What Would LOST Do?
Why is LOST still a bad idea?
Who are the Senators that oppose LOST?
Senators signing the letter opposing consideration of LOST:
|
Jon Kyl Jim Inhofe Roy Blunt Pat Roberts David Vitter Ron Johnson John Cornyn Jim Demint Tom Coburn John Boozman Rand Paul Jim Risch |
Mike Lee Jeff Sessions Mike Crapo Orrin Hatch John Barrasso Richard Shelby John Thune Richard Burr Saxby Chambliss Dan Coats John Hoeven Roger Wicker |
Marco Rubio Jerry Moran Dean Heller Pat Toomey Chuck Grassley Mitch McConnell Mike Johanns Senator Johnny Isakson * Senator Rob Portman ** Senator Kelly Ayotte ** |
* announced opposition in separate letter
** announced opposition in separate, joint letter
Letter text:
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510Dear Mr. Leader,
We understand that Chairman Kerry has renewed his efforts to pursue Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.
By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interest in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution.
To effect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.
If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification.
Sincerely yours,
Statement from
Heritage Action’s CEO Michael Needham on LOST:
Not only is this treaty unnecessary, it would also empower a new international bureaucracy at the expense of American sovereignty. Senators must be careful not to be co-opted by the administration’s sophisticated lobbying effort. As we have seen in the aftermath of the New START Treaty, promises made to secure votes often fall by the wayside. America cannot afford yet another foreign policy mistake, which is why Heritage Action opposes the dangerously-flawed treaty and will work vigorously with our allies to ensure its defeat.
Analysis from
Research Papers
Accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Is Unnecessary to Secure U.S. Navigational Rights and Freedoms. 8/24/11. The U.S. can best protect its rights by maintaining a strong U.S. Navy, not by acceding to a deeply flawed multilateral treaty.
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Erodes U.S. Sovereignty over U.S. Extended Continental Shelf. 6/7/11. Instead of diverting U.S. revenues to such dubious purposes, the U.S. government should retain any wealth derived from the U.S. extended continental shelf for the benefit of the American people.
Accession to U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Would Expose the U.S. to Baseless Climate Change Lawsuits. 3/12/12. Even the threat of such suits or failed suits will affect the U.S. by imposing unnecessary legal and political costs. The best option for the U.S. is simply not to open the door to such frivolous lawsuits.
The Law of the Sea Treaty. 4/2/2004. There are environmental issues, national security issues, and economic issues with LOST. Reagan had three reasons for objecting to it.