israeli's prime minister address to congress. we will talk to south carolina congressman joe wilson. and an update on the security spending bill with brian higgins. washington journal is live and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu speaks before a joint meeting of congress on tuesday. he will not meet with president obama on this visit and several democratic members of congress have announced they will not attend the speech. we will have live coverage of his remarks starting at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its members through the first session. new congress, best access on

c-span, c-span2, c-span radio and cspan.org. >> bob erlich was in henniker, new hampshire where he held a town hall meeting at new england college. the former governor who is considered a presidential run in 2016 discussed political discourse in washington the importance of compromise and his views on marriage. this is just over an hour. [multiply conversations taking place]

[multiply conversations taking place] [multiply conversations taking place]

>> good afternoon, everyone, on behalf of the center for sieving engagement i mind like to welcome you to the new england college. i am a political science major and it is my pleasure to introduce governor bob erlich. he has served as governor member of congress state legislature and civil litigator. most recently he advised clients on an array of government matters with focus on health care, finance and economic development. as maryland's first republican governor in 36 years when elected he turned four billion in deficit into two billion in surplus and helped create a

hundred thousand new jobs. he made record investments in public schools and authored maryland's first public charter schools law and doubled funded for need-based college scholarships helping enrollment reach all-time high. he was recognized by the chesapeake bay for the historic chesapeake bay restoration act. he created the first cabinet level department of disabilities for which he earned the highest recognition award from the secretary of health and human services. he earned his bachelor in politics from princeton and his law degree from wake forest university. please join me in welcoming governor bob erlich. [applause]

>> stephanie, presented this to me and i want everybody to see. i appreciate that. [applause] >> how is everybody? we going to be interactive today. thank you for the nice introduction stephanie. i do a fair amount of college lectures. i would rather talk with you. i move around a lot. so i brought my wife with me today. kindle erlich. and she is the mother of my two sons. drew age 15 and josh age 10. and what your name? what do you think i am doing here? >> speaking about your vision for america. >> speaking about my vision for

america. all right. what should that vision be? >> i don't know. >> all right. let's say you guys are running for president. let's say you are running for president, okay? and if i want to hear from you what you think the major issues con fronting the economy, culture, and what they are and what you do about it. i have my answers but i want to hear from you. we are interactive today. extra credit for hands. professors are here right? yes? >> wage inequality. >> how would you describe that when we have so many laws on the book state and federal, with regard to wage fairness. what statute would you advocate? >> i think women should be paid equal to men for doing the same work in the same job >> that is the law, right? >> but it is not what is

happening so i think the law should be enforced more than they are because if it is the law someone is not enforcing the laws properly. >> it is very interesting because when you deal with issues like this and you have an objective goal of equal pay and equal work. should someone at the same job being there ten years be paid the same as someone who has been there two years? you are not saying equal pay for equal work then? >> okay. here is the deal. when you talk about these issues define your term. do not let anybody label you. pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-gun means something different to all of you. they are labels used in politics

and shortcuts for reporters. you don't play into them because once you do your opponent has you. okay? as a member of congress member of state legislature, governor i voted on bills thousands of times in legislatures. two legislatures, one state and one federal. abortion issues hundreds of them. gun issues hundreds. each vote has to be taken with a set of merits. if i asked the students here if you identify as pro-gun, raise your hand. you are pro-gun. one? two? three? there is no right answer. if you are anti-gun raise your hand? okay. i just told you not to raise your hand because i just defined you. i labelled you. you had no idea what i was talking about. so never answer that question. if somebody tries to corner you

with some label on a social issue or economic issue or defense issue you make them define their terms. what that means to you. all right. medicaid financing. in maryland when it comes to late-term abortion parental notification consent, stem cell research all of these issues i voted on. same with guns. right to carry, home invasion ammunition at gun shows. do not let anybody force you into labeling yourself without you defining them. you met equal talent equal pay. define your terms always.

okay? so, if you are running for president, and we have one issue, pay inequality which okay, what other issues out there are confronting the middle class? every politician and congressman likes to talk about the middle class. if i asked you all to define middle class everyone would have a different definition as far as income, family situation, and where you happen to live. as far as the widely defined middle class, what issues are confronting the american middle class today? number one issue? c-span is here. everyone looks good on tv.

>> income. >> as far as income? what do you mean? >> based on what people make per year. >> right. so wage stability. we have as you know in this country today this wage freeze. we have wages that have really not gone up for a long time. so we have middle class is kind of stuck and that is an issue and why you hear politicians playing to the middle class. everybody wants to play to the middle class. does the minimum wage speak to the middle class? why does some paul ticksolitician talk about middle class in the terms of wage? real income growth has not been good for the last seven or eight years. people are feeling stuck and their lot in life is not improving. jp? what is the number one issue for

you? introduce yourself please. >> jp. i think security. >> security -- define that. >> immigration probably. i would define it as -- >> what is going on in the world is distressing. >> so you would say domestic and international border security and international security. >> border and domestic security. who here believes in sovereignty and citizenship should mean something? what does it mean to you? first hand up. >> what does it mean to you? >> i think it should be a group of people who come together with a common goal and values >> what is your name? >> morgan. >> a for you. where is your professor? >> where is wane?

>> extra credit. what is this country all about? what did our families -- what ethnicity are you? >> i am american. >> where did your folks come from? >> french and french canadian. >> polish german. we all came here mostly without a buck. some came on slave ships without a choice. but they came here for a central reason to try to make a buck or for freedom and some didn't have a choice but they all came here to form this unique bond. it is called a culture. it is called a country. right? with a central language and set of values. what are our values? what are american values? >> freedom equalty --

>> plurism, democracy, capitalism -- pluralism -- we come with a set of values and called assimilation and i would argue a major challenge in the culture today is some people not wild about assimilation. eth ethnisties count. i go to german festalivals. i am an assimilated german american right? and our idea is a singular culture that welcomes races and

ethnicity across the world into a unique spearmintexperiment we call america. we are not perfect. we were not perfect from the founding. but these ideas a pretty cool; those framers really knew something. you can be an american regardless of where you come from and what you look like in regards to your last name is anything. we are loosing that. there are some elements in our society not interested in border security jp. we have always welcomed people from all over the world through leakal process. you come here. here is our deal. you come legally, we welcome you, you learn the language you

vote, you raise your kids and treat your husband and wife with respect and you blend into our culture and share our values to the extent you want to distinguish yourself from that you may have a problem getting a job, assimilating or we may have a problem in general. this is common sense. it is not controversial. it is not republican. it is not conservative. it is not liberal. it is not democrat. it is what the country actually used to be about and until recently very few people disgreed with until recently. this is a real problem and your problem because you will in herit the country and running businesses and teaching and hopefully teaching these values. have i said anything

controversial to any of you? anything that smacks you? political ideas? could you predict my party identification when you heard me talk about this? did you know if i was republican or democrat? hopefully you shouldn't. because we share these views. decent is part of the tradition. plural is pluralism is part of the tradition. religion is part of that. but when you say border and sovereignty and citizenship don't mean much you have a problem in the long term and i think culturally this is the number one issue confronting the country. not so long ago the president characterized isis as a jb army. he has sense resended that.

