28 Jun 2012

Oil & Gas Industry Leaders Warn of Problems with L.O.S.T.

By Travis Korson
Washington, D.C., June 28, 2012- On the eve of yet another Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in which only proponents are permitted to appear, a group of oil and gas industry leaders sent a letter to Committee Chairman John Kerry expressing serious concerns about the net effect this accord would have on U.S. national, as well as commercial, interests.
As with an earlier letter sent on June 14th to Sen. Kerry by senior retired U.S. military leaders, the latest correspondence makes clear that LOST proponents' claims that the treaty enjoys unanimous support among influential communities - notably, the Navy and the private sector's oil and gas industry - are significantly overstated.
The business leaders' letter states in part: "Gaining access to the resources in and under the world's oceans is critically important to our country, but the costs and risks associated with doing so pursuant to LOST are simply too high."
The signers expressed concern about six different aspects of the treaty and its repercussions.  These include the possibility of being obliged, pursuant to LOST:
  • to give up proprietary data and technology in order to engage in the exploitation of the resources of the deep ocean sea beds
  • to confront a global Environmental Protection Agency that is sure to be far more aggressive in fulfilling its mandate of protecting the marine environment than even our own EPA
  • to contend with mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms that will be stacked against this country and used by its adversaries to hamstring us
  • to participate in discredited socialist wealth redistribution schemes at the dictates of foreign, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and jurists
The oil and gas industry leaders who signed this letter are: Raul Brito, President, Brito Oil Company; Steve Dillard, Vice President, Pickrell Drilling Company; Mike Dixon, Owner, Dixon Oil and Gas, Inc.; Hon. Dennis Hedke, Owner, Hedke Saenger Geoscience Ltd.; Bill Johnson, Partner, McCoy Petroleum Corporation; A. Scott Ritchie III, President, Ritchie Exploration, Inc.; and Scott Stewart, Owner, Bird Dog Oil LLC.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. of the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, said:
"The message from these leaders of the U.S. energy sector could not be more timely, or more clear:  There are potentially huge down-side risks for the United States should the Senate consent to the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty."
"Senator Kerry is obliged to afford equal opportunity to the critics of LOST as has been given to its admirers.  Thus far, just two opponents - one of whom was former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - have been heard from."
"A solid place to start would be by ensuring that the concerns expressed by these industry leaders are thoroughly reviewed and addressed immediately.  Under no circumstances, moreover, should our elected representatives accede to Sen. Kerry's bid to try to blow this defective and sovereignty-sapping treaty through what was once properly known as 'the world's greatest deliberative body' under circumstances, like those of a lame duck session, that preclude careful deliberation."
Text of the Letter

