legislative level understand how important this is so they can continue to play their role as prescri prescribed boy the articles. c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or

satellite provider. >> and michael pollen, welcome back to the "the communicators." before we start with the issues, let's start with the "washington post" article from this weekend. it was an internet survey report they did saying that well over half of people say they abandoned their cable company if they could because of service. what is your response to that? >> guest: oh, is that a question? the first thing i would say is i think infrastructure companies provide these services are well aware of their long-standing challenges with the consumer and i think they have a duty and obligation to work hard to improve services. bui think there is something somewhat challengine which is software, in the cloud, we are still a business that has to

come in your home. we are still a business that has to install hardware and it has to function 310 hours a month which is what the average c consumer watches. it hasn't evolved for many years. those problems need to be fixed. but i think the pain points lead to these kinds of result. and i think we have an appetite for technology and i think consumers have come to expect thing toes double and triple in improvement in three month increments. just like their ios device to update. i think the same electronic expectations are being driven in

the home. if you looked at the data it it would be the fastest technology in the world increase. internet speeds have increases 1500% in the last ten years. you go 80 miles per hour long enough you think you are going 20 and you want to go faster. we should never be satisfied or happy with the numbers and i think it is an industry that invests $20-$50 annual to fix the problem. >> host: how worried are you about cord-cutting? >> guest: i am not as much worried as intrigued. i am the father of kids who

group without knowing another world. i am curious if they are different. i think it is setting a set of complimentary ideas. for our industry they are not positive or all negative. a lot of cord-cutting releases more viewing happening over infrastructure and drives broadband, a business we are in. these things are not zero for our industry. some things accrue to us as benefits. but there is a lot of studies that poor cold water on this story and usually once a year the media writes a story where they have to grudgingly admit, the new york times admitted, that people seem to be watching the same shows on the same

platform and the cord-cutting is remaining an idea much more than a cold reality at least at scale. the reality i think most consumers don't appreciate, if i can say quickly, there would be nothing to watch on netflix or hulu if it didn't get monetized on television first. over the cable content are more dependent than people recognize. you are not going to benge watch breaking bad if the money had not been recovered in the first place. so they need each other more than i think they would acknowledge. and it is the reality of the creation community. unless it is organic content or like you tube but if you talk

about espn and true detectives they have to go through running through the cable platform and without that there is no second half of the tale. so that is an important reason why i don't worry about it. i think they need to compliment each other. people are consumming them. >> host: joining the conversation to talk about the issues the cable company faces is gautham nagesh. >> thanks for having me, peter. mr. powell, you mentioned cord-cutting is more of an idea versus -- f-- but we see the longstanding competition from

satellite. it would suggest that paid tv penetration is almost mature in the coapt country. is the growth strictly in broadband? >> guest: if you look at the data there is a 100 million multiple channel subscribers for a long time. in cable in the '90s when the regulatory market existed they did have over 90% of the mact market and they have 50% with satellite and phone companies pick up. cable companies don't dominate the top anymore. the business matured. you have to lower cost or find new sources of revenue. i think they are attacking both of them.

but focusing on the revenue side, i think looking for new news to delight and hold consumers. so if you look at comcast and their investment, if you make video in demand more a attractive and innovate with what you have. you see them taking advantage of broadband and that is a blessed source of new business opportunity. it is growing much faster and has a huge addressable market and good economics and it is a good business. that is a big part of what cable has become. i keep joking with people i wish i could have a new word to represent the platform because cable doesn't do it. and i think you will see people looking for home security and all kinds of other services as the home becomes the internet of

things i think you can expect the companies to attempt to offer services along those lines just like apple has a new platform. everyone understand you are chasing the internet opportunities within the home and i suspect the companies will look for opportunities like that trying to lower the cost with everything from programming cost to other expenses. when you have a digital platform and relationship in the home you can look for things. the thermostat is going to sit on your wall, if other devices are going to be a big part of your lives, putting the infrastructure together is an opportunity and service. >> should a consumer have to pay more for a thermostat or should that be facilitated by the

existing company if they subscribe to one? >> guest: if something has a cost it is going to get paid for somewhere. so the real answer to the question is if there a cost in services to offering the new business somewhere that new business is going to get compensated for. either as a new service or buried within the basic broadband subscription. i see this with the dispute with netflix. the argument it is paid for. that is also an argument for saying any additional cost should be born by all broadband subscribes. so whether it is separate service or part of the s subscription you are paying for either way. so you might feel i am getting this from one offering you are still paying for it. if you offer the security system

with comcast building thermostats, apps and monitoring services and all of that is incremental products suite so that is something you are selling. >> it is interesting you made that comparison because the expenses of whatever additional programming or channel are born as part of the cable package. it sounds like you are saying broadband should be functioning differently. this is the subject of the rulemaking at the fcc and a lot of controversy. how do you feel about managed services or auxiliaary

availability? >> guest: we bundle but you we don't collapse it. you don't get a bill and pay for one thing. you can by them separately or together but i think it is well telegraphed you are buying a set of services you are getting a price efficiency for bundling. that is different than what lawyers used to do but for services renered here is a million dollar bill. no it is like this is watt you pay for this and that. should we be able to offer other services over the infrastructure of our pipe? that is what we are doing now. what is cable? we spent multiple decades building a private infrastructure with over 80% dedicated to delivering cable. if i took the pipe and divided

it in a pie chart the vast majority is delivering it through cable. that is what the show and hbo comes over and what the consumer pays for. that is the con fiskating of our observation -- business -- if we cannot do that. you take away the private service and put it in the public demand and that is a form of taking private property. we use a portion of that pipe for the public internet but the majority is for the services we build and develop and the reason your cable channel doesn't glitch or cashier or pixilate is because it is prioritized and managed. unless you are willing to say cable company shouldn't exist as

a private service than you will see benefiting purposes and that is what we are all in the business to do. we are not government owned rights of way. we build our infrastructure with purely private capital to sell the service to the american people and the government has to be careful not to suggest that you could remove those services and repurpose them for something a regilator would prefer to see them used for. >> host: >> hosone of issues is an issues of net neutrality standard and chairman wheeler has were proposed allowing companies to make contracts with the broadband providers. some are calling this a fast lane. what do you think of that half of what the fcc is working on?

