Richard G. Lugar, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations - U.S. Leadership in the World and the Law of the Sea

Dear Colleague:

Last week, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved U.S. ratification of an important treaty governing the uses of the world’s oceans – the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Bush Administration strongly supports its ratification, as did the Clinton Administration before it. The Convention is also supported by affected industries and the environmental community.

The United States is the world’s largest maritime power and we have one of the largest coastlines in the world. As a result, we have enormous interests in the oceans and their uses, including important national security, economic, and environmental protection interests. The Convention advances these interests in a number of ways. I want to take this opportunity to address in particular the national security benefits the Convention provides; I will be writing to you in the near future about other benefits of the Convention.

Our armed forces rely on the ability to navigate freely on, over, and under the world’s oceans to protect U.S. security interests worldwide. Achieving a widely accepted treaty that enshrines and provides legal protections for key rights of navigation and overflight has been a principal objective of U.S. oceans policy for decades.

The Law of the Sea Convention fully achieves that objective. As Admiral Michael Mullen, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, told the Foreign Relations Committee, “We support the Convention because it protects military mobility by codifying favorable transit rights in key international straits, archipelagic waters, and waters adjacent to coastal states where our forces must be able to navigate freely.” Mark Esper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy, cited the following as “examples of rights that exist under the Convention that are critical to military operations”:

Freedom of navigation and overflight on the high seas and within the 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ);
Freedom of navigation and overflight through key international straits (such as Hormuz, Gibraltar, and Malaca) and archipelagoes (such as Indonesia and the Philippines);
Limitation of territorial seas to 12 nm and limitations on the jurisdiction of coastal states within their EEZs and beyond;
Innocent passage through foreign territorial seas, without notification or permission, regardless of armament or means of propulsion; and
Freedom to conduct military surveys seaward of foreign territorial seas without the permission of coastal states.

These rights are also of great importance to the U.S. Coast Guard in its work to protect U.S. homeland security. Coast Guard Chief Counsel Rear Admiral John Crowley told the Foreign Relations Committee that “As the lead Federal agency for maritime security, the Coast Guard believes that acceding to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea will benefit the Coast Guard in our efforts to ensure maritime homeland security, and ensure that our maritime borders are secure, as well.”

Gaining international agreement to a Convention that protects these important U.S. security interests was a major achievement for the United States. While the United States did not sign the Convention when it was first concluded in 1982 because of concerns about its provisions on deep sea mining (which have since been fully resolved), it has always embraced the Convention’s provisions regarding navigation and other traditional uses of the oceans essential to our military. It has been United States policy since President Reagan’s 1983 Oceans Policy Statement to act consistently with these provisions of the Convention.

However, by not ratifying the Convention, the United States risks losing the important protections it fought so hard to achieve. Recent years have seen a resurgence in efforts by a number of states to chip away at protections the treaty provides; the risk these efforts pose grows later this year when the treaty comes open for amendment for the first time. Ratifying the Convention will help the United States to preserve its rights. According to Deputy Assistant Secretary Esper, acceding to the Convention “will provide the United States with another venue to try to prevent the erosion of navigational rights and freedoms critical to the U.S. armed forces,” including by “seeking to prevent adverse amendments to the Convention, and by using annual meetings of States Parties to address misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the Convention.”

Some misinformed commentators have erroneously asserted that the Convention’s rules would prohibit the sort of at-sea interdiction operations that are central to President Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which is designed to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the PSI’s own rules, all PSI interdiction activities will be undertaken “consistent with national legal authorities and relevant international law and frameworks”, which include the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Moreover, all of our PSI partners are parties to the Convention and thus are bound to comply with it.

In fact, the Convention strengthens PSI. As Admiral Mullen told the Foreign Relations Committee, being party to the Convention “would greatly strengthen [the Navy’s] ability to support the objectives” of PSI by reinforcing and codifying freedom of navigation rights on which the Navy depends for operational mobility. In a similar vein, Deputy Assistant Secretary Esper observed that “as a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States will have another avenue through which to achieve consensus proscribing the maritime trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states of concern and terrorists.”

Also baseless is any suggestion that the Convention would weaken U.S. intelligence gathering and submarine activities in foreign territorial seas. The Convention’s rules in this regard do not change the rules the United States has operated under for over 40 years under a predecessor 1958 treaty to which the United States is a party. Neither adversely affects such activities. Moreover, as noted above, it has been U.S. policy since President’s 1983 Oceans Policy Statement to act consistently with the Convention.

