countries to claim sovereignty over their continental shelf far out into the ocean beyond 200 nautical miles from shore. the relevant area for the united states is probably more than 1.5 times the size of texas. in fact, we believe it could be considerably larger. u.s. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing, and able to explore this area. but they have made it clear to us that they need the maximum level of international legal certainty before they will or could make the substantial investments. and we believe create many jobs in doing so, needed to extract these far offshore resources. if we were a party to the convention, we would gain international recognition of our

sovereign rights, including by using the convention's procedures and therefore, be able to give our oil and gas companies this legal certainty. staying outside the convention, we simply cannot. the second development concerns deep seabed mining which takes place in that part of the ocean floor that is beyond any country's jurisdiction. now, for years, technological challenges meant that deep seabed mining was only theoretical. today's advances make it very real. but it's also very expense of. and before any company will explore a mine site, it will naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and the minerals that it will recover. the convention offers the only

effective mechanism for gaining this title. but only a party to the convention can use this is mechanism on behalf its companies. so as long as the united states is outside the convention, our companies are left with two bad choices. either take their deep sea mining business to another country or give up on the idea, meanwhile, as you heard from senator kerry and senator lugar, china, russia and many other countries are already securing their licenses under the convention to begin mining for valuable metals and rare earth elements. and as you know, rare earth elements are essential for manufacturing hi-tech products like cell phones and flat screen televisions. they are currently in tight supply and produced almost exclusively by china. so while we are challenging china's export restrictions on these critical material we

also need american companies to develop other sources. but as it stands today, they will only do that if they have the secure rights that can only be provided under this convention. if we expect to be able to manage our own energy future and our need for rare earth minerals we must be a party to the law of the sea convention. the third development that is now urgent is the emerging opportunities in the arctic. as the area gets warmer, it is opening up to new activities such as fishing, oil and gas exploration, shipping, and tourism. they convention provides the international framework to deal with these new opportunities. we are the only arctic nation outside the convention. russia and the other arctic straits advancing their continental shelf claims in the arctic while we are on the outside looking in. as a party to the convention, we

would have a much stronger basis to assert our interests throughout the entire arctic region. the fourth development is that the convention's bodies are now up and running. the body that makes recommendations regarding countries continental shelves beyond 2800 nautical miles is actively considering submissions from over 40 countries without the participation of a u.s. commissioner. the body addressing deep sea bed mining is now drawing up the rules to govern the extraction of minerals of great interest to the united states and american industry. it simply should not be acceptable to us that the united states will be absent every either of those discussions. our negotiators obtained a permanent u.s. seat on the key decision-making body for deep seabed mining. i know of no other international

body that have accords one country and one country alone, us, a permanent seat on its decision-making body, but until we join, that reserve seat remains empty. so those are the stakes for our economy. and you will hear from secretary panetta and general dempsey that our security interests are intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation. we have much more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world's oceans than any other country. u.s. armed forces rely on the navigational rights and freedoms reflected in the convention for worldwide access to get to combat areas, sustain our forces during conflict and return home safely all without permission from other countries. now, as a nonparty to the convention, we rely, we have to rely on what is called customary international law as a legal basis for invoking and enforcing

these norms. but in no other situation in which our security interests are at stake do we consider customary international law good enough to protect rights that are vital to the operation of the united states' military. so far, we've been fortunate. but our navigational rights and our ability to you challenge other countries' behavior should stand on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing available, including in critical areas such as the south china sea. i'm sure you have followed the claims countries are making in the south china sea. although we do not have territory there, we have vital interests particularly freedom of navigation, and i can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the convention's rules and a greater ability to enforce them. now, i know a number of you the have you heard arguments

opposing the convention. and let me just address those head-on. had you critics claim we would surrender u.s. sovereignty under this territory -- under this treaty. but in fact, it's exactly the opposite. we would securely sovereign rights over vast new areas and resources, including our 200-mile exclusive economic zone and vast continental shelf area is extending off our coasts and at least 600 miles off alaska. i know some are concerned that the treaty's provisions for binding dispute settlement would impinge on our sovereignty. we are no stranger to similar provisions including in the world trade organization which has allowed to us bring trade cases, many of them currently pending against abusers around the world. as with the wto, the u.s. has much more to gain than lose from this proposition by being able to hold others accountable under clear and transparent rules. some critics invoke the concern

