ground. and the super committee looked at a whole host of issues like that. we are saying let's sit around the table let's get it resolved and there is common ground there that i think could -- we could see a way forward with. but to take our broken tax code, that is not something i see a core group of republicans willing to do when the road forward is going to be to simplify our broken tax code and that no question needs to be done in hopefully a big deal where we deal with entitlements. which if you look at where we are spending our money. the groeng of mandtary spending programs are going up. we could cut defense spending to the absolute bone and we will not get a hold of the fiscal crisis unless we take on the big

pick picture of where we are handling things in our government. please join me in thanking the senat senator. [ applause ] >> coming up, the senate foreign relations committee holds a hearing on the law of the sea treaty. and the house looks at a law on indian tribes. and a discussion at the brookings institution on defense bu budget dut. >> the purchasing power of gold specified of a weight unit was constant for a period of four centuries. >> it seem to me that the gold standardard in some, it is a record by and large of growth

and the macrosense and personal accountabili accountability. >> this weekend, louis lairman and james grant look at ru returning to the gold standardard. our series on political figures who ran and lost but changed political history. sunday charles evans hughes at 7:30 p.m. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. author david ppetrusa writes. >> she says no. we need to pray for you. >> their campaigns. >> there are a lot of promises made.

they said they would have to rent a large hall larger than this one to get all of the people that jack kennedy prom e promised the presidency to. >> calvin coolidge may have been -- of federal power to resist the temptation to extend it. >> this sunday on book tv your questions and comments for david petrusa live at noon eastern on in depth. also choauthor on this book. sunday night at 9:00. part of book tv this weekend on c-span c-sp c-span2. >> 162 countries have ratified the law of the sea.

the senate foreign relations committee heard from members of the business committee that would be affected. testifying were representatives of the u.s. chamber of commercial, the national association of manufacturers and verizon. this is two hours. >> hearing will come to order. thank you very much for being here this morning. needless to say, capitol hill is filled with a little bit of anticipation about the supreme court decision sport hortly and are going to prove that we can continue to do the nation's business not withstanding that anticipation. i'm delighted to have this very significant panel of business leaders here this morning. to talk about further help us evaluate and think about the law of the sea treaty. i want to say a couple of words

at the beginning to put in perspective why we are here. i was -- i've been accused of many different reasons i just read something the other day in the papers about why this treaty is sort of here, and what it p represents et cetera. i think everybody has kind of got it wrong so far. i was actually ought to beginner with tom donahue maybe a year and a half ago or so and we were talking been a number of things on the agenda and particularly the energy policy. and he turned to me and said by the way when are you going to get the law of the sea treaty done? i was taken back. i said why is that a concern? he said are you kidding? i have a bunch of members whope

to explore, mine, do what is necessary to produce energy for america. and um so that is what flagged it for me. i came back and talked to my staff and that -- i promised tom that i would in fact look into it and give it a good faith effort and that is what brought us here. i became convinced that american jobs were at stake. so we are not here because of any political agenda, or because the administration decided this was the moment, this is really coming from america's business community. i think people will hear that this morning. i think there is an urgency this

morning. we have heard already from our nation's top military leaders, the secretary of defense, testified in favor of it. we have heard from the secretary of state and from every past secretary of state, respect and democrat respe republican and democrat alike who have signed a document that they wrote regarding this treaty and we will hear from more still. we are not finished on that score. our ment leilitary leaders have consistently supported the session on this treaty for more than two decades now and some have argued that we should prefer to rely on international law to protect our navigational

freedom. most of the national security disagrees with that. that capacity to have things subject to change provides uncertainty to the business community and as we hear again and again up here, nothing is more damaging to investments than capitol formation than a lack of certainty than what the rules of the road are. today we shift to energy and economic security. and we are going to hear from top business and industry leaders who combined, represent, millions of businesses and jobs. our companies want this treaty quite simply bottom line because

it affects their bottom lines. joining the law of the sea will provide benefits that are not available through any other means. telecommunications industry, as we will hear shortly we have vast under sea cable networks and they provide a backbone for the world's voice and data networks. when there is a problem, if a country were to seek to block a company from laying a cable or impede i impeding the repair of damaged cables. a party could bring suit within the context of the law of the sea agreement. since the u.s. is on the outside of that agreement today, we cannot take advantage of this legal roadmap. our companies have to piggy back on efforts on governments that

