Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106

03/19/2009 08:00 AM STATE AFFAIRS

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved Out of Committee
Moved Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
HJR 22-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY                                                                              
8:12:15 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LYNN  announced that the  last order of business  was HOUSE                                                               
JOINT  RESOLUTION NO.  22,  Urging the  United  States Senate  to                                                               
ratify the United  Nations Convention on the Law of  the Sea (the                                                               
Law of the Sea Treaty).                                                                                                         
8:12:45 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON introduced HJR 22 as prime sponsor.  He                                                                   
offered information from the sponsor statement, which read as                                                                   
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
     HJR 22 urges the U.S. Senate to ratify the United                                                                          
     Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("Law of the                                                                      
     Sea treaty"). This resolution will help Alaska's                                                                           
     Senate delegation bring the Law of the Sea treaty to                                                                       
     the Senate floor for a vote on ratification.                                                                               
     Ratification of this treaty is important to protect                                                                        
     U.S. interests concerning the use and development of                                                                       
     the high seas off Alaska.                                                                                                  
     The Law of the Sea treaty governs many aspects of                                                                          
     oceans, such as mapping, state area control,                                                                               
     environmental control, marine scientific research,                                                                         
     economic and commercial activities, transfer of                                                                            
     technology and the settlement of disputes relating to                                                                      
     ocean matters.                                                                                                             
     150 countries are signatories to the treaty, including                                                                     
     all of the arctic nations with the exception of the                                                                        
     United States.                                                                                                             
     According to the office of U.S. Senator Lisa                                                                               
     Murkowski, a resolution from the Alaska State                                                                              
     Legislature would be helpful as she works this late                                                                        
     spring or early summer to get a ratification vote to                                                                       
     the Senate Floor. U.S. participation in the Law of the                                                                     
     Sea Treaty was approved in 1994 by President Clinton                                                                       
     after work was done on portions of the treaty to                                                                           
     address concerns raised by President Reagan. The Bush                                                                      
     Administration actively supported Senate ratification                                                                      
     of the treaty. Among other entities on the record                                                                          
     supporting ratification are the United States Coast                                                                        
     Guard, the Department of the Navy, Governor Sarah                                                                          
     Palin, The State Department, the Joint Chiefs of                                                                           
     Staff, AT&T, The American Petroleum Institute, The                                                                         
     International Association of Drilling Contractors, and                                                                     
     the National Oceans Industries Association.                                                                                
     The U.S. is now the only arctic nation that is not a                                                                       
     signatory to the treaty. Under the treaty, member                                                                          
     nations can claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to                                                                      
     200 miles, with sovereign rights to explore, develop,                                                                      
     and manage the resources within that zone. A claim can                                                                     
     extend beyond the 200 mile limit if a connection can                                                                       
     be proven that the nation's continental shelf extends                                                                      
     beyond 200 miles. It is estimated that the northern                                                                        
     seabed off Alaska and beyond the 200 mile limit could                                                                      
     be as large as the state of California.                                                                                    
     Key features of the Law of the Sea treaty include the                                                                      
   · Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their                                                                             
     territorial sea which may not exceed 12 nautical                                                                           
     miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage"                                                                      
     through those waters;                                                                                                      
   · Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed                                                                            
     "transit passage" through straits used for                                                                                 
     international navigation; States bordering the straits                                                                     
     can regulate navigational and other aspects of                                                                             
   · Coastal States have sovereign rights in the 200-                                                                           
     nautical mile EEZ with respect to natural resources                                                                        
     and certain economic activities, and exercise                                                                              
     jurisdiction over marine science research and                                                                              
     environmental protection;                                                                                                  
   · All other States have freedom of navigation and over                                                                       
     flight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine                                                                     
     cables and pipelines;                                                                                                      
   · All States enjoy the traditional freedoms of                                                                               
     navigation, overflight, scientific research and                                                                            
     fishing on the high seas; they are obliged to adopt,                                                                       
     or cooperate with other States in adopting, measures                                                                       
     to manage and conserve living resources;                                                                                   
   · States are bound to prevent and control marine                                                                             
     pollution and are liable for damage caused by                                                                              
     violation of their international obligations to combat                                                                     
     such pollution;                                                                                                            
   · All marine scientific research in the EEZ and on the                                                                       
     continental shelf is subject to the consent of the                                                                         
     coastal State, but in most cases they are obliged to                                                                       
     grant consent to other States when the research is to                                                                      
     be conducted for peaceful purposes and fulfils                                                                             
     specified criteria;                                                                                                        
   · States Parties are obliged to settle by peaceful means                                                                     
     their disputes concerning the interpretation or                                                                            
     application of the Convention;                                                                                             
   · Disputes can be submitted to the International                                                                             
     Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established under the                                                                      
     Convention, to the International Court of Justice, or                                                                      
     to arbitration. Arbitration is also available and, in                                                                      
     certain circumstances, submission to it would be                                                                           
     compulsory. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction                                                                        
     over deep seabed mining disputes.                                                                                          