do you consider it is fast lane? >> guest: i think it is a complete distortion to characterize what he is doing -- he is proposing to have fast lane. chairman wheeler isn't proposing fast lanes. he is dealing the boundaries of the law as interrupted by the court and he is trying to create the strongest net neutrality rule he can. it is not his responsibility to make up that authority or pretend he has something he doesn't. if he does he will going against this responsibilities. the fcc isn't all powerful. so i think he has gotten talked because people are acting like he is proposing this. he is proposing tough net

neutrality rules that have to accommodate the countries -- courts. i talked to every ceo and i don't think we know what a fast lane is or anybody is thinking about doing one. i think the issues is blown beyond the proportion of ince incentive and interest. for 16 years, there hasn't been a rule and not one is endeavored to do a quarter of the things we had every right to do. at&t wrote a blog saying not doing fast lanes, priority access, no plans, never, no how. i don't think they would be remotely willing to say that if

they were not sure their business didn't involve that. think about how silly it is. i turn to google and say if you don't pay me i am not going to deliver internet search results. i don't know how that is going to go over -- even if you did have enough leverage. but why doesn't google say why don't you pay me or i am not delivering the search raiment results. how would you like that? look at how well blackout sna h scenario work for companies. when you tell espn you should pay me. they have gone in a different direction. they are more worried about that scenario than a massive business opportunity to charge. the other thing we forget is 90% of an isp customer's, 99% of the

time are not doing anything that requires enhanced capabilities. they are facebooking, instagram and none of that stuff requires an improvement in a fast lane. there is not much content or services that would benefit from such a lane and you would have to believe that i can charge so much to the very few companies that do to offset the d degredation or slow lane i condemn them to. i think we would be crazy if we did some of the things people are suggesting. take the cable company. we support it, i am sure we will support the next rules,

depending on how they come out, we didn't sue on them, one company did, but i think we are willing to live with them. they are in our terms of service, even today. only thing we care about is for one rule we are not going to support radically transforming the entire model to title two. which is like reaching for a sledgehammer and a chain saw and a bulldozer to tackle one rule. not even one rule but one piece of one rule. the benefits of doing that are almost zero and the risks of doing that are monumental. that is about the only thing we are in the mood to really be fighting over because i think that would be a radically disastrous step for the country it would damage businesses and it would hurt consumers much worse than they understand and it would hurt web companies more

than they understand. title two reaches far and wide. and there is a whole range of services that web innovators can find themselves tangled up in that. i don't think we are doing fast lane today. i don't know what it means for the future. i don't think we have any plans and we will live with a respectful rule that comp penalize with the law. we wish the chairman well in crafting a rule and he deserves support and assistance rather than criticism. michael paul was chair of the fcc from 2001-2005. next question, gautham nagesh. >> one of the things you said op open to the proposal is whether or not broadband should be regulated under the

communication act. your industry as a hole i think is very strongly against the prospect but please convince us that the portion of the pipe that is dedicated to the broadband internet isn't a utility in 2014. >> guest: let me start with saying thank you the chance to convince you. we should not accept because something is important it equals public utility. it is so important to our lives it isn't a luxury thus it is a a utility. is it going to make it faster? reach more people? cheaper? when you start to examine -- and you have to examine against the amazing results that have been achieved, right? so accepted by all they invested $1.2 trillion dollars in the

private sector to grow the internet. is the regulatory model going to create more or less? first it raises rates for consumers. why? under the telecommunication law immediately automatically it is a matter of law and those services have to be taxed to the universal service program. ask consumers to pull out the bills and go true through the details and see if you see taxes by the state and federal government sometimes as high as 25% will be those fees. they are required by law if you a telecom service provider. and second, they lose critical consumer protection. the federal trade commission loses its jurisdiction if you

are tide. so the agency that protected against fraud, false advertising, privacy, and the agency with a lead role of that would be disenfranchised so whatever you gained you lost as well. the con consumer comes out. the cost of regulatory compliance with a regime like this is massive. every company needs a license and i could go on and on with thousands of pages and rules that would occur but the cost would recognize for reg lor tory compliance and that would come from growth. i think the investment needed to grow it will get smaller. if you think people are bluffing about that, go look at the capital reaction with title two

was proposed. telecom lost 10-15% of the cap immediately. telecom stocks are down because of the threat of title two. that will depress capital investment and that means growth of the internet. all of that would be threatened. states would have a hook on the internet and they could impose taxes and universal fees and it doesn't fix the problem that the web community is com plaining for. title two doesn't allow you to

broadband priorization of the bills. you cannot unreasonable discriminate but you can discriminate. and finally i would say a word about the unintended consequences. if isp's are offering a telecom service and so is kindle because it bundles and offers the device that has the connection so you can download books. skype and x-box life -- live -- would be uncertain and the time it would take to resolve this would be easily a decade long. the questions coming up.

i think it would take the country and set it back in the information age. >> host: and finally i want to ask you about the supreme court decision, if the supreme court decides in favor of aereo does that affect the cable industry? >> guest: i don't think that significantly. we have an obligation to carry the channels. people think just because you might be able to offer a service, unless the law changes, and a law we would like changed for other reasons, we would still have the legal duty. most of these broadcasters are big companies and they insisted on the terms of that kind of

carriage. i don't know if it would be easy to escape them but technology is disruptive. these are powerful signals that are flying across the air and open and unencrypted for a public purpose and i think technology will be trying to hack and figure out the content to deliver to consume. >> host: could that effect retransmission cost or fees? >> guest: i think it is hard to say. i think the only way it would is if you thought consumers have a good, cost effective way of getting valuable channels that can be disconnected from the cable bill so if you didn't want to pay the transmission cost and went to this as an alternative. maybe that would bring cost

down. i am doubtful that will occur. >> host: michael powell, and gautham nagesh, thanks for being on the "the communicators." >> thank you. >> c-span2 created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite providers. john boehner set thursday as the day of electing the substitute for eric cantor who lost the position and will step down in july. kevin mccarthy and a congressman from idaho announced they will fry to fill the position but other candidates could emerge as

well. mccarthy would leave a spot open and louisiana, illinois and indiana are vying for the post and other candidates could emerge in that race. and the race is heating up and getting ugly with the two front runners to be the most majority whip spent the weekend shoring up support with allies and taking swipes at each other through staff. a source close to them said the 90 plus members in the house who pledged to vote for the the illinois person are iraq solid and indiana steve numbers are all over the place at 100, 120,

over 100 and etc. no one wants a whip who can not count or overpromises and und under-delivers. >> religion is a powerful identity forming mechanisms. part of human society is figure out who is us and who is them. who is my group and who is the out group. well religion answers that question. if you pray like me, eat like me, go to the same church i do than you are us and you have don't you are them. and you can see easily how that kind of us, them, in group, outgroup, mindset can easily lead to extremism and marginalization and as i remind people religion maybe the post powerful form of identity

formimation but just as powerful is violence. if you are fighting along side me, you are us. if you are fighting against me, you are them. so far from religion and violence being the two things at odds they have as everyone knows been much more aligned than we would like them to be. >> religious scholar and best-selling author reza aslan is booktv's indepth guest. he will take your calls for three hours on sunday july 6th. and in the month ahead ron paul and then the former chair of civil rights mary francis berry and we have discussing "the forgotten man "in our book of the month. booktv, television for serious

readers. >> welcome to the our ocean conference. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the secretary of state of the united states of america, the president of the republican of kiribati.