June 27, 2012
Hon. John Kerry
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
444 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0802
Dear Chairman Kerry:
We are writing as individuals with long experience in oil and gas exploration and production. We have deep concerns about the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).  We request that you ensure such concerns are given at least equal prominence as, and made a part of the record along with, the views of those who will be testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 28th.
Gaining access to the resources in and under the world's oceans is critically important to our country, but the costs and risks associated with doing so pursuant to LOST are simply too high.  Our concerns include :
  • Under the terms of the Law of the Sea Treaty, at least some of the permits for deep seabed resource exploration and production will entail sharing of proprietary data and technology.  American companies will almost certainly be reluctant to provide such sensitive items to their competitors - either directly or, through international bureaucrats, indirectly.[i] As a result, companies that think LOST may be good for their business interests today may find themselves effectively precluded in the future from tapping the immense natural wealth of the world's sea beds.
  • From its preamble onwards, LOST obligates its parties to facilitate the redistribution of wealth from the developed, maritime nations to the developing and land-locked ones.  In this sense, it is of a piece with - and a backdoor means of achieving - the sort of socialist "sustainability" accord that was wisely recently rejected at the "Rio+20" conference on sustainable development.[ii]
  • Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher once described LOST as "the strongest, comprehensive environmental treaty now in existence or likely to emerge for quite some time." [iii] That is the case not only because of its myriad obligations with respect to protecting the marine environment, but also due to the treaty's mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms that will surely be used to enforce such commitments.  Activist organizations (e.g., the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, etc.) will be very effective at exploiting the new "hooks" to block exploration and production.
One purpose to which LOST's tribunal and arbitration panels could readily be put is to impose a form of "cap-and-trade" arrangement on carbon emissions.  At a minimum, the treaty can help advance the campaigns environmental activists have been waging for years[iv] against the sources of such emissions: the mining and use of coal and now their next target, fracking and the recovery of immense quantities of natural gas that it makes possible.  As we now know, the "bridge fuel" role for natural gas set out in the 2001 energy manifesto of the NRDC (which was endorsed by the Sierra Club) has now morphed into a "Beyond Natural Gas" campaign.
  • The Law of the Sea Tribunal established the precedent in a December 2001 ruling in the "Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) Plant" case of extending its jurisdiction to alleged pollution emanating from a state party's interior waters and air columns.[v] The pretext is that such pollution ultimately migrates to the world's oceans and, therefore, must be regulated.
  • Through this device, it is predictable that, if the United States were to ratify this accord, we would be afflicted with business-hostile interference and regulations that would make the record of our domestic Environmental Protection Agency seem tame by comparison.  Unaccountable foreign bureaucrats and jurists will surely prove even more intractable than was the EPA when, to cite but one recent example, Shell Oil sought permission to explore off the coast of Alaska.  Some federal judges in this country can be expected happily to enforce any rulings engineered by such well-funded international activists.  The LOST treaty would become a useful framework for those who have advocated a global EPA under the UN Environmental Program sponsored by Maurice Strong.
  • Finally, LOST will provide potentially vast revenue streams to the International Seabed Authority to fund its operations and to "redistribute" to favored nations.  The United Nations system has proven to be extremely hostile to our interests, even when we are picking up over twenty percent of its costs.  It is frightening to contemplate what a supranational organization dominated by countries that do not like us will do if it becomes self-supporting through LOST-facilitated taxes, fees, and revenue-sharing.
All these concerns are powerfully reinforced by a remarkably candid warning issued sixteen years ago by one of the Law of the Sea Treaty's U.S. negotiators, Prof. Bernard H. Oxman.  The Senate should regard the following admonition from his 1996 article in the European Journal of International Law[vi] as evidence that - whatever one makes of the provisions and implications of LOST today - they will mutate in the future in ways that contribute to the further "development of international law," a euphemism for greatly expanding the treaty's jurisdiction and impact:
Those who wish to realize fully the contributions of the Convention to the rule of law will need to exercise restraint and wisdom in at least the immediate future lest they complicate the ratification process in one or more states.  Politically, this suggests caution regarding the organization, composition and budgets of the new institutions established by the Convention.  Legally, this suggests restraint in speculating on the meaning of the Convention or on possible differences between the Convention and customary law....
I do not dissent from the view that the development of international law benefits from more cases and decisions by the [Law of the Sea Tribunal].  My point is simply that, because of its compromissory clauses, a globally ratified Convention promises many more cases in the future, and that it would be unfortunate if one or two cases during this delicate interim period, when so many governments are considering ratification, had the effect of prejudicing that promise. (Emphasis added.)
We respectfully suggest that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea should be considered on the basis of national interests in resource access.  Extreme caution must be exercised by you and your colleagues in light of the potentially grave repercussions this treaty may have on resource companies and Americans more generally across this country - especially if is intended to make a far greater contribution to the "development of international law" at the expense of our sovereignty only after the United States ratifies the accord.
Sincerely,
Raul Brito, President, Brito Oil Company
Steve Dillard, Vice President, Pickrell Drilling Company
Mike Dixon, Owner, Dixon Oil and Gas, Inc.
Hon. Dennis Hedke, Owner, Hedke Saenger Geoscience Ltd.
Bill Johnson, Partner, McCoy Petroleum Corporation
A. Scott Ritchie III, President, Ritchie Exploration, Inc.
Scott Stewart, Owner, Bird Dog Oil LLC
[i] Such data- and technology-sharing obligations are contained in Part XI of the Treaty and its Annex III and appear to apply at least to deep-sea mining.  Treaty proponents point to language in a separate 1994 agreement to minimize concerns about such transfers.  Given the emphasis placed throughout LOST on redistribution of wealth, there are, however, grounds for concern how expansive demands for access to developed nations' proprietary data and technology will prove to be in practice - perhaps those associated with for their oil and gas operations.
[v] See, Volker Röben, "The Order of the UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal to Suspend Proceedings in the Case of the MOX Plant at Sellafield: How Much Jurisdictional Subsidiarity?" Nordic Journal of International Law (Volume 73, p. 226, 2004).
[vi] Bernard H. Oxman, "The Rule of Law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," European Journal of International Law, 1996, pp. 356-358.
###
15 Jun 2012

