tv Capital News Today CSPAN October 12, 2011 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
been the kind of dynamic or even large investment from abroad in what was hoped to be a silicon valley type of situation in various other ways in which russians could make money and dependent upon these resources still seems to be there and you mentioned the conventional forces and as we are having the debate in our country how much our defense budget depends upon how our own budget business works out this must be a more severe problem given these energy prices. >> senator i've learned three years of working in the white house and look for to the freedom of stanford and confer some day in my teaching i think
your analysis is absolutely right. the coincidence of the rise of the oil prices the last ten years before 2008 and the rise of the russian economy that correlation is firm and that correlation goes back further you can see that the rise involved in the soviet union as well. russia did experience an economic crisis like the rest of the world in 2008 and in 2009 and that sparked a serious debate that continues to this day. i would oversimplify to say along the lines you just described which is some real lives just relying on the export of oil and gas isn't a future to the 21st century or the 22nd century and some days that will run out that cyclical and if russia just does that, they are going to fall off the charts in terms of the largest economy and
their place in the world. president medvedev believes that he's made that very clear and as you noted he's talked about economic modernization and in particular trying to capture which after all or some of the most educated people still in the world especially in math and physics and he is initiated this idea we need to have our own silicon valley, too. he traveled to stanford to the silicon valley when he was here last year and we encourage that because i think spending a little time they're having lived they're the last three decades there's nothing like experiencing the place as opposed to reading about it and having visited their silicon valley with a vice president by an earlier this spring i can tell you they have a long way to go. right now it is just an idea but the idea is correct because in the long run that is where russia's future is and encouraging people to invest both where they live and where they are intellectually and also
financially. that will not happen without better institutions to protect property rights including intellectual property rights in russia. moreover i would say it won't happen without a modern political system as well. what we found come and hear and speak maybe i shouldn't i think history has shown you can have economic modernization of low levels of economic development and we know lots of countries including the soviet union in the early part of its development where you can do that. but at a higher level of economic development it doesn't work that way. you have to have political modernization as well. let's take one issue that is big today, corruption. well, there are some ways to fight that with a stronger state but as we know again come history has shown in our own country as shown by the way another important mechanism for finding corruption is to democracy its independent media, it's a real opposition party is
a congress that holds the executive branch accountable as we are doing here today the independent judiciary those are important mechanism for fighting corruption and helping to support economic modernization. i've spoken about these issues as a government official and as ambassador i hope to engage in these debates with the internal debates that's happening in russia today on the set of issues. >> i would say parenthetically that president medvedev chose to visit stanford in silicon valley first last year and those in the terms of priorities which probably is right in terms of russia's consideration but when i asked correctly how can you anticipate this investment in the climate of corruption and judicial difficulty he only responded that's a very interesting question. here is the dilemma i think. thank you.
>> senator menendez. >> thank you, madame chair. dr. mcfaul, and enthused by your nomination for the post not only have you been a scholar of the region, but you also lent your expertise and time to several organizations such as ndi and freedom rights but promote the substance of democracy and supporting indigenous efforts to grow democracy and expand civil society and enhance respect for human rights is something i feel passionately about and i am sure if you are confirmed he will continue to hold those views as the u.s. ambassador of russia. now, i do have a line of questioning that is important to me and i just want to reflect for a moment on -- before you answer the last question you're yearning for academic freedom, and i would just say as i sit in the past two other nominees that have come before the committee that if you are confirmed he will take an oath of office and that is to the constitution of
the united states that means a constituted government that is both the executive and the legislative branch and while the president may nominate you it is the congress particularly the senate that confirms you. and so i hope that in your answer you will not just view yourself as an administrative witness but more as the nominee. so with that s the preface of where i am coming from, i want to talk about russia's relationship with iran. as the former director of the iran democracy project at the hoover institution, i think that you are very aware of russia's continued support for the ambition. when i served in the house, i had legislation aimed at terminating the iaea in russia's support for the building of the busheir nuclear facility. as you know with russia to support the facility is now online, and to me that is a
setback in our multilateral efforts as it relates to isolating iran as it pertains to drive for the nuclear weaponry. as such, and seeing that the administration has sought to reset relations with russia at least in part to get moscow's resistance in isolating or dealing with the nuclear threat by a understand that, yet as part of the assistance to iran is building the nuclear facility russia has changed approximately 1500 by iranian nuclear engineers and there is also evidence that russian companies may be helping iran with a nuclear delivery system and then i see the latest set of events that has taken place with iran and i say to myself what is it that it will take to get the
russians to understand that they need to be in cooperation with us and most to the coverage of the world in having a different attitude towards iran both in its interest as well as ours. as the united states ambassador to russia, what will you be saying to the russians, and what do you think can be done to move them to a better place? >> thank you, senator, for the question. i think it is fair to say that iran is right now and has been for the last three years if not the most important issue in the u.s.-russian relations definitely one of the most important, and president obama as i think about the meetings that he has had with president medvedev which i attended every single one and i have briefed him and have been part of the conversations on the phone this issue gets more attention than anything else. the proposition that we have tried to make to president medved of and other russian
government officials is that we want to make our bilateral relationship between the united states and russia more important geopolitically to moscow and more important over the long term economically to moscow and the same time, make the argument that the old pattern of supporting iran has a deleterious consequences for russia's standing in the world. and i think we have made progress on that to try most certainly you see it in our efforts at the u.n. security council effort and the p5 plus one negotiations where time and time again the last three years russia has been with us as opposed to against us so for our administration most importantly with the u.n. security council resolution 1929 which went further than any of the resolution before in terms of sanctions against iran including heavy weapons and that have a direct effect on russia's bottom
dollar in whatever you want to call it where the economic effects of 1929 was real in a way that for obvious reasons wasn't real for us because we do not do that kind of trading and i would remind you that in 1929 it also prohibits any cooperation with ballistic missile programs in iran as well. moreover, russia took an act we consider to be very important to cancel a contract that they signed with iran before the obama administration decided before we came to office the transfer which we believe had the contract went forward would have been highly destabilizing to the security the middle east. so we think that we have made real progress in terms of cutting russia be part of the international community and being part of the p5 plus one as opposed to being on the outside. with respect as you rightly
mentioned this was a compromise that was done before we came along the history whether it should have been or not i will leave to those that right about the previous administration. but i do think is important to acknowledge your however is one important piece of argument that we want to make to the rest of the world that the regime russia set up to provide the fuel and then take out underlines iran's argument of the need for them to enrich uranium in business. we think that practice if it succeeds demonstrates to the rest of the world that iran's argument they need to enrich there is another way around to do this so we are going to work with our russian counterparts to make sure that it does succeed, and we will continue to try to show unity before iran with what would include russia. >> so if in fact these reports
of russian companies helping iran with nuclear delivery system that would be higher on your party i would assume? >> absolutely. >> what is it that you think is necessary? you talked about having relationship that is more important geopolitically to russia than it is to iran. what is it that we need to do to move them even further in that direction? >> it is a big long-term proposition i want to make that clear it's not going to happen overnight, but the idea is the weapons that they were selling before, the heavy weapons, they have argued to us that hurts our bottom dollar. they said the to the president very directly why should we support that when, and a point of the sales we make in other places we want to make the argument to them that being part of the international community -- by the way this isn't just a
bilateral peace this is an international peace we can enhance your economic development along the other dimensions including in trade and investment with the united states and europe. that's the proposition, and i want to be blunt about. it's not a proposition that everyone in russia accepted. it is a debate inside of russia right now and it is a debate between different factions that have different interests that see the world differently and therefore we have to engage that debate to work closely with those that see ultimately russia's future as part of europe and part of that community as being to defend and fight against those that see russia's future in this different. cemex a final question and i appreciate the indulgence. as i hear you answer that question it sounds to me like the geopolitical relationship we are talking about is a bottom-line oriented one as it relates to the economy.
>> with the economy coming yes but also with its geopolitical position that we want russia to be a responsible member of the international community and not be treated with proliferators to not be supporting those kind of countries we are very disappointed when russia vetoed the resolution on syria last week at the u.n. security council. that to me was not a demonstration that was not an affirmation of this different world we are seeking to have that has russia with us as opposed to against us. >> thank you. >> senator rubio? >> congratulations. thank you for your service and on your nomination. i am -- i want to take off from the point you touched about which is the veto resolution. i also read where they said however it is not a blank check. what other parameters, and i know i'm asking you to guess, or maybe not, maybe it is -- maybe
you know where are the outlines of how far they're willing to let this go and syria before they take the attitude towards what is happening? do you have any sense of that? >> thank you, senator. i have a sense from the negotiations and the conversations we have had with senior russian officials most recently foreign minister lavrov met with psychiatry clinton in new york a couple of weeks ago i attended that meeting and we had a pretty lengthy and taught discussion about syria where sector clinton made very clear what we intended to do in new york and why we are doing it. my assessment would be to follow on that russia understands and takes seriously the violation of human rights and syria as well and i would note that two days after the veto the resolution
president medvedev went after his way to basically suggest that if this continues, al asad has to go. that have not been said. i could be mistaken but i don't remember the president of russia ever seeing it that bold. there was a good sign. whether we had disagreements in the u.n. just to explain, not to excuse was nervousness on the part of the russian government that through this resolution that would end up like a situation in libya and as you recall in libya with u.n. security council resolution 1970 and 1973 russia didn't support them but abstained and were with us and closer violation human rights there. they worry that the president. we made it clear that is not the way that we see it and we will continue to work with them to suspect we will be working with them in new york in the coming weeks for another resolution
where we can show agreement. estimate your generally optimistic that at this stage in the near future there is a point at which they can be partners on some sort of international measure with regards to that. >> i want to be careful about the were optimistic. we are going to work this very hard. russia has to understand that the long-term implications of this unity of the u.n. security council we cannot lose our moral voice and i think they have to understand that to get on the right side of history as to what is happening in syria. it's hard to judge and i want to emphasize when i see russia there is no one russia there are many russian voices on this right now. there's a healthy debate inside russia. there are some officials that for instance met and hosted leaders of the syrian opposition not long ago in moscow, and one
of those opposition leaders is an old colleague and friend of mine and he reported to be a very productive conversation that they had, so i don't want to predict the future. let me predict our future which is that we are going to continue to work this very hard. >> this may have all been covered and i applaud your is it was but yesterday's development in the announcement of the plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador and its ties to the iranian government what impact do you think that will have in terms of russia's role on the security council and the the search for a potentially greater sanctions with regards to iran and their nuclear ambitions? >> cementer, as i did say before, we consider our new and more robust cooperation with russia on iran to be one of the signature achievements of what we have done with russia and over the last three years. in particular, the u.n. security council resolution 1929 which went further than ever before in
terms of new sanctions including sanctions against the delivery of heavy weapons that russia was a principal exporter to iran and then after that when they took the action to cancel the sale of the s300 which we consider to be very important my prediction 63 clinton called a former minister lavrov today to brief him on what had occurred in the activities that we had taken we have a pretty robust cooperation with russia already on these kind of issues and in many areas by the we not just through elon but preventing and working to support other terrorist organizations. my prediction is a will strengthen our cooperation on these issues. >> my last question it has to do with china and russian relations obviously they have a complicated history and the large border and just looking at it i think some have made this argument that if you look at some of the strategic challenges that russia may cease in the
region it may ultimately be coming from china and not in the united states. and obviously you are aware they have large territories that happen to be rich in natural resources and not heavily populated and growing china, a growing military ambitions, growing military capacities and energy needs and so forth this could pose a conflict on the road. is there an awareness of that that china poses a real potential strategic challenge for russia not to david in the next five to ten years in terms of regional influence? >> your question is timely because putin is in china today. and he's made some remarks about their cooperation trying to enhance cooperation. china is an important economic partner for russia. most directly right now in terms of the export of the raw materials, energy resources. but as the prime minister putin
just mentioned today they want to expand that to other areas of cooperation and they could announce some pretty big deals during his visit. with that said, i think there is an awareness of what you've described, and i think that the awareness there is a divide, there's a debate about china not unlike the debate we have in our country about the rise of china and how to manage that. i think the russians see the management of the rise in a way that is good for them and enhances their security is a central foreign policy challenge looking out not just in the years to come but in the decades to come. they don't want a confrontation with china but they want to manage that and yet they realize that will be a central challenge to the security, particularly when as you rightly pointed out if you look at the demographics and the populations of the way they are growing out there in siberia would be a challenge for russia in the coming decades.