these are a group of radical murders who go around killing people and doing everything you read every day. this on the heels of america saying enough. afghanistan, iraq, enough. foreign engagements? enough. nation building? enough. casualities? enough. wars to nowhere against nine nation states? enough and so here we are. america was there. president obama got elected on that platform of bring the boys and girls home. enough war, enough bloodshed, enough the american people said. and mownow we cannot turn on the tv

or listen to the radio without hearing of nazi-era atrocities. you name the dictator. you name the mass murders. and they are growing. and all the generals the people you pay to make the decisions say these are really dangerous people and guess what? you are not going to be able to stop them with airstrikes and the american public says now what? and that is where we are. the american public and i grew up post-vietnam and after the draft and all of that. that war didn't impact my view of the world the way it did

people five years older than me. i didn't grow up with that presumption these foreign engagements are road to nowhere. we have a situation in our country now where we have a very unstable region in the middle east -- it has always been unstable -- very dangerous with the emerging terrorist army. we have potential nuclear deal with iran that may in fact give iran the bomb. we have workplace violence which used to be called terrorism and should be called terrorism because it is terrorism and we have as part of this well established religion a very small part, of people who want to go kill other people. so i would say that is the number one security issue in our

country. we have talked about the economy, wage growth we have talked about our culture, right, immigration and we have talked about national defense. i would say these discussions are occurring in a lot of dining room tables these days. a lot of families. and they are also occurring in the context of governor and presidential races because the american public is uncomfortable with the status of things today. they know their wages haven't grown. they know there is an enemy over there and may be here. and they read about the interactions by the president of the united states that are extra constitutional. every time the president has been taken to court he has lost and he will probably lose on immigration as well. so i think there is a sense of

insecurity. that is why i wrote this book. i am not here to plug the book but i am plugging the book. it is called america's hope for change. i think at this point in our history and culture where we are, the american public is a little confused and they are looking for leadership and all of you have different -- give me a definition of leadership, somebody, anybody. who is a leader? any captains of teams here? whatever? what is your name? >> joe. somebody who is going to take charge and show the best way to do it. >> good definition. someone who takes charge and knows the best way. what do leaders know?

how do they do that? >> they get everyone involved. >> they build coalition and divine stakes. i am defining stakes for your generation. you better care about this culture because you are going to inherit it. you better care citizenship means something and that capitalism works and you better care there is a growing army ready and willing to come here and kill you because you are you. okay? so i would say the stakes are pretty high. and i want to challenge all of the young people here as a result of to get involved and there is no right answer liberals conservatives, republicans -- i have views on that. we can talk later away from the

cameras. but i think the stakes are enormsly high today. every politician every cycle says there is nothing more important than this election. usually it is because that person is running. in this country and this era with the stakes as high as they are these elections coming up are pretty important. so i do these lectures around the country and people come up and ask me question and the first question is why can't we all get along? if stakes are this high and things are this dysfunctional why can't republicans and democrats in congress get along? you guys are smart. tell me why that is.

what is your name? >> amanda. >> why can they not get along? >> they have political agendas -- >> you run off political agendas. you have a political agenda and i have one. >> yeah. >> that is not it. >> it is part of the answer. >> i think they want to get elected again. >> ah. they want to get elected. she gets an a, too. but that is okay. you want to fail in your life? you want to fail at your business or career? >> i mean not ideally. >> that is another right answer. it is okay to want to get elected. if i was to submit to you that there are concrete reasons why and you are learning this in

political science why congress appears dysfunctional. probably the primary reason is there are so many safe seats in the house, state legislatures have gone about the business of drawing safe seats and this is not my opinion. this is fact. every election cycle what do you see? congressional approval at minus 18. everybody hates congress. relect rate? 95. how does that make sense? if everybody hates congress and yet your woman or guy is getting reelected? why is that? because state legislatures have gone about the business in more recent times of getting serious about drawing safe seats which means almost regardless of what you do during the two-year term

you cannot lose. you can screw up. you can be an idiot. you can be smart. you can articulate or not but unless you really mess up you will not lose your seat. what is your impetus when you go to congress? don't compromise on anything. go get em. and you say yeah and go back to washington. there is a bill. get in the tank and negotiate. you are saying nah. don't really need to. might cost me the seat in the primary. so what is on top of this phenomenal thing is i am in new england right now. and it used to be there was a republican tradition in new england. it was actual republican-base

and in my time in congress and afterward it has almost been wiped out. in the south and west it was a democratic base. safe suburban democratic seats. they have almost been wiped out. so you do not have today in congress, many third party honest brokers. how did ronald reagan get the tax cuts through? southern democrats. now very philosophical and partisan and there is very little room to compromise which is why you don't have compromise. there are voting rights and attack attacking republicans and democrats in the seats. that plays a part here big time. when you pack safe voters into specific districts.

okay? so just maybe a thought. it isn't just that people have agendas. they do. it isn't they just want to get reelected. there is nothing wrong with that. there is very little room or impetus and very little time. ...

i got about 65% of the bill. so my decision was, do i upset some people in my base? by signing the bill? or do i veto the bill, knowing this is the best chance to get it cleaner in my generation, and i have children and i love crab. we'll teach you how to eat crabs when you come to baltimore. if i was dogmatic it was, forget it. see you. i want 100% or nothing. that's not leadership. that's not leadership. now, conversely you have to understand when you're getting 42% or 38% of what you want, you

ought to veto the bill because it's not moving things forward. so thoughts about practical leadership. my party likes to talk about ronald reagan. jack kemp was my really most influential person in hi political have but a lot of republicans talk about president reagan. the would compromise. he sat down with tip o'neill. he left the white house and talked to democrats. he did. got a big deal done. to get big things done immigration, tax reform, trade bills, you need the active involvement of the president because leadership. without it, it's not going to happen. it's not. it can't. there's too many voices, too many stopping points.

