interestingly, when you speak to engineers, they talk about the licenses exploding unnecessarily of the demand exploding. their metrics, a gadfly and the nerds like to talk about how we can measure how full of these bands are and throughout the 2.4 gigahertz bandwidth, over 90%. nearly 100% of the users that use the wi-fi network had the opportunity to use 2.45, almost 100% chose five, suggesting 2.4 was just not a viable network for most people.

they have the explosion devices. obviously unique use case and these kinds of. i will close by saying the reason not 5.9 is so important to members of wi-fi forward by really pretty straightforward and referred reference to them, but i was pacified them here. 75 megahertz, even if the whole amount is not available for shared and wi-fi commercial uses there are still seems to us to be a real opportunity. the incumbent user base has not been established. that is an important consideration we believe. the fact is michael reference at

the cousin means that there are some engineering efficiencies that occur that make sharing and not being readily and well-suited worth studying. we heard in the five gigahertz band in which the wi-fi standard was designed for. we don't currently have the u.s. 160 megahertz channel. there are advantages to having a 160 megahertz channel. these wide channels is michael reference add value. this is an opportunity. so we support calls on the fcc to develop protocols protect

safety of life crash avoidance operations and also enable commercial usage in the band. with that, i thank you all. >> thank you, bill. now i hear from carol felt from quick knowledge. >> thank you. i will not join the sickness and might we have been hearing so far. three things happen in 1999 there were important for the development of spectrum. the ieee included the protocols that allow the creation of wi-fi. satellite was finalized so they could launch a satellite radio service and we allocated all of the spectrum away from unlicensed where it had been allocated two years earlier and gave it for dsrc.

which of these can you not find in your car? answer, dsrc. you can get satellite radio in your car. so one thing you can't get is the one thing that was actually entrusted to the ottawa industry to do to save lives. it turns out the auto industry is lousy at developing wireless technology. that is not a bad thing. it is not a problem for them. what do they know about this stuff. on the other hand, there are a lot of people who seem to be a lot better about building this stuff. i mean, and the frequencies operate differently in europe and for some reason you need all of this space here for american dsrc. has the problem spread or our

european smarter than us or can we deal with a much smaller allocation for the safety issue? the tech industry. everybody talks about ces and what's going on there. google has to do this unlicensed. all displays and safety staff they do it unlicensed. 9-1-1 is getting into unlicensed beginning for next-generation 9-1-1. so we are putting life and safety issues on wi-fi with people who do this a lot better than the car industry. monthly, spectrum squatting in this band and the car industry kills. we talk about how many people might be saved in some happy day years down the road, 20 years down the road when the systems are broadly deployed. i want to know how many people have died until today because

the car industry is squatting on spectrum that could be used for life and safety and not a mobiles, not to mention every other aspect of the economy as well. the additional problem here broadway isn't this really about licensing. bluntly, i live in a place where a lot of era running around. my car's unlicensed radar can do this stuff when a deer crosses the path. unless we are planning to track down every caribou or anything else that crosses the road, dsrc is not going to. what will help is technologies that could be deployed if there was more availability spectrum and if the auto industry were not squatting in hopes of somehow generating this. here is my concern.

both life and safety system things that are allocated if they run on a noncommercial. we do 9-1-1 and all the other public safety responders. when wade allocates back room at the fire department is noncommercial it is not. the adult industry which could do as much smaller adaptation. and holding onto a whole bunch of spectrum for something else. i'm cynical enough if something else is a revenue generator. the prospect of using this revenue is such a distraction. for over 20 years because even if they come up with something

good, and might interfere with the revenue model. instead, we take a look at what has been going on. the auto industry has consistently dragged at every opportunity. i have been doing this at the sec for a long time. i know how the spec drug interference game gets played. i know that there is no such thing as a background against which these systems operate, particularly big pieces of model, which last i checked moving the pieces of metal generate our interference field. we are in an environment where when these guys are so afraid of testing, when they have played the fcc, which is acted in good faith to try and do joint testing, these guys have stretch this out and the administration is almost over. does anybody here in d.c. really

