zero our contract? >> about one in 50 jobs. >> do you want -- >> some people choose your hours contracted for instance, students because they want the flexibility -- >> what about -- >> hold on a second to we outlawed government to do this the idea of exclusive zero hours contract we can only work for one business. we said that shouldn't happen but it is a myth some people want to say that jobs that have been created that's not true -- spent i'm not saying that. ..

is that any way to live >> that is what is happening in our economy. we had a difficult two years following the deepest recession in our countries history and we are coming out of that and we created 1.89 million jobs.

the majority of those have been full-time jobs. most of them have been relatively well-paid occupations only one in 50 jobs is a zero contract and some people choose those that do and want to hire minimum-wage coming to us and we have seen it increase above inflation for the first time in many years and i want to see that go through. we've taken the lowest paid people in the country out of the tax altogether so we can earn 10,000. but before you start paying income tax that is important and has been a priority. >> this is one of the things people find problematic.

>> you would choose to appoint a rich newspaper editor to which television presenter what do you have in common a-qwex? >> it is unjustified. stephen green who was the head of hsbc had been appointed by my predecessor to run the advisory council are in a move welcomed across the political spectrum in the british industry as someone who had run a bank responsibly. i don't know whether that was wrongdoing subsequently. >> did you ask him about his

spank there were proper checks including by the revenue into someone's taxes and most probably don't. if you want to raise the issue and i said very clearly i didn't know what happened i just answered a question explaining he was a friend of mine but i am treating the people you work with badly is not acceptable and they made that decision. the discussion that you are trying to cast is ridiculous. but i've done the last five years is lead a government that has an economy growing back to work, the taxes in the country and i'm not saying we've achieved everything we set out to do. >> one of the slogans last time as the country was overwhelmed

in that. >> we cut the budget deficit in half. >> the key is the amount of money you borrow every year in the deficit and i know that we borrowed a lot of money because the deficit and the debt. >> and you know what the figure is a-qwex near 500 billion-pound. >> that is a lot less than the previous government. the annual deficit has come down by one half as a share of gdp. we haven't finished the job. the british people are working incredibly hard on that plan to turn the economy down having public service became a ford and create a likelihoods.

that is what we have been doing. if you are saying you haven't gone fast enough to cut the deficit i would agree we need to complete the job. we should borrow more, spend more contacts more. >> the chasm between what was said and what was done, let's take immigration. you promised you would reduce immigration at the level, tens of thousands of years. >> it's from outside the european union that is down by 13% and we closed down about 800 bogus education colleges but in spite of the european union. it's not least because we've created more jobs in britain and the rest of the european union

the economy has been so stagnant people have come here to work so what we need to do now is keep the economy working to fix the broken welfare system. let me make this point if you would like me. there are some key changes i'm going to make. you have to return to the country you came from and work here paying into the system before you get the benefits out of the system and while you are here you can send the benefit come to the family if they are in another country. the key welfare changes will reduce immigration. >> that's not what you said last time. you said no ifs, ands or buts we make a promise to the british people that we would reduce to the level in the early 1990s. if not done it. it is still that is still the right ambition. we achieved the cut.

>> but we haven't achieved it for the welfare changes in order to do it. >> but you were upset you haven't met -- >> i fully accept that. >> there is a credibility problem. one of the things you said and you repeated it again. there is a crucial difference. we are to work very carefully. we know what is necessary and our plans do not involve tax increases.

what is the scale of what needs to be done. one out of every hundred pounds for government i think it is the right approach to try to find 1 pound of waste. you have a choice to bear down on waste and get the public spending under control. what we said is the most important task for the government was to get the economy growing. i would say on any analysis we have been appalling and hera -- inheritance. it is difficult there's difficult ones, ones that were hard to take.

there's a connection between the decisions we had to take in the fastest growing economy. we create 2 million private-sector jobs 750,000 in the british economy. we need to make sure what we want isn't just good on the page they can get a job they can have a livelihood and buy a home and get a good school place for their children. that is what this plan is all about. >> let me explain there is an adjustment that needs to be made and the other political parties voted for this and we said that breaks down into 13 billion that needs to be saved and the government departments.

we have identified for instance freezing work benefits to raise some of that money. of the 12 billion compares with $20 billion saved in the last part in this current parliament by the government on welfare services well within their brain >> is it possible to make the savings and welfare like we may $20 billion. >> do you know it you're not telling us or do you not know the difficult decisions and we have to go through every part of the welfare budget. we need a 20 billion we will be able to find a further 10 million. let me give you more examples to

cut the welfare cap to say no family should get more than 26,000 pounds a year in welfare we are going to reduce that to 23,000. >> when they leave school they should be either learning or earning and giving an apprenticeship. they shouldn't be able to go straight to unemployment benefits and housing benefits. all these things, changing welfare is about trying to help people. >> is about transparency. you don't tell us what you're going to do. >> we are going to be out of time shortly. what is the biggest foreign-policy disaster lacks >> they will highlight the difficult things we have to deal with.

>> we are getting out of the bailouts of the british taxpayers are not getting money to grease. i think we have a very challenging situation today. >> you used the word of promise and that they stand by you as you build your country and democracy do you regret saying that a-qwex >> first of all i think it was right with france and america to stop when he was going to butcher his own people in benghazi. if i hadn't ordered of those planes into the sky we wouldn't see a massive catastrophe of people butchered it was the right thing to do.

they have the date to get the parts of the government together to put down their weapons but we are still trying even now to bring that about but it has been an acceptable situation. >> can i ask you one quick question about europe what would it take for you to vote no in the referendum on the participation in the end. >> i wouldn't argue for the membership but i think the situation today is that what we need is a reform and then a referendum that the british people, not me but the british people watching at home have that choice. >> the implication certainly then it's intolerable.

>> that's why we need the renegotiation and they have a referendum straightaway. we would get a proper choice to stay in the reformed organization or leave but it will be the british peoples choice. there's only one way to get a referendum and that is to make sure because none of my opponents were promised a referendum. >> use it you're not going to stand for a third term. that means that a vote for cameron is a vote if you are successful is the leader of the party and the prime minister perhaps for two three, four years after. what is the concern?

to >> i said every day what i was doing is just getting an honest answer to an honest question because i think people need to know that sort of thing. are you one of those leaders that will go on and on and on or actually do you think look i have really been passionate about what i doing and turning this country around by passionate about completing this work. so after that i think politicians do have a date by which they need to say it is time for someone else to take over. it is important to remember we are not indispensable. >> coming next, questions on the audience. >> welcome back on the battle

for number ten. the pre- minister has been interviewed by jeremy and notice the now it is the turn of the studio audience to put their questions to him. without further ado pre- minister here we go. let's start with matthew. >> what do you think are the best in office? >> i think all of us ourselves forward belief in serving the public and try to do the right thing. we disagree with each other sometimes passionately. we believe in public service and doing the right thing for the country. one thing that i added my hair is when we had to take difficult decisions about sending the british forces and to help with others to try to defeat isis he stepped forward and said this is

the right thing to do with students together and vote together in the house of commons. >> we do sometimes in the house of commons used phrases perhaps that was a bit over-the-top. >> i took my children yesterday and they said if we behave like that at school it wouldn't be so good. there is a point to it though when the pre- minister has to dedicate the coastal issues and so it does make the government accountable to parliament in a way that if you are not across the issues things will change pretty quickly. >> i think bridget is there. >> prime minister i am a

retired professional following a traffic accident yet i remain proactive in the community and passionate about the provision of care for the elderly and i feel that we should be treated with dignity and respect. would you consider to appropriate the cabinet minister for all the people one who would show empathy with all the people? >> first of all thank you for your advocacy because they do matter and making sure that we treat retired people with dignity and security in their old age after the full working life is one of the most important things we can do as a country and that's why i have been so clear. they will continue for everybody. it should be a right and we need to make that clear.

