this since world war ii. and it says accomplished by implementing standards and maritime safety and security and efficiency of navigation and prevention of control and pollution of ships. it's the source of approximately 60 legal instruments and they improve the area of the sea. so those questions i would ask are you really don't think that our sovereignty is impaired by ceding these authorities to some international group over suing the united states and taxing the united states and also can you tell me of incidences where the imo has not answered these problems we've been talking about to your satisfaction? >> thank you very much, senator inhofe, for putting it on the table. do you want to respond, general? >> first of all, it's good to see you again. there was an awful lot in the

conversations. >> up to now. >> even now, with respect. there's an awful lot in the question and we have to have a detailed one-on-one conversation. i'm not sure if it's a tax as opposed to a royalty and i think a lot of these guys are not investing in these areas because they're worried they don't have the underpinning of the law to protect them and so it's money that's not there because they're not drawing the natural resources that perhaps we as a nation would like to see them draw. if we did, of course, we would be able to get the royalties in the range that i discussed and of course, 7% would represent more than 50% of the royalties we would otherwise be entitled to. >> depending on the range and we'd be down to certainly, 11.75

which at the moment doesn't exist. another example would be the reserve officer's association letter 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 staples tements in that are incorrect or misleading. for example, they talk about territorial seats at the 1958 established territorial seat and that's just not true. it talks cleverly that convention defined international straights and what it didn't do and what the law does is to define what transit passage is to those areas. it's not in the geneva convention and not in the law of the sea convention. and i would like to go in to discuss this and that's important to us in the counterterrorism world and the counter proliferation world and there are inaccuracies that i would love to sit down and walk

through even though there are a great bunch of guys that mean the best for our country. as i said, i always enjoy the conversations and i enjoy the potential to have one on this very important subject, sir. >> thank you very much. >> senator issue i lead the maritime organization and in every discussion bilateral and multilateral every conversation starts off with the other country questioning and wondering yet u.s. is not a severe weather leadership by joining the convention because it has to do with piracy and marine casualty, and overseas and 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 we're going to operate in the future and what tools we're going to get in the future and customary, influential law and they ebb and flow. they rise and fall. this is something that assures because it's the basic underpinning of all these treaties and all these agreements that we come to. >> and did you -- my question was where has this not worked in the past? >> i can give you one right now, sir, and it's dealing with the arctic. i personally requested a meeting with the 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 from pollution response to the arctic. 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 forever? shifting politics, shifting strength of countries. what i can tell you is that each and every one of those countries looks to the united states for leadership and set in the example under the rule of law and being in a leadership position and we are not quite in that leadership position given the current stance that we have. do you think in the future if we do give this opportunity for them to take funds, royalties or otherwise which i would have to say, admiral, that's a tax and that's money to be redistributed for some organization which we don't have a voice in, do you think that's in our best national security interest? >> sir, it's all speculative at this point because people aren't willing to drill in the continental shelf because they don't have the legal assurances 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 do we

have a seat at? where we would have the one permanent seat and veto power. >> same veto power that other countries like sudan might have? we have veto power, but first of all you're talking about two entities. one's an advisory and you're saying we have a different veto power than the other countries have? we have -- if any country has the veto power that would nullify the ability to distribute any of those funds. >> that's right. so the deal would be. if the group does not come up with a fair and equitable deal with those funds we would have it. >> the funds would already be there that tax the royalty would already be in effect. they would have the control over those funds that came from our efforts who would otherwise be coming to the united states. that doesn't affect that.

they would have that authority, it's just you're saying you can direct which countries they go to, but they could be coming to ours. >> for the record, i want you to send me a scenario by which any of that would be coming to the united states. >> can i intervene here just for a second. i've given you well more than double the time of any other senator because i want every opponent to be able to have an opportunity to grill people. i think that's really important, and i want to get all these issues out on the table, but i do think it's important as we do that 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 cede to any other countries' tax and there is no tax here and it will be properly defined. >> mr. chairman, we are saying they'll have a percentage of the royalties -- >> a royalty is not a tax? a royalty is a bargain. it is a an agreement. no government authority has issued 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 pointy and others that have been part of these negotiations for a long period of time and how. there is a royalty scheme. why is there a royalty scheme? because three-quarters of the planet earth is ocean.