expect them to cooperate going forward or do we think it is much more likely that they will continue to find expansion, delay, delay, delay and continue to be given the opportunity no matter how many people died. so i challenged the fcc not simply to refresh the rocker, but to have a dad line as a legal matter. nevermind the policy. nevermind political reality. as a legal matter, the sec opposed the card. this is not primary us by the federal government. this is an allocation for a service which has wasted its time whether it's actively locking license safety systems that could be saving millions of lives and some untold numbers. we need to have the fcc set a deadline or we say we are going

to do testing, but if the testing is not completed by it ate certain, we will assume that we can reallocate your suppose of life and safety system up to the top were other countries are smarter engineers manage to use it and we will open up the rest. that is the only way we are going to move this thing forward and blunt way, that is the way to start saving lives. [applause] >> thank you, harold. i suspect blair andersen might have a few things to respond to. >> hello, everybody. thank you very much. you don't normally get to speak to a group like this. it is a pleasure to be here. i have the shackles that the quietest color for.

it is an opportunity for us to talk about how to view this environment. i wanted to start from the very beginning. mary kind of touched upon some of this. our interest in both vehicle to vehicle technologies, but also on a mission stems from the fact that in 2014, 32,675 lives were lost, so we are very specific about that. i was the exact number of people who lost their lives. kind of a few interesting points that go along with that too at a little more flavor to it. of that and why we are so bullish on these innovations taking place, of those lies that were lost, 94% of them if he took the rio and want to back, 94% of those end in fatality. there is a human error that led

to the accident. so these technologies as they move forward provide an opportunity to deal with address and hopefully short-circuit. somebody earlier mentioned how we are kind of in a dynamic place in the car industry. so long we focus on how to make the car safer when it crashes. he put airbags and seatbelts and make the frame stronger or have them crumple in a way that will put the occupants in a safe position. as we move forward, we realize that is good. that's a long way over the history. but kind of how do you avoid these crashes. the crash doesn't happen. 94% of them are caused and looking forward to 2015 we have kind of had hopefully not a plateau, but looking at 2015,

the number of lives kind of a preliminary estimate for the first half of the year have gone up 8% and that is not just -- that is not just a fact that comes with increased vehicle miles traveled. there is something more going on there. potentially this kind of hit a plateau. whenever i want to mention if you look at the age ranges from 8-year-olds to 24-year-old, kind of the demographic group from a motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death within this age ranges. a sickly until you get to the age where you start having help goblins, motor vehicles is the leading areas where you have a chance of dying. so that is essentially why we combat this, why we are so excited about this. vehicle to vehicle it mentioned at the very beginning i think

there has been a lot of talk about automation and vehicle to vehicle technologies. for us, we don't look at it as an either/or. it is and does, both and. they are not mutually exclusive technologies. they complement each other vehicle to vehicle for communication you could have complements a lot of sick knowledge is being developed on the automated self driver. they shouldn't be looked at as both doing the exact same thing. they both complement each other and will work to further the safety benefits. another area i want to talk about i kind of start by laying out why they were so excited and we spent so much talking about this. another theme throughout the bad has been the history of the last 15 years and also where we go

from now. there's been a lot of talk about it reading 20, 30 years out. they would contend this happened a lot faster than most people think, that it not -- it is actually happening now. if you look at the secretary yesterday, we didn't do an official announcement, but there is some press that the vehicle to vehicle rulemaking has been accelerated. the administration and particularly secretary sox has been vocal over the past year. as of yesterday, the draft has been moved over to omb. we accelerated that. we are moving through the review process because the administration is very keen to accelerate the innovation that could take place in that arena. also, i think everybody has mentioned ces. it is clearly a playground of innovation. there's all kinds of exciting doodad that you could either.