>> i want to talk about briefly our partnership with the russian space which is critical now in the aftermath of the shuttle program. what have their -- i mean, obviously it the national level we get the reports of a professional relationship between our demand of their space program. the policy level, how do the -- to the view our partnership in space as a leverage point, do they view it as an important -- what is their view in the partnership from the political standpoint for them? >> senator, it's been an important area of cooperation for a long time as you know well. through that cooperation, we have developed in terms of the policies that, set i would put it this way russia even before that the soviet union. we competed obviously, but they saw themselves as one of the few
countries in the world that could make contributions to the space exploration to the very high -- those areas of the economy the require a high technological expectations so they are very proud of what they have done in space, and they see that as a place for cooperation with the united states. they see that as an instance if we can cooperate there that can lead to other opportunities in the dimensions we are talking about silicon valley for instance, the pharmaceutical industries where there brainpower can be leveraged with our brainpower, and our innovative power, and i would say our creativity when it comes to venture capitalism, which they do not have. they see that as areas of cooperation and i think the cooperation in space can be a kind of analogy for these other kinds of cooperation that they are now seeking. nanotechnology is another for instance if we can cooperate in
space, and this heart stuff that we've done before let's see if we can find in these other places, particularly the would be of commercial benefit to russian scientists, russian companies in the high-tech industry and american companies as well. >> thank you. i have to other areas that i would like to explore before we close today. the first is the wto accession, it obviously russia's continued operation in georgia, of the georgian territory is a complicating factor for their accession to the wto. and i wonder if you could speak to what's happening with current talks that are going on and the likelihood of success, and talk about what the impact of russia joining the wto would be good
for petraeus bixby for the senator. let me start by making an obvious point misunderstood the obama administration is supporting, vigorously supporting russia's's succession because we believe it is a good deal for the united states of america is in our national interest in particular our economic interest and let me just elaborate a little bit because sometimes it is framed as a gift we are not in the business of giving gifts to russia we are in the business of advancing our national interest. so first we were and predictable tariffs that is what we get if they join the wto. they already have those benefits with us because of the most favored nation status. second, russia will accept international food safety standards will make it harder for them to manipulate these things that in the past has prevented us from exporting
poultry and pork in particular. by the way, president obama has spent a great deal of time negotiating with president medvedev over our poultry exports and pork exports. we want to bring russia into the international community where they adhere to the international standards so we want to be using presidential time to do what should be something they have to do because of their obligations before the wto. third, russia will have to accept new obligations for the international intellectual property rights. not just the new laws but the new enforcement. fifth, the wto has a dispute resolution mechanism which would offer recourse for american firms that sometimes suffer through some of these shenanigans we were just talking about. now it's not a silver bullet. i don't want to overplay what that can do but it's another leverage it is another tool if you will for our companies. fifth, it would open at a whole
new set of opportunities for services particularly banking and insurance that right now is constrained because russia is not in the wto. more generally, having russia in the rules based international economic regime we think is good for the united states and for the world economy, and in particular it would constrain some of the bad actors in russia, the bad economic actors and help the reformers in russia that are pushing to see russia to become a more open and market oriented economy. we also believe that most importantly, but because of the things i just mentioned, we will increase american exports to russia. some estimates would say that it would double our exports to russia over the next several years and that means jobs in america and maintaining jobs and creating new jobs here in america. and it would have some of the negative repercussions of other agreements and other countries that have joined the wto because of the nature of our bilateral
trade, and in particular, just to underscore russia does not export the finished goods to the united states has principally from material. that's not going to change. what will change will be greater access for our consumer goods and our consumer goods including food exports to russia. with respect to georgia, this issue has not been resolved. the wto works by consensus, and without russian -- without georgian agreement to russia's membership it won't move forward. the swiss government has been leading a very active mediation process between russia and georgia and we are supporting that. we think that this has come up with some very creative ideas, and we urge -- we are urging both sides to take those negotiations very seriously. >> and is that the role that you
envision that the u.s. should be playing at this point? is there more that we should be doing? >> well, from time to time, there is russian officials and in the press maybe you have red there's been talk about votes, talk about it is our job to roll so that russia can get into the wto. that is firmly not our view and we have made that very clear to the russian government officials including just recently when the first deputy prime minister was here just last week he met with many of us including the vice president, and we made it very clear that that is not the road to succession. >> thank you. finally, obviously the change in the presidency and the return of putin is going to affect our future relationship. can you talk about whether you
>> it was not a strategy about individuals. it was a strategy about american national interest. i'll remind you, prime minister teuton, it's not like he has been some sideline person. he has been present every step of the way. we have talked to him directly as the president did when we were there two years ago. the vice-president met with prime minister putin when we were there in the spring, and we will continue to engage with him, if, indeed he is elected president next year. the policy has never been of a personality, but our interest. i would say at this point, you know, we will have to wait and see. it is very clear what our policy is, and we look forward to seeing what president putin brings to the table. the last thing i would say, president obama did develop and has developed and continues to work with president medvedev.
they have a good working relationship. then meet frequently because of the nature of international diplomacy. they meet at various international settings. we found that to be a very productive relationship, and i think, you know, we should be proud of the fact we develop that because after all, it is through relationships that you advance our interests. we will continue to do so, however is the next president of russia and the rest of the government of russia as well. >> certainly i appreciate that. it was about how we can address our national interest, but never the less personalities to play a role. at least reading the reporting about how some, particularly some of the russian human rights activists feel about the return of putin to the presidency.
there is come -- some concern about what that means for the state of democracy and for the openness for civil society and freedom of the press, all of those things. so, how do we expect to address the changes that might occur with a returned president putin from what we have been dealing with over the last several years? >> i think we stick to our policy, which is to say, we are going to engage with the russian government on mitchell interests and in parallel. at the same time we are going to engage, and i hope if confirmed will be a part of this as ambassador to deepen our engagement with russian civil society, and we will not allow some false trade that says because you're dealing with us on issue x in the government
channel you can't do this with russian civil society. we have firmly rejected that kind of linkage that has been presented before us at the earlier times of our administration. if confirmed, i see that as a central challenge and responsibility that i will have as u.s. ambassador to russia. >> thank-you. any other questions? i think that is the end of my questions. so, i just want to point out that we will keep the record open here on the hearing until noon tomorrow, so there may be other questions that come in from members of the committee. >> of course. >> again, i want to thank you very much for the service that you have already provided to the country and for your willingness to take on this very significant job ahead and hope that we will see a speedy confirmation on the part of the senate. thank you all, and this hearing is closed.
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> south korean president is in washington this week to address a joint meeting of congress tomorrow. expected to talk about the bilateral free trade agreement between the u.s. and south theresa -- south korea and also some of the foreign policy goals the two countries share. >> of course i am delighted. i'm not surprised. the 18th amendment. i felt all along that when this matter was properly submitted to the rank-and-file of our people they would readily see that it has no place in our constitution. >> he served as governor of new york four times, though he never attended high school or college. in 1928 al smith became the
first catholic nominated by a major party to run for president. although he lost the election, he is remembered to this date by the alfred e. smith memorial dinner, an annual fund-raiser for various catholic charities, and a stop for the two main presidential candidates every election year. one of the 14 men featured in the new series on c-span, the contenders, live from the state assembly chamber in albany friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the company light squared plan to build a wireless broadband network could create problems for businesses who rely on gps technology. here is part of the senate debates.
followed by republican of south dakota. >> international trade has always been controversial.ce that has been true since the da days of the smoot-hawley effort followed, by the way, with the congressman, and it continues to be true today. it is so important to ouro country and so important to my home state that i made a special priority when i was given the honor of serving on the senatefc sunancee committee to be able to chair the subcommittee on international trade and global competitiveness because i thinka it is so important that we continue here in the united states senate to keep pushing. o there is going to be a lot ofags work to do after these agreements have been voted on to get this right.t
but of want to describe today three aspects of this debate that are indisputable.ots in other words, we have lots of differences of opinion with respect to past agreements, dide they create jobs, didn't created jobs, how it affected variousafe parts of the country. suffice it to say reasonable people can differ with respecthe to these analyses. bn i have been able, as the chair of the subcommittee, the senated deeply into this issue. and i believe there are three indisputable positions with respect to agreements we'll be voting on tonight that the senate ought to take into consideration, are at the core of why i will be voting later
this evening in favor of the grealts. the first position, mr. president, is there is a huge appetite all around the world for american goods and services. we are the gold standard. people around the world want to buy brand "u.s.a." they want to display it, they want to feature it. there's no question that we have here's no question that we have >> there is no question that we have an opportunity to seize this huge goods and services.o i think we ought to go forward and task this opportunity. madam president, the bottom line is if we don't take this opportunity to the burnish this brand america and get our goods and services around the world we can be very sure that somebody r else will be right there, and it is most likely to be china.