i am >> good morning. i am delighted to welcome you to washington and thank you for the cause. participants from more than 80 countries are here representing foreign and economic ministries, foundations, private companies, the scientific and research communities and ordinary cyst citizens. this diversity reflects the tenants of the conference that is the solutions threatening our oceans require everyone. we chose the title our ocean to communicate a fact ocean

scientist understand. the water is really a single interconnected global ocean. because there is only one pollution or unsustainable fixing in one quarter of the ocean matters to us thousands of away. and why the ph may vary from one location to the other everything is threatened. the ocean is one of the greatest asset and cycles water, carbon and nutrients. but it is at damage prom the behavior of individuals each of who maybe acting rationally from his or her point of view. over the next two days we will examine three critical issues

for ocean health, sustainable marine fisheries, marine pollution and ocean acidification. we will review the way this has impacted communities around the world. practical and affective solutions exist at every level of society. there is a role for government and we inspect aanouns lit over the next few days. collective action is critical and so is individual action. for at the end of the day, it is individuals woo have the power to change their behavior and the behavior of their government. as we plant this conference over the last few months, we have been overwhelmed by the support from our partners and

individuals around the world. this support has bloomed online. the department of state first thunderclap or social media burst reached over 5.3 million people. all from individuals and organizations adding their voice to this cause. i encourage everyone to reach out to networks and spread the news about the conference. this is more than a two-day event. we are committed to working with you to catalyze challenges and step by step advance a concrete plan on the steps we must take to conserve the ocean. it is now my pleasure to introdeuce the 68th secretary of state john f.kerry.

i have to advocate for him a little bit more before he talks. secretary kerry has been a passionate advocate for ocean conversation since his childhood and 28 years in the senate and his time as secretary of state. he has used cutting edge environmental issues in the mainstream of foreign policy like no other secretary of state before him. with great pleasure secretary kerry the floor is yours. cathy, thank you very, very much. >> welcome, everybody, distinguished guests all. we have many government leaders, many people, as cathy mentioned, from foundations, from ngos, from various interested entities. we are really delighted to have

such an extraordinary expert concerned group come together to discuss this really critical issue. and i am personally very, very grateful to the leadership of our terrific under secretary for economic growth, energy, and the environment - it's a big package, obviously - who has been working diligently to put this together. you can tell from the surroundings this will be interactive; there will be a lot of visual input to digest and a great deal of science to document what we are talking about here over the course of these next couple of days. but i'm really grateful to my team here at the state department that has worked overtime under cathy's leadership to help bring everybody together here today, and i thank you all for coming. i welcome you to the state department, to the loy henderson conference room, particularly those of you who are representing countries from

around the world, the private sector, civil society, academia, as well as many, many people joining us online via livestream through state.gov. and i hope many more people will join us over the course of the next two days. as many of you know, convening a conference like this has been a priority of mine for some period of time. i really started thinking about this when i was still in the senate and we wanted to try to pull it together. and then last year we did, and as you know, we had a political moment here in washington - that's polite diplomatic-ese - which prevented us from going forward at that time. but candidly, i think it's worked for the better because it gave us more time to think about how to make this conference perhaps even more effective and how to maximize what we're doing here. a commitment to protecting the ocean, which we all share, has

really been a priority of mine for a long time, as cathy mentioned a moment ago, literally from the time i was growing up as a child in massachusetts when i first dipped my toes into the mud off woods hole oceanographic in that area of buzzards bay and the cape and was introduced to clamming and to fishing and all of those great joys of the ocean. i have had this enormous love and respect for what the ocean means to us. i went into the navy partly through that and i had the pleasure of crossing the pacific both ways on a ship and passing through many different parts of the pacific ocean region. it's sort of in my dna.

my mother's family was involved way, way, way back in the early days of trade through the oceans. and indeed my father was a passionate sailor who, in his retirement, found a way to sail across the ocean several times. so i learned very early on to appreciate this vast expanse of the ocean, so vast that three-quarters of our planet is really ocean. someone might have called our planet ocean, not earth, if it was based on that, but obviously it is not. stewardship of our ocean is not a one-person event; it's a nation event, it's a country event, it's a universal requirement all across this planet. and i tried very hard when i was in the senate as chairman of the senate oceans and fisheries subcommittee where we rewrote our magnuson fishery laws on

several different occasions, created the stellwagen bank sanctuary, the coastal zone management act, enforcement, flood insurance, rethinking it - all these things that have to do with development and runoff and non-point source pollution and all of the things that concern us as we come here today. and that is the concern that i bring to this effort as secretary of state now. the reason for that is really very, very simple. and for anyone who questions why are we here when there are so many areas of conflict and so many issues of vital concern as there are - and regrettably, because of that, i will not be at every part of this conference because we have much to do with respect to iraq and other emergencies that we face. but no one should mistake that

the protection of our oceans is a vital international security issue. it's a vital security issue involving the movement of people, the livelihood of people, the capacity of people to exist and live where they live today. the ocean today supports the livelihoods of up to 12 percent of the world's population. but it is also essential to maintaining the environment in which we all live. it's responsible for recycling things like water, carbon, nutrients throughout our planet, throughout the ecosystem - "system" is an important word - so that we have air to breathe, water to drink. and it is home to literally millions of species. protecting our ocean is also a great necessity for global food security, given that more than 3

billion people - 50 percent of the people on this planet - in every corner of the world depend on fish as a significant source of protein. the connection between a healthy ocean and life itself for every single person on earth cannot be overstated. and we will hear from scientists who will talk about that relationship in the course of the next hours and days. the fact is we as human beings share nothing so completely as the ocean that covers nearly three quarters of our planet. and i remember the first time i really grasped that notion. it was in the early 1970s when the first color pictures of earth from space were released, the famous blue marble photographs. and when you look at those images, you don't see borders or markers separating one nation

from another. you just see big masses of green and sometimes brown surrounded by blue. for me, that image shaped the realization that what has become cliched and perhaps even taken for granted - not perhaps, is taken for granted - is the degree to which we all share one planet, one ocean. and because we share nothing so completely as our ocean, each of us also shares the responsibility to protect it. and you can look at any scripture of any religion, any life philosophy, and you will draw from it that sense of responsibility. i think most people want their children and their grandchildren to benefit from a healthy ocean the same way that we've been privileged to. and they want to do their part to be able to ensure that that

is the case. but here's the problem: when anybody looks out at the ocean - we're all sort of guilty of it one time or another - when you stand on a beach and you look out at the tide rolling in, you feel somehow that the ocean is larger than life, that it's an endless resource impossible to destroy. so most people underestimate the enormous damage that we as human beings are inflicting on our ocean every single day. when people order seafood from a restaurant, most of the time they don't realize that a third of the world's fish stocks are overexploited, too much money chasing too few fish, and nearly all the rest are being fished at or near their absolute maximum sustainable level on a level on planet that has 6 billion people

