Law of the Sea Treaty, is your Senator supporting it?

Some things never die, including the Law of the Sea Treaty.  Negotiated in the 70s, LOST is back and according the Obama administration, more essential than ever.

Heritage writes:

The Obama Administration is pushing for accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which would expose the United States to baseless environmental lawsuits, including suits based on alleged U.S. contributions to global climate change. Accession would also require the U.S. to transfer billions of dollars in oil and gas royalties generated on its continental shelf to UNCLOS member states, particularly landlocked states and states that are the least developed.

The U.S. does not need to join the convention in order to access oil and gas resources located on its extended continental shelf (ECS), the Arctic, or the Gulf of Mexico. Instead, it can and should use bilateral treaties with neighboring countries to demarcate the limits of its maritime and continental shelf boundaries.

The Heritage Foundation has some great information on the treaty.  If you’re interested in learning more, I recommend starting here and here.

According to the National Center for Public Policy Research, the treaty is all about redistribution of resources.  LOST was in part, birthed out of the New International Economic Order whose agenda was to establish, ““fairer” terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.” Clifford D. May of National Review explains:

The “Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations had all gone along with it,” Rumsfeld noted, before it landed on the desks of President Reagan and then–British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Both were adamant in their opposition, seeing it as a “sweeping power grab” by international bureaucrats seeking to create “the largest mechanism for the worldwide redistribution of wealth in human history.”

In sum, LOST is bad news.  Bad news for the energy industry, the economy and national sovereignty.  So why are we still short the requisite 34 votes needed to kill ratification of the treaty?  This is where you come in.  Due to public pressure, the list of Republican Senators either pledging support of LOST or yet to confirm a stance has dwindled to sixteen fifteen. Time to pick up the phone and ask your Senator to oppose ratification. The following is the list of GOP Senators who have yet to confirm they will vote “no” to ratification of LOST , their D.C. office phone numbers and Twitter handles:

Heritage and other sources indicate Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, is considering moving LOST during the lame duck window.  It only takes two minutes to make a phone call.  Senator McConnell said, “I don’t support it, of course, and I don’t think it will pass.” Sources also indicate Senator Corker is close to changing his vote.  But let’s make sure LOST is dead in the water.


Keep up the good work.  The Hill is reporting Senator Johanns is no longer supporting LOST, meaning only three more “no” votes are necessary to kill ratification.



Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.