As reflected in the strong support expressed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provides substantial national security benefits to the United States. I urge you to vote to ratify the Convention when it comes before the Senate.

Dear Colleague:

The Foreign Relations Committee has recently reported to the Senate a resolution of advice and consent to an important treaty governing the uses of the world’s oceans – the Law of the Sea Convention. The Bush Administration strongly supports its ratification, as did the Clinton Administration before it. The Convention is also supported by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy in particular, affected industries (including the oil and gas, commercial shipping and fishing industries) and the environmental community. Moreover, its ratification has been a key recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

It is important that the Senate take up the Convention at the earliest opportunity and we urge you to join us in supporting its ratification.

The United States is the world’s largest maritime power and we have one of the largest coastlines in the world. As a result, we have enormous interests in the oceans and their uses, including critical national security, economic, and environmental protection interests. The United States played the leading role in negotiating the Convention and the result is an agreement that advances every U.S. oceans interest.

The Convention advances U.S. national security by preserving the rights of navigation and overflight across the world's oceans, on which our military relies to protect U.S. interests around the world. It advances U.S. economic interests by enshrining the right of the United States to explore and exploit the living and non-living resources of the oceans out to 200 miles from our shore, as well as the resources of our continental shelf beyond 200 miles. It advances U.S. interests in the protection of the environment by addressing pollution of the marine environment from a variety of sources and providing a framework for the conclusion of further agreements to protect and conserve the marine environment and fisheries resources. Joining the Convention is also important to the ability of the United States to exercise leadership and influence over oceans issues globally.

If we do not ratify soon, the gains the United States secured under the Convention could be in jeopardy. The Convention comes open for amendment for the first time later this year. If the United States is not a party to the Convention at that time, we will not have a seat at the table to protect against proposed amendments to the Convention that would roll back rights we fought hard to achieve. In addition, the Convention's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf will soon begin making determinations that could impact the United States' ability to lay claim to all bottom resources on our continental shelves beyond 200-miles. Full U.S. participation in this process will be important, and this requires us to be party to the Convention.

We attach a fuller description of the national security benefits to the United States from accession to the Convention that has been sent to members previously.

The Law of the Sea Convention is in our national interest and will provide us with the comprehensive legal framework we need to maximize our use of the oceans’ resources, while ensuring their healthiness and productivity for generations to come. We urge you to join us in supporting its prompt consideration on the floor of the Senate.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Lugar Ted Stevens
United States Senator United States Senator

Attachment

Dear Colleague:

We wanted to share with you the enclosed letter Senator Lugar received last week from Admiral Vern Clark, the Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Clark expresses his strong support for U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. He notes that the Convention provides important benefits for the Navy’s efforts to protect U.S. security interests worldwide and to successfully fight the war on terrorism.

Last month, the Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 to report to the Senate a resolution of advice and consent to the Law of the Sea Convention. It is important that the Senate take up the Convention quickly and vote to ratify it. In November of this year, countries will be able to propose and adopt amendments to the Convention for the first time since the Convention entered into force. If the United States is not a party to the Convention at that time, we won’t have a seat at the table to oppose efforts by other countries to roll back the Convention’s important protections for navigational freedoms on which our Armed Forces rely to project power around the world.

We urge you to join us in supporting early consideration of the Law of the Sea Convention on the Senate floor.

As we have listened to debate about the Law of the Sea Convention, we believe the Senate now has the chance to see through to completion Ronald Reagan’s vision for the law of the sea. While some have asserted that President Reagan believed the Convention was irremediably defective, that is not true.

President Reagan made his position on the Convention clear in a January 29, 1982 statement. He indicated that “while most provisions of the [then] draft convention are acceptable and consistent with U.S. interests, some major elements of the deep seabed mining regime are not acceptable.” President Reagan’s statement specified his particular objections to the deep seabed mining regime. Far from concluding that these problems made the Convention irremediably defective, President Reagan supported efforts to fix the Convention and directed his Special Representative to conduct further negotiations to this end. These efforts were not successful and, later in 1982, the United States and many other countries declined to become parties to the Convention.

President Reagan reiterated his views on the Convention in a 1983 statement of United States ocean policy. He stated that, while the United States would not become party to the Convention, the United States accepted and would act in accordance with the provisions of the Convention relating to the traditional uses of the oceans, which generally comprise all of the Convention’s substantive provisions except for those relating to deep seabed mining. It has remained U.S. policy since President Reagan’s 1983 statement to act in accordance with these Convention provisions.

