tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 14, 2012 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
so history is dependent upon men and women who are willing to take a stand throughout the world. rob portman is inspired by an ample supply of moral agency. it is what has made him make a difference in anything that he is done. he is first and foremost a proud husband and father. he is a stand-up some -- some. his father is one of a handful of cincinnati and to give me
early support. he has a breadth of early experience as associate general counsel to george h. w. bush and the bush white house. he then was deputy assistant and director of legislative affairs in that same white house. he spent 12 years in the house, taking on difficult tasks. he left the house and took on a tough jobs. he was budget director and trade representative for the united states of america, with the rank of ambassador.
rob portman then was elected in 2010 to the u.s. senate. no matter where he has been, he has done a stand-up job. these assignments and titles are not what makes him one of at thiss finest leaders important time in our history. it is that he has a sense of what martin luther king called "the fierce urgency of now." he has a deep understanding and appreciation that you cannot sit up the sidelines -- at the sidelines. he must look at -- look for the better angels in your fellow americans. here is the guy who will light candles throughout the rest of his career in whatever position he holds so that we, together as
americans, can punch holes in the darkness of our times. my friend, come fourth because i have an award to give you before you enlighten us on what you see as the future of our country. senator rob portman. [applause] i am honored to present on behalf of the faith and freedom coalition this "friend of a free and" award to center rob portman for his outstanding work in the
104th congress. >> thank you. [applause] >> ken, thank you very much. i'll proudly display this in my office. it will remind me of this day and the good work you are doing throughout the country, including in my state of ohio, where this coalition is making a big difference and has potential to change the direction of our country. thank you for that. thank you for this very kind words. ken and i go way back, further than either of us would want to admit. he also married over his head. rose is an amazing woman in her own right. she has been a dear friend over the years. he has a couple titles of his sound -- ambassador, elected official, and since leaving the electoral politics, he is
quietly but effectively played a key role in ohio and around the country, using his deep ties in at the state's community and elsewhere to help conservative candidates. i am one of the beneficiaries of that. i know what he's doing and i appreciated. he has also been expressing himself publicly. his views are conservative, consistent, and courageous. kenneth, thank you for all you do. [laughter] [applause] [applause] i understand can bless the food earlier, so you can eat. [laughter] also i want to thank the group for the incredible work it has done under this leadership. certainly after the election in
2008, when things did not go our way, ross said we needed to do something different. never again shall we have a situation where we are not prepared. we are organized. my sense is that in ohio and across the country, we are making a difference. we will work hard to make sure that that difference translates into some electoral victories to begin to turn this country around. some of the titles i had, i was a congressman for 12 years, i am now representing ohio in the united states senate. i am proud to do it. a lot of titles just proves that i cannot hold a job. [laughter] for me, the titles that have been much more important to me are husband and father. those other ones that i truly cherish. [applause]
frankly, as some of you know, public service is hard sometimes. it is a challenge. it is tough on your family. i believe is a noble profession when it is practiced with humility but it does put a strain on family. you have to believe you are making a difference for your family and other people's families. you have to make your balance. you are only as strong as your court. for me, my corpses' faith and family. -- faith and family. when my favorite passages comes from the book of james. it says, whenever you face trials of any kind, seek for comfort and guidance. what do we find? we find that our faith is deepened. can mentioned my work in the first bush white house.
i was director of the white house office of legislative affairs, a job i probably did not deserve and never expected to have. one day somebody said that one of the tan assistance to the president is leaving and they would like you to take the job. at age 35, to be the assistant of somebody i respect more than anybody in politics, george h. w. bush, for his honor and respectability. at the same time, i found that my mom was diagnosed with terminal cancer. i remember it like it was yesterday, walking into the chief of staff john sununu's big office on the corner of the west wing. he gave me the job offer. he said, i wanted to work for the present. i said, i appreciate it, governor, but i am going home. he said, what you mean? yeah johnson knew, he can be
cranky. -- john sununu, he can be cranky. i got a tirade. why i needed to do this for my country and my present -- why was i going home? i mumbled some things about going back to my law firm. i said, governor, my mom has been diagnosed with cancer. he came out from behind his big test his eyes were cheering up. he gave me a big hug. he said, you need to go home. he was right. , of cancer but she lived for two and a half more years. before we lost her, she got an
invitation to see me sworn in as a member of congress. in her time of trial, she started meeting with a prayer group regularly. she knew that she was going to her eternal home. there was no question in her mind. her 16 years until she -- until he passed away, my father could not wait until the opportunity to join my mom. like them, my faith sustains me. like them, i pray every day. sometimes i prayed for guidance on capitol hill if that is needed. sometimes i am not sure what message i'm getting, but i try. [laughter]
but i have lots of room to grow in my journey. q. ever go to church and feel like the pastor is speaking directly to you? that happens to me on sunday. he took from the 23rd psalm. it is the first time i heard it preached this way. in the stressful modern life we live in, do not try to do it all yourself. rely on god. he will copy to find peace. that struck a chord with me. in the second bush white house, i had to high-pressure jobs, trade ambassador and budget director, arguably the worst job in government. [laughter] one day i was in the cabinet room and looked around the table at all my colleagues. i realize that every single cabinet member live in washington. none of them did what i was
doing. i kept my family back in ohio. i was gone back and forth every week. i would spend the weekend and my computer or on the fun. -- on the phone. in 2007, i love to go home to ohio full-time. i have three teenagers. that was an important decision. and to be with jane. there is never good times to leave a job like that, but church of the bush exported as -- responded as you would expect. he is a devoted father -- family comes first. after being home, i started to get a sense that i needed to come back to this town to help in a time when our country is, i think, in real trouble. i felt the call again. i saw in 2009 the bottom falls out of two family businesses i
was involved in. i saw washington responding by irresponsibly growing the size and scope of government. i saw the stimulus package, the health care bill -- i saw spending that was out of control and no real thought about the burden is putting on our kids and grandkids. i jumped into the race of the united states senate. my first thought on the side and to that was my family. jane was ready if i was. i asked my kids what they thought. i love being home the couple of years. i was able to coach my daughter's soccer team again, i got involved in their school. we had family meetings. my daughter spoke up. she said, dad, you need to get out of the house a little bit more. [laughter]
with that, i jumped in. we all pitchmen -- pitched in. i wanted to write what was wrong, to serve our country, just as you are gathered today to answer the call that washington did this answer back on track. to help americans achieve their god-given potential. it is a tough time for our country. we are experiencing the weakest recovery since the great depression. the president gave a -- gave you into the failed philosophy he has chosen when he proclaimed to the press that things are just fine. he needs to get out more. [laughter] what disturbed me more was the
context in which he made that statement. it is not just the private sector is doing fine when we had 20 million americans out of work, but also the the answer is more government. we just need to hire more people in government and that will get the economy moving again. i do not think most people in ohio and around the country agree with that. i do not think most economists agree with that. we've cnet. the failed leadership has been on display. i was on a conference call with reporters from back,. one said, the stimulus has worked. i said, wow, $800 billion later. by their own measures, there was supposed to be 6% unemployment by now. that is no way to grow an economy. we have to grow the economy the way we have always done it. put more people out of poverty. that is the capitalist system of
letting people achieve their potential. [applause] we hear about the unemployment number, 8.2%. fewer people are looking for work. but that does not tell the story. it does not tell the heart ache. it is not all the hardships are families are facing. it puts strain on families. that is what is -- strong families are essential to a strong society. it is even harder as parents are stretched thin. ultimately, it is through those parents that are -- it is not through government. from our declaration of independence and our creator -- life, liberty, the pursuit of
happiness. life, by that i'm innocent life. -- i mean innocent life, from conception until death. [applause] but much as i have relied on these values and you have and america has, we have also relied on something else as a country. that is prayer and faith to get us through the most arduous trials. it did so during the revolution when we went up against a foe that is far stronger. and during the civil war that tore this country apart then brought it back together. two world wars, a great depression -- the attacks on 9/11. we should not stray from the fact that our judeo-christian heritage is part of who we are. we turn to the time and time again. thomas jefferson understood his
importance when he asked "could the liberties of the nation be thought secure when we remove their only firm basis -- a conviction that these liberties are a gift of god? " this is thomas jefferson. president abraham lincoln proclaimed that "this nation under god shall have been new birth of freedom." linkedin understood the importance of faith in the life of our -- linkedin understood the importance of faith in the . with d-day under way, franklin delano roosevelt chose to share a prayer with the nation rather than a speech on the day. it is our troops who were hitting the beaches. we knew there would be great
losses. thousands of lives were lost. this prayer gives strength and inspiration to our country during an incredibly challenging time. the christian alliance back home in ohio give me the idea of resetting this prayer at the national world war ii museum on the mall. we read the prayer on the floor of the night states senate. it was a great pleasure -- what an amazing prayer it is. fenty to ralph and to jerry and all of you in the coalition. -- and thank you to ralph and jerry and all of you in the coalition. we appreciate your help. fdr's words are part of our history. we hope will serve as a testament to the power of prayer to get through tough times. i was in afghanistan last week to see our amazing soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
they are truly incredible. we are so blessed to have them. [applause] we pray for our men and women in afghanistan, as president roza upgrade on the day when he asked god to lead them straight and true, give strength to their arms, status to their hearts, steadfastness and their faith. no freedom our troops of fought for the centuries is more important is the -- then the freedom of religion. this administration has treated it as a mere second-class right. as you know, despite concerns raised by employers, the obama administration has refused to back down on a mandate that
needlessly pet's health care against the rights of individuals. the religious exemption is so narrow that it covers only charities. this means that groups like mother teresa's missionaries would not qualify because they asked people whether they are hungry or sick or homeless -- they do not ask people if they are christian. that is their mission. this administration simply does not get it. the conscience protection aspects faith-based groups to abandon their mission a charity is no protection at all. [laughter] [applause] [applause] the freedom to live out one's fate is fundamental to who we are as americans. thanks to the dedication of each
person in this room, we can be sure that that right of congress -- conscience that george washington called "of the choicest of our blessings" can remain central to american life. we are blessed to live in this great country of the united states of america. you need to continue to let your choices to be heard -- choices be heard by standing for faith and freedom. thank you. godspeed in your faith and work. [applause] >> a leader who has answered the call. we have other great leaders who have answered the call as well. i would like to invite to the stage a great leader with a faith in freedom -- the faith in freedom coalition, miles terry. please join us.
[applause] >> as its 12th generation south carolinian, i can attest to the fact that this man has always brought honor to our state and has been our man in congress. over the years, whether he was a congressman or senator, one thing has never changed -- he is admired and respected as a statesman who we are proud to call our own. since his first campaign for congress, jim demint has proven to be a leader who has fought to secure our state and our country's future. out like to welcome south carolina's 55th senator -- after being elected as south carolina's 55 senator, he sought
to enact innovative solutions to improve america for future generations to come. into dozens 6, he was real -- elected as chairman. he was recently named to the senate's most conservative member by "the national journal." he was also rated as the center most in favor of conservative taxes. he is set a bold course in working to what many consider to be a kingmaker to elect to conservatives to the u.s. senate. senator jim demint has been a leader and a mentor to the younger leaders in my generation coming behind him. as a welcome him to the state right now, please give him a hearty faith and freedom welcome. we would like to present him with an award.
[applause] senator, we would like to prevent -- present you this award. it is a friend of freedom or for your 100% consistency on voting issues during the congress. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks for that great welcome. ralph, thanks for putting together this organization. all of you should know that in my very first campaign for congress, ralph ran the campaign against may. [laughter] you helps you, terry.
-- you helped to, terry. the other guy would have been fine too. ralph, i really appreciate what you have done here. i thank all of you for being here. i am more and more excited as i travel around the country about the potential to change things in washington and turn our country around. i am not very excited about the people who are here, but what i've seen, if people get engaged, they can make a huge difference. it gives us hope that we can turn things around in this election. it is really key. being in a position i am and -- i am very conscious of all the problems we have as a country, the unemployment, everything bad that is going on. every time i try to deal with it, i have to remind myself how blessed we are resignation. we cannot be-. we cannot be met. we do not need to be angry.
god is in control. we are blessed as a nation. just about everybody else in the world would love to be in the position we are in today. the obstacles in front of us are certainly less than the obstacles facing the people who put their name in the declaration of independence when we started this country. there is nothing we cannot do. we should be anxious and ready to go out and take our country back -- this country belongs to the people and not the government. this is the election to do it. [applause] the other thing we need to remember is that this country is exceptional. we are different than any other country in the world. we have been from the beginning. if we do not understand what makes us exceptional, we will do things like this president does, the things that our government is built on government spending and government employment. he does not have a clue. he does not understand that our
country is not run from the top down like other countries, with central control and command systems, which bureaucrats making decisions about all areas of our life. that is not who we are. america was formed as a decentralized, individualistic country where we have millions of people making their own decisions about what they value and what they wanted to do. we came together as communities, churches, families -- we were entrepreneurs by necessity. we created a wonderful capitalist system that gave prosperity not only to us by people all over the world. but it was because we were different. now we have people here in washington who are trying to make us more like other countries where they are taking everything to washington and trying to control it from here. it is worrisome. if you think about all the things in our lives at the federal government now controls a large part of -- our education system, our health care system,
our transportation system, our energy system, our banking and housing industry -- there are very few things in our country that we have not stuck are tentacles into. it is just not working as well because of a -- that. but the amazing thing is that america is so resilient, hard- working, and innovative, that despite what has been happening here, america is still doing better than just about any country in the world. it is because of our people and values that really make a difference. a lot of us are being told -- most of us to consider faith a central part of our lives -- that we need to leap of faith at home when we get involved in politics. that is completely counter to what made this country great. [applause] the individuals that built this country, most of them came to
this nation to be free, to worship, and their faith is would give them that work ethic, the desire to halt all others in their community, to build strong families, to be faithful to their spouses. that faith element is what gave us freedom. there are two sites, freedom and faith. there is another coin, secularism and socialism. that is why you see in europe -- the bigger the government gets, the smaller god gets, the more secular you become, the values america's great no longer work. we see as we try to transplant democracy around the world that there are very few examples of it working very well. that is a very unique people. we are a people of faith that build a country unlike any
other. we need to realize we are drawn up -- blast. we need to note that we are in trouble and that two dozen 12 could be our last chance to turn this thing around. -- 2012 could be a last chance to turn this thing around. [applause] we are supposed to be a limited government. our oath of office is to a constitution that limits what we can do. but now more than half of people who live in this country live in a household getting something from the country. it is hard to convince those faults of limiting government is good for them. the other half of the country we have got to get on our side. we are not acting only for them, we are trying to pull those other folks into the land of opportunity and prosperity who are trapped in dependency on government. this includes a lot of corporations now who are dependent on government for subsidies. this election can change it.
the reason i believe that is that in the last election -- we thought it was a great election, an outcry of people from the tea party. we thought it was a big election, but only 29% of americans over 18 even voted. we know that in south carolina half of the evangelicals who sit in church every morning are not even registered voters. if we can get the people who believe as we do to join us as -- at the polls, we can turn things around, not just for the present, but hopefully for the senate. i was told a couple years ago that you cannot change the senate. that was bad news because the senate has been the black hole for good ideas ever since i came to washington and was in the house. i embarked on a mission to try to do that. i was fortunate to join by millions of americans who were tired of the status quo in washington. they send us a lot of new people to the united states senator -- senate.
your one to hear from one of those new people, marco rubio. you have marco, you have rand paul, ron johnson -- this fall to an earlier days would of had to wait 10 years to make security and make a difference. -- seniority and make a difference. but those are the top leaders as far as this kit -- conservative movement right now. this is because people around this country got involved and got engaged to change things. the reason i'm here today is to thank you for sitting here today. thank you for being active and realizing that it is our civic duty and responsibility not only to vote, but to help candidates, get others to vote, to make sure that this election is an election that really does turn things around. if we can get a conservative majority in the senate and removed its present that is there now and replace him with mitt romney, i am convinced that
we have the mandate from the american people to balance our budget, stop spending more than we are bringing in, and restore that freedom to have the values that we want. we do not the government to -- we do not need the government to push our values, our faith and religion -- but we need -- we do need to have the government stop discouraging the american way of life. that is happening right now. [applause] so keep working hard. despite the way it looks, there are a lot of people inside the house and senate were fighting for the same things you are. there are a lot of people of faith to pray every day. we are counting on the people of the united states to get behind us and stand with us to turn this thing around. thank you for being there. thank you for having our back. i guarantee we will keep fighting until we get this thing turned around.
