>> it becomes unpredictable. and then you get unprepared if you will and then you get this,

and to debate which is okay if everybody is agreed upon with a customary international law is, but it evolves and becomes domestically derived in some locations. that's kind of we have right now in the south china sea. so we save ourselves how do we preclude this? we should talk to not have beleaguered behavior. so we pursue things like military maritime consultative agreement talks with china, for example, and others. i host heads of navy every two years and international see powers. having something like the law of the convention as a book that we all have agreed to, we said that is a okay lets talk about the protocols that we're all kind of going to agree to, or what is the basis of the disagreement would be very helpful. >> i appreciate that. each of you know we have briefings here about so-called pivot of our national defense towards the south china sea,

towards the pacific. that's what it's very crucial both in terms of over talking about today as well as our overall national defense to foreign policy. thank you very much. >> senator cardin. >> thank you very much mr. jordan. let me thank you all for your leadership and your service to our country. you have all indicated that you support the ratification of the law of the sea treaty. at least in discussions with us for almost 20 years, so this is been an issue that's been around the united states senate for a long time. i would like to get from you and assessment as to whether this is just something that would be nice to get out of the way and done, or whether this is an important issue as relates to our national security. >> i can start off. i think it is an important issue related to national security. someone pointed out there are no operations that we've been unable to conduct because we have not become a party to the convention. that, in fact, history.

as we look to the future which is what this is about, and we see some of the erosion to customary international law that was referred to write others, that's what we are concerned about. we would rather not wait until that becomes a crisis for us. we would rather get the treaty ratified now so we have the fundamental basis of international treaty law for us to do what we need to do, and counter those might be taking off in maritime assignment. we believe it is an issue for maritime treaty. stick is there any disagreement on that or further clarification? >> if i may, senator. the arctic as mentioned earlier by senator lugar is a new area. i don't know what's customary up there. we will be defining our behavior and our protocols. therefore, i would say this is an opportunity. >> in regards to the arctic, that is an area that is emerging as to the issues. issues that are currently being

thought of or not 10 years ago. it's an emerging area of great interest to the united states. as i understand it, we're the only country that borders the arctic that is not a member, has not ratified the law of the sea. explained a little bit more how that -- as these discussions are taking place. >> senator, i'm the commander of northern command and it's my area of responsibility. arctic is a fast changing environment. it's harsh. there are few assets available. working together is really at a premium. it's the opening of a new frontier, danger and uncertainty, and also opportunity. so the idea that strongest, the fastest, the most aggressive party can define the customary international law is not the approach to any of the eight arctic nations decided to take. it would empower me as i provide

leadership on behalf of the united states in the arctic to start with that rules-based framework, the firmness of treaty law and order to start sorting through the uncertainty that we face up there. and as i said, there is a large premium working together in the arctic right now. >> thank you for the. i want to get back to china for one moment. i think back a decade ago when we were looking at china and say gee, we shouldn't should be able to manager trade issues with china. was going to be a major problem with america and that we see how this has developed. the maritime interests in china seems to be expanding. they seem to be more bold than they had in the past. some of which we believe are not appropriate under international law. can you tell us how ratification of the law of the sea would put us in a stronger position, vis-à-vis china, as it relates to its maritime ambitions?

>> i can start and then turn it over to admiral locklear. one of the things as we talk about, the concerned about erosion of law and one of the areas where china has been asserted is in writing national laws that would restrict maritime activity in their exclusive economic zone. and some of the maritime activity is very important to us from a military sense, and perhaps in a classified briefing later in the year we can go over that. but without being a party to the convention, we really don't have a leg to stand on if we try to invoke the conventions clear rights in terms of our ability to operate in that exclusive economic zone. so that is again, a future source of friction. it's already a source of friction but it could get worse and we would like to see fundamental underpinning of a session of the tree to back up our rights in edc to do what we need to do on from a military basis. >> i fully agree.

it provides a solid, fixed, favorable legal framework for us to first protect u.s. navigati navigation, as well as a sovereignty of our ships and aircraft. so that's the first thing it does. it would align us being part of the convention, it aligns our international legal authorities with those of our allies and our partners and our friends that are in that region which are important to i think it would strengthen our standing to support our allies who are dealing with some of these issues, particularly in the south china sea. and it would, and they are trying to find a mechanism to align their maritime claims with international law, and so would improve our overall support and our standing as we try to get them to result in an ever increasing complex environment. weird look for here i think not in the rearview mirror, the complexity of the maritime environment because of demand for resources, because of the

amount of goods. 10 years ago the amount of things that float on the ocean across the sea lines, in that 10 years it quadrupled because of the globalization of the economy. so we need to make sure that we're able to work through these disputes from a solid,, favorable legal framework, rather than resulting every one of these issues being a standoff that could potentially lead to i think us down a path i don't think we want to go. >> and 1990s when the treaty was first brought to the senate there were concerns, those concerns were shared by some of our allies, modifications were made. our allies when ahead, ratified the treaty, the congress, the senate has not followed suit. from your testimony here today, am i correct to say that you believe today it's more important to ratify the treaty that was a decade ago, that circumstances on the sea continue to present additional

challenges that the law of the sea would help america in promoting its national interest and its national security, is that a fair assessment? that it is even more important today than 10 years ago because of emerging issues? >> absolutely. a decade ago there were not as many nations that were asserting their claims into maritime environment and the way, as there are today. and those claims, those excessive claims continue to grow. so i would say definitely compared to 10 years ago it's more important today than it was. >> thank you. >> before i recognize senator corker let me just quickly, on your question about the arctic, i just wanted to comment, i believe the russians are sending their fifth mission into the arctic to do plotting this summer, and the chinese have been up there in very significant ways. is that not accurate? >> yes, that is. >> again, this will be part of a classified briefing for all the

members, but it's quite significant, what is happening there without recourse in in illegally, is that correct to? >> that's correct, senator. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank each of you. i do believe that each of you are here with your own views but i know sometimes we can have silos were one part of our government wants something to happen, other parts may be jeopardized and that's our role here is to balance all of us all. but we thank you very much for being here and certainly for your service. admiral locklear, my friend and colleague, senator lugar, ask you about china and the philippines. it looks to me like it's just the opposite of what we just said. that those two countries are signatories to law of the sea treaty. there's a dispute and there's no resolution that looks to me like that the law of the sea treaty is not working as it should be with two countries having a dispute and both being signatories.

i'd like for you to explain why the law of the sea treaty has already resolved the conflict there, and what is it about it that is taking? >> yes, sir. i think their perspective is correct. it has failed them to some degree. but i think it hasn't been tried in some of these areas that are now emerging. and i believe that there's opportunity, etiquette from all of our speed is what you mean it hasn't been tried? we have a conflict there. they are in dispute and it looks to me like china has basically said sorry, we're not going to adhere to the treaty document. so how is it working? >> well, at this stage my understanding is that the chinese want to solve this in a bilateral relationship. >> so the treaty, they're doing in a bilateral way, is that correct was isn't there -- >> the treaty provides mechanisms should the partner states choose to use it, or the people, the signatory states

choose to use it. so our perspective, and our dialogue with our allies and our partners, as well as the chinese, is that we want them to resolve this using standard rules and to use those that are outlined, those mechanisms that are outlined in the convention, rather than a bilateral way where you may end up having a coercive perspective from one party to the other that drives a decision in the direction that we would not want it to go. >> but it sounds like china is a widow care what you think. we don't care that we're members of the tree, we want to resolve in a bilateral way. to me at once defended the we have a real-life example of a failure of history. admiral winnefeld, let me ask you this. you kept saying, and it just, that this in no way affects our sovereignty. but then you kept saying that if we are not a member, key decisions are being made that affect our sovereign rights.

how can both be to? >> i would say first of all, i want to add a little bit to what sam locklear said, and one of the things that helps us in the south china sea is that we have the nation's, the audi our nations aligned together pushing against china, china tends dilution. when they can cut out somebody from her and go bilateral, then you can do not exit, go under treaty mechanism to deliver a party to the law of the sea treaty we can put our political party, diplomatic are behind that, it would tend to buttress the asean nations supporting the philippines pics of a lot of this is not a magic formula to resolve a dispute between china and the philippines to know what is claimed that but i think it would allow us to more credibility in entering into that environment. and in terms of the sovereignty peace, what we would like is we will be able as a party to the convention to have direct

influence over how the convention is applied. we will be able to more fundamentally and with more credibility apply what is now customary international law that is embedded in the convention. >> but specific, i understand all those things. where a member of the club and, therefore, we can influence the rules of the club. but if the key decisions are being made right now because we're not a party of the treaty that affect our sovereignty, how can you say that the treaty doesn't affect our sovereignty? it sounds like -- >> we would be in the mechanisms of treaty in able to counter those decisions. >> weight i meant. you cannot say on one hand that the treaty in no way affects our sovereignty, and then say that decisions are being made that affect our sovereignty. you can't say that. and it be true. >> what i'm saying is by not being a party to the convention would lose the opportunity to preserve our sovereignty. >> that by virtue of you saying that using the treaty that has

pieces of it that affect our sovereignty. >> it positively affects our sovereignty and of which negative impact on our sovereignty. so for example, to extend continental shelf peace, we would not be able to assert that right, and leslie xc2 the treaty. no one will pay attention to such theoretically someone can come in 201 miles off our coast and explore for natural resources and we don't have the power of the treaty behind us to say sorry, you can't do that. >> admiral papp, can you give me one example of us not being party to this treaty has ever impacted your ability, one life example? >> absolutely, sir. we have countries with in south-central america that excessive territorial sea claims, and oftentimes when you have these questions about jurisdiction, we may have intelligence or we may have a target which we believe is smuggling drugs or people, and