we would be submitting to mandatory technology transfer and cite president reagan's other initial objections to the treaty. you know, those concerns might have been relevant decades ago, but today they are not. in 1994, negotiators made modifications specifically to address each of president reagan's objections, including mandatory technology transfer, which is why president reagan's own secretary of state george schulze, has since written we should enjoin the convention in light of those modifications having been made. now some continue to assert we do not need to join the convention for u.s. companies to drill beyond 200 miles or to engage in deep seabed mining. that's not what the companies say. so i find it quite ironic in fact somewhat bewildering that a group, an organization, an individual would make a claim

that is refuted by every major company in every major sector of the economy who stands to benefit from this treaty. under current circumstances, they are very clear. they will not take on the costs and risk these activities under uncertain legal frameworks. they need indisputable internationally recognized rights available under the treaty. so please, listen to these companies, not to those who have other reasons or claims that are not based on the facts. these companies are refuting the critics who say go ahead. you'll be fine. but they're not the ones, the critics being asked to invest tens of millions of dollars without the legal certainty that comes with joining the convention. now, some mischaracterize the benefits for benefit of resource rights beyond 200 miles as "a

u.n. tax." this is my personal favorite of the arguments against the treaty, that will be use to the support rt state sponsors of terrorism. honestly, i don't know the where these people make these things up, but anyway, the convention does not contain or authorize nel such taxes. any royalty fee does not go to the united nations. it goes into a fund for distribution to parties of the convention and we were we actually in the convention, would have a permanent veto power over how the funds are distributed. and we could prevent them from going anywhere we did not want them to go. i just want to underscore, this is simple arithmetic. if we don't join the convention, our companies will miss out on opportunities to explore vast areas of continental shelf and deep seabed. if we do join the convention, we unlock economic opportunities worth potentially hundreds of billions of dollars for a small

percentage royalty a few years down the line. i've also heard we should not i don't know this convention because "it's a u.n. treaty." and, of course, that means the black helicopters are on their way. well the fact that a treaty was negotiated under the auspices of the united nations which is after all, a convenient gathering place for the countries of the world, has not stopped us from joining agreements that are in our interests. we are party to dozens of agreements, negotiated under the u.n. auspices. on everything from counter-terrorism and law enforcement to health, commerce and aviation, and we often pay fees under those treaties recognizing the benefits we get dwarf those minimal fees. and of the national security front, some argue we would be handing power over the u.s. navy to an international body.

patently untrue, obviously absolutely contrary to any history or law governing our navy. none of us would be sitting here if there were even a chance that you could make the most absurd argument that could possibly lead to that conclusion. disputes concerning u.s. military activities are clearly excluded from dispute settlement under the convention. and neither is it true that the convention would prohibit intelligence activities. the intelligence community has once again in 2012, as it did in 20 2007 as it did in 2003, confirm that is absolutely not true. so whatever arguments may have existed for delaying u.s. accession no longer exist, and truly cannot be even taken with a straight face. the benefits of joining have always been significant but

today, the costs of not joining are increasing. so much is at stake and i there ever urge the committee to listen to the experts, listen to our businesses, listen to the chamber of commerce, listen to our military, and please give advice and consent to this treaty before the end of this year. thank you, mr. chairman. >> madame secretary, thank you for very important testimony. i particularly appreciate the detail that you went into. i think it's very helpful. mr. secretary. >> chairman kerry, senator lugar, distinguished members, i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear here as the first secretary of defense to testify in support of the united states accession to the law of the sea convention. i've been involved with ocean issues most of my career. and i strongly believe that accession to this treaty is

absolutely essential, not only to our economic interests, our diplomatic interests, but i'm here to say that it's extremely important to our national security interests, as well. i join a lot of the military voices of the past and present that have spoken so strongly in support of this treaty. a fundamental point is clear. if the united states is to assert its historical role as a global maritime power, and we have without question the strongest navy in the world, but if we're going to continue to assert our role as a maritime power, it's essential that we accede to they important convention. being here with secretary clinton, chairman dempsey, their presence alone is a testament to the conviction of our dim theic and military leadership that you -- this conventioning is