and will rise to 9 over the next 30, 40, 50 years. most people aren't aware of something called bycatch, where up to half or two thirds of the fish in a particular catch are not actually what the fisher was looking for and they're simply thrown overboard. and when people go swimming or surfing along the coast, often they don't realize that pollution has led to more than 500 dead zones in the ocean, areas where life simply cannot exist, and that together those dead zones add up to an area roughly the size of the state of michigan here in the united states. when people walk through an aquarium and they see and learn about the marine world, they usually don't realize that because of climate change, the basic chemistry of our ocean is

changing faster than it has ever changed in the history of the planet. and if it continues much longer, a significant chunk of marine life may simply die out because it can no longer live, no longer survive in the ocean's waters. the bottom line is that most people don't realize that if the entire world doesn't come together to try to change course and protect the ocean from unsustainable fishing practices, unprecedented pollution, or the devastating effects of climate change, then we run the risk of fundamentally breaking entire ecosystems. and as you'll hear throughout the course of this conference, that will translate into a serious consequence for the health and the economies and the future of all of us. the good news is that at this

point we know what we need to do to address the threats facing the ocean. it's not a mystery. it's not beyond our capacity. everyone in this room is aware of the effective steps that people are taking already, both large and small around the world. in latin america, ngos like paso pacifico are helping fishers to improve their sustainability by engaging those fishers both in monitoring their catches and in the process of selecting new marine-protected areas. in africa, local volunteers - volunteers - take it on themselves to collect the trash that floods from the streets to the beaches during the periods of intense rain. there's an amazing group of volunteers in guinea who call themselves "les sacs bleus"

after the blue trash bags that they use to collect the garbage, an incredible self-spontaneous combustion effort to be responsible. in the asia pacific, half a dozen nations have come together with u.s. support to protect the coral triangle, a part of the ocean that has been called the amazon of the seas because of its incredible biodiversity. the coral triangle initiative has led to improved management of a marine area that's almost the size of one of our states, north dakota, and it has inspired more than 90 policies, regulations, laws, and agreements to protect the local coastal and marine resources. here in the united states, we have taken very significant strides to end overfishing in u.s. fisheries.

we've rebuilt a record number of fish stocks back from depleted levels, and at the same time promoted and increased the economic viability of our fisheries, trying hard to actually give meaning to the word "sustainable fisheries. " these are just a few examples of a great deal of work that you're all familiar with, that many of you have created that is taking place around the world. but so far, all of these efforts have only been applied on a relatively small scale and only applied in one region or another. if we want to honor - if we are going to be able to honor our shared responsibility to protect the ocean, the ad hoc approach we have today with each nation and community pursuing its own independent policy simply will not suffice.

that is not how the ocean works. we're not going to meet this challenge unless the community of nations comes together around a single, comprehensive, global ocean strategy. that is the only way that we can clean up our ocean today and make sure that it remains what it needs to be for generations to come. that is what this conference is all about. over the past few years, even over the past few months, there have been an encouraging number of reports, summits, meetings, even conventions convened to examine the various threats of our ocean and - are facing and potential ways to address those threats. and many of you here have been part of those meetings. i hope you have found them as valuable as we have. they've been instructive and they're critical, but now is the

time for us to build on this groundwork of these past years. now is the time to build on the knowledge-base that we have created through these meetings, and that is why we have invited you here now, not just to have an important conversation, but to reach important conclusions, to try to put together a plan of action. i want us to walk away from this conference with more than ideas. i want us to walk away from here with a plan, a plan that puts an end to overfishing through new rules based on the best available science. and may i add one of the things that ted stevens - senator ted stevens of alaska who teamed up with me on the commerce committee in the senate - one of the things we always were fighting was getting more,

better science so that we could convince fishermen and convince countries, governments of the imperative of making decisions. too often we hear, "well, we don't really see that," or, "we don't really feel that," or i'd hear from captains of the boats, "when i go out and fish, i see plenty of stocks out there. there's no reason to be restricted. " we need science, and globally we could put our heads together and our governments together and come up with both the budget and the capacity to be able to do what we need to be able to help convince people of the urgency of this. we need a plan that requires fisheries to use gear and techniques that dramatically reduce the amount of fish and other species that are caught by

accident and discarded; a plan that ends subsidies to fisheries, which only serves to promote overfishing; a plan that makes it near impossible for illegally-caught fish to actually come to the market anywhere, whether you're in boston or beijing or barcelona or brasilia or any other city that doesn't begin with a b. (laughter. ) let's develop a plan that protects more marine habitats, and we will have an announcement regarding that. i believe president obama will make such an announcement. today, less than 2 percent of our ocean is considered a marine protected area, where there are some restrictions on human activity in order to prevent contaminating the ecosystem, less than 2 percent of the entire ocean. there isn't anybody here who

doesn't believe we can't do better than that. so let's start by finding a way to perhaps bring that number up to 10 percent or more as soon as possible. and let's develop a plan that does more to reduce the flow of plastic and other debris from entering into the ocean. everybody's seen that massive array of garbage in the pacific and elsewhere. we need a plan that helps cut down the nutrient pollution, that runs off of land and is miles from the shore, and that contributes to the dead zones that i mentioned earlier. i learned about that back when i was running for president out in iowa and minnesota and the mississippi and missouri rivers, and you learn about the flow of these nutrients that go down the mississippi out into the gulf,

and we have a great, big dead zone as a result. we need to develop a plan that gives us a better understanding of the acidification effect that carbon pollution is having on our ocean, that we know that in the antarctic, for instance, there was a regurgitation of carbon dioxide. have we reached a saturation point? i don't know. but i know that it's a question that is critical to our capacity to deal with climate change and to maintain the oceans. we ought to be able to know where it's happening, how quickly it's happening so we can find the best way to slow it down. and we need to push harder, all of us, for a un agreement to fight carbon pollution in the first place because the science proves that's the only way we'll have a chance of reducing the

impact of climate change, which is one of the greatest threats facing not just our ocean, but our entire planet. finally we need to develop a plan that not only lays out the policies we need to protect our ocean, but that also considers how we are going to enforce those policies on a global scale. because without enforcement, any plan we create will only take us so far. i think it was back in the '90s, if i recall correctly, that ted stevens and i joined forces to take driftnet fishing to the united states. and we had become aware of literally tens of thousands of miles of monofilament netting that was dragged behind a boat that would literally strip-mine the ocean with vast proportions of the catch thrown away and clearly not sustainable.

