That is going to be the law of the land if we accede to this treaty.

I would say that most people in America do not realize what a mess that the South China Sea is in.

Nothing wrong with that.

I find very little comfort in taking this seat, as Secretary Panetta talks about, in a group of 160 countries, most of whom don't like us, many of whom hate us.

if we give up one scintilla of sovereignty that this country has fought, has bled for, have given up our treasure, and the best that America has, I can't vote for it.

I have some deep-seated reservations on that basis.

Why oh why oh why, as we as Americans, give up our taxing authority, handing money over to the United Nations...

It has not worked.

the down-side risks for us seem much greater than that potential benefit that we might have that is clearly theoretical, not working now.

What I am suggesting is this has been an abject failure for the members who have signed this and who have been members for years and years and years.

That is just not true.

for you to come here and tell us that we cannot resolve a border dispute with Canada because we are not a member of this Law of the Sea Treaty really does that.

Whether we are in, or not in, should not make any difference whatsoever.

I have read 297.

If you are going to go to war, you want to go to war with China over the South China Sea, you better lay the predicate.

the language in this treaty that worries us is particularly that that deals with environmental issues and the ability of this Convention to enforce that with signatories of the treaty.

I couldn't agree with you more that the language is black and white.

the United States is not asserting leadership by joining the Convention