and the question the other day should we have a dedicated representative in the cabinet i will think about it i'm a little bit worried about it. i don't want all the peoples concerned to be restricted to one person in the cabinet. i want my ministers to be thinking how do we treat senior citizens. i want my health minister to think how do we treat in their rooms are we doing this right. i want to make sure with the education minister is thinking about and something i want to continue with forever. i would be worried about having one person say they were the only person and in the end if we are not doing right by all the people blame me and i think we

have to get this right. but the tensions have been the key to the government about the breaking tension in the earnings. the pension has been protected by from some of the difficult protections. >> let's bring in tom cosgrove. >> what is your question for the minister. >> it's been argued we haven't seen everything yet. how will these be in the government? >> we have had to make difficult decisions. a lot of those i didn't want to have to make that i became pregnant mr. at the time when the economy was close to the brink when the budget deficit was higher than greece and we had to make important deficit decisions. the economy in chaos i wanted to stop that. it's got the deficit down by

heart. what we need to do in the next two years is basically similar to what we've done so far. if the government spends or states that rather than putting up people's taxes, so if you think it is the department spending changes similar to what we have had to do in the previous years and similarly for welfare it is achievable. i wouldn't stand here and say that if i didn't believe it. i want to do this without putting up taxes on hard-working people because you do not tax your way to jobs or growth. we want to keep a strong economy, make the savings and make sure that we do put aside money for the rainy day so that when the next crisis hits coming and they do come from time to time we don't get pushed over the edge and that will be so irresponsible because in the end, we want to make sure that we are not just doing right for this generation but doing right for our children and grandchildren.

it's manageable and it will require efficient peace but we can also make important commitments by saying the nhs is special. that will get extra money every year. >> you would want a specific example. >> the benefits and things like unemployment benefits should be frozen for two years. that is an easy decision to make but it's important people can see that it's better off and we try to keep on creating those jobs as we have done and we find savings including from efficiency by just being a bit smarter. we still don't have one company that owns all the government buildings to meet sure we use them efficiently so let's picture of you do things like that. businesses have to do this every year. they think every year, how can

we save money and provide a better service without spending so much money. we've had to do that. one example -- >> what we bring in the police officer -- >> my question to you is what they reversed their decision and come back to the service which is now more than ever overburdened? >> i know that you put your lives on the line everyday to keep us safe and we have a huge respect for what the police do for us. but i was going to say what they have been over the last five years and we did have to make reductions in spending on the

police so the budget came down by some 20%, but at the same time they did it such a good job the crying has come down by almost 20% and we managed to get officers out from desk jobs onto the streets and put more civilians into some of those roles and when the police database they combined forces forces and ordered equipment and things together. there is still more efficient see that we can get out of that but in the end we have to back the british police to do a great job and they always have my support. >> the chief constable said that it's on the verge of collapse. >> i don't accept that. i understand they are under pressure. i think that when you look at the house while the crying has come down and the police are doing a great job job and there is more to do using the model technology to make sure the crime continues to fall under

this government and if government and if we do that then we should be saving money as well. >> let's bring in -- no comment. >> it is 20 years this year since the passing of the act in the uk but if you are disabled you are twice as likely to be unemployed and it's getting harder to get the care. i would like to know what you do going forward to change that for disabled people. >> i have a simple view about this which is we should do everything we can to help disabled people face as few advantages as possible and get genuinely quality in the country. the disability discrimination act was brought forward by my

good friend and colleague andy has led to some good changes that but you are right the job is not done. one of the things we need to focus on is getting more disabled people into work. this year we got 140,000 more but the gap between the disabled unemployment rate and the unemployment rate for the whole country is still too big and i want to see that cut in half and i think we can do that but we need a culture change from employers who are absolutely brilliant to go out there and want to recruit people because they are missing out on some of the best talent in the country but not all employers are that good and that's why we establish to try to take this approach so i would say we have more to do but in the end of all comes back to the bigger picture of a strong and growing economy.

>> but asking that specific question or are you happy with the response is? >> partially but i still think there is a lot that needs to be done and you mentioned employment is vital to help people in florida should delete the -- flourish. the independent fund was closed -- >> it's important to local councils have the resources to do this and we just established this fund to true to bring health and social care together more in our country and that could help some of the issues. spain delete the >> how are you going to convince the british public?

stanek thank you for the question. we were just getting into that for jeremy back there. i think britain is at its best when we are out there treating them like cooperating and working with others in the world. we are in open country trading nation, part of the importunate works whether it is nato or the european union to the problem at the moment have too many things that drive people mad. people see that it's trying to become too much of the state rather than the organization. trying to take too much power. and i think what we need is a new deal with europe where we say we want to be in europe for the cooperation. we want common market but we want to be part of an ever closer union. maybe the countries in their own currency need to do that. we don't and we will keep it as the currency at least if i'm

premaster. so if i can get a new deal, and i believe i can. i sat around the table the last five years. if i can get that deal i think that there is a prospect to say to the british people you choose you can stay in on this reform faces which would be good for britain but the british public has to be given another choice. we haven't had one since 1935 and it's time we did. >> we have two more. karyn is with us. >> would you like to see more services provided by private companies. >> i'm sorry. i lost you. >> would you like to see more services provided by private companies yes or no? >> i am happy if there are charities or independent organizations that can provide a great service free as part of

the nhs, then i think that is good health care. that is what matters to me. i love our nhs. it's done amazing things for my family. i will never forget taking my desperately ill young son into hospitals, getting into a and e. into a and e. can getting amazing treatment. everything they gave him. i want to make sure that that is always there for families in our country. now that would always be predominantly the national health service provided by the national health service providers, the private sector, independent sectors. it's from five% to 6% comes with there are organizations like they provide a brilliant care for loved ones were hospices which are part of the nhs great organizations like the helping our loved ones and helping to pay for them that it's okay by me. >> the lady in the blue dress.

wait for a microphone if you could. i think we can get a little bit closer to you. >> iam just a little bit confused because i do remember five years ago when you made some serious pledges about the nhs and i sold a bill of. the organization of the nhs, that clearly is different and has been a huge top-down organization. in the first closure it is a manifesto and aware i live we have to keep them open so i feel very let down on the policy on the nhs and i'm just wondering if you don't do what you say the promises he made last time have been very -- can we trust you next time? a >> the promise that we need at the time that we've are going to have to make difficult cuts in the public spending and anyone, the prime minister said we will

not cut the nhs and we haven't. we've increased spending by over 12.7 billion pounds over the last five years. what we did in terms of changing the nhs is we got rid of 20,000 bureaucrats in the nhs and we put that money into 9,000 more doctors and into 7,000 nurses and as a result when you take something like cancer seeing 460,000 people and looking at their potential cancer than we were five years ago you do so the biggest promise that we may become a more money for safeguarding the money and treating more patients has been kept and if you let -- elect me again as your premaster that is the key to this end we will go on investing in the national outcome. >> prime minister, we are almost out of time that we have time for one more quick answer if you would please. she had lost her voice but she

has persevered tonight so she can ask you a question. >> if you could redo your time as prime minister what would it be? >> if i could redo one thing during my time what would it be. it definitely as i said, i haven't done it but i promised less noise and that didn't work out. but i think the most important thing i've had to try to do is turn the economy around and get people into jobs. i wish some of the things that we had done i wish we had done some of those things quicker and sooner because in the end you have to meet a huge choice in 42 days time who runs the country and i would say what i've learned in the last five years is nothing you want to do will work without a stronger growing