that is point number one, madam president. ind i think it is indisputable. point number two is the challenge today in global markets is to capture the entire supply supply chain, madam president. that means everything from raw material tech component parts to the finished it. aut when i talk about this opportunity to capture the global supply chain, madamme president, what it means to me in oregon and i think it means e the same thing in north carolino or south dakota. frien i see my friend and colleague, the ranking member on the trade subcommittee. it has been a pleasure for me to work with them. o i think all over the united states captured in the supply chain in the global economybal means the same thing.hing that is what we ought to do,gon,
then oregon, i'm sure my friend in south dakota says exactly the oregon, making it in oregon, ade value to it in oregon, and then let us ship it somewhere. he, it is a huge, huge of which andy the we have in front of us, madam president, a tap tap this global supply chain wherehe this kind of opportunity v we can beat china very certain that china will be right there to fill that void. the third issue involves thequon question of tariffs. madam president, i have heard w, people say, well, you know, these agreements have lots ofgs, other things in them, lots ofata other provisions that are there is no questioncu that that is accurate, but at the end of
the day, madam president, if our tariffs, in effect, height whene we want to ship our products around the world when we face fm very high tariffs to from the markets that we whe want to gent into -- and when countries shipped to us theyth have low tariffs.ial that is a very substantial asvantage for our trading partner. as i highlighted yesterday in fe the senate finance committee, when we want to send our beef to correa we face a 40% tariff. when we send it to correa, when they send it to us here in the united states, it is 4%. it is a tenfold tariff. ro madam president, i can go through a whole host of other products. wind from my state gos and to
korea, it is a 15 difference. value added wood products. the senator from north carolinad cares and awful lot about what i products. well, the fact of the matter is that we want to send finished wood into correa, not the raw wh w material. we all know the what we want to products. a key component of the pacific s northwest, we want to add value. the fact is that the tariffs are four times as high for finished wood products in korea as theyet are here in the united states. now, these are indisputable facts, madam president. c, the tariff, the global supply chain, and the brand u.s.a. ofoi the kennedy that i have described as this huge appetite for american goods and services
that exist around the world thag i think we would be making a grave mistake to pass up. now, there are a lot of otheress issues associated with the votee that we are going to have to fl cast. i feel very strongly about ther, adjustment assistance program because i want to make sure than in an economy that is constantlr changing, our workers have a the trampoline, in effect, to get the training and skills to getrs into other areas. the people think that the trade adjustment assistance program is just about workers. madam president, this is a crucial program for employers, and that is why it has so much support among employers. employers need those talented workers in order to meet theo demands that they have to produce those quality goods and
services. by the way, madam president, ons of the concerns business is continually citing and increasingly so, the mismatchhe that they often face with a need workers who have one sort of skill and people have been trained for something else. the trade adjustment assistance program, we can close that problem. we can do more to ensure that wr did tear our businesses, workern with the kind of skills thatng they need most to do somethingh. about this mismatch.ssistance the idea that the trade adjustment assistance is just for workers is really a mistake of fundamental understanding of what the program is about tos a call because it is a major plus to our employers. so, we are going to be zeroing t
in on these kinds of issues, worker issues, another one thatn will be looking at on the subcommittee involves issues ive relating to workers' rights. under the u.s. columbia freeoncn trade agreement. there are concerns, demonstrable, serious violence against columbia union members.e the m kennedy of the perpetrators of such violence have enjoyed.to b this situation does seem to beee getting a bit better. trn the administration understandsgr the concern. there is an agreement with on columbia on an action plan on labor that sets in motion a series of steps to colombian government to take to provide m workers with more adequate labon rights, protection from violence, but there is a lot more to do, madam president, ant i intend to conduct meaningful o oversight over the labor in c
situation in colombia,en colombia's adherence to it tocoe get bit to the obamaston administration.g as far as i am concerned that i, going to start combative president of consensus and as these agreements have been voted on. there will be joining me, and we will all be doing more to make t sure that the obama theba administration provides the congress with annual reports on the labour situation and then impact that the labor action plan that was reached by thesa obama administration and the so, i mentioned trade adjustments. i mentioned labor rights.y i want to really close in termss of future work that is related to this topic, madam president,. by talking about china. because southernly these trade agreements and the opportunity,
particularly in our country for family wage is going to requiret tougher enforcement of our trady laws, and particularly the obam administration getting serious about enforcing the laws on the books.ies we have had a series of investigations looking at cheating. cheating, madam president. i use that word specifically. i guess you could call itring. merchandize laundering because some of our trading partners when they are found to violate countervailing duty laws in effect instead of doing the right thing and coming into they compliance just ship it throughr another country. this is going to be an even more important challenge. we have bipartisan legislation
in order to stop the cd, to strengthen the enforcement. it will be even more important to pass that effort to eliminate this kind of cheating because with respect to the agreements a and korea, chinese suppliers have a long history of wandering their goods through korea intr order to avoid u.s. trade marks. so the question of cheating, which we have documented in our subcommittee on internationalsan trade bipartisan bill, three democratic senators, three republican senators were ready to go. very pleased in the discussion f in the finance committee. chairman bacchus and senatoraid hatch, the ranking minority member, an effort to fight these practices, this kind of
cheating, which potentially could get y worse unless youen strengthen enforcement. pri this said it would be a priority for them, and they wanted to make our anti cheating leg legislation a must pass effortr. before the end of this year. it they would attach it to and musd pass a piece of legislation. i could go on, madam president.g even today the administration is going forward with the anti counterfeiting agreement withoue doing it with the approval ofof the united states congress. i think that is a mistake. i think that is a misreading oft the law that the executive branch can do it of its ownkle accord.theays we will tackle that in the dayse is ahead because those issues arewb important now and will be even more important given the expansion of trade and commerce when these agreements are the
approved. t so, there is a lot to do, but at the end of the day, madam president, if we miss oneoppoity opportunity to do more in thisur country to market our brand around the world and to makes things here and grow things hert and continually add value, dominate the supply chain, which i think will be the overriding issue for global competitiveness in the days ahead, if we walk, away from those issues, madam f president, we are walking away o from the opportunity for ouroo people to get a good paying jobs in the private sector. in my home state international trade is a very significant barometer of our economy witheig estimates even being one out ofn seven jobs in oregon depends on international trade, and the d trade jobs pay better than the non trade jobs. other i don't want other countries tog
get those opportunities to get their goods and services,at i high-value goods and servicesee that i would like to see oregona workers and american workersake have a chance to make here. whia madam president, i call it red,i white, and blue jobs. this that is the kind of jobs ofthe r water for this country. we allow american productivity and american ingenuity to continually innovate.bout the president and senate cares a great deal about taxlo policy, e global tech policy. w we have bipartisan tax reform proposal the we look forward to but today is a chance to expand ndr opportunity to get thera american brand, the u.s. a brans for goods and services inng,n markets that are growing, andan markets that you can bet chinahs
wants. madam president, i know that this is controversial. it has been, as i said, since the days of hubert holly.f we know a little bit about that. but i think for our workers ands the chance to get our goods and services and to growing marketsi growing markets that china wants, i hope my colleagues wild support this effort and theoor. agreements. with that i yield the floor. >> i would note, madamthe esid president, the absence of a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
♪ ♪the id >> quorum call be dispensed ris class. >> without objection.endi >> i too rise in strong support of the pending trade agreements path america's allies, colombia, south korea, and panama. they hold great promise forrs, american farmers, manufacturers, service providers, and american consumers have and i would echo, what my colleague from oregonhar
who does chair the subcommitteee on trade on the finance committee has already said, andd agreements position americant businesses to capture more of that supply chain to enable us to create jobs here at home and to grow the economy, to generath economic activity that otherwise we would not see happening.ee so at a time when we need to focus our efforts on measures at that will promote economic bereements are exactly the type of legislation we ought to beemw considering. broad consensus that these e agreements will benefit oures economy. the white house estimates thatst the enactment will boost exportt by at least $12 billion supporting over 70,000 american jobs.matess the business roundtable estimates that passage of these trade agreements will support a0 many as 250,000 american jobs. j these are not jobs that large comp businesses, but increasingly atm smaller companies that are
accessing international markets. just as an example, more than 35,000 small business andma a midsize businesses export to colombia, panama, and southcc korea. these now account for more thane one-third of u.s. exports to these countries.agrets passing these three trade exp agreements will provide export a opportunities to american creati businesses of all sizes, ofeating a good paying jobs your home. the the benefit to u.s. agriculture of passing these agreements aree especiallynt compelling. these are estimated to represens $3 billion in new agricultural exports that will support tou.s. 200-0500 u.s. agricultural related jobs. my state of south dakota is a good example. the extra potential representede by theseri agreements. according to the american farml bill federation diesel at $502 million each year to the south dakota's farm economy. projected to gain $22 million
from increased exports,heat $25 million from increased exports in we, soybean, andk corn, and 5 million fromic increased port shipments each year.s already america's market is already open to imports from many tradingpans partners. in fact almost 99 percent of agricultural products fro colombia and panama into thetest united states duty-free, without expoe agreements to insure a similar treatment for ourbusies will continue to face highrr thatff and non-tariff barriers abroad. one example, the market and of agricultural products in korea, largest economy. hickory is tariffs average 54% f their imports into the united t states. passage of the free-tradeg fie agreement will level the playing field.president. think about that. get 54 percent for our exporters to get into the caribbean market
and 9% for their exports cominga here. that is a huge discrepancy thate will be rectified by passage ofp this agreement. carias market underscores how we are removing barriers to trade. u.s. pork exports to south korev have increased 130% from januarr to july of this year because. is temporarily lifted its 25% dutyi on pork imports .. outbreak ofad foot and mouth disease in koreat during this time the korean market surpassed canada to become the third largest exportp destination for u.s. porkmeco. producers after japan and mexico the tariff on pork imports isett expected to return, but would be permanently eliminated by 2016 under the terms of the u.s. south korea free tradehen we agreement. so we know that when we u eliminate barriers to u.s.
exports to american producerscoa will compete and win in themarkc global marketplace.ct and however, if we fail to act andan continue to delay implementatioy of these agreements, the cost to our economy will be substantialy the united states chamber of e commerce study warns thatin failing to enact the three pending trade agreements could threaten as many as 380,000 american jobs and the loss of $40 billion in sales. o the cost of inaction on trade id high because today we live in a foobal economy where american foreignco markets. consider that in 1960 exportsf accounted for only 3 percent ofa our entire gdp. of our entire g.d.p. exports of u.s. goods and services support over 10 million american jobs. when america stands still on trade, the rest of the world does not. madam president, today there are more than 100 new free trade agreements that are currently
under negotiation around the world. yet in the united states, we're only party to one of those negotiations, and that's the transpacific partnership. if we do not aggressively pursue new market opening agreements on behalf 6 american workers, we will see new export opportunities go to foreign businesses and foreign workers. unfortunately, that is exactly what we have experienced under the current administration. the current administration. that is exactly what we have wer experienced under the currentioh administration. and a halfears o the three trade agreements years ago and this administration had more than two and half years to submit tosit h congress for consideration but failed to does so.00 instead, the president chose to sit on agreements and nonsemantic congress for nearly 1000 days. we cannot quantify precisely thw cost of this unfortunate delay,t but we know it's that american exporters at a competitive advantage that colombia, korea and panamanian markets.he for example, the european union,
korea trade agreement went intoj effect in just the first months after this agreement tookorts effect, e.u. exports to korea 3% jumped nearly 87% while u.s. exports to korea rose by only 3%. let's be clear what this means. korean consumers are choosing to buy german, french and reddish an cars, electronics and agricultural products rather than p american-made products because those european products now have a price advantage. this is entirely defensible if we acted on the u.s. created the trade agreement sooner. likewise this is resulting in a band to such as construction equipment, aircraft and a range of other industrial and agriculture products. columbia is now reporting that since canada colombia trade agreement took effect, there's been an 18.3% increase in colombian import of canadian