the last question that i want to -- you can ask whatever you want within reason -- the last question i'm going to ask is money. how come money? can't you get money out of politics? money, money money, all you guys do is raise money. right? who agrees with that statement? money is the evil in politics. raise your hand. who hasn't spoken. what's your answer? what do you base your observation on? >> um, i just think that it's often that a lot of our decisions in life are based off money. and how can we get more money versus maybe doing what's right situation. >> okay. okay. here's the problem. i have thought about this a lot, trust me. i thought -- when i win to

congress i thought i had the answer. free tv for nonincumbents. except where do you draw that line? when do you give the free tv? who are you going to make run those ads? too you stop at the republican or democratic party? what about the green party? what about the libber tearian party, the natural rights part, about you fill in the blank party? it's so easy to think about these arbitrary lines we draw when we talk about campaign finance and money. there's no line you can draw in my view -- i wish it wasn't so but there's two problems. one i just talked about. any line you draw is going to be -- arbitrary any line. and second, there's this darn first amendment thing and it

says you get to speak and give opinions you say erlich is a rat fink. you can say i didn't like that guy from maryland. you can write a letter and say that guy is a bad guy. you can do just about anything you want because your protected in this country and the first amendment gives you the right to freedom. in the political context. you can say the president is bad. you can say anything you want just about. and people in a free society express those statements through dollars. and the supreme court has said it might be inconvenient but that speech, that is highly protected constitutional speech and when you legislature draw lines lines and contract that right you have a problem. better be real careful. that's why i voted against mccain feingold, by the way. arbitrary lines don't work very well in the context in my view and what the court said of free

speech. that's a problem. anytime you draw a line anytime you carve out freedom, and draw a lynn down the middle, you'll have a problem. and i'm willing to hear other options. i just thought about it for 25 years. how much time do we have? i'm good? all right. so you guys get to ask questions. notice the trepidation. [inaudible] >> i support traditional marriage. i also think there are bundles of rights that apply to adult relationships. and i supported those rights in the state of maryland. >> could you define traditional marriage? >> man and woman. >> on what basis?

biblical marriage? >> my -- your values play into your val -- do your moral values play into your views? >> sure. >> so do mine. i think in my view, -- i talk a lot about rights, talk about freedom and talk about fatherlessness as well as a problem in poorer communities. so i think we have to be careful about line-drawing and rights. i support traditional marriage and i support all sorts of rights that used to go with traditional marriage with regard to nontraditional relationships. let me ask you a question. why would you stop at one spouse? why not three spouses?

>> with the tax code that would be difficult. >> that's really good. we agree with that, by the way. i agree with that. that pretty good. give him an a too. i like that. but seriously, intellectually it's not just -- i think, of course people same sex can have an emotional attachment. i understand that. people on my staff couldn't care less. not my business. i think as far as marriage as anen constitution in our society it's -- institution in the society it's the right thing. >> can you name negative impacts of gay marriage that happened when it has been legalized -- >> i would just say as a person who goes around and talks a lot about the absence of male fathers, in particularly poor communities and it's been 50 years since moynihan, senator moynihan was right and you into read his report. it's not a

or white or brownish. it's an american issue. so i think it is in my view, not the right policy call it whatever you want, i think there needs to be both genders supposed to child-rearing. >> have you read any studies -- >> i read studies you should -- >> have you read studies show that gay parents can be just as effective -- >> i have no problem with that. >> okay. i'm wondering i'll send you some stuff. what's your name? >> ashton. >> all right. >> i'd like to consider voting for the republican party because said to have stand for small, limited government but i don't see how -- >> are you a libertarian? >> socially, sure. i don't see how regulating how people -- who people can marry, who people can love, is an

example -- >> states have always regulated that. that's not new. always. you're a possible. i want to close you. yes, sir. >> chris from concord. could you give me two or three examples of where you would fundamentally reform the size and scope of the federal government, you don't have to stop at three but maybe -- >> first, let me give you a quick bit about maryland. we had big budget deficit, so -- i wasn't going to raise taxes and we had a big budget deficit. our debt levels were high. i called my budget secretaries in and we gave them a workbook. and said, you know what? you're going to start next year's fiscal budgeting in your

agency at 88%. not 100. and you're going to justify to me, the governor every penny over 88. and in a face-to-face showdown. and some prove 88, some proved 105 but that's how we started the process of -- as you know in washington, you start at 100% and supposed to go to 110 and goes to 105 that cut. that's crazy. that's not how you run your family, not how -- the school doesn't run like that. it can't run -- so to answer your question, the department of education has a federal role to play with regard to people with disabilities and title i. constitutional rights follow. they're very serious activities of the federal government. other than that i'm pretty much

a local control guy. and so i think cheerly -- clearly that would be one place. a lot of people have certain issues -- corporate welfare. you don't like corporate welfare foreclosure that, bag libertarian. republicans in congress, you see debates. commerce also another place to start. the issue is defense. under sequester we have the budget hawks saying not enough. and in some respects they're right. but we both know there's a lot of waste and i haven't gotten into obamacare because it is a really bad piece of legislation. maybe the most antimiddle class piece of legislation passed in recent memory and start there we should really read the bills before we pass them. for you conservatives here, do

not say they need to read every page of every bill in congress. it's not going to happen and it's impossible. it's silly to say it. but if you're a member of congress you have your personal staff, you have your committee staff and your caucus staff. there's no excuse ever why you should not know any major provision in a big bill you. can't read 10,000 pages a night but do not say they need to read every page of every bill. that's impossible. it's silly to say. >> how would you go about handling immigration nationally -- >> i think senator rubio's bill is a good start but needs to be worked on. i think we lose sight of definitions and it drives me crazy. earlier i lectured you about not getting labeled. road to citizenship road to legalization, road to you fill

in the blank. you have to nil your terms here. a lot of legal folks here. what the president did was clearly unconstitutional. i think there's a big difference between sending out wrong messages and wrong policy and doing practical things. in other words if you're here ill lilly -- illegally we're not going to send -- 10-14-12 illegals here -- making them legal is far different than guaranteeing citizenship. big difference. you can't morally reward illegal behavior and put those folks ahead of people who have done the right thing and gotten in line and followed the law and expect to become american citizens. right? can't do it. in my view. it's immoral.

so there's all sorts of plans out there. senator rubio has one. others have others. but at some point, you need to have a statute that identifies sets a deadline -- deadlines haven't worked well in the past -- and said we're going to make you guest worker whatever term you want to use -- at least legal, at least restore sovereignty, at least respect for the country. we're going to check records, criminal backgrounds, make sure child support, english civics everything it takes to get back to the issue of what i talk about earlier which is making america mean something. it means something when you're an american. a lot of these are not bad people obviously. they've come for freedom. but we can't just ignore the law, either. i think that -- i talk about

compromise earlier. talked about drawing lines that make sense. to me, that is a bill that should get done with the appropriate leadership. what the president did is inappropriate leadership. unilateral, not dealing with the see ya constitution. wrong. >> in our history, davey crockett stood on the floor of congress and said, it's not your money to spend. especially when talking about the charitable dollar. it would be one place where you could really cut the budget overall. would you be able to do that and is that something you would even consider? >> as far as? >> as far as the whole budget. we talking about we give money at the local level to the nursing association. we give money to planned

parenthood. >> i got involved in this when i was a member of congress giving too much money. >> it's not your money to spend how do we get the people to standard spending their own charitable dollar rather than the government. >> this is one of the fundamental questions out there. i would ask all of you to think -- because it's not the government's dollar but it's appropriate to spend money on some government functions. two different things. what is inappropriate is losing a sense of federalism. what is happened in this country over the years, where we run over the tenth amendment, and we run over sort of the ideas that our founders had, which is for the most part governments want to create dependency. read moynihan. promise me. i'm going to read what you give

me. when you make it such that government replaces what the nonprofit sector and people should do, you're creating a dependent society. social security disable has quadrupled in the last seven years. i don't think the number of legitimate cases have quadrupled in seven years. whenever there's a work requirement discussed in congress, some people yell race. they yell, up fair. -- they yell unfair. the turn it to some other issue. i'm begging you young people here to think about this stuff. and think about where those lines are drawn, because today they're way too out there. i had a debate a number of years ago. i will not name the senator because i protect the guilty.