[applause] >> senator jim demint, ladies and gentlemen. we appreciate your leadership. senator, thank you very much for being with us today. i have got good news for both you and senator rubio -- help is on the way. [applause] you will have a lot more friends very soon in the u.s. senate through the efforts of the folks in this room. my name is ralph reed, i am the chairman of the faith and freedom coalition. it is now my great honor to welcome our carquinez speaker. in the first -- a key note speaker. pretty good start. [applause] our next speaker is truly one of
the greatest talents and most transformational figure is. in a very short time on the national stage, marco rubio -- he is the son of cuban exiles. his life is a living, breathing embodiment of the american dream. he represents in everything he stands for and all he has done in his public and private life, the fact that america plays a unique and exceptional role in the history of our plan at. when he ran for the u.s. senate in 29, -- 2009, few people gave him a chance. but his story captured the imagination of the florida electorate. he was putting forward a plan to restore the promise of his nation. his parents came here in 1956. he grew up in florida.
he graduated from the university of florida. that you to tell you are being introduced by a georgia bulldog. he graduated from the university of miami law school. he served in the county commission of the city of west miami. he was elected to the florida house in 2000. in 2006, he was selected to be the speaker of the house, where he led the passage of education reform, ushered florida's antiquated tax system into the 21st century, and reduce property taxes. when he announced that he was going to run for the u.s. and that, squaring off against the incumbent governor. when you first came in, he was out raised. he trailed by more than 30 points in the polls, but he demonstrated that a man of
character and integrity with a compelling message can defeat all the money and all the endorsements in the world. his candidacy was truly a harbinger of the landslide that occurred in 2010. he became so strong in that primary that his opponent actually left the party. [applause] he won a three-way election in the fourth-largest state in america by the remarkable margin of 49%. today he sits on the commerce committee and the foreign relations committee, as well as the select committee on intelligence. he is a devoted father, a loving husband to his wife. he's a great champion of faith in freedom. we are excited that his new
book "an american sun" come out next tuesday. to be signing copies for you immediately after this lecture. please welcome one of the finest public servants in america today, senator marco rubio. [applause] thank you. >> thank you, ralph. that was a very kind introduction. i appreciate that very much. i did not know that your parents went to florida and you went to georgia. i always said the american dream was that your kids can grow up to a better life, but it is not a guarantee. [laughter] but you dar right. -- you did all right. we had to bang phenomenal speakers, a great program, and i think all of you have expressed an interest.
i will start signing after. briefly about the book -- it is available for $30 here. more than anything else, it was a tribute to my parents and my grandparents, whose -- their sacrifice and hard work. it was also a tribute to this country. i think this is a great forum to talk about this. as often as i talk about these things, it is not just to inform but to remind myself of why i ran for office. as the book discusses, there were times i had significant doubts. there were days were i was so worried about losing that i pondered getting out of the race or figuring out an excuse to get out. if you read the book, you will see all the things that happened to me. i would have gone out because i
was in it for the wrong reasons. i did not want to be embarrassed. but i'm glad i went through that, because it reminded me that public service or what we want people to say about us -- is not about any of that or selling books. those of us to choose public service do it because we believe what we have here is special and different and worth preserving. each of us is called to contribute in a different way. we're all called to contribute to that as neighbors, friends, members of a family, members of a church, members of a community -- it is there were you make your contribution. it is in everyday life and the people who you inspire to your example that we make the biggest difference. those who look to our face and early christian history to remind ourselves that christianity was practiced not
so much because of preaching -- by preaching but by the way people live. early christians were subjected to extraordinary torture and oppression. to be a christian was a capital offense in the roman empire. we know that the roman emperors lie and christians among the roadway and tortured them to make examples. yet early christians endured all of this with a sense of peace that inspired those around them to inquire, what is it about and that is so different? what is the source of this peace and tranquility they have in their lives? obviously that led to the growth of christianity as much as any other factors. i say that only because it also reminds us that it is the american example to inspire the world. it is not a star loss or our military power -- our laws or our military power. it is the fact that -- as a
document in my book -- they accomplished things possible -- that are not possible anywhere else. it is worth happening -- asking, why? does not happen to love north america more than other places? the answer, of course, is now. god loves all his children. but it is because of a set of decisions made. whenever you are in politics you must choose between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism -- out make the argument to you that they are literally interchangeable. -- i would make the argument to you that they are literally interchangeable. [applause] our freedoms are deeply ingrained in our faith. the declaration of independence and principles contained therein are not really political. they do not talk about our
rights as far as our government or leaders. they talk about our rights as given to us by our creator. it is in our judeo-christian heritage, as a nation, that as principals take root. they did not this make up one day. they believe in their hearts because of these faith-based principles that it is god, our creator, who endows every human being on the planet -- not people born here, but people everywhere -- no matter who your parents were, how your last name is pronounced. every single human being is endowed with certain rights that no government and no leader has the right to deny. [applause] the document does not stop
there. one thing is to put it in writing. it also says that any government that denies this right is a -- an illegitimate government. it is the basis of their objection. [applause] it says that because of this, because rights are -- find the source in god, because governments do not have the right to deny them, because any government that denies them is illegitimate, the only power government should have is the power you agree to give it. you have to let -- you have to put those principles into practice in every aspect of your life. if you live in a society that teaches the belief there is no god, then what is the source of your rights? if there is no creator, what is
the source of your liberty? a piece of paper? the eloquent writings of people to hundred 30 years ago? -- 230 years ago? he cannot have freedom without the source of your faith because the source of your freedom is your faith. those principles led to a system of government that on most days is not ideal at all. if you come to capitol hill, you'll see frustration. it frustrates me, the lack of urgency about these issues, the petty political games people play. yet i realize that in some the other nations of the world -- we saw issues here in america that other people fight wars over. we do it through press releases and floor votes, what other people do to the exchange of gunfire. we are blessed by that.
as frustrating as we may get by our republic, that is not the most efficient form, i hope that every do you think got your live here. the alternative is not good. -- every day you thank god that you live here. the alternative is not good. we also have an economic system that is an -- a system where anybody can accomplish anything. you are judged not by who your parents are, whether you were connected, whether you went to the right schools, whether your name ends in a vowel, whether your parents came on the mayflower flight from havana -- what matters is do you have a good idea? if you have a good idea and are willing to work hard, you have a god-given right to pursue that idea and try to make it work. [applause]
you know what that system of economics has produced? prosperity. it has treated prosperity, increasing prosperity. we do have pockets of despair, people in this country who have been left behind. people in this country who find themselves very unfortunate and, as a society, particularly as a member of state communities, as fathers, husbands, members of the community at large -- we will always have an obligation -- in our faith and patriotism to do everything we can for those less fortunate than us. but the best thing we can do is to continue to provide a system of economics for -- where upward mobility is possible and you are judged on your idea and hard work, not where you came from or who your parents were. [applause]
now, i am literally preaching to the choir. [laughter] you may say, thank you for telling us what we already know. but allegis said is in debate. it is not that clear -- what i just said is in debate. they do not admitted, but that is what is in debate. that is the heart and soul of what we are arguing about in modern american politics. we are arguing about the source of our freedom. is the source of our freedom enlightened leaders who went to really good schools? because of that, they tell the people from the university of georgia what to do? is that the source of our -- [laughter] is the source of the greatness that we have had really good senators who are so smart that they know what is the best for us? we should listen to them?
is the source of our freedom that we have this government that spends its money so wisely that that has created jobs and create opportunities? well, that is what one side of the political equation in america believes. read between the lines of their message and that is what they are saying. you want more prosperity, give us more power to pass laws. you want more prosperity? give us the power to take money from our fellow americans. they say things that are deeply divisive by design. they tell fellow americans that they are worse off because other people are doing too well. the way to -- the only way you can climb up the economic ladder is for you to give us the power so that we can balance. they literally pit americans against each other by design for purposes of winning an election. that is never too we have been. that is never who we have
aspired to be. it is not we should become. and yet that is the issue in these elections. that is what is important. it matters what our country will look like -- we all want our children to be better off. it is important that in this debate we do not allow misinformation to become fact in the minds of some. oftentimes people who hold their fifth dili and uses feel guilty -- who hold their faith dearly feel guilty about it. do not impose bodies on others -- we have never been about imposing our values on others. on the contrary, it has been that we want to have a country with the freedom to live our values and our lives, and in doing so inspire others to do the same. the movement is not about leaving people behind. on the contrary, we believe --
many of us believe we are mandated by our faith to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. [applause] it is not one of anarchy, either. we're not anti-government. one of the great blessings is that god has given to this nation the opportunity and the prosperity it needs to maintain an extraordinary republic. there are things our government needs to do. we want our water to be clean and our air to the breathable. we believe government is an important institution, just not the most important institution in society. [applause] it is a reminder of those of us in washington -- while our job is very important and people think the u.s. senate matters a lot, " i do at home matters more. -- what i do at home matters
more. my job as a husband, a member of my community, a neighbor -- that is more important than anything i could ever hope to do in the united states senate. that is not just true for me. that is true for you. if you want to see a true american greatness, you'll not find it in politics. you'll always find it in the people, the everyday stories of everyday people, who even as a speech you are literally changing the lives of others, one person at a time. they give an elderly neighbor a ride to the doctor. they volunteered countless hours at a homeless shelter. they give well beyond their 10% a month to charity. they dedicate themselves. they're a big brother and big sister helping inner-city disadvantaged youth to learn how to read. they're starting a business that will employ a real families so they can leave their children better off than themselves. nobody will ever read magazine
articles about them. cameras will not cover their speeches. they will never give one. their faces one ever be on the cover of newspapers. yet it is there were like this change -- one person, a family, one day at a time. this all matters for americans more than anywhere else because we are not just another country. the american example is the single greatest contribution we have ever made to the world. in order to fully appreciate, we need to understand that the source of our greatness is not our intelligence or even our hard work, although this matter a lot. america is not just a great nation. it is a blessed one. [applause] blessed with peace -- since the civil war we have fought no
battles on our own shores. blessed with the -- energy resources -- recent advances have made us perhaps the most energy-rich on the planet. also people, people from all over the world who refuse to accept the limitations of their societies, who were brought here by the parents two, three, four, five generations ago. also americans who overcame the most vicious institution one can imagine, slavery. and the discrimination that followed -- overcame those things. they staked their claim in the american dream. this is our dna. we are a collection of the world go getters. the people from all over the world who refused to accept that our destiny was in the hands of leaders whenever chose, that our destiny was limited by those --
where we were born. a place blessed by god with freedom and economic system that judges you on your merits and not your identity -- that is america. the existence of america inspires the world. no matter if they agree with us or not, nations and people all over the planet look to us and find inspiration. [applause] and they find the reality that it is possible here if it is possible there. that somebody just like them, who came were they came from, was able to do that here, why can not they do that there? that is the ability of the american example to make the biggest difference in the world. the question is, do we want to continue to be that? are we prepared -- that is not
just a product about choice. that is a product of our actions. it requires to do -- us to do what those who came before us, confront the issues of our time and solve them with a special obligation over our heads. our faith teaches us -- at the end of our lives, whether we had one talent, two talents, we will be asked what we did with those talents. in my book, i talk about how this applies to me. today i want to talk about how it applies to us. just like people are held accountable individually, we will also be held accountable in our role as americans. all of us at the end of our lives should be held accountable to what we did. one of the blessings we all had is that of america, the
opportunity to live in a free and prosperous society. what did he do with it? did you just take it for yourself? did you use it to the 80 fund years of life, or was it about more? was it about serving your fellow man? was it about leaving our children with opportunities you did not have? was it about being an example to the world? was it about raising your voice is to confront injustice, no matter where in the world it is occurring, here at home or halfway around the world? was it standing for the cause of liberty and freedom? we know that liberty and freedom is not just an american principle. it is a fifth-base principle that applies to all mankind. " did you do? what did you do, america? did you think this was just about having the most fun that you could, or did you realize that with your blessings became -- became a special obligation to inspire the world and in so doing and give hope to the hopeless that there was a way to
live a better life. we will be asked about that too. we are asked to do what every generation before us did -- decide if we will use these blessings, take them for ourselves. we are not just blessed with what we can have. we are blessed with what we can give. the greatest thing we can give to the world is the american example. the greatest thing we can give to the world is an america that is as great as it has been an even greater. there is no reason why that cannot happen. the promise of the century israel. all over the world, millions of people who a decade ago lived in poverty are part of the midd- class. they want to visit here to earn their -- spend their hard- learned dollars. they want to follow our example of freedom and democracy.
