HJR 22-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY  3:52:17 PM CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced HJR 22 to be up for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, sponsor of HJR 22, explained that this joint resolution asks the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. Both of Alaska's U.S. They have received extensive testimony from the military. In the Joint Armed Services Committee on March 2 the Alaska Command testify in favor of it and extending jurisdiction. Previously, the Magnuson Stevens Act was used. The treaty has 155 signatory and it has taken its place. If the U.S. is not a signatory, it is only at the other nations' pleasure that our 200 mile and 12 mile extended territorial jurisdiction is recognized. He provided the committee some polar view maps that show the extension of boundary and sovereignty that is available to the U.S. with ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty is passed. The U.S. could probably extend jurisdiction 350 miles into the Arctic by becoming a signatory and that area has a tremendous amount of resource. The U.S. is currently the only Arctic nation that isn't a signatory. If we are not a signatory, others nations could claim that area instead of us. 3:54:59 PM ADMIRAL GENE BROOKS, Commander, 17th Coast Guard District- Alaska, supported HJR 22. He said the important thing to remember is that the U.S. has always been one of the leading nations in the world attempting to codify the rules for operations on the oceans. That initiative culminated in 1958 by the first Law of the Sea Conference. The U.S. agreed and signed that one, but since then new problems have developed. At that time fish stocks were thought to be inexhaustible, and the 1958 Convention had no dispute resolution mechanism. The 1958 didn't guarantee submarine or air craft rights over expanded territorial seas, and many nations were starting to claim very broad boundaries that were threatening to choke off the straights of the world, but were also creating some havens for bad people to hide. He said the U.S. actually led the initiative creating the Law of the Sea Convention in 1994, but deep sea bed mining issues at the time stopped it from ratification. Admiral Brooks stated the U.S. Senate has not ratified this convention that it led the creation of. The truth is that today America enjoys many rights and privileges because the other signatories allow us to have a 12-mile territorial sea, a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, but we cannot claim the outer continental shelf territory because we are not party to the conference. ADMIRAL BROOKS stated that another issue to consider is that frequently when he talks to people about these issues in other countries, Canadians, in particular, say they need American leadership. The Laws of the Sea are always changing - and it's changing from one we helped create in the early 90s, but not necessarily in the direction that we have any influence in right now. To protect the military transit rights, the exclusive economic zone that Alaska enjoys, and the transit for enforcement in fishing on the open seas, it is important for the U.S. to become a signatory and fully participate. 3:58:23 PM SENATOR STEVENS asked, in the mode of "be careful what you wish for," how we would police and control this area - the shipping, the whale migration, mining and fisheries - without ships, planes and harbors up there. 3:58:46 PM ADMIRAL BROOKS replied he doesn't currently have the ability to patrol it or keep it secure. He, along with others including several legislators, are trying to raise people's awareness of America's responsibility as a Nordic nation and the need to police and make this portion of the planet safe. Admiral Brooks stated that the cruise ships are coming, the fishing vessels may be coming, and there are many reasons for the Coast Guard to get prepared to support Alaskans in this part of the world. SENATOR STEVENS stated it is a big problem and the lack of harbors is a major issue. ADMIRAL BROOKS agreed the lack of harbors is a significant issue for all Alaska and the U.S. 4:00:40 PM JAMES FLOYD, representing himself, Tok, said he opposed SJR 13, which is identical to HJR 22. He explained that there are still a lot of criticisms of the treaty itself - the fact that it is long and complicated. It dictates what laws the U.S. would have to have and that raises concerns about sovereignty. Mr. Floyd said that this is coming from the United Nations where it appears that a lot of people from government are pushing for this than really are. The common person is not familiar with this treaty and it's coming from the top down. He urged the committee to exercise caution. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI closed public testimony. 4:04:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the only question that came up was that the U.S. had opted out of the provisions in section 297; so he didn't think there was a problem. SENATOR HUGGINS said he doesn't know anything about the International Court of Justice and without any previous experience with it, his confidence level is not high. But those advocating for this treaty have good reasoning, and if things work out as envisioned it would be good; but if conflicts arise, his confidence level of adjudicating those is low. Senator Huggins stated that he does not have a problem with this moving out of committee but when international organizations are involved, the ability to solve conflict is doubtful. SENATOR STEVENS moved to report HJR 22 from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.