tv Today in Washington CSPAN October 13, 2011 2:00am-6:00am EDT
>> again we all agree that we need more in the country, no doubt. but from the aviation community's point of view it has taken decades of a complicated interaction between the receivers gps consolation, ground infrastructure to come up with something as robust enough to be safe, safety of life for people to fly safely. one or two flight tests would not answer the question and i cannot tell you there is a fast answer for this. it is going to take time and analysis and interaction. i cannot see any every answer i am afraid. >> mr. carlisle what is wrong with testing? >> there is nothing wrong with testing and we are supportive of the further testing of the ntia asks for by not sure that the background material mr. taylor has read but frankly there has been a more comprehensive testing of this issue than any ever interference issue ever presented to the fcc.
there were 130 devices tested in eight independent labs over a series of months by the industry group that had 37 of the nation's top gps engineers on it. that was just the industry testing. there were dozens of devices tested in new mexico at the base by the air force and. furthermore there were devices tested by the faa and the jet propulsion laboratory. moreover, the rtca gps group ran an analysis of the minimum performance standards against or signal and the analysis is continuing to be done by the faa. so we have no issue with there being for the testing to make sure that we are absolutely safe on safety of life, but let's not ignore the fact there has been an awful lot of testing already have analysis. >> mr. shilling? >> thank you. mr. chairman, just quickly a couple of things. i guess i will go to
mr. carlisle. if the retrofit replacement of the gps receivers in the market, if you have to do a retrofit will you be paying for that or will that be the person that is having to retrofit on say a farmer for example? >> that's a very important question because for nine months with the gps manufacturers have done is they've said there's only two parties in this debate. there's the lightsquared network and the users of gps who are going to be affected. the have conveniently left themselves out of the equation. i don't think that the user should have to pay a cent. we have already paid, and the total value of the commitment is over $160 million at this point to solve the problem for the vast majority of consumer devices. for these precision devices where there is no solution that we can put on our transmission except to abandon the band
entirely, given we are talking about 100 to 200,000 devices may be a few more than that but that is the order of magnitude we are talking about coming and that our power levels have been for six years that that is the right outcome. >> very good. now i want to go to mr. greenup. i come from a large agricultural area. have you done any looks at me be if things need to be switched around how long it has to be down, how that will affect like a single contractor versus a large family farm? >> i haven't put any numbers per say but one of the things with agriculture is it is three time sensitive, and it's one of those things where if we can't get to everybody by springtime a producer can have the option and well, i've got -- a producer
could go and see a projected downtime of -- well, let me give you an example. in the state of missouri we have 1 million acres underneath high accuracy rtk coverage. if you look of 180 bushels per acre, those acres don't go through and get planted that would be $1.26 billion the producers will have lost about a year just for the 1 million acres we have in the state of missouri. >> that's a lot of corn. that's all we have. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. ranking member. my question, mr. carlisle, and i will take it into a different deduction. you talk about developing this in rural communities, correct? i'm very concerned because when
you start to look at a lot of military type activity, the military activity are on the ground and a lot of the rural communities like these in tce national training center and china lake and pact and this type of thing. my question is what type of testing, and what is your implementation plan, what have you done to work with the department of aircraft, helicopters, designating devices as well as smart munitions because i think would be a bad day for small businesses and communities if that i'm spectrum were to somehow interfere could to leave to the training exercise and given that some where it is not supposed to be. >> thank you for the question. we've been working with dod since 2008 to coordinate the use of the spectrum, and in terms of
the more recent identify issue with gps receivers, which was really only brought up in december of 2010, we have had extensive exchanges with u.s. space command about and also with northern command. the general's testimony before the house armed services committee quite accurately of land to talk that well you've got to train the way you are going to fight and so we have to be using the same equipment as we are using over there. the fact is we know where the training facilities are. we know where the proving grounds are to read today we operate under a very significant requirement to limit our power near the airfields and the navigable waterways. it limits our power sycophant lee in order to avoid any interference with aircraft or maritime receivers in our band. you can extend those operating limits to the base stations we might put near the military
bases in order to avoid that interference because you know where the activity is going on. that's one thing you can do. there are other options. >> than my other question is have we put these towers out there and run some tests on this with across the spectrum with different types of aircraft and munitions to make sure that we are certified? >> of the u.s. air force ran a classified testing of military receivers and mexico a and april of this last year. those results are classified. we are -- our consultants have not seen them, but we would assume they've run that testing. now, the ram it under our old business plan which was to start closest to gps and that is part of the reason there was the need for further testing now to make sure that velo work option works for those. >> for the rest of the panel leges the question is when was
the first time that you all heard about this impact or potential interference on the gps system? with this surprise us that we should be restrained to birthdays? >> well, not sure about birthdays, congressman, but i can tell you like a lot of issues that come up in public policy we had an issue next to our airport we learned about by reading it added in the washington business journal. we learned about this by reading about it in the newspaper. understand that the most recent application to the fcc over the thanksgiving weekend last year was literally over the thanksgiving weekend and the public purse cannot eight hendee turnover of the thanksgiving holiday which having been with of business with the federal government i felt pretty speedy but our first indication was strictly out in the public arena >> same thing. we first basically heard about it in the public arena around
the march or april time frame and then from there it was quite simply a kind of watching the news to see if this thing progresses. >> it's been less than a year trying to keep up with eight ells reports appear in the press. we have been contacted by the faa and military to provide testing so we could become involved that way. >> when we first learned about it, i will be quick, we learned of it in december of 2010 when the gps manufacturers brought it to the attention of the fcc with actually been working with gps interference issues with the communities before 2002 when we reached an agreement with them to limit our emissions into their them, so we have a cliff on the spectrum there are filters in the transmissions that stop our signal from leaking into the gps. the issue -- there was no
problem with that agreement for eight years and there is still no problem all of the equipment tested the way it should. the issue raised in the timber, 2010, much to our surprise as much as everybody else here was that the gps receivers look well into our band. so it doesn't really matter if we are limiting our signal. if we are operating within our brann to be condemned with frequencies they are looking at it and can be overloaded. so that is what we learned of it and we've been dealing with since then, too. >> thank you mr. turney. i yield back. >> what would it cost to retrofit -- not retrofit but for the device is not the father of four built yet to accommodate your bandwidth? >> it depends on the device. if you dhaka what cellular phones where you've got millions of these devices and you can build at a very high level of