" would we ever had -- the world is coming in our direction. why would we ever had the other way? [applause] what you do matters a lot, on a daily basis. what is truly at stake in 2012 and in the years to come is not to switch part controly washington or which a leader lives in the white house, but at stake is our very identity. there is no reason the 21st century cannot be an american century as well, for more people and more places than ever before. the only thing standing between a new american century today it is our willingness to do what it takes to get there. thank you. [applause]
>> if you don't think that what you do makes a difference, think about 10 or 20 more like this in the u.s. senate's after 2012 and '14. [applause] senator rubio, we appreciate your witness, your leadership, and your friendship, and it is agreed honor for me to present you a different of freedom award for receiving a 100% score on all the votes that were scored by faith in freedom coalition during the current session of congress. senator marco rubio. [applause]
senator rubio, take your seats for just 30 seconds. senator rubio is going to head to the signing. you will receive the opportunity as soon as we adjourn to purchase the bark -- book, and it will be signed, and then i will call gary on up, and you have some announcements related to that, as well as our citizen lobby afternoon on the hill. thank you all very much. [applause] >> one more very, very special moment in our program. first, i want to say thank you to the palladian group that this year but we appreciate the leadership. the amazing leaders who are here, your meeting will be in the mount vernon square room following this. without further ado, we have another special moment of deep
and spiritual and eternal significance, and we have the friends of israel leadership team, the chairman, and the special envoy. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. a retired lieutenant colonel of the united states air force. as chairman of friends of israel, it is and honor to be here to address such a distinguished group. in 1987, our organization commissioned a painting of the first prime minister of israel, david ben-gurion. the painting was a monumental work highlighting is a real's declaration of independence. what made it even more special was that it would soon contain the signatures of some very distinguished people.
over 100 people signed this portrait, including president carter and president reagan. if you observe the portrait, the panting of david ben-gurion is needed using each of the hebrew letters of the declaration of independence. 25 years later, we are re confirming this amazing piece of history by gathering signatures of today's leaders. with that, i would like to turn the microphone over to france for israel representative joseph kaufman. we chose him to represent our organization because of his many years in devotion advocating for freedom, democracy, justice, and prosperity in the united states as well as israel. joe, by the way, is currently running for the united states congress, district 20 which is
represented by debbie wasserman schultz. [applause] so for all of you pac people, please come by, say hello to joe, give him your financial support. we need to send a message that resonates and his compelling, and that message is, hope has been an unfulfilled expectation, and this is what change will look like now. [applause] i present to you joe kaufman. [applause] >> thank you, ramon. it is as well an honor for me to
address my friends at the fete at freedom coalition. i am so proud to be here on this occasion, to present this work. it is the work of monumental proportions, bring together leaders such as president ronald reagan and george bush, prime minister's benjamin netanyahu and ariel sharon, and prime minister margaret thatcher as its signatories. within the painting itself, one can view it is real's declaration of independence, part of which states the following, "we offer peace and unity to all the neighboring states and their peoples and invite them to cooperate with the independent jewish nation for the common good of all." of course, we know that that call for peace barely ever to cold -- took hold, as israel
suffered attack after attack from her enemies. the one-piece partner israel had, egypt, the american president barack obama turned his back on, so the country will soon be ruled by the muslim brotherhood, with hamas having free rein in the sinai. we must stand by our friend israel, because as goes israel, so goes the united states. [applause] few individuals know this as much as ralph reed. greatest of israel's friends, and it is a truly an honor to give him the first signature from our re confirmation work to become immortalized in israel's knesset and to hang alongside the original signatures forever. i present the first pen to faith
and freedom coalition founder ralph reed. [applause] >> it is a special moment of eternal significance when we remember our greatest ally, the nation of israel. all right, ladies and gentleman, as you exit, you will be given your lobbying packets to head up to capitol hill did go see your senators and a swing by a house member's office as well, read your letters and share your concerns about the important issues, whether they or economic, social, or national security. very easy packet to work with.
we will see you at 5:30 in h137, with our capitol hill reception with senator rand paul. we look forward to seeing you at there go ahead and enjoys senator marco rubio right now, and you can get those books side and those will be sent to you for coming in the next week. thank you so much. have a great afternoon. host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cablsatellite corp. 2012] >> as this event wraps up, we
want to let you know that president obama is speaking on the economy. you can fall back on our companion network c-span3. we will take you to the second part of the hearing by the senate foreign relations committee on the u.n. law of the sea treaty, which governs how agencies international waters. this morning they heard from members of the military and members of the joint chiefs. this afternoon they will hear from, among others, former defense secretary donald rumsfeld in opposition to the tree. secretary rumsfeld randy iraq war for president -- ran the iraq war and this would be his first testimony on capitol hill since 2007. this morning, the back-and-forth between the chairman of the committee and republican senator jim risch. >> admiral, we sit here every day, it is not often that intelligence is insulted, but
you come here and tell us that we cannot resolve a border dispute of canada because we on not a member of this law of the sea treaty really does that, and i'm sorry you chose to go down that route, because those representations' really undermine the statements and a logical arguments made by others who want to see this tree authorized. i was surprised as all of you testified that the south china sea was not mentioned until we got an lockner. i was going to go down the same route that senator corker did in that regard, i guess i will touch on a at least some. most people in america don't realize what a mess the south china sea is in. the description that we have had here today has been very antiseptic. i met with representatives of the government, and not just the philippines, but other governments having the same kinds of difficulties.
they are begging for help. not one of them asked that we subscribe to the law of the sea treaty. they wanted you guys to do something about it. they wanted me to urge the president to have you do something about it, which i am not inclined to do, by the way. senator corker made the point that this treaty was negotiated 30 years ago this coming december 12. it was adopted by the united nations a couple of decades ago. every one of the players in the south china sea is a subscriber to this treaty. yet this treaty is just a piece of paper and is just flowery speeches like we have had here today, until the gates open on the rodeo starts. the gate that opened, the rodeo has started, and this is not one bit to resolve the tensions -- this has not help wanted to
resolve the tension and the disputes. they are shooting at each other. this has not done one thing to help, as senator corker has pointed out. can anyone of you point out to me one thing that this treaty -- gone on a specific basis people, places, and timing -- one thing in this treaty has done to resolve the disputes and tensions that have taken place in the south china sea? no one to talk about the future, i don't want to talk about what a wonderful document it is i will. to know what did 1 country do -- i want to know what did one country to to use the provisions of this treaty to help themselves in the mass they in in the south china sea? who wants to try it? >> you pointed out, senator, already, that the treaty is not a magical document that will cure the ills of the south china sea. it is yet another tool.
the nation's there will feel more empowered to use whatever mechanisms their art to insist that the mechanisms and the convention be used. >> but -- >> with our political backing and power and influence to do that -- and it might not work, and if that is the case, there are other mechanisms. we have the opportunity to bring our influence to bear in the region, and the nations in that region will be a lot more comfortable if we are bringing our influence to bear with the treaty behind us that if we are from the outside looking in with no credibility to -- having not exceeded to the treaty -- to make statements about the treaty. >> i am not suggesting that you should jump in with force. i am suggesting that this has been an abject failure with the members who have signed this, and they for years and years and years are coming to us asking for help. can anybody answer my question?
give me one example of a tension or difficulty resolved as a result of this treaty by the members who operate in the south china sea. give me one example. anybody do that? i will take that as an answer. thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, let me give you an answer. it is important to note that china, the philippines, and vietnam have books specifically asked us to join the law of the sea in order to be able to help them leverage a peaceful outcome for the disputes of the south china sea. they can i do it on their own, because of china's power -- they can't win on their own, because of china's power. china does not listen either, because they are not party to it. i will make sure that those documents and facts are made available to the senator. china wants a different outcome.
china does not want us to submit to the law of this see right now. it will take a different equation within the law of the sea for china to feel compelled to listen. those nations are at a huge disadvantage. if you look at the map of what china is claiming, it is clear why. clearly, lot of the sea on its own is not going to resolve this. sorry, go ahead. >> mr. chairman, with all due respect, i don't understand that. you have these countries that signed this agreement that are supposed to resolve these kinds of disputes. it would not make any difference whatsoever. there are 160-some countries that are in here and supposedly this document is supposed to do something to create a mechanism by which they resolve this dispute. it simply does not happen. happened. >> part of the morning portion of the senate for relations
committee hearing. former secretary of defense john rumsfeld and assistant secretary state honor pandy will be testifying. until then, part of this morning's "washington journal." host: "the jpmorgan ceo arrived for his hearing with the committee and he was treated mosley as a friend amongst friends." "new york times" has this on the front page. ensign "the washington post," "senate panel grilled jpmorgan's dimon." it ran about two hours and is available on our website, c- span.org, and we will get back
with your calls and comments. [video clip] >> we believe that a series of events lead to difficulties in the synthetic credit portfolio. cio strategy for reducing the synthetic credit portfolio was poorly conceived and that it. -- and vetted. the traders did not have an understanding of the new risks they. the risks should have been specific to the portfolio, only allowing the lower limits of risk on each specific risk being taken. cio should not gotten more scrutiny from senior managers, and i include myself in that, and the firm-wide his control. we've taken a number of important actions to guard against any recurrence. we have appointed entirely new leadership for cio.
importantly, our team has been progress in analyzing, managing, and reducing our risk going forward. this does not preclude future losses, but it does reduce the probability and magnitude of potential future losses. host: portion of the opening testimony by jimmy diamond -- by jamie dimon. "the wall street journal" -- "cool and contrite." "los angeles times" -- "a-plus performance on capitol hill testimony." "the hearing focused primarily on how jpmorgan sustained the embarrassing loss, and the two- hour session in veered into a larger debate about financial
regulations, putting dimon in his familiar role as a the wall street should from the hip said the spokesperson." first up is joe on the democratic line. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span2 how unfortunate that the apology comes after a $2 billion loss, after what occurred in the financial sector in 2008. mr. dimon is a good speaker for his industry but he did not answer the questions of how, going for, he says his management team is going to do things differently. that is not proposing to follow financial reform. when you are on the press is, as we are throughout the world in financial sectors, he gave a very good performance for his team, but did he really help the people who lost all that money? the answer to that is a simple
no. we need good, firm financial reform to make sure that this does not happen again. has happened again since 2001. it happened again in 2012. very unfortunate. host: let's go to our twitter page. and from our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan -- our phone lines are open as well,/democrats, republicans, an
independents. let's share just a couple of the editorials, beginning with "the washington post." the editorial makes this point -- "this is an accident that can happen even to the most cautious banks who interest complicated transactions to employees who, for all the time, are only human. that, we assume, is what mr. dimon meant when he said repeatedly that the original transaction was designed to provide insurance against nothing more than the cumulative risks in the bank's overall portfolio." from "usa today," and this editorial -- "meltdown? what
meltdown?" "in the wake of the 2008 debacle on wall street, congress mustered the will to take on the powerful financial lobby and give more resources to regulators. now, just four years after the crash, house republicans are trying to deprive regulators of the means to keep the banks from once again putting the public at risk." doug is on the phone from illinois. good morning. caller: i thought it was very interesting. here are the two things i walked away with. number one, dimon suggested we have to get our act together in terms of the simpson-bowles bid number 2, mathematicians and physicists are using these models, from the past and
present, to predict the future. we got to get a handle on these mathematicians and the equations they are using. the guy is really incredible. very cooly suggested great warning signals to control where the money is going and how to protect us, and where the money could incorrectly go versus where it should be correctly going. host: from the business section of "the new york post," "dimon takes the day." "appearing more assertive as the hearing went on, dimon blasted the proposed a volcker rule as
unnecessary and probably unworkable. dimon is back on the hill next week to testify before a house committee." c-span will be covering that hearing on tuesday before the house financial services committee. this from "new york daily news" -- "boo hoo! poor baby." bottom of the page, "cuff life for jamie." cufflinks bore the presidential seal. at one point president obama called him is favored by corpor -- favorite to banker. linke for democrats. caller: my biggest concern, mr.
dimon -- i'm sorry, this does not feed anyone. after all the laws that have been passed to prevent this, it seems that right now the republicans, with the business institutions, are trying to get ways that they can get beyond the laws. we have one try to prevent this from happening, the other trying to put us back in a position where it can occur over and over and over again but in a different way. i'm trying to figure out when we are going to get this. we have too much to do and too much to lose. thank you for c-span. host: danielle is on the phone from washington, d.c. independent line. caller: there are couple of things that need to be established. one is that jpmorgan did not commit a crime by losing $2 billion. this is something that happens
routinely carried we have to keep in mind that they have a network of over trillions of dollars and doing well financially. secondly, we have to understand that more regulation is not necessarily going to control or have any -- host: we lost the call. dannell, thanks for the call. you were talking about regulations, which is a perfect seque to senator bob corker of tennessee, where he pressed dim on on with the regulations would change anything on wall street. [video clip] >> the financial system is safer today than in 2007. >> i understand we have larger capital. i'm talking about the regulatory regime that congress put in place. has it made our systems differ?