economy. those things need a strong economy. >> [inaudible] >> i have actually. but that was a long time ago. [laughter] >> we are out of time, prime minister. would you like to show your appreciation. "-close-quotes the mac [applause] >> thank you. coming up next we will be taking more questions from the studio audience. thank you very much. ♪ again, welcome back to cameron and mellowed and battle battle number ten. we have seen him taste the

questions and also those of us in the studio audience. now to turn to the lieber leader ed miller -- milliband ready to meet the studio audience. [applause] >> at the end of this 18 minute section first of all paul, what is your question? >> my question is this. you sound gloomy most of the time. [laughter] are things really so bad? >> no, but they could be a lot better and that is the argument of this election. i think this is a choice. do we think this is as good as it gets or do we think we can do better than this? i don't think it is good enough that we have 700,000 people on the contract. i think we can do something about it. the prime minister said he couldn't come in i couldn't

either. then let's do something about it. if you work a month after month year after year you don't end up on the contract, you have a beagle right to a regular contracted that is one of the changes i'd make. we could develop better than this. we are a great country. [applause] >> paula is next. what's your question? >> i am proud of my working-class background and i'm now a taxpayer. messages often leave me feeling demonized and ashamed. how can i vote for you when you make me feel like this? [applause] >> with me see if i can change your mind. i think that what is happening in britain at the moment is talking about the top 1% earning over 150,000 pounds a year doing sort of okay and i think a lot of people including the middle income are finding things are

tough. the question is how do we do something about it. i hope you get a different message from you tonight. for example, tuition fees. some people criticize me for wanting to lower burden from 9,000 to 6,000 to help middle-class families. i want to help middle-class families because i think lots of families today, at the leading university that was working thousand pounds of debt that is a situation like to do something about it. so i want a country where you feel you're not struggling to get on and that is one of the changes. >> if you are a socialist does that mean you are anti-wealth creation? >> it is a democratic socialist. i think the wealth creation is an incredibly important part of building a more prosperous society and a fear society. but the difference with me coming and this is important for the audience, the way that we succeed is not simply those of the top doing well but all working people succeeding.

if i say when working people defeat to the succeed the people succeed. that might sound like a slogan but it's the reality of where the country gets on. so it's not just the bankers with six-figure bonuses. >> seven-figure bonuses. >> if you get regular hours and you've got some security going off to work and getting the right thing for the country if you're having an nhs you can rely on that's better for the whole country and we would benefit from that. >> next, what is your question? >> if you were prime minister what will the budget deficit be in pounds at the end of five years and how would you achieve that? >> 75 billion we would inherit. we want to balance the buck by the end of the parliament, and cut the deficit every year. and we are going to do it by doing three things. first of all we will have their all have their taxes. we will reduce the change david

cameron made and those below 150,000 a year. second there will have to be spending reductions in areas outside the prayer he is like health and education because we do need to get the deficit down and i make no bones about that. it's going to require difficult decisions. but an imported or other things we have to do. why the conservatives promise to eliminate the promised to eliminate the deficit. >> let's talk about -- [inaudible] [applause] >> i understand that but because the reason why that hasn't happened is because the living standards have fallen the tax revenues have fallen. so the key is the third element. the tax changes, the spending reductions. but that element of the raising living standards in the country it will also get the tax revenue than at the deficit they had the deficit down. >> let's bring in veronica. what is your question?

>> why do you deny the people -- [inaudible] why is he prepared to deny the people the freedom to choose whether they wish to become a fully fledged member of the eu? spin it as you say it's not a purity to have a referendum to leave the european union. let me explain why. when i look at our country, i know what my prayer beads will be coming to tackle the cost of living crisis to rescue, to build a future for the young people. i think leaving the eu would be a disaster for the country. the trade gap from being in the eu i think strategically for britain whether you want to tackle terrorism or climate change or a whole range of issues, we have to be an outward looking country. now i have said to come into this is unlikely to happen, that this is a transfer of power. we have in the referendum. it isn't likely to happen.

that isn't what the leadership is about. why would i call the referendum in 2017 and close the country in the debate, that is something i do not want to see happen. >> but if you win the next election -- >> it is unlikely to happen. >> i make no bones about it -- >> is your question? a >> hello. over here. >> do you not think that your brother would have done a better job? >> he was better qualified and better positioned. >> my answer is no. [laughter] let me explain why. it was a difficult contest between me and david.

why did i stand? i thought somebody could move us on from new labour because i thought that was the time that was necessary for the country and necessary for the party. and i had strong views about how we need to change the country. i think it is unequal. we've made mistakes like on iraq and immigration and we will come to that. but. it was the right thing for the country so i think i am the right person for the job i think it then and now. >> what regrets do you have about creating such division and a division in your family? >> it was horrible.

i believe i have the right person am the right person to be prime minister. and in 2010 i wouldn't have gone through all of that. >> hello to you and what is your question? just in the middle. >> do you think that it remains important for the party value and if so, why and how? >> yes is the answer because i belief in a fair and equal society.

each generation of labour politicians put it into practice in their own generation. what does does that mean today? and it goes back to this question which is what i see in britain and this is something countries all around the world are grasping. our weakling to be countries that work for the richest and the most powerful, will we be the country where is everyone going to get a fair shot? if you do the right thing. that's why it might sound that way because i think people are asking this country is supposed to work. i'm doing what everyone tells me i should do. they are making it work for the working people again. >> i think that those issues need to be revisited.

>> can you wait for the microphone. >> how are you going to differ from the broken promises are you just going to sit here and sugarcoat things or are you going to follow for the promise is? >> you will have to make a judgment in the example that goes back about the tuition fee. in 2011 i.; two to cut the tuition fee and then some people said it's the right thing to do but i'm also doing it for another agreement. it's so important. i sometimes say i want to be the

first politician to under promise and over deliver, not over promise and under delivered. i will come back in five years and you can tony if they've achieved that or not but i have promises i know i can keep. >> interesting what politicians think about each other. we asked in the first half of the town hall debate so it's only fair to post the same question to you what do you think of the best qualities since you called him a chicken and a bully. >> two things that i admire the first is the commitment to equal marriage. it was hard in his party and it's the right thing to do for the country. [applause] at second base isn't going to be universally popular on the overseas development.

he took a risk in the conservative party by saying this is the right thing to do. i don't know if we would ever have a pint. it's hard maybe share a bacon sandwich or something. [laughter] >> it's hard when you are in politics because we are shouting questions and it's very edifying but if you said earlier to avoid back and forth. >> let's bring in jeffrey. >> you made it difficult and -- >> you don't seem to be fighting

for the values that your party stands for. like the labor council because of the budgets >> first of all that is happening in the councils with other government positions and they are very different from those. they wear cut bigger in the next three years. he got to the other point in the quest. i'm not going to win a contest of who looks best eating a bacon sandwich. >> they are shaking their heads at all sorts of things. can we get a microphone there. >> what i stand for and what matters in politics is ideas to change the country. when you have powerful opponents like the energy companies or the bank and rupert murdoch and

decency, reaching out to people. >> everyone in this country remembers 13 years of the labour government under blair and brown. you talk about austerity of the reason there is austerity is because all of the money was spent, nothing was planned for the rainy day and all you say it was it is a global economy and the global crisis that everything came from your party. what i want to know is if people are going to vote labour can you promise you you learned from the mistakes that led to the mess that we are now in? ' [applause] >> let me be clear we were wrong on the regulations. we got it wrong. the banks were under regulated. other people are regulating it even longer.