the volume you are talking about filters that cost less than a nickel that excess today that can go into this. i think the there was some ambiguity or just nobody knew how expensive a would be to develop a filter for the precision devices which are the hardest ones to deal with. we now know that you can deal with precision receivers on the market today and also sold to government agencies and surveyors and all sorts of people use them for $6. so going forward, this is a very small increment cost to deal with. >> if you missed me will be able to provide internet service to another 50 billion people in the rural communities? >> is that on top of the 260 million we are required? absolutely. we have already struck deals with several companies we have the potential to go outside of our footprint that's cellular south, wireless and southern illinois come and just today we
announced a deal with a company that plans to deploy doud to did thousand people or less that will reach deleterious that have been historically underserved. we may not have a regulatory requirement to serve but it's good business to do it and we should be doing it. >> have you done studies on the potential growth from that economic growth? >> i know that there are studies out there that indicate broadband infrastructure investment is one of the major determinants of economic growth. i grew up in the world neighborhood that, you know, where we had a electromechanical switches until the 1980's in california, and i will tell you the one thing that keeps people in the communities is if they feel they've got economic opportunity there. they are not going to have the economic opportunity if you don't have the highway going out there. the same thing is they are not
calling to have that opportunity if you don't have the broadband infrastructure today. it's not going to happen. leave aside issues like public safety, provision of medical services and education. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. tipton. >> thank you mr. truman. mr. carlisle, i would like to go back to one of your comments you talked about the filters stopping of the leaking as you described at. is that 100% with the filters there's not going to be a problem? >> yes, sir that was confirmed in the industry tested government testing confirming they are doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing. they filter the signal down to the level that is a thousand times stricter than what the fcc requires and the was a level
that the gps industry picked and 2002 and asked us to agree to so that's what we agreed to. >> i come from rural colorado and supportive of broadband be moved out into rural america but we have a lot of problems right now particularly for small businesses that are struggling in terms of a lot of the cause. and then the more so probably than a lot of our farmers gps users who are already struggling right now in our economy. the u.s. census bureau estimates that about 50 million people live in these rural areas. how many of the 50 million citizens that are in rural america right now would receive new broadband service and additionally, can you tell us how many would be covered by lightsquared if you move forward with your operations? >> in terms of what your list service they would get the day we turned on and our next generation units out there. remember we have a satellite
that covers 100% of the united states and up to 200 nautical miles offshore. and it reaches these devices. that's why we spent a billion dollars on it. we spent 250 million of that inventing technology that have never been built before. so, when the day we are not there -- >> is that satellite, is that just a receiver that transmits the technology on the ground? >> it's a pipe, so you can put basically any kind of signal you need over it. so, and that would operate at speeds that are approximate what you get to see you can do phone calls, e-mails and texts. wind we've rollout, the rollout of the network that's going to depend on the business deals we do and the opportunity but i will say this. we've had a significant amount of interest from the companies who don't see an alternative to be able to bill about on this issue and there is a
700 megahertz for the development that was put out there and unfortunately, those carriers can't get enough of a volume to be able to attract the new chip companies and handset manufacturers to put the frequencies on their devices so it's been difficult for them to actually have an independent we've moving forward and that's why entities like the cellular association support lightsquared. >> that's an important point because it does get down to economics. in your statement he claimed that the revised implementation plan would solve interference for 99.5% of gps receivers and making the assumption this is obviously a big assumption that you're figures are completely accurate i a understand that 4.5% of their receivers are affected by the high precision receivers used in agriculture, construction surveying. you stated in your testimony
this figure is actually 750,000 to i believe a million units. that is a lot of americans that are going to potentially be negatively impacted by this implementation. how are we going to deal with that? >> to be clear about the number i think 99.5% is probably a liberal estimate of it. if you take them the worst case scenario of only 400 million devices in the universe which seems to be the minimum we have ever seen as an estimate, and 1 million precision devices being out there which is the largest number we've ever seen estimated it is 2.5% of the percentage so the number should be 7.9%. but in terms of we fix that there are three factors which indicated the universe is not going to need to be replaced. first a significant number of precision devices use different types of technology, some use satellite technology to achieve high levels of precision and
some like artie ks terrestrial technology so when you test these out to see different results and ten out of 38 were fine. the majority won't be and by the way and they didn't suffer harmful interference under the strict definition of harmful interference used by the manufacturers. not all of them are going to be affected, not all of them are going to be used in close proximity to where we will be operating even in the rural communities where we are deploying we may only have the grout network and the dense areas rather than in the far field faraway. and then third but it isn't a flash cut we will be deploying over five years and we will have an unprecedented level of transparency as to where we are going to be and when we're going to be there so people will know well in advance and a certain number of these devices are going to change of the ordinary course of business any way. so, in terms of the cost i think you start getting that portion
if you assume it is 750,000 or a million is it 300,000 devices committees at 200,000 is it 100,000 we have seen that estimate from some gps manufacturers i don't know but it's not going to be the full universe and we believe that cost is appropriately boreman the manufacturers'. >> yield that mr. truman. thank you. >> no questions? what's let the record show that the first time. >> thank you i appreciate to holding this hearing and it's something that is needed to be and still needs to be aired out and i find myself in one of those conflicting pieces of real-estate that is pretty much impacted by the gps guidance of the farm equipment and can use more broadband but i want to direct my first question to mr. green and that is the impact
on precision and farm equipment gps guidance as that was developed how many years ago we are talking about perhaps ten years or so ago putting in place do you have knowledge of any efforts that were made to look at the spectrum then and the basis by which that is the decisions made to build of the guidance technology on the spectrum? >> yes i would be happy to address that issue. the agricultural industry looked at that kind of spectrum back in i believe it was around the late nineties early 2000 area and one of the things i've gotten from several manufacturers of gps is that they were actually asked to have their spectrum in that area be moveable if you will come so if the company called at the time would like to go and change the signal they were operating
on the company could move it from one side of the spectrum to the other side of the spectrum. >> in your perspective on this the spectrum purchased by light squared you disagree i think to where the overall might be, is that a fair characterization? >> yes, that is correct. >> if a decision were made on where the bright line would be rather than the gray line and how would you respond to this and devotee of him company or an entity purchases the spectrum that they have a complete full legal how right to where the bright line versus the gray line might be would you agree to that? >> mr. green? >> yes.