we talked about -- the issue was schools and i am a radical when it comes to giving poor kid opportunity to escape dysfunctional school systems. i'm for everything. enough. enough. we have cheated in a multigenerational way too many kids. the chance you have to punch your ticket, and we got to care. so i'm in this debate and this person said -- the issue is school construction comes up and the person said, sure the federal government should be building schools, and i went what? and nobody said anything. because those lines have all been crossed today. with the stroke of the pen we can make illegal, legal. 4.35 million people. wrong way to do it. i got the problem. wrong way to do it. ways to do it have to count. the federal government should never be involved in school construction, ever. not a federal job.

some things to think about. thanks, you guys. [applause] >> thank you so much. the gov will be around for another 10 or 15 minutes if you have further questions for him. thank you for joining us today. >> thanks for having me. >> glad to have you. >> i'm kathleen. can i ask you a couple questions? can you tell me what else you're up to here in new hampshire? >> rockingham. press, interviews, this some more radio tv interviews, radio interviews and then home

tomorrow morning. [inaudible] organically. i came up with a speech and a bunch of people said why don't you come back. >> when was this? >> in september in manchester. and then i came back and they said why don't you come back again so i came back. and now this is my fourth trip, and it's a very -- have a real job, and -- when you hear this phrase which is sometimes phony, listening for -- this is actually appropriate here. it's not some cover for something. >> what are you looking for?

>> talking about leadership? i'm looking for my platform my record my view, my style of leadership. and not where -- you can't figure that out from maryland. >> today was a lot of q & a rather than you giving a speech. >> i make my point that way. >> if you were to run what would be the base of your platform? >> you heard me talk about -- there's a sense of insecurity in this country. this traditional stuff, denigration of the manufacturing base and lack of real wage increases.

talk about culture. what it means today. and i think we're losing a little bit of that. more people are insecure and the definitions are more unclear than they have been and then obviously the issue of defense -- >> can you just expand on that about to definition -- >> when the president makes fun of -- there was a speech -- republicans want to build another southern border. everybody laughed. border security is serious and we're trying to struggle with this issue of keeping our foundation keeping our history and keeping what we're about, which is welcoming people from all over the world and assimilating them into this unique experiment in pluralism and democracy. but you don't do that by encouraging illegal behavior. you don't do that by degrading

sovereignty. and you don't do that by strokes of the pen in a quiet office. that is not leadership. and then for the third part national defense and what we talked about here. people are confused right now. they're concerned. we have very strong isolationist trend in this country post iran, post iraq, post afghanistan and people have said enough. we're going withdraw and exit stage left. and when good guys leave bad guys fill the vacuum. you see that in china and the ukrainian and the middle east and all over the world and that is not good for their future. so it's a lot more than -- i kempt my campaign promise we're out another there. what we're out of there is a semi colon not a period and

history doesn't stop. i think there's a sense of frustration, confusion and insecurity in the country, and i'm trying to figure out how deep that is. [inaudible] >> did i say that? >> i'm asking you. >> what he said about conflict and the threat of isis is pret pretty mainstream. when i read -- i have been very clear -- i don't talk ever about any other republicans. a lot of them are my friends, a lot of them very successful governors, some senators. so i really -- i'm hesitant to even ask the question but i'll say from what i've seen of his recent statements much more mainstream republican when it comes to our goals in the world and the fact that you just can't

ignore the bad guys. you just can't because you'll pay a price. [inaudible] >> recently there's been more -- >> a lot of it is either other republicans are considering running -- more name recognition. people know jeb bush, rand paul, these names a lot more. realistically do you think there's way you can break through that and find a path and how do you try to do that? >> these. this. i'll say that i'm not going to degrade the importance or minimize the importance of money in politics, but i will say that social media given the fact that there are so many other ways to reach people today money is not as important as it was 10, 20 years ago.

just not. it's still important, and the numbers from super pacs but we're not there and i'm not going to allow the calendar to rush me. i'm pretty confident in my ability to campaign engage and i have a record and a history, obviously, as people will look at but for now it's truly trying to figure out whether my style, fits here, now. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. [inaudible] >> sure, sure. hang on. >> thanks for having me. [inaudible] >> free trader.

trade with the world. [inaudible] >> i think there's a dangerous trend, an isolationist trend weapon need to engage, not just trade -- i'm not against foreign aid, but it needs to make sense. taxpayer has a legitimate interest here as well. i'm not one of the republicans -- [inaudible] >> thank you. >> nice to see you. >> thanks for welcoming me. [inaudible]

>> you heard what i did in maryland. i think the problem -- i meant to talk about this -- the problem is we have a good idea, a bill and then -- [inaudible] -- we need to protect our turf and we really fail to measure -- you heard the gentleman back there -- we need to measure who the government -- we tend not to do that and we tend to forget what some of the worst predictions -- medicare, for example. going to cost this amount. $36 billion under what cbo projected. it works. and we save money. and we don't sometimes -- that's

an example for -- because we use the -- i think too often -- [inaudible] ...

and, people who can work through technology today we can get them to the workforce but they need help and we need employees to understand what they are so we should be allowed to do that. and it was pretty successful. my first secretary, my cabinet had lobbied me and congress and iran as lieutenant governor. people with disabilities today given technology can really -- [inaudible] >> i had a question also. do you have plans to look at the rising cost of a college education? >> yes. it's more of a problem it's a middle-class problem and one of

my great frustrations is to see these endowments that -- every year so the president talks about a national conversation on that, we need a national conversation on that. [inaudible] >> i thought it was a bad idea. it's a middle-class as you can get. most middle-class people do. in order to make the most affordable level by far relatively few people come to me and say it's the best deal. people come to me all the time and say i can't afford the institutions i think the way he went about it was wrong.

