[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 164 (Friday, October 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S13487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LAW OF THE SEA TREATY

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will speak for a couple of minutes. If 
somebody else comes to the floor and wants to be heard, I will yield at 
that time.
  I think it is very important we realize something else is looming out 
there. As everyone knows, I am a conservative Republican. I have seen a 
thing called the Law of The Sea Treaty. It is coming at us again. This 
started back in the 1960s and 1970s. During the Reagan administration, 
President Reagan was able to stop it.
  What this treaty would do, in one sentence, is this: It would 
relinquish our sovereignty to over 70 percent of the world--again, it 
is another United Nations initiative--to a superagency that will have 
the ability to tax globally.
  During the last 2 years, I have talked about the problems we are 
having with the hyped global warming debate. It all came from the U.N. 
That is where a lot of these things come from. The U.N. is less and 
less accountable to any of the member countries than they were at one 
time.
  One of the things we have done, and I have done personally, is every 
time we have had a problem where the U.N. is coming out with a policy 
not in the best interest of the United States, since the United States 
pays for 25 percent of the budget of the U.N., I have been able to pass 
a resolution that says that if the U.N. doesn't back down from this 
program, we will hold back 50 percent of our dues. It is the only 
leverage we have. Of course, they are outraged.
  The people running the U.N. do not want to be accountable to anyone. 
The reason and the motivations of the Law of the Sea Treaty is to set 
up this superagency that does have taxing powers--global taxing powers. 
Their goal has been stated that if they are able to pass this, and they 
can run the U.N. on a global tax, then they don't have to be 
accountable to anyone. Here we are paying for 25 percent of it now. But 
we would not be at that time. It would be paid for independently.
  I believe that of all of the bad things coming from this treaty, that 
is the worst. I think that is the motive of many of them. There are 
many other problems. By giving up the authority of over 70 percent of 
the Earth's surface, it has huge military risks. It puts us into a 
position where if we in the United States know there is a ship on the 
high seas that has a terrorist aboard or has a weapon of mass 
destruction, we could no longer stop and search and try to seize it. It 
states there are only four conditions under which we could stop a ship, 
and none have to do with national security.
  It does say it should not affect the military, but there is no 
defining term of military effort. Instead, that would be determined by 
this new high court that would be established--this high court that 
would be established by the U.N.
  I know many people in this Chamber will say: Of course, it is coming 
from our Republican administration and the military says they want it. 
I question that when I go back and study what happened during the 1980s 
and see what the consequences could be. It is now a popular thing. We 
are saying we have made all the corrections and everything is satisfied 
now, and if President Reagan were here, he would sign off on it. That 
is not true. He had five objections to it. Not one of the five has been 
met.
  So I suggest we have something very serious coming. I don't know why 
it is that the majority of Members of this body, the Senate, think that 
no idea is a good idea unless it is made by some big multinational 
organization, that nothing is good unless it is something that 
addresses a problem from a multinational perspective.
  When I go back to Oklahoma, they ask me: What happened to sovereignty 
in America? I have to say I don't know, but we are going to try to keep 
it as much as possible. The best way to do that is to not ratify the 
treaty called the Law of the Sea Treaty. It is going to be a tremendous 
effort for us to get a number of Senators--34--to sign a letter saying 
we would oppose this treaty. It takes two-thirds to pass a treaty.
  I think this is coming, and I want America to be ready for it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________