it is not hard if you walk the floor and very clearly see that there are dozens -- many, many people working on automation, working on mobility connection, but also working on trans eyes. for instance, one example they released an aftermarket dsrc at ces this year. that will have tremendous impact on increasing the timeline of which we see the deployment of this technology. i also wanted to mention gm. we said 2017 a couple times, but 2017 -- it is 2016 already. that is a seriously think about when the model cars come out. they are planning to have them in cars and showrooms this year

by the end of the year. we are moving forward on not. overall, we are very bullish. if you look at vehicle to vehicle technology from all the research that is taking place, there are a lot of opportunities. if you take just a couple applications and kind of the number of applications that take place are obviously infinite. if you take two sample applications, one where you take a left turn and dfa are where you just go through an intersection and use dsrc to understand cars coming through or stop in at the stop sign. those alone, those two applications are enough to pay for the cost benefit of putting the technology and cars. so it is not going to be a high hurdle to make these things get benefits. i hope we have seen from a lot

of what was at ces and at ces and now gm moving forward that the timeline for this is actually here. this is not something move away 20 years for the next 30 years. it is going to be catchier shortly. the last thing i mentioned kind of in terms of what we are doing to accelerate that, we talked about the rule, but i also want to mention the department and the putting a lot of effort, time and money into trying to accelerate deployment. september we announced connected vehicle grounds where we have grants to tampa bay, new york city and wyoming to essentially deployed commercial versions of applications. more recently we announced smart

city initiative, if you haven't seen it is a very unique rare permit government standpoint. we are providing $40 million to a single size city to essentially do scale innovative conductivity program. we are not telling them exactly what it has to be. we are not telling them how to do it, but we are working with partners to try and leverage the $40 million department. paul allen foundation has added $10 million to mobilize the technology company that provides nanotechnology and works for transit companies has already pledged to take part. we continue to go up there and look for additional partners and have conversation. if you see the amount of money enough for what they put in over the course of the next year.

you can very well see a future in the next year where you have a city fully deployed, fully connected and demonstrating how the technology works, essentially proving it out, what the quirks are, but also what the benefits are. the last one i want to say and talk about why we are bullish and supportive. what we see as the timeline to this question today. michael mentioned the letter. we at the department feel very strongly about the technology, but we are open to the efficient use of it. we stand behind and are committed to do testing to demonstrate and see if some of these technologies and other

types of technologies are capable of allowing the safety protocols and the safety messages to function in a safe, reliable manner. we look forward to questions. thank you very much. >> thank you everyone. whoever said spectrum was boring has never had a panel about connect to cars and the 5.9 megahertz band. i make sure we have a few minutes for questions for the audience as well. for the point that blair was getting not that may be not unlike the license 20 years ago that trend by faith a bit more time and we should give it the space to do so from a spectrum allocation standpoint. do others agree with that point and if so, how do you balance the interest of innovation for the auto industry with a need

for space to innovate on wireless unlicensed spectrum as well as the interest of and safety. >> spectrum, squatting, that is a real problem here. that limits were in the near a place in safety we are going to hold up an entire band from other safety users or refuse technology that other apparently smarter engineers have developed and lay claim to this whole -- the qualcomm guys are pretty smart. i agree they are pretty smart. in this case they said yeah, you know what, we can put this up like they do in europe. in fact, because americans have an obesity problem we can give you another 10 megahertz. i don't see a way we can if it's

time for technology to develop in all of this to happen by putting the upper end of the band in london the technology go forward and still improve safety systems developed by other people that the availability. win-win. my question really is what kind of capacity do you need that to 30 megahertz proposed is not sufficient. you can send a signal into megahertz of capacity. it is not like her less and safety issues are downloading medical files after the accident. but, there is a dear. boom. >> i have a follow-up. well, maybe specifically pinning down to the proposals, is there

a reason that if he might face the size of the bands themselves there's a reason why the commission shouldn't separate at the end for these real-time safety applications and then create another band for other non-safety applications have been licensed? >> the issue in terms of one around the development of the ecosystem, which we see as essentially formed and ready to go in the market and we see the announcement by gm. we ourselves have announced a vehicle to infrastructure solution products about a jericho. there are dozens of the manufacturers who are out there and they have their own trade shows where they show up in great numbers as well. so we see this as an almost fully formed starting to commercialize ecosystem.

we are skeptical that someone is going to hold the rug out from under that and require the band. it may be that someone at the fcc does not or somehow that decision gets made. but we are seeing no real evidence of it. in fact, we are seeing the opposite. in the highway bill that passed last month we see numerous references by the united states congress to vehicles of infrastructure technology and specifically calling ms. dowd is something the federal highway administration will be funding in the course of the next consideration of the highway bill. so if anything, we are seeing the acceleration into the market. as i said, i don't have a technology religion and we can

be completely wrong about this. but where is the evidence that this transformation in the band will take place. >> i think mary put it very well be the one thing i would add to that is there has been a lot of time and effort put into this by a number of research to get us to a place where we are kind of on the leading edges of commercialization of products. there's been a lot of effort and money on the private sector site to create these products to move forward if it was to be re-channeled, especially a lot of that work would have to be restarted. i wouldn't say that it will take 10 years, but it will still be in the safety benefits delayed during that time. some of the commercial benefits of a lot of these companies.