>> all right you, troublemaker. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> that about sums it up. >> well you know i would take a major player so it impacts to

aspects. a major player out and then where do the dollars come in? so it impacts the substance so it's a big deal. >> i know you touched on it but why now? >> is the reason i wrote the book and the reason i went around the country. if there's insecurity in the country it comes from a lot of bad messages in washington d.c.. it's this minimalist asian of what the country is about. he didn't do that, sorry he did. when the message from the president is lack of respect for

sovereignty and -- [inaudible] we have got a problem. >> one more question. your big topic? >> my big topics? criminal justice reform fatherlessness and the story of the manufacturing base. it's good to see you. it's good to see you. >> when you see small colleges in the next five years because obviously -- >> because of cost? >> my kid went to school around the corner and we know let us know because my wife's college roommates daughter lives there.

she swims. hey come here. please think about transferring. >> to loyola. >> excellent. actually my college roommate is a swimmer. >> that was what he was saying. >> what is your name? >> justin. [inaudible] >> i have to get you to manchester.

>> it's your move. >> one more. >> people don't know. >> i made my point with them. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> it's nice to meet you. >> no more talking. let's go.

>> it's still going on. [inaudible conversations] you are welcome. good to meet you. good questions.

monday the senate bill to get enough votes to compel members to meet with house negotiators over differences with homeland

security funding. following the vote senate democrats spoke to reporters about the vote and dhs funding. the current short-term funding for dhs expires friday. this briefing is 10 minutes. >> the bill that the house sent over is as varied as punxsutawney phil so now it's time to put partisan politics aside, to put the game society and to pass a bill to fund homeland security. we can't afford any more short-term measures. we have seen a the number of threats. last week alone the mall of america in minnesota was threatened, law enforcement officials capture suspected terrorists in new york. we live in a time of real threats to our homeland security. we need to stop playing politics with the agency tasked with keeping us safe. the american people are counting on us to put their safety ahead of partisan politics. >> good evening everyone.

at a day and age when we have -- he in every state in this country, some of them planning actively to do harmful things to the folks who live in those states and a day when we have all kinds of people trying to bring things across our border to our ports of entry in some cases in aircraft some cases strapped to people's bodies. a day when we have folks who are trying to figure out how to deliver a dirty bomb in this country day when we still have a whole lot of people who are trying to come into this country just for a place to work and to maybe make a better life as all that is going on the folks who lead the department of homeland security are spending a whole lot of their time not focusing as much as they need to on these

challenges. and because they are focusing on what if we don't get acr, what if we do and how does that affect the way we are going to run this agency a whole lot of time and a whole lot of energy is going on devoted to those kinds of issues when they really ought to be devoted to issues of how we remain safer in this country. we need to get over this. like i say to my republican colleagues i understand you are upset. understand that they want to find a way to reverse the president's position and i would suggest again there is a great offramp for them to pursue and the offramp is the courts. it succeeded the federal court level and it may well have succeeded the sort -- fifth

circuit court of appeals in new orleans. i urge them to take that often last thing i want to take is this. take that offramp and let's steer the course to a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform program that will work for our country, that will work for our economy and will actually work to reduce our budget deficit. that is what we have to be doing and my hope is today we can do those things. thank you. i think senator schumer. >> first of may think my colleagues for the great hard work they have done jeanne shaheen head of the homeland security subcommittee, tom carper ahead of the homeland security authorizing committee. now we are just days removed from isis arrests in brooklyn new threats from al-shabaab and only five days away from a shutdown of the department of homeland security. today democrats rejected further

attempts by republicans to play politics with the department of homeland security. there are only two reasons to go to conference. first to negotiate new funding levels to dhs were second to put more extraneous immigration riders back into this bill. this bill is negotiated by both parties of both houses in with days to go before dhs funding expires it's time for republicans to stop trying to tie funding for dhs to their battle against the presence policies on immigration. the place for that fight is in the courts is said by my dear friend tom. this has artegon too far. isis is not funded a week of the time. al-shabaab is not funded a week at a time. the department of homeland security shouldn't be either. how can secretary johnson in dhs keep a secure and congressional republicans won't even promise to keep the lights on for more than a week at a time? it's time for speaker boehner

now that the senate has once again in a bipartisan way rejected another gambit to try and get the right-wing off his back, it's time for speaker boehner to put the bill that fully funds the department of homeland security on the house floor for a vote. speaker boehner has the power to end this standoff at the snap of his fingers. put this bill up for a vote and it will pass just like many house republicans said it would. if house leadership puts it up for a vote our first responders will be funded our biometric screening system to track people crossing our borders will be upgraded the secret service improvements will be made. put a clean bill up for a vote so the department of homeland security is not -- is enforced to keep america safe with one hand tied behind its back. senator stabenow. >> thank you senator schumer. the bottom line is with terror threats all around us the

republicans continue to play politics with homeland security funding holding homeland security funding hostage and we are here to say enough is enough. i want to continue to stress that in one area with first responders they have been holding their breath since october because the short-term funding process has meant that police and firefighters all over michigan we have 84 communities in michigan that funds police officers and firefighters through grants or homeland security that have not been reissued. have not been reissued. they haven't been issued today they won't be tomorrow, they won't be the next day and we are finding ourselves in a situation where we don't know if we are going to have the adequate staff for first responders as well. so enough is enough of all of this. frankly it's an embarrassment as we watch what is happening and

we are here to say it's time to fully fund homeland security and get on with the business of keeping america safe. >> we are ready for your questions. [inaudible] >> we hope we are not giving up to this deadline again. enough already. we don't need them to think about it. it's time for speaker boehner to act. >> are there any assurance as the speaker or -- [inaudible] >> we are hoping and praying that speaker boehner does the right thing. enough already. >> does this save you the way the process is playing out that -- speak speaking for myself i'm worried. if on funding homeland security speaker boehner cannot control his troops and get something done that 90% of americans conservative allies no need to

be on what's going to happen in future? they are not off to a great start. they can man day one saying we are going to show we can govern and now we are only the second month and they can't govern on the most rudimentary ways of governing, what is next? we worry. >> and to underline that was senator schumer we have at the end of this month something that is medicare funding for doctors health care providers that runs out. in a couple of months we have transportation funding running out. what happens on that? we have children's health care running out in september along with community health centers for millions and millions of americans. what happens on that? this is a very concerning way to go about that democracy trying to solve problems.

>> the issue here is not that there aren't enough votes in the house to pass this bill. the issue is they keep trying to do it with republican votes. if you would put the funding bill without riders on the floor of the house he would get a bipartisan vote to pass it. so let's be clear about what's going on here. the senate got this done with bipartisan votes. the house ought to do that. that's what the american people expect. they expect us to work together across the aisle to get things done. >> thanks everybody. have a nice evening.