we cannot gain cooperation from these countries that are outside the convention. we are outside the convention but they have jurisdictional claims. we don't have a mechanism for disputing this, and on a routine basis, not only do we lose cases but oftentimes we lose time. our cutters and crews while ago through protracted negotiations on jurisdictional disputes between countries for, in particular drug intervention. we are focused on sunday countries that are challenging us around the world on a day-to-day basis, and i think to buttress what admiral winnefeld was saying, even with her closest friends we have disputes that only can be resolved within the convention. our border between canada and alaska is under dispute, and we cannot negotiate with all the tools in our tool bag with canada and less we're members of the convention to we have waters in northern new england between maine and alaska were we have jurisdictional disputes in terms

of transit that has prevented an lng port to be developed in maine because canada will not allow us to have free and unimpeded passage, because, and i think they are on very loose footing here, because we can negotiate because we aren't members. so it's not just with countries that challenge us. it's also with friends as well, and those can be played against us because we haven't signed on to the convention. >> i find hard to believe we couldn't reach a bilateral agreement with canada, but it sounds a little far-fetched. but i love to talk to you more about it. one last question. i get the impression that we feel like if we were a party to the law of the sea treaty, that it would cause a savings as it relates to dealing with maritime issues throughout our navy, is that correct, admiral? >> i don't know that there's any influence on --

>> we talked about the cost. we have a lot of cost because we're not part of the treaty. we have to do things in a very different way. i mean, it seems to me i've heard that throughout the testimony here today. >> i don't think any of us have expressed it would be more costly for us if we did not exceed to the treaty in terms of financial terms. we will not have any given size of navy if we do or do not see to the treaty. it gives us another tool in the toolbox to do business as a navy. and as a nation. >> listen, i respect each of you. i will say that today's testimony, and thank you very much for your public service, to me it is bogged things up more than it began. and i very much appreciate, i look forward to many one on one meetings as we hash this out, and i thank you very much for your service to our country. >> senator webb. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by just offering an

observation of the exchange that just took place. without getting to the issue of sovereignty, and there are sovereignty issues involved clear in what we are attempting to do in places like the south china sea, i would you say as an observation, treaties in and of their nature compels certain actions by our country. that's why become together and have this process, very carefully before we ratify a treaty. and they also cause an agreement along our governmental people to abide by certain standards. that is what a treaty is about. it does not mean in a treaty, at least in my opinion, we're going to be giving up any of our sovereignty rights. just let me start with that. before i get into my question, i would like to join the chairman and recognizing senator john

warner for his presence here today. i think he has been working on this issue for a very long time, from the time that he was in the department of the navy and ic 25 year-old marine on his staff. that was a long time ago. and it was a pleasure to follow senator warner, secretary of navy, and also to be able to serve with him here in the senate as my senior partner, for all of his service and all that is done in this area. i believe that the indisputable starting point in this discussion really is that the international rules of the road for security and also for commercial exploration have never been more complex. this affects the issues of freedom of navigation. as you have discussed several times this morning. those are basically tactical questions, but also affects issues of sovereignty.

those are strategic questions. and following issues of sovereignty, in and of itself involves commerce and how our nation interacts in a lot of areas that right now are not clear, in terms of who has those rights. that is apparent in the arctic as has been discussed. it's also clear in such areas as the islands where, after a number of years, quiet dispute in 2010, japan and china blow up over sovereignty. that could have involved our security treaty with japan if it had gone further. it is clearly evident in the south china sea. we were, from our office, the initial, we initially offered

senate resolution condemning chinese actions a couple years ago involving the use of military force in the philippines off of the coast of vietnam. we had unanimous vote by the senate but had two very important pieces of it in terms of the expression of the senate. one was deploying the use of force by naval and maritime security vessels from china. and the other was calling on all parties to refrain from threatening the use of force and to continue efforts to facilitate multilateral peaceful processes, as we address these issues. and that to me is the most important component of what we are talking about today. we need to find the right forum to address disputes where claims can be resolved, with the agreement of multiple claimants.

and this is a key point when discussing the activities of china, particularly to this point. not only china. there's five claimants. there are a lot of these that are potentially going to affect sovereignty rights and eventually commercial competition. asean has been mentioned the asean has -- is a very important into the. 659 people with a widely burying governmental systems among them. they have been struggling. for 10 years now, to find rules of navigation in sovereignty, to try to calm down the process of this part of the world. they've issued a proclamation in '02 trying to lay down rules of the road. they issued another one recently. we have not been totally successful with china. we all know that, but we have

been attempting to develop a number of different ways to encourage china to come into the solutions process on a multilateral basis. in our office we done the same thing with respect -- china does not recognize downstream water rights. that makes it very difficult to bring china into a multilateral solutions process. there is no place that is truer than look at the sovereignty rights in the future of activities and commercial endeavors in the south china sea. for that reason i think this is a format that will greatly assist us in the future. and i know that there are questions on the other side. i'm sure all of you have seen the editorial in "the wall street journal" yesterday that was written by former secretary of defense rumsfeld.

he said treaty remains a sweeping power grab that could be the largest mechanism for worldwide this division of and human history the i know that's not in any of your portfolios, but i would like to hear from you, what is the downside? what is the downside? is there in your view a downside? admiral. >> 's on the key city nation on the security side, i'm not sure there's any downside i can point to. the upside is why we're here today but as i mentioned it, it very much increase the 1950 geneva conventions. codifies entry law, not customary law, the things we need to do day in and day out in the navy. and as a force. so in terms on the security side i know of no downside. i have explored the commercial side and it is complex but it seems to me as though this treaty was negotiated and modified in 1994, to our advantage.

but i would leave that to the economic experts to discuss. but i see no downside on the security side. >> senator, if i were to think of a downside it would be misinterpreting the advantages of what this will do force but it's not going to solve everybody's problems. you laid out some very clear issues that we've been dealing with for years and years. i think feeling that the law of the sea convention will solve itself because it establishes law is wrong. now we need to roll up our sleeves and go use it as not instrument to now sit down with nation's, because we have a consistent instrument that we can use. >> i see no downside from a security perspective. i see a downside for the status quo the. it leaves us rely on customary international law which i think is going to morph into way that we can't predict. it leaves us outside the full international legal framework

that governs rights and obligations, and the actions of her allies, partners and friends, it weakens are standing to object inappropriate actions of other states that violate conventions. 160 countries have signed up for this thing. they don't all follow it to the letter of the law but we are not in their to be able to object to the. and i think it weakens our ability to shake potential changes to the convention that we may want to see in the future. >> senator, i find it interesting you use the rules of the road at the beginning of your statement there, and that commits one of the greatest analogies here. the rules of the road for centuries were determined by customary international law. the challenge was taken as we went from sail to steam and vessels approach each other much more quickly, everybody had their own version of customary international law. and consequently collisions occurred. all countries agreed at a certain point of collision avoidance regs which standardized things across the

entire world for manner that sees. they are stability, predictability in those rules which sailors depend upon. and i think that's a perfect analogy for us is that we continue under customary international law it changed and it has a different view of it. would negotiate ourselves in position with this is most favorable to us, almost like having a lottery ticket, a winning lottery ticket that you don't cash in and you can't use the proceeds. >> i would respectfully submit that the series of exchanges we've had with china where they have insisted on only bilateral solution is perhaps the strongest argument for us proceeding forward where we can continue to encourage multilateral -- >> thank you. i'm sorry, senator corker isn't still here, that we should probably chat with them about

it. but everyone i think has agreed, i mean one of the reasons we have our presence where we do in the pacific is because we are viewed by most nations out there as being the indispensable nation. and clearly china would love to just use its power bilaterally leverage some of the country. the united states is at the table, there is a unity, a whole different equation the chinese have to take into account. so the virtue, then, it in fact adventures the chinese for us to be out. and secretary clinton and others have told me personally that they have been ribbed, kind of what's the word? made fun of any jocular kind of way at various meetings when the subjects, because we are not a member. and they say look, you're not a

member, you don't have any standing to bring this up. so people need to wait that as we go forward here. senator risch. >> chairman, admiral papp, you know, we said it every day and it isn't very often our intelligence is insulted. but for you to come and tell us that we can't resolve a border dispute with candidate because we're not a member of this law of the sea treaty really does that big of a story that you chose to go down that route because i think those kind of representation really undermine the statements and illogical arguments made by others who want to see this treaty authorized. i was surprised as all of you testified that the south china sea was mentioned until we got to admiral locklear. i was going to go down the same route that senator corker did in that regard, and i guess i will touch on it, at least some. i would say that most people in america don't realize what a

mess the south china sea is in, and the description that we have had here today has been very and the second. i met with representatives of the government, and it's not just the philippines. it's other governments that are having the same kind of difficulties, and they are begging for help. not one of them asked that we ascribe to the law of the sea treaty. they want you guys to do something about. they wanted me to urge the president to have you do something about it, which i'm not inclined to do by the way. but senator corker made the point that this treaty was negotiated 30 years ago this coming december 12. it was adopted b the united states, by the united nations a couple decades ago, and every one of the players in the south china sea is a subscriber to this treaty. yet, this treaty is just a piece of paper and it is just flowery

speeches like we've had here today, until the gate open and the registers to the gates open and the rodeo has started and this thing hasn't helped one bit to resolve the tension, the disputes, that are going on in the south china sea's. they are shooting at each other. there's been munitions spent. and this thing hasn't done one thing to help, as senator corker has pointed out. can anyone of you point to mean one thing that this treaty has done on a specific basis? people, places and a timing, tell me one thing that this treaty has done to resolve the disputes and the tensions that have taken place in the south china sea. and i don't want to talk about the future. i don't want to talk about what a wonderful document it is. i want to know what did one country do to use the provisions of this treaty to help itself in

the mess that we're in and the south china sea? who wants to try that? >> we pointed out the treaty is not a magical document that will cure the ills of the south china sea. it is yet another tool. i think the nation's there will feel more empowered use whatever mechanisms are in order to insist the mechanisms the law of the sea treaty use but if we're a party -- >> but -- >> our influence to do that. it might not work. if that's the case there are other mechanism. why should we leave right away to the use of force is our something along that border when we had opportunity bring our infancy there in the region. the nation in that region will be a lot more comfortable if we are bringing our influence to bear with the treaty law behind us and if we are on the outside looking in with no credibility to be able to having exceeded to the tree. to make statements about the treaty.