While efforts to resolve President Reagan’s objections to the deep seabed mining regime were not successful in the early 1980s the United States did not give up. Negotiations began again in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush, and culminated in a 1994 agreement that comprehensively revised the Convention’s deep seabed mining regime. The revisions made to the regime resolved each of the problems President Reagan identified in 1982.

We are enclosing for your reference a fact sheet and accompanying materials detailing President Reagan’s objections to the Convention’s original deep seabed mining regime and the ways in which these objections were resolved in the 1994 agreement.

The historical record is clear that President Reagan accepted and embraced the vast bulk of the Convention. The one part of the Convention to which he objected has since been comprehensively renegotiated and each of his objections has been resolved. President Reagan was right to insist on these changes to the Convention. Now that they have been made, the time has come for the Senate to finish the job that Reagan started and to ratify the Convention.

As we have detailed in previous letters, the Convention advances important U.S. national security, economic, and environmental protection interests and has the strong support of the Bush Administration, affected industry, and the environmental community. We urge you to join us in supporting prompt Senate ratification of the Convention.

The Foreign Relations Committee, by a 19-0 vote, has recently reported to the Senate a resolution of advice and consent to an important treaty governing the uses of the world's oceans - the Law of the Sea Convention. I am urging that the Senate take up and pass this resolution at the earliest opportunity.

Some misinformed commentators have published articles in the press making inaccurate and at times outlandish statements critical of the Convention. I am enclosing for your reference a response written by Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., USN (Ret.) to one such article. Admiral Schachte served as the Defense Department's Representative for Ocean Policy Affairs from 1987 to 1988 and again from 1990 to 1993, and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the Law of the Sea Convention negotiations under President Reagan. His article appeared in the Washington Times on March 7. As Admiral Schachte demonstrates, the Law of the Sea Convention is strongly in the U.S. national interest, and in particular strengthens the ability of our Anned Forces to protect U.S. national security.

The truth about the Convention is best reflected by the broad base of support the Convention enjoys among those whose interests it directly affects. The Bush Administration strongly supports its ratification. The Convention is also supported by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy in particular, affected industries (including the oil and gas, commercial shipping and fishing industries) and the environmental community.

I urge you to join with us in supporting early Senate ratification of the Convention.

I have written to you previously about the benefits to U.S. national security of the Law of the Sea Convention. Since my letter to you, some have continued to press – including in testimony before a Senate Committee – the false and irresponsible assertion that acceding to the Convention will inhibit the ability of the United States to pursue President Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which works to interdict by land, sea and air weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and related materials. I want to take this opportunity to again make clear that nothing in the Law of the Sea Convention will inhibit the United States from pursuing PSI; indeed, acceding to the Convention will enhance our ability to pursue PSI.

There are several mutually reinforcing reasons why acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention will not inhibit the United States from pursuing PSI.

First, acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention will not result in any change in the rules the United States is subject to relevant to PSI. As noted in the attached letter from State Department Legal Adviser William Taft, the rules contained in the Law of the Sea Convention applicable to boarding and searching foreign ships at sea are unchanged from the rules in this regard the United States is already subject to under the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, to which the United States is a party.

Second, it has been U.S. policy since President Reagan’s 1983 Statement of Oceans Policy to act in accordance with the Convention’s provisions with respect to the traditional uses of the oceans, which include the Convention’s provisions regarding the boarding and searching of foreign ships at sea. The elements of the U.S. Armed Forces carrying out PSI are thus already operating under the Convention’s rules, and have been doing so for over 20 years.

Third, PSI’s own rules provide that PSI activities will be consistent with the Convention. The Statement of Interdiction Principles pursuant to which PSI operates explicitly states that interdiction activities under PSI will be undertaken “consistent with national legal authorities and relevant international law and frameworks”. As State Department Legal Adviser William Taft confirmed in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, the relevant international law framework for PSI includes the Law of the Sea Convention.

Fourth, all 15 countries that have joined with the United States in PSI are parties to the Law of the Sea Convention and accordingly observe its provisions.

In fact, representatives of our armed forces who are responsible for carrying out PSI have stated that acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention will strengthen the ability of the United States to pursue PSI.

Admiral Michael Mullen, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that being party to the Convention “would greatly strengthen [the Navy’s] ability to support the objectives” of PSI by reinforcing and codifying freedom of navigation rights on which the Navy depends for operational mobility. In a similar vein, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy Mark Esper testified that “as a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States will have another avenue through which to achieve consensus proscribing the maritime trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states of concern and terrorists.”