>> i don't know. host: the testimony, by the way, is several pages in length. this is what it looks like as released by jpmorgan chase. it is available on a number of web sites, including "the wall street journal" website, wsj.com. ralph is on the phone from kalamazoo, michigan. caller: i was interested at the beginning of the questioning there and that dimon interests the simpson-bowles budget plan. i thought it was kind of remarkable and sort of news for the, because the simpson-bowles plants because o -- sort of newsworthy, because the simpson- bowles plan calls for tax increases. i don't think it talks about tax cuts for the rich like the republicans -- frankly, i don't know how you balance the budget by cutting taxes.
interesting that dimon addressing simpson-bowles, and paul ryan voted against simpson- bowles when he was on the committee. host: thanks for the call heard back to our facebook page. from our twitter page -- ron as on the phone. cincinnati, ohio, independent line. caller: best government we got bought. why do we not have alley ws -- have laws the people in business? they d.b. what they what to do. when they paid their taxes,
they just pass it on anyway. you buy the product, you pay the taxes. our government has been bought, and until you get control of the people who are trying to do harm to us, what do you expect? you have to bite the bullet. this is not the way it has to be. if we get people in there who are willing to work for the people, not those with the pocketbooks. host: you are looking at the money section of "usa today." "we have let a lot of people down and we are sorry for it." dimon point out that the portfolio morph into something more than it would protect the firm and created larger risks and, "while we can say we won't eve -- we can never say we will never make mistakes, we know we
will, but this was an isolated incident." bloomberg news -- dimon saying that the fiscal cliff it may be reached before the end of the year. the jpmorgan chase chairman said "the one thing to keep in mind about this fiscal cliff is to not wait until december 31. markets and businesses may start taking action before that would create a slowdown in the economy. the so-called fiscal cliff that may be reached at the end of the year when the taxing and spending changes are scheduled to take effect. the tax cuts were first put in place under president george w. bush and will expire as the temporary reductions in the payroll tax are also expiring, and what is done this sequestration are scheduled to begin -- known as sequestration are scheduled to begin kicking in. arizona, good morning.
arizona or colorado? caller: this is arizona. host: good morning, robert. caller: can you give me quite a bit of time, please? host: sure. caller: even though the subject is complex, the answer is a lot easier to will start by having you know that i notice that i don't get represented. your telephone on the other end -- many times i stay on the phone, like 10, 12, 15 minutes, ok? by the time i get through, the subject has changed, in some cases. host: that is why -- you can also send in e-mail, which we get to online. we are glad you got through. caller: no, what i'm getting at mainly is the reason i feel under present is that nobody picks up the phone, and there is a dial tone and it rings and
rings and rings and rings for about 30, 40 seconds, and somebody did not pick it up at a certain time, i don't get to be represented, ok? you have a lot of power in what you do, right? host: you are represented now, was a please use your time volubly. caller: my idea is that people are not represented at all. take this as an idea -- what if all governments of the world printed money on behalf of the people who are starving, people who cannot get by, people that feel screwed, even though i lost $180,000 in the stock- market. i was not well off. that was my retirement. i am only one of maybe millions. the whole world goes for all of this year -- this here, i guess, to advertise and let people know how powerful money
is, ok? if money is so powerful and you have to negotiate everything, look at why we need a big, big military people all over the world feel screwed. i'm sorry to use that word, but that is the truth. you can characterize me as being frank -- host: how about we say "diligent"? caller: well, i am diligent, and people like me who are tenacious ultimately get represented. and people in the southern arizona area notice what happens. big money all over the world is foisted on little opportunities for little people -- i mean, for big people. you know, in a sense, they rule the world. host: we will move on without
the people waiting to get through, but thank you for sharing your comments -- other people waiting to get through, but thank you for sharing your comments with us. california. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. what is being lost in the discussion is that not one dime of taxpayer money is involved in this loss. this is a business that made a bad investment decision and lost some money. $2 billion, perhaps more. nevertheless, jpmorgan chase is going to make a profit this year in excess of $10 billion. how much of a profit is our government going to make this year? well, i think we all know -- >> jamie dimon testifies next tuesday before the house financial services committee. donald rumsfeld is entering the room with the former defense secretary is joining former
assistant secretary of state john negroponte. here is former senator john warner. >> the hearing will come to order. thank you all for being here. sorry we are late. let me, at the outset, city people that i apologize that we are --say to people that i apologize that we are back here in the smalley hearing room. we tried a month ago to reserves
219 for the afternoon, and we were simply not able paid somebody else had it at this time. i know a bunch of people outside would like to have come in, and i am sorry they were not able to. we will try to have our hearings it because we know there is interest and ideas just easier for every -- and it is just easier for everybody. this is our third hearing on the law of the secret we will have more after this, no doubt. i am particularly looking forward to this afternoon, because what i like about it is that we have folks with different points of view on the same panel, and an opportunity to really dig in, which i hope we will do it, and that will be useful to everybody here. senator inhofe, along with a number of other colleagues, requested that i invite forward to disc -- four to testify,
and we invited all avoid what could two, secretary rumsfeld and stephen gro -- steven groves, are joining us today, along with two other distinguished witnesses. donald rumsfeld is currently president of the rumsfeld foundation and has held various very senior positions in previous administrations, recently serving as secretary of defense under president george w. bush. he is joined by john negroponte, a veteran also will double that in the stations -- a veteran, also, of multiple administration's bid was recently he served as director of national intelligence and deputy secretary of state during the george w. bush administration. also pleased to have john ballenger. from 2001 to 2005, he served in
the white house as the assistant counsel to president george w. bush, and then as the legal adviser to the national security council. from 2005 to 2009, he was the legal adviser to the state department. he is now a partner at the law firm arnold & porter. rounding out the panel is steven groves, bernard and barbara lomas fellow at the heritage foundation. welcome to all of th. -- all of you. this morning we heard a panel from up some of our most senior operational commanders, along with the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, top officers in the navy and coast guard, and they added their voices to that of the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense and secretary of state calling for ratification of the tree. we also introduced into the record letters from other
content -- combatant commanders, all of whom strongly support joining the law of the sea convention. i think, as is my understanding, drawing on the two hearings have had, that even critics of law of the sea are drawn to the consensus that the knit the additional -- that the navigational aspects are beneficial to the united states. as i see it, i hope i am not mischaracterizing it, it is not focus on the navigational provisions, but other aspects of the treaty. i believe personally -- i am not going to go into this at length, because that would not be fair in terms of my chairmanship -- i think a lot of the criticisms are inaccurate. what i want to do is separate what is inaccurate and what is not so that the committee can deal with those things we think
we need to deal with. let me give you an example of that. the international seabed authority has been accused of being, but is not, some bloated u.n. bureaucracy. it is totally separate from the united nations, and has a staff of less than 40. nothing in its 13-year history suggests it is an organization that is out of control or is going to act in consistent with our interests. or that in joining it, we would not be able to effectively use our veto in the council to advance u.s. interests. other criticisms are focused on the royalty provisions, other things. i think we need to begin at 2 fax and i will let that happen. the one thing i want to point out is that it is is clear that the original provisions of the 1982 convention were not fully
consistent with the free market principles, and would have disadvantaged businesses. if i were looking strictly at the four corners of 1982 convention, i would've had problems, as ronald reagan and others did. but those problems, i think, in most people's judgment, have been addressed in full. the ceo of lockheed martin recently wrote to me urging that we pass this convention, and this is what he said -- "the multibillion-dollar investments needed to establish an ocean- based resource development business must be predicated upon clear legal rights established under the framework of the law of the sea convention, including the international seabed authority." other international players recognize the same reality and are acting upon it. trees, including china and
russia, are moving forward aggressively within the treaty from work. several of these countries currently hold exploration licenses from the international seabed authority. unfortunately, without ratifying the convention, the united states cannot sponsor clams with -- claims or shape the deep seabed rules of the isa. if the united states stands to ensure access to new sources of strategic mineral resources -- i might add that lockheed not alone. i received a letter from the head of exxonmobil. he expressed exxonmobil's support for ratification and said this -- "as an american company engaged in the global market for development, exxonmobil is interested in exploring for oil and gas resources that may exist under
the vast new areas recognized, for 70 purposes come under law of the sea. the exploration and development of offshore resources inis complicated and costly, and operating in the extended it areas addressed by law of the sea will be more so. before undertaking such investments, legal certainty in the property rights being explored and developed, is essential." i think our business is overwhelmingly made that point, including the chamber of commerce, the american petroleum institute, the telecommunications industry, the chamber of shipping and america, who just wrote to me in support of the treaty. i would like to enter each of those letters into the record. in a few weeks, we will of many people here to testify talk about the economic realities. today we have experts who really understand the negotiation of
the treaty and so forth, and with a foreword to a very healthy dialogue and, hopefully, very productive results for the committee could senator lugar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you pointed out this morning, the foreign relations committee heard unequivocal testimony from our uniformed military leadership in support of the law of the sea convention. at an upcoming hearing, the committee will hear from a broad spectrum of ocean-related businesses that strongly support this treaty. the convention was before this committee in 2003 and 2007, military and business support for the of the seat was similarly overwhelming -- military and business support for law of the sea was similarly overwhelming. those who defend our country's interests on the seas and those
who invest their money and create jobs related to ocean enterprises want the convention ratified. aties, where the united states' non-participation renders the treaty virtually irrelevant or inoperable, law of the sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law for brothers of what the united states is a party. -- regardless of whether the united states is a party. claims on continental shelf beyond our borders, resource exploitation in the ocean, navigation rights and other matters made in the context of the treaty with the rejoined it or not. consequently, the united states cannot insulate itself from the convention merely by declining to ratify it.
it is the accepted standard in international maritime law and the dominant form of the international evolution of ocean policy. americans who in iraq with other nations on the ocean -- who interact other nations on the ocean have to contend with lot of the sea on a daily basis. they what the united states to participate to defend their interests and to make sure that other nations respect for rights and claims. among the questions addressed by law of the sea is resources in the deep seabed on the nation's extended continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit to be exploited. the treaty makes it possible for a mining or drilling co. with a stake in -- to stake an un equivocal legal claim on the ocean floor and have it recognized under international
law. some say the law of the sea convention is a necessary to secure the legal basis for companies to exploit oil, natural gas, and mineral wealth on the ocean floor. that is not the opinion of the american companies that might invest their resources in this activity. they in favor of the treaty, because without the certainty provided by the law of the sea convention, they would not go forward with many projects requiring large investments. their concern is that after doing expensive exploration, research, testing, and construction necessary to exploit a site, they have to be certain that another entity won't be able to free ride on their investment or challenge their claim in international courts. oil drilling and mining companies prefer to pay a small royalty beginning the sixth year
of production in return for an international system that gives them undisputed claim to the resources produced. this will the provision of the convention was negotiated -- this royalty provision of the dimension was negotiated with the participation of companies. they judged that it was reasonable, given the legal certainty it secures and the value of what might be produced, especially since the first five years of production will not be subject to any wilkie. this is why law of the sea is endorsed by the united states chamber of commerce, the american petroleum institute, and every industry that has a stake in the deep seabed mining and drilling. in other words, if we want them to move forward with large-scale development of ocean floor
resources that could contribute significantly to the and and the state's energy and the a -- the state's energy and national security and create jobs, we need to ratify law of the sea. i have been especially critical of president obama and the state department for failing to approve the keystone pipeline, because it creprovides clear long-term benefits for job creation and energy security. in that case, the president's delay is on necessarily a disadvantage in the united states economy over concerns that have been largely resolved. if the united states senate declines to ratify law of the sea, i believe we will be doing the same thing. during this congress, few things have been more central to senate operations than job creation, energy security, and the needs of our military. the law of the sea convention is
the mayor initiative that will contribute to all three objectives. i welcome, as you have, mr. chairman, our distinguished witnesses and i look forward to the testimony. >> senator lugar, thank you very much. if you would lead off, i would appreciate it, and then secretary negroponte, counsel bellinger, mr. groves. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your invitation. i have some added some brief prepared remarks, i will try to adjust them down to five minutes -- >> without objection, all the testimonies will be placed in the record. >> it is a pleasure to appear with these experts on this subject. i am 30 years away from it, but i am pleased to be here. it was 30 years ago that president reagan asked me to meet with world leaders to represent the united states in
opposition to the law of the sea treaty. our efforts soon found persuasive support in british prime minister margaret thatcher. today, as the u.s. senate again considers approving this agreement, the reasons for their opposition i believe remain as persuasive. when i met with mrs. thatcher in 1982, she promptly grasped the issues at stake. her conclusion on the treaty was unforgettable. she said, "what this treaty proposes is nothing less than the international nationalization of roughly 2/3 of the earth's service." referring to her battles dismantling the putin state- owned mining and utility companies, she said, "you know how i feel about nationalization." the major idea underlying the law of the sea treaty is that the richness of the ocean, beyond national boundaries, is the common heritage of mankind,
this supposedly owned by all people. actually, this means they are unowned. this idea of ownership, encompassed in the treaty, requires that anyone who finds a way to make a use of such riches by applying their labor or technology or there is taking -- their risk-taking, are required to pay royalties of unknown amounts -- potentially billions, possibly tens of billions -- over an extended period, and ill-defined period of time. to the new international seabed authority for distribution, to less developed countries. this, in my view, is a new idea of enormous consequence. it is that this is a way of looking at industry, and his men, talent, risk, and good fortune that argues in favor of distributing a significant portion of the value of the minerals in the deep seabeds to
developing countries. i suppose it is also conceivable that it could become a precedent for the resources of that space -- of outer the principles of advanced countries, when they make use of resources that previously belonged to no one, owe to less developed countries, is a novel view. i know of no treaty that followed that pattern. it is in title to the law of the sea treaty and is the main reason it should not be ratified. there are moral and practical arguments in favor of such aid, but the decision to provide such aid is, has been and should be a choice for each nation. in the case of our country, a
test was of our citizens and their elected representatives. -- t.s. the choice of our citizens and their elected representatives. i don't think our country should make it an obligation for countries to provide for less fortunate countries based on rhetoric about the common heritage of mankind. the mechanism for redistribution is poorly designed. it uses a newly created multinational seabed authority, which is effectively a u.n. agency instead of the u.s. through our foreign aid programs or through the world bank, of which we and others are members. if the treaty were to be ratified, the u.s. would receive a permanent seat on the council of authority. even so, the authority would not be effective and accountable to the american people any more than any other un agencies accountable. it was the analyst at the united nations has a poor record in administering -- it must be
acknowledged that the united nations has a poor record in in minister and its programs. the oil for food program was a scandal. support has been expressed for the treaty in that it would provide greater certainty, which i would agree would be helpful. i was in business for 20 years, and there is no question that they make that argument and it is a valid one and needs to be considered and weighed. the most persuasive argument for the law of the sea treaty is the u.s. navy's desire to lock in navigation rights. it is is true that it would provide benefits and clarify some principles and perhaps make it easier to resolve some disputes. but the u.s. navy has done quite well without the treaty for the past 200 years, certainly since the 20 or so years it has been in effect, relying on customary international law to assert navigation lights -- rights.
in my view, the law of the sea treaty would not make a large enough additional contribution regarding navigation rights or certainty to counterbalance the problems it would create. as members of the senate read each of the 208 pages of this document, the 320 articles, and also the 1994 agreement, i think they will appreciate the basis for those concerns and uncertainties. i respect the concerns raised by the navy and by the military and by elements of the business community. but the fundamental objections raised by mrs. thatcher in her 1982 objection to effectively nationalizing the world's oceans through a new multinational bureaucracy, i believe, outweigh the advantages and make the treaty on balance a net loss for u.s. interests. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. secretary.
appreciate it. secretary debora monti. -- secretary negroponte. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear to discuss the law of the sea convention. let me say at the outset, as unequivocal as possible, that i believe the united states should accede to this treaty. as you heard recently from the secretaries of state, defense, chairman of jsc, and our maritime service chiefs, there are real costs to remain outside the treaty. for the benefit of our country, i hope that this is the year we finally become party to law of the sea. my involvement with this treaty dates back to 1970, when i was a member of the national security council staff. i was given the assignment of helping to coordinate the operation of president nixon's first directive on law of the
sea, i have worked on this issue on and off in the ensuing years, although i would not claim to be an expert. in the reagan administration, i served as an assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs at the state department, and then as president reagan's deputy national security adviser. then in the george w. bush administration as director of national intelligence and, finally, deputy secretary of state. these experiences have only strengthened my support for the treaty, and as you will recall, senator, i was the administration what is in the last administration -- the administration witness in the last administration in 2007. the united states has consistently saw to balance the interests of countries
controlling activities of their coasts and the interests of all countries protecting freedom of navigation. the united states joined a group of law of the sea treaty signed in 1958, by which it is still down, and those left open some important issues. for an issue of critical importance to freedom of navigation, and they did not elaborate procedure for providing legal certainty as regards the continental shelf. under president nixon, the united states proposed the concept of a treaty that would address these concerns, and it was president nixon, by the way, who first introduced the notion of the united states policy supporting this concept of the common heritage of man camankind.