Senior Military Leaders Oppose LOST

By Travis Korson
Washington, D.C., June 14, 2012- A distinguished group of retired senior U.S. military leaders - who earned between them 33 stars - released a letter voicing strong concerns that ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST) would be detrimental to the national interests of the United States.  This letter was sent on the day Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, convened a hearing on LOST featuring six currently serving U.S. military commanders - what he has called his "24-star panel" - who will argue in favor of ratification.
The letter states in part:
"Much is being made at the moment of the support of the U.S. military for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).  In your Foreign Relations Committee hearings to date, you have invited testimony from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and six other serving four-star commanders.  We wish respectfully to challenge the perception that military personnel uniformly support this accord by expressing our strongly held belief that LOST's ratification would prove inimical both to the national security interests and sovereignty of the United States."
The letter goes on to list five reasons why this is the case, including:
  1. President Ronald Reagan refused to sign LOST due to objections that went beyond those concerning deep seabed mining - objections that were not addressed in a subsequent 1994 agreement
  2. LOST ratification would dangerously empower the United Nations
  3. LOST would submit all disputes to binding arbitration or judicial action by entities inherently rigged against the United States
  4. LOST would require the United States to make commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests
  5. The United States cannot be assured of its ability to exempt "military activities" from mandatory dispute resolution.
The military leaders who have signed this letter are:
  • Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Forces Command; Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
  • Adm. Thomas B. Hayward, USN (Ret.), Former Chief of Naval Operations
  • Adm. G.E.R. Kinnear II, USN (Ret.), Former U.S. Member of the NATO Military Committee
  • Gen. Richard L. Lawson, USAF (Ret.), Former Deputy Commander-in Chief, Headquarters U.S. European Command
  • Adm. James "Ace" Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
  • Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.), Former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, USAF
  • Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.), Former Director of Navy Research, Development Testing and Evaluation
  • Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.), Former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
  • Adm. Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Forces Europe and NATO Allied Forces Southern Europe
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., of the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, said:
"The United States Senate and the American people owe a debt of gratitude to the distinguished signatories of this letter.  They have once again answered the call to serve, this time in the form of providing a badly needed military perspective on the national security implications of LOST.  With this important input, Senators are on notice that the argument the U.S. military unanimously supports this treaty is unfounded - and no substitute for a critical evaluation of the treaty and other, similarly flawed claims made by the treaty's proponents."
Text of the Letter

