international traffic, voice, video, internet and data travels over 38 submarine cables, each the diameter of a garden hose. without these cables, current satellite capacity could carry only 7% of the total u.s. international traffic. so i -- for that as a predicate, i'd ask you based upon that dependence we have i guess is the best word, what can you tell us about the importance of this -- of this treaty as -- just as it relates to that 95% dependency that we have on that transmission? >> well, we invest a great deal, senator, and making these cables as redundant as we can. we use the term mesh networks and if you think about it as a fence, can you cut certain pieces of it, but there are other pieces of the network that are redundant and therefore so

are in some ways the government, i guess. to make sure that our customers can rely on that service. that helps us when we have things like storms or earthquakes that sever the cable, but if the country takes some sort of a unilateral action such as we have seen and doesn't frankly support some of the repair operations that we had in vietnam, and i refer to that in my testimony where it took many months to get those cables repaired, that really can impact global commerce, and so the framework that we will have in place with the treaty allows us to have an ongoing dialogue with -- with the country. we have a set of rules that we can rely on. if there are disputes, we have arbitration that we can go to. we can enlist the help of the federal government where our local team can't make the proper headway, so it is a series of additional steps that give us greater certainty and allow us to make these certain kinds of

investment. >> thank you. i was going to go back to a question that senator shaheen raised and i'm sure others did as well, and the question of manufacturing, mr. timmons, appreciate your testimony. i represent a state that has had a long and very substantial legacy and reputation for manufacturing, and we've had our challenges, as you and i have talked about. but we've had a bit of a resurgence, and i think we're frankly headed in the right direction in terms of being able to create or maintain manufacturing jobs. if someone -- if i were traveling across pennsylvania this august when we're going to be home and someone grabbed me on the street and said tell me in a few words why this treaty is important for manufacturing generally, having a strategy for manufacturing but especially for maintaining those jobs, what -- what should i say to them in a few sentences, if you can help me with that?

>> well, when you're looking at the issue of rare earth materials, it is -- it is a vital component of all manufacturing processes, particularly the chemical industry. you have a large preponderance of folks involved in the chemical industry. without those rare earth materials, manufacturing simply will not be able to compete and succeed in the world marketplace. ten years ago this country was able to produce 100% of the rare earth materials that we used in manufacturing. today we onshore produce none, and that's because of many factors, regulatory matters, permitting and other factors. the bottom line is if we can't access rare earth materials on the deep sea -- the floor of the sea, we're going to be put at a significant competitive disadvantage. the manufacturing renaissance that you and i have spoken about

will cease to exist, and it will harm our economy and cost jobs. >> i hope i can be that articulate with the constituents. >> well, i don't think that's a couple of sentences, unfortunately, but i'll work on that and get back to you. >> but i'd add one more sentence, maybe you're going to say it. if we do this right, we'll drive down the costs and increase the availability of fuels, and that's going to have a large, large effect on manufacturing and on your state's economy. >> thank you, mr. donahue. >> senator, i was just going to add something that you already know. the answer, the other answer that's very significant in your state is natural gas. as you know, the price is down to the $2, $3 range today. 83,000 new jobs in your state as a result of that resurgence, and i think as jay said earlier, that is primarily what's driving the manufacturing resurgence in the united states. we often forget that those chemical plants and others are primary -- primarily driven by the feed stock of natural gas where they convert natural gas

to all the products we consume every day and don't think about, so it's natural gas, low-cost, affordable, reliable energy that's driving those other benefits in our economy today. >> i'll submit some more questions for the record. i've got to run, but thank you so many for your testimony. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you very much. senator shaheen, do you have any second-round questions? >> i do have a couple, mr. chairman, and i know that one of the issues that has been raised about the treaty, and i heard some of that debate today, has been what is the real authority of the international seabed authority and how -- how would our participation play in that? and i wonder if you all have looked at the authority to the extent that it's operated today and whether you have any views about countries like russia and

china and what their actions have been on the authority in our absence and whether -- whether they are in fact taking advantage of our inability to ratify the treaty and participate on the authority. what impact has it had to have the u.s. not be part of that body? >> i'll try it, senator. first is to us that's very significant. as senator chairman kerry mentioned earlier, the '94 changes, the amendments, were very significant in giving us additional power, a permanent seat on that council in the seabed authority. the reason we say that is twofold. number one, any other decisions that come out of there, we essentially have that veto right. we interpret it as such, so i'm anxious to hear other's legal opinions. we've gotten outside council and we view that we have that right and that authority within the seabed council, but the other