" we have been debating is the way you define that in ways with which we can live. formal negotiations were launched three years later and the convention was finalized in 1982. the nine states reported the 1982 convention with the exception of the provisions. in 1983, president reagan issued a statement explaining that because of certain concerns with these provisions, the united states would not sign the convention. he affirmed, however, and this is very important, that the united states would voluntarily follow the bulk of the treaty. negotiations began during the george herbert walker bush and ministration to rewrite the deep seabed mining provisions. and implementing the agreement was signed in 1994 which dealt with each of the problems identified by president reagan. the clinton administration submitted the convention in the 1994 agreement to the senate in
july 1994, and president george w. bush urged approval of the convention, both in 2004 and in 2007, arguing that, and died quote "joining will serve the national interest of the united states and over extensive marine areas including the bible national resources they contain -- a valuable national resources they contain." the united states would gain legal protection for its sovereign rights and jurisdiction in offshore zones. the freedom of manuring action for its military forces and protection for economic and marine research interests at sea. u.s. firms would be able to obtain essential internationally recognized and exclusive rights to explore and exploit deposits of strategic minerals on the
ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction and secure recognized title to the recovered resources. the convention as revised by the 1994 agreement on implementation provides the commercial or gene needed for private industry -- a commercial regime needed and satisfied the criteria articulated by president reagan in 1982. allow me to cite a few specific, practical reasons about remaining outside the convention damages the united states national interest. these are not academic or philosophical points, but real- world examples of how we are undercutting our national interest by failing to join. first, the convention is now open for amendment and could be changed in ways that adversely impact the navigational rights and high seas freedoms on which are military depends for global mobility.
if we join now, our rights are protected in two ways. first, it will allow us to shake the interpretation, application, and development of specific amendments to the non-seabed parts of the convention. if we delay joining until after an amendment is adopted, we could choose only to accept or reject another party is amended version. in addition, once the united states takes its permanent seat at the international seabed authority, it will have a veto over any amendments related to the sea bed parts of the convention. second, as tensions flare in critical regions like the persian gulf and south china sea, it is important that the united states provide its men and women in uniform with every means available to protect the navigational rights enshrined in the treaty. right now, the united states
has two ways to defend its maritime industry we can initiate a diplomatic process to lodge a complaint with the state that denies us free passage, or we can assert our right to passage by putting our vessel in harm's way. the freedom of navigation program is an important tool in our military arsenal, but it does carry a risk of escalation. blog the sea is an additional tool which can use -- a lot of the sea is an additional tool we can use and is one the navy and coast guard have asked us repeatedly to bribe them. third, by not joining the treaty, the united states is limited in its leadership ability to resolve maritime disputes between its allies such as japan and korea, and in the strategically important regions such as the gulf of aden or the south china sea.
fourth, by remaining on the outside, we have created self- imposed obstacles to securing the most widespread possible cooperation in our counter proliferation and counter narcotics operations at sea. the united states refusal to join the convention undermines the confidence of other countries, and they do bring this up, in our willingness to abide by the except the rules of the road when conducting interdiction activities. fit and critically important, our failure to join the convention to date is negatively impacting our businesses. at least one u.s. company, lockheed martin, is prepared to harbor is critical rare earth minerals on the deep seabed, and i personally spoke to representatives of lockheed about this. minerals that are used in a weapon systems, cell phones, and automobiles, and as a non party to the treaty, the united states
can mosbacher did cannot sponsor of lockheed to go out and get these minerals from the seabed. as the united states watches, 17 countries have approved exploration plans for deep seabed mining. five new applications will be considered this summer at the international session of the international seabed authority. the nine kingdom, belgium are joining china, india, germany, france, japan, south korea, and seven other nations in commercial exploration of strategic minerals, while the united states watches from a short period similarly, our energy companies are less likely to invest the billions of dollars necessary to exploit oil and gas reserves in the arctic and elsewhere because of the legal uncertainties surrounding the outer limit of the united states continental shelf. the only way to give the company is the clear, internationally
look recognize tiny before investing this type of money is to join the treaty and work through its continental shelf process. lastly, mr. chairman, one other point i would like to make with respect to the diplomatic aspect of this question, and one which i think is important as a person who was a diplomatic practitioner for more than 40 years. that was the unprecedented nature, i felt, of the concession by the rest of the international community in its willingness to reopen this convention because of the objections that the united states raised when president reagan said he would not sign the treaty. after learning of our objections, the came to us and invited us and said we are prepared to reopen this part 11 of the law of the sea treaty to try and meet your objections, so that you will feel more
comfortable coming on board. we did that, we held these talks. 12 years later, we reached agreement on revised part 11, and i think, as a matter of diplomatic practice and in terms of credibility in relationships with the countries with which we deal, the idea that they accommodated are concerned and reopened the treaty and modify that chapter, and for us, again, to reject this convention, now that those concerns have been met, i would say would be tantamount to a diplomatic slap in the face, if not more. mr. chairman -- that they will agree to a united states accession to the treaty is the best way to secure essential
navigational and economic rights related to the ocean. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have spent a lot of time with both of them and as you mentioned, i served for eight years in the bush administration in the white house for the first term and as advisor for the state department in the second term. what i can do is explain why during those eight years the bush administration decided to support the law of the sea. i do appreciate very much the concerns that have been raised about the convention, including by senators on this committee. the bush administration carefully looked at almost all of these same issues before we
ultimately decided to support the treaty. let me say, president bush did not decide to support the treaty and a blind commitment to multilateralism. i don't think anyone has ever occurred -- accused the bush an illustration of an overabundance of enthusiasm for international organizations for multilateral treaties. when we came into office in 2001, we decided not to support several of the treaties that had been supported by the clinton administration, including a comprehensive test ban treaty and the kyoto protocol. the bush administration official for similarly skeptical about the law of the sea treaty. we remember president reagan's concerns, but after a yearlong -- we concluded -- the administration's first priority list in february 2002, we tell
this committee that there was an urgent need -- we concluded that the concerns had been addressed by the men as to the convention in 1994, and other western countries had successfully been persuaded not to sign the tree, including britain, germany, and japan, have all joined the treaty after the tree was amended. between 2003 and 2009, senior bush administration political appointees from the departments of defense, state, commerce, interior, homeland security, testified in sent letters to this committee and other committees strongly enforcing the convention. defense department appointees twice testified in favor of the treaty. president bush himself issued statements in 2007 and 2009 urging the senate to approve the
convention. that me and by addressing some of the concerns that have been raised because we did address some of those same concerns. first, reliance on a customary international law alone does not give the united states important rights that are available only to parties of the convention. u.s. companies would not have the legal certainty that they need before they are willing to invest billions in development in the arctic or the deep seabed. by not joining the convention, the u.s. government is preventing u.s. oil, gas, and mining companies from making investments that could produce enormous wealth and jobs for the u.s. economy. moreover, the u.s. would not be able to take its permanent seat on the council of the international seabed which is currently making decisions that affect u.s. interests. second, the u.s. would only be required to pay royalties to the
deep seabed authority if it were actually developing resources and yet the u.s. extended, then a shell. moreover, u.s. oil and gas companies and u.s. treasury would be able to keep 100% of the value of the production at any site for the first five years, and then between 99% and 93% of the remaining value for the next three years. this would be an enormous benefit, not aulos, for the u.s. treasury. certainly are other major industrial countries would not have agreed to pay. third, the seabed authority only has limited authority to address mining activities on the deep seabed beyond the jurisdiction of any country. has no authority to regulate activities in the world's oceans or on the u.s. extended continental shelf. but critics are seriously concerned about the potential actions of the isa, then the most effective way to restrict
its activities would be for the u.s. to become part of the convention and take its permanent seat an effective veto power on the eye as a council. finally, joining the convention does not, in my view, subject the united states to significant new environmental litigation risks. in fact, the litigation risk to u.s. companies would be much greater if u.s. companies were to try to exploit the resources on the u.s. extended continental shelf or on the deep seabed contrary to the terms of the convention. mr. chairman, through determined diplomacy, including by secretary rumsfeld, the united states has been able to achieve all of its important objectives in the original 1982 law of this convention and the 1994 amendments. after careful review, the bush administration concluded that the amended convention strongly serve u.s. military, economic,
and environmental interests. we concluded that important u.s. objectives, especially our goal to exploit the bible resources on our extended continental shelf and the arctic and on the deep seabed and to participate in the convention's decision making bodies could not be achieved through other means. for these reasons, president bush decided to support the law of the sea convention and he urged the senate to approve it rapidly. mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear today. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon regarding u.s. accession to the convention on a lot to see. at a recent hearing, a prominent treaty proponents data that opposition is based on mythology and not -- let alone to ensure you that -- to assure you that my concern and the concerns of many others are not based on
with theology or on strict adherence to ideology without regard to the factor evidence. to the extent that the skeptics face their option -- opposition on ideology, it places -- over a misplaced desire of the international community. it would affect our sovereignty and national interests in several ways. it would expose the united states to adverse judgments from international tribunals from which there are no appeals. it would obligate the united states to make an open-ended commitment to transfer an incalculable amount of royalty revenue to an international organization for redistribution to the developing world, and it would require the united states to seek permission to mine the deep seabed from a council of foreign countries that includes sudan. cd american sovereignty should not be done lightly, since it was breezy -- achieved in has
been preserved for great sacrifice. the founding father stated the reasons for doing so. among those reasons for the imposition of taxes from afar and for transporting us beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offenses. more than 230 years later, the senate is considered a treaty that would siphon off royalty revenue that belongs to the american people, but instead will be permitted to kingston, jamaica, to be spent in other countries. the treaty would also transport the united states to tribunals in germany and the netherlands to answer for pretended offenses. the founders had a deep respect for the law of nations and for the opinions of mankind, but i doubt that could fathom that the united states would subject itself to such an arrangement. opposition is of course based on more than ideology. our skepticism is based on the
available evidence, longstanding u.s. law and policy, customary international law, u.s. experiences in other international organizations, u.s. experiences in international tribunals, the provisions of the convention itself, and of course, the facts. first, in regard to navigational rights and freedoms, we know the following facts. for more than 230 years, the u.s. navy has successfully protected our maritime interests, regardless of the fact that the u.s. has not joined a convention. the navy has never been successfully denied access to any international straight or territorial sea. indeed, at the hearing on may 23, general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admitted that the odor to join would not compromise our ability to project force around the world. in regard to developing the resources of the extended continental shelf, we know the
following facts. the u.s. currently exercises for jurisdiction and control over its extended continental shelf and has successfully demarcated as limits in the gulf of mexico and the arctic ocean through treaties with mexico and russia. since august 2001, the u.s. has leased blocks of the extended continental shelf in the gulf of mexico for development to u.s. companies such as chevron as well as companies from brazil, denmark, france, italy, norway, and the united kingdom. regarding the transfer of royalties, the international seabed authority, we know the following facts. this committee cannot know the amount of royalty revenue that the u.s. treasury will forgo because no study has been conducted to determine the value of the hydrocarbon resources in all of the vast extended u.s. continental shelf. if the u.s. exceeds to the convention, it will be making an
open-ended commitment to transfer an incalculable some of royalty revenue to the authority for redistribution to developing and landlocked countries. regarding the conventions mandatory dispute resolution provisions, we know the following facts. exceeding would expose the united states to braceless international lawsuits, that internal activist, legal academics, and at least one member of the convention have contemplated initiating climate change litigation against the united states. and that adverse judgments issued by tribunals are final, not subject to appeal and are enforceable in the united states. finally, in regard to u.s. rights to mine the deep seabed, we know the following facts. pursuant to u.s. law, long and and current u.s. policies and customary international law, u.s. persons and corporations have the right to explore and exploit the deep seabed regardless of whether or not the
united states is a party. these are the facts. collectively, they indicate there are real costs and foreseeable risks that the u.s. wi undertake a joint the convention. proponents of accession claim there are no cost whatsoever. that the u.s. will only enjoy benefits from membership, and if only the u.s. would join the convention, everything would work out just fine. in light of the facts, i believe it is the proponents' claims that are based in mythology. and online -- on blind faith. thank you again, mr. chairman, for inviting me to testify today and i look forward to any questions that you have. >> thank you very much, appreciate it. that is a good, or ticket summary of the position and i think it helps us join the
discussion here, which i am thrilled to get to tell you i am very happy is between republicans. i am going to look to you guys -- it is interesting to me. it is interesting to me that this democratic chairman of working hard to get something done that president reagan fixed and supported and pushed president george herbert walker
bush refined and president george w. bush, with whom i had many disagreements, obviously, saw fit to send to the senate. i don't think that is inconsequential that today, five former republican secretaries of state, beginning with henry kissinger, all set with got to do this. so let's explore it. i want to explore it. i am going to ask you guys to engage in a lot of this dialogue. let me just follow through a little bit, if i can. in your testimony, you said there is no legal barrier -- at fincke repeated at the end of your testimony. there's no legal barrier to prevent u.s. access, exploration, and exploitation of resources on the deep seabed. so we can go out there and go .head and dig
the united states has long held at u.s. corporations and citizens have the right to go out and develop the resources of the deep seabed. whether or not the united states dexia stew unclos. is that a fair statement? >> yes. >> if that is true, is it your general point that under international law, there is no legal right except by a treaty to exclude another nation from mining the deep seabed because it is out on the high seas? >> correct. another country could not unreasonably interferes with us. >> but that works both ways, doesn't it? >> yes, we can not unreasonably interferes with other countries cline says welker >> if the united states without joining the treaty decides to do some deep seabed mining, under international law, we could not prevent the chinese are the
russians from piggybacking half mile away or 200 yards away, could we? >> as long as it does not -- did not unreasonably interfering with our own claim. >> where would be the legal recourse for that? what is to back up our claim? we don't have a claim. we are out in the deep sea without any legal instrument because we are not a party to the treaty. what would our claim be? >> the only claim that exist right now on the u.s. side are those held by lockheed martin. >> i am talking broader here. by what mechanism -- particularly, let's say russia and china get a legal claim 100 yards from where we are. if you can find a company that is dumb enough to go drill without being part of the treaty, but let's presume for purposes of your argument, we
say go dig did what is the mechanism by which they are going to assert a new ruling? >> in your hypothetical -- >> it is not hypothetical, israel under your regimen. you are saying -- it is real under your regimen. >> your hypothetical that there is a chinese or russian claim within a couple hundred yards within a u.s. claim. >> they are the members and we are not, and they say screw you. >> if russia or china or any other country interferes with the claim that has been made under the auspices of u.s. law, particularly the deep seabed in burma resources act, in this would be a bilateral problem between the u.s. and whatever other countries doing that. they would be infringing on our
claim. >> there is no claim. who are you claiming to? >> there is a u.s. statute and regulatory framework that allows u.s. companies to apply for licenses from the administrator of noaa to make a claim in the deep seabed and countries can move under the statutes and regulations and engage in deep seabed mining. whatn't that precisely brought the kind of thing -- a kind of thing that brought the bush administration to say that the only way, as a lawyer, he could conceivably say to lockheed martin or another company go drill is to know that you have certainly with respect to the claim, and he would not have certainty under the structure that mr. gross has described. >> the bush administration, a
cardinal feature of the bush in ministration was in fact to preserve our sovereignty. we were not quick to sign up to obligations that would tie us down. in looking at the best way for u.s. business, particularly as new technologies became available that would allow us to mine in the deep seabed or with the melting arctic ice, to exploit oil and gas resources in the arctic, that the best way to allow companies to do that was to have legal certainty that was provided under the convention. we did look at customary international law that may rely on their naval activities, but we saw that the only way that u.s. business could in fact engage in deep seabed mining for oil and gas exploitation in the arctic was through the treaty.