June 14, 2012
Hon. John Kerry
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
444 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0802
Dear Chairman Kerry:
Much is being made at the moment of the support of the U.S. military for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). In your Foreign Relations Committee hearings to date, you have invited testimony from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and six other serving four-star commanders. We wish respectfully to challenge the perception that military personnel uniformly support this accord by expressing our strongly held belief that LOST's ratification would prove inimical both to the national security interests and sovereignty of the United States.
This conclusion is ineluctable given five facts about the Law of the Sea Treaty:
  1. President Ronald Reagan recognized that the terms and institutional arrangements inherent in the treaty?including, but not limited to, seabed mining?were adverse to this country insofar as they were intended and designed to establish and empower a supranational government. For these reasons, he refused to sign this accord. And, as his Counselor and Attorney General, Edwin Meese, has observed, those defects continue to afflict LOST?despite suggestions to the contrary, based on false claims that a separate agreement signed by some but not all LOST signatories satisfactorily addressed Mr. Reagan's concerns.
  2. There is already ample reason for Americans?in and out of uniform?to be leery of entrusting more power and authority to the United Nations. Yet, our membership in LOST would dangerously empower that organization. After all, this treaty creates an executive, legislature and judiciary that are supposed to govern seventy-percent of the world's surface. And LOST's institutions are intertwined with the UN system and would be capable of raising revenues. Given the UN track record of corruption and hostility to America and its allies, it would be reckless to endorse such arrangements, let alone subject ourselves to them.
  3. Of particular concern is the obligation under LOST to submit any and all disputes to binding arbitration or judicial action by entities that are inherently rigged against us. The treaty's expansive mandate is so broad?involving virtually anything affecting the world's oceans?that it is an invitation to UN and other nations' interference in our affairs on an unprecedented scale.
  4. That prospect has particular implications for the national security were the United States to become a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. As such, we would be required to make myriad commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests. These include agreeing to reserve the oceans exclusively for "peaceful purposes."  Contentions that we need not worry about such formal commitments because we, as a maritime nation with a powerful navy, are not expected to be bound by them will surely prove unfounded.
  5. The same is certain to apply to assurances that the exemption of "military activities" will preclude LOST from having harmful effects on our armed forces and their necessary operations on, over, under and from the seas. Since the treaty does not include an agreed definition of what constitutes such activities, disputes are sure to arise?disputes we will be obliged to resolve through one LOST mechanism or another. [In the attachment, Judge Advocate General Captain Vince Averna (USN, Ret.) lays out a number of the treaty's provisions that may invite such challenges.]
One example of how untenable such assurances will prove can be found in the area of anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Of necessity, ASW training to be effective must necessarily replicate actual combat operations and thus involve the periodic use of high-power sonars and explosives. Unfortunately, some assert that these training activities cause harm to ocean wildlife, like dolphins and whales, and have sought to use judicial means to restrict or preclude them.
We must, therefore, recall that, during the Clinton administration, Secretary of State Warren Christopher called LOST "the strongest comprehensive environmental treaty now in existence or likely to emerge for quite some time." That being the case, the U.S. armed forces must reckon with the prospect that what they consider to be essential and exempted military activities will be treated under LOST as environmental predation very much within the jurisdiction of its Tribunal and arbitration panels. The effect of adverse rulings, especially if enforced by federal judges, could prove devastating to our power projection and other defense capabilities.
For all these reasons (among others), it is our considered professional military judgment that the United States should remain unencumbered by state-party status in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea?free to observe those provisions we chose to and unencumbered by the others. We have demonstrated in the three decades since President Reagan refused to sign LOST that as a non-party great power we can exercise great and essential influence on matters involving the oceans without being relegated to one vote among 160-plus, obliged to abide by the will and whims of a generally hostile majority without the benefit of a veto to protect American national interests. There is no basis for contending that we will be better off if we have a so-called "seat at the table" under such circumstances.
We hope our insights and conclusions will be made part of the record of your Committee's deliberations on this matter and would welcome an opportunity to participate in such deliberations if that would be helpful to you and your colleagues.
Sincerely,
Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, USA (Ret.)
Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Forces Command;
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
Adm. Thomas B. Hayward, USN (Ret.)
Former Chief of Naval Operations
Adm. G.E.R. Kinnear II, USN (Ret.)
Former U.S. Member of the NATO Military Committee
Gen. Richard L. Lawson, USAF (Ret.)
Former Deputy Commander-in Chief, Headquarters U.S. European Command
Adm. James "Ace" Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.)
Former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, USAF
Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)
Former Director of Navy Research, Development Testing and Evaluation
Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.)
Former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
Adm. Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Forces Europe and
NATO Allied Forces Southern Europe
cc:  Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Attachment: a/s
###
15 May 2012

True Sovereignty Coalition Calls for Balance in Hearings on L.O.S.T.

By Travis Korson
Listen to More than the 'American Anti-Sovereignty Campaign'

Washington, D.C., May 11, 2012- In a choreographed roll-out yesterday - transparently timed to coincide with the end of Senator Richard Lugar's ill-fated primary race for reelection to the United States Senate, a group styling itself the "American Sovereignty Campaign" announced that it would be mounting an aggressive effort to secure ratification of the obsolete and defective Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).  Given the threat LOST poses to U.S. sovereignty and vital interests, a better moniker for this entity would be the "American Anti-Sovereignty Campaign."