thing we shouldn't overlook. there's been talk about royalties and other things that come from oil and gas production beginning in the sixth and 12th year. today if those are produced anywhere else in the world, those dollars are going to go wherever that group that sits there allows them to go. if we have the seat, the permanent seat in that council, we have the ability to direct that, to make sure that those very significant resources aren't given to unfriendly nations around the world and aren't spent for purposes that are not in the best interest of the united states. so we think it's two-fold. number one, we need to be there to secure our own rights, but, number two, by being there, having a seat at the table, we can influence and have some direct leverage over the other decisions the seabed authority is making. >> so just to be clear. they are going to assess those rates from our companies whether we're a member of the treaty or not? >> well, they apply only beyond

200 miles. my point is that others who are participants who might be paying into that fund today, those dollars go elsewhere without us having any say until we acreed and participate and become part of the treaty process. does that clarify it? >> mm-hmm. thank you. the other thing that i wond er if -- and, again this, may have been covered to some extent, but i haven't heard much discussion since i arrived about how we benefit in the arctic. you talked about that a little bit, mr. gerard in, terms of our ability to have much more of an opportunity to access the minerals that may and the resources that may exist under the arctic, but can you also talk about how and what's happening there with other countri countriesed and are we lagging behind russia and those other countries who may be also

interested in the resources of the arctic? >> well, if you look at the way that the authority has set up and the commission on the limitation of the continental shelf which determines how far those boundaries may go based on the definition of the continental shelf, those nations that are active in the arctic or seek to be active, russia, denmark, norway, canada and others are all participant, and many of them have already filed or laid claim to those lands or those potential lands in the outer continental shelf. we stand here watching that happen. we have a very, very significant interest in the arctic, and as i mentioned earlier, shell hopefully will start that again today. it's estimated that one-quarter of the world's oil and gas resources round the arctic. why we would sit on the sidelines and watch the rest of the world develop that resource to us is somewhat mystifying, not to mention our own resources that we have within our own 200-mile exclusive economic zone. we're the only industrialized

nation in the world that does not take full advantage of our outer continental shelf. we think it would be a big miss, a missed opportunity to sit today and watch and 30 years from now wonder why we missed out when those decisions were made in the arctic which is so important to global advancement and economic development. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator shaheen. those are good questions, and i think important part of the record. i appreciate it. let me just close out. senator lugar does not have additional questions. i just have one or two quickly, but i want to get the record complete. we'll leave the record open incidentally for a week in case there's additional questions to submit in writing. mr. timmons, at a hearing before the committee a couple weeks ago, we heard from one of the think tanks out here, a heritage foundation analyst who said that u.s. companies are free exploit the deep seabed right now and

they have all the legal certainty right now necessary to support investments to drill in the deep seabed, and the analogy drawn by that witness was just like fishing. you go out and nobody owns the fish. it's every person for themself. in light of the fact that you've got 161 nations and the european unions and all parties to the convention, it seems odd to suggest an every person for themself approach to this. now you've address it had somewhat here and talked about the certainty. i just want to be crystal clear whether that's an alternative. is that viable? >> mr. chairman, i would say it's an alternative, but i don't think it's viable. we could proceed as a nation. i think it's very important to recognize that the world today is extraordinarily different than it was 40 years ago. we are, again, a global economy. we have multi-national companies that have the means to develop these resources, but they simply are unwilling to do so because

of the risk that -- that exists without ratification of this treaty. if -- if that theory were in fact accurate you would see the development of these resources today, and it's simply not happening. >> so is it -- is it -- i want to ask everybody this. therefore, is it clear -- are you saying here definitively today that the people you represent and the interests that you're here to advance will not be served by -- and that no one will invest in fact the billions of dollars if you were to pursue that theory of every person for themself? >> i think our country would not be served if the treaty is not ratified because companies simply will not invest or take the risks if they don't have the certainty provided in this treaty. that means from a manufacturing

perspective, that manufacturing suffers, which means the economy suffers, which means jobs suffer, and so it's in the long-term economic and national security interests of our country and the view of manufacturers that this treaty be ratified. >> mr. donahue? >> senator, if we don't join this treaty, we may find people doing that without the protection, but they may be the russians, they may be the chinese and they may be on our extended outer continental shelf. obviously the arctic is more available than it was before because of the thinning of the ice while it's thickening on the south pole. you know there's all this stuff going on, but people are making plans and claims to establish themself in the arctic, and as jack indicated we're on the outside looking in with all sorts of power, but, as you know, in your job, most of