absolutely essential to strengthening our position in the world. let me outline some of the critical arguments with regards to u.s. national security. and why it's time to move forward with this issue. first of all, it as has been pointed out, as the world's strongest preeminent maritime power, we are a country that has one of the longest coastlines and one of the largest extended continental shelves in the world. we have more to gain by approving this convention than almost any other country. there's 161 countries that have approved. we're the only industrial power that has failed to do that. and as a result, we don't have a seat at the table. if he we are sitting at this international table of nations, we can defend our interests, we can defend our claims, we can lead the discussion in trying to

influence treaty bodies that develop and interpret the law of the '. we are not there. and as a result, they're the ones that are developing the interpretation of this very important treaty. in that way, we would ensure that our rights are not whittled away by the excessive claims and erroneous interpretations of others. it would give us the power and authority to support and promote the peaceful resolution of disputes within a rules-based order. second, we would secure our navigation freedoms and global access for military and commercial ships, aircraft and undersea fiberoptic cables. treaty law remains the firmest legal foundation upon which to base our global presence as the secretary has pointed out. and it's true on, above, and below the seas. by joining the convention, we would help lock in rules that are favorable to our freedom of

navigation and our global mobility. third, accession would help secure a truly massive increase in our country's resource and economic jurisdiction. not only to 00 nautical miles off our coasts, but to a broad extended continental shelf beyond that zone. adding almost another third to our nation in terms of jurisdiction. fourth, accession would ensure our ability to reap the benefits again as the secretary has pointed out, of the opening of the arctic. joining the convention would maximize international recognition and acceptance of our substantial extended continental shelf claims in the arctic. and as again pointed out, we're the only arctic nation that is not a party to this convention. more importantly from our navigation and military point of view, accession wogs secure our

freedom of navigation p, our freedom of overflight rights throughout the arctic, and it would strengthen the freedom of navigation arguments with respect to the northern sea route and the northwest passage. and finally, let me say the that we at the defense department have gone through an effort to develop a defense strategy for the future. a defense strategy not only for now but into the future, as well. and it emphasizes the strategically vital arc that extends from the western pacific and eastern asia into the indian ocean region and south asia onto the middle east. by not acceding, we undercut our credibility in a number of focused multilateral venues that involve that arc i just defined.

we're pushing for example for a rules-based order in the region. and the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes in the south china sea, in the straits of hormuz and elsewhere. how can we argue, how can we argue that other nations must an beside by international rules when we haven't joined the very treaty that codifies those rules? we would also help strengthen worldwide transit passage rights under international law, and we would further isolate iran as one of the few remaining nonparties to the detention. these are the key reasons from a national security point of view for accession. reasons that are critical to our sovereignty, critical to our national security. he again, as the secretary pointed out, i understand the arguments that have been made on the other side, but at the same

time, i don't understand the logic of those arguments. the myth that somehow this would surrender u.s. sovereignty, nothing could be further from the truth. not since we acquired the lance of the american west and alaska have we had such opportunity to expand u.s. sovereignty. the estimated continental shelf is said to encompass at least 385,000 square miles. 385,000 square miles of sea bed. as i said -- as secretary pointed out, it's 1 1/2 times the size of texas that would be added to our jurisdiction. some claim joining the convention would restrict our military operations and activities, limit our ability to collect intelligence in territorial seas. nothing could be further from the truth.

the convention in no way harms our intelligence collection activities. in no way does it constrain our military operations. on the contrary, u.s. succession to the convention secures our freedom of navigation and overflight rights as bedrock tree law. some allege that the convention would subject us to the jurisdiction of the international courts and that this represents a surrendering of our sovereignty. once again, this is not the case. convention provides that a party may declare it does not accept any dispute resolution procedures for disputes concerning military activities. and we would do the same. as so many other nations have chosen, likewise, to do. moreover, it would be up to the united states to decide precisely what constitutes a military activity. not others. others argue that our maritime

operations would be constrained. again, this is simply not the case. u.s. and our partners routinely conduct operations based on u.n. security council resolutions, on treaties, on port control measures and on the inherent right of self defense. the u.s. would be able to continue conducting the full range of maritime interdiction operations. it provides a stable, recognized, legal regime that we need in order to conduct our global operations today and in the future. frankly, i don't think this is a close call. the law of the sea convention is supported, as pointed out, by major u.s. industries, by the chamber of commerce, by our energy oil, ship building, shipping and communications