>> if there is to be mitigation of this problem the testimony that's been in the dialogue about the filter that at least presumably can resolve this what is your position on which side of the spectrum should pay for that technology? which side of the argument should pay for that technology? >> you know there is an old interference phrase that goes across the regular wireless network. first-come, first-served. basically when you go and put a new frequency on the power if your frequency interferes with somebody else you have to go ahead and remove your equipment or find an alternative way in order to resolve the issue. >> provided that spectra as you have said earlier. >> yes. correct. >> and so, aside from that, even with that argument, let's just
say that some entity has the authority to make the decision clearly and they draw a bright line and that breitling is some place along the line where some of this gps equipment i want to keep operating i want to solve this problem in the worst way, if it finds itself on a spectrum that is as clearly and legally determined to be lightsquared then you would say from a legal perspective it is up to the agricultural industry to take care of the cost of the filtration. >> i would say that there is no clear-cut line of this. like the other couple of gentlemen were saying frequencies have a tendency to go together, and testing out that interference and checking to see what is available is what the key is. >> siggerud see you would apply the first come first serve to that area? i've been running out of time, so we don't want to spend all focused on mr. greenup i appreciate that. i want to turned into mr. carlisle who was in this dialogue and ask the office a
180-degree opposite of the questions. so the shoe is on the other foot if it is determined in a way that the gps people are there with a spectrum that they have a claim with 30 is a gray area or a lead over or first-come first-served who then would you say should pay for the filtration, and i think you testified, i'm going to guess this, the problem can technologically be sold to the dissent is the dinosaur down to who writes the check to solve it? ..
i've got an excerpt here from a garmin g-900 x cockpit gps device manual, which says this complies with fcc rule i just mentioned. subject to following two conditions. the device may not cause harmful interference and this device must accept any interference received including interference that may cause undesired operation. >> i conclude the earth sides of argument looking for tax pay, to pay the difference? >> absolutely not. >> no.
>> i'm glad to hear that, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. carlisle, as far as the testing goes you guys tested the upper bandwidth but still in the process of testing lower bandwidth and those results are in yet. >> technical work group testing which is industry testing, for all lower devices the testing was conducted. we have lower set of data for all 130 devices. further testing needed to be done for classified receivers that were no the tested on the lower 10 in the independent government testing and some additional validation testing as ntia set out in its letter a couple weeks ago. >> my next question, mr. taylor and mr. carlisle can comment too, you talk about a lot over the course of the next five or six years there is going to be normal changeout of devices but in the aviation community because they are so expense safe because of certification issues out there there are still a lot of older devices out there that are working and working
very well and we hope work well into the future but mr. taylor, can you comment on those? you know the ones i'm talking about. the ones came out in the '90s, late '90s and early 2000s. >> yes, sir, normal service life for commercial aviation equipment is minimum 15 years. we're required to support equipment 15 years. often lasts much longer than that it is incredibly expensive to make a change to aircraft or critical system like gps the larger aircraft more complex the change. those systems that predate this entire discussion are in the field, in thousands. i know thousands is not a big number compared to the numbers we're hearing in terms of equipment fielded here but 1,000 that you care about. it he is a airplanes thaw fly on every day. many of them have equipment that was developed long before this debate started and to which, to which no one knows the answer. i don't know answer. i build it. i don't know the answer to susceptibility.
that equipment will, in the normal course of business be in service for at least another five years. some of the old equipment, some of it much longer than that. it lasts for a long time and it stays in service. on the spectrum i just want to clarify something on the spectrum. the rtca as you said, the rcca, preliminary report which is a quick report, said that if light speed, lightsquared, excuse me, stays at the lower five megahertz of the lower spectrum, lower half of lower spectrum at very reduced power you just impinge or don't impinge on the standards which new equipment is developed, brand new equipment. if you two to the next 10, next five megahertz of the lower band its acquisition is affected. tracking might be affected. you go to the upper band, acquisition and track something affected. rcca said at full spectrum there will be no gps aviation service across the
entire united states and close to any major service where the system is operating. today i heard for the first time the lower 10 megahertz is the one that is contemplated. if the lower 10 megahertz is used even as reduced powers we're discussing rcaa says i say you will have problems with aviation gps receivers even the newest ones in service today. who knows what the story is with the older ones. >> mr. carlisle. >> i like to correct the record on a couple things. first of all what rtca found. what it found that the lower five was clear and the next five megahertz for tracking was likely fine, but there could be issues with acquisition and further analysis was necessary. faa is undertaking that further analysis. the rtca report did say if we were using our upper 10 megahertz then that could impact aviation but unfortunately, you know, this issue continues to be inflated into our new proposals to move down to
the lower 10 at the power levels we were authorized to do in 2005. the other point that i would mention is on the aviation receivers and whether the older ones are better than the newer ones. one thing we found through the testing process is months and months and months ago when we were at the very beginning of this i think we, like other people just assumed, well this has got to be old gps receivers that just, you know, it is old technology. certainly the newer technology is better. well what we found out was that wasn't actually the case. older technology actually is in some cases less susceptible to this kind of interference because it is not as wide open. the gps industry has moved further and further into more and more precise equipment that requires you to pick up more gps energy. requires them to look further and further into our band and where i'm happy to get further, follow-up
