commitment by the isaf partner nations for the long-term support of afghan national security forces. it is a sufficient force that is capable and sustainable in the post- 2014. matt. further, it is noted that the isaf commander would assess the operational conditions, the capability of the afghan national security forces periodically, and right now we are planning every six months. that way we can adapt our plan ultimately for the final size and structure of the ansf and

the post- 2014 period as conditions require. during the last 12 months from the afghan security forces have expanded from 276,000 to 340,000. they will reach their full search strength ahead of the scheduled deadline in october. additionally, afghan forces are increasingly in the lead throughout the battle space. and the afghans were in lead for the lead for the planning of this year's campaign plan operation nawid. president karzai's recent announcement of the transition is a significant milestone. the coming transition of every provincial capital and the afghan national security forces providing relief for the last three quarters of the population of the ansf. as a result of this success, we are able to increasingly repulsed or our own fo