Please see the letter below. Some Senators ARE LISTENING.
Please thank them.
My fear is that since there may not be the votes today, what will happen in Lame Duck after Nov.
Also remember there are 6 treaties.
Bless you for all of the work you all have been doing. The calls work.
Please send this around to all of your contacts.
We must call the ones not on this list. This LOST belongs in the garbage.
From: "Sanchez, J.R. (Rubio)" <JR_Sanchez@rubio.senate.gov>
To: karen <email@example.com>
Subject: Senator Inhofe's Letter in Opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty
The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear 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 interests 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 affect 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,Jon Kyl
three reasons to OPPOSE the
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
(1) If the U.S. joins UNCLOS, it will be forced to transfer billions and likely trillions of dollars of royalties generated from oil and gas production on the U.S. continental shelf to the UN International Seabed Authority for redistribution to the "developing world."
The United States currently enjoys sovereignty over its entire continental shelf, including the shelf that lies seaward of 200 nautical milesthe "extended continental shelf" (ECS). The U.S. has the right to exploit all the resources (e.g. oil and gas) located on the ECS and collect a 12.518.75% royalty on the value of production. According to the interagency Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, which is currently mapping the ECS, the resources there "may be worth billions if not trillions."
Article 82 of the convention would compel the U.S. to transfer a significant portion of those royalties to the International Seabed Authority, located in Kingston, Jamaica, for redistribution to the "developing world" including to regimes that are corrupt and despotic.
(2) If the U.S. joins UNCLOS, it will expose itself to baseless international lawsuits, including environmental actions and suits over "climate change" that would impose substantial political and economic costs on the American people.
Under UNCLOS any State party may compel another State party to defend itself in one of four forums: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal organized under Annex VII, or a "special" arbitral tribunal organized under Annex VIII. Any judgment rendered by an UNCLOS tribunal would be final, could not be appealed, and would be enforceable on U.S. territory. The U.S. would become target #1.
Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu have already indicated that they would file such a suit. If the U.S. suffered an adverse judgment in an UNCLOS climate change lawsuit, the tribunal could order remedies that would harm the American economya regime of regulations (e.g. actions to reduce the level of U.S. GHG emissions) and even monetary reparations to the plaintiff nations to mitigate the damages allegedly caused by global warming. Crippling costs to the U.S. economy would result.
(3) U.S. accession to UNCLOS is unnecessary to preserve and protect the U.S. Navy's navigational rights and freedoms.
For more than 200 years, including the 30 years since the adoption of UNCLOS in 1982, the U.S. has successfully preserved and protected its navigational rights and freedoms by relying on naval operations, diplomatic protests, and customary international law. U.S. membership in UNCLOS would confer no maritime right that the U.S. does not already enjoy. The U.S. can best protect its rights by maintaining a strong Navy, not by joining a deeply flawed treaty.
Director of Outreach
Office of United States Senator Marco Rubio
Washington DC 20510
From: karen [ mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:55 PM
To: Sanchez, J.R. (Rubio)
Subject: Fwd: RE: Rubio LOST Call blitz
This came in from our people. What is the position of Marco?
I understand he said No.
Has this been put off until Nov?
Miami Office (Robert) never heard of LOST. After checking with others he said the tea parties are lobbing against it so likely he would oppose but hasn't taken a position.
Orlando Office.....left message
Pennsacola Office (Mary Ann) said he opposes as they aren't big fans of UN
Washington Office said he hasn't taken a position
Tallahassee Office....left message
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:17:05 -0500
> From: email@example.com
> Subject: Rubio LOST Call blitz
> I just got this email.
> You guys rock. Keep it up...
> Continue to call.
> We can can not let this pass.
> Karen S
> >Subject: Rubio LOST Call blitz
> >From: Karen Bracken <firstname.lastname@example.org >
> >X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8E600)
> >Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:49:41 -0500
> >To: karen <email@example.com >
> >X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120509-1, 05/09/2012), Inbound message
> >X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> >People are calling Senators about LOST like crazy. Rubio's office
> >refuses to tell people where he stands. Let's BLITZ the SHIT out of
> >his office. We demand to know his position.
> >Sent from my iPhone