information on this to make sure i'm recalling this correctly but my understanding is the older rtca standards which predated the currently applicable ones are actually less open and have less wide open receivers than the ones that are currently authorized under the current standard and that's the one that's being analyzed today but weill provide follow-up information on to make sure that's correct. >> mr. boykin, did you have a comment? >> far be it from me to spoil a really good party but in fact i'm following along with the rtca paper and mr. carlisle is exactly accurate in his comments about that but what it points out there that there is a small margin for error. that same paper points out that traditionally gps being an aviation safety service includes acceptable safety margin as standard practice. i'm starting to see numbers here getting very small and very small safety margin so
my comment would be back to the same comment we started with. significant amount of testing needs to be done and as my colleague from the the gps manufacturer said, that isn't going to be taken lightly and isn't going to be done tomorrow. >> mr. greene, i will give you the last word. >> well, we all know hough wireless internet to rural areas as well as gps to the rest of the, to the rest of the country and how much of an economic impact and like to go on follow everybody else and say that you know what? more testing does need to be done and i hope we doesn't jump into a situation that gets everybody in trouble in the end. >> want to thank y'all for participating today. the committee will very closely follow the action of the fcc and the lightsquared proposal and i plan to send a letter to the fcc reinforcing the need for comprehensive tests of all types of devices to insure
the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: madam president, international trade has always been controversial. that has been true since the days of the smoot-hawley effort. hawley, by the way, was an oregon congressman. and it continues to be true today. but it is so important to our country and so important to my home state that i made a special priority when i was given the honor of serving on the senate finance committee to queue up to be able to chair the subcommittee on international trade and global competitiveness, because i think it is so important that we continue here in the united states senate to keep pushing -- and there's going to be a lot of work to do after these agreements have been voted on -- to get this right. but i want to describe today
three aspects of this debate that are indisputable. in other words, we have lots of differences of opinion with respect to past agreements -- did they create jobs, they didn't create jobs, how did it affect various parts of the country. suffice it to say, reasonable people can differ with respect to these analyses. but i've been able, as the chair of this subcommittee, the senate finance subcommittee on trade and competitiveness, to dig 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 an opportunity to feed this huge demand for american goods and services. i think we ought to go forward and tap this opportunity. and, madam chairwoman, the bottom line is if we don't take this opportunity to burnish this brand "america" and get our goods and services around the world, we can be very sure that somebody else will be right there, and it is most likely to be china. that's point number one, madam
president. i think it's indisputable. point number two is the challenge today in global markets is to capture the entire supply chain, madam president. that means everything from raw materials to component parts, to the finished good. and when i talk about this opportunity to capture the global supply chain, madam president, what it means to me in oregon -- and i thisty meanings the same thing in north carolina or north dakota -- i see our friend and colleague; he is the ranking member on the trade subcommittee; it's been a pleasure for me to work with him -- i think all over the united states, capturing this supply chain in the global economy means the same thing. and that is, what we ought to do -- what i say at home in oregon,
i'm sure my friend from south dakota says seact the same ching -- says exactly the same thing -- let us make it in oregon. let us add value to it in oregon and then let us ship it somewhere. it is a huge, huge opportunity we have in front of us, madam president, to tap this global supply chain where, once again, if we walk away from this kind of opportunity, we can be very certain that china will be right there to fill that roid. -- that void. the third issue involves the question of tariffs. and, madam president, i've heard people say, well, you know, these agreements have lots of other things in them, lots of other provisions that are unrelated to tariffs. there's no question that that's accurate. but, at the end of the day,
madam president, if our tariffs are, in effect, high -- when we want to ship our products around the world, when we get faced with very high tariffs from those we -- those markets that we want to get into and when countries ship to us, they have low tariffs, that is a very substantial advantage for our trading partners. as i highlighted yesterday in the senate finance committee, when we want to send our beef, oregon beef, to korea, we face a 40% tariff when we send it to korea. when they send their beef to us here in the united states, it's 4%. it's a tenfold tariff. madam president, i can go through a whole host of other products. where wine from my state goes into korea it is a 15-fold
difference. value-added wood products. i know the senator from north carolina cares an awful lot about wood products. well, the fact of the matter is if we want to send finished wood into korea, not the raw materials, we all know that what we want to do is add value to wood products, a key component of the pacific northwest economy, the southern economy. we want to add value to it. the fact is that the tariffs are four times as high for finished wood products in korea as they are here in the united states. now, these are indisputable facts, madam president. the question of the tariffs, the question of the global supply chain, and the brand u.s.a. opportunity that i've described is this huge appetite for american goods and services that exists around the world that i think we'd be making a
grave mistake to pass up. now, there are a lot of other issues associated with the votes that we're going to have to cast. i feel very strongly about the trade adjustment assistance program, madam president, because i want to make sure that in an economy that is constantly changing, our workers have a trampoline in effect to get the training and the skills to get into other areas. and people think that the trade adjustment assistance program is just about workers. madam president, this is a crucial program for employers, and that's why it has so much support among employers. employers need those talented workers in order to meet the demands that they have to produce those quality goods and services.