>> i'm sure harold no-space images forgotten it. in europe -- [inaudible] in europe, it is somewhat different than this idea. so they should not have a vehicle to vehicle technologies deployed in the slimmed-down van that they use. to use it for other things like wrote: another stuff. but they don't have the years. the safety is red, white and blue u.s.a. >> the other thing i want to inject there in terms of significant delay or not is the party that would bear the greatest inconvenience over putting the dsrc channel at the

top instead of the bottom is qualcomm. got to design the radio on the right frequency. as i said was nice though, the last thing we want including many of those that heralded, the last thing we want is anything that would significantly delay the dsrc. obviously, the way we work designing, they would have to be testing to make sure there is a significant difference from the top of the band. it would be advocating this and i think saying that right there team. february 2014 is when it was issued and there isn't a significant delay in if there

was we wouldn't have this proposal. >> we are running low. let's start in the back. >> so, i think all of us have been this -- through this before. how do we get past the rhetoric of people are going to die. so you don't want to kill in a minister in a dear and nobody wants anyone else to die as a result of this in a car accident. so let's assume that everyone agrees that no one wants people to die as a result of policy discussions. and if we get back to bed, which historically we did with aws three as an industry, general wheeler and others said were fighters capabilities would be harmed. with this people in the battlefield if we evolved some of those in commercial use after several years of debate and

discussion, ultimately everyone agrees there is a way to a ball without really harming anyone. the country is better off as a result. it offered a lot of money to the federal government and a lot of movement of spectrum from light used to robust use. i think we have that key or if we could have everyone agree. i'm sure six of you all agree that however this plays out we don't wan people to die as a result of policy discussion. is that fair for everyone up there? bill says yes. i think everyone else is a gas. ..

we at nhtsa, we said before and i said toward the end to my remarks come we are happy to work with the we are working with fcc come into the i ate to look at how do you do the testing. obviously, would ask them to talk about safety. that's our mission. that's what we care about. lives on the highway, that's essential what our entire game is about. so getting away from mentioning that is always in the back of our mind. to your point we are committed to working with the fcc.

we're committed to working with ntia to look at and see if sharing can happen in this band. we are open to that. i think there is a test ban we've been working on internally to forget how you test these devices. our hesitation is on kind of backing away at this summer there's a lot of innovation taking place, it is really just starting to blossom, constrained the amount of spectrum that there is for folks who innovate. >> i think we are over time, and so i hope as many panels as possible can stay afterwards in a to questions individually but i think -- >> up the next come u.s. chamber of commerce ceo and president tom donahue delivering his 2016 state of american business address. and then following his speech

you will be joined by the top lobbyist for the chamber of commerce for a news conference. he is being introduced. >> asked all outlined in a minute come doing business in today's landscape is no easy feat. challenges are stacking up. businesses face underperforming economy and overreaching government and an uncertain world. to top it off we're in the middle of one of the most unpredictable campaigns ever. many of the big debates over our economy and our country's position in the world are happening in the context of this critical election. and the chamber will be at the center of much of that discussion. we don't to presidential politics, but we will do residential policy. one of the major ways we're engaging in the election is to our campaign. this is a series of letters been written by a bipartisan group of business civic and political leaders to the 40th president of the united states.

highlight the policy issues businesses care about and want the next president to focus on. you will find new entries been published right up to election day on the chamber's premier visible property above the fold. already we have featured a number of pieces representing a range of industries and perspectives. today were up with a brand-new letter from tom donohue and hope you all take a moment to check it out. for decades, has been a leading voice for business in washington across the country and, indeed, around the world. he is a visionary. he's tough and effective and he's not afraid to tell it like it is. and he is passionate and an advocate for free enterprise and a tireless champion for business and we look forward to his thoughts today. it's my pleasure to introduce the president and ceo of the u.s. chamber, tom donohue. [applause]