>> people are drawn to the beach beach. they watched in amazement as both of these factors at the beachfront structures. we had wooden bathhouses over the gulf of mexico and we also had peers and even had a huge pavilion called olympia by the sea. as the storm increased in intensity these beaches structures literally returned in the matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday september 8, 1900.

the storm began before noon and increased dramatically in intensity and finally tapered off before midnight that evening. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. last week the federal communications commission voted 3-22 improve internet rules that treat the internet like a public utility. the rules block internet service providers from charging for preferential treatment or from discriminating against legal content. this portion of the fcc meeting is 90 minutes.

>> we are now pleased to present for your consideration an order that would set forth clear sustainable enforceable rules to preserve and protect the open internet. as a place for innovation and free expression. the order built on the views of some 4 million americans who commented in this proceeding in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking last may. before we present the item we have two very special guest with us today. chad dickerson's ceo and veena sud creator of the tv drama the

killing. they also have a brief video from tim berners-lee founder of the world wide web consortium. they will provide us with brief remarks about the importance of an open internet to innovation and investment creativity and free expression. i would first like to turn it over to mr. dickerson. >> thank you chairman for the opportunity to speak today. as the ceo of a brooklyn-based technology company i'm here to thank you and her colleagues for taking decisive action to protect the internet as a platform for entrepreneurship and innovation. etsy is an on line marketplace where you can buy handmade and vintage goods from artist designers and collectors around the world. we have democratized access to entrepreneurship for over 1.2 million sellers 80% of whom are women. we collectively sold

$1.35 billion worth of merchandise in 2013. most are sole proprietors who work from home. they live in all 50 states and they depend on their etsy income to pay their bills and support their families. 18% support themselves full time on etsy. etsy and our sellers rely on a free and open internet. it allows etsy the company to grow from a tiny startup in her brooklyn apartment to a global company with over 600 employees. it allows the microbusinesses who sell on etsy to reach buyers around the world and compete with much bigger and more established plants. back in 1983 it allowed me in english major with a data entry job at a local newspaper to jumpstart my career in technology by teaching myself how to code. without strong rules to prevent discrimination on line innovation economy would suffer. take etsy is an example.

we charge only 20 cents to list an item and take 2.5% of every transaction barely could afford to pay for priority access to consumers if we note the delays of milliseconds have a direct and long-term impact on revenue. absent the rules you are voting on today we would be forced to raise their fees or leave our sellers in slow lane hurting microbusinesses who depend on our platform the most of all. the etsy community knows what is at stake. that's why on september 10, 30,000 join point of others urging congress and the fcc to protect the open internet. many others made handcrafted objects calling for net neutrality and several more send thank you cards for me to bring to the fcc today which i gave to chairman mueller that earlier. i've a handwritten note in my hand from nancy from california and she wrote to chairman cuellar dear chairman cuellar my notice a heartfelt and personal thank you to you for protecting

the free internet for all. i worked in the medical field for 30 years and loved it but a couple of years ago a girl texting on a freeway took my career way for me. my injuries worse me to find income from something i could do from a chair or they turn to my passion for creativity and vintage items and joined etsy. my dream is alive and viable because of the free internet neutrality at etsy. thank you from the bottom of my heart and your your support for me and countless others who gleaned income from their artistry. blessings to you. thank you chairman wheeler. today i plugged the fcc for establishing clear bright line rules that ban discrimination on line. over the last year and over 4 million people weighed in on this proceeding. today's vote demonstrates that they have been heard. thank you for voting to protect internet as an engine for economic opportunity the likes of which we have never seen.

thank you. >> thank you for your leadership and please say thank you to nancy. >> good morning mr. chairman commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is veena sud and i'm a producer and writer. i developed the tv surveys the killing a show that survived two years because they open internet. they killing originally aired on amc but the network canceled us after a second season. netflix offered to share financing for a third season and we were resurrected. when amc canceled us yet again netflix took over the show in its entirety and we were able to end the series as it was intended all because of internet opening up competition and a wider playing field. we told some of her best stories are toughest most heartbreaking ones in the last two seasons of the show stories that never

would have been on the air had it not been for an open internet. we talked about the death penalty teenage homelessness and drug addiction and i'm so grateful we have that opportunity. what the open internet means for creativity innovation and diversity is by no means limited to my own experience. series like orange of the new black and transparent are giving voice to worlds and people and experience never before seen on the small screen. while a little more than 20% of comedies and dramas on traditional television of a woman at the helm almost 40% of the series airing on these on line platforms this season will be run by women. this progress as a result of new competition let loose on an industry that is highly consolidated 30 is the result of pent-up demand by an american public tired of hearing the same old same old. the result of an additional platform does not require permission is expanded how to

and where stories can be told. we are seeing a free-market ideal work as adam smith intended with increasing competition which rewards consumers and creators. however this will not continue without strong rules that help ensure markets work properly meaning public interest. the few companies that control the pipe and faced little competition have already begun to exercise their gatekeeper power to limit the promise of this new platform. today we have arrived at the moment where you decide the future. the right decision that will benefit creators daters the economy and mostly the american people is too reclassified broadband internet service and telecommunications service. only reclassification will allow the commission to institute rules that will ban blocking and paid prior decision in all the ways in which the companies that control distribution can tip the state scales in their favor. what you do today can secure the future of the open internet and

make sure all of our voices are heard each and everyone of us us. thank you. >> thank you ms. sud and now i would like to ask our audiovisual team to play the video from september. >> thank you members of the commission for the opportunity to address you at a critical moment for the future of the internet. more than anything else the action you take today will preserve the ethos of famous and less innovation that has been at the heart of the internet. let me explain. the internet was invented 25 years ago. 25 years ago as an internet user i could sit down and write a program write a web server give copies of them to people and run

them on computers connected to the internet all that was necessary would be plugged into the internet and they began to mitigating. they didn't have to ask permission. all the corners of the global interconnected world hundreds of millions of dollars in economic growth and speech and democracy around the world. i didn't have to get permission from anyone. i didn't have to pay an isp a special fee. i didn't have to convince anybody that this technology should be -- but that it would be good for their business. i didn't have to worry because they would block it because it was competing with other businesses they have. i didn't have to ask permission from anybody. on top of the internet is in the platform and you don't have to

ask me to -- the openness of the internet created the opportunity for me 25 years ago in the next innovation to come along with great new service and great improvements to the web itself will have the opportunity to try their ideas in a free market just as i did. today's fcc actions is about consumer rights, free speech and it's about democracy. it's also importantly about business. it's the openness of the internet and the fact that it's neutral is really important. and we can start new ideas and

don't have to ask permission. i applaud the chairman's position to rely on the tried and true authority of communications enabled the commission to provide hopefully the simple and clear rules on which our society depends. some repressive regimes stifle speech on the internet can deter us from internet openness and free speech. it will set an example of how free speech in local society is transparent principally. many countries are facing the question of what to do about net to chalabi and i'm proud that has led the way in showing how to continue the fight. we are society of laws and we have the free market depends on based on the rules to supply works the property is protected.