>> i'm not suggesting that you should jump in with force. i'm not suggesting that at all. what is suggesting is this a been an abject failure for the members who sign this and have been members for years and years and years. they are coming to us asking for help. can anybody answer my question? give me one example of a tension or a difficulty that was result as a result of this treaty by the members who operate in the south china sea. give me one example. anybody do that? i'll take that as an edge. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me give you an answer because it's important enough that china, the philippines and vietnam have both specifically asked us to join the law of the sea in order to be able to help them leverage a peaceful outcome to the disputes of the south china sea. because they can't do it on their own because of china's

power. and china, until we are in the law of the cbs listen to is either because we are not party to it. so i will make sure those documents and those types are made available to the senator. but, you know, china wants a different outcome. china doesn't want us in the law this evening. it's going to take a different equation within the law of the sea photonic they feel compelled to listen. but those nations are at huge disadvantage but if you look at the map of what china is claiming it's clear why. so clearly, the law of the sea on its own will not resolve. >> mr. chairman, with all due respect, i don't understand it. if you have these countries that signed this agreement that is supposed to resolve these kind of disputes, whether they are -- should not make any difference whatsoever. there's 160 some countries who are in here. supposedly this document is

supposed to do something to be a mechanism by which they resolve this dispute. and it simply hasn't happened. >> senator, it does. it provides a forum with a set of rules that if a party to any dispute, this is true anywhere in any country any time, here in the united states. if you have two parties, you know, whether it's a sports figure negotiating with the franchise owner and they go to arbitration ultimately because they can't come to agreement because one party doesn't want to agree. about the united states senate where we can have no agree to will have a sequestered. there's a great example. there are plenty of examples where people can agree and you need a structured to agree spent and it hasn't worked. it hasn't worked with respect to the south china sea. but the question is, with the presence of the united states at the table in conjunction with those other nations be a precursor and lay predicate to other options if you had to come to them. the answer is, i think by most

experts they would say absolutely. if you go to war, do you want to go to war with china over the south china sea? you better lay the predicate. >> i would surely hope the united states doesn't give any consideration going to war with china over the south china sea. this document was supposed to long ago have resulted this, amongst the players and the south china sea, and not one person has been able to give me a specific example to one of these tensions, or one of these disputes that's been resolve. >> with respect to the south china sea other things are very obvious reasons but will have plenty of testimony that will show you the ways in which on everyday basis countless decisions are made which create rules of the road. admiral papp s. testify to that, which let out the rules of the road, which have assisted and avoided conflict, and there are dozens of examples where conflict is avoided or various

thorny issues have been resolve by virtue of people being at the table. you know, we have that arms control agreements between the united states and the former soviet union. and we didn't always have a resolution as a result of it, but ultimately we found the forum was a mechanism to try to move forward. i guess it's a fundamental belief about what you think it did have some structure within which you can work these things through or you want to do and actually ad hoc basis. i don't think anything should diminish the veracity and impact of the evidence that says from our commanders who are dealing with, you know, young officers and sailors and forces in various ways on a daily basis who were put in harm's way tried to do a poor church are trying to stop a drug interdiction, whatever it is. to our advantage according to testimony of these commanders by the presence of this agreement. you may not agree, but these are the commanders who are telling

us on a daily basis those advantages are there. with respect to the south china sea, i would rather have the united states be at the table. and i date you if we are at the table within the confines of this, we can help resolve some of those issues. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman kerry, for holding another hearing on the law of the sea. i'm grateful to the panel for the testimony. as i expressed of the previous hearings, i'm concerned that the debate over this treaty is locked in a framework that is decades out of date. all major questions about this treaty have been answered thoroughly. not once, but twice by both democratic and republican administrations, and we're now in the process of thoroughly vetting him a third time. in our last hearing after listening to and asking questions or of general dempsey, secretary panetta, secretary clinton, it was apparent to me the real risk we face is letting others draw boundaries, set rules and advance their economic interest without the united states having a seat at the

table. all the while putting our national security interest at some risk by failing to ratify this treaty. based on what i've heard and read today and over the last few weeks, as well as the 30 years of commentary before that, there seem to be two schools of thought on this treaty's impact on our national security. first, there are those who are new, and i would put many today witnesses in this camp, that the law of the sea is a treaty that contains by the provisions about navigation. that would help our armed forces carry out their global mission. it also as we'll hear it includes benefits for american business. there's others who believe the laws he conventions agreement with only minimal -- which has little impact on the armed forces a we focus our time on this international seabed authority of picking apart the functioning of a group of international bookkeepers. i disagree. in my view there are real benefits to the united states in terms of navigational rights i'd like to focus on. as many distinguished witnesses

have testified the strategic side of the street i would like to focus narrowly on the question of sort of exactly how in the real world freedom of navigation operations are carried out and what potential benefit there might be as result of a session to this day and since nine at the 15th of the nations with excessive maritime claims in 2011 were challenged by armed forces through pacom, pacom's area of responsibility i'm going to focus my questions today to admiral greenert and locklear. admiral greenert, if i could start just to reiterate with what was covered in the last hearing for the sake of a starting point, is it correct that in navigation disputes, the united states kirtley asserts customary international law as defined by the law to see? >> that's correct. >> so when another nation whether allied or competitor claims customary international law does allow their claim in access to those allowed by law of the sea, the united states then performs a freedom of navigation operation to reassert the real customary international

law? >> well, when accosted, our commanders are directed to say we are operating in international waters. so in effect you could say yes. we do a freedom of navigation. but in addition to, we do regular scheduled freedom of navigation operations. admiral locklear manages those in the pacific they are well documented, transparent, saying why we're going to do it. >> is the united states did not contest and excessive claims are either routine or special freedom of navigation operation, are we at some risk that would set a new president and that our competitors, allies or others would suggest somehow the united states agreed to customary international law might allow them? >> i believe that is so. we are looked at very much as the ones that sort of set the standard not only in the pacific but the arabian gulf, the north arabian sea. if we say that inland sea

started 75 miles, in other words, if her behavior is that, the others will assume we believe that and that is what, that is what we attest. >> admiral locklear, fmi. in a freedom of navigation operation, generally speaking, not act stink about techniques but generally speaking, is it correct that an aircraft or maritime -- because no one successful intercepts, turned back or fires on that aircraft or vessel? >> that's correct. >> so it sounds to me like this is a process that is not without cost and risk. secretary panetta said clearly of the last hearing we never gave up our rights for self-defense, and so when we insert men and women, aircraft, vessels into these situations, i presume, it is some risk

associated. >> that's correct. >> so when we have success of reassert customary international law in a contested area, do these other nations sometimes reassert their testimony? >> they do spent and we have to conduct another freedom of navigation operation. this is a back and forth that routinely contested thing that is just part of your mission, week in week out, year end, you're a? >> that's correct. we have a plan recognized for the contested areas are. and then we plan and approval for freedom of navigation operations that do the same thing to do what you just said. they contest, they show that we are not abiding by that claim. >> admiral greenert, the report provided shows a number of countries with excessive claims that the united states armed forces had actively engaged in challenging has actually tripled since 2006, the number of

countries making the excessive claims and the number of incidents that are required of freedom of navigation operation. have tripled since 2006. what a session to the convention to eliminate the need altogether for freedom of navigation exercise. >> i don't think it would eliminate altogether the need for -- periodically we would come in order to establish what is codified into law the secret agent we would continue that. it's right and proper we believe, but it would certainly save indeed for the requirement to do that because we feel compelled to do that for reasons you said, our behavior helps our coalition and allies, potential allies to see what the standards are, what the standards are. >> advo, if i hear you right, what a session to the convention provide an alternative nonlethal less risky, less asset consuming tool to a certain navigation rights? >> yes, it would. and so my conclusion is that

freedom of navigation operation, what you're provocative to nations, some which are allies, some which are our opponents, have steadily increased in number in systems, and cost of complexity over recent years. and based on a testament it seems to me, mr. chairman, in conclusion, that when you and senator lugar have said for a long time is correct, united states has to continue to carry out increasingly large number of freedom of navigation operation picked each of which is inherently life-threatening for servicemembers and consider limited assets and is also provocative to nations whose claims were contesting with hostile, from the our ally. the entire process could be avoided in some circumstances by ratifying this treaty and been able to contest the excessive claims in the ways that allows us to do. so this treaty makes a real difference for the average men and women who serve us on the ic in the air, around the world, anand in my gut, contributes

meaningfully to the national security of the united states. achy for your testimony today. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. let me first of all say all six of you, i know all about you. you are great guys, and you serve your country. i have the greatest respect for you. i don't envy you of it. you are put in a position -- i know all a bit about chain of command because i was in a very low deficient. my chain of command started with my master sergeant and on up to the lieutenant and the rest of it. yours is the president of the united states. he's the commander-in-chief. so you're going to naturally reflect anything that comes from the united states. you have to. you our military, and i understand. that. i have been there. what i'd like to do is, is suggest that maybe after your

retirement you might change your mind. i'm looking right now at 24 stars. i just had a few strides is all i had to 24 stars, and that's very, very impressive. i have a letter signed by 33 stars. these guys have already retired. on this letter, and i'm going to ask this be made a part of the record, it says -- i can't read a letter to test of time. that we challenge the perception that military personal uniformly support and this accord by expressing our strongly held belief that the law of the sea ratification would prove -- both the national security interests and sovereignty of the united states, it talks about, goes back and gives a history of this thing. they have very, very strong language and signed by nine of the top level people who are in retirement. i ask it to be part of the record. >> without objection.