wheat. u.s. businesses are fightingecae themselves disadvantage because the president waited so long before sending this agreement te congress.imct of unfortunately make it impacted the canada colombia agreement on u.s. exporters are just a continuation of the last exportt for these trade agreementsated e haven't heard. if either scobey producers dominated the market in columbia with a 73% a market share as ofa s08. today we are facing a situationn where producers are likely to be shutout of the colombian market if we don't act. we swiftly implement the tradele recover much of their lost b market share.e history o in 2010 the u.s. colombia trade and the last argentina its position as colombia'sco number
one. in let's consider the story of three major crops are grown in south dakota. soybean, corn and the combined market share for the u.s. agricultural exports is decreased from 70% in 2008 to 28% in 2010, a staggering decline of 50 percentage pointsn in our mark oet share.o he was corn sales to come the fall from 2 million metric tons in 207,700,000 metric tons in 2010. this is the high cost of delay d of our trading partners pursue new regional and bilateral tradd agreement. there's also than the cost of while these agreements waited.5 there is u.s. companies paid more than $5 billion in tariffs to colombia and panama since the trade agreements with these nations find more than four years ago. let's consider the cost of oneel
american company and its nstruc caterpillar. when the caterpillar is the leading producer of major u.s. % exporter. killer exports 92% of its mining american-made large mining trucks. caterpillar's large tracts of 1% exports i should say to colombia face a 15% duty, which adds t about $300,000 to the cost of p each of these tracks exported to colombia. how does that work, not a president?000 on to reach her caterpillar sends into the colombian market is an additional $300,000 on top of p. the cost of that piece of equipment for the terrace that has to be paid. years imagine the advantage calibrator could have had for the last several yearsom of check nascent chinese competitors at the houst of reps control benefit democrats in 2008 had not refused to consider colombian
agreement with president bush admit it or if the current administration could ask sooner. that is just one example of countless others out there with american businesses. i'm glad we are here today and i expect all three trade agreements to pass with what i n.pe this broad bipartisan lesso support. i hope we also learn an important t lesson.de. we cannot afford to delay whenwh it comes to international competitionite and trade. i hope the white house has learned important lesson as well. n this divisive measures where there is disagreements such as new tax increases come in this administration should identify measures such as these trade oad deals that will spur economy and where there is broad bipartisan. agreement. the president sent american jobs ago today it was only just lastg night voted on whether we should consider thiset bill. the vote did not get a single republican and didn't get every democrat voted air. justrast that approach with the
free trade agreement submitted to congress by the president in october 3rd just nine days ago. but then we can hack these trade agreements was passed the committees in the house and in k with large or partisan foes hopy in the president's desk awaiting his signature.parties c fearly reaching across the island measures or both parties canch find agreement is a much coeagues to more effect of approach. so i would urge my colleagues tr support these trade bills basedb upon their merits. adstra i would also urge colleagues to nd us support these bills to send a message in this administration is willing to send comments to have appropriate legislation, we are ready and willing to passgrt it.will s that we can only hope are posted inst these trade agreements, will see madam president, i look forward to voting for long-overdue agreements on behalf of americai businesses and consumers and i look forward hopefully to be coming weeks and months.ver
we have an economy that continues to struggle with over 9%ym unemployment. we continue to see month after , month a lot of americans who are without jobs and this is one, example of something we can do to address that concern, but mam there's lots of other things out idtify those there we can do as well, madamis president is willing to identifa those things on which therell y, agreements and those types ofre policies that actually do create jobs that are about gettingork americans back to work, not wil about making some sort of a politicall statement. this will set a pattern andhe ft th the future we can do some things really good for economy and american jobs. madam president, i yield the floor.the esidin >> the senator from missouri >> at thank you for recognition and want to join us make goodrom friend from south dakota in thee comments he made about the disadvantage be created for itself in the last three years by not moving forward with thest
trade agreements long ago. we are going to move forwardis g today here jumpstarting america's economy is going to require bipartisanship.glconomy if we're going to compete in the global economy, it means we'll have to work together to help wr create economic opportunities for work to create private-sector jobs that are the difference in the prosperousmr.: economy in an economyn debate struggling. last night the motion to open debate on the president so-called jobs bill was amendedd by his own party and was defeated then by a bipartisan vote here in the senate.we nd that is not the bipartisan ship when he appeared to be bipartisanship moving forward, e not bipartisanship walking away. the bill was defeated because it doesn't makes economic sense as toe president said in august of 2009, to raise taxes on job creators.s in fact, the administration by its own accounting is abruptly
80% of the people who would asi impact by the fair tax imposed by the bill that was set asidee last night would be defined as a the very bnusinesses that need o create jobs in an economy where that should be the number one the $800 billionio stimulus plac failed to stimulate. it didn't create private-sector of the $450 billion we were talking about yesterday was mor. of the same. today is that more of the same.d today the bipartisan opportunitl to move forward with the bipartisan bill and to help jumpstart t our economy. jo if there is low-hanging fruit it job creation, it's exporting products to market that want to buy our products. this is not about flavorappen conditions in colombia for whatever might happen in korea t
g panama. this is about products that not. american workers make and whether they can get into those markets are not. decade now, colombian products all come into our country without a terrace underwello ths trade agreement.merican la so this can't be about colombiae labor. must be that american labor.an but we knew for american workers? we can open up markets for american products in knots over going to do today and i hope we move to agree to these trade yer bills. it would mean additional $2.5 billion per year inth agricultural exporters. every billion dollars worth of 0 back exports means an estimated 8000 new jobs. in missouri, and trade related jobs grew by more than threeer times faster than other 200 employment from 2,422,008. to ae
i recently asked the syrians on facebook and twitter to sharehey some of their personal stories about how they thought these tradehe agreements would impact their lives. glencoe, a young full-time farmer from aurora, missouri, said agriculture is not trying young people to stay in the fire because it's difficult to make van payments based on what little we get for the products f we produce versus the inputs. this has been the case now fored generations.f we're g then, congress oialzheimer's by products bkeefore going to get young people to stay and take over the farm. madam president, dear parents and grandparents produce food for our country and much of thea world for a long time now. glenn copes ge gneration contins to do the same.another er told the family farm and clarence des nazarian northeast missouri told you that if these trade deals past, her family could receivesa
almost $11 more for every holiday sale. now she noted above $11 may not sound like a lot, it sure seemed like a lot when they were losing $20 for every heart they sold during 2007 through 2010. that difference makes aor difference in whether that family stays on the farm or noto chris burst congress to pass these agreements because this increased revenue will help usl meet increased expenses and help us ensure our family farm will be there to pass on to my kids according to her if that was ber the sixth generation of farmers and her family. barbara wilson noted thate toldt agriculture fuels the economy and our small town of mexico, an missouri. she told me the passage of these free trade agreements would leas to increased demand for corn and agriural e soybeans and stressed when the a agricultural economy is good,
benefit. that means increased jobs in all sectors of that small-townn economy. hammons project company in significanthu mandated trade barriers are hurting his walnuts, which are harvested byr hand in missouri and other midwestern states. bla ray noted if these trade deals i past, our company could buy them are black walnuts from thousands of people in missouri and 11 other states providing cash to those rural areas. proion a even more importantly the increasedfrom production activii from processing this walnutsruri would allow us to provide more employment for people in our rural missouri community. have n these are just a few of the farmers and job creators in missouri who have been calling on congress to pass trade agreements. i look forward to voting on this agreement tonight.ajor i hope the huge majority of myar
colleagues join me in voting for the south korean agreement, panama agreement, colombian agreement and send a message to divert that we intend to compete in the world economy. worke c if were given a chance to tse compete, american workers can compete with anybody in these trade agreements provided an opportunity to do that.eld back i yield back the floor. >> madam president, i enjoyed v. the remarks. >> senator from vermont.ri. >> i enjoyed the remarks. with the thoughts of a view, statement. and maybe you, the current trade policies in this country are a e disaster. the evidence is very clear thatb they have cost us many millions of jobs and to continue that same unfettered free trade
philosophy in terms of trade agreements with panama and senst colombia makes absolutely no sense at all. t. should have a policy that isi failing. you change it, you don't continue it. madam president, let us be verys clear. i think most americans today understand. our economy today present a disaster shape. our middle classes this hearing. recent statistics told us that poverty levels are at an all-time high in the gap between the very very rich and everybody else is growing wider. in my view, one of the reasons,e not the only reason, but one ofh the reasons for the collapse of the middle class has to do with the loss of millions of good t manufacturing jobs, attribute it all to these disasters trade a ease. dd we are serious of the nation in wanting to rebuild the middlo
class, lower our party race,on what we've got to do is move forward in a new direction in princi trade based on fair trade wch hs principles and endless unfettered free trade, which has been such a disaster for american workers. madam president, over the last decade, we as a nation have losg 50,000 manufacturing plants in a iowa to repeat that because that is such a staggering number thar it needs to be said over and over again. i 50,000 manufacturing plants in this country has shut down over the last 10 years alone. we have lost during that same f period 5.5 million fact three js jobs and many of those jobs are good paying jobs.ood jobs that provided people with.
good wages and good benefits.y those jobs are gone and in many cases have been replaced by wal-mart, mcdonald's jobs, lowde wages, minimal benefits. none of president, to give youii an example of how significant decline in manufacturing inanufs country is the reality in 1970,d 1970, 25% of all jobs are manufacturing jobs than today that number is just 9%.e 9%. 17. in july of 2000 commentary 17.17.3 million manufacturingre workers in this country today. m there are only 11 million manufacturing workers. in my small state of vermont, is that ohio, not michigan. there's never been one of thent. great manufacturing centers in the country. but even a small state like
vermont, what we have seen is a tege decline in good payingainlc manufacturing jobs which aread certainly impacted our middle class. 10 years ago we had approximately 45,000 had manufacturing jobs in vermont. last year we had 31,000mafacturg manufacturing jobs.hould we've lost about a third of manufacturing jobs. i should tell you, mr. president, and that 7800 ofh those jobs were lost as a resulf of the trade occurred with china nafta. the key issue here today, disasu mr. president, is whether we continue our disastrous tradelus policy, which includes nafta permanent normal trade relatione icth china and cathay.wh to a add-on to trade policies which have failed?
and for the love of me i cannotd understand why anybody wouldhe s want to do that. and the facts are very clear.r t our current trade policy has failed, have a disaster for working families. the president according touc recent studies by the licy well-respected economist at the economic policy institute, the permanent normal trade relations with china has led to the loss of 2.8 million jobs. in 2.8 million jobs and i rememberi the same thing then i say here now. members of congress tell me about all theng new jobs that w' going to be created.ho it wasn't true then, it's not true now. how can you defend? a trade policy based on dutch principles with china when 2
policy has cost us 2.8 million jobs in the last year alone. and then we've got nafta. many of us remember the rhetoric about nafta and open up theade n entire mexican economist for we project in the united statesca does anyone in america believe that policy the facts are clear. again according to the epi, they found that nafta has led to the loss of 680,000 jobs. so the simple reality is sure te be at teaching economics to the figure out if a company has thes option 70 cents an hour, don't de have to dealal with unions for o environmental standards, why wouldho she not go to those is
countries. the answer is you would go. the answer is they have gone. and that is that these trade policies are about, not selling american produced productsmeric, abroad by creating a situation where companies can shut down in america, and the fact is abroad and bring those products back into this country tariff free. now mr. president, we have quote from after quote after quote from members of congress during the nafta debate, during the china debate and they told us about the sound to me to hear thataidn rhetoric was nothing said in tho past has proven to b be true. let me just quote my good. friend -- from the u.s. chamber of commerce. and they tell us the u.s. us --q
chamber of commerce tells us, and this is the discussion about korea, panama and colombia. a this is foremost a debate aboutr job at a time in millions ofbusi americans are out of workes undr these agreements will create new business opportunities that canr generate hundreds of thousands of new jobs come the end of quote. that's the chamber of commerce. but wait a second, is this the same chamber of commerce that on july 1st, 2004, according to the associated press said andr o here'sf the headline on theleadr article, chamber of commerce leader advocates off shoring of jobs, end of quote.about th and here's what the articlecomm stated about u.s. chamber of commerce is such a strong advocate for these trade policies. president ceo thomas donohue urged american companies to sent jobs overseas as they wait todod
boost american competitiveness. donahue said high-tech jobs to low-cost countries such as india, china i and russia savess companies msioney, better, ettht cetera. chamber of commerce is leading efforts for trade agreement.thke maybe you you might want to think twice before you expected the ice of the chamber of commerce.dent of mr. president, the united states department of commerce has reported and this is really vers interesting, not only is information into itself, but about the politics of the whole. trade agreement. the chamber of commerce, every major multinational corporation telling us how good this trade unfettered free trade policies.