are aparty to convention. so instead of standing up to companies when they need our help. our failure to join the treaty forces them to look elsewhere. local mcadam the ceo of verizon will go into the detail regarding that. all you have to do is listen to at and t all of whom urge the section to this teereaty. on the edgy security, the united states is blessed with hundreds of thousands of square miles of ke contnen thal sheinental shelf. we can double the size of the united states from what is under sea and available to us for

exclusive jurisdiction and that will be critical for energy security tore year to come. the only way to establish clear title over the extended shelf is through recognition by the shelf commission as a non party to the treaty, we are shut out from this process. we are shutting ourselves out. this makes a critical difference to our energy companies. they want and need certainty to invest the billions of dollars required especially in arctic with the chinese and russians are already laying claims. instead of doing what we can do to encourage exploration in those areas, our failure deter iring it. we are pleased to have jack gerard here and explain why what

i have just said is the case. mr. gerard is not alone. you can listen to the head of exxon mobile who wrote to senator lugar and myself. or marmarvin odom. he was unable to join us today but he has submitted testimony for the record. a short expecerptexcerpt, if th states were to become a party to the convection, it could participate in the process for claiming it's rights over oil and gas which would provide legal certainty for aci incessi and developing those energy resources. without this claim our company would not find those favorable.

so we turn to manufacturing. as many of you know, rare earth minerals are critical to a large part of modern manufacturing. rare earth minerals are an essential component of communications systems, defense, control systems and technology and other weapon's systems. it includes the scope of rare earth mineral use is in electronics and in computers, cell phones and all of the advanced weapons systems some of which i've named. today my friends, china controls 97% of the production market of these minerals. can anybody in their right mind suggest that the united states is safer an our companies are at advantage sitting in a situation

because you can't invest because you can't be safe and legally protected and we are sitting on the outside? we cannot secure international recognition for deep sea mining claims that our companies want in order to invest billions of dollars unless we are part of this treaty. on rare earth minerals, oil and gas, whatever unknown minerals and or products maybe fineable under the ocean, we have a choice. we he can either join the major industrial nations that have already joins up and are using this to their advantage and are securing this for bis and industry or we can remain on the outside and deprive our companies of the legal inve investment security they seek and watch while other countries take the spoils.

i think the choice is clear. today, we have people who can speak with much more authority than i can because it is their livelihood and their livefe e endeavor and i think we need to listen to them. thomas donahue representing broadly many of these industries. jack gerard, president and ceo of the american pe trotroleum institute. gent gent gentlemen, thank you for being with us. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for welcoming our panel of industry leaders. i appreciate their efforts and their willing nes on how the convention will help create

private sector jobs to the growth of the united states economy. every major ocean industry including shipping, fishing, telecommunications, oil and natural gas, drilling, contractors, ship builders support the united states support of the law of the sea treaty. ocean industry support for the convention has been virtually unanimous going back to 2003 when the foreign relations committee first took it up and initiated a process that resulted in the unanimous committee vote to the whole senate. years later, as a foreign relations committee hearing on october 4, 2007, a business panel testified in favor of the convention. only senator menendes and i were present for that powerful

testimony. but then as now, every major industry backed the convention and appealed. with good reason. americans are interested in job creation and economic activity. in my state of indiana, this is important to young voters. there are threats to the united states economy. including the european debt s situation, more over because of our own national debt, we have new stimulus options. these factors in cruise the importance of the jobs creating impact on our own natural resources. as we will hear today, the law of the sea will support job creating investment and open new resources at a critical time to

our economy. the law of the sea with international decisions related to resource exploitation, navigation rights and other matters will be made in the context of the convention whether we join or not. and we will not even be able to participate in the amendment process to this treaty. which is far more likely to impose new requirements on our navy and other industries if the united states is absent. because of these factors, the people who actually deal with o oceans on a daily basis and invest their money, want this rati ratified. by not joining the law of the sea. we are affecting the potential