>> i also want to make a part of the record, the reserve officers association. this is a letter that we have here -- is irresolution, at the very end of the resolution it says, incompletion the reserve officers association does not endorse ratification of the law of the sea treaty. it advocates against the. historically the united states has claimed its rights and territories were manifest to a degree -- acknowledges that the united states -- nation's has authority over the united states maritime territorial claims, reserve officers association concern is that the law of the sea treaty will become, and he goes on and on. so i asked also that this be made a part of the record. these are all retired people, and i think that is significant. now, i want to have to quickly go through this but i assume that you all a great come ages to be a yes or no answer because

there isn't time for more than a yes or no answer. that not signing this is not going to compromise in any way our ability to use force or to navigate, is that true, yes or no come do you agree with that, starting with you spend yes, i agree with that. >> do you of greece because yes, sir spent at the moment it will not. in the future it could. >> i agree. >> okay, you all agree? okay. the last hearing, i guess, here's a guy who is your boss, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, at the last hearing he was asked a question as to whether or not this would have an effect. he said, whether failure to ratify the law of the sea treaty would compromise our ability and project force around the world, and his answer at the united states would continue to assert our ability to navigate and our

ability to project force, it would not be deteriorated if we do not ratify this treaty. i won't ask you whether you agree or disagree with your boss, but i agree with them. when i talked to people in what i call the real world, that's outside of washington, in oklahoma, i say what you think about a treaty that allows another entity to tax the united states for the first time, or to sue in a court not in the united states, they find that this is a real sovereignty issue. we talk about sovereignty after but we haven't gotten into specifics. i don't think anyone is going to question the fact that this does give the seabed authority the rise, the privilege, the authority. and it comes to royalty. right now the royalties on the area extended around the

continental shelf race between 12.5% and 18.75%. and the reason that is a range is because the old compass that would go, they would say anything in excess of that range would not be interested in doing it. so we have to do in that range. according to the u.s. in the agency intercontinental task force talks about the resources out there are worth billions if not trillions. now, if you just merely take the trillion number and you apply that, at the end of 12 years it would get up to 7% of these royalties that would otherwise go to the united states. now, that amount would be around $70 billion. i won't ask you to question i asked the last panel because i don't want to put you in that situation. but by doing this and having the authority to access of that amount, i'm going to ask, does anyone know of any time in history of this country that we

have exceeded our authority to allow someone else to tax us? and the second thing would be on -- which i think standardly is going, he certainly is a much better position to talk about the fact that you just want to make sure it's in the record when you talk about the people who are chomping at the bit, waiting for us to become a party of the street so they can -- one person that i would quote in the record would be the international tribunal well, i don't have it here. the andrew elster also who, the forum was the global warming ambition. he said the article proposed

various for for a initiative lawsuits against the united states, including the law of the sea treaty compulsory dispute resolution which i'm sure that senator lee will be talking about. as the united states has not adhered to the convention, however, a suit could not be broad and less we adhere to the convention. in a book that was written, i'm a change, damage and international law, a law professor wrote that she posted competence of hypothetical case that could be brought against the united states for its alleged responsibility in melting glacier, causing glacier outburst and floods. the interest -- the reason i'm interested in this, we in the senate and house have refused to adhere to this to pass on to put a limitation, and here we would be cheating that authority to someone else. so i would merely, the last thing i would mention, drink if you'd allow me to do this, they keep talking about a seat at the

table. i think my good friends to my right, senator demint, we'll ask what table are you talking about. because we already have a table at the end it's called international maritime organization. and it says, they've had this since world war ii. it says a compass by passing, adopting implement the standards, maritime safety and security, and prevention of control of pollution from ships. the source of approximate 60 legal incidents the guy they rated four in thibault to its members states and improve the area of the sea. so those questions i would ask are, you really don't think that our sovereignty, to some international group pursuant to the essays are taxing the united states and also can you tell me of instances where the imo has not answered these problems we been talking about to your

satisfaction? thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much center. a lot on the table. do you want to respond, admiral? >> doesn't awful lot, enforceable it's great to see you again, center. i always enjoyed our conversation. there's an awful lot speeded up until now. >> even now. even now, with respect. there's an awful lot into question and i think we would have to have a detailed one-to-one discussion because i'm not sure that i would agree it is a tax as opposed to a royalty. i would also suggest, and again cannot be economic expert for the industry person who might testify to this but i think a lot of these guys are not investing in these areas because they are worried that they don't have the underpinning of treaty law to protect them. and so it's money that is not there because they are not drawing the natural resources from the extended continental shelf that perhaps we as a nation would like to see them draw. >> if we did, of course would be able to get that royalty in the

range that i discussed. and, of course, 7% would represent more than 50% of the royalties we would otherwise be a sedative. >> depending on range. we would be down to serving 11 points 75, which at the moment that money doesn't exist. another example would be the reserve officers association let which i read for the first time this morning, which i found, after i read it, i felt like these guys ought to go get better advice because there are a number of statements into that i think are incorrect, or misleading. for example, they talk about territorial seas, 1958 convention. that's just not true. it talked about sort of cleverly that, that convention defined international straits. but what it didn't do was, what the law of the sea does is define what transit passage is through those areas. it's not in the geneva

convention. it is in the law of the sea treaty law of the sea treaty and should be very important to me and i would want to go to classify discussion, is below the sea convention decides that she defines a stateless vessel. that's incredibly important to us. so the arson and actress in that letter that i would love to and walk through, even though they're a great bunch of guys who mean the best for our country. so again, as i said, always enjoyed our conversations and i look forward potential to have one on this very important subject. >> thank you very much, admiral. admiral papp? >> i leave the u.s. delegation for international maritime organization. i went to a first general assembly this fall, and in every discussion, bilateral and multilateral, every conversation starts out with the every -- the other country -- because every negotiation that is done with has to do with piracy, whether it has to do with boeing casualty, overseas, everything is formed on the basis of the

treaty. and with us being an outsider, oftentimes just because of who we are, because of the united states, we can influence it and we can still get things done. but it makes it more difficult for us to get these things done. we are looking at this and how are going to operate in the future, what tools we have use in the future. and customary international law, countries influence, they ebb and flow. they rise, they fall. this is something that assures us because it's the basic underpinning of all these treaties, all these agreements that we can do. >> and did you -- my question was, where has this not worked in the past? >> i can give you one right now. and it's even with the arctic. i personally requested a meeting with all the other arctic representatives there so that we can continue our negotiations in

terms of coming up with the details of the search and rescue agreements for the arctic, for pollution response in the arctic spent they didn't meet with you? >> they did meet with me, sir. because we are the united states. we still have influence, but will that influence continue for ever? shifting politics, shifting strength of countries. what i can say is that each and every one of those looks, those countries looks to the united states for leadership, setting an example under the rule of law, and being in a leadership position. and we are not quite in that leadership position, given the current stands we are him spinning do you think in the future if we are given the opportunity, which would have to say, admiral, that is a tax, that's money. that redistribute by some organization that we don't even have a voice in, do you think that's in the best national

security interests of? >> i think it's all speculative at this point because nobody is going to drill on the continental shelf because they don't have legal assurances that are given by the convention. and if we are a member of the convention, we do have a seat at the table, someone asked what table, the international seabed authority where we would have the one permanent seat in veto power. .. >> then we would veto it. >> on distributing the funds,

yes. but the funds would already be there. the tax, the royalty would already be in effect. they would have the control over those funds that came from our efforts that otherwise would be coming to the united states. so that doesn't effect that. they would have that authority. it's just you're saying we could direct which countries they go to. but they wouldn't be coming to ours. >> some of them could be coming to ours -- >> for the record, i want you to send me a scenario by which any of that would come to the united states. >> i want to intervene -- >> mr. chairman? >> well, no, i've given you way more than double the amount of time of any other senator because i want an opponent to have the opportunity to grill people. >> i appreciate it. >> i think that's really important, and i want to get these issues out on table. but i do think it's important that we try to establish what's fact and what isn't. there is no power and no right