     The State of Alaska has much to gain from controlling                                                                      
     development in the waters adjacent to our 200 mile EEZ                                                                     
     and much to lose if we are the only arctic nation not                                                                      
     to extend our ocean boundaries.                                                                                           
8:15:56 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said  [the U.S.] has been  using a 200-mile                                                               
limit for  quite awhile,  but unless it  signs the  treaty, other                                                               
nations do not  have to recognize that 200-mile limit.   He noted                                                               
that  concern has  been  expressed that  signing  the treaty  may                                                               
subvert the  nation's sovereignty,  but he  pointed out  that "we                                                               
have  16   other  treaties  that  recognize   this  same  dispute                                                               
resolution that is included in the Law of the Sea Treaty."                                                                      
8:17:54 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON directed  attention to  a map  included in                                                               
the committee  packet, produced  by the  International Boundaries                                                               
Research Unit  (IBRU) of Durham University,  which shows maritime                                                               
jurisdiction  and boundaries  in  the Arctic  region  - "about  a                                                               
doubling  of  the area  in  which  we  could  exert claim."    He                                                               
directed  attention  to another  map  included  in the  committee                                                               
packet,  from  the U.S.  Department  of  State, which  shows  [as                                                               
stated beneath the  map] the "eight regions (in  red) adjacent to                                                               
the U.S. and  its dependences where there  likely exists extended                                                               
continental  shelf (ECS)  beyond 200  nautical miles  (in blue)."                                                               
Representative Seaton clarified, "These lines  on the map - these                                                               
blocked out portions  - are portions that  theoretically could be                                                               
claimed;  it doesn't  mean that  the continental  shelf in  every                                                               
case goes  out to exactly  those [lines]."  He  highlighted areas                                                               
of continental shelf  in the Gulf of Alaska, the  East Coast, the                                                               
Gulf of  Mexico, the  Johnston Atoll, and  the Mariana  Islands -                                                               
areas which the  U.S. would not be able to  claim without signing                                                               
the treaty.                                                                                                                     
8:20:23 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON directed  attention  to a  handout in  the                                                               
committee  packet  entitled,  "Stakeholder Endorsements  of  U.S.                                                               
Accession to  the UN  Convention on  the Law of  the Sea  and the                                                               
1994 Agreement on  Implementation."  Included in  the handout, he                                                               
noted,  is a  list of  categorized endorsements,  which includes,                                                               
among   others:       the   Obama   Administration,    the   Bush                                                               
Administration, nine  current service chiefs and  legal advisers,                                                               
eight  former  secretaries  of state,  and  twelve  other  former                                                               
cabinet and sub-cabinet officers.                                                                                               
8:21:05 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LYNN  asked  which administrations  did  not  support  the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON noted  that  the secretaries  of state  of                                                               
numerous  administrations supported  the  treaty.   He  explained                                                               
that  there was  a period  of time  before a  certain number  had                                                               
signed the  treaty when  the decision  was whether  or not  to be                                                               
proactive  and  endorse the  treaty.    Once  the treaty  was  in                                                               
international  effect,   the  choice   was  whether  or   not  to                                                               
participate in it.                                                                                                              
CHAIR LYNN asked  about the ability to dispute the  claim made by                                                               
the Russians,  who placed their flag  under the sea at  the North                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON said  the U.S.  cannot dispute  that claim                                                               
without having  signed the  treaty.  In  response to  a follow-up                                                               
question, he  described the process  of dispute  resolution among                                                               
countries  who have  signed the  treaty.   He confirmed  that all                                                               
nations  that  are  permanent  members   of  the  United  Nations                                                               
Security  Council have  veto  authority  of council  resolutions,                                                               
which are necessary before considering  enforcement action.  Most                                                               
of the other countries are  not permanent members of the council.                                                               
There are several mechanisms set  up by which to achieve peaceful                                                               
resolution, he said.                                                                                                            
8:27:08 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked  why the U.S. has not  wanted to sign                                                               
the treaty.                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  reiterated that some people  think signing                                                               
the treaty  would mean  giving up  sovereignty; that  agreeing to                                                               
solve disputes peacefully may inhibit  the nation from being able                                                               
to  "resolve  the  disputes  in  other ways."    In  response  to                                                               
Representative Wilson,  he confirmed that the  other option would                                                               
be going to war.  He  pointed out that also on the aforementioned                                                               
list are current military chiefs  and legal advisors.  He offered                                                               
his  understanding  that  present  at  the  House  State  Affairs                                                               
Standing Committee meeting were  representatives of the U.S. Navy                                                               
and U.S. Coast  Guard, and he expressed interest  in hearing what                                                               
they have to say.                                                                                                               
8:29:42 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he thinks  the treaty holds significant                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON related  that  the treaty  extends to  the                                                               
continental shelf.  In response  to Chair Lynn, he clarified that                                                               
the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ)  - a factor of the Law                                                               
of  the  Sea  -  is  measured from  shore,  whether  or  not  the                                                               
continental  shelf is  there.   If there  is a  continental shelf                                                               
which extends beyond that 200  mile limit, the country from whose                                                               
land  it  extends  can  extend  its  jurisdiction  to  that  area                                                               
extending beyond  that 200-mile  limit.   He reiterated  that the                                                               
200-mile  EEZ  has been  beneficial  to  Alaska's fisheries,  but                                                               
without signing  the treaty, the  state does not  have legitimate                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON, in  response  to a  question about  state                                                               
versus federal off-shore boundaries,  said a 3-mile limit applies                                                               
to  state  land  extending  into the  sea;  the  territorial  sea                                                               
extends to  12 miles; and the  purpose of the 200-mile  EEZ is to                                                               
allow for management of economic  activities in those waters.  He                                                               
reiterated  that  Alaska  is  familiar  with  the  200-mile  EEZ,                                                               
because  it dealt  with  the  issue while  the  treaty was  being                                                               
developed.   In  response to  Chair Lynn,  he said  [in the  case                                                               
where two countries  own land separated by water  but closer than                                                               
200 miles],  international boundary  lines have  been negotiated.                                                               
In response to  Representative Wilson, he specified  that the 12-                                                               
mile and  200-mile areas are  federal jurisdictions.  The  EEZ is                                                               
overseen between the federal  government and "whatever management                                                               
team they've set up."                                                                                                           
