I think it might be prudent to not only contact your own Senators, but the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I sent the following to some of the members on the committee. Use it as a guideline, but try not to send it verbatim. You'll notice that I never mentioned Odyssey.
http://armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm
Dear Senator *****,
As you may know, Rep. Mack (FL) introduced amendment #25 into the Defense Bill. This amendment having passed the House vote will make needed changes to SMCA. The objective of the Sunken Military Craft Act was to protect sunken United States military vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. This technical correction will make clear that the term "sunken military craft" will only include vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries or other vessels on military, noncommercial service at the time they were sunk.
This amendment is not, and should not be a political issue, but one of U.S. national security. It only seeks to CLARIFY the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Sunken Military Craft Act (SMCA). The State Department’s misinterpretation of SMCA in an Amicis Brief sets a dangerous precedent that could open our nation’s ports to ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES.
The current SMCA states: (Sec 1408 (3))
(3) SUNKEN MILITARY CRAFT- The term "sunken military craft" means all or any portion of--
(A) any sunken warship, naval auxiliary, or other vessel that was owned or operated by a government on military noncommercial service when it sank;
(B) any sunken military aircraft or military spacecraft that was owned or operated by a government when it sank; and
(C) the associated contents of a craft referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B), if title thereto has not been abandoned or transferred by the government concerned.
The State Department misinterpreted it to mean only the last category in that list "or other vessel that was owned or operated by a government . . ." had to be on a non-commercial mission to receive immunity. If you apply the same grammar misinterpretation to (B), sunken military aircraft would not have to be owned or operated by a government when it sank to qualify.
This misinterpretation means any nation can declare an owned ship as a "warship" or "naval auxiliary" even if carrying out commercial activities, making it "sovereign immune" and not subject to U.S. jurisdiction or laws.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I trust you will take this into consideration.
Respectfully,