A previously organized coalition that actually supports American sovereignty - the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty - responded by calling on Sen. Lugar, the Ranking Minority Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his Democratic counterpart, Chairman John Kerry, to assure the record reflects the insights of the treaty's many critics, not just its boosters.
In a letter to the two Senators (below), the pro-sovereignty Coalition identified a number of LOST's defects that should require close scrutiny.  It also identified a number of expert witnesses who could illuminate them and urged the Foreign Relations Committee to hear from such authorities.
The Coalition welcomes an honest, open debate about a treaty that was largely drafted when the Soviet Union and Non-Aligned Nations were still going concerns and dominated the United Nations and Law of the Sea negotiations.  If the Senate actually deliberates on this accord - rather than following the appalling 2010 precedent of hastily rubber-stamping the Obama administration's unverifiable and inequitable New START Treaty, the outcome seems certain:  The Senate will reject the LOST Treaty, as did President Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.

Text of the Letter

10 May 2012

Hon. John Kerry
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
444 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0802

Hon. Richard G. Lugar
Ranking Minority Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
446 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0802

Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lugar:

We understand that you will soon convene hearings in connection with possible U.S. ratification of the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).  It is our view that this accord is seriously defective in a number of respects (several of which are enumerated below.)  Accordingly, we write to request that the individuals listed below be afforded an opportunity to testify in connection with the Foreign Relations Committee's consideration of LOST with respect to the following problematic provisions of that treaty - an opportunity largely not afforded to critics of LOST during the last round of your panel's hearings on the matter in 2003 and 2007.

First, ratification of LOST would commit the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to U.S. military and industrial operations.  While LOST proponents argue that the United States will choose available arbitration mechanisms to avoid legal decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), such arbitration panels are no-less perilous for U.S. interests as the decisive, "swing" arbiters would be appointed by generally unfriendly UN-affiliated bureaucrats.  The arbitration panels can also be relied upon to look to rulings by the ICJ or ITLOS to inform their own decisions.

Furthermore, while there is a LOST provision exempting "military activity" from such dispute resolution mechanisms, the Treaty makes no attempt to define "military activity," virtually guaranteeing that such matters will be litigated - in all likelihood to our detriment - before one or another of LOST's arbitration mechanisms.  And the rulings of such arbitrators cannot be appealed.

Subjecting our military to the risks of such mandatory dispute resolution is all the more imprudent given that LOST provides the Navy with no navigational rights and freedoms beyond those it already enjoys under customary international law and the U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program.  The Navy has successfully protected American interests on the seas for the past two hundred years without the United States becoming a party to LOST - including during the thirty years since LOST was concluded, in 1982.  We see no compelling reason why that record will be improved upon by entrusting the job to international legal arrangements.

Second, the Law of the Sea Treaty contains provisions that risk putting sensitive, militarily useful information and technology in the hands of America's adversaries and its companies' commercial competitors.  That accord's proponents would have you believe that there is no problem with technology transfer since the Treaty's relevant mandates were eliminated by a 1994 agreement relating to the implementation of LOST's Part XI.  Unfortunately, this is another area that cries out for close examination by the Senate and the Nation.

For one thing, it is unclear to what extent the Treaty could be and was amended by the '94 accord.  For another, a number of provisions obligating the transfer of potentially sensitive technology and data were not addressed in the latter agreement.  For example, LOST arbitration procedures specify that parties to a dispute would be required to provide an arbitral tribunal with "all relevant documents, facilities and information" - a potential avenue for compelling such transfers.

Third, the Law of the Sea Treaty entails commitments that have far-reaching implications for U.S. businesses, far beyond the possibility of mandatory technology transfers.  These include : embroiling this country in treaties bearing on commercial activities to which it is not a party; wide-ranging, intrusive and expensive environmental obligations; creating standing for foreign nationals to pursue alien torts in our courts; and jeopardizing our rights under the World Trade Organization, which was established after 1994.