a world in which the flow of information on the internet is our economic and social lifeblood. we have to add net neutrality to the list of basic market commissions that we present. thank you again mr. chairman and members of the commission for the important step we are taking today and the opportunity to make this contribution. >> the remarks triggered from her guest reflects a widespread consensus on the record of this proceeding of the importance of protecting an open internet. an item of this complexity requires quite a team. economist engineers technologists and attorneys played roles in preparing the item that is before you. don't they have of the bureau i would like to thank our

colleagues in the office of general counsel wireless telecommunications consumer and governmental affairs bureau and the enforcement bureau as well as their chief technologist. with me at the table are john sallet and stephanie roger sherman and jim schlichting of the wireless telecommunications bureau and claude aiken mignon clyburn and melissa droller kinkel. melissa will present the -- >> good morning. at the outset the order before you set forth three bright line rules to ban conduct that we now threatens the open internet. first broadband providers may not block access to legal content application services or non--- devices. second they may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic

on the basis of content applications services or any classes thereof. third they may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind. in other words no fast lanes. today's order adopts a standard for judging concerns with any future practices on a case-by-case basis. that standard will prohibit broadband providers from unreasonably interfering with or disadvantaging the ability of consumers and edge providers to reach one another. all of these rules other than the ban on paid prior decision are subject to a commonsense exception a reasonable network management. the order makes clear that the commission will not tolerate abuse of this exception. the order also enhances the transparency rule adopted in 2010 which is still in effect.

it provides smaller broadband providers with a temporary exemption from these enhancements and sets in motion a process to consider whether to make that or another exemption permanent. the order also notes that some data services like facilities-based voip are not broadband internet access services and thus not subject to the conduct rules. the order however does ensure that these services do not undermine the effectiveness of the open internet rules. also the order allows the commission to address any problems that arise in exchange of traffic between private internet access providers and other networks and services. the order recognizes that when internet internet connection breaks down consumers bear the harm. it classifies broadband internet access fixed and mobile as a telecommunications service. the order recognizes that in

offering the service for broadband provider makes a promise to the end user to transmit traffic to and from all lawful internet endpoints in and the end-user. this is no less true in mobile than it is and fix. accordingly the order finds mobile broadband internet access service is a commercial mobile service under section 332 of the communications act and all of the open internet protections that apply to fixed broadband also apply to mobile broadband. with respect to interconnection the order explains that this promise encompasses the duty to make the necessary traffic exchange arrangements that allow consumers to use the internet. these findings concerning broadband internet service provide the best legal certainty for rules guaranteeing an open internet and reflects the reality of how broadband providers offer their services to the public today.

to ensure that the service classification results in continued light touch framework for broadband the order exercises the forbearance authority granted to the commission by congress for bearing from some 27 provisions of title to and over 700 regulations adopted under it. the order retains court authority to prevent unjust and unreasonable practices protect consumers and support universal service. the order makes clear that broadband providers will not be subject to utility style regulations. this means no unbundling tariffs or other forms of regulation. the order does not contribute to the universal fun or impose suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees. in short the order before you response to the unprecedented proceeding by adopting strong open internet protections on solid legal grounds.

the bureau recommends adoption of this item and request editorial privileges. thank you. >> thank you to all of you for your substantial efforts on this. ms. clyburn. >> following years the united states adopted the bill of rights in 1791. the framers recognized that basic freedoms enshrined in the first 10 amendments to the constitution were fundamental to a free and open democratic society. james madison gave life to the first amendment and a scant 45 words mr. chairman which are fundamental to the spirit of this great nation. almost two centuries later justice william brennan would write the historic 1964 "new york times" versus sullivan decision that quote debate on public issues should be uninhibited robust and wide-open. i believe president madison and

justice brennan would be particularly proud of their rigorous robust and unfettered debate that has led us to this historic moment and what a moment it is. i believe the framers would be pleased to see these principles embodied on a platform that has become such an important part of our lives. i also believe they never envisioned a government that would include the input in leadership of women, people of color immigrants or they would be an open process where nearly 4 million citizens have had a direct conversation with their government. they would be extremely amazed i venture to say because we are extremely amazed. so here we are 224 years later at a pivotal fork in the road poised to preserve those very same virtues of a democratic

society cover free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press freedom of assembly and a functioning free market. as we look around the world we see foreign governments blocking access to web sites including social media and some curtailing free speech. there are countries where it is routine for government not the consumer to determine who has access to and what kind of content can be accessed by its citizens. i'm proud to be able to say that we are not among them. absent the rules we adopted any internet service provider has the liberty to do just that. they would be free to block favor or discriminate against traffic or extract tolls from any user for any reason or for no reason at all. this is more than a theoretical exercise. providers here in the united states have blocked applications on mobile devices which not only

hampers free expression, it also restricts competition and innovation by allowing companies and not the consumers to pick winners and losers. as many of you know this is not my first open internet radio. while i did vote to approve the 2010 rules it was no secret that i preferred a different path than the one the commission ultimately adopted specifically title ii with forbearance mobile parity of bam on paid prior to station in preventing the specialized services exemption from becoming a loophole. so i am sincerely grateful to mr. chairman for your willingness to work with my office to better ensure that this order strikes the right right balance and is positioned to provide us with strong legally sustainable rules. we must get it right. today we are here to answer a

few simple questions. who determines how you use the internet? who decides what content you can view and when? should there be a single internet or fast lanes and slow lanes click should internet service providers be left free to slow down or throttle applications or content? should your access to the internet on your mobile device have the same protections as your fixed device at home? these questions for me get to the essence of the open internet debate. how do we continue to ensure that consumers have the tools they need to decide based on their own user experience the consumer, not me, not the government not the industry but you the consumer? keeping in touch with your loved one overseas interacting with your health care provider even

if you are miles away from the closest medical facility enrolling on line for classes without worrying whether the university can pay for a fast lane so that lecture can be watched not buffering for hours or the quality has been degraded. not wondering if businesses affiliated with the internet service provider is getting preferential treatment over that startup you work so hard to establish. we are here so teachers don't have to give a second thought about assigning homework that has to be researched on line because they are sure that their pupils are free to access any lawful web site and such web sites won't load a dial-up speed and we are answering the calls of more than 4 million commenters who raise their

voices and made a difference through civic gets sometimes not always so simple discourse. we are here to ensure that every american has the ability to communicate by their preferred means over their chosen platform because as one of our greatest civil rights pioneers represented john lewis of georgia said so eloquently, if we had the internet during the movement we could have done more more much more to bring people together from all over the country to organize and work together to build a community. that is why it's so important for us to protect the internet. every voice matters. we cannot take the interest of profit silence the voices of those pursuing dignity. we are here to ensure that there is only one internet where