companies, by our fishing interests and by environmental organizations, along with past and present republican and democratic administrations, bipartisan committees of this committee and the entire national security leadership. we help make our nation more secure and more prosperous for generations to come. america is the strongest power in the world. we have the strongest navy. make no mistake, we have the ability to defend our interests any time, anywhere. but we are strong precisely because we play by the rules. because we play by the rules. for too long, the united states has failed to act on this treaty. for too long, we have undermined our diplomatic authority to

fight for our rights and our maritime interests and for too long we've allowed our inability to act in peril of our national security. for that reason it is time now for the senate to do what others have failed to do, join the law of the sea convention and help us remain the strongest maritime power in the world. >> we appreciate your testimony very much. and the secretary of defense, thank you for testifying in favor of this treaty. general dempsey? >> thank you, chairman, senator lugar and others on the committee. i join secretary clinton and director panetta. including our joint chiefs of staff. it echoes every opinion of the joint chiefs of staff. it has been so significant

because of what the convention does for our armed sources and national security, to strengthen our ability. it codifies the national freedoms in order to traject and sustain our military force, the right of transit through international straits, the right to exercise high-seas treevason and the right of innocent package through foreign territorial seas and it reinforces the sovereign immunity of our war ships as they conduct operations. by contrast, we currently rely on customary assertive international law. those seeking to bend the customary international law to restrict movement on the oceans and puts our war ships and aircraft on point to constantly challenge claims. we can defend our interests and will do that with military force if necessary, but the force of arms does not have to be and

should not be our only national security instrument. joining the convention would provide us another way to stave off conflict with less risk of escalation. the convention also offers us an opportunity to exercise global leadership. over 160 nations are party to it as you heard, including every permanent member of the u.n. security council and every arctic nation. our absence separates us from our partners and allies. it limits our ability to build coalitions and work cooperatively to solve these pressing security problems that face us. although the terms of the convention are favorable to the united states' interests, we are not position to further guide its interpretation nor its implementation. we need to join it in order to strengthen our role in global and maritime affairs. both militarily and economically. our prosperity and security depend upon access to the world's ocean. by joining the convention, our

forces would enjoy a firmer legal standing for operations on, over and under the world's waters. navigating an increasing complex and competitive security environment. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, general. as i mentioned earlier, we will be having -- when i say we, myself and my colleagues -- will be having the commanders of the various forces, all of whom are affected by this, to come in and answer questions from senators. but general dempsey, if i could ask you, opponents of the convention have argued that u.s. succession will somehow lead to an unacceptable restriction on the u.s. military. i want to address this a little bit. suggesting it would harm our national security. this has been a refrain in repeated editorials and

elsewhere. i want to ask you questions about that, if i may. first of all, do they know something that you don't know? >> well, i can't speak for them. i know what i know, and i know that it will not do any of the things you just suggested. >> none? >> none. >> you're certain of that? >> i'm certain of that. >> that's shared with every commander of the various combatant forces? >> i'm not exactly dressed exactly as someone who would speak with authority on the issue of maritime operations, but i am a student and, in fact, prior to my testimony and even before, i've made it a point to consult with those who are experts on this and have become to the best of my ability an expert as well. >> president reagan decided in 1982 that the convention's provisions relating to the traditional uses of the oceans generally confirmed existing maritime law and practice and fairly balanced the interest of all states.

he, therefore, announced that the united states, including the u.s. military, will act in accordance with those provisions, notwithstanding we ratified it. has that policy ever changed since president reagan first made the announcement in 1983? >> it has not changed for the united states military. no, sir. >> so, in light of the fact -- and i ask this of both secretary of defense and you as chairman of the joint chiefs. in light of the fact that we are already following the convention, would joining it require the military to make any change in existing policy or procedure with respect to use of the oceans? >> it would not. >> would it place any restraint whatsoever on any of our strategic goals? >> it would not. >> as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, do you believe joining the convention would harm the u.s. military in any way? >> i do -- i believe it would not harm us in any way. >> and, mr. secretary, you said