>> thank you very much, tom. good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to what i hope will be an exciting morning. two days ago president obama gave us his views on the state of the union. like any president would, he put the best possible face on the country's economic performance under his stewardship. what i'd like to do this morning is look at how our economy and our country are doing through the eyes of america's business people. the reality that they see is although different than the picture portrayed by our political leaders in washington, d.c. they see an economy with some

strange -- some strains but many weaknesses. they see a country with a huge upside potential, but with many downside risks. they see an america that is stark in the worst economic recovery since the great depression, with little forward momentum or diamond is him. and they know we could be doing much better -- dynamism, much better than we are today. corporate profits peaked some quarters ago. new small businesses are for me at the lowest rate in many years. they can't find the capital to get organized. for those that do have the capital there is little reason to make big, new investments that demand at home and especially abroad just isn't there.

companies depending on exports, a strong dollar and weak growth abroad, make them less competitive. for companies and countries that depend on the production, sale and movement of energy and commodities, they saw the bottom dropped out of the prices last year. how much lower will they go this year? most of our businesses would like nothing better than to pay their employees more, higher more of them come and provide better benefits. but the current economy and the current government policies are making that very difficult. just one example. compliance with obamacare is costing companies a small fortune into significantly driving up overall health care costs. when you add together americans who can't find jobs, who can't find full-time work, or who have

given up looking, we are talking about nearly 10% of american workers. meanwhile, the workforce participation rate is at a four decade low. that was the failure of congress to pass commonsense immigration reform, means that we are not only a nation or have people without jobs, but we have so many jobs in critical areas without people. i can tell you that business people at large and small companies wake up each morning and wonder what the government is going to do to them today. the current administration is on a regulatory care, and this will continue to the day the moving van backs up to the door at the

white house next january. how do we know? they have been telling us every day since the first of the year. it has unleashed a runaway epa that is stretching the law, and in some cases breaking it in order to assume control over the local economic development across america. the administration has given us a labor department and the national labor relations board better against american job creators, and in favor of their union benefactors who now represent just 6.6% of the private workforce. and so many regulators have been turned loose on our financial sector that banks have been distracted from their principal purpose, to provide credit and

services that enable our businesses to grow and our entrepreneurs to thrive. it's not just for the federal government that concerns the business community. state and local governments are piling new mandates, taxes, and costs on the backs of the private sector. we have an abusive enforcement system at the federal level, and in many states that is extorting billions of dollars from companies with little or no due process. meanwhile, governments at all levels are accumulating massive levels of debt and unfunded pension and untitled liabilities. one day, unless there is reform, this whole house of cards can

collapse. let's look for a moment beyond the shores of our rate country, our key trading partners are struggling. europe, our largest export and trading partner, is barely keeping its head above water. japan is stagnant and appears headed in another recession. brazil is -- the biggest question mark is china. global markets have already been roiled by the prospects of a reduction in china's growth from an unusually heavy highs down to 4%, 5%, 6%. who says china could never have the recession of its own? this is a huge uncertainty for the global economy. and it could also impair internal chinese stability and

regional geopolitics. speaking of geopolitics, business executives and owners reducing headlines that we all do. from the mideast to russia and eastern europe, to the south china sea to north korea, you are more geopolitical hotspots than any of us can remember at one time in our lifetime. which one will flare up tomorrow and disrupt the economies, markets, consumer confidence, travel, and very important, the global supply chains? add to that the threat of major terrorist attacks that could happen any time at any place. a nonstate terrorist group like isis have seized large swaths of territory, control significant energy resources, inc. recruits and communicates to a

sophisticated social media strategy. and then there are the many threats to our own cybersecurity, which have the potential to shut down companies, our critical infrastructure and our very way of life. businesses and governments all already spending billions and billions of dollars to try to shore up the defenses of our cyber system, but everyone knows we are still vulnerable. and, finally, ladies and gentlemen, we come to election year policy. we are in the middle of the most surprising and perplexing presidential campaign in modern history. and i would say in both parties. i used to call the lead up to the big national election as the

silly season, but given some of the rhetoric and proposals we are hearing from both parties, it's not silly. it's damn serious. sometimes a little scary. on one side we have candidates promising to double down on the current administration policy, more spending, more entitlements, more taxes, more regulating. i guess they figured that if something isn't working, just do more of it. does that make any sense? ended on the other side are the voices, sometimes very loud voices, who talk about wally off american from howlett and trade, and who are attacking whole groups of people based not on their conduct but on their ethnicity or religion. this is morally wrong and politically stupid.

