Thread: BAD NEWS! The Senate FRC has just passed LOST!

Senate panel OKs Law of the Sea treaty

By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Wednesday, October 31, 2007; 12:26 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate committee voted on Wednesday in favor of ratifying an international treaty on ocean shipping and deep-sea mining amid debate over its impact on naval operations and industry.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to back the accord, sending it to the full Senate for action where it would need a two-thirds vote to win final approval.

President George W. Bush wants the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, saying it would allow U.S. armed forces to move freely on the oceans.

More than 150 nations have already joined the 25-year-old pact, but it has languished in the Senate for many years.

Some Republicans and other critics have argued it would hurt U.S security by over-emphasizing peaceful use of the oceans, citing limits it would impose on collecting intelligence and submarine operations in territorial waters.

Some have also criticized provisions that they say would restrict U.S. sovereignty, impose new environmental obligations and thwart commercial development of the deep seabed.

Critics add the accord would set global rules discouraging deep-sea mining of minerals such as cobalt and manganese.

But supporters say the treaty ensures the U.S. military will not need a "permission slip" in the future to pass through the territorial waters of other nations, while guaranteeing the freedom of navigation for the world's shipping industry.

Joining the treaty also gives the United States a seat at the table to resolve disputes, such as those that could arise over new sea lanes opening up in the Arctic, supporters say.

The treaty guarantees U.S. access to oil, natural gas and other natural resources extending 200 miles out from the U.S. shoreline -- an area covering nearly 300,000 square miles.

"We should become a party to the convention," committee Chairman Joseph Biden, a Delaware senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said at a committee meeting where the vote was held.

"The oil and gas industry is unanimous in its support of the convention ... I'm unaware of any ocean industry that has expressed opposition to this treaty," Biden said.

Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, one of four senators voting in opposition, said he had concerns about dispute resolutions and international seabed authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01590.html

Americans must know of the Senator traitors.

Get the word out.

Psalm 91

It is believed that GOP opposition could very well be the final death blow to the treaty

I doubt it, bills giving away our sovereignty tend to have more lives than a horror movie villian

OMG...This is so hard to believe..Why are our elected officials so eager to sell-out our country.

Originally Posted by Triumph

OMG...This is so hard to believe..Why are our elected officials so eager to sell-out our country.

My only guess is that they've been promised the rainbow. What fools they are. I sure am proud of Johnny Isakson. I emailed him about this and it would seem that he listened. I'm proud of all four who voted Nay.

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

The majority of Americans are totally oblivious to this treaty. I stood up in a room of citizen leaders the other evening to announce that this disaster was looming on the horizon, what it would do to the United States and to say that if you cared about America and if you cared about sovereignty, you had better make some calls and send some emails.

Keep calling, emailing and faxing.

Psalm 91

There has been allmost a total MSM blackout on this subject. Those that get their news only from the MSM have not heard of it. The ONLY person with a MSM show that has addressed LOST and talked about it is Glen Beck. Only those that watch Glen Beck and/or get their news form the NEW MEDIA will know of it.

Sea Treaty Moves From Senate Foreign Relations To Floor

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today voted 17-4 to send the 25-year-old Law of the Sea Treaty to the Senate floor, where timely ratification could be in doubt even though it is supported strongly by diverse interests. Despite broad support and President Bush's endorsement, the "no" votes were cast by four Republicans apparently influenced by a small but vocal group of conservatives who claim that the treaty would sacrifice U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. and international commissions created by the pact.

The opponents -- Senators Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), and David Vitter, R-Louisiana -- were outvoted by six committee Republicans and all 11 Democrats. Senators recalled the long history of the treaty, which resulted from international negotiations started in the 1970s at the urging of then-President Nixon. When the treaty was finished in 1982, then-President Reagan opposed it because of provisions that could have restricted America's rights to mine rare minerals from ocean floors and would have required advanced nations to share technology for such operations with developing countries. Reagan ordered the government to adhere to all other parts of the treaty.

The objectionable provisions were modified, and in 1994 then-President Clinton signed the treaty. It has been signed or ratified by 155 nations, including the nation's closest allies and trading partners. The pact was voted out of committee 19-0 in 2004, when current Foreign Relations ranking member Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) was chairman. It has been supported enthusiastically by Navy and Coast Guard leaders, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all previous secretaries of State and Defense, who argue that it would protect the nation's freedom of movement on the seas.

The Law of the Sea Treaty has also been supported by all elements of the maritime industries, and oil and gas producers because it would assure U.S. rights to the 200-mile "exclusive economic zone" off the coastline. And, because it extends those rights to the edge of the continental shelf, it would establish U.S. claim to waters up to 600 miles off Alaska's Arctic coast, an area of potentially huge petroleum deposits. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) declared her support for the treaty because of the benefits to her state.

Critics, led by former Reagan defense official Frank Gaffney, insist that the treaty would put the U.S. military and maritime industries at the mercy of dispute resolution panels dominated. Some Senators rejected those claims, attempting to delay the vote, and asking for additional hearings to give more opponents an opportunity to testify. However, in the end the chairman said he had no intention of scheduling another hearing, noting that the treaty has been debated extensively, including in the two hearings he held this year.

Whether a vote on ratification will take place is questionable, given the ability of a few opponents to block action under the Senate's rules. In addition to the four Republican foes on the committee, the treaty has been opposed vigorously by Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). The Senate never voted on ratification in 2004 in spite of the committee's unanimous support, because then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) did not want to offend the opponents.
http://www.rotor.com/Default.aspx?tabid ... d905=56844

Yes Rockfish, thank you to those senators who stood and voiced NO.

Psalm 139:14

Watch these videos to more fully understand the LOST Treaty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5D5mJqKuc

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Intern ... s/LOST.cfm

SENATOR JIM DEMINT ON LOST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGr1zJfZhlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7LF6NyYkbM

SENATOR VITTER ON LOST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dtv6eBZR1k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beb1YPSUX-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKgBEMSK3_I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCNnyK7RObs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KJSmiAIpcE

(quote)


October 24, 2007
Why Reagan Would Still Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty
by Steven Groves
WebMemo #1676

There is an ongoing debate regarding the position of President Ronald Reagan in regard to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Fortunately, there are multiple sources indicating precisely what Reagan would do if presented with LOST today: He would reject it.

(quote) clip

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Intern ... wm1676.cfm

Psalm 91

This is an older article but Ed Meese details LOST.

Here is his video commentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Y24goa6o4

(quote)

Ed Meese: Reagan Would Still Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty

by Edwin Meese III (more by this author)
Posted 04/25/2005 ET
U

The so-called Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is a bad idea whose time should never come up -- at least for the United States and for those who believe in economic liberty and national security. That was the view of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and would remain his view today if he were with us to express it.

The actual title of the treaty is “the United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea.â€Â