I have devoted great efforts during my career to develop effective responses to the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and I am a strong supporter of PSI. The Law of the Sea Convention is fully consistent with PSI, and joining the Convention will enhance our ability to make PSI successful.

As Mr. Archer’s letter observes, in 1982 the ABA shared President Reagan’s objections to the Convention’s deep seabed mining provisions, and, because of those objections, the ABA opposed U.S. ratification of the Convention at that time. Following the renegotiation of the Convention’s deep seabed mining regime in 1994, and after it carefully reviewed the changes made, the ABA concluded that its objections had been resolved, and it now fully supports U.S. accession to the Convention. Mr. Archer notes that if the United States fails to ratify the Convention, we risk the unraveling of protections embodied in the Convention that are of great importance to the United States.

Mr. Archer is right when he observes that “Seldom has there been such unanimity of responsible opinion on the importance of the United States becoming party to a treaty.” It is time for the Senate to act to approve U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.

We have written to you previously to outline the benefits to U.S. national security of ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention. The Convention also advances important U.S. economic interests. This is why supporters of U.S. accession to the Convention include industry groups whose businesses are affected by the Convention such as the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, the National Ocean Industries Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Chamber of Shipping of America, the U.S. Tuna Foundation, and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. We wanted to take this opportunity to share with you the benefits to U.S. economic interests of accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.

Use of the oceans plays an important part in the U.S. economy. The ability of U.S. companies to sell their goods in foreign markets, and our ability to import goods from abroad, depends on the ability to transport such goods by sea. The oceans contain extensive oil and gas resources that can help to meet U.S. energy needs and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. Use of the oceans and prudent management of fisheries resources are at the heart of the U.S fishing industry. The Convention advances all of these U.S. economic interests.

The Convention provides protections for freedom of navigation and overflight across the world's oceans that are of critical importance to the commercial shipping industry as well as to our military. As Joseph Cox, President of the Chamber of Shipping of America told the Foreign Relations Committee, the Convention "provides the framework for the essential concepts of freedom of navigation." In particular, Cox noted that ratification of the Convention will allow the United States to more effectively challenge actions by coastal states that interfere with shipping in ways that violate the Convention, as well as to ensure that the rights of sailors and ship masters are respected by foreign legal systems.

The Convention also secures rights important to the oil and gas industry in the development of offshore energy resources. Testimony given to the Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, and the National Ocean Industries Association noted that:

The oil and gas industry testimony also noted that the Convention contains mechanisms to establish with legal certainty maritime boundaries and the limits of national jurisdiction over continental shelf areas. Such certainty is important to industry's ability to make the investments needed to develop offshore energy resources.

The Convention also contains provisions of great importance to the U.S. fishing industry. The Convention places substantive restrictions on the freedom of fishing on the high seas, including a moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing. As Senator Stevens explained in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, such restrictions are important to prudent conservation and management of shared fisheries resources, and to the long term viability of high seas fish stocks as an economic resource. The Convention has also been the basis for further international agreements on conservation and management of fish stocks that migrate across national boundaries. These agreements have been extremely important for Alaska because they have addressed, among other things, high seas interception of Alaskan salmon that threatened the sustainability of the stock.

In addition, the Convention establishes a framework necessary to the future development of mineral resources from the deep seabed of the oceans in areas beyond the jurisdiction of any country. Absent an internationally accepted regime governing these resources, U.S. companies will be unwilling to make the investments necessary to conduct mining because they will have no way of establishing certain legal title to the sites they wish to mine and the resources found there. The Convention establishes such a regime, and its provisions meet the conditions President Reagan established in 1982 for the regime to be acceptable to the United States. The Law of the Sea Convention is good for the U.S. economy. We urge you to join us in supporting its prompt consideration and ratification by the Senate.

I wanted to share with you the enclosed letter I received today from General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressing the strong support of the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders for U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. General Myers emphasizes that the Convention remains a top U.S. national security priority. He also refutes erroneous charges that the Convention would adversely affect U.S. intelligence operations or the Administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative.

The truth about the Convention is best reflected by the support the Convention enjoys among those whose interests it directly affects. As General Myers makes clear, the Convention advances the ability of our Armed Forces to protect U.S. security interests worldwide.

I urge you to join me in supporting early consideration of the Law of the Sea Convention on the Senate floor and approval of the Convention by the full Senate.

I am writing to share with you the attached letter from State Department Legal Adviser William Taft that addresses erroneous claims by opponents of the Law of the Sea Convention that the Convention would prohibit U.S. intelligence gathering activities. Mr. Taft's letter, which was coordinated with the Department of Defense and other relevant agencies including the intelligence community, confirms that the Convention would not prohibit U.S. intelligence activities.