8:38:39 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN  opined that  the treaty makes  sense for                                                               
Alaska and the  U.S. and should be expedited.   He noted that 155                                                               
countries  have signed  the treaty,  and  he asked  if there  are                                                               
countries, for example, in the  Middle East, that have not signed                                                               
the treaty.   He questioned what effect the treaty  might have on                                                               
shipping routes in places like the Mediterranean or Black Seas.                                                                 
8:39:47 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   SEATON   relayed   that  peaceful   transit   is                                                               
guaranteed under the treaty.   For countries that have signed it,                                                               
the treaty  applies to their  coastal lands that are  adjacent to                                                               
water.   Furthermore,  it protects  vessels, including  aircraft,                                                               
owned by landlocked countries.   He reiterated the meaning of the                                                               
red and blue lines on the aforementioned map.                                                                                   
8:42:36 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered  information related  to  what                                                               
happened under  the Reagan  administration regarding  the treaty.                                                               
He  paraphrased from  the Senate  Foreign Relations  Commission's                                                               
report, dated November 19, 2007, on  the Convention of the Law of                                                               
the Sea Treaty, as follows:                                                                                                     
     President Nixon,  as early as 1970,  first proposed the                                                                    
     concept  of  a treaty  that  would  set forth  a  legal                                                                    
     framework on  the ocean, and  about three  years later,                                                                    
     negotiations were commenced on  that, and they occupied                                                                    
     a  nine-year span  between  December  '73 and  December                                                                    
     1982, when  the final text  was adopted.  And  ... this                                                                    
     grew out of  concern among a number  of coastal nations                                                                    
     and  naval  nations   that  the  rapidly  proliferating                                                                    
     number of expansive claims  regarding ocean space would                                                                    
     restrict   fundamental   freedom   of  the   seas   and                                                                    
     navigation  rights.     And  a  number   of  developing                                                                    
     countries wanted  to guarantee  access to  resources in                                                                    
     the  area  beyond  national jurisdiction.    And  also,                                                                    
     national  and  multi-national  corporations  wanted  an                                                                    
     international  Convention  that   would  provide  legal                                                                    
     certainty  to  companies   interested  in  deep  seabed                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related an anecdote  about a time in the                                                               
early '70s, when  he was then Senator Ted  Stevens' assistant and                                                               
a  bill was  proposed related  to  deep seabed  mining of  copper                                                               
nodules on the ocean  floor.  He said the bill  did not pass, but                                                               
the issue is  important for the development  of American commerce                                                               
under sea.   Representative Gruenberg refocused on  the treaty as                                                               
     Now,  in 1982,  the treaty  was forthcoming,  and there                                                                    
     were only  problems with provisions relating  to mining                                                                    
     of resources from the seabed,  ocean floor, and subsoil                                                                    
     thereof,  beyond the  limits of  national jurisdiction.                                                                    
     And  therefore,   in  '83,  President   Ronald  Reagan,                                                                    
     entered  a statement  on oceans  policy that  explained                                                                    
     [that]  because  of  those particular  provisions,  the                                                                    
     U.S. wouldn't sign the Convention.   But otherwise, the                                                                    
     treaty   "contains    provisions   with    respect   to                                                                    
     traditional uses of the  ocean, which generally confirm                                                                    
     existing maritime law and  practice, and fairly balance                                                                    
     the  interests  of  all states."    So,  therefore,  he                                                                    
     stated  at  that  time  that  the  U.S.  would  act  in                                                                    
     accordance with the balance of  interest.                                                                                  
     Now,  since that  time, they  amended  the treaty,  and                                                                    
     therefore, the  administration of  George H. W.  Bush -                                                                    
     the  first Bush  - laid  the groundwork  for ...  a new                                                                    
     agreement  that would  modify  the  deep seabed  mining                                                                    
     regime on  the Convention,  to address the  ... various                                                                    
     concerns raised.   And the  result was that in  1994, a                                                                    
     new agreement,  which dealt with  each of  the problems                                                                    
     identified with the  U.S., was adopted.   And we signed                                                                    
     the  agreement  ...,  and,   at  that  time,  President                                                                    
     Clinton,  who   was  in  office,  presented   both  new                                                                    
     agreements to the Senate for  ratification, and that is                                                                    
     the current  situation.  The agreements  have been sent                                                                    
     twice  to  the  Senate  floor, and  they  remain  under                                                                    
     Senate Rules on  the Senate floor to  this day awaiting                                                                    
     ratification by two-thirds vote.                                                                                           
8:47:07 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued:                                                                                             
     And the  key thing ..., as  Representative Seaton says,                                                                    
     is this will peacefully,  without result to war, result                                                                    
     in an  adjudication of our  claims.  They've set  up an                                                                    
     international  court.    The   first  country  to  take                                                                    
     advantage  of that  was  Australia, which  dramatically                                                                    
     increased its  boundaries as a result,  and claimed the                                                                    
     continental shelf  as a result  of a decree  under that                                                                    
     court.  And  the only way you can do  it peacefully, as                                                                    
     I  understand  it,   is  to  get  a   decree  from  the                                                                    
     international   court   recognizing  title   to   those                                                                    
     particular deep  seabed and the water  column above it.                                                                    
     And it is extremely  important for that reason, because                                                                    
     that will ..., in  fact, resolve these disputes without                                                                    
     us going to war.                                                                                                           
8:48:08 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON  directed attention  to a  memorandum from                                                               
Senator Lisa  Murkowski, dated December  10, 2007, which  he said                                                               
addresses  myths  regarding  the  treaty.   He  cited  the  final                                                               
paragraph,   which   read   as  follows   [original   punctuation                                                               
     Bottom line is  that if an arbitration  panel returns a                                                                    
     decision  that  the  United  States  strongly  opposes,                                                                    
     there  is no  true enforcement  mechanism and  the U.S.                                                                    
     can veto and [sic] U.N. Security Council measure.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concluded  that "this is a  treaty that we                                                               
don't have to live up to."                                                                                                      
8:49:13 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  surmised  that Alaska  would  not  really                                                               