so senator stevens and i managed to go to the un. ultimately it was banned by the un. but guess what? there are still some rogue vessels using driftnets to strip-mine the ocean because they get more money, it's faster, and there's nobody out there to enforce out - no one out there to enforce it. so we need to change this. that's our charge here, all of us. over the next two days, let's put our heads together and work

it is now my pleasure to introduce one final speaker before we open the program up, and there is going to be a great deal of the information coming at you in short order. but president anote tong is one of the loudest voices, one of the clearest voice is in the world in the call for global action to address climate change and they're is a simple reason why he has a special interest. it is because climate change is already posing an existential threat to his country, but he is

also one of the world's greatest advocates for the protection of the ocean well beyond the interest of his own country. under his lead kiribati has established one of the largest marine protected areas in the world. it is an honor to have him here to share his thoughts with us this morning. ladies and gentlemen, president anote tong. [applause] [applause] >> thank-you, secretary kerry. and of course our gracious host today, over the next couple of days. i wish to acknowledge you all

and your contribution this morning. thank you very much for that very inspiring statements. friends of the ocean, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by greeting you, bringing the greetings from the people of kiribati, young, old, and on whose behalf i am very honored to be here to address this conference. in my country we officially became. [inaudible] so let me do so to each and every one of you this morning. it is an honor, indeed, and a great pleasure for me to be here let me begin at the outset by expressing my deep gratitude and appreciation, and, of course, our appreciation to our host, secretary of state john kerry and to you, the government and the people of the united states for this timely initiative and

important conversation on an urgent issue focused on our ocean. the leaders and commitment in saving our ocean and, indeed, our planet is one that we from the pacific region associate with very closely and welcome. i commend our host country's strong commitment for action against plan to change, action against the blind pursuit of development without full responsibility of the impact on our environment. this summit, i believe, is the beginning of more development in this area with strong leaders. more development patterns. the theme of the summit, "our ocean", is indeed very

significant. it serves to remind us of our shared and mutual ownership of the ocean, which comes with it a shared responsibility in our application to ensure the health of our ocean for our children, their children, and for future generations. as the secretary of state has said, our plan at is our shared home. unfortunately the only one that we have. ladies and gentlemen, for far too long in activities in the name of development and our single-minded pursuit of short-term gain and profit have had deep and the severe impacts on the health of our environment these include illegal fishing, dumping of waste in the ocean, industrial activity which of

course emissions and the list goes on. these activities have greatly affected the health of our ocean and our planet and of course the ecosystem. the depletion of fishery stocks, increasing portion acidification , coral bleaching, increased ocean temperature and a change to our climate system. never in human history has the health of our ocean and our planet earth been so challenged. my country has often been referred to as a small and developing state, but in reality we are a very large ocean state. my people have been custodians'

over centuries of the surrounding ocean. around three and a half billion square kilometers to more than twice the size of the largest u.s. state. when i say the ocean is very much a part of our lives, our culture, and our heritage i do, of course, include not only my fellow pacific island nations but also the united states of america. we share maritime boundaries to ostriches agree located in the pacific. furthermore our ocean territory posts part of the largest remaining fisheries, supply chain islands. in essence, through the ocean

and the pacific links with the united states and also linked with the u.s. national security. ladies and gentlemen, my country , and the same would apply to my colleagues. this very same motion has no raised a new major survival challenge. our people are now facing major challenges never faced before. over the recent past at the beginning of this year in particular we experienced the increase of erosion of our shoreline caused by initially high tide. in some parts of the country villages have had to be relocated due to a severe erosion whose crops have been destroyed.

the first wonderlands contaminated by the rise of sea levels. these are alarming new experiences for us, and my friends from the marshall islands during that time declared a state of emergency. science and our experience on the ground have given us ample proof that if we do not change direction it would be to our detriment. more so for our children and their children's children. very sadly, the pace of global action in response to this major calamity know where matches the degree of severity, existential and survival challenges that sea level rise poses for our people and countries. climate change, as i have said time and time again, poses the greatest moral challenge of our time. it is about the survival of

people, the survival of women, children, whole communities, cities, and nations. it is not about economics, not any more. it is not a political football. it is not about the course of who is responsible. it is now about what we must do together as responsible global citizens. no one country can do anything on its own or a fact of the kind of changes required to deal with your address the challenge. it is our shared the ocean, and we need to work together to address this enormous challenge. as low-lying nations, we are the early warning system to the calamities elevating from sea level rise. the change of climate now facing the global community. it we've bought, but when we

fought others will follow to be on the front line, and they, too , have advised more than 70 percent of the city's and human settlements around the world are on coastal areas. there will be the next on the front line. ladies and gentlemen, one of our major hopes of responding to climate change, the very notion which is threatening us from sea level rise. we host the vast fishery resources within our exclusive economic zone in the various countries in the pacific. but in our waters alone our fishery resources is valued at around $500 million a year. but this is of no value to us in order because at the moment we are only receiving around

8 percent of this amount. but given the amount of the value of what is available to us, if we could have it to a larger extent, the value of the resources would provide us with the average energy and capacity to become more clement resilient and be able to adapt in the way that we need to adapt in order to address the challenge. believe there should be more partnership with in the fishing industry. custodians of such resources should be allowed meaningful participation in the industry. we believe that it will only be true, realizing the true value of this resource to us that we can provide the much-needed financial resources for that station to the change in climate ladies and gentlemen, we recognize the importance of our ocean and the resources within the future of our people.

accordingly with the assistance of our partners we established in 20081 of the very largest marine protected areas and are part of the world . described at the world heritage in 2010, and it is not only the largest living large or where scientists can study and natural environment and ecosystem, but it is also a major sporting ground for a tuneup. a major contribution to the conservation and germination of fish stock and global food security. it is an investment in the future. it is also our contribution to humanity, to the conservation and preservation of marine life,

not only for us but for the global community and for generations to come. more importantly, it indicates our strong conviction to the global community that addressing the challenges of climate change calls for very serious commitment and sacrifice. the establishment has not been done without sacrifice. as a small economy the projected initial loss and revenue weighs very significantly in our consideration, but we made the decision to persist with effective sustainable strategies i am very happy today to announce at this conference that kiribati has taken the position to fully close all commercial fishing activities within it the protected area with effect from

the fifth of january 2015. [applause] we have not stopped there. we have also recently taken an initial step to declare the 12-mile monocles on surrounding each of the islands from commercial fishing activities to allow for the marine environment surrounding these islands to remain in their current pristine condition. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, this effort at conservation and sustainable management of our ocean and marine life is not only confined to this. in 2010 agents at the forum

unanimously adopted a framework for targeted direction needed for our region to safeguard the health of our oceans. as a region we take our obligation as steward of one of the greatest natural environments in the world very seriously. our obligation to assure that the ocean sustains life on this planet not only for now but for the days to come. our continued commitment as a region will be reflected and is reflected in the theme of the upcoming pacific island forum meeting, the ocean, our life, our future. following endorsement of the pacific ocean escape, and other pacific island countries also declared, specifically marine

protected areas, the cook islands in 2012 declared over 1 million square declared all exclusive economic zone closed. other countries have done the same. and so this is the momentum that we want to carry on. within the pacific we have a number of arrangements and place to insure that we do the job that needs to be done. the pacific region therefore has some of the most stringent and elaborate conservation and management arrangements. according to the pacific are on foreign the agency and community , the south pacific region environment program, the western and central pacific tuna fisheries commission, the u.s.