now we have the u.s. departmentt of commerce has reported that over the multinational corporations/ digs 2.9 million american jobs. let's digest that. multinationals coming as a trade agreements are great and theyan will create american jobs, thatt the same type of of the tlast e decade, they have slashed 2.9 million american jobs. the but here is the other side of the story. the truth is that the same multinational corporations for telling members of congress to vote for these trade agreements, the truth is they are creating jobs. the only problem is the jobsmer. they are creating are not in the united states of america. they are in china and other s
over this last. 2.9 come of this last decade, but they laid off 2.9 millionrations american workers, the same multinational corporations created 2.4 million new jobs abroad. layer 2.9 millionwo american in workers, create 2.4 million jobe in china and other low-wage trae countries. and that in a nutshell is what these trade agreements are abouo , enabling corporations toe t low-wagero countries and bringy their products back into our country. and the results are very clear. the results are very clear. you don't need a great study or commerce by the department of commerce by the departmentod ofb commerce by the department of commerce a department store inr. america when you buy a product you know the product is
it's not in vermont. not manufactured in california. riten it's not manufactured inot china, mexico or other the that has been the whole goal of these trade agreements. hire shut down plants in america, move them abroad was low-wage workers there bring the products into this country. the idea that we would be extending this concept to korea, panama and colombia makes no sense to me at all. mr. president, since the year 2000, 2.8 million american jobs have been eliminated or displaye as a result of the increased trade deficit with china. the he
after all of the type of us werf of the senate and on the soil or the house and the editorial boards of major newspapers are e leading politicians about how the china trade remit would ame create jobs in america, these ty are interesting to hear what these corporations had to say a few years after the trade agreement was passed.ore it i in other words, before his paso. tell you how were going to it's create these jobs in america. the day after it's passed, the line changes. china free trade agreement was passed around the year 2000. a couple years later the ceo ofs general electric was quoted on the subject is an investment meeting just one year after china was admitted to the world trade organization. this is after the chinese
american free trade agreement. when i am talking to ge managers, i talked china, china, china,ng china. me, that's him, not me. chae t you need to be there. and you need to change the way people talk about it and how they get there. i mean that in china. g outsourcing from china is goingn to grow to 5 billion.cent every discussion today has been turned china. the cost basis is extremely it n take a cubic foot refrigerator, land of the united states family and 18 cubic foot refrigeratoroe today yourselves. this is the head of general electric, who by the way thisadf president upon this two yearsftr after the china agreement was signed. it's not just major corporation
after major corporation. before i the agreement jobs aree great in america. afternt the agreement, all the w advantages of outsourcing. most the me tell you how bad theourcy situation is. most americans know that notg te only it's a disaster for economy were not producing the projects be concerned, but it is really anll embarrassment. . pres mr. president, last year the holiday season i walked into the smithsonian museum, very teautiful american historyhe gif museum. the rich everybody in washington did they say i want them tom owy catch up of the smithsonian the ifseum of the people of americag paid for by people of america appeared in the gift shop had? most of the products in the gift shop are not made in america.n there he made in china, made cou anorither low-wage countries around theag world. secti
presidents of the united states, george washington, thomas to up. send, barack obama. you know where these presidents of the united states are made? s the outcome you guessed it, and cheney. we've since been having pol discussions with the smithsonian in the process of changingic ths these. or working with other people as well. that's about the situation is a that american presidents meet in the museum a people at the united states of america talking about the history and culture in america are made in china.on this is one example of how pathetic the whole situation is. and by the way, mr. president, when we talk about trade, weman, often focus on blue-collar jobs, manufacturing jobs, but it's also increasingly informationter technology jobs and white-collar jobs. you know, just think for a cum
moment, mr. president, thaticit during the past four years, the cumulative trade deficit withot china in advanced technology, not talking about sneakers, it icts technology projects totalef more than 300 billion. china oyen advanced technology e products with a staggering 92 billion when you're alone. i just bought one of these very nice iphone's. it is very, very nice. kno in her the product is made? it's made inis china. ad the ipod and the black. m and i ibm computers and and big-screen tvs, none of theseno american inventions we pride ourselves to pass away.n. we pride ourselves on developing these technologies. made? but where are they made? more often than not, they are made in china.street according to a december 15, 27
articl qe in "the wall street journal," one widely touted solution for current u.s. economic woes is for america to come up hewith more of the world high-tech gadgets that the rest of the road craves. it too academic researchers estimate that's apple's iphone, when the best-selling u.s. technology products actually i did 1.9 billion to the u.s. trade deficit with china last year. manuf so we dactuevelop these product, but we can't manufacture them here because the companies and on it goes.collar not just blue-collar, white-collar jobs as well. tay, mr. president, today we are noti not talking about mexico.e're attacking about korea, panama,ee talking about columbia. o
the chamber of commerce is back, again creepy note these jobs to the day after the agreement is signed to talk about how to control american workers industry.pres you knidow, it's interesting, se mr. president. o. after poll shows that the american people do not have an enormous amount of respect for the united states congress. if the congress living in aiving different world than working-class people are living in. i don't know of any vehicle for that schizophrenia is greater ta you go back home. i don't know if ii can rhode island.hina? what do you think about these ce to think they're creating jobs in america? of course they're not. that. everybody knows that. an nbc in september 2010 and nbc news "wall street journal" poll 69%ns of americans believe that free t trade between the united states and other countries cost the
pt every group in america except the united states congress seems to getss that point.loyists and again, the united states congress is surrounded by lobbyists and campaignike contributors to come from big-money interests of my life is unfettered free trade u agreements. in terms of career, let me say d word good economic policy institute is estimated the korean free trade agreement will lead to the loss of 159,000rade american jobs that will increasn the trade deficit by nearly 14 billion over a seven-year t period. why do you want to go forward in a trade agreement that will coss you jobs? president obama has estimatedil the career free trade agreement will support 75,000 american jobs, but the headline of december's evan, 2010 article in "the new york times" says it all. few new jobs expected to from free trade with south korea. is
according to this article, the free trade agreement is likely job creation the short run our according to the government a by node analysis. analysis done by the trade commission projects the overalll trade deficit will increase, not decrease the korea free trade implemented. this is eric on internationalmio traden. commission.? what are we doing? what are we doing quite thatf mr. president, let me just touch on one aspect of the free trades agreement, which deserves a lot of focus and a fear. much that it's not. and that is that the korean free trade agreement will force agast american workers, not just to compete against low-wagein works without korea, but also to compete against the virtual, slave labor conditions that
exist in north korea, a country which is certainly one of the mostou undemocratic countries id to add insult to injury, not only are workers going toroceeds compete against slave labor, trad some of the proceeds from free trade will go to dictatecertnly leadership of kim jong gatto, certainly one of the more fishe, dictators in the united world. but that is about, compaes mr. president, as a number ofea, companies are in south korea, including hyundai and many others.doing owned companies doing business in a large industrial area in ts north korea. with this agreement will allow his products made in north korea to go to south korea and thenano come back into the united statew of america.sion on and others amid the confusion on
this, but there shouldn't be. according to january 2011 report from the congressional researchg quote, i hope everyone plans on voting for the free trade thi agreement. this is the arrest. there is nothing to prevent south korean firms fromfacturini performing intermediate manufacturing operations inno pg north korea and performing finas manufacturing processes in souto korea. for example, such as 65% of thet value of thehe south korean in e united states could actually be made in the korea if this tradet today we have over 47,000 north korean workers currently employed by more than 120 southa korean firmsn including hyundaie that the case in industrial in north korea. compl slave labor in north korea
manufacturing products that he south korea and then coming to the united states of america. meanwhile,a the date leadership of north korea is a significant piece of the action on top of wr the pennies that the north korean workers at. in 2007, a hot docs who was the, prime minister he i south korear united issador to the states said the plannedatificatf ratification of the free tradehy agreement will pave the way fort the export of products built ino caisson, north korea to the u.s. market, end of quote. isn't that wonderful.our cou i've never workers in our country to compete against peoplepe in china and vietnam people and making 20 cents, 30 o cents, 40 cents an hour astinstb north korea. that'sll the treaty that people will be voting for today.folksae
mr. president, a lot of folks have mentioned the assault on te trade union with 2800 trade proe unionists a month from 6% have been prosecuted by the, government.than 5 trade last year alone in a small 9% country, the 50 trade unionists were assassinated in colombia,ms up 9%id in 2009. i would ask you, mr. president, if in colombia at 50 ceos of mdd companies were killed last year, murdered last year, teasing people here would be voting for a free trade agreement with a colombia for what they say, whya would we want an agreement withh the comp me with a country which is so unlawful, so brutal, weres so many ceos are being killed? , but it not ceos. have
it's just trade unio an leaderst sickest okada has an agreement to. it would also tell you,w on mr. president, the president upon had a different view on prt columbia when he was a candidate in 2008. in october 2008, candidate barack-- obama said that histora in colombia right now with labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a consistent basis and they have not been prosecutions, end of quote. candidate of bombing 2008 was right to oppose this trade it agreement unfortunately as. president he is wrong to support it right now. fre let mee say a word about panama .ree trade agreement. country co panama is a very small aual e it's an either annual economic output is only 26 by 7 billion y year or about two tenths of 1% of the american economy.uch a
legitimately stand you in the trading is such a small country jobs. is going to significantly increase american then why would we? wh's going why would we be considering a trade agreement with panama? what's going on there? it well, it turns out, america mr. president, panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy americans debarge corp.n rations to escape u.s. taxes byo stashingre their cash in offshoe tax havens.eement the panama free trade agreementh would make a bad situation much worse.s i'm yoa member of the budget mr. president, and we have heard testimony time and time again that our country is losing the $2118 every year as money corporations -- their money and postal addresses in the cayman n islands, bermuda and panama.is r
in this trade agreement makes that situation even worse. haven has one of three-tiered on six. it has no income tax or a very s slow rate income tax. has a history of non-cooperation with other countries on exchanging information about tax matters. panama has all three and they are probably the worsts kind of quote according to citizens to tax justice. the trade agreement with panaman would effectively bar the united states and cracking down on offe illegal and abusive offshore tax havens and panama.comb in fact, combating tax haven abuse with the violation of the free trade agreement access in m the u.s. from international authorities. while at a time when we have a $14 trillion plus national debt
in a time when we are lower our frantically figuring out ways to try to lower deficit, some of uh believe it is a good idea to do wethy away with these tax havens by cs which the wealthy and lets corporations -- their money abroad and avoid paying u.s.th taxes paid to panama trade agreement would make theat goale even more difficult. i want to say another word on issues that is i think importann as we look into the future. the proposed korea free trade agreement threatens both the 34g chart program, which requires cd struck him is to provide b discounts on covered outpatienti drugs purchased by such earlythy sunday funded health providers such as committee health centers and other safety net providers and medicare part b to hold dowe prices of the patient to.
korea free trade agreement wouln ttentially allow korean truck manufacturers to challenge theha pricing undert these programs on the grounds that the prices are. not market driven. cntry. in other words, forcing price up in this country and that is somr thing that we pushed by ourretai tradeve representative, not theirs. in essence the pharmacy willplif with complete indifference of the most frail and vulnerable exceeded in provisions into the korean trade agreement that would allow companies toasures r maximize their profits with cosd control measurements under the 3:40 p.m. medicare part b programs. unfortunate mr. president, right now the pharmaceutical pri would be a veryre powerful lobby in tl
united states on a new trade agreement the so-called transpacific partnership that id wo situation in terms of drug access for the developing worldy much worse than their ideas.maze they are paying yet again is tof maximize company profits at 6 hs cents of the most vulnerable populations by tying the hands of health authority here and another developed a countries abroad who seek to provide p access to low-cost generic pharmaceutical charts for theirs citizens. in negotiating the transpacific partnership, our government is r that we pushing intellectual property laws for medicine that are more restrict it than wecult impose even here in the united states but the effect of making it far more difficult to get exa
generic drugs on the market in , those countries.ry poor one of them vietnam is a good h example. vietnam obviously the very country poor country. vietnam has received more p than 320 million from the presidents emergency plan for aids relief created on the president george w. bush and continued under president obama since 2004. the function of this program is to make sure that the poorest people in the world who have the diseases like aids are able to get the trucks they need a price they can afford to pay.ic and that means generic -- making generic treatments available. the program is actually hadomebs significant success. if someone was not a great fanty of president george w. bush, this is an area where he did something quite positive in thev program is credited with saving millions of lives. in 15 developing nations over the last seven years.
in the face one of the most history, the united states that billions of dollars into doing a thing about it and were doing that today. so why in the face of thisug success by one armor for our it? government but another arm work to pull the srug out from st if yet that is what the u.s. trd trade representative is doing just now. in other words, on one hand were trained heto do is to write incoming humanitarian aid andoud make sure that poor and sickeed people around the world are able to get the medicines theyrnment desperately need to stay alive at a price they can afford to pay. and on the other hand, another crt of the united statese the government says wait a second, we have to protect the interests caharge of drug companies come and make as possible that they can chargs and force companies to produce a high prices for drugs, even ifr. that means that many, many people die because they can i afford those drugs. o
so this is a contradiction. this is what our new trade policy is all about. i will be back on the floor at some point in the not-too-distant future to be talking about this very very important issue. i may just include, mr. president iciness.sis since the country is and that's the worst economic crisis in theansn 1930s. middle-class disappearing, poverty increasing, millions of americans see a declining standardga of living to train tt very rich and everybody else's fighter. that is reality of the american economy toor the.s one of the reasons her collapse in the middle classes the last a millions and millions of good payingso manufacturing jobs. of but the key reasons, not the only reason can have one of the key reasons we are losing are disastrous tradew policieso defined, designed to allow corporations to shut down here come the move to richa
countries, hire people pennies o an hour to bring their productsf back. that is a policy i suppose youf can say that his work if you're the ceo of a large corporation. you make a lot of money people pay 50 cents an hour than $20 ay you make a lot of money working in a country with no standards environmental standards that if any country where you have java standards protect the near and water.se that is whatem our trade policy has been and it seems to me toce be enormously foolish for us to continue this failed policy of nafta, permanent normal trade relations with china and extend them to korea, panama and colombia.s who want i urge my colleagues to stand ud to the monied interest among us oo pass these tradeke agreementg stand up for american workers and say no, trade is a good thing, but it has to be based on principles that protect ordinare
americans, working people, not just ceos of large corporations. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. >> the senator from maine. you, in 19! , mr. president.f mr. president, i raced today int the wake of another veryempl sobering jobs report.t unemployment remains stalled at 9.1%. 14 million americans are out ofn work. another 9 million have been forced into part-time jobs because they simply cannot find full-time employment. these challenging economic timee demand that congress and the administration put aside togher partisanship and work togethers
in earnest to address the prolonged jobs crisis. many of the decisions that willl before congress in the next few months will be including those that must beiscl made to orestore fiscal order o our nation's books.crea but there are bipartisan measures that we know will create and preserve jobs now.k we must work together to advancs them. one such measure before us today is the free trade agreement with south korea.ill as president obama stated last week, this agreement the make it easier for american companies to sell their products in south korea and provide a major boost to our experts.seveh
south korea is our country's seventh largest trading partner. the u.s. international trade- commission estimates that implementation of this agreement would increase our gross b domestic product by 10 to $12 billion annual merchandise exports by $10 billion.stimates the 80s he further estimate that the agreement will reduce the u.s. trade deficit with korea by between sta $3,000,000,004,000,000,000. end the korean agreement conducted by this staff at the press of the senate finance committee concludes that the agreement could create a 280,000 american jobs, including more he
than 650 jobs in my home state of maine. week mr. president, just as we, there were announcements of 130 jobs loss of a paper mill in maine has 65 jobs eliminated at a cal, center. so these new jobs, potentially 650 new jobs would be welcome te indeed. south korea is the best largest international market remains private.south last year the value of maine exports to south korea reachedn nearly $100 million, includingii 31 million chemical products,, n 29 million would pull, 15 million in civilian aircraft and engine parts, 7 million electrical machinery ander
$5 million in coded paper and paper reports.-korean frrade upon implementation of the u.s. korean free trade agreement, more than 95% of maine exportst to south korea would be duty-free. they repeat that.xportsm 95% of our exports from maine to south korea would be duty-free.s that means the elimination of me these barriers to name?ufactures or it would expand markets for main manufacturers and agricultural producers. and that, mr. president, traine. latham to saving jobs and the f korea is the fourth largest and fastest-growing market forustrym americans first and potatoes, a major industry in my state.