stand to benefit from the treaty in terms of oil and gas issues.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  responded that  Alaska would  benefit from                                                               
extended jurisdiction, because  it would control the  gas and oil                                                               
production, development,  and drilling.  He  spoke of overlapping                                                               
areas  on  the   map,  and  warned,  "If  we   don't  extend  our                                                               
jurisdiction, there  is nothing to prevent  others from extending                                                               
their jurisdiction."                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  questioned  whether   those  in  the  oil                                                               
industry would  perhaps try to  drill outside  Alaska's territory                                                               
to avoid paying royalties.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  responded that he  does not know  what the                                                               
oil and gas  provisions are outside of  any international waters,                                                               
but he  noted that  the oil industry  supports the  "extension of                                                               
this treaty."                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON speculated  that  the  oil industry  would                                                               
rather deal with the U.S. than another country.                                                                                 
8:53:44 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON directed  attention  to a  handout in  the                                                               
committee packet entitled,  "Summary of the Responses  to the Six                                                               
Reagan   Criteria   Contained   in    the   1994   Agreement   on                                                               
Implementation."  He  listed the following areas,  other than the                                                               
U.S., which have  not endorsed the treaty:   Andorra, Azerbaijan,                                                               
Ecuador,  Eritrea,  Israel,  Kazakhstan,  Kyrgyzstan,  Peru,  San                                                               
[Marino], Syria,  Tajikistan, Timor-Leste,  Turkey, Turkmenistan,                                                               
Uzbekistan, Vatican City, Venezuela, and [Western] Sahara.                                                                      
8:55:12 AM                                                                                                                    
REAR  ADMIRAL  ARTHUR  E. BROOKS,  Seventeenth  District,  United                                                               
States Coast  Guard, stated that  in his current position,  he is                                                               
responsible  for directing  Coast  Guard  operations -  including                                                               
search  and rescue,  maritime  safety, environmental  protection,                                                               
fisheries  law enforcement,  and military  readiness -  in Alaska                                                               
and the  North Pacific.   He  commenced paraphrasing  his written                                                               
testimony, the first  portion of which read  as follows [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
     Although the 1982  UN Convention on the Law  of the Sea                                                                    
     entered into force  in 1994, the U.S.  has continued to                                                                    
     rely upon  customary international law as  reflected in                                                                    
     the  Convention to  advance  our  oceans policy  goals.                                                                    
     While  reliance upon  customary  international law  has                                                                    
     served us well  for many years, it  will not adequately                                                                    
     protect  our   key  ocean  interests  in   the  future.                                                                    
     Customary international  law is  based on  the evolving                                                                    
     practice of  States; therefore, it  can and  does erode                                                                    
     over time.  The Law  of the Sea Convention provides the                                                                    
     legal  certainty and  stability  that  the Coast  Guard                                                                    
     needs   to  exercise   its   navigational  rights   and                                                                    
     freedoms,  to  protect  fisheries,  to  control  marine                                                                    
     pollution, and to maintain a  legal order of the oceans                                                                    
     against criminals and terrorists.                                                                                          
     The first  UN effort  at codifying the  Law of  the Sea                                                                    
     took place  in 1958,  when the  first UN  Conference on                                                                    
     the Law of the Sea  concluded four separate Conventions                                                                    
     dealing  with  the   Law  of  the  Sea.     These  four                                                                    
     Conventions,   for    the   most    part,   represented                                                                    
     codifications  of customary  international  law at  the                                                                    
     time  and  the  United  States became  party  to  them.                                                                    
     While these  Conventions addressed  issues of  the day,                                                                    
     it must be  remembered that, at the  time, pollution of                                                                    
     the  world's oceans  was  not  considered an  important                                                                    
     issue, fish  stocks were  thought to  be inexhaustible,                                                                    
     and  the need  for  maritime domain  awareness was  not                                                                    
     present.  In the  1960's, the oceans began experiencing                                                                    
     significant   change  in   such   areas  as   pollution                                                                    
     standards  and fisheries  management.   Moreover, these                                                                    
     Conventions  failed to  provide a  maximum breadth  for                                                                    
     the territorial  sea or  other specific  limitations on                                                                    
     claims to sovereignty over resources.                                                                                      
REAR ADMIRAL  BROOKS paraphrased  another portion of  his written                                                               
testimony,   which   read   as  follows   [original   punctuation                                                               
     All of  these factors led  the United States  and other                                                                    
     major  maritime powers  to call  for  the Third  United                                                                    
     Nations Conference  on the  Law of  the Sea,  which met                                                                    
     between  1973   and  1982  to   develop  the   1982  UN                                                                    
     Convention on the Law of the  Sea.  With 156 States and                                                                    
     the European Union now party  to the 1982 UN Convention                                                                    
     on  the  Law of  the  Sea,  the Convention  already  is                                                                    
     playing a central  role in resolving these  issues.  It                                                                    
     will  also  serve as  a  foundation  upon which  future                                                                    
     oceans agreements  will be  based.   In order  to carry                                                                    
     out its  natural leadership role in  promoting the most                                                                    
     appropriate  legal  order  of the  oceans,  the  United                                                                    
     States must become party to the Convention.                                                                                
REAR  ADMIRAL  BROOKS  reminded the  committee  that  the  United                                                               
States had  been one  of the principal  nations pushing  for this                                                               
Convention,  and  he  indicated  the  United  States'  influence,                                                               
noting  that  most  of the  provisions  for  territorial  claims,                                                               
transit,  and  passage  were  things  desired  by  the  U.S.  and                                                               
achieved by the U.S. in building this Convention.                                                                               
REAR  ADMIRAL   BROOKS  returned  to  paraphrasing   his  written                                                               
testimony;   the  next   section   read   as  follows   [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
     On November  16, 1994,  the Law  of the  Sea Convention                                                                    
     entered  into   force.     That  event   represented  a                                                                    
     milestone in  the United States'  efforts to  achieve a                                                                    
     widely ratified,  comprehensive law  of the  sea treaty                                                                    
     that protects and  promotes a wide range  of U.S. ocean                                                                    
     interests, many  of which affect the  U.S. Coast Guard.                                                                    
     Because of  our law  enforcement and  national security                                                                    
     missions, the Coast Guard has  long been a proponent of                                                                    
     achieving  a  comprehensive   and  stable  regime  with                                                                    
     respect  to  traditional  uses  of  the  oceans.    The                                                                    
     Convention aids our interests  by stabilizing the trend                                                                    