multilateral treaty as well as subregional coastal fishery resources, subregional groupings of coastal fisheries resource owners. ladies and gentlemen, let me emphasize that conservation and sustainable management efforts at the national and regional level will be fewer gile if such efforts are not supported on the global level. global connection to regulate and ensure the levels for our ocean and planet, to ensure that they are sustainable will ultimately result in a loss of the entire ecosystem. protected areas and conservation will have no meaning if the closer of these cannot be enforced. the technology to ensure effective management and protection of the ocean is not

something new, but it has yet to be put into effective use. such technology will complement the existing collaborative agreements necessary to ensure that our ocean covering some two-thirds of the earth's surface as effectively monitored and projected. ladies and gentleman, we urge the global community, our development partners, our fishing water partners, private businesses, individuals, and those who can and who share the vision to also make similar sacrifices, including making contributions to supporting the marine protected areas. it makes good financial sense to do so. our presence here today is part of a necessary step toward joint global action, a joint global commitment, and joint global

obligation to preserve and save your home, our one and only on. our presence here is an acknowledgment of our shared responsibility to ensure the health of our ocean and environment. let us not allow this momentum, let us not slow this momentum but continues forward with the upcoming developing states form as well as the united nations secretary-general climate change sought later this year. the preservation of our ocean against climate change, global obligations toward future survival and security. and i speak on behalf of my fellow in stating that there should be given exclusive focus as we shape the post 2016 development goals. we are one global community, and

we have a collective responsibility to ensure that planet earth, our own, our children's home, and their children some continues to sustain life as we know it today we can no longer afford to remain idle, to stand on the sidelines. that does pool our resources, our knowledge, our capacity, and our efforts to save his life source. this gift from mother nature. inaction is no longer an option. our obligation to our children and their children's children. ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by sharing with you our traditional blessings. [speaking in native tongue] meeting may health, peace, and prosperity be upon us all. thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> mr. president, secretary kerry, thank you very much for the inspirational remarque and for the amazing announcement that president anote tong has made. it shows very clearly the critical role our political leaders have been driving forward action to protect our ocean. and now i am delighted to invite to this stage three leading civil society voices on the ocean conservation, philippe cousteau, dr. margaret leinen, and they will each explore the theme. well they take the stage the images you will see around the room are from one of the best known and most loved simple devotion science, the alvin

submersible which just turned 50 years old this year. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> it is now my pleasure to introduce philippe cousteau, a leader in the environmental movement and award winning television host, producer, and an author. he is also successful social entrepreneur. in 2004 he founded earth a coat international aimed at equipping a new generation of youth to solve environmental challenges.

in 2013 he founded voyager group which brings together his efforts to help corporations and ngos successfully implement their marketing and communications efforts. he has also taken his mark -- market-oriented approach to conservation to wall street where he partnered with advisers shares investment to launch a global ago exchange traded fund on the new york stock exchange. philippe cousteau, the floor is yours. [applause] >> thank you, under secretary. of course, thank you to secretary kerry for working so hard to establish the ocean as central to a global affairs. now, i thought that this morning it would be appropriate to open our conversation about exploration with a little trip down memory lane. a reminder of just how recently this journey began to explore

and protect our ocean. so i brought here to share with you this morning a little clip, the first few minutes of the first episode of the undersea world from 1968. let's watch that. ♪ >> the calypso cora die will be a series of wages and exploration and discovery in all the seas of the world. we endeavor to save creature's threatened with extinction. we will study the behavior of all forms of life that thrive in this the. the history of the oceans dating back millions of years. ♪ from cages made up plexiglas we will fell wife that is sometimes savage and always beautiful. ♪

we will explore their graveyards of the sea where sunken ships slumber in search of creatures more precious than shipwrecks' gold. ♪ ♪ each time we dive, and each time we entered this the we learn something new. we have never been better equipped to observe, to learn, and to put our findings to scientific use. over the years our quest to lead us to confront the dangers of reaping the splendors of the sea. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> 1968 was not that long ago, and i always think it is nice to look back and remember where things started to inspire us to go forward. but what many people don't

realize is that this iconic televisions cheery -- series was actually preceded by two decades of work. you know, when my grandfather started his journey exploring the oceans in the 1940's it was not about conservation but exploration. and i remember growing up with a story from him about how it took years for my father and grandfather as they watched from the 1940's to the 1960's the rapid postwar industrialization take its toll on the health of the oceans and the shift that they evolved from pure x -- exploration to conservation. my grandfather said for most of history man had had to fight major to survive. in this century he is beginning to realize that in order to survive you must protect it. their personal journey from explorer to conservationists is

the same journey that each and every single one of us have taken in this room each in our own unique way and a journey that has led us here. and it is our collective exploration which has led to a wealth of knowledge that only about the ocean but what humans are doing to it. sustainable fisheries and marine debris, the impacts of carbon pollution, our understanding of the challenges facing the ocean may seem daunting, but the good news is, in the words of my friend, we can fix this. but doing so will require more than technological advances, new ways of doing business. it will require all of us to continue to elevate the ocean to its rightful place at the center of the global stage. as secretary kerry said earlier, the ocean is our planet. and so our job here is to help the world recognized the ocean is a fundamental solution to many of the greatest global

challenges faced by humanity from climate change to food security to providing sustained economic growth and prosperity and peace for countless millions every day i have the privilege of working with young people whom are represented here this morning. i have the opportunity to a film documentaries around the world on environmental issues, and i see a growing chorus of people who are aware of the problems facing our planet and are yearning for reason to hope. it to know that change is possible and that they can be a part of it. they are looking to you, two world leaders, the scientists, to the explorers, to the dreamers to lead the way. my father once said adventured is where you lead a full life, and i can think of no greater adventure than exploring our water plant in all of its mystery, beauty, and it's wonder

and then armed with that knowledge, to have the courage and the audacity to build a better world. enjoy the conference. thank you. [applause] >> thank-you for setting us off with great inspiration. i am not delighted to introduce dr. margaret leinen, the director of the scripps institution of oceanography, one of the world's premier oceanographic research institutes. dr. margaret leinen served concurrently as vice chancellor for marine science of university of california san diego. dr. margaret leinen is one of the united states leading notion scientist. research in the fields of the ocean bio chemistry includes the study of ocean carbon cycle in and their whole of the ocean and climate. she is the president-elect of

the american geophysical union, the largest geoscience society in the world and has served as the president of the oceanographic society. dr. margaret leinen. [applause] >> thank-you, undersecretary, and thank you, secretary kerry, for bringing us all together today. when i first went to see understanding the ocean came in bites. we collected precious samples, ran transacts and brought the data back to the lab and worked out that there. today we understand the ocean through observation in great gulps from satellites, moorings, drifting systems. we are going to hear a lot of concern over the next two days about fisheries, acidification and oceans solution.