in 2009 permit the u.s. share of the korean market was 81%, unio. compared to 2% market share for the european union. but with the implementation of the european union korean traden agreement this past july, the pt european union's frozen potatoes now into the korean market duty-free. that obviously gives european union growers a significant disadvantage over american exporters who faced an 18% tariff for shifting their projects and t ao korea.iminate the u.s. korean agreement wouldy eliminate the tariffs aying immediately, leveling the p playing field for our producersh according to the maine potato
board, which has endorsed this e agreement, passage of the free trade agreement is dated to translate into a $35 millionrozn annual increase in u.s. rose and potato exports to korea. iwill more important in the long term, it will allow american potatoes to be the product of choice in the korean market because as th, presiding officer vona, maine's potatoes taste better than those grown by the european union countries. in all seriousness, we do need to eliminate these discrepancies and terrorists that give our ove competitors an advantage over american producers. exports are essential to the strong industrial manufacturing
base throughout our country and in the state of maine. excerpt o i want to even ask the from ad letter that they recently raised the from the plant manager, thei general lack directne energy slt the pl in bangor, maine. t the plant manager had thishi tos say about the potential impact if this free trade agreementollo were approved. he wrote as follows, ge's to expanding international opportunities are for aviation,c energy and financial services exporters is critical to our 7 more than 700 workers in thein state of maine. t in fact, all 100% at the new steam turbine unit coming out of our bangor plant this year andrl next will be exported.
that just shows how critical is that export market is to jobs in maintaining those 700 jobs intiy maine. the bangor plant has an addition recently started producing components for gas turbines. to this outcome we have invested roughly $30 million in bangor to expand capacity. these gas turbines under curren. law faced tariffs of 8% inements korea. if the u.s. korean free trade agreement is passed, the geat plant manager and bangor told ms plantthe tariff on the gas 8rbines produced at the plant would drop from 8% to zero in that obviously would make those ployees ge products and ge's employees in maine all that much moreulp competitive.
for mains with pulled producers, co korea is already the secondt largest international debt that they have. 1 experts to korea account for the nearly 17% of the total hole knelt in woodland, maine. t and e-mail to director of the pulp mill in washington countyn found this to say about the importance of the korean market to its business operation inwro. maine. he wrote, free trade with asiane countries means that we have ane operating facility in woodland, maine. mpreans are good paying i customers, high revenue and they are an important part of ourluey market. maine's blueberry growerso wi ao will benefit from this phase out
terrorists on wild blueberryerrs products.ed while i would have preferred to see the tariffs of blueberriespt eliminated immediately, the way that they are in many otherbouta products i've mentioned, the tariff actions that would come about as a result of this agreement will help blueberry growers compete in an iortant increasingly important market.nk maine's iconic lobster industry. live lobster exports to korea currently face a 20% tariff. under the agreement, this tariff would be phased out over five years, making it far easier for maine to compete in the marketplace in korea. fairchild semiconductor in portland, maine, is another
strong supporters of this agreement. the manager of fairchild cites the benefits of tariff elimination, regulatory improvements, stronger intellectual property protection, and simplified trade helpction, and simplified trade protection and simplified trade clearance procedures measures that will help help streamline customs procedures and help u.s. companies cut down on the cost of doing business at advantages that would be broughe about by this agreement. mr. president, the bottom line is that experts to korea support me in jobs. passage of this agreement is can critical to ensuring not only that we can expand export that opportunities, but also we do not lose market share in one ofi the world's largest economies m
because our foreign competitors are more aggressive than theirem pursuit of trade liberalizationb agreements. on balance i believe that theood u.s. caribbean free trade agreement is good for america w and good for the state of mainem and i will vote for it. i am convinced of the tarfs elimination of tariffs will create jobs and help us save jobs. i plan to vote for the agreement with panama, a country with which the united states had a $5.7 billion trade surplus last year. but, restore president, i cannoa support the free trade agreement with columbia.e this was a difficult decision for me to reach, and i've given
that considerable study andes uu fought but unfortunately the uos violence against labor unions continues at an unacceptable high rate in that country. and i do appreciate and recognize that the colombian government to has taken steps to improve in tk this area in the but i think ito is simply too soon to declare the labor action plan as success more time is needed to progress has brought forth of the agreements i can support both pn and held back on theco colombian agreement until we have a better of mnse of the direction of thein country and where we are going making progress with the
labor action plan. mr. president, the benefit of free trade are not spread evenls over all sectors and with any tn usade agreement, there is a ind potential that some u.s. workers and industries may be harmed. that is why i've looked at eache agreement individually over thed years and i've supported this, o and i have opposed others and i frankly the criteria that i'veft applied arehe whether the agreements benefit the people os my state and the workers of thih country. it's also why i've been such a strong supporter of a robust trade adjustment assistance program. and i strongly supported the
efforts of the trade law is to .rotect u.s. workers againstices unfair trade practices. i.t the cases involving the paper industry where there has beena illegal dumping. i've also been a co-sponsor of the bill we just passed currency yesterday to crack down on the currency manipulation by the t d chinese government. but if the united states does ed not adopt policies to expand trade opportunities in a fairart way, we will lose out on thens e market opportunities, and that means we will lose out on the creation of jobs. susined the jobs of would be created orl sustained here at home will instead be created and sustaineg
in other countries that are aggressively pursuing trade neay agreements. world's with nearly 95% of the world's customers living outside our sze borders we simply must seize the opportunities to expand our exports to look for new markets for our products. our competitors in europe, canada and other nations arebare actively working to tear down barriers to trade and promoteame their exports.stries we must think that given our industries and for our workers. thank you, mr. president.
malae hearing none the potential effect of lightsquared's plan to build a multibillion-dollar high-speed wireless network. earlier this year tests showed its original network proposal would cost gps service witnesses from the aviation industry's say they continue to be concerned that the network could interfere
with gps accuracy which they rely on. this house small business committee is about 90 minutes. o >> we bring this hearing toriane thank all the witnesses for being here today to this important hearing i know some of you travel a ways and i ing appreciate you being here. today we will hear about how l ghtsquared's proposals would a impact the ability of small business to access the global positioning system, gps. small businesses rely on inaccurate gps signal for the day-to-day operations and potential severely handicap or in a pair the businesses. providing wireless broadband coverage to 260 million to americans and urban kennon knees urba by 2015. d byagree we need to fieind dnnovative ways to providee neen high-speed internet access to underserved areas and access to rserve high-speed internet provides small businesses especially inet those located in ruralsinesses communities but esthe opportunip
and resources in the electronic and global marketplace covernd a such a novation shouldn'tr such jeopardize the currentlynot established systems including gps and the unnecessary burdens to those who use them. th since it was first launchedas fd taxpayers invested taxpayers invested$35 billion i. this national asset has become an integral part of our economy. vacancy the value-added benefits in a variety of sectors. from a safer more reliable energy grid to precise agriculture mapping nearly every industry has benefited from this technology. more for recent studies have estimated the gps imports over 3 million u.s. jobs and contributes over 3 trillion in economic activity. federal test results from lightsquared proposal showed significant interference on all types of gps receivers. this alarmed many small businesses and could be required to replace a retrofit their current gps system. this'll be an enormous cost to small business. and in the lightsquared is committed to spend 50 million to retrofit federal gps devices it
is done nothing for the 1 million small businesses to the bill that will easily cost billions of dollars. i am confident we can find a solution to provide more broadband to rural areas while not jeopardizing small-business gps users and again i want to thank are witnesses for their participation in nine now yield to the ranking member for opening remarks. >> thank you mr. chairman and good afternoon and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. it is about job creation and growth. companies can reach new markets across the globe while reducing costs at home. in fact, the number of jobs dependent on broadband and information technology is suspected to grow by 25% over the next 10 years. this made the expansion of connectivity a critical priority and the main reason the administration set a target of reaching 90% of the population through such technology. today we will examine a proposal
that will advance this objective. this plan which centers on constructing a hybrid ground-based satellite network would have brought benefits. beyond its payoff, widespread broadband adoption will mean new economic opportunity for communities across the nation particularly rural america. for individuals looking to launch a new enterprise, broadband -- this is especially important now as many dislocated workers are looking to entrepreneurship as a way to replace lost income. for the established small-business high-speed internet can expand using a company web site, social networking or other forms of on line advertising. firms can utilize voice and video communication to connect with customers around the world and reach previously untapped markets. they can store data on line and
access office productivity tools. while the proposal we are considering today shows promise to accomplish this goal, we have to consider its interference potential. one example is gps which serves a critical role in aviation safety and efficiency. in fact, the department of transportation's next -- nextgen program focuses on moderating its platform and is expected to create 160,000 jobs in four years, the same number the aviation industry lost in a decade. with 360,000 gps equipped aircraft and over 3 million jobs, we must ensure interference does not undermine this growing industry. not only must we address the aviation industry's concerns, we also need to investigate the planned small businesses impact. business owners and a 480 trades
like position agriculture and construction relied on gps technology for its cost-saving benefits. small farmers use gps to save 50 yen dollars annually on water and fertilizer costs. and accurate information or expensive equipment upgrades cost -- caused by interference could result in small-business job losses. recognizing this concern it is imperative to test this planned technology. doing so will ensure smart businesses are now left with costly burdens. regardless if this new plan is ultimately adopted, we must continue to push forward with our indy and evaluation. at some point, either through the -- endeavors we will be able to mitigate gps interference successfully and bring the benefits of broadband to nearly all small businesses and their customers. we should not let the competition that has multiple
solutions hinder progress towards nationwide connectivity. time and again, advanced technologies have been a springboard for growth. from mobile phones to the internet new technologies have brought jobs and prosperity. with this in mind that look forward to hearing how we can further foster innovation. thank you mr. chairman. >> if committee members have an opening statement prepared i asked that they submitted for the record and just explains you the timing system each of you have five minutes and the allies will indicate green for that time and down to a minute it goes yellow and then read when you run out of time. if you run out of time it is not that big a deal. just don't go too far over. this hearing is obviously or the subject matter has been heard in a lot of committees on the hill so far. small business committee because they have such an impact here, the armed services committee transportation committee, the
science and technology committee, the agriculture committee will probably have a hearing on it so it is of huge importance. with that we will go to our witness is now so you can give your statements and i'm owing to turn to representative west from florida to introduce our first witness. >> thank you much a chairman and ranking member. our first witness will be mr. dennis boykin, the founder and manager of db for consulting. mr. boykin is a small-business owner and veteran, licensed pilot and a proud aircraft on her. he is an army veteran and artillerymen whom i served together with an 1991 in desert shield desert storm in the fifth field artillery and dennis it is great to see what can and hopefully all is well the family. he is implying ferber 30 years. mr. boykin will be testifying on behalf of leesburg executive airport commission. mr. boykin. >> chairman grace ranking member velazguez and members of the committee and old army comrades thank you for the introduction
and the opportunity to address this issue today. as congressman was noted critical not only is a business owner highlands high precision gps in order to keep my aircraft safe and more importantly keep the people underneath my aircraft safe. but in a leadership position as the leader of the leesburg executive airport concerned about the welfare of our airport because we run a business. favorite concerns regarding this potential interference of high precision gps receivers. my family say because associate with the proposal may impact on our general aviation infrastructure. i've spent nearly $40,000 gps equipment installations over the last eight years and two airplanes. i'm not unique in my community and many of assessment made to increase their margin of safety while running our businesses and flying or airplanes. make no mistake gps as a matter of life and death. this is not hyperbole. i'm a combat veteran i know something about life or death situations and i know you hear a lot of hyperbole sometimes about this issue, gps is critical not just a business but to life.