[applause] we have to make sure that they are populated. but they say something else. they will work better for the businesses. that goes back decades. >> why is it neck and neck after five years of opposition going to the polls today, 279 278. but steaming ahead why? >> let's tell the people. we were coming out of the government in 2010. it's hard when you are a one-time opposition but i'm interested about the future of the country and the people and what to see what they decide on.

>> we are out of time or the? >> 18 minutes gone. thank you very much. >> piece not finished just yet though. he will go head to head with jeremy. that is going to be worth watching. stay tuned. ♪ >> this is cameron and miliband live. now the labour leader and miliband. do you think britain is full? >> because of immigration? i wouldn't describe it that way no. we have high levels of immigration and i think we do need to try to get the levels of migration down.

>> but i will tell you one thing i am not going to make a false promise on this because david cameron did make that -- >> you have false promises on immigration. your government. >> you've got it wrong. >> they were wrong. >> you asked me a question. let me answer. i think that we benefit from our diversity. immigrants over the years have made a big contribution that we do need the proper control. the labour government would say that if people come here they can't get benefits in the first two years and will do something else. >> i'm not talking about benefits. i am talking about numbers. >> let me tell you the way that we -- >> we get to the figure of 17 million a population the population of the country is that acceptable?

>> i'm not going to get into hypotheticals. we can get migration down. >> can we do 5 million 95 million 100 million? >> let me see what i'm going to do because that is what matters rather than speculating. i want to get the low skilled migration down and the controls we are talking about not just on benefits but on the undercutting of wages recently it is being brought into the country to undermine the minimum wage, and various other things. i think that they will help get it down but what you are seeking to me is what it be better for the country cannot withdraw the european union. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i will tell you why. you are making of the questions your self. >> i'm not. there is a big choice in this election jeremy. i think that we can bring in the controls on migration, sensible controls but i'm not going to

make false promises or false solutions come either. >> i'm just asking you if you think there is a natural limit to the population of the country. >> and i'm not going to fall into that. >> you don't think there is an actual limit? >> of course there are limits. >> but you're getting them to your self. >> the limits that you take year by year and i will explain some of the decisions i will make. >> so as it seems to you now, there is no figure that you are willing to share with the public. >> i'm not going to put out to -- >> but you've thought about it. >> you thought about the right thing to do on migration and when you talk about the controls of migration. >> there is no finite opinion. you have already conceded that when your party was last in government it got immigration completely wrong. you were predicting figures between five to 13,000 immigrants a year from the expansion in 2004 and something like 400,000 people.

it's two things i would mention in addition to that. the gap got bigger and there's a lot of people that fell behind. >> i think that the global financial crisis is what drove it up. >> it was too high for the global financial crisis. it was too high as a result. i think there were spending programs that may be war not as good as they could have been but i don't believe, though, i don't belief --. no government gets it completely

right. >> it's important to have some detail. the overall point in this financial crisis caused by overspending, the answer is no. you are asking yourself a question that the question that i haven't asked you. my question was did you borrow too much into you think that's no you didn't. did you spend too much? i'm trying to summarize your position according to the questions you have been asked. >> what i would say for example is that it wasn't a good example of the way the governments make -- the governments make a mistake. there are efficiencies of course. of course that's right.

on the future of the economy during this present government it's been wrong hasn't had? the unemployment would rise, you forecast forecast that they would follow. at one point you even forecasted that inflation would fall and it's zero. >> people are 1600 pounds worse than when the government came to power. it's the worst since the 1920s and that is the argument of this election. david cameron wants to see -- you asked about wages -- you said that they would fall and they did and i was right. they did fall. you talked about wages. >> i said three things. unemployment, wage levels and -- >> on the office of budget responsibility for test as it turned out, the forecast turned out to be wrong. >> do we think the economy -- david cameron was on earlier.

things were good things were fine. we have the low wages and i think that we are working in secure and our young people are burdened by the lack of opportunity and that is what is the change in the country. >> we have the key protected areas and we have the cuts like the pension earned over 42,000 pounds a year and we talked about the ways in which we would cut money for him efficiencies in the police and the local government and we set for example 1% would reverse. the figure is at least hundreds of millions more. but that's not the point.

we will have to make these decisions but i have to sit out an overall approach and i have to have the approach. it's about fair taxes and going into the election to reduce spending. tony blair never went in. ..

you used to believe that raisingenergy bills was a great way of helping the environment. now you believe in cutting energy bills. now you believe that somehow getting people to have a better deal on the consumption of oil gas is better for the environment. >> i never said raising energy bills was the way -- >> there was a lengthy. >> lead to explain. we say when i was energy secretary that there will be upward pressure on bills as a result of the need to transition to a greener economy. but i also said we need to make sure the energy market was fair. you can't use climate change as an excuse. that is what has been happening. a ghost another big choice of the selection. who's going to stand up to the energy companies and say, we are going to freeze built until

2017 we are going to give the regular power to cut prices so also price reductions get passed on. that makes it all the more important that you reform the market to make it fair. >> can you help us with another of your policies, the mansion tax? according to your leader in scotland this is a way of taking money out of the southeast of england and giving it to scotland. >> no. >> that is what he said. >> no, it isn't. there weren't enough properties in scotland to raise the mentioned tax that would fund the scottish nhs. it was a way of taking money from the southeast of england and spending it in scotland. >> shall i explain? >> please do. >> mentioned tax on homes about 2 million pounds. it is true most of the songs are in the southeast. it's also true that there are consequential of that spending is going to that's the way the

united kingdom works. the way money gets distributed. some of that money will be spent in scotland but let me at this point because it's really important. this is part of being a united kingdom. if there are young people who are unemployed in newcastle we help those young people in newcastle. if another tax is so el el cerrito people across dead candidate if there are poor kids in london we help them. that is part of dean's united kingdom. give redistribution across the united kingdom. this is a principle of a country that state together looks after each other. >> what about alex salmond's other crisis, bloodmoney, that he would like to exempt or exert from england? what about, for example promise not to recommissioned move it out of scotland, would you go along with the? >> no. >> no, you wouldn't. what about starting the high-speed rail line back to

front as a were in scotland? >> i'm not going to get into a bargaining game with alex salmond. >> you are. >> no, i'm not spent you are if you vinny testaverde a government, don't you? >> don't be so presumptuous. you don't get to decide the election results six weeks before. you are important but not that important to. [applause] >> i don't want to be -- >> come on. no, you know. spent let me finish the point. >> are you suggesting you can go over all -- >> absolutely right. >> okay. >> in the event you would be leader of our country. you know what people say about you because it's hurtful but you can't be immune to it. a bloke on the tube said to me last week ed miliband goes into a room with vladimir putin, the

doors close. two minutes later the doors opened given vladimir putin extended a smiley at ed miliband is all over the playing pieces. >> david cameron -- >> no, it's wasn't. but you understand what the point is to the point is people think you're just not tough enough. >> let me tell you let me tell you, okay -- [laughter] >> levy county. in the summer of 2013 this government proposed actions in syria the bombing of syria. i was called into a room by david cameron and mr. clegg because present of him had been on the phone, the leader of the free world right? i listen to what they said and over those days i made up my mind and we said no. right? i think standing up to the leader of the free world i think shows a certain toughness. >> are you -- >> i'm not proud of it. what i'm not going to do is repeat the mistakes of the