     towards   expansion  of   national  jurisdiction   over                                                                    
     coastal  waters,   while  furthering  our   efforts  to                                                                    
     protect  and manage  fishery resources  and to  protect                                                                    
     the  marine   environment.     From  the   Coast  Guard                                                                    
     perspective,  public  order  of   the  oceans  is  best                                                                    
     established  and maintained  by  a stable,  universally                                                                    
     accepted  law  of the  sea  treaty  reflective of  U.S.                                                                    
     national interest.                                                                                                         
8:59:45 AM                                                                                                                    
     One  of  the core  foundations  of  the Convention  was                                                                    
     codification of  rights and responsibilities  of states                                                                    
     as  port  States,  flag  States,  and  coastal  States.                                                                    
     During the negotiations  leading to the Law  of the Sea                                                                    
     Convention,   the   U.S.   aggressively   sought   both                                                                    
     clarification and  delimitation of  seaward territorial                                                                    
     claims  by   coastal  States  to   ensure  navigational                                                                    
     freedoms while at the same  time recognizing the U.S.'s                                                                    
     interest  as  a  coastal   State  with  sovereignty  to                                                                    
     protect  its living  and  non-living marine  resources.                                                                    
     The  result  was  an appropriate  balance  between  the                                                                    
     exclusive   interests  of   coastal   States  and   the                                                                    
     inclusive interests of maritime  States.  It limits the                                                                    
     maximum breadth  of the territorial sea  that a coastal                                                                    
     State could  claim to 12  nautical miles.   Our fishery                                                                    
     conservation management interests,  as reflected in the                                                                    
     Magnuson-Stevens  Fishery  Conservation Management  Act                                                                    
     of  1977,   were  instrumental  in   the  international                                                                    
     development  of the  concept of  the 200-nautical  mile                                                                    
     Exclusive  Economic  Zone  (EEZ).    In  the  EEZ,  all                                                                    
     nations enjoy freedoms of  navigation and overflight as                                                                    
     on  the high  seas, while  the coastal  State possesses                                                                    
     sovereign rights to protect and  exploit the living and                                                                    
     non-living marine  resources.  The United  States, with                                                                    
     its  extraordinarily large  and  resource-rich EEZ,  is                                                                    
     perhaps the greatest beneficiary of this concept.                                                                          
     The  Convention  also  provides   for  a  balanced  and                                                                    
     effective   approach    to   protecting    the   marine                                                                    
     environment. The Amoco Cadiz  and subsequent vessel oil                                                                    
     spill  incidents prompted  the participating  States to                                                                    
     address marine  pollution in the 1982  UN Convention on                                                                    
     the  Law   of  the   Sea.    The   Convention  contains                                                                    
     provisions  that have  been  described  as perhaps  the                                                                    
     most  far-reaching and  effective environmental  accord                                                                    
     yet  devised.   The Convention  struck the  appropriate                                                                    
     balance of  competing claims so that  all nations could                                                                    
     engage  in high  seas freedoms,  including non-resource                                                                    
     related  law  enforcement  in  the  waters  of  another                                                                    
     nation's  EEZ, and  the coastal  State could  enjoy the                                                                    
     right  to  protect  its marine  environment,  including                                                                    
     damage   from   oil   spills  by   vessels,   fisheries                                                                    
     conservation,   and   enforcement  of   domestic   laws                                                                    
     designed  to conserve  and  protect  the living  marine                                                                    
     resources in  its EEZ.  The  Convention also recognized                                                                    
     a port state regime  adequate to ensure their interests                                                                    
     were protected  when vessels voluntarily  entered their                                                                    
     ports or places subject to their jurisdiction.                                                                             
9:02:13 AM                                                                                                                    
     The Coast Guard and  other U.S. military forces already                                                                    
     rely   heavily  on   the   navigational  freedoms   and                                                                    
     overflight  rights  codified  in  the Law  of  the  Sea                                                                    
     Convention.   These  protections allow  the use  of the                                                                    
     world's  oceans  to  meet  changing  national  security                                                                    
     requirements.    In  this  regard,  worldwide  mobility                                                                    
     requires   undisputed   access  through   international                                                                    
     straits  and  archipelagic   waters.    The  Convention                                                                    
     ensures that  our warships,  including our  Coast Guard                                                                    
     cutters, will  have their sovereign  immunity protected                                                                    
     wherever  in  the world  they  may  be operating.    In                                                                    
     addition, the Convention  limits a nation's territorial                                                                    
     sea to  no more  than 12  nautical miles,  beyond which                                                                    
     all nations  enjoy a high  seas navigation  regime that                                                                    
     includes  the  freedom  to engage  in  law  enforcement                                                                    
     activities.    The  Convention codifies  the  right  to                                                                    
     operate freely  beyond a  nation's territorial  sea and                                                                    
     protects  this  right  by limiting  excessive  maritime                                                                    
     claims that often have the  effect of creating maritime                                                                    
     safe havens  for drug traffickers and  other criminals.                                                                    
     Each   year,   Coast    Guard   maritime   interdiction                                                                    
     operations occurring on  international waters result in                                                                    
     the seizure of tens of  thousands of pounds of cocaine,                                                                    
     dozens of  vessels, and hundreds  of arrests.   Most of                                                                    
     these seizures  take place on distant  maritime transit                                                                    
     routes  far  from  our shores.    However,  during  bi-                                                                    
     lateral  negotiations,  several  nations have,  in  the                                                                    
     past,  questioned  our  authority to  contest  some  of                                                                    
     their excessive maritime claims  simply because we have                                                                    
     yet to become party to the Convention.                                                                                     
     The  Convention   contains  effective   provisions  for                                                                    
     dealing with  illegal activities  at sea.   Article 108                                                                    
     of  the Convention  requires international  cooperation                                                                    
     in the  suppression of the transport  of illegal drugs.                                                                    
     The United  Nations Convention against  Illicit Traffic                                                                    
     in  Narcotic Drugs  and  Psychotropic Substances,  also                                                                    
     known as the 1988 Vienna  Convention, is a fine example                                                                    
     of this.   The United States has been  at the forefront                                                                    
     of  international   cooperation  in  the   war  against                                                                    