and by the way, madam president, one of the concerns business is continually citing and increasingly so is the mismatch that they often face where they need workers who have one sort of skills and people have been trained for something else. so with the trade adjustment assistance program, we can close that problem. we can do more to ensure that we get to our businesses workers with the kinds of skills that they need most and do something about this mismatch. so the idea that trade adjustment assistance is just for workers is really a mistake of fundamental -- fundamental understanding of what the program is about because it is a major plus to our employers. so we're going to be zeroing in on these kinds of issues,
worker issues. another one that we'll be looking at on the spee -- subcommittee involves issues relating to workers' rights under the u.s.-colombia free trade agreement. there our concern is violence, demonstrable, serious violence against colombian union members and the impunity that the perpetrators of such violence have enjoyed. now, this situation does seem to be getting a bit better. the santos administration understands the concern. there is an agreement with colombia on an action plan on labor that sets in motion a series of steps the colombian government is taking to provide workers with more adequate labor rights and protection from violence, but there is a lot more to do, madam president, and i intend to conduct meaningful oversight over the labor situation in colombia and
colombia's adherence to its commitments to the obama administration. as far as i'm concerned, that's going to start, madam president, just as soon as these agreements have been voted on and senators stabenow and senator cardin and senator many dez will be joining me and -- menendez will be joining me and we're going to work to make sure that the obama administration provides the congress with annual reports on the labor situation in colombia and the impact of the labor action plan that was reached by the obama administration and the santos administration. so, i've mentioned trade adjustment assistance. i've mentioned labor rights. and i want to really close in terms of future work that's related to this topic, madam president, by talking about china. because certainly these trade agreements and to tap the
opportunity, particularly in our country, for family wage employment through more exports is going to require tougher enforcement of our trade laws and particularly the obama administration getting serious about enforcing the laws on the books. we have had a series of investigations looking at cheating, cheating, madam president, i use that word specifically, i guess you could call it merchandise laundering. because some of our trading, you know, partners when they're found to violate the counterveiling duty laws instead of come into compliance, they just ship it through another country. and this is going to be an even more important challenge, and we've got bipartisan legislation in order to stop the cheating,
to strengthen the enforcement. it's going to be even more important to pass that effort to eliminate this kind of cheating because with respect to the agreement and korea, chinese suppliers have a long history of laundering their goods through korea in order to avoid u.s. trade laws. so the question of cheating, which we have documented in our hearings of the finance subcommittee on international trade, bipartisan bill, three democratic senators, three republican stories, we're ready to go, i was very pleased in the discussion in the finance committee, chairman baucus and senator hatch, the ranking minority member, said that this effort to fight these practices, this kind of cheating which potentially could
get worse unless you strengthen enforcement, chairman baucus and senator hatch said it was going to be a priority for them, and they wanted to make our anti-cheating legislation a must-pass effort before the end of this year. that they would attach it to a must-pass piece of legislation. i could go on, madam president, even today the administration is going forward with the anti-counterfitting agreement -- counterfeiting agreement without doing it with the approval of the united states congress. i think that's a mistake, a misreading of the law that the executive branch can just do it of its open accord. we're going to tackle that in the days ahead because those issues are important now, they will be even more important given the expansions of trade and commerce when these agreements are approved. so there is a lot to do, but at
the end of the day, madam president, if we miss one opportunity to do more in this country to market our brand around the world, and to make things here and grow things here and continually add value to them, dominate that supply chain which i think is going to be the overriding issue for global competitiveness in the days ahead. if we walk away from those issues, madam president, we're walking away from the opportunity for our people to get good-paying jobs in the private sector. in my home state, international trade is a very significant barometerrer of our economy with estimates being one out of seven jobs in oregon depends on international trade and the trade jobs pay better than do the nontrade jobs. i don't want other countries to get those opportunities to get
their goods and services, high-value goods and services that i'd like to see oregon workers and american workers have a chance to make here. madam president, i call them red, white, and blue jobs. that's the kind of jobs i want for this country, that i know the president and the senate wants, where we do allow american productivity and american ingenuity to continually innovate -- there are other issues. i know the president of the senate cares a great deal about tax policy, global tax policy, senator coats and i have a bipartisan tax reform proposal so we look forward to working with you on that issue. but today is a chance to expand our opportunity to get the american brand, the u.s.a. brand for goods and services in markets that are growing, in markets that you can bet china
wants, and madam president, i know this is controversial, has been, as i said, since the days of smoot-hawley and we oregonians sure know a little bit about that because of congressman hawley. but i think for our workers and the chance to get our goods and services into growing markets, growing markets that china wants, i hope my colleagues will support this effort and support the agreements. and with that,e dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i, too, rise in strong support of the pending trade agreements with america's allies, colombia, south korea and panama. these agreements hold great promise for service providers, manufacturers and american consumers and i would echo what my colleague from oregon, who does chair the subcommittee on trade in the finance committee has already said that these trade agreements position american businesses to capture more of that supply chain, to
enable us to create jobs here at home, and to grow the economy, to generate economic activity out there that otherwise we wouldn't see happening. so at a time when we need to focus our measures on measures that will promote job creation, these agreements are exactly the type of legislation we ought to be considering. there is broad consensus these agreements will benefit our economy. the boom white house estimates that enactment of these three trade agreements will boost exports by at least $12 billion supporting over 70,000 american jobs. the business roundtable estimates passage of these trade agreements will support as many as 250,000 american jobs. and these are not only jobs that large businesses but increasingly, at smaller companies that are accessing international markets. just as an example of that, more than 35,000 small business -- i should say small and mid-sized american businesses export to colombia, panama and south korea.
and these firms now account for more than one-third of u.s. exports to these countries. passing these three trade agreements will provide export opportunities to american businesses of all sizes, creating good-paying jobs here at home. the benefits to u.s. agriculture of passing these agreements are especially compelling. these three agreements are estimated to represent $3 billion in new agricultural exports that will support 22,500 u.s. agricultural-related jobs. my state of south dakota is a good example. you look at the export potential for u.s. agriculture represented by these agreements according to the american farm bureau federation these agreements will add $52 million each year to south dakota's farm economy. south dakota's projected to gain $22 million from increased beef exports, $25 million from increased exports of wheat, soybeans, and corn and $5 million from increased pork shipments each year. america's market
has already largely open to imports from our trading partners. almost 99% of agricultural productproductsproducts from cod panama enter the united states duty-free. without trade agreements to ensure similar treatment for our export he is, american businesses will continue to face high tariff and nontariff barriers abroad. consider just one example and that's the market for agricultural products in korea, which is the world's 13th largest economy. korea's tariffs on imports agricultural goods average 54%, compared to an average of 9% tariff on their imports into the united states. so passage of the korea free trade agreement will level this playing field. think about that, madam president. 54% for our exporters to get into the korean market, 9% tariff for their exports coming here. that is a huge discrepancy that will be rectified by passage of this agreement. korea's market for pork products
in particular underscores how removing barriers can benefit u.s. farmers and ranchers. u.s. exports to south korea have increased 130% from january to july of this year because korea temporarily lifted its 25% duty on pork imports due to an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in korea. during this perked the korean market surpassed canada to become the third-largest export destination for u.s. pork producers after japan and mexico. korea's tariff on pork imports is expected to return but would be permanently eliminated by 2016 under the terms of the u.s. and south korea free trade agreement. so that we know that when we eliminate barriers to u.s. exports, american producers will compete and win in the global marketplace. however, if we fail to act and continue to delay implementation of these agreements, the cost to our economy will also be