of taxation in this document. and we will have an understanding and a declaration that makes it clear in the resolution of ratification that the united states of america will never accede to any other country's tax, that there is no tax in here, and it will be properly defined. >> mr. chairman, we are saying that they'll have a percentage of the royalties that -- >> a royalty. a royalty is -- >> is not a tax? >> that's correct. a royalty is a bargain, it is an agreement. a royalty is not a tax. no government authority has issued, you know, a tax in any kind of way that constitutes taxation. it is a royalty where the companies were at the table during the negotiation. ronald reagan set that in place and, in fact, we will have testimony from john negro uponty

and others who have been part of these negotiations over a long period of time as to what exactly was agreed on and how. there's a royalty scheme. why is there a royalty scheme? because tree-quarters of the planet earth -- three-quarters of the planet earth is ocean. three-quarters of the planet. and a whole bunch of countries are landlocked. and if the oneses with a border on the ocean have a right to extend their shelf way out into the ocean, you could have very few nations claiming all the resources of the earth to the exclusion of everybody else. what was agreed on was far less than companies paid to drill out coast of louisiana, far less. and it is scaled as to how much mining you take out the ocean. lockheed mart season and can a whole bunch of -- martin and a whole bunch of other companies

decides, wow, you know what? 97% is a whole lot better than 0% of nothing. so they've agreed there will be a scale of some amount that will go to the landlocked nation in compensation for the rights of other countries to exploit the seabed of the earth. we have other a million acres of land out there that we claim for america, more than any other nation on the the face of planet because we have guam, because of hawaii, because of the aleutians and is so forth. we have the most extensive, and i'll bring a map in one today. it's extraordinary. the to sit here and think that we're not going to take advantage of that and stake our claim and have our claims legitimate so our companies can go out would be just astonishing. the companies want this. they, they're ready to pay the royalty. because they want the profits that come from the other 93%. >> we've established the royalties.

i just have to say, and i'm afraid i'll cut you off before i respond -- >> no, i won't. i've never cut you off, senator. >> about a tax. money that would be coming to the united states that by virtue of this treaty would not come to the united states, i call that a tax. most people outside of washington would call that a tax. >> well, senator, you're entitled -- we will, as i said, make it crystal clear in the ratification document, and i think the companies will be quite upset that you are protecting them from earning the profit that they would like to earn. it's sort of remarkable to me. but, so be it. i also think it's important here to deal with facts. general dempsey, indeed, said we would not reduce our force. and, of course -- >> force power. >> of course the united states of america is not going to reduce its force power. but every one of these gentlemen at this table who have the responsibility of sending people

into combat conceivably at some point in time have said they would rather have a tool at their disposal to try to resolve things peacefully first. and what general dempsey said if you quote him completely, which you didn't do, he went on to say that the failure to ratify -- >> where was that quote i had? >> -- puts ourselves at risk of confrontation of others who are interpreting customary international law to the their benefit. so the risk of confrontation goes up. so our force capacity won't go up, but the risk of having it used in a confrontation you don't want goes up. and that's every one of these leaders have said is not advise -- >> i understand. we talked about that. so you would agree then that not going into this treaty would not in any way compromise our ability to project force or to navigate? you would agree with that in. >> not necessarily navigate, but

project force i would agree. we will project force. but it is not necessarily going to effect those rights. if you want to have the confrontation without having a tool to resolve it properly, that is a choice every senator will face when we get to it. but let me -- i've taken up the senator's time, but i just want to also, i think it's important and, admiral, maybe you want to comment on this because part -- the reserve officers' letter, and i respect them completely, and they're entitled, and we will welcome those kinds of comments here. but once again we have to deal with facts. a lot of people are working off of the 1983 treaty. 1982 treaty. and for them and for some people things haven't moved since then. but the negotiation has, and the status of the treaty has changed since then. and so we're dealing with a very different set of facts here. and i think, admiral winnefeld, i think you would agree that

there's an assertion been made here that every provision of the convention is already codified in previous treaties to which we're a party. and i think that's a misunderstanding. it reflects a confusion about what was in customary law as opposed to the older treaties. for example, the 1958 convention, senator, did not possessfy any limit on the territorial sea. and some countries were taking advantage of that loophole to extend theirer -- territorial seas. article iii of the 1982 convention exclusively set a limit according to with u.s. policy. the '58 convention did not include a codification of the right of transit package through straits used for international navigation that had developed in the customary international law. and there are other examples of that. so i just very quickly ask you, admiral winnefeld, is that correct?

>> mr. chairman, i don't mean to be rude and don't want to interrupt, but we have a vote at 12:30. >> fair enough. let's come back to this. we'll come back to this at the appropriate time. we're certainly going to be building the record open, so we'll draw this out so people understand the distinction between the '82 and where we are now, what's in customary and what the relationship is to the treaty. senator udall, thanks so much for your patience. >> thank you, senator kerry, and let me just thank you again for approaching this treaty in a very, very thorough way and having these fine service members before us that are giving us their personal opinions. i think there was some suggestion here that your opinions, i know senator kerry asked you at the beginning are you here giving us the best of your experience and the best of your personal opinions, and i think everyone said, yes. so i think we should put to rest this issue of the idea that the

commander in chief has ordered you to testify in a certain way, is that the case? that these are your personal opinions here based on your experience? yes? everybody nodding. >> that's correct. >> that's correct, senator. >> okay, thank you. there was also a suggestion that on the letter with the retired officers, and you all are active military, that somehow there's a split. do any of you all have a sense, i mean, i know senator warner was here earlier, was a captain in the marines, he's in support. do any of you have a sense of how it comes down in terms of retired military versus active military on this or the various associations or anything? and if you don't know it off the top of your head, you can get us the information. but, please. >> all of the colleagues that i've spoken to, chiefs of naval

operation, the conversation centered around maritime security. that's what i'm conveyed to take care of, and there's not been a split. and those retired not chiefs of naval operation, the issue has been consistent that the elements in the law of the sea convention that enhance maritime security -- which the entire convention that i see does finish there has not been a split. there have been some who are retired that aye spoken -- that i've spoken to said i'm not so sure of, and it involved the economics and the ability to control. that's been my experience be, senator. >> do any of you, would any of the others like to comment on that, or -- >> i'm aware of a 2007 letter written by the military officers' association that is supportive of the treaty, so that's why i was sort of surprised to see this morning the other letter which, again, had some inaccuracies. but i give them credit for the courage and the strength of their convictions, but i think they just had some things inaccurately stated.

>> that's fine. um, the, the navy and the coast guard's ability to conduct maritime interdiction is an important tool to stop drug trafficking and conduct counterproliferations operations. and while some have asserted that the law of the sea treaty puts shackles on our maritime forces, i agree with the assessment of the navy jag that article 110 pertaining to the right of visit actually strengthens our ability to conduct maritime interdictions. can you go into details about how our armed forces will be enabled to conduct their mission by article 110 and why it is important that the navy and the coast guard have the backing of an international treaty to conduct operations they can already conduct via force if needed? >> well, sir, in the service

it's involved in, maritime's intertexts on almost a daily basis i can tell you prior to the convention we tried to work out bilateral or multilateral agreements with other countries that enable us to operate close to the waters. sometimes even in their territorial seas because we're able to come to these agreements whether we use ship writers or other things. it helps us to interdict drugs, my grants and perhaps other things far offshore, sometimes in the departure zone. prior to the convention in the '94 revision, we had about a dozen countries that were able to get into agreements with. after the '94 convention, which had language in there talking about cooperation between countries particularly as it relates to interdicting drugs, we have been -- is and because we comply with the convention even though we haven't acceded

to it, we have built that up to about 45 countries that we have agreements with around the world. however, administrations change, other people are elected in. these constructs that we've come to are on a foundation of shifting sand, and we cannot always rely upon each country to live up to its agreement because things will change. we have some countries that have excessive territorial sea claims that we have to respect. but having the assurance of the underpinning of a solid foundation of the convention would help us in negotiating those things into the future and give us greater predictability. >> thank you very much. >> the elements that describe freedom of navigation, for example, exclusive economic zones, you know, territorial seas and all that, transit package, that all enhances our ability to conduct maritime intercept operations because it

clarifies where we can operate. but also what section 110 does is it provides a clarity for unauthorized broadcasting, drug trafficking, piracy and unflagged nations. as the vice chairman mentioned earlier. but it also says the powers confirmed by other treaties. in other words, the united nations resolutions and all that. that's very clearly laid out and gives us those mandates that enhance our ability to specially in a coalition operation bring it all together, to do maritime intercept. >> any of the other panelists have a comment on that? thank you very much for your answers and thank you for your service. and i -- >> thanks so much, senator udall. and senator, thanks for your patience. appreciate it. >> i thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank all the folks here today. you and the men and women who serve with you make us proud to be americans, and i appreciate you being here to advocate for the treaty. i mean, there are ten pages in

this treaty, um, dealing with navigation that would have a lot of theoretical benefits to our military, to particularly our navy. i don't refute that at all, although some of the things i've heard today would make me even concerned about that part of it. as has been pointed out, where it's really been tested in the south china sea with china violating the rules, with numerous countries affected, there has been no enforcement based on the treaty. numerous countries that are part of this treaty. and the implication i've heard from some of you today maybe worries me more than anything else. is that by joining we, in effect, become the enforcers of this around the world. and i know that's not what you said, but that we add our weight -- but i'm afraid that these other countries are part of this treaty, it's not being enforced, and if we become part

of it, they want us to become part of it for numerous reasons, but one is to help enforce it. that worries me. but i would like to take just a second to explain why i oppose the treaty as a whole, not necessarily the pages you're talking about. and instead of ask a question, yield to senator lee because i know he's studied this a lot, and i'd like to give him a chance to ask questions before we run out of time. but you've explained that the upside of this treaty is that it might give you an additional tool to deal with issues out in the future be, and i respect that. but the downside risks for us seem much greater than that potential benefit that we might have that is clearly theoretical, not working now. the hope is if we get involved, our weight might make it work. but the 300 pages is primarily a document, i will say at least in large part, with environmental issues.