three-quarters of the planet and a whole bunch of countries are land blocked. and if the ones with the border on the ocean have the right to extend their shelf way out into the ocean, you could have very few nations claiming very few resources of the earth to the exclusions of the earth. so what we are agreed on is quite minimal and it is far less than the oil companies pay to drill off the coast of louisiana. far less and it is scaled by how much mining and how much resources you take out of the ocean. lockheed martin decided wow, you know what? 97% of something is a heck of a lot better than 0% of nothing and they want 97%. they want their 93% and so they've agreed there will be a scale of some amount that will go to the land-locked nations in compensation for the rights of other countries to exploit the

sea bed of the earth. we have over a million acres of land out there that we claim for america more than any other nation on the face of the planet. because we have you go automatic, because of the marianas, because the aleutians and because it's extensive and i'll bring in a map one day and it's extraordinary. to sit here and to think we're not going 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're ready to pay the royalty because they want the profits that come from the other 93%. they established the royalties. i just had to say it, and i'm afraid you'll cut me off before i respond. >> i'll never cut you off, senator. >> money that would be coming to the united states 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, sir, you're entitled and as i said we'll make it crystal clear in the ratification document and i think the countries would be quite upset that you would be keeping them from protecting the profit that you would require them to earn. so be it. i also think it's important to deal with facts. general dempsey indeed said we would not reduce our force. of course, the united states of america will not reduce its force power, but every one of these gentlemen at this table would have the responsibility of sending people into combat at some point in time and they said they would rather have a tool at their disposal to try to resolve things peacefully first and what general dempsey said if you put in completely which you didn't

do, he went on to say that the failure to ratify puts ourselves at risk of confrontation with others or interpreting customary national law for their benefit. so the risk of confrontation goes up. so our forced capacity goes down and the rick of having th confrontation is what we don't want. every one of these leaders have said it's not advisable. >> i understand that. so you would agree that, 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. >> not necessarily navigate, but project force. i would agree. we would project force, but it is not necessarily going to affect those rights. if you want to have a confrontation without having a tool to resolve it, that is a choice every senator would face when we get to it.

but i've taken up enough time, but i just want to also -- i think an admiral may want to comment on this because the reserve officer's letter and i respect them completely and they're entitled and we would welcome those kinds of comments here and once again, we have to deal with facts and a lot of people are working off the 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 since then and so we're dealing with a very different set of facts here and admiral, i think you would agree that there is an assertion that's been made here that every provision of the convention has codified to previous treaties to where there was a party. that's a misunderstanding and it

reflects a confusion about what was in customary law as opposed to the older treaties and, for example, the 1958 convention, senator, did not specify any limit on the territorial sea and some countries were taking advantage of the loophole to extend their territorial seas. article 3 of the 1982 convention said there was a limit according to u.s. policy. the '58 convention did not include the codification of the transit passage through straits used for international navigation in international law and there are other examples of that so i very quickly ask you, admiral bloomfeld. >> i don't mean to be rude, but we have a vote at 12:30. >> we'll come back and we'll be building a longer record and we'll draw this out so people

understand the distinction between the '82 and where we are now and what's in customary and what the relationship is to the treaty. thank you all for your patience. >> thank you, senator kerry, and let me just thank you again for -- for approaching this treaty in a very, very thorough way in having these fine service members before us that are giving us their personal opinions. i think there was some suggestion here that your opinions and i know senator kerry asked you in the beginning, are you here giving us the best of your experience and the best of your personal opinion, and i think everyone said yes, and so i think we should put to rest this issue that 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 and based on your experience?

yes. everyone is nodding. >> yes. 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 is a split. do any of you all have a sense? i know senator warner was here earlier and he was a captain in the marines and he has support. do any of you have a sense of how it comes down in terms of retired military in terms of active military and the various associations 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, the chiefs and operations, the conversation centered around maritime security. that's what i've conveyed to take care of and there's not been a split and those retired not chiefs, and the issue is being consistent that the

elements in the law of the sea convention that enhanced maritime security which the entire convention that i see does, there has not been a split. there have been some that are retired that i spoke to and i said i'm not so sure of that involved a lot of the details in the economics and the details to control. that's been my experience, 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 officer's association that's supportive of the treaty. so that's why i was sort of surprised to see this morning the other letter which had some inaccuracies, but i give them credit for the courage and strength of the convictions and they were inaccurately stated. . the navy and the coast guard's ability to conduct maritime interdiction is an important tool to stop drug trafficking

and conduct counter proliferations 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 combine 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's important that the navy and the coast guard have the backing of the national treaty to conduct operations they can already conduct via force if needed. >> sir, in the service it's involved in maritime interdiction is involved almost on a daily basis. i can tell you prior to the convention, we tried to work out bilateral and multilateral agreement that enable us to

operate close to the waters and sometimes even in their territorial seas because we're able to come to your agreements whether you ship riders and other things and it allows us to see other things sometimes in the departure zone. part of the convention in the '94 revision we had about a dozen country that we were able to get into agreements with. after the '94 convention which had language in there talking about countries particularly how it relates to interdicting drugs and because we coam ply with the convention even though we haven't aceded to it, we have countries around the world, however, administrations change. other people are elected in.

these constructs are on the foundation of shifting sand and we can't always rely upon each country to live upon 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 that into the future and give us greater predictability. thank you so much. >> the elements that respond with freedom of navigation with the economic zones and territorial season and all of that, the transit passage and that all enhances our ability to conduct maritime operations and it clarifies what it can operate and also what section 110 does is it provides a clarity for unauthorized broadcasting and drug trafficking and piracy and unflagged nations as the vice chairman mentioned earlier and

the powers confirmed by other treaties and the united nation's resolution and that's clearly laid out and gives us those mandates that enhance our ability especially in a coalition operation bring them all together to the 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 -- >> thank you very much, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank all of the folks here today. you and the men and women who serve with you make us proud to be american, and i appreciate you being here to advocate for the treaty. there are ten pages in the treaty dealing with navigation that would have theoretical benefits to the military and particularly to the navy. i don't refute that at all although some of the things i

heard today would make me even concerned about that part of it, tom. as had 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 imply kaegz i've heard from some of you today maybe worries more than than anything else is by joining we become the enforces of this around the world, but i know it'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 and one is to help enforce it. that worries me, but i would like to take a second to explain

why i oppose the treaty as a whole and not the pages that you were talking about and yield to senator lee because i know he's studied this a lot and i would like to give him a chance to ask questions before we run out of time. >> 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 and i respect that, but the downside risk for us seemed much greater than that potential benefit that we might have that is clearly theoretical. the hope is that we get involved our hope is that it we might make it work. it is primarily a document at least in large part with environmental issues and that may affect us much more than any navigation part of this and any research i've done, there is not a table in jamaica where the naval powers around the world

except for us are joining, except navigation and perhaps joining the convention can change that and it's not what the convention is doing now, but the language in this treaty that worries us is particularly that which deals with environmental issues and 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 and the largest consumer and we also have the largest military in the world and if we put all of that together we're the largest emitters of carbon and that is an issue around the world and this is not a theoretical issue and europe already will 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 and issues with cap and trade and there will be suits for us to fey pay where we fly sail our ships and fly our aircraft and the dispute resolution of this is out of our control. we point to the complainant points to and the united nations secretary-general will be the deciding vote. so while a lot of us are against this treaty or are not, in effect, for not having the sense to go with it, i'm afraid of having a sense of this that might benefit the military long term, but the others that are in the 300 pages are very serious that subject united states to high cost, we will pay more for this being in this convention

just like we do the united nations and 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'll be paying for countless lawsuits that will 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 bringing us and the rest of the world into the rule of law. i yield to senator lee. >> am i recognized? >> yes, absolutely. >> it's impressive to have 24 stars in front of us and your service to our country. i, too, have some concerns with

this proposed treaty, concerns that relate to sovereignty concerns. the discussion we had a few minutes ago regarding what the difference between a tax and a royalty is i think 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 dweevelopers wi pay a royalty has to do with the fact that there is a vested interest in the united states of america that's why it gets paid whether it's onshore or offshore. the idea of paying a royalty to any international body tends to review that international booed wet degree of sovereignty. that by itself races significant concerns in my mind.

of course, the primary reason why the six of you are before this committee today is to talk about the maritime interest and our navigational rights as a country and i understand that, but i do have to ask the question and i'm happy to ask it to any or all of you that 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 could be a good thing to protect our navigational and maritime right to this kind of a treaty? why is it necessary to join that together with the separate part of the same treat they also deals with the exploitation of the sea bed extending beyond the outer continental shelf. general jacoby, you're closest to me. why don't you take a stab at that. i would be happy, to senator.

in my area of operations and my support is generated by the opening of the arctic and it's one of those things that you must be in favor of what's going to happen. for whatever reason human activity is increasing at a fast pace. since 2008, double the number of vessels headed to the bering strait. this summer right now shell oil is bringing two platforms to work in the bohlford sea. inevitably it's followed with security and later with safety and defense concerns and so we have to pace that and make sure that we staya, head of that. >> would that necessarily include to the extent that there are benefits of joining those two things? is there any reason that there would have to be a royalty paid to an international sovereign body? this would be unprecedented and it's the first time that we would as a country be recognizing and be investing an international