substantial. the united states chamber of commerce study warns that failure to enact the three pending trade agreements could threaten as many as 380,000 american jobs and the loss of $40 billion in sales. the cost of inaction on trade is high because today we flif a global economy where american producers rely on access to foreign markets. consider that in 1960 exports accounted for only 3.6% of our entire g.d.p. today exports account for 12.5% 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 three trade agreements that we're considering today were signed over four years ago, and this administration had more than two and a half years to submit them to congress for consideration but failed to do so. instead, the president chose to sit on these agreements and not send them to congress for nearly now 1,000 days. we cannot quantify precisely the cost of this unfortunate delay, but we know that it's put american exporters at a competitive disadvantage in the colombian, korean, and pan manian markets. on july 1, the european union-china trade agreement went into effect. in just the first months after this took effect, e.u. exports jumped nearly 37% while u.s. exports to korea rose by only 3
pmplet let's be clear about what this means, madam president. korean consumers are choosing to buy german, french, and british cars, electronics, and agricultural products rather than american-made products because those european products now have a price advantage. this was entirely preventable, if we'd acted on the u.s.-korea trade agreement sooner. likewise, the canada-colombia agreement went into effect on august 15 of 24 year. this is resulting in an advantage for canadian goods such as construction equipment, aircraft and range of other industrial and agricultural products. colombia is now reporting that since the canada-colombia trade agreement took effect, there's been an 18.3% increase in colombian imports of canadian wheat. much as with korea, u.s. business are finding themselves disadvantaged because the president waited so long before sending these agreements to congress. unfortunately, the nextgenive
impact of the -- the negative impact of the colombian-canada agreement -- just a few years ago, american wheat producers dominated the market in colombia with a 75% market share as of 2008. today we are facing a situation where u.s. wheat producers are likely to be completely shut out of the colombian market if we don't afnlgt hopefully by passing these agreements today and by swiftly implementing the u.s.-colombian trade promotion agreement, our wheat producers will be able to recover much of their lost market shaimplet but they should never have been placed in this position to begin w in 2010 for the first time in the history of u.s.-colombian trairksd the u.s. lost to argentina its position as colombia's number-one agricultural supplier. consider the story of three of the major crops that we grow in south dakota -- coy bean, corn, wheat.
there's been a staggering decline of 50 percentage points in our market share. er u.s. corn sales to colombia fell from 3 million metric tons in 2007 to 700,000 metric tons in 2010. this is the high cost, madam president, of delay while our trading partners pursue new regional and bilateral trade agreements. there's also been the cost of duties that have been paid owns exports while these agreements waited. there's a u.s. company -- u.s. companies have paid more than $5 billion in tariffs to colombia and panama since the trade agreements with these nations were signed more than four years ago. let's consider the cost of delay to just one american company, and that's caterpillar. a leading producer of large construction and mining equipment and a major u.s. exporter. caterpillar exports 92% of its
american-made large mining trucks. cat pill lars large trucks -- large truck exports to colombia face a 15% duty, which adds about $300,000 to the cost of each of these trucks exported to colombia. i mean, how does that work, madam president? think about that. every truck that caterpillar send into the colombian market that's an additional $300,000 on top of the cost of that piece of equipment for the tariff that has to be paid. just imagine the advantage that caterpillar could have had for the last several years over its japanese and chinese competitors if the house of representatives that at the time was controlled by the democrats back in 2508 had not refused to consider the colombia agreement when president bush submitted it or if the current administration had acted sooner. and that is just one example of countless others out there with american businesses. so i'm glad we're here today and i expect all three trade agreements to pass with what i
hope is broad, bipartisan support. i hope we also have learned an important lesson. we cannot afford to delay when it comes to international competition and trade. i hope the white house has learned an important lesson as well. rather than submitting to congress divisive matters where there is fundamental disagreements such as new tax increases, this administration should identify measures such as these trade bills that will spur our economy and where there is broad bipartisan agreement. the president sent his american jobs act to congress exactly a month ago today. yet we only just last night voted on whether we should consider this bill. a vote that did not get a single republican and it didn't get every democrat vote either. contrast that approach with these free trade agreements which were submitted to consequently by the president just nine days ago. within about a week and a half, these trade agreements will have passed the relevant committees in the house and the senate with large bipartisan votes and will be on the president's desk
awaiting his signature. clearly reaching across the aisle on measures where both parties can find agreement is a much more effective approach. and so i would urge my colleagues to support these job-creating trade bills based upon their merits. i would also urge my colleagues to support these bills to send a message that when this administration is willing to send us commonsense, pro-growth legislation, we are ready and willing to pass it. we can only hope that our votes today on these trade agreements will set that precedent. so, madam president, i look forward to voting for these long overdue agreements on behalf of american businesses and consumers, and i look forward hopefully to being able to act on what are truly pro-growth job measures in the coming weeks and months. we have an economy that continues to struggle with over 9% unemployment. we continue to see month after month, a lot of americans who are without jobs, and this is one example of something that we
can do to address that concern, but there are lots of other things out there that we could be doing as well, madam president, if we're willing to identify those things on which there is agreement and those types of policies that actually do create jobs, that are about getting americans back to work not about making some sort of a political statement. i hope that will be -- this will set a pattern and a trend that will be replicated in the future and that we can do some things that are really good for the american comid and for american jobs. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: i thank you for the recognize nicks and i want to join with my good friend from south dakota and the comments he made about the disadvantage we create the for ourselves by not moving forward with these trade agreements long ago. but we are going to move forward today. jump-starting america's economy is going to require
bipartisanship. if we're going to compete with a global economy, it means we're all going to have to work together to help create economic opportunities for americans who are looking for work, to create those private-sector jobs that are the difference in a prosperous economy, an economy that's struggling. mr. blunt: last night the notion open debate on the president's so-called jobs bill was amend by his own party and was defeated then by a bipartisan vote here in the senate. that's not the kind of bipartisanship we need. we need bipartisanship moving forward, not bipartisanship walking away. the bill was defeated because it doesn't make economic sense, as the president said in august of 2009, to raise taxes on job creators and in fact the administration by its own accounting says that roughly 80% of the people who would be impacted by the surtax imposed by the bill that was set aside last night would be defined as businesses, the very businesses
that need to create jobs in an economy where that should be the number-one priority. the president's first $800 billion stimulus plan failed to stimulate. it didn't really crest the private-sector -- it didn't really create the private-sector jobs we need and my view was that it was more of the same. today isn't mofort same. today is a bipartisan opportunity to move forward with a bipartisan bill and to help jump-start our economy. if there's low-hanging fruit in job creation, it is exporting products to markets that want to buy our products. and this is not about labor conditions in colombia or whatever might happen in korea or panama. this is about products that american workers make and whether they can get into those markets or not. madam president, i'd say one other time that for well over a decade now, colombian products
all come into our country without a tariff under something called the andean free trade agreement. well, so this can't be about colombian labor. must be be about american labor and what can we do for american workers? we can open up markets for american products, and that's what we're going to do today for, as i hope we move to agree to these trade bills. these trade agreements would mean an additional $2.5 billion per year in agricultural exports. every $1 billion worth of ag exports means an estimated 8,000 new jobs. in missouri, the trade-related jobs grew by more than three times faster than other employment from 2004 to 2008. i recently asked missourians on facebook and twitter to share some of their personal stories about have they -- how they thought these trade agreements would impact their lives.