the -- most of the most powerful things we can do we can't do or we shouldn't do, and i think the benefits of making this fundamental adjustment, taking a seat at the table with a lot of strength to protect our interests at least gives us a reason to do whatever steps we need to take to help this country. i don't think you'll see a lot of american firms -- you can get a permission from the federal government, and this is another point, to access an area, but then they won't give you a permit to drill it, and we have all of those problems but the bottom line -- we've been arguing this thing for so long, and when the -- when the old arguments run out and then we have new arguments, and i respect the people that have that view, and i suppose you can find some of my members that have that view, but not very many of them and we got tens and

tens of thousands of them and think it's about time we get on with it. >> final -- yes. >> senator, i'd just add there's a lot of different opinions about this, but i would suggest you look closely at those opinions where it really matters. you cited one earlier, the chairman of shell, marvin odom, rex tillerson sent you a letter. these are the individuals that will make the decisions, and they have been very clear and unequivocal saying they will not make those decisions. the risk is too high. there's too much at stake. they won't be able to convince boards and shareholders that that's the best use and the safest use of their money and their resource. so i would hope we'd look at those that have experienced, and are on the front lines making those decisions and perhaps in fairness give that opinion a little more weight than others. >> and at the same time to think about what the joint chiefs of staff and our military leaders who are challenged to protect us in many ways, including in those

areas, and you know they are not people easily convinced of -- of joining committees. >> well, final question, last question, i promise. it seems to me listening to your testimony that if companies aren't going to invest, that if we're looking at a reduction of the availability of rare earth minerals and we could be mining rare earth minerals, sounds to me like that takes a lot of people to produce the equipment, be out there doing it, that if -- if we're looking at increa increased ability to find more energy sources for the united states, it takes people to go out and do that, and if you're talking about providing cheaper energy for the united states over the long term, that affects our economy and job. bottom line it seems to me is jobs. this seems to me to be screaming at us that there is this

availability of jobs for americans out there if we were to do this more than anything else. would each of you comment -- i mean, is this a -- is that really what is fundamentally at stake here? mr. donahue? >> the great -- the next great -- the next great industry in this country is energy of every type, and that is going to create millions of jobs over the near term. we should not make this more difficult for us to access rare earth minerals, energy and whatever else we might find while 161 other countries are out making their plans to do so. this is in the enlightened self-interest of this country and an interest and on national security, and the -- and i respectfully say to those that disagree, and by the way, we try to learn something from them,

that the -- that the positive part of this treaty so overwhelms and outweighs those objections which i respect, that the plurality that they would say up here is highly significant. >> mr. gerard? >> senator, i was just going to add to that. tom mentioned something that's very significant today. the energy opportunities in the united states today are of game-changing proportions. to put it in simple context. an economist just a few month ago said within the next decade if the u.s. policy is done well, we will become the new middle east for energy production. that's how serious this discussion is. if we as a nation are serious about producing our own energy. so i think there's two dimensions to this answer. the first one is we need to think long term. we have to look at things like the law of the sea and say how do we secure or energy future,

in the only the next 10 to 20 years but the next 50 to 100 years? oil and natural gas will continue to be the foundation energy building block for many decades yet to come, even as we strive to move to alternative renewable forms and other less-emitting forms of energy, but the second dimension we shouldn't overlook, and it goes back to senator coaching's point earlier. we've got to get our act together as a kcountry in our on permitting processes and our own political will and ability to produce our own energy. we can secure the border. we can secure the long-term future through the law of the sea, but we've got to have processes within the united states where we say energy is a priority. senator casey pointed out earlier in the last 18 months we've created 83,000 jobs in the state of pennsylvania producing clean-burning natural gas that saved the consumers of pennsylvania close to a quarter

of a billion dollars in one year because that supply drove the price of natural gas down to where it is today. now, it can't stay there forever, but we have the same potential with oil. north dakota, the number two producer. unemployment rate 3%. median wage in north dakota and oil production $92,000 a year, median wage for everybody else $42,000 a year. we talk about jobs, we talk about energy security and revenue to the government. we ought to think about energy, particularly as we make this decision because it will be altering for this nation for many years yet to come. >> mr. mcadam, do you want to add, you don't have to, but if you want to add anything. >> no, the only thing that i would add is well -- excuse me, while we aren't out mining the seabed for rare earth minerals, we are putting these cables across that provide the

infrastructure so that these companies can make the investment and run their businesses effectively, and i think we should do everything we can to eliminate the risks associated with this vital network. >> well, i want to thank all of you. i think your testimony has been extraordinarily significant, very, very thought out and thorough and i think very, very important to this process and we're very, very grateful for taking the time here today. we will, as i said, leave the record open for a week and we look forward to continuing the discussion with you over the course of the next month. appreciate it. we stand adjourned. thank you.