122003 iraq war which happened when labour was in power. it was a rush to war without knowing what your strategy is. without being clear about what the consequences would be. i'm not a pacifist but it did support action in libby. david cameron talked about possible action against isa. and my tough in a? hell, yes i am tough enough to. [applause] >> how is this impression got out there? how is it that you are less popular than your party? that even your own mps can view a liability? how has that happened? >> look i don't commented on these things. i don't commented on these things. >> you must read them. >> i definitely don't read them. do you read about yourself? >> if i can avoid it no. >> exactly. you make my point for me. six weeks to go, the people here at home will make up their mind about me about the country a can of country they want. frankly, it's water off a ducks

back on asleep your. >> when it was said i find my go and stand on the doorstep ed miliband is a liability, you were unaware of that? >> he's entitled to his own views. let me tell you be yourself. that's who i am. people have to decide, do they want my ideas, my principles? when i set up not just to president obama, rupert murdoch, the banks, fighting for ordinary people and do they want somebody who will put working people first anaconda? i don't care what the newspapers write about me because what i cannotcan about is what happens to the british people. i know this country to be so much better that's what a committed politics before. newspaper could write with what. a bloke on the ticket say what he likes. i don't care because i can about the british people and what happens to them. [applause]

>> the thing is, they see with a north london geek. >> who cares? who doesn't? >> it was mentioned earlier by a member of the audience but a lot of people when i look at your candidacy from the most powerful job in the land they look at you and they think what a shame it's not his brother. >> well, look, you know that's not the way i see it isn't? >> of course it isn't. >> exactly. unique toughness in this job. people have felt a lot out of me over four and half years right? i'm a pretty resilient guy and i would be underestimated at every turn. people said i wouldn't become leader entity. people said four years ago he can't become prime minister. i think again. usni can't win a majority. i think again. let people underestimate me. what i care about is what's happened to the british people in their lives and i think i can

change. i know i'm the right man for the job. that's why i'm sitting here. that's why i believe i'm the best choice to be prime minister. >> ed miliband, thank you. [applause] you are okay ed. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> enjoyed that. >> it was fun, yes. >> david cameron and ed miliband have faced the first because of the campaign. mr. cameron told her audience politicians don't always behave as well as they should. and ed miliband admitted that his relationship with his brother is still healing. >> finally the prime minister told me he could never -- ed miliband conceded that the

previous labour government got it wrong on immigration. >> don't forget there are three more big leader events in the run up to polling data. for sockets the leader debate with some party leaders including both the men who are here this evening. that's next thursday at 8:00. and then two weeks later it's the bpc election debate 2015. that will feature the five main challenges to the coalition leader. 8:00 on thursday the 16th of april. and there's more. question time with david cameron ed miliband and nick clegg on thursday the 30th of april. >> thank you to both of david cameron and ed miliband for taking part in this event. 's and thank you for watching and thanks to her studio audience. thank you. >> good night. [applause]

>> here's front page this hour, review journal, the "las vegas review journal" writing in a surprise develop and use senator harry reid announced friday that he would not seek reelection. citing health problems as one of the reasons for his decision. he hurt his eye and sebelius three broken ribs in a recount exercise accident earlier this year. his wife has battled cancer as well. the journal writing until friday he had insisted he would run for a sixth term despite accident and the 2014 election laws of

the democratic majority in the senate. here's the announcement released earlier today. >> these bruises i have on my face, on my eye are an inconvenience to trust the cup they are nothing compared to some of the bruises i got when i was fighting in the ring. when i was a boy i dreamed of being an athlete. i listened to those games on the radio, a small games and i envisioned me a cement out of centerfield at yankee stadium or fenway park in boston, but the joy i've gotten with the work that i've done for the people of the state of nevada has been just as affiliates if i played centerfield at yankee stadium. the job of minority leader of the united states and is just as important as being majority leader. it gives you so much opportunity to good things for this country and that's what i am focused on. but this accident has cost us for the first time to have a

little downtime. ipad time to ponder and to think. we've got to be more concerned about the country, the senate, the state of nevada and us. and as a result of that i'm not going to run for reelection. my friend senator mcconnell, don't be too elated deleted or i'm going to be here for 22 months and do you know what i'm going to be doing? the same thing i've done since i first came to the senate. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> we have to make sure that the democrats take control of the senate again. and i feel it is inappropriate for me to soak up all those resources on me when i could be devoting those resources to the caucus and that's what i intend to do. the decision i've made has upload nothing to do with my injury. is nothing to do with my being minority leader. episode has nothing to do with my ability to be reelected

because the path to reelection is much easier than it probably has been anytime i run for reelection. >> i get a little upset sometimes when i hear politicians say that they're going to go and spend time with the family after they decide that they're not going to be in politics anymore. he's a wonderful husband and a wonderful father, and so that's been more important than the other things that he's done with his life. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> somehow with my background, my upbringing to have the experience i've had is really a miracle and i want people in the state of nevada to know that i am so grateful, and i've done my best. i haven't been perfect but i've really tried my hardest to represent the people in the state of nevada.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> lots of reaction to the announcement today including from the campaign wing of senate republicans the nrsc, one of the statements saying his retirement signals that there's no hope for the democrats to regain control of the senate. that from the nrsc. live programming update for you here on c-span2 coming up at noon eastern, we will bring a

briefing on medicare and the sustainablesustainable growth rate. the house this week passing the so-called doc fix probably averting those cuts to medicare payments to doctors. the senate will likely take it up when they return from their break. a discussion coming up at noon today from the lights on health reform and that will be live on c-span2. the house and senate out of this weekend we'll have that discussion for you coming up at noon. in the meantime today's "washington journal"." >> host: and is the party over is the question that ian tuttle asks on the current issue of "national review." contin here is the cover. ian tuttle come in your view what are the advantages and disadvantages of the greekare the ad system? >> guest: agesthat's a big

question. researching this piece i discovered that it did not lend itself to a cover piece in thezine. magazine. it lends itself to a book or perhaps several volumes of books. the v disadvantages unfortunately have been at least several of the potential problems have been made clear. i would say over the past six months as we have seen sort of two large events that have become national news moment. the first was the now debunked sexual assault or gang rape at the university of virginia. reported in the rolling stone as we now know that's almost claim for claim false.that but it started a conversation on sexual assault on college campuses and the relationship that has two fraternities. the second was a racist chant

from the sats at oakland university. so fraternities over the past six months seem to have fallenfraterni afoul of these to fracture lines have in that we have in american society, sex and race. the question of course is whether that's fatal, whether it should be fatal given the fat advantages of the greek system whic which are many. you know you have social capital.y life. you have c ommunity life.you you have the enormous wor philanthropic work that fraternities and sorties do come and we can talk more about somek more about specifics of those things but the question is, is there a balance to be struck or has the greek system sort of outlived its usefulness. >> host: one of the things you bring up in your "national review" piece is that tngs yo fraternities and sororities have

become insurance conglomerates to mitigate the risk associate to mitigate the risk with being organizations, composed of 18 24 year-old heavyki drinking males, a level of liability approximately equivalent to that of handling nuclear waste.te. >> guest: that's right.o me. this is not original to me. it comes on excellent article byin caitlin flanagan, the dark power of fraternities in the atlantic in march 2014, i believe. ms. flanagan spent a year researching the greek system all across the united states, and she makes a point i pick up oni pick u it. essentially what happens is if you look at the history of the greek system there's a period -- th of significant contraction in

the 1960s and early 1970s when the greek system really diminishes nationwide, and there are various reasons for that.nd there and then in the mid-to-late \70{l1}s{l0}\'70{l1}s{l0} it makes a comeback. part l of that is the partner of animal house, the famous john belushi movie, sort of proffered or promulgated a new vision ofernity fraternity life. and sase fraternities expandgain once again, and what a lot of and fraternities discovered over the course of the 1980s is that the liability for help for personal injury was potentially ruinous. you have people falling off fallingff balconies. you have the heavy drinking, all sorts of potential problems that they have to face. probms tha so what happens is fraternities that at the local level our