and that may affect us much more than any navigation part of this. and, in fact, just all the research i've done there is not a table in jamaica where the naval powers around the world, except for us, are meeting at a table making decisions about navigation. that's not happening. that's not what they're dealing with now. perhaps our joining the convention could change that, but that's not what the convention is doing now. but the language in this treaty that worries us is particularly that that deals with environmental issues and the ability of this convention to enforce that with signatories of the treaty. and it's clear that the united states is the largest economic power, we're the largest producer, the largest consumer, we also have the largest military in the world. and if you put all that together, we are by far the largest emitters of carbon. and that is an issue around the world. this is not a theoretical issue.

europe is already going to charge us taxes for our commercial planes to land there because of emissions. and it is clear from this that the united states is going to be subject to complaints and suits from all over the world dealing with climate change, issues like cap and trade. there will be suits for us to pay for pollution credits where we sail our shipses and where we fly our military aircraft. and the arbitration or the dispute resolution part of this is out of our control. we appoint two, the complainant appoints two, and the united nations' secretary general will be the deciding vote. and so while a lot of us who are against this treaty are mocked, in effect, for not having the good sense to understand what's in it, i'm afraid that you're looking at a section of this that might benefit our military

long term. but the other issues that are in the other 300 pages are very serious and subject the united states to high cost. we will pay more for being in this convention just like we do the united nations than any other nation. the royalties that come from it will largely come from us. that's why other countries want in it. we'll probably be paying for pollution credits very quickly. and we will pay for countless lawsuits that are going to come against us that are not theoretical but, i think, very real. so we have concerns not necessarily disagreements of what you're talking about and, again, i appreciate your advocacy of trying to bring us and the rest of the world into the rule of law. this treaty is not doing it now, i don't think it's going to do it when we join it. but i yield to senator lee. >> am i recognized? >> yes, absolutely. >> thank you. thank you, all, for being with

us today. it's an impressive sight to have 20 four-stars in front of us with only six officials and i'm honored by your service to our country. i, too, have some concerns with this proposed treaty. concerns that relate, ultimately, to sovereignty concerns. the discussion we had a few minutes ago regarding the difference between tax and a royalty is, i think, a legitimate one. there is a legitimate point to be made there. my concerns would not, however, be resolved merely if we could conclude that what we're talking about under article 82 is a royalty rather than a tax. the reason that developers will pay a royalty to the united states government in american sub merged lands offshore has to do with the fact that there's a recognition of sovereign interest vested in the united states of america. that's why the royalty gets paid

on federal lands whether it's onshore or offshore. the idea of paying a royalty to any international body tends to imbue that international body with a degree of sovereignty. that by itself raises significant concerns in my mind. now, of course, the primary reason why the six of you are before this committee today is to talk about our maritime interests, our navigational rights as a country. and i understand that. but i do have to ask the question, happy to ask it to any or all of you who are willing to answer this question, why is it necessary -- let's assume for purposes of this discussion that you may be right, that it would be a good thing to protect our navigational, our maritime rights through some kind of a treaty -- why is it necessary to join that together with a separate part of the same treaty that also deals with exploy take of the seabed with extending beyond our outer continental

shelf? general jacoby, you're closest to me, why don't you take a stab at that. >> i'd be happy to, senator. my area of operations, my concern about the law of the sea treaty, my support is generated by the opening of the arctic. for whatever reason, human activity is increasing at a fast pace. since 2008 double the number of vessels heading through the bering strait. this summer right now shell oil's bringing two platforms to work in the beaufort sea, and this is increasing economic activity inevitably followed with security and perhaps later safety and defense concerns. and so we have to pace that and make sure that we stay ahead of that. >> would that necessarily include then, i mean, to the extent that there are some benefits of joining those two things, is there any reason why

it would have to include a royalty paid to an international sovereign body? which i assume you would agree, by the way, this would be unprecedented, really the first time as a country we would be recognizing, be vesting an international body with real incidence of sovereign authority. >> senator, i'm going to stick with the operational aspects of that, if i may. this increasing competitiveness that's generated by increased human activity and economic activity really opens up a whole new world of friction points. so it's, for an operational commander, it's where are you going to pick your fights, and what tools are in your tool bag. harsh environment, few assets, little infrastructure, activity, economic activity outpacing that ability. so having this framework, this starting point with all the other arctic nations, but not just the nations. in my case the chiefs of defense, the chiefs of security, the folks responsible for

safety, that allows us to build shared situational awareness, common framework so we're going to avoid -- my job -- avoid these frictions the best as i can this pace of -- >> so is the common framework you're referring to, would that be established by the national seabed authority? is that the metaphorical table we keep talking about? >> i'm going to stick with just the operational aspects of it. i think the seabed or the continental shelf questions are, of course, the things that are the uncertainty that's accompanying increased economic activity. the law of the sea does allow us a starting point of certainty in our discussions and in our coordination and cooperation as we try to resolve what is really an opportunity to have a boom in activity in the arctic. and so for me it's just allowing us to get ahead of this, it's about the future, and it's about how can we contribute to the peaceful opening of the arctic,

reduce potential friction points? this is a good, solid framework which all the arctic countries and chiefs of defense start with when we begin those discussions. >> okay. admiral papp, i heard you mention a few minutes ago that we've had some difficulty negotiating with canada on an issue that you've described. you said that canada was standing on what you regarded i think weak footing or words to that effect. you also indicated that although it was on weak footing, the objections that canada were raising were based on the fact that the united states has not yet ratified this treaty. do you want to explain to us what -- why that is the case and why ratification of the treaty would necessarily resolve that? >> yes, sir. and getting back to senator risch's comment, if i insulted anybody's intelligence, we'll be happy to have staffs come up and

brief specifics of the cases that i cited. the one that i will give you is because i've been personally involved as the atlantic area commander in my previous job. part of the coast guard's responsibility is permitting process. we're a law enforcement and regulatory agency, so when people seek to for commerce purposes seek to build be oil facilities, gas facilities, etc., new england has a need for more lng facilities, there was a proposal to put one up in northern maine, canada objected because of -- and claiming that it was internal waters and that they would have control over the weather. there were transits through that area. there's also a dispute as to our border between western canada and the eastern edge of alaska. more importantly and more senately, a large -- significantly a large issue is the northwest passage, whether that's internal waters to canada or whether there should be

transit -- >> so are these all issues, and i apologize for interrupting, but we've got very little time before we've got to go vote. are these all issues that are not adequately addressed by international law that would be resolved by the treaty were it ratified? >> if we were operating only under customary international law, perhaps, but canada's signatory to the convention, they fall back on the fact that they are a signatory to the convention, and we are not, so we're not a party and don't have any standing to dispute their claims. >> so they would regard that aspect of customary international law as nonbinding to them, and they're excused now from that aspect of customary international law? >> well, sir, as i said earlier in regards to the collision regulations, collision avoidance regulation, when we operated under customary international law, customary international law is in the eyes of the beholder. everybody has slightly different variations -- >> and yet that was an example, was it not, of how countries

were able to come together and establish international regulatory standards without vesting sovereign authority in an international body? >> i would say that's correct, yes, sir. >> and also one in which we were able to establish those international standards, those international norms which have, um, helped facilitate maritime traffic without subjecting the united states to lawsuits to be decided by a tribunal that would be weighted in many instances by what would likely be the tie-breaking arbitrator being chosen by the secretary general of the united states? >> i can't really comment on that, sir. i'm delighted to bring my lawyers up to discuss that. i'm looking at it from an operational commander's point of view where i like to have all the tools possible in order to negotiate agreements on the broad range of things the coast guard does in terms of assuring safe, secure and environmentally-sound commerce into our country, out of our country, through our waters and concluding agreements in the

arctic which we are constrained because we're not a party to the convention. >> in okay. thank you all very much for your testimony. just in closing to wrap up, i just want to comment that i respect your judgment greatly, and if there is a need to codify certain aspects of currently-existing customary international law either in a treaty or in the u.s. code or in some combination of the two, i'm more than open to discussing that idea. i have, nonetheless, grave concerns -- concerns that have not been involved in any hearing to this point or any reading of the treaty that i've undertaken so far -- that what we're doing is not just that, but we're going far beyond that, creating an international body that would be imbued with many of the incidents of sovereignty. and doing so in a way that is completely unprecedent inside u.s. history. thank you very much.