that if 161accurate nations have signed up for the treaty and that is the agreed upon international mechanism for a legitimizing claims under the ocean, with the united states the advantage or disadvantage in just taking its claim outside of that regiment relative to somebody who had illegitimized claim under it? >> that would be very risky. these are companies to would want to invest literally billions of dollars out in the deep seabed or the extended continental shelf. that would not want to invest that kind of money based on a risky claim. they would prefer the certainty that the treaty provides. >> i want to ask both of you, if you would, and know that mr. gross did an excellent job of laying out the case, so to
speak, but i think we need to examine that now and i want to try to do that. he suggested there would be an invitation to adverse judgments. secondly, transfer of an unbelievable amount of royalty, and thirdly, that we would have to request permission to mine from sudan. can both of you speak to those, if you would? give us a sense of what the committee ought to think about that. >> maybe we can share these. on the question of royalties, one of the really important points that i am not sure we mentioned this afternoon is if you look at the original part 11 that was negotiated and concluded in 1982, but these were very high and very costly.
that was one of the things that three people off. in the amended version of part 11 in the amex there, it says that those fees and that fee structure does not apply and leaves it to subsequent determination of council, by council, of which if we exited to the treaty, we would be a member. and if we of ratify this amendment to the tree, we'd be a member of that council in the procedure for making decisions on the kind of issue would be by consensus. so would be in -- we would be a very advantageous position to protect our interests. i think as far as distribution of these, decision making process and to these new arrangements, i think our interest would be very well protected. the other point was already made about how from your 0 to your
five, there would be no royalties in the case of oil, and then up to 7% beyond that. again, that is in the case of -- >> i think it is important as the companies will tell you this, one of the reasons everybody got happy about this is it is 1% for the first five years, and additional% for the next year, an additional% each year out. so you are really looking at 6%, 7%, 8%, until you get to 12 years. so the top amount is 7%. you are going up very slowly. many of those companies believe that with modern technology, they have the ability to exploit within that time. they are not looking at these enormous amount of royalties. we do come back to a moment for of the adverse judgments?
>> it is much more likely that there would be an adverse judgment or certainly litigation against the u.s. company that tried to engage in deep seabed mining ore mining on the u.s. extended, and in a shelf outside the treaty. anybody can see that. to rely on a speculative legal argument accepted by no country in the world that is flatly contrary to the terms of a convention that has existed for 30 years, for exxonmobil are lucky to spend a billion dollars relying on an academic theory selected by a think tank, i think that is something that will create great legal risk for it. it is not surprising to me that their ceos have written to say our preference is to rely on the terms of the treaty.
with respect to other litigation, i think the risk is relatively low. we have not seen other countries, and as you point out, there are lots of major industrial countries including japan, the u.k., and others who are potential targets for environmental litigation. the have not been sued for climate change. i suffered along with secretary of rumsfeld as legal advisor for the bush administration. there were lots of unfounded claims related to terrorism against us, so i have seen these. but in the environmental litigation area, i just don't see that the treaty is going to open the -- open us up to significant new trainclaims. >> are resisted saying that you should have suffered. only joking.
is it not a fact that no environmental -- it would not be allowed unless we are party to the treaty. >> i am prepared to come after center ridge. >> he has a conflict. >> i would like to place in the record without objection a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee on heritage action stationary, by numerous former government officials including mr. rumsfeld and many others. they reach a very different conclusion. >> without objection, that will be made part of the record. >> there are so many parts of this. i am going to focus on just one
and will pick up right where you left off. i have to testimony in front of me. this, my i, so i am going to focus on it. the fourth paragraph on page 10, you state "some have argued that the condition might obligate the u.s. to comply with international environmental agreements such as kyoto protocol saw to which the u.s. is not a part. i don't believe it might, i believe it will. ." the terms of the convention do not require parties to comply with other international environmental treaties. that was your conclusion. i know you are familiar with this, but i wish you would take the tree in front of you there and open with me to article 212,
section one. it is on page 175. have you got that in front of you? the very first part of the sentence says, states shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent and control pollution. the united states has already done that. i don't have any difficulty with that. but then when you turn to article 222, and if you go down to the middle of the first paragraph, if you read what we just read -- i am sorry, page 180. it is about the middle of the page. the treaty goes on to state that "shall adopt laws and
regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent, international organizations to prevent, reduce --." how long do you think it will take a federal judge to find kyoto or any of the other conventions that than have as being a competent international organization which has set standards and rules, which by this language, we have succeeded too. you will find a gaggle of judges tripping over each other to force the epa and other organizations in the united states to say you shall, just as the congress and the united states said, you shall adopt these rules and regulations.
that does not trouble you at all? >> i really do appreciate your concerns, " because these are some of the issues we looked at in the bush administration. in our first year, one of the treaties we rejected was the kyoto protocol. so the bush and ministration is very concerned about that. >> that is good, but we want to focus on this in black and white. >> we were approaching this from a perspective that was sympathetic to your position. with respect to 212, it says we shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent and control pollution, but to take into account international rules. so we don't have to enact kyoto. 222 says we shall enforce those laws that have been adopted in accordance with article 212, so
we have to enforce our own laws. >> after what you just read, the next word is, and other work provisions of this condition and shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement them. >> the key word there is applicable. if we have not signed it, it is not applicable to us. >> i would greatly disagree with that reading of it. it does not say that at all. if it did say that, you would say that in plain english. what they mean by the word applicable is applicable rules to the situation at hand. >> i understand you are reading the plain text of it. it is very difficult to read all be pointed out language like this. i agree with you. that is why it took us in the
bush administration considerable amount time to work our way through this. you raise a legitimate concern, but the longstanding view of the bush administration and of the new administration is to say applicable international rule means it has to apply to you. trees that have been negotiated by other people to whom we are not party do not apply to us. secretaire rumsfeld would probably agree there were lots of international human rights rules that people said we ought to abide by that we were not party to come and we would say those are not applicable to us because we have not become party to them. >> you are willing to take the chance that that tortured interpretation will be excepted in the district court of the united states? >> i am with you on this in that you raise concerns. i have seen lots of lawsuits brought by groups and other
countries that are upset with the united states. it is fair to raise that as a concern. that is the view of the u.s. government about the meaning of those terms. on balance, even if this is a fair concern, you have to take into account the cost versus the benefit. with respect to u.s. companies, there is a false choice to suggest that u.s. companies, if we don't join the treaty, can still go ahead and mine. even if you have a fair point on environmental litigation, the benefits of the treaty to u.s. businesses the u.s. treasury, and the u.s. navy, outweigh what may well be a fair concern to raise. >> i appreciate your judgment in that regard. thank you, mr. chairman. >> as you are taking off or going home, article 297, i would
direct you to take a moment to read that in your travels, paragraph c, which is pretty clear that the only way in which anything regarding the internment would apply to us is where it is applicable to us because we signed up to it or we are part of it. i think that is exactly what he is saying. in the four corners of this agreement is a dispensation against any state, the united states are anybody else. there is no standing, there is no exposure. >> i don't read it that way, but thank you, mr. chairman pierre >> it is hard not to read the language because that is what it says. if you only take one section, you can read your way, but if you apply the entire law, it is different. >> i want to simply say -- i don't want that to be an
argument between us. i think it is a completely fair point reading that language and a fair question to ask. there is an argument on the other side. i have given you the view of both the bush administration, which was very concerned about environmental litigation, an awfully felt that was the better interpretation of that provision, and even counterbalancing those risks, overall, the benefits of the treaty would counterbalance against the risk that you have raised. so i understand and support those concerns. >> thank you for an opportunity to join you again in our second hearing today on the law of the sea. this morning, as others have noticed -- have noted, we had testimony that it would improve the flexibility and capability of the united states and their ability to fulfill their
respective missions. since 1994, their predecessors have unanimously made the same claim. that means those who oppose the treaty need to convincingly explain why the preponderance of admiral and generals who have claimed the treaties value or wrong. proponents have made a strong effort to do so for many years but leaders continue to maintain their claims that not ratifying makes the jobs of those who served under them harder and more dangerous. i am grateful that came to testify about something that feels strongly about. the questions are well worth considering an answering and i believe that have been answered. i hope we can answer them again today and i hope we can do it in a way that makes it clear to everyone this treaty is not a threat to the american way of life but in these areas are real benefit to the men and women who serve in the armed forces.
this morning i had an exchange with the chief of naval operations and to the commander of pacific command. we discussed what freedom of navigation operations means and how it works and what opponents of the treaty would have us entirely rely on and what that means for the men and women who served. we talked a lot about the strategy. it is important to remember that at the end of the day, they are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers to serve, and we put them needlessly in harm's way because of our refusal to ratify. the senate testimony that the united states puts their sailors and i needed jeopardy. -- en un needed in jeopardy. can you elaborate on how they are out there in uncontested areas, how they are put in an needed jeopardy?
>> are repeated that earlier this afternoon before you arrived, senator. there is an element of risk involved in this, and i am trying to think of specific examples. i would go back quite a ways here because i recall a time in which i was working in the bureau of oceans environment and science and we had this challenge program where we identified maritime claims that we think are not supported by international law and where we feel our navigational interests are affected. if i remember correctly, the gulf of libya was one of those, because the libyans had a rather restrictive interpretation of freedom of the seas in that gulf there. so we would deliberately sail into what they considered the waters over which they had greater jurisdiction and we recognized, and when you are dealing with the regime that was
not exactly a predictable, always entailed a certain amount of risk for those forces that were undertaking those exercises. so i don't think you can say that a lot of the sea is a substitute for the exercise of our navigational rights. we are always going to exercise them, but it does reduce the level of risk. >> thank you, ambassador. some have seized upon comments made in a previous panel by general dempsey and some of the folks testified today that suggest a lot of the sea treaty would not in any way help enforce protection, that a failure to ratify does not put our nation at greater risk. to be clear, how would supporting this law of the sea treaty provide additional tools that would help our military more safely conduct their missions? >> speaking as a former director
of national intelligence, i think the fact that you have an internationally recognized freedoms of navigation between the 12 mile an hour limit of the territorial sea and the 200 mile resources the zone, and the fact that this convention now, if it is modified some day by some body, now recognizes the right of freedom of navigation. that inherently protect certain intelligence equities that we have as well. >> in your testimony, your reference the department of defense issue ocean policy review paper from 1993 which states that the freedom of navigation program has served to preserve fundamental freedoms of navigation with acceptable risk, cost, and ever. i have to question your assertion that 20 years later, there's no evidence that suggest
a change in circumstances to the convention has become essential to the successful execution of the navy's global mission. the actual number of countries which the united states has challenged under the freedom of navigation program has tripled. it cannot be without risk, without cost and effort. i suppose perhaps we might differ about whether it is successful. the see any change in the past 20 years that might cause you to consider where the freedom of navigation program and have an additional, valuable tool if we were to accede to the treaty? >> thank you for the question, senator. our navy has had challenges throughout its history. we manage to couple of world wars, we made it through the cold war, both of which were great deal of which happened after the convention on the law of the sea was signed.
we have had incidents with the soviets and china. the challenges are always going to be there. the question is whether joining the convention is of such significance that these challenges will either somehow go away or that we have additional tools to address them. my view is that due to the other costs that are involved in the treaty, what i believe to be a marginal effect of joining the convention for the treaty is greatly outweighed. that said, the navy will continue to project force. it will continue to engage in freedom of navigation operations. as you heard from general dempsey, our ability to project force is not based on the treaty. thank god. it is based on continued to have a strong navy. it is my view that when you do the cost benefit analysis, whatever marginal benefit the
navy may experience by joining the convention is outweighed by the other provisions that have those very real costs and risks. >> not to put words in your mouth, but if you hear -- if i hear you right, you would agree, as we heard uniformly from the generals and admirals who testified this morning and general them see and others, that there would be a benefit to the freedom of navigation operations and to our armed forces in having the opportunity to pursue binding arbitration with allies, with whom we do sometimes have to engage in these costly and risky exercises. >> i want to agree with our men and women in uniform that there would be an actual benefit, but when i studied it, what has become clear to me is that nothing changes operationally.