rifles, the sort of famousof famou inter-house competition, at the national level band together and formed huge insurance colomerates. conglomerates.they they ride risk management policies, all of these sorts of sorts o things. they sort of start to group their finances together. and what that helps them do with the assistance of enormous legalmous legal teams is to ensure that the fraternity organizations themselves don't go under if one happens at so incident happens at somemefrater fraternity, at someni campus. so this does though create a whh tension which is that on his there is occasions, the behavior of individual fraternity members and the conduct of the national organizations is at odds or

intention -- in tension, so thee national organizations are eager to distance themselves obviously from what happened at the individual level and they have created a legal structures that enable them to do that. so in a sense, fraternities, the individual fraternity that you would experience on anyindi particular campus is in some way at a huge remove from what's essentially a corporate structure that the national level, and that's one of the ways in which return of these the have insulated w themselvesf against the sort of incidents that we see nationwide. >> host: we divided our phone lines are the same and we will be talking about the greek system, the future of fraternities et cetera based on ian tuttle cover story.phone lines

phone lines are divided just a little bit differently today. today so if you happen to work at ato work at a college in georgia professor or an administrator, we like your point of view and neither did your parents of a college student want to voice t your you are a col opinion of a college student (202) 748-8001 is a number for you. students and alum (202) 748-8002. certainly want to hear from members or former members of fraternities and sororities as ers an well. halfway through your piece mr. total, you ride we have painted to this point ce, mr. title, we have painted -- and it is hardly fair to most fraternity members who regularly report and overwhelmingly positive experience of greek life and not just because of the

easy access to alcohol. there is evidence to suggest that members of fraternities and sororities are -- burn marginally better grades than non-greek peers, they are more engaged to civic opportunities and that they are more philanthropic, etc., etc. guest: and thi ni. >> guest: right, this is significant. there's the reporting bias when it comes to greek life ono campus, and i tried to address that in the piece, and that is with you about the sad things are it makes for good stories.es for goo you are not going to hear about the university of idaho's fraternity chapter that raised r $50,000 for all summers research, or whatever the case may be. it just doesn't get as much in his traffic.

so you have to recognize fraternity culture the greek system nationally being a huge thing is them is doing a lot of good work, has a lot of advantages but you're just going will to hear about. so what are some of those? i address them there. they have marginally greek members of greek life have marginally better academicy better performance. a large part of that is due tos due communities, the fact that being part of a fraternity or sororityis is a way in which is perhaps onehaps of the best ways to get right into the bloodstream of thee social life and social existence of a college campus. so what you see in fact is that

at many universities there's a lot of overlap between betwee fraternity and sorority members and fraternity and sorority leaders comety and leaders of, and other campusle organizations. you see that as well later inli life. you look at the presidency body, majority of the president's since 1867 i believe took inbers. fraternity members something, the majority pashtun let's see the majority of fortune 500 ceos in the united states huge number of congressmen, both on the house side and on the senate side were involved in fraternities or sororities. so there's a lot of evidence to suggest that greek life creates,

or at least helps to make sure people are going on to positions of social or political responsibility more broadly. finally, you have a huge amount of philanthropic work that fraternities and sororities themselves are doing each day, and it's a question i think whether that philanthropic work would continue if you did away with the greek life system. i'm inclined to think it probably wouldn't in part because the philanthropic work is encouraged by the fact that the committee based on something more than just got community service. you have essentially what it is a large extended family. and so when the leaders of the fraternity or sorority say we're going to go to this thing everybody sort of bond together and does it. you're likely to get you're

likely for the process to be a lot more fruitful in terms of dollars come in terms of hours of work. so those are a number of advantages that you see in the greek system, and i think it's important that we do not downplay those. >> host: ian tuttle them which st. john's college did you attend, and were you a member of a fraternity while there? >> guest: i was at the st. john's college in annapolis, maryland, and no, i was not a fraternity member. at a school of about 450 500 we didn't have the greek system everybody would've been in the same fraternity or sorority. so do come to this from an outsiders perspective and there's a certain difficulty to that. it's true that for those of us on the outside who are somewhat common to want to get insight into this world, there is a

difficulty in part because of that reporting bias. you're looking at, you're looking from the outside and you are often relying on media reports which tend to slant one way. a lot of people involved in greek life will tell you that if you were not involved you cannot understand it. there is something to be said for the immediate first person experience. on the other hand, members of greek life are as i said in the article regularly report, they had positive experiences. it's difficult for someone writing about this to try and strike the balance and to be objective, whether you were or were not in a fraternity. so i hope i managed to come close to that violent. >> host: let's take some calls for ian tuttle of "national review."

let's begin with mark in novelty, ohio. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my whole band on this is that it's -- am i being -- hello? house of representatives go ahead and keep talking. we are listening call not okay. i wasn't hearing anything. is that is been all a negative thing in our society as much as they want to propose that you know, the greek way is the way. i've noticed in my experience in life that these people often get appointed to jobs that not even qualified for because there with a brotherhood of this or that. it promotes cronyism, which is negative. it promotes that secret society type of thing that is ruining our country has ruined our country. and it's that whole club mentality of the pseudo-aristocratic people, you

know it's just done a real bad thing. it's not anything that i would let my child if i had one ever consider doing unless their old enough to go the way but i sure would pull them from if i could. it's just not the way things should be. it's that whole club mentality that is ruining america. >> host: that's something you write about, ian tuttle, the club mentality or the socialization. >> guest: right. i think it was an important word in there and that's aristocratic. i think that's a true of greek life and i don't mean that necessarily badly. it's a determination that we had to make but the case that greek life runs against the egalitarian and -- mentality we

tend to have as americans, we tend to want to have essentially a meritocratic criteria for entering into any organization, and fraternities and sororities often don't work like that. the question of rush the question of becoming involved very often doesn't have to do as much with sort of concrete, quantifiable assets that you can bring to the organization as much as a broader somewhat nebulous evaluation of who you are, your identity, and whether you as a person are the type of person that we like, that we want to be involved with. that runs against something that

we come it runs against in a certain way and american mentality. although the problem is all communities are to a certain extent based on the. they are based on criteria that ultimately are somewhat ineffable calm and the communities that form, that fraternities and sororities form are intensely strong in a way that organizations based on common ends, a chess team or even an athletic organization are not. and there are significant goods do that part of it. part of it is a benefit to character. the sort of qualities that don't lend themselves to being

measured. but the caller's point is well taken in the sense of a club reality and whether we can tolerate that broadly because it is true that there is a nepotism that comes along often with fraternity life. there's a question of whether the evaluations the sort of implicit evaluations that are made by fraternities and sororities are ultimately beneficial. in certain cases i think so. in others a become much more problematic. >> host: bob is in michigan. >> caller: mr. tuttle, the fact that you're not a member of a fraternity, it shows up in your positive come in your positive statements about

fraternities. i was a member before i sobered up after about a year and a half, and i've got to tell you the worst future infertility have nothing in common. they didn't have a future in the late '60s and they sure don't have a future today. those two words are incompatible. >> host: but why bob? >> caller: in closing i'd notice the greek alphabet is so dead that many of the reports written on sae do not use, can't even use the greek letter asking it because it doesn't seem to exist in people's computer. completed. if i was the society of automotive engineers, i would have an army of lawyers doing a class action suit to make sure that the english letter s. never appears in those articles. and i would suit any group that