>> senator lee, i appreciate your questions and those -- >> we will leave this hearing at this point. you can see the rest of it in the c-span video library. live now this morning for a look at the 2012 elections hosted by national journal with the cook political report's editor and publisher charlie cook along with former congressman tom davis of virginia and martin frost of texas. this is live from the newseum near washington. >> this morning on the elections trends and also to the honorable martin frost and tom davis for joining us this morning. they are all willing to take questions, so, please, think about what you'd like to ask them. we will have staff in the audience with microphones. so if you'd raise your hand, staff will come over with a microphone. please ask your question succinctly, usually helps to also state your name and organization. if you'd like to also share your thoughts with us, you can do so via the hash tag pound nj charlie cook. and, finally, if you wouldn't mind silencing your cell phone.

we're able to gather thanks to the support of united technologies corporation. utc, as it's most commonly known, is a diversified company comprised of several well known brands like otis, sikorsky, utc climate controls and security and utc power. utc has been a great partner of national journal in underwriting the congressional connection poll. you may have seen it as every week that congress is in session, the utc poll takes the pulse of opinion from americans and brings the message back to washington. utc's leadership recognizes the portion of highlighting these issues before law make,s and in-- lawmakers and influentials like you. thanks to the team for partnering with us on the utc poll, but also bringing us together with charlie cook several times during this critical election period. prior to joining utc in 2008, greg led the washington, d.c.

office of semen and currently leads all the government and state affairs for utc. his portfolio is even broader, and that includes directing the government relations for china, russia and the e.u.. please welcome greg ward. [applause] >> thank you, victoria, and good morning everybody. it's good to be back, and it's good charlie has now arrived for his program. [laughter] we're happy to see mr. cook this morning. it's our pleasure on behalf of united technologies to be here as victoria told you, we're a pretty substantial company, about $60 billion in revenue, and she listed and i think you can see on the podium here a number of the companies that are part of our family. we're, hopefully, about ready to add one more, that is the goodrich corporation. we hope to have that within the family within the next six weeks or so and anticipating approval for that from the department of justice here in the next little

while and the e.u. it's our pleasure to be here again this morning. it's always fun to work in collaboration and in partnership with the national journal and the national journal family of products and people. i don't know how david bradley does it, but he seems to recruit absolutely the best people to run his programs and his divisions. and it's been a great affiliation for united technology zoning over a substantial number of years. it's also fun to be here again with charlie and with two premier and astute political observe efforts in tom and martin this morning. it's going to be a great, great panel. i have a friend, a guy named don cog match, he and i go back a long ways, unfortunately, which means i'm old. but he at one time, he has a number of children, and his 4-year-old was coming down for christmas looking through the banister that were underneath the tree, and he said, daddy, just unbelievable. and i just think that that's the image and the attitude that

charlie must have in this election year, all the gifts that he's being presented. just unbelievable. [laughter] so, charlie, thank you for for g here. congressmen, thank you for participating as well. i'll hand it back to victoria. thank you all for participating this morning, it's good to see you. [applause] >> charlie, do you want to come on up, and i'll continue introductions? i know all of you know charlie cook, that's why you're all here, and charlie has been providing his ip insights and analysis to members at national journal. i think you'd agree that charlie and his team put together some of the best political reports and analysis in town. they do it in the cook report, they also write -- he writes regularly for the national journal daily and also for jacial journal, and charlie remains a political analyst for nbc news. at a time when news and information on the political campaigns are so polarized and divided, i think charlie remains one of the most respected -- i know he remains one of the most

respected political analysts in the country providing a balanced and fair and usually very humorous take on now what is the ultimate sport of politics. of so, please, join me in welcoming charlie cook. >> thank you. [applause] i'm just going to talk real briefly because i want to get martin and tom up here and kind of get this going. and part of it is i'm afraid what i might say, i don't want to sort of prejudice what kind of curious what these guys are going to say about the same subjects. and i don't want to sort of lead them into it. you know, campaigns, and, you know, i look around this room and see people who have been watching this stuff for as long as i have, and you know that the nature of presidential campaigns that some campaigns have ups and downs like otis elevators. [laughter] sometimes they get, they could just power through their

problems like pratt and whitney. sometimes things are kind of chill like carrier. and or can really take off accelerate chi like si corsi -- sikorsky s. and last time -- hamilton used to make propellers, right? where they just kind of propel through problems. so anyway -- >> [inaudible] >> for 8:30 in the morning, sometimes they just get really tired. [laughter] but anyway, so try to find, yeah -- anyway, that was tortured. but anyway -- [laughter] but thank you all for coming out, and i have cherished this relationship with national journal, and we're working on reuping a new contract, so if you know anybody who work for brand x, tell 'em don't both err. anyway, but nice to see you all here. this is a fascinating presidential election, and it is going through a lot of phases, and i'm, you know, i think one

of the questions just to kind of tip these guys off, i think the first question i'm going to ask is, um, are we at a different place than, say, 60 or 90 days ago, you know, is this an inflection point be, or is this getting exaggerated, or is in the conventional wisdom kind of catching up with reality. so think about it. but why don't i just go ahead and introduce them, and let's get going because i really -- you know, when you hear these, when you see panels in washington and you see former members, and if you've ever noticed that there's sort of a handful of people you see a whole lot. and the reason is that out of the thousands and thousands of former members of congress there are there is a very, very small number you can count on a hand that are known as being really, really sharp, able to dissect political situations that aren't just rubber stamping party positions and that really have,

bring an expertise and an analytical ability that really helps people kind of, okay, i get it, i get it now. and the thing is, if you were going to put together five of them, martin frost and tom davis would be on the five. actually, i can only think of four total. [laughter] but anyway, i mean, they're the gold standard. they really are. and tom davis was in congress for eight years and chairman of the republican, national republican senatorial committee and did a fabulous job there. martin was in congress for 12 years and dccc chair and went on to chair the democratic conference. so both of them have been, you know, on the inside, the innermost strategy sessions, they know what this stuff's all about, and they know where all the bodies are buried and sometimes are tempted but never really tell us exactly where all those bodies are buried. but it's just two members i have an enormous admiration for, and

although i've been thinking that for one of these things we ought to have, invite three members up and then have one as a sort of control group say this is somebody else and maybe not tom davis or martin frost. just somebody that's not so good so you kind of appreciate, wow, these two guys, they really are good. [laughter] because, boy, that other one's a clunker. anyway, wouldn't that be -- that appeals to my sort of more perverse nature. but anyway, why don't you guys come on up. let's just have a conversation. i'd rather do that than hear myself pontificate. >> in the middle? >> do whatever you want. martin's so in charge of leadership that martin tells me where to sit. >> charlie, i'll only tell you one thing. it's, obviously, early in the morning because charlie gave the

number of terms we were in. he meant to say terms, he said years. >> terms. >> i was in 26, and tom was 16? but that's all right, it's early in the morning. >> dog years. [laughter] >> they were dog years. >> anyway, well, let me just throw this out. forget presidential because what i want to do this morning is cover presidential, cover a little bit of congressional and then what in the hell's going to happen at the end of this year. and be so i'll just throw it open for either one of you to jump out and say is the presidential race fundamentally any different from where it was the day, april 11th, the day romney sort of nailed down the nomination? >> let me start if i may, charlie. tom and i have been doing these kind of programs for the last year, and we have both been in agreement for a year now that

this was going to be a very, very close race. other people at some point were saying, oh, obama's going to win by a big margin, you know, the republicans have problems. as a democrat, i still think that obama has a reasonable chance of winning, i never thought this thing was going to be other than close. i've always thought this was going to be very comparable to what happened in 2004 when you had an incumbent president who barely won re-election. i've looked at, charlie, i've looked at all the material you've done on this, and charlie generates more stuff than anybody else. and it's very interesting -- >> charlie has people who generate more stuff than anybody else. [laughter] give credit where it's due. >> it's very interesting because charlie did a summary of the states, it's dated may 31st, though you probably have updated that since then, but he shows the lek toral vote almost -- electoral vote almost exactly even. among the states where you had solid d and republicans and solid republicans and solid -- and likely republicans.

it's interesting, it looks to me, and i know tom may have a slightly different view on this, but it look like it's going to -- if everything breaks the way it looks right now, that is if wisconsin and michigan and pennsylvania stay democratic -- and that's still yet to be resolved -- but assuming it breaks that way, the election's going to come down to three states. and that for romney to win, and he could win, he will have to carry ohio, virginia and florida. and i don't know that he can carry all three of those states. but if he does, he could be the next president. i think that's where you're going to see an awful lot of action. i think that what obama did on the dream act was very important, and i think it helps him a lot. he already was way ahead among hispanics, and hispanics are important at least in florida of those three states and important in some of the states out in the west. so this is going to be a very

close race, i think it's going to go right down to the wire. >> well, how has it changed since romney -- the economy, the unemployment numbers have gone up. we had a narrative for several months running where unemployment kept dropping at least in terms of the unemployment rate. then last month job creation was well under estimates, the corrections showed the economy wasn't improving as everybody thought, and all of a sudden the conventional wisdom in this town that obama was headed for a second term kind of turned on its head. i don't know where the next four months are going, but i can tell you those metrics are going to determine who the next president is because they created what i would call the atmospheres for this next election in terms of the public mood. what martin just tribed in terms of states at risk is basically the old bush and kerry coalition. it's almost a rerun of 2004. a few states, you know, on the bubble, but there were some close states in 2000 and 2004. only three states switched, as you know, between 2000-2004.