glenn coke, a full-time farmer from aroar are, missouri, said "agriculture is not drawing young people to stay on the farm because it's difficult to make land payments based on what little we get for the products we produce versus the inputs and this habit case now for generations." glenn called on dong help farmers by creating more demand for our products, if we're going to get young people to stay and take over the famplet madam far. their parents and grand parents have produced food for much of the world today. glenn coke's generation can continue to do the same. another farmer told me that if these trade deals pass, her family could receive almost $11 more for every hog they sell. she noted that while $11 are may not sound like a lot it sure seems like a lot when they were losing $20 for every hog they sold from 2007 through 2010.
that difference makes the difference in whether that family stays on the farm or not. chris urged do think pass these agreements because this -- quote -- "increased the revenue that will help us meet increased expenses and help us ensure our family farm will be there to pass on to my kids," according to to her who she said would be the sixth generation of farmers in her family. barbara wilson noted that agriculture fuels the economy in our small town of mexico, missouri. she told me that the passage of these free trade agreements would lead to an increased demand for our corn, soybeans and stressed that when the agricultural economy is good, the economy in our small town benefits. and that means increased jobs in all sectors of that small-town economy. brian hammonds in stockton, missouri, told me significant
government trade barriers are hurting his attempts to compete and develop markets for american black walnuts which are harvested by hand in missouri and other midwestern states. brian noted that if these trade deals pass, our company could buy more black walnuts from thousands of people in missouri and 11 other states providing cash to those rural areas. and even more importantly, the increased production activity from processing these walnuts would allow us to provide more employment for people in our rural missouri community. these are just a few of the farmers and job creators in missouri who have been calling on congress to pass these trade agreements. i look forward to voting for these agreements tonight. i hope a huge majority of my colleagues join me in voting for the south korean agreement, the panama agreement, the columbian agreement, and we send a message to the world that we intend to compete in a world economy.
and if we're given the chance to compete, american workers can compete with anybody, and these trade agreements provide an opportunity to do that. i yield back the floor. mr. sanders: madam president, i enjoyed the remarks -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i enjoyed the remarks from my friend from missouri. unfortunately, i can't quite agree with the thrust of his statement. in my view, the current trade policies in this country are a disaster. the evidence is very clear that they have cost us many millions of jobs. and to continue that same unfettered free trade philosophy in terms of trade agreements with korea, panama and colombia makes absolutely no sense at all. when you have a policy that is failing, you change it.
you don't continue it. madam president, let us be very clear, as i think most americans understand, our economy today is in a disastrous shape. our middle class is disappearing. recent statistics told us that poverty levels are at an all-time high. and the gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider. and in my view, one of the reasons -- not the only reason -- but one of the reasons for the collapse of the middle class has to do with the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs, attributable to these disastrous trade policies. and if we are serious as a nation in wanting to rebuild the middle class, lower our poverty rates, what we have got to do is move forward in a new direction in trade based on fair trade principles and end this unfettered free trade which has
been such a disaster for american workers. madam president, over the last decade, we as a nation have lost 50,000 manufacturing plants in our country. i want to repeat that because that is such a staggering number that it needs to be said over and over again. 50,000 manufacturing plants in this country have shut down over the last ten years alone. we have lost during that same period 5.5 million factory jobs, and many of those jobs are good-paying jobs. they are jobs that provided people with good wages and good benefits. those jobs are gone, and in many cases have been replaced by wal-mart, mcdonald-type jobs,
low wages, minimal benefits. madam president, to give you an extent about how significant the decline in manufacturing in this country is, the reality is that in 1970 -- 1970 -- 25% of all jobs in the united states were manufacturing jobs, and today that number is just 9%. 9%. in july of 2000, there were 17.3 million manufacturing workers in this country. today there are only 11 million manufacturing workers. in my small state of vermont -- vermont is not ohio, it's not michigan. it has never been one of the great manufacturing centers in the country. but even in a small state like vermont, what we have seen is a huge decline in good-paying manufacturing jobs which have certainly impacted our middle class. ten years ago we had
approximately 45,000 manufacturing jobs in vermont. last year we had 31,000 manufacturing jobs. we've lost about a third of our manufacturing jobs. and i should tell you, mr. president, that 7,800 of those jobs were lost as a result of the trade agreement with china and another 1,300 were lost as a result of nafta. the key issue here today, mr. president, is whether we continue our disastrous trade policy which includes nafta, permanent normal trade relations with china and cafta. do we add on to trade policies which have failed? and for the love of me, i cannot understand why anybody would want to do that. and the facts are very clear, our current trade policies have failed, have been a disaster for
working families. according to a recent study conducted by the well-respect economists at the economic policy institute, the pntr, permanent normal trade relations with china, has led to the loss of 2.8 million american jobs. 2.8 million american jobs. and i remember because i was in the house when that debate took place, and i heard the same they think then as i hear now. members of congress getting up and talking about all the new jobs that were going to be created. well, it wasn't true then. it is not true now. how can you defend a trade policy based on the same principles as pntr with china when that policy has cost us 2.8 million jobs in the last year alone? and then we got nafta. many of us remember all the rhetoric around nafta. my goodness, we're going to open
up the entire mexican economy for products made in the united states of america. we're going to be selling it in mexico. does anybody in america believe that that policy has worked, that nafta has worked? the facts are very clear, again according to the e.p.i., they found that nafta has led to the loss of 680,000 jobs. so the simple reality is you don't have to be a ph.d. in economics to figure out that if a company has the option of hiring somebody in a low-wage country at 50 cents an hour, 70 cents an hour, don't have to deal with unions, don't have to deal with environmental standards, why would you not go to those countries? well, the answer is you would go. the answer is they have gone. and that's what these trade policies are about. not selling american-produced
products abroad, but creating a situation where companies can shut down in america, move factories abroad and bring those products back into this country tariff-free. now, mr. president, we have quote after quote after quote from members of congress who have got up on the floor during the nafta debate, during the china debate, and they told us about all the jobs that were going to be created. and it is astounding to me that i keep hearing that rhetoric when in fact nothing said in the past has proven to be true. let me just quote my good friends -- that's in quotes. they're not really good friends -- from the u.s. chamber of commerce. they tell us, u.s. chamber of commerce tells us -- and i quote -- "this is th -- this is the discussion about korea, panama and colombia.