mistakenly used that. >> host: bob, why do you say that -- >> caller: and it needs to die. >> host: why do you say that? why do you think fraternities need to die? we will never know. in the comment for the caller mr. tuttle? >> guest: sure. the future of fraternities, and i do think they have one, is complicated. the distinction i made between individual chapters and national organizations toward the beginning of our conversation is an important one. you have a lot of you have hundreds if not thousands of individual fraternity chapters at individual campuses. they are frequently going in and out of existence. their charters get disbanded. they did reinstituted. there's a lot of flux at the individual level. at the national level, however which of these large sort of corporately structured

fraternity organizations, they have very deep pockets. they have large legal teams and they have spent two decades almost three decades now creating legal structures to indemnify themselves against liability. the other thing is that the alumni network of fraternities and sororities as well is massive. there are also huge donors to universities. so you have two things. one is a very complex, not always beneficial relationship between fraternities and university administrations, and then you have a national organization, which can survive based on the enormous financial capital and sort of legal

structures that they have to protect themselves. so i do think that there is a future of fraternities. the question is whether it's going to be a future that is ultimately fruitful for individual members of fraternities and sororities at campuses across the nation, and whether it's beneficial to our society at large. >> host: jennifer is in michigan. hi jennifer. it helps if i pushed the button. jennifer michigan hi. >> caller: thank you for taking my call but i appreciated. for someone to say i'm an african-american woman. i am very pro-fraternity and sorority. they do a lot of wonderful things. i know for a fact i've never wanted to be in a sporty because i didn't have the time going through college or my daughter who went through to law school but i will do one thing. we are making such a big stand

ever since the young man got on the bus and said what it is. all fraternities and sororities, somebody saidcoming to the state it was a brother that police have a brother. it's a lot of ways that you get networking through these organizations. i want to tell you, my son is in it for 30 and it's an all white fraternity. the are only two african-american males. those kids come over here but they have no problems. we get so much negative impact of what's taking place but there was a real issue that should these two black sororities feuding against each other totally not true. you know i do want to say the name of one sorority. they do so much if the education field to help kids all over. but, you know, what? we look at the press find the worst things possible in these organizations and we put it out there. do you know what? networking is good. that's what gets on jobs when they finish college and does not just sororities and fraternities that are doing it. it's like alumni of colleges,

the kids call we might know someone else is paired. we need to give them a break give the kid a break. people make mistakes. but, you know what? let's see what's positive is taking place with fraternities and sororities. because they do do a lot of good things and i don't think they are bad. and yes if you want to party all the time he wants to go the great amway, you've got to have, suspect that everybody goes out and gets drunk every night house of representatives that's jennifer in michigan. ian tuttle of the "national review" just like that's quite right. that speaks to the reporting bias that it mentioned earlier that we should do bad things that make for good stories. we don't hear about the good things. there's another point that she made which i think is important, which is that fraternities to a certain extent are not unique in the type of thing that they are doing. fraternal order of police is

another example, but fraternities are a lot like well we used to have sort of men's and women's clubs that were social in nature, rotary, elks, those sorts of things, which are doing the same thing for professional and and women. you also have the type of bonding that goes on in the military in basic training, but can't. the types of things that go on there are very similar to the ways in which fraternities bond young men together. so we are sort of keeping perspective in that regard. >> host: william is calling in from punta gorda florida. hi william. >> caller: hello? aspect you're on the air. please go ahead. callback yes. i'm african-american and i've

experienced some of the greek system and so forth. i guess my comment is when you look at the qualifications for being greek in the white fraternities it's all about economics and -- i've heard to ask a much money did your parents make. that determines the greek sorority or fraternity is the best for you so you have a outstanding experts. and within the black fraternity or sorority's, that economic money process is not fair. so i look at what happened in oklahoma as something similar to a country club now. as an african-american and and other minority that is the 99% white and when you look across the country, different universities and so forth, they're still not a lot of diversity. when you do those type of things and it's all based on finances

you're not going have a lot of african-americans other minorities the opportunity to get in. i was called the n-word as well on campus by some greek organizations. so i think that this is an eye-opener in a way and i think that the fraternities and even the sororities because it's on both sides need to evaluate the membership process because there are some african-americans now have money. when i had that expense because their families have the money to have that experience, but the issue of racism and elitist ism come at what really makes a fraternity -- stomach and the qualifications i think need to be addressed as i think a lot of it -- >> host: we've got a lot on the table. ian tuttle of the "national review," respond. >> guest: i mentioned earlier the aristocratic quality of

greek life and this is what our colleges pointing out is perhaps the darker side of that aristocratic inclination which is that it often falls along class lines. it often falls along requires an evaluation of criteria that are troubling and lends itself to a sort of insulation. addressing this is a very complicated because there's a lot here. there is a financial aspect that's important at a lot of a social fraternities and sororities on campus. at someplace like sigma alpha

epsilon at ou with his chant happened, it's not cheap to be a member of that fraternity. and the question of what is done with that dues money, what is being used for when those views can be in thousand $15,000 a year can be a huge chunk of change on top of a university tuition to begin with. that's a serious question. there are also other criteria that may not have anything to do with class, but can be equally disturbing. sororities in particular are often guilty of evaluating based on body image based on clothing.

these are the sorts of things that we have to make a very careful judgment about. it's not easy to do that. finally, you see a hierarchy of fraternities and sororities on many campuses. so that the better heeled fraternities and sororities end up on top, and you have a certain class system that develops. is that natural? is it artificial? would happen anyways? it's very difficult to see. it is certainly intensified by the presence of these organizations that sort of codify it and formalize it but it is also something of a natural tendency to seek out the like. so again this goes back to the

point that there are many volumes to be written about the subject but the colors overall point is well taken. >> host: and from ian tuttle's "national review" cover story is the party over? he writes -- question that the greek systems remain segregated. it is less a matter of animus than history. like many social institutions in the 19th century, the social fraternity was for much of it early existence exclusively wasp . and aggressively so when students of other colors and creeds began to matriculate. consequently, excluded students formed their own organizations. the first catholic fraternity was founded at brown in 1890 -- 1889. and the first black fraternity at indiana university in 1903.

the proliferation in recent years of fraternities catering to a particular group of students has less to do with persistent racial animus against minorities than with an increased emphasis on cultural identity. jack jack is going in from davenport iowa. hi, jack. callback good morning. i had an incident when i was a graduate student in physics and we're working on experiment and resistances. and the numbers came in perfect. to pervert. they had to be cooked. i like seeing perfect results but, you know it gets too close like a cheating, that bothers and. on the other hand, the opposite side do people learn more in fraternities because they get extra coaching from the frat brothers? i think that's a positive. but my question is do fraternities maintain a bank of

exams or term papers or scientific experiments to give them great advantage? >> guest: i'm not sure i follow entirely. the network can certainly be advantageous especially among fraternities and sororities that take their academics fairly seriously, and there are those that exist. we talk a lot about the lack of sobriety at fraternities, but it's surely not universal. so not sure i follow the question entirely. but there is evidence as i said to suggest that fraternity members are doing better academically, not necessarily that there is any evidence that they are cheating. there are plenty of reasons that

they could be succeeding otherwise house of representatives and christina in ohio. hi, christina. >> caller: hi good morning. thank you for taking my call and comments mr. tuttle and c-span. as a parent, i have twins a graduate from college. my son went into the greek life and chose the tri-delta. my comment is that i'm glad he chose that because it has an anti-hazing policy. that was one of the concerns about, as a parent, knowing about fraternities and hazing. i would not want any part of that if my child was going to be in a fraternity or supported with that type of structure. the other thing is just that philanthropic work and that if attorney our sortie does is very evident. i think not as mr. tuttle said in the news as much as anything