what businesses want to see in this campaign is a long overdue focus on economic growth. growing the economy, the economic pot is the only realistic way to create jobs, to lift incomes, to reduce inequality and to expand opportunities for all americans. and you know what? that's what the vast majority of voters of both parties want to hear about, jobs, growth and opportunity. so when you add it all up, the state of american business in 2016 is filled with uncertainty, risks and challenges. our businesses and job creators are facing extraordinary political and geopolitical uncertainty.

economic weakness at home, especially abroad, and massive new regulatory burdens pouring out of washington and out of the state capitals. our countries unattached, unmatched potential and talent are going untapped. millions of unemployed or underemployed americans are sitting on the sidelines. for their sake and for our sake we've got to get back on the field back to work. it may be that the coming here looks a lot like the last six and a half years, tepid growth of around 2%, but the downside risks are many, and the outside factors are few. and while the chamber is not, let me say again, not forecasting a recession, despite the many domestic and international difficulties, the last time we checked, no one had

repealed the business cycle. the current weak recovery is getting a little on in the tooth. now don't get me wrong. why it's natural for business leaders to worry about the markets in which they most operate, my irish heritage means i'm optimistic about the future of this country. we have tremendous capacity, talents, resources, opportunities and freedoms that are simply unmatched anywhere on earth. but a positive future will not come automatically. it will not happen through divine intervention. it must work -- we must work for it and we must earn it. well, how do you do that? we can't wait away all the

factors that are holding our economy back or eliminate all the uncertainty. but we can fix that policies and remove impediments in order to spur investment, jobs, growth and opportunity. at the chamber we follow, imagine this, more than 300 important issues on an ongoing basis. and we're going to continue to do so. at this year we are going to put our greatest effort behind a handful of key initiatives where we can make the greatest difference and the most progress. i'll lay them out for you in just a moment. some may ask whether the business community can expect to see any progress in washington this year. the honest answer is not as much as we would like, but probably more than you might expect. what happened in 2015, particularly near the end of the year, is instructive.

a year ago many commentators said that the government is too divided to get anything much done at all. the chamber and others safely put the word their predictions and worked together and prove them wrong. working with others we successfully advocated for trade promotion authority, and into the outmoded oil export ban, a multi-year transportation infrastructure bill, reauthorization of the ex-im bank, and education reform bill, the permanent extension of several tax provisions, and multiyear extensions of many others. historic permit reform to speed up projects and critical cybersecurity legislation. now, let's not forget that most of these victories enjoyed strong bipartisan support, and

that's been a long time coming. i know how fashionable it is to always be up on washington -- beat up -- but the fact is the republicans and the democrats, our new house speak paul ryan, said majority leader mitch mcconnell, and the president himself, all deserve some credit for the progress that was made at the end of 2015 your we did it when everybody said it couldn't be done. so what areas are we going to focus on most aggressively this year? first, at the tip of this fear is politics. in -- sphere. in 2016 the chamber will work in key states and districts to elect candidates who understand that it's the private sector, not the government that creates

jobs and prosperity. and that the overriding goal must be to expand the economic pie, not to simply redistribute it. working in close partnership with state and local chambers and associations, we will back pro-growth candidates in upcoming primaries and in the general election. the chamber's institute for legal reform will encourage an aggressive voter education program in state supreme court's and attorney general races. back to the congress, our goal is clear. our approach is simple, to protect the gains we made in the house and senate in 2014, by backing candidates who support roe growth policies and a free

enterprise system, and you want to come to washington to govern, not just to shut the place down. and while we will not be participating in the presidential race, we will wait 10 on presidential policy proposals. if candidates choose to beat up on business, they will hear from us. next, we're going to vigorously challenge the vast regulatory state and worked to reform the regulatory system itself. the administration has already put business on notice that it's going for broke on regulations and executive orders in 2016. congress and economic growth be damned. in its final year the administration plans to issue new or final rules that would