"this is foremost a debate about jobs. at a time when millions of americans are out of work, these agreements will create real business opportunities that can generate hundreds of thousands of new jobs." end of quote. that's the chamber of commerce. wait a second, is this the same chamber of commerce that on july 1, 2004, according to the associated press, said -- and here's the headline on that article: "chamber of commerce leader advocates offshoring of jobs." end of quote. here's what the article stated about the u.s. chamber of commerce, who is such a strong advocate for these trade policies. quote -- "u.s. chamber of commerce president and c.e.o. thomas donohue urged american companies to send jobs overseas as a way to boost american competitiveness. donohue said exploiting high-paid tech jobs to low-cost countries such as india, china and russia saves companies money, et cetera, et cetera,
sets." chamber of commerce is leading the effort for these trade agreements, but their leadership tells us outsourcing of jobs is a good thing. maybe, maybe you might want to think twice before you accepted the advice of the chamber of commerce. mr. president, the united states department of commerce has reported -- and this is really very interesting not only as information unto itself but about the politics of this whole trade agreement. you've got the chamber of commerce. you've got every major multinational corporation in the country telling us how good this unfettered free trade policy is. but now we have the u.s. department of commerce has reported that over the last decade, u.s. multinational corporations slashed 2.9 million
american jobs. let's digest that. large corporations, multinationals come in here and tell us those trade agreements are great. they're good going to create amn jobs. but at the same time over the last decade they have slashed 2.9 million american jobs. tkpwu here is -- but here is the other side of the story. the truth is that these same multinational corporations were telling members of congress to vote for these trade agreements, the truth is they are creating jobs. the only problem is the jobs they are creating are not in the united states of america. they are in china and other low-wage countries. over this last same period, over this last decade, while they laid off 2.9 million american workers, these same multinational corporations created 2.4 million new jobs
abroad. lay off 2.9 million american workers. create 2.4 million jobs in china and other low-wage countries. and that in a nutshell is what these trade agreements are about. enabling corporations to shut down in america, move to low-wage countries and bring their products back into our country. and the results are very clear. the results are very clear. you don't need a great study done by the department of commerce or the economic policy institute. all you have to do today is walk into any department store in america, and when you buy a product, you know where that product is manufactured. it's not manufactured in vermont. it's not manufactured in california. it is, often it's manufactured in china, mexico or other developing countries. that has been the whole goal of
these trade agreements. shut down plants in america. move them abroad. hire low-wage workers there. bring the products into this country. and 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 displaced as a result of the increased trade deficit with china. and after all of the talk on the floor of the senate and on the floor of the house and the editorial boards of major newspapers, and by leading politicians about how the china trade agreement would create
jobs in america, it is very interesting to hear what these corporations had to say a few years after the trade agreement was passed. in other words, before it is passed, they will tell you about how we're going to create all these jobs in america. the day after it's passed, there are changes. the china free trade agreement was passed around the year 2000. a couple of years later, jeffrey immeld, the c.e.o. of general electric, was quoted on this subject at an investor meeting just one year after china was admitted to the world trade organization. this is after china -- the chinese american free trade agreement. this is what immeld said and i quote -- "when i am talking to go managers, i'm talking china, china, china, china, china.
that's him, not me, five chinas. you need to be there. you need to change the way people talk about it and how they get there. i am a nut on china. outsourcing from china is going to grow to five billion. we are building a tech center in china. every discussion today has to center on china. the cost basis is extremely attractive. you can take an 18 cubic foot refrigerator, make it in china, land it in the united states and land it for less than we can make an 18 cubic foot refrigerator today ourselves. this is the head of general electric -- who by the way i guess is president obama's great advisor of creating jobs in america -- two years after the china agreement was signed, and on and on it goes. it's not just mr. immeld. it is major corporation after major corporation. before the agreement, it's jobs are doing great in america. after the agreement, it's all of the advantages of outsourcing. and let me tell you how bad the
situation is. i think most americans know that not only it is a disaster for our economy that we're not producing the products we consume, but it is really an embarrassment. i will give you an example. mr. president, last year, the holiday season, i walked into the smithsonian museum's very beautiful american history museum. it's a great museum and i urge everybody to come to washington to visit. i walked into the gift shop of the smithsonian museum owned by the people of america, paid for by the people of america. you know what their gift shop had? most of the products in the gift shop were not made in america. turns out, they were made in china, other countries, low-wage countries around the world. i went to a section where they had little busts of presidents of the united states, george washington, thomas jefferson, barack obama. you turn it up. do you know where these busts of presidents of the united states were made? yeah, you guessed it. in china.
well, we have since been having some discussions with the smithsonian. they are in the process of changing their policies. we're in the process of working with other people as well. but that's how bad the situation is that busts of american presidents made in a museum owned by the people of the united states of america, talking about the history and culture of america, are made in china. that's just one example of how pathetic this whole situation is. and on and on it goes. by the way, mr. president, when we talk about trade, we often focus on blue-collar jobs, on manufacturing jobs, but it is also increasingly information technology jobs and white-collar jobs. just think for a moment, mr. president, that during the past four years, the cumulative trade deficit with china in advanced technology -- i'm not talking about