applications new product ideas and points of view have an equal chance of being seen and heard. we are here because we want to enable those with deep pockets as well as those with empty pockets the same opportunity to succeed. their many aspects of this item that i'm particularly pleased to support them all time and stamina prohibit me from naming them all i do want to highlight a few. users of mobile devices should not be relegated to a second-class internet. we know many low income americans rely heavily on their mobile device and some rely heavily on their mobile phone as their only access to the internet. they need, they deserve a robust experience on poor -- par with their wired peers so again i think he mr. chairman for

ensuring a quality and increasing the model versus fixed distinction. the item contains from clear moves to ensure that all content all applications are treated equally. this is essential to the free market and is procompetition. we must also ensure that companies are not able to take actions that circumvent or undermined the open internet rules through exemptions in the definition are at a point of interconnection and despite the flurry of press reports earlier this week very interesting for me i would never advocate for any policy that undermines oversight or enforcement of any open internet protections including interconnection. i'm pleased that this order commits to monitor internet traffic arrangements and enables

the commission to intervene if appropriate. i have also been vocal about my call to modernize a lifeline movement which has been stuck in an emcee hammer parachute pants time warp since 1985. this order enables the fcc to support broadband as a separate service which would truly help low income communities break out of the digital darkness. i hope mc hammer is not watching. in a seemingly endless meeting with stakeholders by office has heard concerns. to some the item does not go far enough. others want a ban on access fees and there are those who advocate a zero rating and others who feel that it goes too far on the scope of forbearance and the focus of interconnection. we work closely with the chairman's office to strike an appropriate balance and yes it is true significant changes were

made at my office's request including the elimination of the classification but i firmly believe that these edits have strengthened this item. reports that this legal authority over interconnection are completely inaccurate. it should come as no surprise that with any item in excess of three new pages that there may be a few issues that i would decided differently mr. chairman. first i would have preferred to adopt in reasonable discrimination rule in reasonable network management rules from 2010. second i think we should tread lightly when it comes to the states ability to adopt and implement their own universal service funds. not doing so could put a strain on the tremendous federal and state partnership i worked so hard to create and the state universal service by the way are completely distinct from any

federal program. finally i'm struck by how much rhetoric in this proceeding is completely divorced from reality. while as a rule i generally refrain from responding in these cases i must address concerns about rate regulation. many of you know that reforming the regime has been a party for me. despite clear legal authority the fcc dragged its feet for over a decade while families lawyers and clergy played -- paid egregious these to make a simple phonecall to and from inmate facilities. i bring this up today because an inmate calling represents a prime example of how the fcc resisted rate regulation for years even when consumers were

subjected to blatantly unreasonable charges by providers with a clear monopoly with a severe cost to a site society and where there was a clear case of market failure. so for those in a panic about rate regulation there are millions who can testify to how high the bar is when it comes to the fcc when it comes to rates and charges. and every peep this challenge to anyone willing to accept it. highlight examples where the federal communications commission has ruled that a rate is unreasonable in the context. other than a tariff investigation over the last decade. to date no one has come forthwith many examples and that in and of itself is telling. and lest we forget that over 700

small broadband providers in rural america offer broadband internet access pursuant to the full panoply of title ii regulations. universal service and amazingly the sky has not fallen. things are okay. we have not regulated their rate and i'm unaware of any stream of class-action lawsuits. even so the item doesn't serve primary jurisdiction to reduce such concerns. so mr. chairman today i support this item because i believe it provides a strong protection we need and balances the concerns raised by stakeholders both large and small. the order we are proposed -- poised to endorse is not a product of some artificial life force. dedicated team of wireline competition in wireless telecommunications bureau's and the office of general counsel

work extremely hard on this item or there are too many people to thank but i would be remiss if i did not mention jonathan sallet claude akin roger sherman i said her name to joe thank you and michael jansen but i almost -- must also think two people in my office especially louie perez for always been that eagle eyed attorney and rebecca goodhart who will work for days on end to see that an item is right. i thank you very much. last but not least i would like to thank you the american people. more than 4 million of you weighed in. thank you for your amazing role in framing this historic order today because of your efforts we are better able to allow

millions of americans to tell their stories to reach their potential and to realize the american ideal. thank you very much. >> thank you commissioner. [applause] and thank you for your leadership on this recognizing as mr. lewis said every voice matters. ms. rosenworcel. >> so there has been a little noise on the way to this decision today. i'm going to do something radical. i'm going to be brief. our internet economy is the envy of the world. we invented it. the application's economy began right here on our shores. the broadband below us and the airwaves all around us deliver its collective might into our

homes and businesses all across the country. what produced this dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of openness. and sustaining what has made us innovative, fierce and creative should not be a choice. it should be an obligation. we also have a duty a duty to protect what has made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. it is our printing press it is our town square it is our our individual soapbox and our shared platform for opportunity. that is why open internet policies matter. that is why i support network neutrality. we cannot have a two-tiered internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the

privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. we cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go on line. and we do not need blocking throttling or paid prioritization schemes that undermined the internet as we know it. for these reasons i support chairman's whalers -- chairman wheeler's efforts. they use statutory roles including title ii authority to put back in place basic open internet policies that we all rely on that last year our courts took away. the result honors the creative collaborative and open internet envisioned by those who were there at the start including the legendary tim berners-lee the creator of the world wide web whom we have had the privilege to hear from today. this is a big deal.

what is also a big deal is 4 million voices. 4 million americans wrote this agency to make known their ideas, thoughts and deeply held opinions about internet openness. they lit up our phone lines clogged our end e-mail inboxes and jam our comment system. that might be messy but whatever disagreements are on network neutrality i hope we can agree that is democracy in action and something we can all support. >> commissioner. [applause] >> thank you for your transient presentation. what you edited out was your leadership throughout this process. you are a champion of open voices and we will hear a lot of words appear today but the most

important words is one simple short word i. thank you. mr. pai. >> thank you mr. chairman. americans love the free and open internet. we relish their freedom to speak, to post, to rally, to learn to listen, to watch and to connect on line. the internet has become a powerful force for freedom here and around the world. so it is sad to witness this morning the fcc's unprecedented attempt to replace that freedom with government control. it shouldn't be this way. for 20 years there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. a democratic president, republican congress enshrined in the telecommunications act of 1996. the principle that the internet should be a vibrant and

competitive free market quote unfettered by federal and state regulation. dating back to the clinton administration every fcc chairman republican and democrat vessels let the internet be free from -- though the results speak for themselves. but today the fcc abandons those policies reclassifies broadband internet access service is a title ii telecommunications telecommunication service. it seizes you liberal authority to direct for internet service providers are isps make investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the american public. this is not only radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies of the surge does so well over the past two decades, it's also an about-face from the proposal of the fcc itself made just last may. ..

>> >> but to survive judicial review these will be the consequences. higher by bin