These same issues were the subject of a 1995 classified legal analysis of the Convention prepared by the Department of Defense at the request of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I have placed a copy of this classified analysis in S-407 of the Capitol for the use of interested Senators (Members Only).

Taken together, these documents demonstrate that accession to the Convention will have no adverse effect on U.S. intelligence activities. As the Bush Administration has made clear on numerous occasions, accession to the Law of the Sea Convention will enhance U.S. national security.

I urge to you to join with me in supporting early floor consideration of the Convention and its approval by the Senate.

The Commission's support for U.S. accession to the Convention is based on extensive testimony it heard from Members of Congress, federal agencies, trade associations, conservation organizations, the scientific community, and coastal states. The Commission's views on the Convention are set out in more detail in Admiral Watkins' testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee which is also attached for your reference.

Admiral Watkins' letter and testimony serve to further underscore that those who have given the most careful thought and study to U.S. oceans interests believe that accession to the Law of the Sea Convention will greatly advance the U.S. national interest. I urge you to join me in supporting early consideration and approval of the Convention by the full Senate.

Their letter refutes several inaccurate assertions some have made about the Convention. They observe that the Reagan Administration's objections to the Convention in 1982 were limited to the Convention's deep sea bed mining provisions and that all of these objections have been satisfactorily resolved through the 1994 agreement restructuring those provisions. They note that the Convention does not give decision-making authority on any issue to the United Nations. They also note that the Convention does not give any control over United States military activities to any international bureaucracy or court.

These former Legal Advisers to the Department of State join the Bush Administration, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, all affected industries, and the environmental community in urging the Senate to act to approve the Law of the Sea Convention. We urge you to join us in supporting prompt and favorable consideration of the Convention by the full Senate.

I am writing to share with you an important perspective on the Law of the Sea Convention offered by Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 8. Admiral Clark emphasized that U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention is important to ensuring the safety of the men and women under his command.

This is because without the ability to rely on the Convention's legal protections for our rights of navigation, our armed forces are more dependent on direct physical confrontations in responding to challenges by other countries to the exercise of our navigation rights. Such direct challenges - known as freedom of navigation operations - place our armed forces in harm's way, and the need for such challenges would be diminished if the United States joins the Law of the Sea Convention.

Admiral Clark and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers have emphasized the importance of the Convention to the ability of our armed forces to defend our national security interests worldwide. Admiral Clark's statement to the Armed Services Committee underscores that the Convention has the added benefit of serving to reduce the risks that our armed forces face in doing their jobs. The Senate owes it to the members of our military to give them the protections afforded by the Law of the Sea Convention.

I urge you to join me in supporting early consideration of the Convention on the Senate floor and approval of the Convention by the full Senate.

I am writing to share with you the attached article by Sheila M. McNeill, National President of the Navy League, urging the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The Navy League represents nearly 70,000 members across the country dedicated to supporting the men and women of the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and U.S.- flagged Merchant Marine. Ms. McNeill's article appears in the current issue of the Navy
League's magazine Sea Power.

Ms. McNeill's article underscores important points about the Convention that have also been made by our military leadership. The Convention will strengthen U.S. national security by helping to ensure our military's rights to freedom of navigation and overflight across the world's oceans. The Convention will enhance the military's ability to pursue the President's Proliferation Security Initiative and will have no adverse effect on U.S. intelligence activities. As Ms. McNeill concludes, "The Law of the Sea Convention is good for our sea services. It strengthens our country. The time for ratification is at hand."

I urge you to join me in supporting prompt and favorable consideration of the Convention by the full Senate.

As the Senate continues to educate itself about the Law of the Sea Convention, I wanted to share with you the attached speech that I delivered on May 4 at a Brookings Institution forum on the Convention. The speech draws together a number of themes I have highlighted in previous letters to you. Taken together, I believe these themes establish persuasively the critical need for the United States to accede to the Convention promptly. I have also tried to put in appropriate perspective criticisms raised by a few about the Convention.

The Law of the Sea Convention advances U.S. national interests, including our national security, economic, and environmental protection interests. .I will continue to urge the Majority Leader to find the limited time on the Senate's calendar necessary for completion of the Convention's ratification.

I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you several recent editorials from newspapers around the country urging the Senate to act promptly to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. These editorials - from the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Bangor Daily News - join the Bush Administration, the U.S. military leadership, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, ocean industries, and the environmental community in supporting prompt U.S. accession to the Convention.

The overwhelming body of informed opinion about the Convention favors U.S. accession. I urge you to join me in supporting prompt and favorable consideration of the Convention by the full Senate.

I am writing to share with you a collection of recent editorials from around the country urging the Senate to act promptly to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. They include editorials from the Miami Herald, New York Newsday, and the Omaha World-Herald.

These editorials further underscore the statements of the Bush Administration, the U.S. Navy, affected industries, and the environmental community in strong support of the Convention. U.S. accession to the Convention will advance our national security, strengthen our economy, and help us to protect the environment.

I will continue my efforts to secure U.S. ratification of this important treaty. I urge you to join me in supporting prompt and favorable consideration of the Law of the Sea Convention by the Senate during this session.

These articles echo the conclusions of the U.S. Commission for Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission that accession to the Law of the Sea Convention is strongly in the U.S. national interest. They underscore the fact that the overwhelming body of informed opinion on U.S. interests in the oceans supports U.S. accession to the Convention. I urge you to join me in supporting prompt and favorable action on the Law of the Sea Convention by the full Senate.

MILITARY, OIL & GAS, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AND OTHERS URGE QUICK ACCESSION TO LAW OF THE SEA

As the Senate prepares to adjourn for the July 4 recess, I am writing to again stress the importance of Senate action during this session on the Law of the Sea Convention.

The Law of the Sea Convention and its implications for U.S. interests have been the subject of careful study for over two decades. The Convention was carefully studied by the Reagan Administration, which found all but its deep seabed mining provisions to be consistent with U.S. interests. Following changes that met all of President Reagan's stated objections to the Convention, President Clinton's Administration again reviewed the Convention and transmitted it to the Senate for its advice and consent. President George W. Bush's Administration conducted a further review of the Convention in light of U.S. security interests post-September 11 and listed the Convention as one of five treaties it asked the Senate to approve on an urgent basis. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, charged with comprehensively considering U.S. interests in the oceans, studied the Convention and included its recommendation that the U.S. accede to the Convention as one of 12 critical actions recommended in its Preliminary Report issued this past April. Members of the Senate were included in the delegation that negotiated the Convention, and in the past nine months, four Committees of the Senate and one Committee of the House of Representatives have held hearings on the Convention. Few, if any, treaties have received such extensive consideration during my time in the Senate.

I believe that by any measure, accession to the Law of the Sea Convention is overwhelmingly in our national interest. Conclusion of a widely adhered to Convention on the Law of the Sea has been a principal objective of U.S. oceans policy for decades. U.S. accession to the Convention has the strong support of the Bush Administration; our military leadership; the oil and gas, drilling, commercial shipping, fishing, shipbuilding, and telecommunications industries; the National Foreign Trade Council; the environmental community; the Navy League and Naval Reserve Association; the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; and the Pew Oceans Commission. In short, the overwhelming body of informed opinion about U.S. interests in the uses of the oceans
supports U.S. accession to the Convention.

The Law of the Sea Convention has been pending before the Senate for nearly a decade. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to consider and act in a timely manner on treaties that come before it and that this responsibility is of particular weight in the case of treaties to which the President has asked the Senate to turn its attention urgently. The Convention can be amended for the first time beginning in November; if the United States is not a party at that time, it will be at a major disadvantage in seeking to protect against efforts to repeal Convention rights that are of great importance to our military. For these reasons, it is important that the Senate act on the Convention during this session.

As part of my continuing effort to provide Senators with information on the Law of the Sea Convention, I thought it would be useful to share with you detailed responses to various questions that some have asked about the Convention. Attached for your reference is a paper that catalogs assertions that have been made about the Convention and responds to each of them. None of these assertions withstands scrutiny. As the Bush Administration, industry, environmental community, U.S. Commission on Oceans Policy, Pew Oceans Commission, and other experts on oceans law and policy have made clear, accession to the Convention is overwhelmingly in the interest of the United States.

Failure by the Senate to act on the Convention during the current session poses significant risks to our national interests. Such failure would increase the likelihood that Convention-based rights on which our military relies to protect our national security will be rolled back through amendments over which the United States will have no say. Efforts by Russia to claim rights to resources in vast swaths of the Arctic would proceed without the United States being able to participate fully in their consideration or to assert its own competing claims. The United States would also squander the opportunity to assume a position of leadership in international decisions about the uses of the oceans that will affect us greatly.

I urge you to join me in supporting prompt and favorable action on the Convention by the Senate.