with congress on break this week, we're featuring american history tv's weekend programs in primetime here on c-span 3. tonight we hear oral history interviews with key congressional staff charged with investigating president nixon. starting at 8:00 eastern, francis o'brien, chief of staff to the house judiciary committee chair in 1974, and at 10:00 p.m. eastern bernard nussbaum, a senior member of the committee during the investigation, american history tv in primetime all this week on c-span 3. tonight c-span's road to the white house continues with vice president joe biden and his wife jill as they address the national education association's annual meeting here in washington. in his remarks the vice president points out the differences between president obama's and mitt romney's plans for education. >> look, folks, let me get straight to the point. you guys, educators, teachers,

you're under full-blown assault. romney, romney, governor romney and his allies in the congress, their plan for public education in america is to let the states use title one dollars to boost enrollment in private schools. no, no. i'm not looking for boos. i think we should have just a straight honest-to-god talk about the difference between -- [ applause ] the difference between how president obama and i view education and how our republican colleagues today view it, and again, i want to make it clear, a lot of you know me pretty well -- by the way, where's delaware? hello, delaware. now i'm not prejudiced, but they're probably the best

educators in the room. ladies and gentlemen, very seriously, i think governor romney's a good, decent man. he's a good family man. i think his intentions are all positive. i don't make any -- i don't make any moral judgments. i don't judge motive. i assume with good reason he cares as much about america and the education system as i do. but the truth of the matter is that we have a fundamentally different view, and when i said that he would like to take title one money, give it to the states and let them use it to increase the voice of private schools, strip you of your voice because he doesn't think that you all know much about how to educate, and he characterizes you and his allies characterize you as not

caring about the students, but caring about yourselves. you listen to what they say. my jill is literal when she says teaching is not what she does, it's who she is. these guys don't get that. i think they don't understand why you chose to teach in the first place. i honest to god don't think they understand, and by the way, like in politics, in business, in religious hierarchies, there's really good teachers and there's really lousy teachers. there's really great teachers, and there's some just plain good teachers. we're no different than any other profession in the world, but we are a profession.

you are a profession. this is a calling. you chose to be teachers because you care. you chose to be teachers because you want to make this country better! you chose to be teachers because you know every child, every child is entitled, entitled to do as well as they can. that's why you did it. but i'm afraid, i'm afraid the governor and his allies, they don't get it. they don't get why you chose this profession. i'm not even sure -- i won't say that. they don't get it. >> you can see vice president

baden's full remarks at the national educational association's annual meeting tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> no one paid attention to tunisia. for anybody who knew about it they thought about it as the place where "star wars" was filmed, but it suddenly became on the radar, and protests began getting planned in different countries, and so i -- i started taking the techniques i used in tunisia and just expanded on them and improved upon them until it got to the point where my twitter followers essentially became my newsroom, so rather than being in a studio as an anchor would, you know, with producers left and right and researchers and an ear piece and someone talking into it and give me the latest wire information or a laptop telling me that, a pundit here and an eyewitness there, i was sitting on a park bench with my phone having dozens of twitter followers doing all of those roles for me so i could essentially do rolling anchor coverage of these

revolutions and fact check and debunk a bunch of things coming out of it. >> watch this whole event as part of our july 4th primetime and it also includes a discussion on the history of the stat you've liberty and commencement speeches from newark mayor cory booker and elon musk, the creator of the tesla car and papal. caroline kennedy campaigned in new hampshire last week in support of president obama's re-election campaign. she spoke to supporters in nashua about the similarities between this year's election and her father's run for the presidency in 1960. this event at the obama campaign new hampshire headquarters was part of her two-day tour of the state. this is about 30 minutes. >> hello, everyone, and thank you all so much for joining us here tonight. my name is dave tencza, and i

have the pleasure of introducing the wonderful caroline kennedy to you tonight. before i turn it over to her, though, i want to say a few quick words about why i'm here and many of you are here as well, besides the fact we are here just to admire caroline. in 2008, we came together to support candidate barack obama. the reason, i think the reason many of us came together was because we had a shared vision about what's best for our country. we wanted to reclaim that basic bargain that if you work hard, if you play by the rules, that you can make it in america. you can find a job -- [ applause ] you can buy a house. send your kids to college and save a little bit for retirement. president obama believes in order to move our country forward we need to invest in