we still do diplomatic protests when we protest the country for a maritime claim. we give the same notice. what i searched for and i have met with people at the department of defense for hours in an attempt to find out exactly what would change operationally. give me a reason to believe there is a tangible and real benefit for the navy here. i have been satisfied on that front. when you weigh that against the other costs, i come down on the side of skepticism. >> i appreciate your testimony. i would like to thank the whole panel for your testimony today. part of what got me interested in this was a personal meeting with the former chief of naval operations who analyzes and that same fact and came out in the opposite place, saying there would be operations that would
not need to be conducted, that could be resolved through the mechanisms of this treaty and that would reduce risk, cost, and exposure and allow us to focus those very viable resources on areas where we need to continue on these navigation operations. >> let me just -- i would call your attention to this fact. i went through their testimony very carefully. in the six four-stars who testified today, i really wanted to see specifically what they were saying and see if i could pin it down. i came up with 16 advantages that they specifically defined in their testimony and i commend my colleagues. 16 positive differentials that come by virtue of signing onto this. one of them is very clearly
articulated in detail in talking about the interdiction of narcotics, boarding and search in the caribbean and elsewhere. there are a whole series of very specific rules of the road, in a sense, that relieved the pressure cooker. you need to have the full statement of general dempsey. he did say we would not lose our force. he did not say that there are not additional risk that are there. we are not going to lose our work force because hopefully the united states congress and whoever is president will always be committed to have the strongest force possible and we will be able to protect our interests. that is not the issue here. the issue is what general dempsey said in the rest of his statement. he said the failure to ratify puts ourselves at risk of
confrontation with others who are interpreting customary international law to their benefit, and the risk of confrontation goes up. what all the commander said today, and i think this is a very important subtext of their testimony, was that the world is changing very rapidly. other nations are pressing for resources in ways that have not ever been before. china, all over the world, we know that. resource oriented policy beyond anybody else. given that pressure for resources and that we are going to become a plant of going from 7 million the 9 million in the next 30 or 40 years, that is only going to increase. what they are saying, all of them, is that this provides an orderly process for how to manage your way through that increase pressure and tension. that is part of what increases the urgency. the second thing they cited, and
this is why i said we will have a classified briefing, our intel community will make it very clear that there are actors right now who are behaving in ways that challenge us where the law of the seat would in fact have the ability to be able to address those concerns. that will be raised in the course of our classified briefing. i want to make sure the record is clear about both what general dempsey has said and what the four-stars said today. you'll have a chance to address this if you want. i know couple of colleagues are under pressure so we will come back and finish up. >> i have found the testimony is very important in terms of historical record of the evolution of this before the administration's and the congress. specifically i would mention testimony today that indicated that the bush administration
made the law of the see a primary treaty objective beginning in 2002. i remember that time because i was serving as chairman of the foreign relations committee and we took seriously that list of trees and were able to ratify a good number. they came off the shelf and we had good debates. law of the sea was among those as we took that up in 2003 and 2004 in -- with the vote in the committee that was unanimous, in favor of the treaty. unfortunately, senator bill frist who was the republican majority leader decided there were other priorities, and as a result we did not have floor debate, and that opportunity past. senator biden became chairman of the committee and he took it up again in 2007. once again, the bush
administration testified very strongly the same way, and on that occasion there were four- votes, but the treaty went to the floor and senator harry reid, now the democratic majority leader, did not find it convenient to take of the treaty. in the i made notes of the testimony. on the one hand, and this is not president reagan's viewpoint. the question is, is there such a thing as international as asian of the -- internationalization of the seas?
the question we have to resolve, people have mentioned lockheed martin, the multibillion-dollar investments needed to establish a notion based research development business must be predicated on a clear legal rights established and protected under the treaty based framework. you could take a position that the ocean out there is nobody's business. there is no idea -- nobody owns it. just something a question of whether you want to go out and
drill or not. very few of such trilling's are going to occur that involve hundreds of millions -- drillings are going to occur that involve hundreds of millions of dollars without some legal basis, some treaty that protect those rights. we can talk about all of those mineral resources being held there until we are blue in the face. there is very little drilling for them without feeling very precarious about it. it is a legitimate argument as to whether anybody owns anything. the treaty provides a means by which we might proceed given the resources and the investment
that we have. i come back to this with questions to those of you have been testifying about this. secretary, you have been fairly evenhanded in discussing philosophically the question. how'd you come down on the question of the letter? why would lockheed martin proceed without there being these assurances provided? >> i do not know if they would proceed. it seems to me that a businessman makes a cost and a benefit and risk analysis. they want as much certainty as they can get. there is no question that it is perfectly logical for businesses in this instance to prefer certain the. on the other hand, businesses enter into on certain investments.
-- uncertain investments. they will go right ahead because there is nothing preventing them from doing that. second, having been in business, it seems to be me the easiest thing in the world, american companies have the technology, they are skillful, they have resources. you can always do a joint venture with another company. i do not know why they could not. i do not know the answer to that question. there is nothing that i have seen that legally prevent them, other than their assessment of what the risk is. and that is fair. that is a good statement, but companies are not taking the risk.
you know, we keep asking american investors to find more energy and to deliver us from the alliance we have had on middle eastern oil, for example, or other situations. businesses could take that risk. it is an interesting equation. this does legitimize the law of the sea. schering whatever the profits might be. -- sharing whatever the profits might be. how did the bush administration
come to the thought that this should be the prime treaty? why was there that change of view? >> one of my responsibilities was legal advisor. after 9/11, we were mostly focused on other things. to look at all the treaties we have inherited from the clinton administration and decide which ones were our priorities. we took a really good scrub at it. there were lots of people in our administration, and we had a lot of internal differences about whether this was the right thing. it took us close to a year to move it to the top of the list. i would not say it was the administration's top priority. we said this was a treaty that
was a priority that the senate should act on. to summarize, there were military advantages, particularly after 9/11. we were asking the military to do more with less. it was easier to rely on our legal rights. the economic and business advantages were things that could not be gotten in other ways. if there was another way to do it, it would not have been -- that would not have been a good argument. we could not see another way for american companies -- as the opened up.c norway has a petroleum fund of $700 billion that it has gotten for its people from oil and gas up in the arctic.
we see what they have been doing up there. for our companies to be able to do this, we need to become a party of the treaty. there were environmental benefits as well. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will not go into what i did this morning. we have a chain of command. it is interesting, all of these people. this morning, we had 24 stars before us. i submitted a letter of 33 stars who are retired. once they retire, things change. i always suspected that had to do with the chain of command, of course. >> can i just say to you, senator? i will give you your time.
you are impugning the integrity of their testimony this morning. each of them said they were there personally, it was their personal beliefs. no one twisted their arms. >> i am not suggesting otherwise. i know the chain of command, that is all. how does it serve our national security interest to send non- appropriated entitlement spending to an international organization that would go to countries that would come from us? is there any way you could see that enhances our national security? >> no, senator. their interest that relate to the department of defense, and they clearly did not get into anything that is broader.
>> i was not surprised that they would not want to get into that. i would like to ask you, i presented the case on two of these hearings now. i'm still waiting to see if anyone disagrees. the royalty percentage ranges between 12.5 and 18%. that is -- that varies because of the point at which a company is not willing to risk its capital. that is the main reason we had a range instead of a specific amount. the 7%, granted, it would not happen for 12 years, but at that point, it would. you say your testimony -- there is no way to try to predict exactly what that would be, the task force said it would be billions, if not trillions. i thought a trillion dollars as
an example would not be unrealistic. the amount of money we could be talking about? >> it sounds to me that we have mixed the royalties that relate to the 200-mile area as opposed to the deep sea. the other has not even been sent. >> the reason i'm asking the question, without this, we cannot get in and develop the extended continental shelf. >> the major take away you should have is that we do not know how much money is at stake. >> that is right. >> there has been no study about the value of the hydrocarbon resources. it is twice the size of california. it starts in the east coast and goes to the west, up to alaska, and down to the south pacific.
>> i am not sure where the table is. it has performed well. what i would like to have you do is talk a little bit about the differences between the council and the assembly and how a veto works in this respect. >> that is called the supreme order of the authority. there are a couple of narrow questions. narrow, but important questions.
it is a very narrow ability. if we have the ability to block consensus on the council, so did the other 35 members. including my favorite members, sudan. when you have a council making recommendations about the distribution and you have an assembly, which is the supreme -- we know who is going to win that discussion. regardless of whether there is some balance of authority.
to extract that money that would be royalties to the united states. we have already committed to make all of those royalty payments to the authority for redistribution. for me, [inaudible] >> the word veto is confusing. it leaves the impression that like the united nations, in this instance, it is much more like our role in nato.
a second point on the military issue, i am no expert, but i read this about the military activity exemption. my impression is there is no definition of that. the various structure, the executive legislative and judicial would be worth that definition would eventually evolve. if you think about it, all military activity can simultaneously be economic activity. and an environmental activity. i can remember we had lawsuits against us when i was serving as secretary the second time because sonar was adversely affecting whales. you can end up with a series of
problems for people can test this. i do not think i am smart enough to know what that definition could be. >> i do remember that discussion. i noticed you were making some notes and had some comments and responses from some of the witnesses. is there anything you would like to add right now in this time that might be helpful to us? >> that is a great open-ended question. i would like to debunk the idea that there are oil companies that are waiting for us to join the st. in order to engage in exploration of our extended continental shelf. there is a charge in my testimony. -- chart in my testimony that indicates all the areas of the extended continental shelf in the gulf of mexico that the united states has already leased out to american and foreign oil
exploration companies. the idea that this is going to be some -- on this development is something that i do not agree with. these companies have made the business decision to buy multimillion-dollar leases from the united states government to go out on the extended continental shelf. regardless if they were not a party to this treaty. if there was one thing i would add, i would add that. >> i appreciate that. one last thing -- are there any frailties' you can think of, something that has not worked in the past, that would be corrected by this? >> it is the forum where all of the things that the proponents allege are being discussed at the law of the sea meetings. that is where they are drawing the traffic separation schemes
and discussing the treaties and other environmental obligations. that is where actual decisions are made. >> i think it would be helpful, do you have any comment with respect to the argument about the continental shelf? >> this is the point on mexico? >> the argument with respect to the ability to exploit the royalties. >> i think this is the most important question for the senate. the suggestion is that if we do not join the convention, we still gets all of the benefits. it is a choice between joining a flawed convention or not joining the convention. that seems to me a false choice,
based on what companies have been saying to us. it is not do the royalties flow the choice seems to be, companies will either mine in the extended continental shelf and are willing to pay a small amount of royalties after five years. or they will not do it at all. the choice is either plots of royalties for the treasury, and lots of money for u.s. companies. and some small amount that goes to the isa -- or nothing at all. >> did you want to add to that? >> this argument is pertinent with respect to the arctic. i represented secretary rice at one of the arctic circle
conference this. -- conferences. this is one area where our companies to feel inhibited from exploring and exploiting beyond 200. we might have continental shelf that extends beyond 600 miles. it is important that that issue be resolved. >> i want to come back to that we get into the second round. they are buying some leases, you are right, and they're very smart to do so. but there is a huge gulf between buying a lease and sitting on it. there are whole bunch of lease is down on the gulf that has been owned for years. that is really where the nub of this is.
>> i apologize that i am late. i want to thank secretary and the ambassador for their service to the country. i remember the transformation of our military and how well prepared as for the events of the last decade. both of you deserve tremendous credit for your service to the country. by question -- my question, i am not an attorney, i love listening to attorney's going back and forth. i have the university of virginia law school student. i posed to him this question of the veto. i want you to read this thing and i want to talk about the veto because some people say we have a veto, and some people say, now you see it and now you
don't. he did a beautiful paper for me. i would like both of you to comment on it. the veto is the absence of -- the consensus is defined by the treaty is the absence of any negative objection from a member. is that correct? if there was a proposal before the council or the assembly, as long as nobody objected, they could move forward. if one member of the 35-member council objected, what do you do? "it's all efforts to reach a decision about consensus has been exhausted, decisions on questions or procedure in the assembly shall be taken by a majority of the members present and decisions on questions of substance shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting."
we may have a veto to stop something to move because we can stop consensus, but the veto can be overridden by two-thirds vote of the full assembly or by a majority vote of those voting in the council. i would like both of you to comment. >> can i help your loss and a little bit? -- your loss didn't a little bit? >> i am not mentioning his name. >> he is taking back from the 1982 original agreement and not from the agreement as amended. >> that is the kind of information i am looking for. i would like to hear from both of you. >> i have the greatest respect from the university of virginia. i loved university of virginia law students. the longstanding position of bo administrations on this
very point is that we fixed the problem in the council voted to give the united states the predominant voice. we are the only country that is a member of the council. the council has to be the one to make decisions on financial matters. on the sentence that you just read, there is not agreement, it is referred back, you did not mention the clause that says and this is in section 3, paragraph five. the united states is always in the council, the decision making should be by consensus. the clause says that except where the convention provides
for decisions by consensus and the council, which refers to financial matters. the u.s. would have a veto over any decision relating to administrative budgetary, financial matters. that would include the distribution of fees. the bush administration believes the united states would have the critical role in deciding the fees. i believe that mr. groves conceded that point. >> i am a recovering lawyer. there is no doubt what the treaty says when consensus cannot be reached. i would can see that if the u.s. was part of the treaty and on the council, it could block a consensus on some important
issues. the important part is what the treaty is silent about. what happens where no consensus can be reached on the council at all? let's say, because the u.s. is putting its foot down on something, from the silence of the treaty, the only rational explanation is that the assembly could act by passing a resolution without the recommendation of the council. at the end of the day, the council only makes recommendations to the assembly. the assembly makes the final decision. the reason why we know this to be true is that further on in the article, in the 1994 agreement, it says the council's decisions on financial matters shall be based on the recommendations of the finance committee. if -- if the council has to be basing their recommendations on the recommendations of the finance committee, it goes all
the way down the line. someone is going to make a decision. we see this in international organizations all the time. it is going to be the supreme authority, the 162-member assembly, that makes that decision. >> you were commenting about the 1994 agreement. about theking subsequent amendments the united states proposed, is that correct? >> in 1994, on page 272, section 3, decision making, it gave us a protection. "decisions of the assembly" --
what we achieved in '94 is made clear that the assembly is not permitted to take action on any matter within the competence of the council unless the council has first recommended that the assembly do so. the council controls the agenda. "decisions of the assembly on any matter for which the council also has confidence -- competence or on any administrative, budgetary, or financial matter, shall be based on the recommendations of the council. if the assembly does not except the recommendation of the council, it shall return the matter to the council for further consideration. the council shall reconsider the matter in the light of the views
expressed by the assembly." it is a round robin. counsel has the regional say. it has to go back to the council. the assembly does not have this your businessget is out there, and the royalties are being produced, and you have a bonanza. we can come back to that. the denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification. in other words, you can just get out of it. you're not bound to trillions of dollars. you're not locked in for a lifetime. just leave. if you do not like what it is doing and it is attacking our interests, get out of it.