but they keep said these and our understanding of the ocean starts with observation. and for that we have an incredible success story. i would like to give you a couple of examples of both high-tech and low tech observation at global scales and intimate scales. and just to contrast out for we have come, the lines that you see on these maps are of the alliance -- transact lines of the major international experiment the world ocean circulation experiment that started sc in 1990 and wanted to get a snapshot of the physical motion in as short a time as possible, to fill out the work here took eight years, hundreds of crews, tens of millions of dollars. in contrast today we often study the ocean with small drifting buoys like the our bill flows the you see here deployed from

ships. they sink into the ocean, go down to about 2,000 meters, measure salinity, temperature, oxygen, depth, and then come back up to the surface and telomere that data back to us in our laboratory. these were developed by the academic community with funding from noah. it subsequently 30 nations have contributed floats to populate this system. the map here shows the population of those floats from 2000 until today. 3500 moorings, drifting buoys, 2,000 meters of water. we now get more measurements from the system in one month than we did from that entire eight years.

an incredible success story in our ability to observe the ocean and from this set of measurements we have been able to quantify the warming of the ocean and also show how its salinity has been changing. coral is a different kind of story. we know that coral reefs, import and nurseries for fisheries, important habitats are under threat from acidification, from warming, from pollution, from disease, and from physical disruption. these important habitats require a more personal approach, and more into it -- and approach for observation. and yet here's some of the most exciting things are coming from the commercial community, small and expensive cameras developed through the recreation community are used now to put together all

of those photos with computer -- using computers to develop an injury like this from a recent poll out to be able to go back to the lab and steady in exquisite detail. now imagine being able to do that on a regular basis with scientists, citizen scientists to be able to look at this area as it changes in respect -- with respect to different events. we have now gotten used to be able to look at the ocean from satellites, sea surface temperature data from 1996-9098 through which there was a major el nino in the pacific ocean followed by the cool face. fifty years ago we could not even dream of being able to study the ocean in this way, and

yet now we can look at a phenomenon that covers the entire half of the glow, look at it in detail, and it be able to understand how it evolves and what happens with the . on the screen you see a movie from an underwater microscope. the field of view is to and a half millimeters. those are to corals, two different species that never occurred next to each other, and you are seeing why. the one on the left has just diverted its digestive organs and is pouring caustic digestive enzymes all over the coral on the right. that is why they do not occur together. these remarkable technologies give us insight into things we could never observed otherwise. new ways to observe the ocean.

finally, and even smaller scale, this is a bacterium, the most abundant organism in the ocean and therefore probably the most abundant organism on our. we did not even know it existed in 2000. and we did not find it in at trawl or even by looking at a drop of water through a microscope. we found it by its genetic footprint in a bulk water sample 50 percent of the cells in the surface temperature of ocean. and it has an outside influence on the ocean because it is a very efficient recycler of organic carbon, one of the major themes -- one of the major components of the carbon cycle in the ocean. so from spacial scales of the globe to these intimate scales

of the ocean, our ability to observe is key to our ability to understand and key to our ability to provide answers to the challenges we are going to hear over the next two days. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, dr. margaret leinen, for showing us how cool science can be. i am not privileged to introduce our final speaker, dr. enric sala. in national geographic explorer and resident actively engaged in exploration, research, and communication to advance ocean conservation. he is currently leading the national geographic kristine see project, an exploration, research, and media initiative with the goal of finding, surveying, and helping protect the last wild places in the ocean. in the last five years they and their partners have inspired

leaders to protect over 450,000 square kilometers of the ocean and five countries. a 2008 gun global leader at the world economic forum and won the 2013 research award of the spanish geographical society as well as the 2013 wall thomas award. [applause] >> thank you. your excellency, mr. secretary to my dear friends. [speaking in native tongue] thank you, secretary kerry, for organizing this ocean conference and inviting me to give this keynote. i am not speaking just for myself but all of those here and in the field who make ocean conservation their life purpose. for all of us have witnessed a dramatic changes in the ocean during our lifetimes. in my case, growing up on the

mediterranean coast of spain in the 70's and watching shark cousteau documentary's, i was saddened by the loss of a large and abandoned fish that he showed us when he was filming in the 40's and 50's. how many of you have a similar story of loss? , many of you have seen the ocean now poorer than the notion of your childhood? raise your hands. and secretary kerry already reminded us what we have lost because of overfishing, pollution, and the emerging threat of ocean warming and acidification. but today i want to show you what we have found, what i have seen in places of our remote and have not been affected by human activities like kiribati islands thank you, mr. president, for making a great step.

and the u.s. pacific remote islands. diving in these places is like going back in time to an ocean with crystal clear water full of large predators and help the coral. this pristine reefs, scientific studies show us, are not only happy but also more resilient to the impact of global warming. so the question we need to ask ourselves is quite simple. how can we move ocean ecosystems closer to a state that is healthy and more resilient? the solutions are many because so or the problems. we need to monitor fisheries better, cap greenhouse admissions and reduce pollution. while we need to tackle these, it will take time to have an effect, but there are steps we can take right now that will have immediate benefits. we can create, as the secretary

said, more marine protected areas, in particular closed fishing and marine resources. in the 90's that came back to the mediterranean coast of spain . i dive in a marine reserve that had been protected for a few years. all of the fish -- i still remember. all of the large fish that were absent from the ocean of my childhood or write there. i met a friend of mine who became a fisherman. he told me that he would not be a fisherman if it were not for the reserve. inside the reserve there were so many fish that many of them spilled over and had to replenish the local fisheries around. other people developed a thriving peak of tourism businesses creating hundreds of jobs and bringing 20 times more income than fishing to the local

economy. i know that many of you have similar stories, experienced personally the benefits of marine reserves that are well-managed. most of the ocean acts as a bank account where everyone withdrawals but no one makes of deposit. marine reserves are savings accounts with the principles set aside that produces interest that we can enjoy. protecting these precious resources is not a technical problem, after all. the science is clear, and so are the economic benefits. what we need now is political will. scientists can only do so much. conservation organizations can only do so much, and the public, most people don't know how bad it is. when they find out they don't know what to do.

your lead will literally make a world of difference in working to create more marine reserves. you, leaders in this room and all around the world, have the authority to make this happen. we know what the benefits are. because the more healthy and resilient the ocean will be the more the ocean will continue to provide these goods and services that make us healthier and richer. thank you very much. [applause] >> up next on c-span2 a house panel looks at the music licensing industry and streaming of digital music in the marketplace. then the senate agriculture committee holds a hearing on child nutrition programs. >> president obama's choice to be the next housing and urban development secretary will be on

capitol hill tomorrow for confirmation hearing. he will take questions from members of the senate banking, housing, and urban affairs committee. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. wednesday the head of general motors will testify about the company's investigation of the ignition switch problems and subsequent recalls. the detroit-based auto maker announced the recall of another 3 million cars monday. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter, watch live coverage at 10:00 eastern. >> next a house panel looks at music licensing and how rights are required by radio and television stations. we will hear from country music songwriter lee miller, who is president of the national songwriter's association international. this intellectual property subcommittee hearing is to a half hours.