Of particular concern is the fact that LOST creates an international taxation regime.  It does so by empowering the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to tax Americans for the purposes of meeting its own administrative costs and of globally redistributing revenue derived from the exploitation of seabed resources.  The wisdom of such compulsory payments to the ISA is highly questionable, considering the poor track record of international organizations' management of finances.  Moreover, the ISA would be unconstrained in its discretion as to which countries or entities were to receive this redistributed American wealth, the recipients of which could include highly corrupt and undemocratic regimes or even countries identified by the Department of State as sponsors of terrorism.   

We believe the Foreign Relations Committee's deliberations on the Law of the Sea Treaty will be incomplete, perhaps misleadingly so, unless they are informed by testimony on these and related points.  We formally request that you and your colleagues ensure that the following individuals are afforded an opportunity to provide such testimony:

Donald Rumsfeld                       Former Secretary of Defense
Edwin Meese                          Former United States Attorney General
John R. Bolton                         Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
John F. Lehman                         Former Secretary of the Navy
William Middendorf                     Former Secretary of the Navy
Douglas J. Feith                          Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Admiral James A. Lyons                    Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
Vice Admiral Robert Monroe             Former Director, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Phyllis Schlafly                       Eagle Forum
Fred Smith                          Competitive Enterprise Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.                           Center for Security Policy
Doug Bandow                         Cato Institute
Steven Groves                         Heritage Foundation
Baker Spring                         Heritage Foundation
Thomas P. Kilgannon                      Freedom Alliance
Peter Leitner                        Author, Reforming the Law of the Sea Treaty
Kevin Kearns                         U.S. Business & Industry Council
John Fonte                          Hudson Institute
Jeremy Rabkin                         George Mason University School of Law