we ought to continue to go at it. >> if i may just comment briefly. first, and the council issue, yes, the language says that any of these administrative, budgetary, financial matter shall be based on the recommendation of the council. just three paragraphs later, it says that they shall be based on the recommendations of the finance committee. >> that is correct. we are a member of the finance committee. >> but we cannot block consensus on the finance committee. >> i believe we can. do you want to speak to that? >> we're a permanent member of the finance committee. we can block or control the finance committee. these are the great changes that the united states made. let me add one thing if i could, two things really, for senator isaacson. it is quite useful, a paper was done for one of our negotiators
that i would encourage your staff to look at, back in 1984, the describe how all of president reagan opposed the concerns were fixed by negotiators -- president reagan as a concerns were fixed by negotiators. i would ask that be put into the record. one of the most interesting things about that, for both of you, is that russia was so concerned that the united states was given some much influence in the council that they refuse to sign on and actually it's changed from the vote over the 1994 amendments because they felt it discriminated in favor of the united states. >> mr. chairman, can i make a comment. as a law school dropout, i am glad i was not asked to comment, that i have a question about the 1994 amendments. they have been mentioned
repeatedly. i do not have any idea what they're standing is, given the fact that a number of countries have not signed on to them. second, one of the big issues for president reagan was technology transfer. that was addressed in the amendments. as i recall, it went from mandatory technology transfer to a recommendation that technology transfer occur from the developed countries to the developing countries. i forget the precise language, that something like that. it seems to me that it is entirely possible, and i would be happy to hear the experts on the subject, that in applying for a license, the decision with respect to licenses could be dependent on the degree of accommodation a company is willing to make with respect to technology transfer. when we say that the reagan concerns were fixed, they were addressed, for sure, and in some
instances fixed, and i think in some instances we punted. >> i would let the experts speak to that, people who were there during that time. i think that is important. >> these issues are addressed at length in prof. aukland article which describes all of the 1994 changes. the barriers to access to deep sea mining were dropped. the idea that the authority could actually decide who could get mining rights and who could not, which was really one of our concerns, that we would have this group of companies -- countries that would look at u.s. mining companies and say we do not like you, was also dropped. one, u.s. companies reg the grandfathered in so that they would not have to make some of the same showings that other companies around the world would have to show. that was one of the reasons for the soviet protest.
>> another reason why lot the capital injection to the treaty. rex -- why lockheed has little objection to the treaty. >> and they would be on a first- come, first-served basis as long as people met basic financial qualifications. >> this is too much of a hornet's nest. >> on the contrary, i think you have helped clarify significantly some very important areas. if i could just take 30 seconds to add, so that it is in the record, h two hundred 79 -- page 279, subsection 8 says decisions in the finance committee should be taken by majority of members voting. decisions on questions of substance to be taken by consensus.
i cannot think of an agreement, an international treaty on which the united states of america has the only permanent seat and the ability to block anything and protect our interests. and if we do not like it, can get out of it. i think that is important to have in its proper context. >> i will just take one minute. this is a very critical question, which is why i asked it. i appreciate my you be a law student doing such a good job. -- uva law student doing such a good job. but you have to remember you are talking to university of georgia business school graduate when you're talking to me. i like you to address this issue of consensus, a veto and majority of members voting to override. if you could do that and apply how -- and describe how applies
to overriding the 1994 amendments. i do not want to drag this out, but i was reading a paragraph four as you were reading it. paragraph 5 is still in this book and i need to know if the 1994 treaty extracted paragraph 5, which refers to the majority of those voting present voting and refers to the two-thirds majority. we will not get into that debate now, but i would like to know that. i apologize. >> i think it is a terrific request and we will look forward to the full explanation. i think it will be very helpful to the committee in deed. >> to the extent that anything in lot can be locked -- in law can be distilled to one page, we will do our best. >> thank you all for your service to this committee and to our country. i want to start by asking a basic, fundamental question about something this treaty
does. by creating a royalty obligation as to the exportation of minerals from the seabed outside the 200 mile nautical range, are we not creating a construct of recognizes ownership or at least a degree of sovereignty by an international organization? is that what it implies, the word royalty? if somebody can charge our royalty, does that not imply they on that land or at least they possessed the inference of sovereignty with respect to that land. >> i would not say so. i would see that as a fee the united states has agreed to to mine in that area. >> so if you own land and exxon mobil wants to develop oil on that land and i say i'm going to charge you a royalty for exploiting this resource on your land, would not be implying that
i have some sort of ownership or sovereign right with respect to that land? >> again, not necessarily. i think it is something that was agreed to in the treaty without a broad philosophical concept of what it meant. you have a long legal pedigree. you know the property rights and bundles of sticks can get very complicated as far as what is actually a property right. it is the same with respect to treaties. simply that we agreed to pay something here does not mean that we are conceding that the international community owns it. >> but we are creating a financial interest of one sort or another. i appreciate your knowledge men with regard to senator richest -- your acknowledgement with regards to the ambiguity of the
meaning of the word applicable. perhaps an international arbitration panel could be convened in regards to an next eight -- an ex 8. -- annex 8. >> i would think not. i would think it is a good question for someone who is reading that provision, but for someone who has spent a lot of time reading treaties -- i mean, honestly, this was my job for four years as legal adviser to defend against other countries who claimed that certain things were applicable to the united states. applicable means we are legally bound by it. >> so if we get a good arbitration panel, if we get at least three who are well-
trained, doing it right, your position would be that they would reach the right conclusion. >> i think it is pretty clear that applicable international obligation means something we are legally bound by. >> secretary ron self, i recently had a retired navy commander -- rumsfeld, i recently had a retired navy commander in my office. he said ratifying the un convention on the law of the sea would expose the united states navy to unnecessary counterproductive and bureaucratic oversight. do you tend to sympathize with that statement. >> i confess, i cannot look around all those corners, but we have seen an explosion of
litigation in the world. i do not know how many lawsuits have been filed. every time anyone in the united states government turns around, they get lawyer up. there are something like 10,000 lawyers in the united states defense department today. i do not doubt for a minute that could happen. it seems to me -- i watched some of the military panel this morning. they are wonderful people and they are talented. i did not hear a lot of instances as to why we believe that with this, the chinese or the iranians for example will alter their behavior notably. a lot of the sea has been around and they have not solved some of the problems in the south china sea. china and the neighboring countries are members. in terms of dispute resolution, i have not seen it. in direct answer to your
question, it seems to me that anything they said that they believe this treaty could or should do that would benefit -- and there is no doubt in my mind but there are certainly some things that it would with respect to the military. the question is what is their way again some other aspects, the disadvantages. it seems to me that the united states of america should pursue those on a bilateral or a multi- lateral basis. if they are as important as they seem. i do not doubt for a minute that the very credible military officers were making points that are valid. they could be pursued bilaterally or multilaterally. >> at the end of the day, any legal rights or protections that we have, to the extent that they have to be enforced, would have to be enforced through our own military might, would they not. >> regardless of if there in the treaty or not. >> in the treaty or not. would you agree with that?
whether we draw them exclusively from international law, which we would were we not to ratify this treaty, or if we were also to draw additional rights or perhaps the same set of rights from the treaty. don't those have to be enforced, to the extent they have to be enforced, by our military? >> i would agree with that and i think a number of this morning's panel would agree with that. they have said in no uncertain terms that when push comes to shove, we are going to assert our rights. we are going to project our power. we hope we will do that regardless of any treaty to protect american security interests. their only argument is that being inside the treaty will enhance their ability to do so. i have not seen where that enhancement lies. the operational assertions would be the same. none of those things would change. but somehow they are making a
claim, that i just have not found the substantiation for, that it enhances their ability to perform their mission. >> thank you. let me follow up with an additional question i wanted to ask of you mr. gross. let's suppose we get into international arbitration pursuant to annex 8. we choose two arbitrators. our opponents choose to do. the fit is chosen by the un secretary general. -- our opponents choose two. the 5th is chosen by the u.n. secretary-general. at the end of the day, three of the five rule against us. is that judgment enforceable in court? >> it is enforceable and u.s. territory because the treaty says it is. we have at least one supreme court justice who says so. he discussed how decisions made by tribunals would be
enforceable on u.s. territory. >> you are referring to justice stevens opinion. >> correct. >> is there anything about our rescission from the treaty, from the convention, which could not become effective until a year after we have provided notice any way, but is there anything about our withdrawal from the treaty, the convention, that would affect the validity and impact of such a judgment after the fact? >> under international law, no, and we are actually dealing with that issue right now with regard to a mexican death penalty case that was litigated through our system. we withdrew -- the bush administration withdrew from the optional protocol after they got a really bad judgment from them. but the judgment of the international court of justice in that case is still pending. it still has legal force and effect because we were under its jurisdiction when they made the judgment regardless of our
subsequent withdrawal. >> almost 30 years ago. >> that case was during the budget ministration. you might be thinking of the nicaraguan case during the reagan administration. >> maybe. i see my time has expired. >> thank you. do you have any second round questions you want to ask? senator lee, you might be interested to know that the united states senate has already approved a treaty that has the exact same procedure in it. we gave our vising consent to an 1996. -- advice and consent to it in 1996. not only does it subject united states to arbitration, but in fact, it subjects us to arbitration under the law of the sea convention. the senate has twice ratified it and it seems to be working pretty well without problems.
that, incidentally, was passed out under chairman jesse helms. so -- yes? >> i just had one point that i wanted to make with respect to how adhering to the treaty might be helpful in some circumstances with respect to our naval activities in the coast guard. clearly, when you boil it down to a poler choice between the use of force and the application of law, well, the application of military force is likely to win every time. i do not question that. but let's take the proliferation security initiative, for example. there instances where countries, a friendly countries, either have reservation and may even in some instances have cooperate with
us on a particular mission because we are not party to the law of the sea. that is an example of where the cooperative atmosphere onn issue of real importance to the security of the united states could improve if we see to the treaty. the case in china and their exaggerated claims to the south china sea, they are out of sync and out of line with the law of the sea because of the way they draw their baselines and their historical interpretation of their jurisdictions over the seas. the best arguments are that they are not applying the principles embodied in the law of the sea. weirded disadvantage making an argument to them -- we are at a disadvantage making an argument to them because we are not parties to the convention. i can think of a number of instances -- and the last one i guess i would cite is the
passage, free passage through streets. that was a major accomplishment in the law of the sea treaty. think of the complications we might have if we developed an antagonistic relationship with a country that decided it wanted to make it difficult for the free navigation through streets -- straits for surface or other kinds of vessels. diplomacy has its limitations, but it can still be positive. it enhances positive work. >> let me wrap this up a little bit if i can. first of all, you all have been terrific. it has been very, very helpful to have this kind of back and forth. i would just say that senator
lee and some of the others, mr. groves, you are operating on the principle that the united states has are reestablished full jurisdiction and control over the continental -- has already established full jurisdiction and control over the continental shelf. you point to the outer continental shelf lands act. the problem is that nowhere in a proclamation or anywhere else has president truman or anyone else about the longitude and latitude markers of our outer continental shelf. the only way we can achieve certainty with respect to those demarcations is through an international agreement of some kind. we're not going to go on at length about it.
i do want to pursue this. we may well have some of you back or all of you back at some point in time when we get answers on the record. i am concerned, secretary rumsfeld, about a joint venture with other countries to exploit our resources. if you want to talk about american sovereignty and american interests, i do not want to share with another country. under this treaty, if you import what you exploit, you do not have to pay any royalties. royalty free if you are importing it to your country. that is an extraordinary offering, and it comes to the real nub of this choice we face, which is, this is not a choice between a flawed treaty and what
the impact might be, and do you take some benefits in exchange for that or if you do not do it, you go out and get the same benefits. i think one of you suggested we ought to be doing these programs of distribution through our aid program. i do not know if you have been following the budget lately, but we're not growing our aid programs. we are shrinking them. our influence to the middle east is significantly reduced by our inability to be able to affect things, our inability to do counter-terrorism, our inability to bring countries out of destitute poverty because of the absence of anything remotely resembling a marshall plan or anything like it in modern context is palpable. 60% of these populations under the age of first 25, 50% under
21, 40% under 18. some countries with 4 or 5% of their population at four-years old. what shall we do about that? the idea that there may be some resources coming from something like this that goes to some of these countries may be a saving grace. senator lugar has raised this question about do you maybe get $1 trillion or whenever you might get out of it? if you're seeing in and for distribution of that, you have a -- an untoward distribution of that, you have the ability to get out of it. there no guarantees that anybody is going to drill if we do not do this. the ceos and legal departments of these companies are telling us that. you can choose not to believe
fortune 500 ceos and their stock value interests and all the rest of thit. it would be the first time i have known the republican party not to put some credibility in what they are saying, but that is the choice here. it seems to me we have to keep this framed properly. so, we will have additional hearings and we will continue to explore this. you'll have been enormously helpful in fleshing out a number of these considerations. the record is getting stronger as a result in terms of people's ability to make judgments and that is what we want to do. i'm very grateful to all of you for coming. to both secretaries, we're pleased to see a continuing to dig in and to contribute. we're delighted to have you here today. thank you very much. >> we will stay open for a week from this morning's hearing and
112th congress with district maps and committee assignments, also information on cabinet members, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. you can order it online at c- span.org. tonight it 8:00 eastern, british prime minister david cameron testifies before an inquiry on the relationship between politicians and the press. in the colson was previously an editor of news of the world. he is accused of being involved in the hacking of the voice mails of celebrities, royals and crime victims. the prime minister answered questions today about hiring mr. colson and his relationship with rupert murdoch. also, more british politics on sunday night on c-span. this week, secretary clinton spoke about the ongoing situation in syria. >> we have confronted the
russians about stopping a continued arms shipments to syria. they have from time to time said that we should not worry. everything they are shipping is unrelated to their actions internally. that is patently untrue. we are concerned about the latest information we have said there are attack helicopters on the way from russia to syria which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically. >> watch the rest of the discussion on the arab-israeli peace conference on line at the c-span video library. new mexico senator jeff bingaman says that u.s. clean energy production is at a disadvantage against china. he says the reason is that clean energy policies are inconsistent and erratic. he chairs the energy committee and today held a hearing on the issue.