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the first of two hearings. probably everyone here knows that i am an avid bluegrass fan. texas music as long as it is old-time country. i am dating myself chronologically when i say that. i know many of you will welcome our new and veteran witnesses today. although every industry goes through changes over the years, i think everyone would agree the music business has seen more of its share of changes over the past decade or two. many of us grew up in a world where we look forward to buy your favorite albums at the local record store. today's youth may not even know

what a record store looks like. they prefer to download these songs from itunes or stream on pandora. however, times change and i am glad to see the music industry continues to adapt and making music available. however, the current licensing system has not changed. many feel that our music licensing laws were designed for a world that existed decades ago and have become outdated. music lovers can now access music virtually anywhere on an ever changing variety of devices . i may be old -- i am old, but i am also old. i am also old-fashioned in my view on copyright laws promoting access to music and still protect the interests of copyright holders. this is a traditional view of compulsory licenses, and i see no reason why we cannot restore the balance.

if not, we know consumers will resort to pirating sites on the internet for their respective music. finally, there are some longstanding issues in the music business that i feel are important for congress to address, our royalty rates are determined, who pays music royalties from and how older music works are treated under federal copyright law. i have also been a friend of broadcasters for some time, and i hope that the broadcasters and the music industry can find a way to work together to resolve their common issues. in closing, i want to thank our panel this morning for making time available for this hearing. while i would prefer to spend the next few hours learning about how to make bluegrass music more popular, i will, instead, spend the next few hours learning about how to make all music more popular. again, i think you, the panelists, and those others in the audience for your presence

today and you'll back and recognize the distinguished gentleman. the distinguished gentleman from michigan for his opening statement. then i will get the gentleman from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member. this is an important hearing, and it is good that everyone is here. i worked with congressman holding of north carolina to introduce h.r. 4772, the respect act which addresses a loophole that allows digital radio services to broadcast recorded music before february 151972 without paying anything to the

artists and labels that created it. this bill would ensure that legacy artists and copyright owners of all works, whether recorded before or after february 15th 1972 are compensated by those who benefit from the federal statutory lessons. though the current failure to pay these legacy artists is shameful, it is harmful to communities like mine, which have so many artists who are at the forefront of the industry and should be compensated fairly for their groundbreaking work. taking someone else's labor and not paying is simply unfair, and this bill seeks basic fairness for artists who created sound recordings before 1972.

a related issue that must be examined is whether our efforts to improve the music licensing scheme will be in fact truly fair if it does not include performance rights for sound recordings. it is no secret i am a strong supporter of artists and believe that the current compensation system on terrestrial radio, a.m. and fm, is not fair to artists, musicians, or the recording labels . when you hear a song on the radio the individual singing the lyrics are playing the melodies receives absolutely no compensation. every other platform for broadcast music including satellite radio, cable, internet, weathercasters pay a performance royalty. terrestrial radio is the only

platform that does not do this. this exemption from paying a performance royalty to artists no longer makes any sense, if it ever did. it unfairly deprives artists of the compensation they deserve for their worked. we have a diverse panel of experts that join with our committee in welcoming them and look forward to hearing them and working with my colleagues to ensure that music licensing process is more fair and does not have unintended consequences that harm artists, solo artists, or producers. thank you for allowing me to make this statement at this time. >> i think the gentleman from michigan. the chair now recognizes the chairman of the full judiciary committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and

good morning to everyone. welcome to the subcommittee's first copyright hearing on music licensing. last monday the sub committee travelled to new york city to learn about the first sale doctrine. one of the issues discussed was the applicability of first sale to the digital environment including music. as we heard at the hearing, consumer expectations have changed substantially in the digital era, probably in no other area of copyright law have consumer expectations changed more than in music. in a world of instant and constant access to entertainment options on internet connected devices, laws that hinder or stunt access to legal music not only hurt consumers but also the artists and services that provide music to consumers. unfortunately, consumers who want to be able to easily access their favorite songs any time on all devices face a legal framework written for the world of vinyl albums and a track

tapes. problems that have emerged from this current legal framework include among others and a lack of a unified, robust, and easily accessible source of ownership records upon which music delivery services can be built, on certain dividing lines between mechanical and performance rights, artists being treated differently under the law the pentium were -- when the work was created. artists and music delivery service is being treated differently under the law depending on how music is delivered, artists and music delivery service is being treated differently under the law depending upon when the music service first began operation and an overall lack of transparency in the industry regarding how revenue is accounted for. during today's hearing we will primarily focus on the rights and legal regime associated with musical composition. we will hear from a broad spectrum of stakeholders from songwriters to those who collect revenues on their behalf to

those who deliver musical works to consumers a new and innovative ways. interested parties from across the spectrum have recognized the need for changes in our nation's copyright laws as they pertain to music a structured. some have called for tweaks to our current licensing regime while others have called for more fundamental changes such as moving toward a more free-market approach. i look forward to learning of -- more about the problems plaguing the current framework and possible solutions to these problems and thank you all again for making the time to be here this morning. i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from new york. >> thank you for holding this hearing on music licensing under title 17 as part of the committee's comprehensive copier review. i am sorry this hearing as well as the last is not in new york, but we have to make do. this is the first of a 2-part

hearing. it is often said that if we started from scratch nobody would write the law as it stands today. the music copyright and licensing is a patchwork of reactions at different times and changing technologies from the development of player pianos and phonograph records to the advent of radio and internet the law has constantly been playing catch-up and quite often failing today terrestrial satellite and is a base radio stations deliver music listeners in their cars, homes command network. each of these require licenses and copyright owners for about the underlying musical work and sound recording with the rights to each often owned or managed by different individuals or entities. over time and in an effort to help ensure equity and access in this complicated universe congress has created a statutory licensing scheme. unfortunately we are marred by rules that place new technologies at a disadvantage against competitors and inequities that and i fair

compensation the music creators. under current law for example rules very for payment of royalties. internet broadcasters like pandora pier royalty rates. by contrast, the rate for cable and satellite providers is established the practice that in 1998 that predated his development of internet radio and that many believe the results in a below market oral to rate. as a result pandora as fairly complained it is a competitive disadvantage and works through cable or satellite receive less than one a consumer streams that same work of the internet. there was circulated draft legislation to establish parity among all digital radio services the songwriter equity act recently introduced by representatives collins and jefferies with similarly modernize the law to ensure the

same standard covering songwriters and music publishers of mechanical reproduction royalties. other provisions of the copyright act prevents songwriters and publishers from providing evidence in federal rate court under dissent decrees governing licensing of their works that came into existence in 1941. the songwriter equity act would remove that evidence gerry van that's helping them obtain fair market value for their work. in the meantime the department of justice just announced in much-needed review of the descent decrees that covered two of the performance rights organizations responsible for collecting and distributing royalties. meanwhile no one is paying artists recorded many of our culture's greatest musical classics before 1972, like aretha franklin or the birds or that it -- temptations. the respect act would close an existing loophole in the law that has allowed digital providers to argue against paying in the lord -- royalties for these great legacy artist.