restrict legal arbitration, create new and unworkable rules governing overtime pay, further regulate financial advisors, limit methane admissions from oil and gas drilling -- emissions -- and add incredible complexities to our federal procurement process. this is on top of the massive number of rules already choking the economy, including obamacare, a raft of epa measures, and dodd-frank, third of his regulations have yet to be finalized. we will be employing all of our tools to challenge overregulation, working in the agency's, working with congress through the appropriations process which is now available to us, and the congressional review act, and going to court. on obamacare we're going to push for more commonsense changes and

work to preserve the employer based system that is the bedrock of american health care. we will work to fully and permanently repeal the cadillac tax, the health insurance tax, and the medical device attacks. we will seek to further targeted improvements to obamacare with the hope that major health care reforms will be considered in 2017. on financial regulations the chamber called our major regulatory reform even before the crisis. we called for it even before the economic problems. however, what we got instead and dodd-frank was an expansion of the maze of regulations, and often conflicting regulations. it's astonishing, with dodd-frank champions like elizabeth warren, they believe that a law this size in this

scope must never be changed. that has never happened in this country. any law of that size has always had to be fixed. do they really believe that you achieve absolute perfection in a 2300 page bill that was written in anger the first time around? we will continue to work to fix the provisions that the law got wrong, add the provisions that allow them out, and replace the provisions that we all know just don't work. we are going to support reforms to the consumer financial protection bureau while insisting that it goes through normathe normal processes to mae moves. we will also place particular focus on the department of labor's flawed fiduciary rule. this rule could actually limit

small businesses access to retirement service, or lock them out of a retirement market altogether. we are also working to modernize the regulatory system itself. that permits streamlining bill passed at the end of last year is a major step forward. it will help speed up projects without compromising safety. passage of the regulatory accountability act will be key to our efforts. it would ensure that regulations costing over a billion dollars would be very narrowly tailored, supported by credible data and evidence, and impose the least possible burden on the american people while still implement in the intent of the congress. the regulatory challenges we face are not just national. they are global. for example, -- so much promise

for america's future than technology. yesterday our technology companies are facing a host of predatory battles across the country and around the world. we must not allow the strong arm of government to put a choke hold on america's technology and innovation. one of the chief ways we're going to push back on some regulations is through courtroom advocacy. you can be sure that our litigation center will be busy -- busier than ever in the final year of his administration. our law firm is already challenging the so-called clean power plan, the waters of you as rule and the administration's new ozone rule. they are will be many others. our litigation center will also be very active in dozens of

supreme court, appellate court, in state court case is with a special focus on curbing class-action abuses, and reining in irresponsible regulators. we were pleased that the supreme court appeared less willing in many cases to defer to the legal interpretation of executive agencies, like the irs and equal employment opportunity commission and the epa. out institute of legal reform will work to remove barriers to growth by pursuing legal reforms at the state and federal levels. and we will push back, push back hard on abusive enforcement systems and on the trial bar that sees every new regulation as a multitude of new opportunities to sue american

companies. now, in addition to politics and regulation, another key focus of the chamber in 2016 is trade. working together, we scored big wins in trade in 2015. the chamber and its allies helped win a huge fight over trade promotion authority. we suggestively -- successfully -- major expansion of the 15 nation information technology agreement that will end tariffs on $1.3 trillion worth of i.t. products. we were a leading supporter of a removing barriers to trade and travel with cuba, and it's gratifying to see that effort after all these years finally bearing fruit. this year the chamber will build on these successes by vigorously supporting the trans-pacific partnership agreement.

as we build support for the agreement we will also be encouraging the administration to work with congress to address the legitimate concerns expressed by industries and legislators about some aspects of the deal. and we will continue to push for another potentially historic agreement, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership with the eu. both sides recently agreed to speed up the negotiations. we're also working on trade in services agreement and pursuing bilateral investment treaties with china and india come and we are urging the senate to pass a custom three authorization bill and get it to the president's desk in a hurry. given the weakness in global demand, we must do everything possible to remove trade