first let's talk about my airport in leesburg. we have a saying out there is a served in town and residents in redding airport in that airports are not about airplanes. there are about commerce. our airport provides newsday commerce benefit bringing over 200 jobs and $80 million year in economic impact to leesburg in lowden county virginia. we have over 250 aircraft in our field and nearly all of them are gps equipped. at the faa estimates lightsquared employs a system as tested in a few months back there estimating a foreigner and 40 million-dollar year negative economic impact to general aviation. 800 lives lost per year in $22 billion in opportunity cost of nextgen's and deploy. that are there -- that is their numbers, not mine. i don't want to have to explain to town council by the airport is causing trouble. in my second row managing a business i'm hearing lightsquared posner claims that their system won't interfere with gps and i read
mr. russo's testimony on strategic forces and says the opposite. they claim they have a filter. it will magically solve the problems they cause. in my expected to bear the expense of the certification certification installation downtime and test flight surrounding these filters? mr. carlisle will tell you not. and oh by the way -- speaking of business was talk about environmental impacts. recently took a business trip to florida to an army conference. they made the trip on a direct route tank is to gps. saved an enormous amount of fuel not following the airway routes. this is the next -- the entire precept behind nextgen, direct routing. any impact on gps we lose those environmental improvements in the reduced carbon foot end of each pool -- life. fireman concerned about the safety of every flight. gps need signals enhanced by augmentation services have
created a precise flight environment today that is unraveled in our history. flight is so much safer today than when i learned to fly 30 years ago. i'm no longer comfortable getting up in bad weather. now let me put you in an entirely likely scenario. imagine yourself flying in my airplane at night returning from a trip. we are in the clouds. i'm on the gps approach to runway 17 at leesburg and the screen goes blank because there is a continuation of the lightsquared cell tower i just flew over. the engineers will tell you that cell phone towers only impact ground receivers. every pilot on these goes will tell you otherwise. and don't ask me why i know this but up to about 5000 feet you can get a good cell phone signal. i just happen to know that. there's absolutely no reason to create this risk to life and property without proper testing and without proper coordination. now, we are going to hear a lot of testimony about how folks have fixed the problem already
and there isn't an issue. frankly, i will remind everybody here that we are in a committee meeting chaired by someone from missouri and they have a great saying in missouri. show me. and i would like somebody to put together a test that puts multiple base stations multiple handsets out on that test range at white sands and make sure this thing really does work before we put lives at risk. i have a little bit of experience when i used to work for the motorola corp.. i do get chained -- trained. i'm not an engineer but i know things can interfere with each other and i hope this committee would have something to say about how that works and i thank you for your time and i thank you more important for your service to our great nation. >> thank you mr. bly can. next witness is mr. rick green. rick is precision agronomy manager for mfa columbia missouri. is roly helps family farmers utilize agricultural technology to increase crop yields. rick has testified on behalf of
retailers association. thanks for being here. >> thank you chairman and ranking member -- and members of me. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. i'm here to testify on the behalf of agricultural retailers association. a trade organization which represents agri tailors and distributors with equipment and services. ara members are scattered throughout all 50 states and range and size from fairly small family business to a large cooperative with multiple locations.
accuracy sorted to improve i came to love what they can do. bye preserving the environment, minimizing inputs, maximizing the yield and to give our farmers a greater return on their investment. so what is precision agriculture? precision agriculture is using the latest technology to provide some economic recommendations in a timely fashion in order to maximize the yield, manage inputs come preserve the environment to ensure farmers in a sustainable way of forming. to some of your areas of your lawn grow better than others? for ground is the same way on the only on the larger scale. since then gps technology has evolved exponentially. vehicles used gps for logistical tracking, tractors drive themselves within 1 inch worth of accuracy to minimize overlap. sprayers trough individual
sections and reduce overuce oer of input.n on the go sensors detect how seors de much nitrogen a plant willplt require.equire river levees are surveyed andwo two-thirds of the time it takesa traditional survey years. nitrogen on the flight to reduce runoff and increase plant of take. irrigation systems based on those characteristics to reduce the water rate to reduce border wasteland the list goes on. we wouldn't people to perform these without high accuracy gps. with perdue university did a study back in 2000 for using in 1800-acre model farm and found that a farmer that uses hi accuracy gps will decrease his hours of operation by 17%. that 17% is not only operation but it's a decrease in fuel, maintenance and input like seed pesticide and fertilizer. times change and the producer needs to more efficient to
combat local competition. bruce erickson with perdue university did a study of economic adoption of the farming technologies. from 2002 prices are up 350% in commodities and they are up 266% and fuel and fertilizer is at 270%. efficiency and increased productivity is the key to surviving in the global market. according to the united nations organization, the population could rise to 8.2 billion people in 2030 which will require 50% increase in food production over the next 20 years in order to feed the global demand. the only way we are going to be able to achieve this is by using high accuracy gps, biotechnology and proper management. precision agriculture industry has over 400,000 - accuracy receiver is valued at $13,000 replacement cycle of ten to 15
years and has approximately $19.9 billion per year of value to the grower. mfa has over 700,000 acres in the gps to triet management, $9.5 million, 9.5 million acres covered with high accuracy coverage and has almost $20 million of gps equipment sold to the farmers that will be a directed by the implementation of the industrial terrestrial component. since 2005, nsa has seen a 600% increase in sales and adoption rates of 40% of the customer base. it's like asking the american population to switch their analog gp to a 13,000 over digital tv. white square must be allowed to broadcast their signal in the upper and lower band of the gps and televisa will and economic resolution sound. to conclude, if the accuracy of the gps that makes the technology important believe a solution will be found that
allows gps in the wireless broadband to coexist but lightsquared and gps providers will have to work together. we believe farmers and ranchers in gps companies shouldn't have to bear the additional financial burden of resolving this issue. thank you. >> it's my pleasure to introduce to the committee mr. jeffrey carlisle, executive vice president for regulatory affairs and public policy for lightsquared. prior to joining lightsquared, mr. carlisle served as deputy chief and later chief of the wider line competition bureau, where he managed the development of the commission's broadband policies.
crucial to us. we have to have this functioning the gps system to gordon-reed the systems on the network and people who bring devices are all going to have gps devices. gps receivers built into their devices so no debate about the gps is important and crucial to the economy we use it every day and it's important to the safety of life. there is another important issue that's particularly relevant to this committee and that affect small businesses suffer from a lack of trees and their ability to get wireless service to the committee recognized this numerous times. lightsquared is building a network that would just bring one competitor to the market but will bring dozens of competitors. we have already over 17 business partners waiting to have our network ready to those of the console broadband services.
this is to enable them to lower the prices to end users and small businesses who need it most, that your connectivity, extension of connectivity to the rural areas which is berkeley has been on the short end of the stick with wire wireless networks. and this is a problem we have to deal with make no mistake the lack of effective broadband infrastructure makes america 15 then the world in terms of broadband of option. why is this important over all? these consume 24 to 25 times more data than a regular cell phone. that was just three to four years ago before the estherville to be the effect. in less than two years we will too many in the spectrum within that timeframe and let's be clear there will always be issues with existing uses of spectrum when you have a new nation being built with
700 megahertz which is another that was wireless microphones but here it's gps the fund 800 megahertz years back in public safety. these issues can be solved. if we can't solve them we aren't going to be able to provide services to people who need them and the loser on that will be small businesses they are the one whose bottom line gets hit the worst.
that's been established for months now. so what are we left with? we are left with a vision devices so we are going from 400 million days across the country to something must have 781. these are the ones to get to center accessories and agriculture serving an obstruction. tonight and there's room for skepticism in terms of the claims as to how hard the issue is to solve. for months now we've heard about there's not enough room in the devices. it would take it that excise filter to fixate. it's going to take too long.
it's going to take years and billions of dollars. i have a precision device right here actually. we bought it on ebay. great hair. as we'll see, when you take saddam out, there is room in this device and this is the antenna. this is where you place the filter for the antenna. it's right here, this little square here. the filter we have developed in a mandrake days at a cost of $6 per unit is right here. now, our solution isn't going to be a solution for every receiver. ménière's ether manufacturers will have to come up with their own solutions. what this is his proof of three concepts. it can be done inexpensively and can be done quickly. i also think the issue of airing
the cost for this proposal itself is simply misunderstood. just last august in 2010, kerman issued a voluntary recall of 1.2 million gps receivers that had battery issues. their stock price declined about a spent the day they announce that. so this is an issue that comes up in private industry out of time. manufacturers of devices out there that are subject to this kind of interference when they shouldn't be should bear some of the responsibility and we parody a significant amount of the cost of addressing the issue ofook hundreds of millions of devices and i look forward to receiving your questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. carlyle. president and ceo free flight systems in irving, texas at the company manufactures aviation iommits gps navigation systemsm for commercial aircraft.over 35 his 35 years of experience in
hi the industry and testifies onftt behalf of on behalf of electronics association. >>irman u for being >> charming grace and thefore yu ranking member velasquez, thank you for opportunity to appear before you to discuss the impact of small-business gps users ands industry proposal fromquared. i' lightsquarm ed. >> make sure your mic is on. >> my namehief ems.utive officer offreght is today i have the privilege of representing the aircraft electronics association and it represents more than 1300 ev and businesses worldwide including manufacturers, repair stations, distributors and schools. of these more than 80% of small business. my company, freeflight is a manufacturer of avionic systems to commercial aircraft and was the first to certify an airborne receiver. freeflight systems specializes in next-gen avionics, gps systems, sensors, dillinger
radios. our entire industry has been working to the implementation of gps to post navigation from air traffic management and landing systems over a decade. the ongoing transformation of the nation's system next-gen is predicated upon the availability of the ultra high integrity gps positional information, which has in turn been made possible by some 30 years of work in gps technology that lives on the fringes of human engineering capability. the development has been to the consistent assumption of a certain level of protection and the gps signal spectrum one that predates any of the date. lightsquared proposed a wider list network of high-energy waves into the previously protected spectrum. we eat like all americans support a low-cost nationwide network but not one that compromises the safety and efficiency of the national transportation system. clich studies are being undertaken and quick decisions are being made. this is entirely incompatible with the requirements of safe airspace critical design.