obama broke new ground last time with indiana, virginia and north carolina. this is kind of of a throwback, and if you take a look at where the administration's going in terms of the campaign, it's becoming more a mobilization election than it is going after independents. and there's a risk in doing that, but it's going to be a turnout model, and i think they have a very difficult time replicating their turnout model because instead of running against bush, against the wars -- i mean, bush wasn't on the ballot, but he was polling in the 20s, and that certainly hurt mccain. a 2 to 1 spending advantage, this time around he's had to govern for four years, and governing's a tough business. no president has been reelected with unemployment higher than 7.2% since roosevelt, it's at 8.3% last month. that's not a hard and fast rule, but the metrics make it much more difficult for the president than i think anybody envisioned three or four months ago. >> but there's an interesting

piece today, i think it was in the post, talking about how the electorate has changed in the last 20 years. and it was the percentage of the white vote continues to decline, and the percentage of the minority vote continues to increase. and that the republicans are in real trouble because of that. now, they might scrape by this time, but if the hispanic vote locks into the democratic column and the republicans have done nothing to really attract hispanics, this is the underlying dynamics of the election are not on the republican side. now, they may win because of the economy. tom could be right about that, and we have to watch very closely about what happens the next four months. but, obviously, the turinout model -- turn model from 2008 can't be replicated. obama's not going to win by that kind of margin. he's not going to carry indiana, he's probably not going to carry north carolina. there are states he carried last time that are going to be off

the table. but they don't have to replicate the exact model. what they have to do is win by just enough to be reelected and, again, that is certainly possible given where the two parties are. i think the -- i write for politico from time to time, and i did a piece -- >> we have him anyway. >> yeah, anyway. [laughter] >> cut you off, martin. i referred to them as brand x earlier. [laughter] >> i write for -- >> the national journal wants me to write for them, i'd write for them too. but i wrote an article, we won't elaborate where it appeared. [laughter] about a month ago in which i pointed out a real problem as i see for the obama campaign is seniors. and the particularly white seniors. and the democratic share among white seniors has been declining, and it's very interesting because while interest rates have stayed low, that's good for a lot of people,

that's not good for seniors. i remember town hall meetings when i was a congressman, and seniors would show up and say isn't it wonderful interest rates are down now, you can buy a house, a car, and they would say, congressman, low interest rates are not good for everybody because they had their money in cds and savings accounts. so there is -- obama's got to figure out how to speak to seniors because they're trending in the wrong direction just as his pan bics are trending in the -- hispanics are trending in the wrong direction for republicans. >> i think just to follow up on martin's point, there's no question, little question, that republicans or some elements of the republican party have done everything humanly possible to alienate the latino vote. but i get a sense that while there's an anger towards the republican party among be many latinos, on the other hand, there's a disappointment in the president and democrats that, yeah, you were on our side, but did you fight for us? did you, did you break a sweat

for the dream act? did you shed any blood for the dream act? and so they're angry at one side, disappointed in another, and that's one reason why when you look at numbers and when -- and whether it's the gallup definitely vote or the nbc/wall street journal, you know, are you -- how likely are you, 8s, 9s or 10s to vote, that latino voters are very, very low. even though he's matching -- in the gallup poll, he's actually matching what he did against mccain last time in terms of support be they show up. >> it's a good observation. what i said initially goes to, they're tushing into a -- turning into a mobilization election because they're having a hard time expanding their electoral base. they have a very difficult time replicating what they did before because it's easy to put a coalition when you're running against something.

but when you've had to govern, you've disappointed people, you haven't macked expect tax -- managed expectations, it's a different set of issues. african-americans, i think he's going to come close to repeating what he did before. winning the playoffs the second time, it's not quite the impetus, but i think they're going to be able to drive that turnout. let's get to students, let's get to young people in college towns. these were huge gains for obama last time. look just in virginia. bob goodlatte lost to a straight ticket vote coming out of these college towns. that is not there for him this time. where are the young people? they're looking for jobs. they're back in school. they're having to reregister other places. the enthusiasm gap is way down, and, in fact, among young registrants in iowa and colorado where we've tracked it, republicans are outregistering democrats in young voters under 23. so that is out the window.

they're trying to do the student loan thing and stir things up. if you look at their strategy, it's not geared toward swing voters, it's a strategy geared toward his pan bics here -- hispanics here, young people here, and finally let's get to hispanics which you can't just lump together. puerto ricans are citizens. cubans behave differently than mexican-americans. and my district was chock full of salvadore yangs, but there is an enthusiasm gap here. it's a tough group to get out anyway and, charlie, i think you are right, i don't think they'll be able to replicate that. it's going to be how romney handles this, who he picks as his running mate will choose where he goes. not just hispanics, but asian voters who behave in their lifestyles very much like republicans but don't necessarily vote that way. but in this election with the economy at the p front, it kd of masks the traditional ethnic

and cultural coalitions that we've come together on, and i just think it hurs the president. >> -- hurts the president. >> but, charlie, you look at what's going on in the hispanic community, the republicans have had opportunities there, but they give the hispanic community the back of their hand every time there is an opportunity. you know, when you had the presidential debates -- >> actually, that's a good day, the back of the happened. [laughter] >> you're right. but what they did, look at the presidential debates. governor perry, my governor, who had lots of problems but was for the dream act and was for a reasonable position on immigration, and romney moved to his right, and perry had other problems, too, but certainly his more progressive views on immigration hurt him inside the republican party. and now some of the republicans are threatening to sue the president about his decision on the dream act. my attitude is bring it on, let 'em sue. i think that's wonderful. it'll just drive the point home that the republicans are on the

wrong side on an issue that is widely popular inside the hispanic community. now, did the president push hard enough early on? you can debate that. the house, democratic house did pass the dream act. it was filibustered by republicans in the senate. but i think what -- all the body language that the republicans send to the hispanic community, all that has been wrong, and they have, they have blown the opportunities because hispanic voters are cull churlly conservative. -- culturally. i represented a lot of hispanics. but the republicans have not given them anything to hold on to, so i think this is going to be a real problem going into the campaign, and i just want to go back to the point -- no one expects the turnout model to be the same as it was in 2008. that was a historic election. he just has to turn out enough. >> now, earlier you explicitly said and tom implied sort of references to the george w. bush 2004 which i think it's, i mean, there's never a perfect analogy,

but i think there is a situation in the sense that you had two presidents that are facing pretty ugly undecideds, ugly independents, and there's a choice of do you -- how much effort do you make chasing after swing voters who at the end of the day probably are not going to go your way versus, you know, in the case of bush sort of organically growing his base or in the case of president obama, how do you get as close as you can to that extraordinary turnout thing knowing that you can't completely replicate it? let me just toss out something, and let me get these guys to react. nbc and "the wall street journal" combined five months, the first five months of this year, their polling. and with -- [inaudible] peter hart. so it was polls in each month be, january, february, march, april, may. and they threw out the nonregistered voters, so we're talking about the 3800 register

voters. and then they pulled out for comparison purposes and looked at just the undecideds, the 7% of the 3800 that were undecided which works out to 260. and so among all registered voters on a right direction/wrong track, 32 right direction, 59 wrong track. now, that's all registered voters 32-59. among just the undecideds, 15 right direction, 71 wrong track. i mean, just profoundly pessimistic. on the president's approval rating, 48 approved, 46 disapproved. among just the undecideds, 24 approve, 59 disapprove. on obama job rating on the economy of overall all registered voters, 44 approve, 52 disapprove. among undecideds, 22 approve, 68

disapprove. and on the generic ballot test, you know, who are these people, among all voters democrats were ahead by two points, 45-43. but among the undecideds, republicans ahead by ten, 36-26. you know, looking at this group they're older, they're hard independents, they're a little bit more republican than democrats, but they're mostly independent and older. looking at that group and saying, wow, you're not getting half of this group, you're probably not getting a third, you know, quarter probably is kind of realistic. if this is the case, doesn't that force you back to a turnout and a george w. bush '04 model? >> well, of course it does, and bush won the race by an enormous turnout effort in the state of ohio. i mean, that was the ball game, as it turned out.

you have to ask where these voters are, too, geographically. and, charlie, i don't know if they gave you any information on that, but, of course, these undecided, nominally undecided voters in certain parts of the country -- particularly in the south and certain areas -- are going to break strongly against the democrats. what you have to look at is where -- what's going on in ohio, what's going on in wisconsin, what's going on in pennsylvania, what's going on in michigan. and you have the auto bailout, the fact that obama acted forcefully be to keep general motors in business, to keep chrysler in business and all their suppliers and all the small businesses that rely on people who have jobs in the automobile industry. i think you're going to hear a hot about that in those key -- a lot about that in those key states, and i think that'll have an impact. particularly since romney was opposed to the auto bailout. you've got to go into this state by state and say what makes a difference to undecided voters in those particular swing

states. now, that argument -- that's not an ability necessarily that's going to help in virginia, but the turnout model in the virginia, and tom can talk about that more than i can, but the turnout model of maximizing his support from last time could make a difference in virginia. florida, i think, is very hard for me to call and very hard the to predict. i'm not sure any of those factors will be in play on obama's side in florida. but i think in virginia he has, he has one thing going for him, in ohio he has another thing going for him. so you've got to look at it state by state -- >> charlie, i think these swing voters, undecided voters are going to decide this. and they're undecided. they've had three years plus to look at president obama, and they're not there. traditionally, i knew in my elections what i got the first ballot was usually the top i was going to get -- >> what you see is what you get. >> they knew me, i'd been familiar with me, i'd been to their picnics and parades and kissed their babies, and if they

didn't like me at the beginning, it was going to be a hard sell to get them unless i could really damage my opponent. i think the president's in a similar position, but romney has to make the sale. and reagan, as you know, he didn't come up until the very end. but they're looking around, and that's a dangerous place for a president to be. and the more he caters to his base and becomes a mobilization electorate, the more alienated these groups become. hard to go after independents and have a mobilization electorate at the same time. it's state by state, and every state has a different kind of coalitional components to put together to muster a majority. and the obama team is very savvy at doing this. it's looking at this very carefully, and they're not going to make it easy. this is not a cake walk. one other thing. you take a look at registrations over the last decade, both parties have lost market share. people are going to independents in droves. there's a