Dick Lugar

Thus, there would not be the creation of the jobs nor the degree of energy independence or the other attributes.

Despite the unanimous vote in the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Bill Frist, then the majority leader, declined to bring the Convention up in the Senate.

THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES FOR RATIFICATION

In 2009 and 2010, though discussions occurred on Law of the Sea within the Obama administration, passing the Convention was not accorded a high priority.

As the world's foremost maritime power, our national security interests are intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation.

We have, I might say, the best companies in the world, the most technologically advanced.

I found the testimony very important just in terms of the historical record of the evolution of this issue before previous administrations and the Congress.

The only way to protect that outside of this is to accede to the treaty.

The only way we are going to do this in today's world is to engage in alliances and partnerships.

Our resource extractors are telling us that if we want them to move forward with scale development of ocean floor resources that could contribute significantly to United States energy security and create jobs, we need to ratify the Law of…

It does raise the points which you have made that it is not really clear just in terms of law enforcement.

The Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the United States is a party.

Each of you knows that we got briefings here about the so-called pivot of our national defense toward the South China Sea, toward the Pacific.

Americans who are involved in the oceans professionally on a daily basis... want this Convention ratified.

The Senate should enthusiastically affirm the leadership of the United States in this vital area of international relations by giving advice and consent to the Law of the Sea Convention.

How, Secretary Panetta, would you begin to describe the military problem here?

Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, and General Dempsey.

The Navy is telling us that U.S. membership in the Law of the Sea Convention is a tool that they need to maximize their ability to protect United States national security with the least risk to the men and women charged with this task.

But the point is that companies are not taking the risk. We keep asking American investors to find more energy and to at least deliver us from the reliance we have had on Middle Eastern oil, for example, or other situations.

Sixty percent of these populations under the age of 25; 50 percent under the age of 21; 40 percent under the age of 18.

As seven CNOs wrote in a joint letter back in 1998, 'there are no downsides to this treaty--it contains expansive terms, which we use to maintain forward presence and preserve U.S. maritime superiority.'

Reverse auction incentives could be established for varying technologies to drive industry competition and innovation.

If, on the other hand, the members of the U.S. Senate trouble themselves to study, or at least read, the text of the Law of the Sea Treaty, they would immediately see it for what it really is: a diplomatic dinosaur, a throwback to a bygone…

We appreciate the bill's strong support for NATO, which continues the long tradition of Senate advocacy.

We are experiencing deep political divisions in our society right. These divisions have stalemated progress in critical areas. But these divisions are not insurmountable. I believe that people of goodwill, regardless of party, can work…