I think, Senator, the fact that we are an Arctic nation, we are the only Arctic nation that has not taken the step of acceding to the Convention and, thereby, being able to demarcate our Continental Shelf and our Extended Continental…

As a nonparty, we cede the legal high ground to China.

royalties under this Convention are not a net loss to the United States, but a net gain

I really want to do everything I can, and I know my colleagues feel the same way, to try to explain over the next months... why we do think, as Secretary Panetta said, this is in our interests.

it is more important that we put our navigational rights on a treaty footing.

We're not as strong an advocate for our friends and allies in the region as I would like us to be.

Joining the Convention would provide a consistent and effective legal framework for opposing challenges to the rules-based international order in the maritime domain.

The Convention would not obligate the United States to adopt any such laws or regulations.

I believe so vehemently that acceding to this treaty is in America's sovereign interests, or I would not be sitting here.

We always have a resolution for ratification that is prepared.

the administration did live up to the obligations that we agreed on by requesting $7.629 billion for NNSA weapons activities.

we're the only Arctic nation that hasn't ratified the treaty.

Again, I will submit it to the record, but it is my understanding that just as we accede to certain treaties, we can end our accession or our membership.

the lack of our presence in the treaty is, in fact, thrown at us by various countries today

Well, Senator, we're not doing it. And I can tell you that without fear of contradiction.

No country is better served by this Convention than the United States.

it demonstrates the intense interests in staking a claim in the Arctic.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.