     illegal drugs, and the use  of ocean space to transport                                                                    
     them.     We   have   aggressively  pursued   bilateral                                                                    
     agreements with  many nations that border  drug transit                                                                    
     zones  as  well  as  States with  large  registries  to                                                                    
     facilitate  the   effective  interdiction   of  vessels                                                                    
     suspected  of   transporting  illegal  drugs   and  the                                                                    
     eventual prosecution of the drug traffickers.                                                                              
     The  Convention also  contains provisions  that enhance                                                                    
     our  ability to  interdict foreign-flagged  vessels off                                                                    
     our  own coasts.   The  Convention  codifies a  coastal                                                                    
     nation's   right  to   establish  a   12-nautical  mile                                                                    
     contiguous zone just beyond  the territorial sea, where                                                                    
     it  may   exercise  control   to  prevent   and  punish                                                                    
     infringements of its  customs, immigration, fiscal, and                                                                    
     sanitary laws.   Adoption  by the  U.S. of  an expanded                                                                    
     contiguous  zone  has doubled  the  area  where we  can                                                                    
     exercise these increased authorities.                                                                                      
REAR  ADMIRAL  BROOKS  stated  that  the  construct  of  maritime                                                               
boundaries  follows a  baseline, which  is "points  to points  of                                                               
land,"  and  there is  argument  about  where that  baseline  is.                                                               
Anything inside the baseline is  "internal waters," and a country                                                               
has full sovereignty  on those waters.  The  territorial sea goes                                                               
out  12 nautical  miles  from  the baseline,  and  that is  where                                                               
states  exercise  "almost  complete   jurisdiction,"  but  it  is                                                               
subject to innocent  and other transit passage  by other nations.                                                               
He related that  there is a contiguous zone that  goes from 12-24                                                               
nautical miles  where it  is allowable for  certain things  to be                                                               
done, "like  marine pollution,  immigration, [and]  sanitation" -                                                               
the  typical customs  functions of  the  nation.   There is  less                                                               
control in  that zone than there  is in the 0-  to 12-mile range.                                                               
Beyond 24 miles,  out to 200 miles, the  Convention recognizes an                                                               
EEZ for  specific economic purposes,  such as  fisheries, mining,                                                               
and oil.   Beyond 200  miles, "we have  the ability to  claim sea                                                               
floor and access to resources on  the sea floor, depending on the                                                               
nature of the continental shelf itself."                                                                                        
9:06:26 AM                                                                                                                    
REAR  ADMIRAL   BROOKS  relayed  that  the   Convention  contains                                                               
numerous provisions  that advance  the economic interests  of the                                                               
U.S.  He concluded paraphrasing  his written testimony, the final                                                               
portion   of  which   read  as   follows  [original   punctuation                                                               
     The  Convention  calls  for  international  cooperation                                                                    
     among the  States in  preserving the  world's high-seas                                                                    
     fisheries.  This provision  on cooperation supports the                                                                    
     UN  ban  on  high  seas drift  net  fishing  and  other                                                                    
     illegal fishing practices.  Each  year, the Coast Guard                                                                    
     patrols  the North  Pacific  to  conduct boardings  and                                                                    
     inspections  under the  Convention on  the Conservation                                                                    
     and Management  of Highly Migratory Fish  Stocks in the                                                                    
     Western  and Central  Pacific Ocean.    Over two  dozen                                                                    
     nations participate  in this effort, which  is a direct                                                                    
     outcome of the Law of the Sea Convention.                                                                                  
9:07:14 AM                                                                                                                    
     The Convention  makes specific provision  for asserting                                                                    
     jurisdiction   over  the   resources  of   an  extended                                                                    
     continental  shelf.   All coastal  States may  exercise                                                                    
     their sovereign rights to the  natural resources of the                                                                    
     seabed and subsoil of the  continental shelf out to 200                                                                    
     nautical  miles.     The  Convention  sets   forth  the                                                                    
     requirements   and  procedures   for  parties   to  the                                                                    
     Convention  to  claim  an  extended  continental  shelf                                                                    
     beyond  200 nautical  miles.   For example,  the U.S.'s                                                                    
     extended  continental shelf,  which may  extend as  far                                                                    
     out as 600  nautical miles in the  Arctic, has enormous                                                                    
     potential  oil  and  gas  reserves.    In  contrast  to                                                                    
     Russia, Canada,  Denmark, and Norway, all  of which are                                                                    
     party to  the Convention, the U.S.  is presently unable                                                                    
     to file  a claim for  an extended continental  shelf in                                                                    
     order to  obtain secure title  to our  potentially vast                                                                    
     resources in the Arctic.    The U.S. also has potential                                                                    
     continental  shelf resources  off  the  Gulf Coast  and                                                                    
     other  coastal  areas.   Moreover,  the  United  States                                                                    
     currently has no role to  play on the Continental Shelf                                                                    
     Commission,  whose  members   evaluate  all  claims  to                                                                    
     extended continental shelves  to ensure compliance with                                                                    
     objective legal standards.                                                                                                 
     The  Convention is  also an  environmental accord  that                                                                    
     provides a comprehensive  framework for the prevention,                                                                    
     reduction,  and control  of  maritime  pollution.   The                                                                    
     Coast Guard conducts  a wide-ranging port-state-control                                                                    
     program to  purge our waters  of substandard  ships and                                                                    
     is assisting  other nations  in doing  the same.   This                                                                    
     initiative  will  be  enhanced through  the  consistent                                                                    
     application  of  the   Convention's  broad  enforcement                                                                    
     mechanisms.    Additionally, the  Convention  carefully                                                                    
     balances the rights of coastal  States to adopt certain                                                                    
     measures to protect the  marine environment adjacent to                                                                    
     their shores with the primary  right of a flag State to                                                                    
     set and  enforce standards and  requirements concerning                                                                    
     the operation  of its vessels.   Moreover, it  does all                                                                    
     this  without unduly  burdening international  maritime                                                                    
     navigation and sea-borne trade.                                                                                            
     As  the lead  Federal  agency for  maritime safety  and                                                                    
     security,  the Coast  Guard believes  that the  1982 UN                                                                    
     Convention  on the  Law of  the Sea  would benefit  the                                                                    
     Coast Guard  in its efforts to  improve maritime safety                                                                    
     and ensure  the security of our  maritime borders, thus                                                                    