i'm reading a spectrum self limitation when i see reports of solutions to interfere in a filter that was thrown together in the past few months. this is not howard works for us. the faa estimates, and i would agree, no less than ten to 15 years would be required to bring an amended product safely to the aviation market is assuming there for the spectrum use. my testimony today is not intended to support or deny the reports submitted regarding the combat ability to the systems. the record has more than enough evidence to draw a conclusion. my intent is to exploit the aviation process and extreme cost to small business that only changed the fusion navigation systems would cause. gps satellites are low power and a long way away. the signals we receive are less than a noise interference generated by the metal box we put the receiver in. but people's lives depend upon our ability to read the information and not get it wrong any more than once every ten to
1 billion flight hours. if you've been on an aircraft landing in low visibility conditions he would reshape his integrity as to those who live close to airports. to respect the industry to meet kimmage requirements like these in a rapid response mode, to a significant noise and fire and changes entirely unreasonable. for example, in this table requirements and where might we have been developing a replacement gps for one of our older products for some six years. we are still about a year away from the gps engine and two or three years away from the usable avionic systems implementation. that system in a real aircraft would take another one or two years. i can categorically tell you i do not know if the new system will work in the most optimistic lightsquared plans on the table. i can tell you it will not work at all if lightsquared receives the translation. member companies have been manufacturing and selling the navigators, surveillance and emergency locator systems to the aircraft operators for nearly 20
years. the systems have been designed and when factor and certified to the government's technical standards to provide the aviation consumer with an assurance of usability and acceptability in the air space. in the efforts by lightsquared to generate a requirement result in the retrofit of the resources systems which are negatively affecting the industry and the nation's aerospace. in closing while we support the concept of a low-cost system no system regardless of its anticipated benefit can be allowed to comprised safety and security of the air transportation system. changes that affect the national transportation system require a long range planning and we encourage lightsquared or any other company to participate in the aviation technical standards development process. rtc a and faa have been working towards next-gen for 20 years. neighboring technologies beat changes in the aviation system to be compatible, these companies need to work with the faa and the rtc asa the next generation of aviation products might be designed and certified
to be compatible with future business plans while the current generation of product reached the end of the service of to the idea of a new entrants into the marketplace can introduce a market compromises' aviation safety and security while expected deviation industry to design and manufacture, test and and certify and restore the filter is simply not realistic. thank you for providing me the opportunity to address the committee. i'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. taylor. mr. carlisle, have a quick question. on your receiver -- which i've never seen a receiver that big before -- my question to you is the filter that you held up, which you talked about you could fit inside of their easily -- the gps antenna the i have on the aircraft on a flight are the same size of that filter, maybe just a little bit larger. how is that going to fit in that and and and that includes the streamline casing for the slipstream i'm just curious how that's coming to --
>> i'm glad you asked that question because it allows an opportunity to clear this issue up to read this is a precision received your it gets you down for the use in agriculture, surveying and construction. the type of receiver you're talking about are not that kind of precision receiver. >> all right. >> under our proposal which puts us of the bottom end of our band under the minimum performance standards which are adopted internationally, we should be fine under the faa reviewing that. but all the testing of the faa received as was done by both the federal government and by industry shows that the aviation receivers perform much better than the minimum performance standards. so we are not talking about under our current level of proposals requiring any change out and let me repeat that because it's important. any change out of aviation receivers. if it was going to take eight to ten years to go through the certification process in order
to do that that wouldn't be a commercially feasible business plan so what we have proposed is a use of spectrum that does not require any change at of the aviation procedures. and the problem i have in the testimony. the part that bothers me you said just now in the question should be it's the should be that bothers me because we deal with is your vote tolerance. a zero tolerance. so if there is any concern out there we are going to end up having to retrofit and filter because it is the zero tolerance and what is going to cost, and i am very curious and i want to hear from all of the panel what we think this is going to cost in terms of that retrofit because at least when it comes to aviation it has to be certified. it has to be certified that's when it gets really expensive. >> if i can respond to that --
that's absolutely true. the fact is we should only move forward this can be done while assuring the safety of life and aviation and we're working with the community to do that. that is something the we believe is non-negotiable. nobody in our company is running out to deploy and network it is going to cause issue with people with air safety in the united states. that is not what we are about and we are absolutely committed to making sure this will work and that the faa is satisfied and the ntia and the and cc. we've worked with the faa for years. we are members -- pardon me. we have worked with rtca for years. we've been members for years on these issues so we've put a lot of resources into making sure that happens. in terms of cost, again, we
believe our proposals will take us in a direction where there will be no cost to aviation in order to accommodate the network and that's where we want to be. >> how is that no cost? >> they will not have to be replaced. we are taking the cost of solving the issue on our side which is over $100 million by the way. >> mr. taylor. >> first your comments on whittle to know we don't live in the world little to know. we live in the world of certainties measured in fellows instead of millions of parts,ws instead of millions of parts, very high integrity and availability and our systems. it also mentioned many of the systems out there were developed back in the 90's. there are a lot of aircraft systems we as a company have over 2,000 systems flying that were developed in the 90's that were requirements significantly less than the requirements on the of modern receivers so they
certainly would have to be addressed and i have no idea how they would work in this environment no one has yet tested one. for the new receivers, and as we said, there is a very strict faa requirement for the malaise. as i understand, the proposal for the widespread use of the lower spectrum comes very close to the edge of that or cross is likely the current malaise requirement and the concept we are going to be okay because there is more jutting doesn't work for me. this is something that needs to be tested and evaluated and it isn't one field test. it is a serious comprehensive series of testing but will take a long time to accomplish. >> adult test is. it all sounds good but back to the show me concept and will take you back to 1981 in the field and arizona were a client of mine and motorola was
complaining that interference, couldn't talk on a mountaintop 60 miles away, he could see but couldn't talk with a radio. drove 2 miles back to interstate 19 and found the crew from a construction operating and asked them to to their radios every minute. drove back to the site and said let's try it now and that is what it was. the client was using a retial in 450 megahertz band for business. that's 400 megahertz and 2 miles away and that amount of electrical energy in the air interfered with a 60 monreal transocean and note from the chart he brings in that we are talking about a spectrum spread of 30 megahertz between the rib ground-based transmitters so i will just go back to the point, mr. chairman, i spent over $2,000 of the receiver to do my accretive few years ago. we are talking thousands of dollars for other grades of necessary. let's get back to the testing. that's what really needs to get
done. mr. green? >> i will concur to the gentleman on my left and mr. taylor on the right. we need to have a lot more testing to make sure we don't go through an air fare. being in the agriculture industry i do go ahead and recognize that receiver, and that receiver has a lot of the same type size we use for our hi accurate. mfa has approximately to hundred 50 hi accuracy gps units across the state and we cover approximately 1 million acres with those high accuracy and hammes. assuming that lightsquared's filter is going to cost around $800 to go on retrofit to purchase the filters it is going to cost roughly $200,000, and $200,000 for the filters and approximately $200,000 for the
resource. the resources and personnel, the fuel expenses to go around and take care of that. the timeframe in that period will take at least one year's worth of time. and that is just for the 250 hi accuracy receivers that we have. if you go ahead and take a look at it, mr. carlisle said there could be between 100,000 in 750,000 high accuracy the antennas. our belief is there is at least 750,000 to 1 million receivers used in agriculture and construction, used in the geography management. so you take those kind of numbers and basically it comes out to $1,600 per unit in order to go through and retrofit ticket times that 1 million or excuse me, 1 million hi accuracy gps out there in the marketplace
>> of the numbers i actually used were the universe of devices could be above 750,000 in the country. it's not entirely unknown exactly. it could be as high as a million but in terms of the one that have to be replaced or retrofitted it's not going to be the entire universe first because the significant number of the devices already tested go out in terms of being resilience of this ten out of 38 or almost 25%. second, many of the receivers were going to be used in areas far away from anywhere our network is going to be coming and third, our -- this isn't a slash cut we're going to deploy your network of free period with five years. there will be a certain amount of exchange of devices the would take place in the ordinary course of business any way so that's how you get down to the 100,000 to a 200,000 number you have to focus on and change out just to clear up the record.
>> i don't want to dominate the member because we of questions and i will save my for the other hearing but i do have one quick one for you mr. carlisle because the test results reveal significant interference and that 10 megahertz band coming and so you have proposed launching in the lower ten or four years' service. my question to you is can you -- will you never use that upper ten? >> we will certainly continue to use it for satellite services. we have used there for 15 years without any issue at all with the gps and satellite services to public safety, oil and gas, all sorts of folks in the united states uses it and the satellite services were used after hurricane katrina, after the tornadoes in joplin first responders had the units there so we will continue to use the spectrum. we would like a continued dialogue as to whether or not we can ever commercially deploy that spectrum because then you
do start to get into the issues that mr. taylor and others have raised about the aviation functions and susceptibility of a larger number of gps receivers simply because more of them look into that spectrum so you would need a longer conversation about that but we are open to having that discussion and open about talking about alternatives. >> basically right now you are not using that upper band you are just doing that as a company is decided not to do it there is no requirement you can use it at any time to read the only issue that comes up down the road is if we deploy out in our network using the 10 megahertz all the way down on the other end of the band. we can do our full deployment to 260 million people with that amount of spectrum. the issue is the number of devices, the amount of usage ultimately goes on the network.
that won't be a problem we have at least five to six years. so, and in the meantime, you can either skin the cat a lot of different ways. you can modify the way you are using your current spectrum, you can use a new spectrum in ways of a different and low-power that will not raise an issue on interference. you could also look at swapping for alternative spectrum or something like that. there are a bunch of things that can be looked at before we move forward on the lower ten and also keep in mind our customers and retailers will have options in the marketplace, too. by that time at the spectrum may have been brought on line and if they need more spectrum for their customers they can buy it from somebody else so there are different ways to skin the cat down the road and we are willing to talk with of the government agencies and the gps manufacturers about how we do that.
>> i am worried about the future and the debt to come that something is going to happen in that timeframe between then and now to the worries me a great deal that it isn't going to happen. i'm going to yield. >> thank you. mr. carlisle, the filtering technology is the solution to interference. are you aware of how much it will cost small firms because after all this is a small business committee, and we are here because we understand that it could have been negative impact on small businesses, and i would like to know if it is important for all of us to recognize that is not just because of retrofitting but also if you took into account in indirect costs such as tying and lost resources or use of
equipment if those were included in the calculations. >> i think it highlights an important point in that faltering is not the only solution. faltering is the solution for high precision receivers. for the vast number of small businesses who day-to-day only use consumer level devices that aren't precision, moving down to the spectrum and lowering our power is going to address the issue for them. for those small as this is to use the precision equipment are very strongly our belief is it shouldn't cost them us and to the chris -- a cent. we will be depleting our network able have advanced notice of where we will be and when they will be there that there will be time for them to work with their manufacturers to get alternative is coming into the manufacturers really should be stepping forward on this. i don't think that there is any
question about that. mr. taylor and his testimony, you know, has made statements that this is all of a sudden came up and it wasn't anticipated that our power levels were all of a sudden jump up operating at transmission levels and power levels approved in 2005. there have been years to address this issue. >> mr. taylor, the dod 2000 standard input filters for gps devices. can you please explain how weeks ackley this filters minimize interference and whether you currently use to filter in your gps device? >> first we do not make much in the way of gps we do a small amount so i cannot specifically address the question from the general aviation receiver point of view, we would be happy to
look at faltering as a possible means of litigating the challenges we were talking about. gps is different from the telecommunications. the way that gps signal is a broadband signal. we need to reliably discriminate the information and we need to be able to see a broadband signal to the as a filtering the limits filtering the performance of the receivers i can't tell you today to what extent >> i understand the the the plan includes to span the obligation to the entire spectrum but no details have been provided. those the company have a timetable for these expansions and how will this affect gps? >> we won't need additional capacity as i said earlier for
it least five to six years and so i think that's the outside a timetable and as i said there are many alternatives that we would want to consider to see what was commercially reasonable and safe. >> and your company believes it can increase coverage to at least 260 million people by the end of 2015. in light of our current economic conditions, what role do you see your company expanded while the broadband network is planning job creation? >> i think it will play a significant role. to build that network, you to pull out $9 billion to the american economy. we have already spent a billion dollars in american technology and put our satellites up. that was with boeing in washington state and in florida. in order to achieve a network like this you have to spend a tremendous amount of money all
across the country wherever you put a tower up, that is from your vendors, contractors and the small business people providing that service and then it's contractors and small business people providing the maintenance going forward. so we have estimated very conservatively that the impact of our investment on the american economy is 15,000 jobs supported each year for each of the five years of the build out. following that, each one of our business partners, because they don't have to spend money on owning and maintaining their own network can put that money into their own retail operations and higher jobs there. >> my question to the other three witnesses. the fcc believes that lightsquared proposed network is going to benefit and have a positive impact on broadband access for the rural small businesses, but we also know that the gps technology will be
harmed. so my question to the witnesses is how do you recommend that we proceed going forward? should an innovative idea be of great rejected without any attempt to find a technical solution? >> thank you. obviously we don't want to withhold any technology. technology is with our economy. i'm going to sound like a broken record here we need to do some testing. things are not always as they appear to be in the spectrum and i will point back to the fact the original test had one base station. i used to work for motorola. motorola was not only the company that designed the retial in the beginning. motorola was a company that invented cellular technology with the 800 megahertz system referred to. those experiences taught me that when you get two or more radios in close proximity things get a different and you will note some
of these tests were done with run radio any waste for the chamber. we need to put a couple of stations out there and i will offer my year plan of someone wants to chip in for the gas i would happy to fly to mexico is a beautiful state to make sure that this thing actually works. >> mr. cream? >> thank you. i concur with a list of the group that we need to do additional testing. being a cubs fan and knowing the spring training happens in arizona i would be happy to go out and help in any possible way i can. more testing needs to be made. we feel like broadband internet will bring an exceptional increase to our business perspective as well but if we don't of the gps to collect the data there will be no data to transfer in order to do more processing