they're not abiding by the international standards that we've established. and here we are, trying to make the same argument with regards to navigation and we aren't even a member of the convention. that's the reason. we need to accede to this convention. >> thank you. >> let me just say, since there are a few seconds left, senator lugar, that neither president truman's proclamation or any act of congress has ever delineated the outer edge of the continental shelf of the united states. other countries can prohibit the united states from coming in to an ecs. we can't, because we're not party to the treaty. the only way to protect that outside of this is to have -- t accede to the treaty. and finally, no company is going to put millions of dollars into the effort to go out and do the mining or do the drilling if they don't have the legal certainty protection of the

treaty. so, there are further reasons in answer to mr. fuller. we'll have mr. fuller in here and others who oppose it have a chance to explore this. senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for beginning this series of hearings, which i think is incredibly important. couple of years ago, i chaired the beginning of one of these on your behalf. i think it is even more important today than it was then. i appreciate all of our distinguished witnesses and their service to our country. general dempsey, when you took an oath as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and when you took an oath to the service that you originally joined in from which you come, you took an oath to protect the united states of america, is that not correct? >> i did, sir. >> and is there anything in this treaty that you believe undermines the oath that you took, both in your service as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff? >> there is not.

>> so you believe that the treaty clearly continues to provide your ability and on behalf of all of those of the different services who serve this country to protect and defend the united states of america doesn't undermine any of those abilities. >> it protects our ability to do what we need to do for this country. >> thank you. secretary panetta, do you have any concerns that this treaty would impinge on either the rights or ability of you as secretary of defense to protect the air, sea or land territory of the united states or conversely, would the treaty impact the ability of the department of the defense of the service branches to navigate or engage in freedom of navigation operations? >> no, it would not. it would enhance our ability to be able to navigate. because we would be able to be at the table to protect our interests and protect our claims. >> in fact, doesn't this treaty, if we were to ratify it, give us the wherewithal to extend our

reach to a third more than the territory that we have beyond the 200 miles exclusive zone, economic zone? is that correct? >> that's absolutely correct. >> in recent months, as i'm sure many of you know, i've been following iran with laser-like focus. in recent months we've heard iran threaten to close the strait of hormuz in response to u.s. and european sanctions. beyond our own ability to respond in the national interest and security of the united states, which the administration made very clear at that time when that threat took place, my understanding of the treaty, that such an action by iran would violate the treaty because of the treaty's guarantee of the right of innocent passage, even for u.s. vessels. is that a correct statement? >> that is a correct statement.

>> the other thing that i focus a great deal on in our subcommittee role is proliferation of narcotics trafficking. certainly my concern about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. what benefits would the u.s. derive from joining the treaty with respect to countering and interdicting narcotics and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to and from states and nonstate actors of proliferation concerns, such as iran and syria? for example, would joining the treaty advance interdiction efforts under the proliferations security initiative, such as providing a basis for taking action against vessels suspected of engaging in proliferation activities? >> right now, sir, as you know, we use customary international law to assert our right to visit. this would be documented in the convention of the law of the sea and preserve the right of visit, which would help -- which would enhance our use of the proliferation security initiative.

>> do we believe that joining the treaty would help our efforts to bring countries into the proliferation security initiative and further undertake our efforts and needed interdiction efforts? >> i believe it would, senator. joining the convention would likely strengthen the psi by attracting new cooperative partners. >> finally, this treaty allowed us on a provisional basis to participate and influence the work of various entities such as the commission on the limits on the continental shelf and the international seabed authority, the body that regulates the exploration, development, exploration of international areas, beyond national jurisdiction such as oil, gas and nonliving resources under the seabed and subsoil. however, because we have not ratified the treaty, we have

been relegated to subserver status on the commission. what impact has the inability to ratify the treaty had? >> first of all, there are a number of observers who actually view this convention as a huge win for the united states. in fact, it's called by some the u.s. land grab, because of what it would mean for our ability to extend jurisdiction far beyond our shores. but unfortunately, our failure to accede to it limits our capacity to do so. and coming up in 2013, we believe, will be the sea bed mining bodies' action on rules for mining. something that if we were