scope of our energy reduction. some argue that it is un-necessary to secure the legal basis for company to fully exemployment oil and natural gas on the floor. but that is not the opinion of american companies. that might invest the resources in their activity. they tell us that without the certainty of law of the sea conventi convention, they would not go forward with many projects. their concern is that after doing the exploration research testing and construction necessary, they won't be able to free ride or challenge. the drilling and mining companies prefer to pay a small

royalty in return for an international system that gives them an undisputed claim. this royalty was negotiated with the perfect participation of the extraction companies. the first five years of pr production will not be subject to royalty. the united states create jobs, we need to ratify the law of the sea. i thank the chairman for this hearing and we look forward to the questions. >> i thank you. i remind from your testimony, it flagged that this is ground that

this committee has been over before and senator lugar has had a long time association with and station stake and this effort and i want to acknowledge his laying that ground work in that effort. if you would lead off and if you would clean up. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and member -- ranking member lugar and all the members of the committee who are here or will be here. we appreciate this opportunity to testify today. i'm pleased to express the u.s. chamber of commerce's strong support of the law of the sea treaty. this morning i will focus my

wark remarks on why it is in essential to america's global leadership. on the economic side, it would be a boom to the u.s. economic growth by providing american companies with the legal certainty and stability that they need to hire and invest. it would codify the u.s. legal rights to use international shipping lanes and develop vast afounts amounts of oil and natural gas off of the coast and deep water sea bed. the treaty would benefit several industries key to job creation and u.s. competitiveness. it would benefit the energy industry by providing sovereign rights 200 miles off our coast.

if certain criteria are met. the zone could extend to 600 miles or the so-called continental shelf. proper delineation could bring an additional 4.1 million square miles of ocean floor, an area larger than the lower 48 states. it would allow the u.s. to have an expert that determines the claims in tarctic and there are going to be a lot of them. securing international recognition for u.s. rights in these areas and defending against the unreasonable claims in the nations is vital to the economic prosperity of our nation. the industry needs the treaty to

lay and maintain under water cables and needs them to provide stronger protections against cables damaged from other parties. they need the treaty to enable access to new sources of mineral resources including rare earth minerals as the senator indicated which lie in massive deposits on or beneath the seaboard floor. companies need the certainty and stability in order to minimize the investment risks and cause to developing the resources in the u.s. continental shelf and the area beyond that, the deep sea bed. that is why the treaty is so

important to sustaining and creating american jobs and protecting american interests close to our main land. the treaty cleary is essential to america's national security. it has a proud history of national security interest. for example, we played an extrusional role in america's industrial might to fight and win world war i and ii. we just celebrated our 100th anniversary and we took the time to read about why the chamber was founded and what the basic principle s were. b which were to represent at the highest level were the greatest service our country and its needs. we have long supported a robust

defense and launched a major effort to employ veterans by matching them with employers all around the country. it is in this tradition that we support approval as it relates to national security. hundreds of u.s. flag ships and ships owned by u.s. countries rely on the u.s. navigation rights while crossing the u.s. ocean. while we can always rely on the u.s. navy to ensure lawful passage of u.s. flag ships, it strongly supports the navy's

desire in the treaty rather than rely on the customary law or a strong navy. let me say a word about a seat at the table. it is critical to the world's global leadership. as a maritime power with one of the largest continental shelf, the u.s. has more to gain or to lose based on how the treaty's terms are interpreted applied or changed. it will continue to form the basis of law with orrous o ouwir approval. another side comment, there is a lot of comment and succesuggest this organization set up in jamaica is going to run our lives. it clearly is not, but what a

mistake we make if we don't join the treaty and put a representative there if we don't veto an action suggests by an organization. let me say a word about our critics of the treaty. but i would like to rebut two of the chief criticisms that we hear. the first is that this couldn't be further from the truth. this treaty promotes our sovereignty by rights and on our extended shelf. it will be ours, people will know it is ours and we have every right to defend it. the second is a small portion of royalties that develop it. my response to that is simple. the u.s. treasury will lose

hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. it is a simple balance. we get most of the money under that system. the treaty provides that certainty which will produce billions and billions of dollars of royalties going to the government, this treaty is not perfect, it will be changes like all treaties are and we better be sitting at the table. today the benefits far outweigh the costs and we must protect our benefits. the u.s. chamber urges the senate to give it's advice and consent to the law of the sea treaty. the treaty has the unth unenthusiastic backing of all of the in