     promoting   homeland   security.       The   Convention                                                                    
     recognizes that various UN  subsidiary bodies may serve                                                                    
     as  competent   international  organizations   for  the                                                                    
     further  Conventional development  of  the  law of  the                                                                    
     sea.    The  International  Maritime  Organization  has                                                                    
     always  been  the  recognized  competent  international                                                                    
     organization   for    maritime   safety    and   marine                                                                    
     environmental  protection.     More  recently,  it  has                                                                    
     assumed  a similar  role in  port  facility and  vessel                                                                    
     security.     The  Coast  Guards  has   worked  at  the                                                                    
     [International  Maritime Organization]  (IMO) to  amend                                                                    
     the  [Safety of  Life  at Sea]  (SOLAS) Convention  for                                                                    
     vessel and port facility  security, to enhance maritime                                                                    
     domain awareness through  Long Range Identification and                                                                    
     Tracking  (LRIT) of  vessels bound  for U.S.  ports and                                                                    
     waters, and  to increase the  operational effectiveness                                                                    
     of the Convention for the  Suppression of Unlawful Acts                                                                    
     against   the  Safety   of  Maritime   Navigation  (SUA                                                                    
     Convention).   The  negotiations  necessary to  support                                                                    
     efforts such as these take  place in the context of the                                                                    
     overwhelming number of nations  at IMO being parties to                                                                    
     the Law of  the Sea Convention.  Because  of this fact,                                                                    
     the Law  of the  Sea Convention provides  the framework                                                                    
     for the  discussions and agreements.   Although we have                                                                    
     enjoyed   success   in   the   international   security                                                                    
     agreements so  far, those negotiations have  not always                                                                    
     been easy.   Frankly, the  fact that the  United States                                                                    
     is not a  party to the Law of the  Sea Convention, when                                                                    
     the overwhelming  number of our  international partners                                                                    
     are parties,  has repeatedly placed  us in  a difficult                                                                    
     negotiating position  at IMO and  other forums.   I see                                                                    
     this  situation only  getting worse  in  the future  as                                                                    
     long as we are not a State Party.                                                                                          
     In  summation, the  provisions of  the Law  of the  Sea                                                                    
     Convention  fairly balance  the exclusive  interests of                                                                    
     coastal  States  in  controlling activities  off  their                                                                    
     coasts against  the inclusive  interests of  all States                                                                    
     in  freedom   of  navigation   and  overflight.     The                                                                    
     practical effect  for the United  States is  to control                                                                    
     economic   activities   within  the   world's   largest                                                                    
     Exclusive  Economic Zone,  while enabling  our military                                                                    
     forces and merchant vessels to  freely operate in every                                                                    
     part of  the globe.   The Convention more  than doubles                                                                    
     the  resource jurisdiction  of the  United States  and,                                                                    
     once  we  become a  party,  will  extend our  sovereign                                                                    
     rights  to  develop  oil  and   gas  resources  on  the                                                                    
     extended  continental  shelf  that  we  so  desperately                                                                    
     need.    The  Convention guarantees  our  military  and                                                                    
     transportation   industries  critical   navigation  and                                                                    
     overflight  rights,  U.S.   fishermen  enjoy  exclusive                                                                    
     fishing  out  to 200  nautical  miles,  and much,  much                                                                    
     more.  In  the view of the Coast  Guard, the Convention                                                                    
     for the Law of the  Sea greatly improves our ability to                                                                    
     protect the American  public as well as  our efforts to                                                                    
     manage our  ocean resources and  to protect  the marine                                                                    
9:12:36 AM                                                                                                                    
REAR  ADMIRAL  BROOKS,  in   response  to  Representative  Gatto,                                                               
related that the most common  argument he has heard in opposition                                                               
to the  United States' signing the  treaty is that if  the nation                                                               
accedes  to  the  Convention,  it  would  abrogate  some  of  its                                                               
sovereignty.   He stated  his opinion  that all  treaties require                                                               
giving  up  sovereignty to  some  extent,  because "you  give  up                                                               
something in  order to get something  else."  He said  [the U.S.]                                                               
has  lived  off  the  benefits  of the  treaty  since  1982,  and                                                               
although the  international forums are perhaps  not as supportive                                                               
of [the  U.S.] as  desired, without being  a signatory,  the U.S.                                                               
will be "outside the door peeking in."                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO   questioned  why  the  U.S.   created  the                                                               
structure, but did not sign on.                                                                                                 
9:14:37 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG noted  that  Representative Wilson  had                                                               
asked the same question, and he  referred once more to the report                                                               
of  the  [U.S.  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations].    He                                                               
recalled that four  members of that committee  signed against the                                                               
treaty,  giving  six reasons.    He  indicated  that one  of  the                                                               
reasons  was  that  Article  13   imposes  direct  fees  on  U.S.                                                               
corporations in  deep seabed mining,  which, in fact, he  said is                                                               
not correct.   He  said he  has a letter  from the  Department of                                                               
State  to  that  effect.   Another  reason  was  that  land-based                                                               
sources of  pollution could continue.   The response to  that, he                                                               
said, was  that just  because one country  is polluting  does not                                                               
mean  every  other  country  should  do so;  there  needs  to  be                                                               
attempts to control pollution.  The  third reason was that the UN                                                               
Secretary  General picks  the  arbitrators, which  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg said  is not correct.   The fourth reason was  that the                                                               
nations   would  vote   against   the  interests   of  the   U.S.                                                               
Representative  Gruenberg  said,  "Obviously   when  you  have  a                                                               
Convention  and  you  have a  mechanism  for  peacefully  solving                                                               
disputes, it's a way of resolving  those."  He indicated that the                                                               
fifth and sixth reasons had  to do with military and intelligence                                                               
gathering activities,  and he said  Rear Admiral Brooks  has ably                                                               
addressed those issues.  Representative  Gruenberg said he thinks                                                               
the federal government believes that  it is essential to homeland                                                               
security that the nation is party to this treaty.                                                                               
9:17:02 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted that  during his  testimony, Rear                                                               
Admiral Brooks had  warned that "if we don't pass  this," it will                                                               
be  more  difficult to  address  the  interests  of the  U.S.  in                                                               
international  disputes.    He asked  for  clarification  through                                                               