acceded by then, we would heavily influence and certainly would influence in favor of our interests and our companies. so, the convention bodies that are determining the rules are proceeding without us. we are on the sidelines and do not have the authority needed to do much more than try to, you know, wave our arms and get attention to make points. but we would have direct influence, and we would have, as i said in my testimony, what amounts to a veto, because of the consensus rules if we were actually present. so. >> so clearly because of a gift of god that allows us to have access to atlantic, pacific, arctic and gulf territorial waters, this is clearly in our interests, and also in energy interests and private sector interests, as well, in terms of

ratifying. is that a fair statement? >> that's an absolutely fair statement. >> thank you very much. >> and if i could just augment that by saying, senator, that because of guam, because of the hawaiian islands and the aleutians, we have an extraordinary reach. no other country in the world has as significant an extended zone as we do and we're not taking advantage of that. senator corker? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to each of you for your testimony and service to our country. secretary clinton, i noticed you enjoyed your testimony more than most. i don't know if it's just because january is just around the corner or not but you seem very happy today. i'm glad to have you here. i have been around here a while now. and this is sort of a lazarus moment. this thing has been around for 30 years.

we're in the middle of a pretty contentious presidential race, and we have a treaty that's coming up that both majority leaders on the democratic side and republican side have not wanted to bring to the floor. so i have my antenna up slightly. i do want everybody to know i'm i begin in a neutral place. i, too, want to make my decision on this treaty based on facts and not myths and certainly plan to go about learning as much as i can about the facts of where this treaty places our nation. so i listened to the testimony. again, i enjoyed all three of you. i'm listening to cases being made about oil. and at the depths of exploration we're talking about, we're talking about really big oil. and i just find it interesting. i don't think this is a

pejorative comment. the administration has not particularly been a great fan of big oil. as a matter of fact, we've restricteded our own lands to their access in many ways. i just find it an interesting point that's being made by an administration that has been anything but friendly, quote, to big oil. why all of a sudden on this particular treaty such a big deal is being made out of that? if you could just answer me briefly, secretary clinton, i would appreciate it. >> senator corker, i'm always happy when i'm appearing before this committee, to be back in the senate. so, thank you for the warm welcome. you know, i really believe that the united states has an opportunity in developing our natural resources, which are currently doing, particularly with unconventional gas and the

steps and progress we are making in that arena, which are extremely important to our future. yes, there are discussions and debates over, you know, where to do it, in whose backyard and the like. we are making progress. for the first time in many years, we are actually are a net exporter. as someone who spends a lot of my time promoting american jobs around the world and finding how interested people are in perhaps being able to import from us, i think that's all to the good. it's also important that we take advantage, that we have the opportunity to take advantage of what may be possible in the future. i don't want to close the door on anything. that's what i fear we're doing. it's the opportunity costs of not acceding to the convention now. i am not an expert in oil and gas exploration and drilling. what the oil and gas industry

tells us is that they are now in a position to take advantage of this and actually our majors are among the very limited number of such companies anywhere in the world. and to shut the door on their ability to doing that, i just don't think is economically smart. i think if you look, we are positioned well, and i want us to continue to be so in the future. >> second point, i know the administration has tried to push legislation relating to carbon, and i know cap and trade was discussed for a while. then, obviously, it didn't pass muster here in the senate. so the epa has taken steps to in many ways make that -- make pieces of that happen through regulation. one of the things that the treaty does do is regulate pollution in the ocean from land-based sources. and one thing that you didn't

mention in the comments about some of the negativity toward the treaty is a lot of people believe, and, again, i'm asking the question after reading, and i'm not saying i'm one of those. but a lot of people believe that the administration -- and my antenna is up, that the administration wants to use this treaty as a way to get america into a regime relating to carbon since it's been unsuccessful doing so domestically. and i wonder if you might respond to that. and if the treaty, in your opinion, does put us in a situation either respond to international regimes or to be subject to lawsuits from people because of carbon that's emitted from the united states affecting the ocean bed. >> senator, i appreciate your raising the concern, that somehow the convention is a backdoor kyoto protocol. it is our assessment, our legal assessment that there is nothing in the convention that commits

the united states to implement any commitments on greenhouse gases. under any regime or climate and it contains no obligations to implement any particular climate change policies. it doesn't require adherence to any significant emissions policies. we would be glad to present for the record a legal analysis to that effect. >> how do we exit this treaty? is there a way to, you know, typically treaties have ways of exiting. again briefly, i want to ask one other question. how would one exit this treaty if we became party to it? >> again, i will submit it into the record. but it's my understanding that just as we accede to certain treaties, we can end our asession or our membership. there is no obligation to being a member of a treaty that you freely join.

>> lastly, is this treaty subject to ratification that happens in the senate when treaties are -- that is correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> there's some language that stipulates no changes but you're saying the senate has the ability to put stipulations upon our entrance? >> we always have a resolution for ratification that is prepared. i think there was one prepared in past times when it didn't get to the floor, but it was certainly part of the preparation work leading up to a potential vote. >> and on that note -- and this is not directed at you in any way -- we did have a resolution of ratification under the stark s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i know eve we've had some conversations about this in the past. and i know that there are pieces of this that are outside the jurisdiction of the state department. but i will say i think the gentlemen on either side of you -- i know the gentleman to your left -- mentioned many times

that the modernization of our nuclear armaments is very important to our nation, especially if we're going to be reducing the numbers of those. and i want to say one more time, in every public setting i can, i know this is not the state department, but that resolution has not been honored. and for what it's worth, it's not a really good way to build trust with folks on future treaty resolutions. so, again, none of this is directed at you, but the types of modernizations at sandea, los alamos and pantex and other places have been waiting for, and military leaders and civilian military leaders have said is very important, has not occurred, per the resolution of ratification. not directed at you, but just to say, it's not the kind of thing that builds a lot of faith in those resolutions. >> if i could respond, senator, because i know this is a continuing concern of yours. and for the record, i just want

to state that in fy-12, the administration did live up to the obligations that we agreed on by requesting $7.629 billion for nnsa weapons activities. congress did not appropriate that full amount, instead only appropriating $7.214 billion. that did create a shortfall. in fy-2013 we continued to honor our commitments by requesting $7.6 billion, $363 million, or 5% above the amount appropriated by congress for fy-12. it's one of the very few accounts in the entire government to receive an increase of this size. we would like to work with congress to be able to have everybody on the same page concerning this. >> i'll close with this, if it's okay.

i appreciate that. and yet this year, that request was not made and the resolution state said if those funding requirements are not met, it's incumbent upon the the administration to come forth with a report showing how that affects the overall process. that has not happened. and, again, none of that is directed at you. it's directed overall at the administration. but it does create problems as it relates to overall trust issues. i thank you all for your testimony and look forward to the future hearings. >> and senator, i take very seriously this concern of yours. we will be submitting the 9b report shortly. >> thank you, senator corker. >> senator harden. >> mr. chairman, let me thank all our witnesses. i found their presentations to be as comprehensive a presentation as i've ever received on the treaty and i thank you for that. i thank you for particularly addressing the criticisms that have been made about this treaty.

of course, it's typical of any treaty that we hear some of these complaints. i want to go into an issue that i think secretary clinton you alluded to. and that is that this is not a static situation. it's changing all the times and now there are groups that are meeting that will affect u.s. interests that we are not a party to. we don't have our representative there. the law of the sea is changing because of the treaty. and there is now discussions as to what should be the appropriate use of sea lanes and where should the mineral rights in the future go or what should be the international regime for dealing with some of these issues? and the united states, of course, is perhaps the most significant player in these issues. and yet our interests are not being represented as these types of changes are being debated. could you elaborate a little bit more as to what type of

discussions are currently taking place that we truly are not part of? not involved as far as having our representative at the table during these discussions that very much could affect -- u.s. companies could affect the commercial operations, could affect all the interests that e interests that you have mentioned. >> well, senator, you're absolutely right. with respect to demarcating, claiming and asserting sovereign jurisdiction over continental shelf, that is ongoing. countries are doing that, as has been already said, we stand to gain more than any country in the world and we have not done so. going beyond the extended continental shelf, which is of great importance to us, are the rules on deep sea bed mining. that will influence whether a number of the supporters of the treaty, senator kerry mentioned one, lockheed martin, who are

interested in the rare earth minerals, can participate. because in the absence of setting the right rules and then being party to the treaty, it may or may not be advantageous to us, as it should be. we have a seat on that body and we are not filling it. so, we will really only have ourselves to hold responsible if the bodies that are now gearing up and working under this convention begin to make decisions that are not in our interest. and i think secretary panetta made a great comment. you know, we like to use our military power to promote our national security. we have a lot of economic interests at stake here that will be very hard for us to exercise even with the largest,

most professional military in the world, if we don't get in under the convention's rules. and we have a chance, still, to shape those rules. >> normally on these international treaties and organizations, the u.s. participation is looked upon internationally with great importance because it adds to the comprehensive nature of the organization. and you mentioned the arctic area, without having the united states, you're missing one of the key players in the arctic. i know that there is strong international interest for us to become a party to the treaty. but i would suspect that there is some interest in other countries that are saying, we hope you don't ratify this treaty. it gives our companies a better edge and puts them in a stronger position at some of the economic and legal issues at it affects u.s. operations. am i correct?

is this -- i assume that there's strong international support for u.s. interest but in some respects, they may be saying, if you don't want to take advantage of it, we'll fill the void. >> well, the united states was certainly among one of the relatively small group of group of nations that drove the treaty in the first place, that then led the modifications in 1994, to make sure that nothing in the treaty would be adverse to our interests. and, so, we have a lot at stake. we've already invested a lot in it. i think most of the world wants to see us accede. because they know with the united states, as the principle driver of a rules-based international system, our being inside, helping to devise and execute those rules is in their interest as well. but i have to agree with you, senator, that there are nations who would be perfectly happy to

be in the driver's seat instead of us. and we're letting them be in the driver's seat by our failure to be party to the convention. >> we just had the nato summit in chicago and one of the issues that was raised pretty vocally by this committee is we want our nato partners to carry out their responsibility. the responsibility for international security should be rested with all our partners, not just prince bly with one country, the united states. and secretary panetta, it seems to me that our allies have to have some concern about the u.s. participation in this treaty, as it relates to the coordination of our security issues, as it relates to the sea. >> that's absolutely correct. we sit down with these countries. we develop strategies. we develop plans. we develop military operations.

we develop naval operations, working with them as well. and if we are not operating based on the same rules, it puts us at a disadvantage. i mean, i'm sure this is true for secretary clinton, but i can't tell you, i've been in meetings with both those that are considered al lilies as wels those who are considered our competitors. and make the argument with regards to navigational rights. make the argument with regards to our ability to exercise rights in the open seas. and they have said in these meetings, how can you even assert that when you are not even -- have acceded to the law of the seas convention? that's been thrown right in our face. and i'm sure they would love to continue to have that argument. that's -- that's the concern.

>> it does make our arguments for parity that much more difficult, particularly when they're really is, as you all pointed out, it's hard to defend an argument as to why we've taken so long and why we have not, in fact, ratified the treaty. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much, chairman. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator -- excuse me, secretary clinton. in your opening statement, you addressed the people who oppose the rat if i case of the treaty and particularly spoke to the ideology and the philosophical opposition that some people have to this. and i hope you weren't scoffing at us. i'm one of those that fall into that category, because i have some deep-seeded reservations on that basis. in deed, most wars have been

fought over ideology and philosophy. indeed, our country was founded on that because we had a difference with great britain over that. so i consider that an important point. and to get this down even narrower, my problem is with sovereignty. there's 288 pages here. and as you read it, there's some good stuff in here. but if we give up one scintilla of sovereignty that this country has fought, has bleld for, has ginn up our treasure and the best that america has, i can't vote for it. i want to talk about that and focus on it if we can. first of all, with all due respect, you defended the opposition -- or, you challenged the opposition, who said that there's nothing in here that requires that we do certain things regarding the kyoto

protocols and environmental type things. if you look at article 222, and i'm going to quote from that article that says the signators to the treaty, quote, shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere. that's got kyoto written all over it. what it has written all over it is any time the u.n. calls a conference or what have you, they all get together, they all sign on to it. even though we disagree, by adopting this treaty, we have said that we will adopt it, even though we don't agree with that particular treaty. so, with all due respect of the legal interpretations you say

you've had, i've read thousands of pieces of legislation. this is written in plain english and i don't know how you can argue that after this is implemented or adopted by congress or the senate, if it is, how we're going to get around the fact that we have agreed that we will adopt these laws and regulations? >> well, senator, i join you in being absolutely 100% supportive and protective of american sovereignty. i have spent much of my adult life in whatever role i have found myself in defending and arguing on behalf of our country and our rights and will continue to do so. but i would strongly argue that, number one, our sovereignty will