Sincerely,

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty
###
14 Oct 2011

GRASSROOTS LEADERS OPPOSE DEFENSE BUDGET CUTS 55% OF TEA PARTY SUPPORTS DEFENSE SPENDING

By Travis Korson
Washington, DC October 11, 2011- At a panel discussion on October 5, 2011- "Providing for the Common Defense: The First Duty of the Super Committee" - four prominent grassroots and tea party leaders, several members of Congress, and defense policy experts joined the 'Coalition for the Common Defense' to launch a grassroots national public education campaign to prevent defense budget cuts against an already hollowed out military.
Congressional speakers included Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-4), Representative Trent Franks (AZ-2), Representative Paul Broun, MD (GA-10), and Representative Doug Lamborn (CO-5).
Grassroots and Tea Party leaders included Scott Cooper (Virginia Tea Party Federation), Joel Arends, Chairman and Founder, Veterans for a Strong America, and Jim Martin (chairman, 60 Plus Association with over 5 million supporters).
Crucial polling data on the Tea Party's support for a strong defense was presented by Colin Hanna, founder of Let Freedom Ring.  A large majority - 55% - of tea party supporters believe defense spending should be maintained at current levels, based on a nationwide poll of 1000 likely voters.  Only 34% of tea party supporters would cut the defense budget.
That polling data was reinforced by the Virginia Tea Party Federation's Scott Cooper, who stated that "We're going to have a cycle where we turn back and we make our common defense a priority. Providing for the common defense is the primary issue that is laid out in the preamble of the Constitution.  The Tea Party's support for the common defense is three fold: we're for constitutionally limited government. Then we're for financial/fiscal responsibility. And then we're for free markets."
Congressional speakers emphasized the threat to national security if greater cuts are made to the U.S. defense budget, which has already received $465 billion in cuts over the next ten years.
Representative Randy Forbes (VA-4) stated that "I would suggest to you for American to be great, we've got to have a strong economy and a strong military. We begin to unravel one and we begin to unravel the other. Now, is there anything that we can do? Do we just sit back and wring our hands? Well, let me just suggest to you there is something we can do. We will have a resolution. It's called Strong Defense, Strong America. All of the subcommittee chairmen for the Armed Services Committee have endorsed this resolution today. We will be moving it on the floor to try to get signatures on it and try to get it brought up before the Armed Services Committee.  It recounts how important defense is for the United States of America and if I could just paraphrase, it says, enough is enough. No more cuts to the military. We cannot balance this crisis on their backs. If you want to do something over the next few weeks, and we only have about a month, you can get as many people as you can to call as many people as they can and say sign on to this resolution so we can send a message to the super committee that we are going to make sure that America continues to have the strongest military in the world.
Representative Trent Franks (AZ-2) expressed concern about the Congressional Super Committee: "I'm convinced that if this so-called Super Committee fails and sequestration is triggered, it will mean undoing the greatest military force in the history of humanity. And potentially the beginning of our financial ruin as well, because the military creates all kinds of ripples in our economy and the high paying jobs that result. If there is any true stimulus that the government can make, it is to keep this country strong and to invest in the men and women who give everything they have for all of us. Not only do these cuts jeopardize our national security, of course they endanger our economy."
Representative Paul Broun (GA-10) noted: "We don't have enough Marines.  We don't have enough brigades in the Army. We don't have enough ships in the Navy. Or enough wings in the Air Force. We need to be building our military, not tearing it down. Our military is stretched to the limits. Families are being destroyed because of multiple deployments and our military is tired in the personnel, tired in the equipment. We need to be spending more on the military - which is the constitutional function of the federal government under the original intent."
Representative Doug Lamborn (CO-5) stated: "The Armed Services Committee expects at least twenty-five percent of the civilian workforce to be furloughed if this sequestration takes place. And according to Secretary Leon Panetta, at least a million jobs would be lost. He calls this a doomsday mechanism. So in closing, deeper cuts to our military would be so detrimental to our national security it's horrible to contemplate. There's no doubt that we can find efficiencies in a large budget like the Department of Defense has. And I am a fiscal conservative. But we don't want to cut capabilities. That's what I'm concerned about."
The full list of speakers for the program included (in order):
  • Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy, Moderator
  • Representative J. Randy Forbes (VA-4)
  • Representative Trent Franks (AZ-2)
  • Tom Donnelly, Director, Center for Defense Studies, American Enterprise Institute
  • Rear Admiral Jim Carey, Chairman, Flag & General Officers' Network
  • Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
  • Cord Sterling, Aerospace Industries Association
  • Representative Paul Broun, MD (GA-10)
  • Representative Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
  • Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
  • Joel Arends, Chairman and Founder, Veterans for a Strong America
  • Jim Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association
  • Scott Cooper, VA Tea Party Federation
Transcripts and videos of the event can be located at http://forthecommondefense.org/?page_id=301.
Yesterday's panel also served as the formal launch for the 'Coalition for the Common Defense.' The Coalition for the Common Defense announced its 'Statement of Principles,' already supported by a significant group of nationally reknowned signnatories who have joined the effort to ensure that our military retains the needed capabilities to meet its Constitutionally required duties.
The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the "common defense," as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles.  We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.
A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at www.forthecommondefense.org.
###
03 Oct 2011

Providing for the Common Defense: The First Duty of the 'Super Committee'

By Travis Korson
Cordially Invites you to:
Providing for the Common Defense:
The First Duty of the 'Super Committee'
Wednesday, October 5th from 3:30 p.m to 4:30 p.m.
at
Congressional Meeting Room North, CVC 268, Capitol Visitor Center
1st Street, SE and East Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20515
Panel Participants Include
Representative Mike Conaway (TX-11)
Representative J. Randy Forbes (VA-4)
Representative Trent Franks (AZ-2)
Representative Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
Rear Admiral Jim Carey, Chairman, Flag & General Officers' Network
Lt. General Jack Klimp, President, National Association of Uniformed Services
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy
Scott Cooper, V.A. Tea Party Federation
To RSVP, please e-mail Adam Savit at rsvp@forthecommondefense.org.
The congressional 'super committee' that emerged from the extraordinary debt ceiling legislation adopted by Congress last August faces the daunting mandate of reigning in federal spending that many argue is a symptom of a government that has far exceeded the bounds established for it by the Constitution.  While this charge to enforce the Framer's intent should be commended, its methods may in fact bring about an equally unconstitutional result; that is, the failure to "Provide for the Common Defense."

Today the "Coalition for the Common Defense," announces its "Statement of Principles," which, at its core, rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health. We hope you can join us as we begin this effort to return the nation's defense to its constitutionally proper place as the preeminent responsibility of the federal government.  The presentations will be followed by a Q&A session.

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Real Astrology and RCR Crossword every week?) 

Subscribe!

* indicates required

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.