9:18:00 AM                                                                                                                    
REAR ADMIRAL  BROOKS responded that  the Russians dropped  a flag                                                               
on the North Pole, reinforcing  a preexisting claim they had made                                                               
under the  Convention to the  Lomonosov Ridge as an  extension of                                                               
the Russian continental shelf.   He stated his understanding that                                                               
the  committee that  considered the  continental shelf  claim has                                                               
already reviewed  and rejected that  claim, but the  Russians now                                                               
have  the opportunity  to submit  further data  to support  their                                                               
claim.   He  offered his  understanding that  that data  would be                                                               
reviewed in  2011.  The  U.S. has no say  in the matter,  was not                                                               
involved in  any of the  meetings, and  currently has no  role to                                                               
play in the matter.   The only way to have a say  is to accede to                                                               
the Convention.   He relayed  that several  Canadian counterparts                                                               
have  told him  that  right  now the  world  is missing  American                                                               
leadership in all these issues.                                                                                                 
9:19:53 AM                                                                                                                    
REAR   ADMIRAL   BROOKS,   in  response   to   Chair   Lynn   and                                                               
Representative Gruenberg, explained what  that Lomonosov Ridge is                                                               
part of  the range of  land on the sea  floor that runs  over the                                                               
North Pole.  He  said people map the sea floor  as they map above                                                               
sea land.   The question is  whether the bridge is  contiguous or                                                               
whether  there  is a  break  in  the  mountain chain  that  would                                                               
determine that  end of Russian  or Canadian  land mass.   He said                                                               
there are  ice breaker  vessels currently  mapping sea  floors in                                                               
that  area  to  support  future   potential  claims  to  extended                                                               
continental shelf.  He related  that the complications in mapping                                                               
have to do with sloping.                                                                                                        
9:21:50 AM                                                                                                                    
REAR ADMIRAL  BROOKS noted that there  is a large finger  of land                                                               
that comes  out from Alaska  into the Arctic, called  the Chukchi                                                               
Plateau.   It is a  land mass on the  sea floor that  follows the                                                               
Russia/U.S. boarder  out over  350 miles  into the  Arctic Ocean.                                                               
Documenting of  the plateau as  a continuous and  contiguous part                                                               
of the  Alaskan land mass would  enable the state claim  to it if                                                               
the U.S. were  part of the Convention.  There  are other features                                                               
of the  sea floor in the  Arctic that are being  debated in terms                                                               
of ownership.   Rear Admiral  Brooks said  China has sent  an ice                                                               
breaker up  to collect  data, because it  would like  to disprove                                                               
that  any of  the  continental  shelf is  attached  to a  coastal                                                               
state; China  is interested in  keeping as  much of that  area as                                                               
possible international so that it can mine the area.                                                                            
9:24:06 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN  related that  during his recent  trip to                                                               
the Energy  Conference in Washington,  D.C., a  representative of                                                               
Shell told him how promising the  Chukchi Plateau area is for oil                                                               
development.   Representative Petersen concluded that  the treaty                                                               
is extremely important in securing America's oil in the future.                                                                 
9:24:58 AM                                                                                                                    
REAR  ADMIRAL BROOKS,  in response  to Representative  Gruenberg,                                                               
confirmed  that  the  U.S.  cannot  present  its  own  scientific                                                               
conclusions without being a signatory.   In response to a follow-                                                               
up question, he said he does  not know the exact size of undersea                                                               
land that  the United  States could gain  by signing  the treaty,                                                               
but he said it would be substantial.                                                                                            
9:26:37 AM                                                                                                                    
REAR   ADMIRAL   BROOKS,   in  response   to   a   request   from                                                               
Representative Gruenberg, offered a  synopsis of his history with                                                               
the military, talked about what  the legislature might do for the                                                               
Coast  Guard,  related  his  experience   working  in  Alaska  in                                                               
particular, and  answered questions from the  committee regarding                                                               
the Coast Guard.                                                                                                                
9:45:44 AM                                                                                                                    
WALTER  PARKER  told  the  committee  that he  has  been  a  U.S.                                                               
delegate to  the Arctic Council,  and was  one of the  two Alaska                                                               
delegates to  the third Law  of the  Sea Conference.   Mr. Parker                                                               
noted that  there are approximately  173 countries in  the United                                                               
Nations, 32 of  which are not members of the  Convention, and the                                                               
U.S. is the only major power that is not a member.  He stated:                                                                  
     And  then the  pressure's  not  been on,  particularly,                                                                    
     from  the  fisheries, because  we  took  care of  those                                                                    
     pretty   much   in    the   [Magnuson-Stevens   Fishery                                                                    
     Conservation   and  Management   Act]  of   1976,  most                                                                    
     elements of  which were incorporated  in the  third Law                                                                    
     of the Sea Convention.                                                                                                     
MR. PARKER  said he worked  with Russians on the  Arctic Council.                                                               
He  indicated  that  a  lot   of  game  playing  occurs,  and  he                                                               
emphasized  how important  it  is  for the  U.S.  to  "be at  the                                                               
table."   He  encouraged the  legislature to  do what  it can  to                                                               
encourage  Congress and  the Administration  to "get  moving with                                                               
MR.  PARKER emphasized  the importance  of the  Northeast Passage                                                               
across the  top of Russia, in  terms of shipping.   Regarding the                                                               
first two Law  of the Sea Conferences, he said,  "I was there for                                                               
federal  aviation and  it pretty  well took  care of  the acreage                                                               
part, so I don't worry about that."                                                                                             
9:49:59 AM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.                                                                                             
9:50:06 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  moved to  report HJR  22 out  of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes.  There being no objection,  HJR 22 was reported out of the                                                               
House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
01 HJR002A.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
02 Sponsor statement.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
03 Womens Bar Association article.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
04 Vanguard article.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
05 Women's E news article.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
06 HJR002-OOG-DOE-3-18-09.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
Article HJR 22 The Race to Own the Arctic.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
Fiscal Note HJR 22.xls HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
HJR 22 - 06_08_08_arcticboundaries.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
HJR 22 - 26-LS0062-R.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
HJR 22 - Background.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
HJR 22 - Letters of Support.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
HJR 22 - Sponsor Statement.pdf HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM
HJR 22 Projected U S continental shelf.doc HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM