going to emerge. our system and culture won't tolerate that, but we're going to have to find some way to get back to a culture of problem solving or the rest of the country may end up locking like california scaquared. >> i'd like to thank steve and norm for a terrific debate. during which -- [ applause ] wait. hold on. stay right there. they showed their great intellect and civility. i would like to note this and other debates are available at aei.org and transcripts are also available at the site. i'd like to note that norm's book will be available for purchase after we adjourn. norm, show me -- can i see this book here? here it is. it's even worse than it looks. and finally before we adjourn, please look at these two gentlemen. the title of this book is "it's even worse than it looks." look at them. they're even better than they look. we're adjourned. thank you very much.

kenya, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, and washington. this weekend on "book tv" follow

david maraniss on his swrurnny walking in a president's footsteps for "barack obama the story." stat day starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern, a video record of his travels. live, david mariniss takes your questions. also this weekend on "afterwards." >> american politics has been distorted for the last century or so by this idea the further you move away from the left the closer you get to bad things. one of the words we use for bad things is fascist, another one is racist, another one is homophobic. best working definition of a fascist in american political life is a conservative winning an argument. >> that's on sunday night at 9:00 on "book tv" this weekend on c-span2. one of the quotes from a white house staffer that i thought was really exceptionally inspiring, once you recognize the magnitude of difference you make in public life everything

else will pale in comparison. >> someone from the white house came and said a quote, those who think they're crazy enough to change the world are the ones that actually do. mr. brian, the same man that christopher was talking about, said choose carefully and execute relentlessly. that meant a lot to me because too many times we find ourselves taking too many things on and not really focusing on that one thing that should be a top priority. >> every year the u.s. senate youth program brings students to washington for a week of government and leadership education. this year, brian kamoie made an impact. he's a senior director on the white house national security staff. >> i started with a mindset of what is it like to be them? now that i'm in this role, what could i share with them that either i wish i had known along the way or that they will remember when they leave washington week, which as you mentioned, is a very intense rapidfire experience. so if you leave a few key

encouraging messages at a time where you know where it's very easy to be cynical about politics, it's a good thing to encourage young people to pursue public service. >> more with brian kamoie sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. well, this morning the senate foreign relations committee is on capitol hill for two hearings examining whether the u.s. should join the law of the sea treaty. governing how nations use international waters. it's expected to get under way shortly. and we're live on capitol hill in the hart senate office building. the me is going to get the perspective of current military officials including the joint chiefs vice chair and the chief of naval operations. this afternoon, senators will hear from former defense secretary donald rumsfeld and former deputy secretary of state john negroponte on how the

treaty will impact u.s. policy. last month the committee heard from secretary of state clinton and defense secretary panetta who both called for the u.s. to take part in citing national security, job creating, and oil exploration as reasons to join the treaty. the law of the sea treaty has been endorsed by 161 countries and the european union. p it was adopted by the u.n. in 1994 and signed by president bill clinton but it still needs support from two-thirds of the senate for ratification. we expect it to start in just a moment. live here on c-span3.

>> hearing will come to order. thank you all very much for being with us today. this is the second hearing on the law of the sea convention, and we're very pleased to welcome six individuals with long and remarkably distinguished careers in defense of america's security. admiral james a. winnifeld junior is the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. admiral jonathan greenhart is chief of naval admirations. admiral jay pap jr. is commandant of the u.s. coast guard. general william m. frazier iii is commander of u.s. transportation command. general charles h. jacoby jr. is commander of u.s. northern command and admiral am jewel j. locklear byrd is commander of

the u.s. pacific command. i can't think of any time, certainly not since i've been here, and i doubt even before that that we've had so many top leaders come before the foreign relations committee at one time, and i thank you all for being here. i want to make clear why the committee is so interested in this testimony and why it is so important. there many people -- there some people -- who raise questions about the treaty. inevitably, as they have about any treaty that we've ever passed. but this treaty, particularly, has two components that those of us who support it believe are important for the country. one is, above all, the economic

component, and we will have a hearing shortly with major leaders from american industry. mining industry, oil and gas, communications. others. transportation. who are deeply concerned about the legally of their claims, should they capitalize and spend millions of dollars exploiting resources from the ocean seabed. and that is worth enormous competitive advantage to the united states of america and it is worth enormous numbers of jobs. but secondly, there is a very significant national security component to this. and we've asked as many of the different commanders to come here because each of them, in their own way, will have an ability to be able to share with america their individual reasons. and there are individual reasons. they differ in some cases. what is most important to them

about passage of this treaty? and in its sum total, it is a compelling rationale for why this is in america's interest. and the committee this afternoon will have another hearing. we'll have some opponents of the treaty there and we'll have others who want to come in and oppose it, because we think it's very, very important. senator lugar and i are committed to hear from everybody. so the senate can build the strongest record possible and then act in its hopeful wisdom based on facts and based on that record that is compiled here. we've heard from secretary of state hillary clinton. we've heard from secretary of defense leon panetta. and we've heard from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. in addition to the support from the witnesses here today, we

have letters that have urged ratification of the treaty from general mattis, commander of u.s. command, general frazier of the southern command, admiral of the european command, admiral mccraven, commander of u.s. special operations command and general kalor, commander of the u.s. strategic command. and i will place each of those records, each of those letters in the record so that people can read them in full. we want to have an open and honest discussion. that's the important thing building a record regarding this treaty. today we're going to focus on the national security component. at the appropriate time, probably after the election, we'll have a full senate classified briefing because there is classified material that needs to be digested by

members of the senate, but i think the appropriate time would be sometime after the election. as the world's most foremost maritime power, our national security interests are intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation. there's a reason that every living chief of naval operations has supported the u.s. secession to the law of the sea during the time they were serving as chief of naval operations. they know that the united states needs the treaty's navigational bill of rights for worldwide access to get our troops to the fight, to sustain them during the fight, to get back home. without the permission of other countries are without the diversion of having to force one's way into those passages and have a secondary struggle apart from the primary conflict

that one might be engaged in. now, critics say that these navigational provisions are nothing new because they're already protected under customary international law. but most legal experts and most practical analysts of our security will tell you that relying on customary international law puts the legal basis for our actions outside of our ultimate control. by joining, we would maximize u.s. influence on the treaty, bodies that play a role in interpreting, applying, and developing the law of the sea. former secretaries of state henry kissinger, george schultz, james baker, colin powell, and condoleezza rice recently wrote an op-ped driving this point home. i just want to quote it. some say it's good enough to protect our navigational interests through customary international law and if that approach fails, then we can use force or threaten to do so.

but customary law is vague and doesn't provide a strong foundation for critical national security rights. what's more, the use of force can be risky and costly. joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis. gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world's largest international zone. i would call everybody's attention to a full-page advertisement in today's "wall street journal." featuring the five secretaries, all of whom cite these reasons for why they believe we should ratify this treaty. the bottom line is this. do we really want to entrust our national security to an unwritten set of rules? where our security would be enhanced by having clarity ahead of time. is there any other area in which

we choose to leave important matters of national security simply to customary law where we have an option not to? and the answer to both questions is no. just look at the numbers of treaties we have engaged in with respect to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and oather issues. we need to join the treaty to ensure critical navigational rights and high seas freedoms are protected. nowhere is the nexus between our national security and this treaty more clear than in the south china sea. the coming of party would give an immediate boost to u.s. credibility as we push back against excessive maritime claims and illegal restrictions on our warships and commercial vessels and those of our allies. there's no doubt in my mind that it would help resolve maritime issues to the benefit of the united states and our regional allies and partners. and i believe if our colleagues have the opportunity to hear the

classified briefing, which they will, and also the testimony here, i think they will come to that conclusion. it's true that the united states has used diplomatic and military assets to refute excessive maritime claims. i'm sure it will continue in the future. these freedom of navigation of operations efforts on our be half will continue for sure. they entail a deal of risk. and our navy can't be everywhere at once. no matter what the size of our fleet. as leaders and citizens, we owe it to our men and women in uniform to provide them with every available means at our disposal to perform their dangerous mission. let me be clear. i am not advocating that our military take a step backwards, and i'm not advocating that we replace a strong military with a piece of paper. i would never do that, nor anybody who advocates this.

what i am advocating is common sense and giving the military all of the tools that it needs. general dempsey said it best. this treaty would, and i quote "provide us an additional tool for navigating an increasingly complex and competitive security environment. ratification would also give the united states greater credibility and legitimacy as we seek to hold others to the treaty's terms. it would demonstrate by deed, not just by words, america's commitment to the rule of law and strengthen the foundation for the alliances and partnerships that are critical to u.s. national security and global stability." so i just -- you don't have to take my word for that, but let me -- let me quote our current secretary of defense. secretary panetta said, "we are pushing for a rules-based order in the region and the peaceful

resolution of maritime and territorial disputes in the south china sea, in straits of hormuz and elsewhere. how can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven't joined the very treaty that codifies those rules?" i think that's exactly right. the law of the sea ensures and secures the rights we need for our military and commercial ships to meet our core national security requirements. now, you know, some will say that perhaps we shouldn't bother joining the treaty because china and some other countries that are parties don't always follow the rules. well, that's true, they don't always, but it doesn't make sense not to join the treaty to have a tool to be able to try to force them to or hold them accountable. i will tell you, we will hear the testimony, that there are occasions when our secretaries have raised this issue with the chinese at various meetings from

asean to elsewhere, and the chinese look at us and say, you're not even a party to the treaty. who are you to tell us? the united states is the greatest maritime power in the world. greatest maritime power the world has ever seen. we have the strongest navy and our economy relies heavily on our imports and exports that move by sea. as a result, we have an enormous stake in ensuring a stable and predictable set of rules for the oceans. joining the treaty helps us do this. so with that, i welcome our distinguished witnesses again. thank you for bringing your expertise to this committee at this important moment. we look forward to hearing your insights. senator lugar? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming our distinguished military panel and foreign relations committee. i want to underscore for my colleagues a fundamental starting point for this hearing. the commander in chief, the

joint chiefs of staff, the united states navy, the united states coast guard, and individual combatant commanders are asking the senate to give the advice and consent to the law of the sea convention. our uniformed commanders are telling us unanimously that u.s. exception to this treaty would help them do their job at a time of considerable international threat. we have charged the united states navy with maintaining sea lanes and defending our nation's interests on the high seas. they do this every day. and even in peacetime, these operations carry considerable risk. the navy is telling us that u.s. membership in the law of the sea convention is a tool they need to maximize their ability to

protect the united states' national security, with the least risk to the men and women charged with that task. this request is not the results of a recent reassessment. by naval authorities or the enthusiasm of a few naval leaders. the support of the military and the navy for this treaty has been consistent, sustained, and unequal. all the members of the joint chiefs support, advise, and consent. their predecessors, likewise, supported the convention. as it was wrote in the joint letter back in 1988, quote, there are no downsides to this treaty. it contains exes expensive term preserve u.s. maritime superiority. it also has vitally important provisions which guard against the dd dilution of fanavigation

freedoms. end of quote. now, the military is not always right. but the overwhelming presumption in the united states senate has been that if military leaders ask us for something to help them do their job, we do our best to provide them with that tool. within the constraints of law and responsible budgeting. articles and statements opposing the convention often avoid mentioning the military's long-standing support for law of the sea. this is because to oppose a convention on national security grounds requires one to say that military leaders who have commanded fleets in times of war and peace and who have devoted their lives to naval and military studies have illegitimate opinions.

those critics who do mention the military support sometimes spin theories as to why the military would back this treaty. one explanation that was offered in 2007 was that somehow military commanders had been misled by their service lawyers. as a former navy officer who served as an intelligence briefer to a cno admiral, arley burke, i can attest cnos are not easy to deceive. these are some of the most talented and politically adept individuals to serve our nation. suggesting that cnos, service chiefs, other military leaders are blindly allowing themselves to be led astray by defense department lawyers is nonsense. other critics have suggested that military support for the

convention is simply a function of top wruuniformed officers tag orders from presidents and secretaries of defense. this theory relies on a simplistic understanding of how military decisions are made. and it fails to explain why navy leaders have continued to support the law of the sea convention long after they have left active duty. still, other critics suggest that the navy's expression that it will be able to maintain freedom of navigation with or without u.s. ratification of law of the sea means that their assessment is unnecessary or even undesirable. but the navy's assertion that it will protect sea lanes under any circumstances does not relieve us of the responsibility to give them tools, to make their job less arduous, less expensive, less complex and certainly less dangerous. the navy will always have a

can-do attitude. regarding freedom of navigation missions. but that should not make us cavalier about the seriousness of their request for law of the sea. navy leaders are not looking for a substitute for a naval power. they are hoping for a tool that will help resolve navigation disputes with all types of nations. including allies. they are hoping for a tool that will allow them to reduce the share of naval assets that must be devoted to freedom of navigation missions. the ongoing debate and delay in ratifying the convention would be just an interesting political science case. if the united states were not facing serious consequences. because of our nonparticipation. as a nonparty, we have little say in amendments that could

roll back navigational rights that we thought hard to achieve. and in addition, as a nonparty, our ability to influence the decisions of the commission on the limits of the continental shelf is severely constrained. every year that goes by without the united states joining the convention deepens our country's submission to ocean laws and to practices determined by foreign governments without u.s. input. i thank once again our distinguished panel for joining us today. we certainly look forward to their testimony. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank you very much, senator lugar. i appreciate it. senator corker, i don't think you were here when i mentioned it, but we'll have a classified briefing at the appropriate time down the road and just wanted -- and senator -- and i think senators will be interested in that and i ask them just to

withhold judgments in a sense until then. i want to recognize that our colleague, former colleague and former secretary of the navy, john morner is here. we're delighted to have him as part of the proceedings. i think he has a number of friend friendly admirals, retired, who are here with him. we appreciate their interest in this. i neglected to mention, i think today is the army's birthday. is that correct? happy birthday to all members of the united states army. and i think it's your birthday, general jacoby, tomorrow, so we wish you many happy returns, sir. we will begin with, in this order, if we will. vice chairman winnifeld then chief of naval operations, greenhart, coast guard commandant pap, general frazier, general jacoby and admiral

locklear. admiral, thank you for being with us. appreciate it. >> mr. chairman, senator lugar, distinguished members of the foreign relations committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on this topic. i appear today as a career sailor, a former combatant commander and in my current position all assignments that have informed my perspectives on the law of the sea convention. it's also a privilege to appear alongside another generation. time to join the law of the sea convention. i've come to my own judgment on this, not informed by lawyer, actually informed but not influenced by lawyers, that joining this treaty will have positive implications for our operations across the maritime domain. the convention improves on previous agreements, including the 1958 geneva convention. it will further protect our access to the maritime domain. it will fortify our credibility as the world's leading naval

power. and allow us to bring to bear the full force of our influence on maritime disputes. in short, it preserves what we have and it gives us yet another tool to engage any nation that would threaten our maritime interests. we've listened very closely over the many years to the rationale for why we should not exceed to the convention. including a number of items in public debate. and we take these concerns very seriously. we read this and we study it and we want to understand it. but i would say some say that joining the convention would result in a loss of sovereignty for the united states. i believe just the opposite to be true. some would say some of those op-peds and the like would say that joining the convention will open u.s. navy operations to the jurisdiction of international courts. we know this is not true. the 2007 proposed senate declarations and understandings specifically express our right