bad that happens. and also the fact that think there's more of it on with the brothers, sisters of the sorority going forward. as an exam for my son and his fraternity brothers that he ruled with an college in japan, meeting one of the other fraternity is less than epic i think these are lifelong bonds that are established, that they also have an importance of keeping up a great point accumulation. and so therefore, you know everybody in a fraternity or supported has to pull the way. i think this is a positive feature of having eternities. >> guest: two things. the first is about hazing which we talk about it is obvious that an extremely important facet of this whole conversation. the clampdown on hazing over the past decade or so has been

extraordinary looking at colleges and universities across the nation. that's not to say hazing doesn't go on. it does, and it is often, often has tragic consequences. i think one college student has died from a hazing related incident every year since 1986 i believe. you get reports in the news often of really horrible hazing rituals. but the national organizations have condemned these practices universally. campus administrations have done so as well, and i believe it's 44 states have anti-hazing laws. so there really is a push against this, especially the

most dangerous of types of hazing rituals. that's positive. there are ways in which young men and young women conform intense bonds that don't have to put them at risk of death or bodily harm. the second point is about the intense friendships that develop as a result of fraternity life. one of the episodes i write about in the piece is, i believe his name is william james bernard, the second, was a black member of the sae fraternity at oakland university from 2001- 2001-2005. he was an african-american member of the same fraternity

that's been labeled racist with this recent chant in norman. and he went on cnn and he said this was despicable. he doesn't understand how it could possibly happen because it never would've happened when he was there just 10 years ago, and he testified over and over in his interview to the valley of the friendships that he had formed, the quality and the importance of those relationships in his life. so i found that very, very telling. that a person from this particular fraternity which has come under so much fire recently can say there's still, at least at one point a fantastic organization that had a lot to offer young man at the university. and i think is experienced is multiplied over and over again

among fraternity brothers. >> host: sarah is in sterling virginia. and here's the cover of ian tuttle's cover story. want to show you that as we take this call. >> caller: hi. i'm going to take issue with the young gentleman when he said about contacts and excelling and everything. my husband was a graduate of ohio state. got his masters degree there. all on his own. he got a scholarship to johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. and it was his hard work and studying and then coming down to washington and getting a job with the government. when he retired from the government he retired and senior executive service, he did it all without being a member of a fraternity. and the young man says about hazing, it still goes on. you can talk about the national

organizations but they are not their policing every single day for rush week, or whatever they want to call it. where especially in sororities where it is if you don't have the right kind of body they are going to go ahead and he's you even more. this happen over and over again. it's not reported because sometimes the young ladies just want to forget about it and move on with their lives outside of the greek world. but to say, to make a blanket statement that you need to belong to a fraternity in order to get along and get into a job a high-paying job to me that's, you know do some more homework about that. >> host: center in sterling virginia. ian tuttle, a response for her? >> guest: well with all due respect that wasn't what i said at all. i said again occasionally to actual i didn't even say that.

i said that it can occasionally be a beneficial network but her husband is an example of the vast majority of people who do well in their professions in the country, and that's as a result of hard work and personal initiative. it's certainly not the case that every successful person is somehow utilizing their fraternity contacts, given the number of fraternity members in the united states, that would be statistically impossible. the second thing is i didn't say either that hazing has stopped. unfortunately, it continues in very disturbing ways. that is sanctioned though is an important one that i would like to draw out and the caller is raising an important point which is that there remains, there remains a gap between what's going on at individual campuses

and the types of administrative remedies and administrative attention that can be provided. so it is true that the national organizations and campus administrations and state governments almost universally have condemned hazing. they put in place significant either finds or jail time depending on the state depending on the situation. all of that is an important step in the racing reducing the more troubling types of hazing that is certainly not to say that it doesn't go on. the ways in which it does go on as the caller pointed out rightly are often disturbing. it's not just necessarily questions of oddly harm danger

in that sort of sense, but hazing rituals have the potential to do a lot of psychological damage. especially among supporters you will find as our caller pointed out, questions of body image clothing. i had a friend who said that the rush at her school involved and evaluation of girls teeth. ..thing is really extra ordinary, and it is not something that is going to be remediable. it has to be something that changes within sorority cultures and fraternity cultures. there is really not a way to police whether evaluations are

being made about your hairstyle or not. those are the sorts of -- of very challenging, difficult is that you face when thinking seriously about the benefits and troubles of greek life. host: jim is in stillwater, oklahoma. caller: hello. i wanted to bring out a couple of points that hadn't brought up. i am an sae alum, at the chapter here at the chapter here at the oklahoma state university, and there is 20% nationally that are nonwhite. there are 5% of african americans come and that discrimination occurred should have never occurred or would it

be the nsa organization acceptable nor would i come and i'm glad that they took immediate action. >> we will leave the last few moments to take you live to capitol hill with a reminder you can see all of today's washington journal online. apply on capitol hill for a discussion on medicare after the house this week passed a permanent solution to the so-called toxic scum of the payments to medicare. it's just getting underway hosted by the alliance for health reform. a >> of the programs on the basics of medicare. it's the third in the series that of the alliance and the kaiser family foundation are conducting. we do this near the beginning of each congress and the recent years and we've done sessions on the affordable care act the last week on medicaid and next

wednesday we will be doing the final one in the series on the subject of health care costs. watch your inbox for notices about that if you haven't gotten them already. today we are going to focus on medicare are the largest healthcare program at least in terms of federal cost. and before we go any further i want to recognize the moderator for today's program, she is the senior vice president of the foundation and the director of the focus program on medicare policy and its project on the medicare future. >> it's a great to be here today and with my friends at the alliance. they do such a great job in putting together these sessions to bring information to you and today for the audience and those watching on c-span. and on behalf of the foundation we want to welcome you all to

get your film of medicare this is our medicare 101 and it is an opportunity to get your questions answered and we have a great group of people who will be joining us to answer your questions. we have a lot of ground to cover today which we have gotten very good at doing very quickly. for those of you in the room i'm very pleased to be able to show you our primer which you all can take old and for those of you watching this will be on the website which you can download at speed's pe -- kff.org. you may be hearing a lot about medicare because of what has been going on in the budget resolution and we may be talking about that. but we talked about medicare for

important reasons. one, it's very important to the lives of the 55 million people but it serves. medicare is in should and number three working on medicare. so we are going to get through the a. b., c. d. and we will try to demystify the acronyms and we hope this will be helpful to you. before we get to the experts we

are pleased to be able to show you a very short animated video on the history of medicare and right before we get to this video i just want to acknowledge three people in the room who worked very hard on this video and i hope that you will join me in giving them applause. [applause] and janet who is also over there. i would hope that you see we distributed popcorn and we will dim the lights and watch the video. >> into a depression the elderly were quite dependent on their sons and daughters and they were out of jobs.

the principal problem was medical care costs not that people couldn't get good care but they couldn't afford the hospital costs. >> there wasn't much of an argument about the need. the argument was what to do about it. >> they thought it would help people in the south but only 32 states have adopted it. only half had coverage. they are often hospitalized but their income is less than half of that of people 65. >> one of the methods is very

easy to disguise a medical program at the humanitarian project. >> we haven't forgotten. [applause] >> of the social security district office was just opened. ♪

♪ >> i would submit legislation shortly to help free the elderly of catastrophic illness.

♪ >> one annual growth costs exceeds $250,000. they fall into the so-called doughnut hole. >> now that the plan is in place >> including wellness exams

would be free for seniors as well. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> thanks again to the folks who put that together. did you get all that because there will be a quasi at some points that you point that you will have to take on all of the material. >> actually there is. you will hear a lot more not so much about the history in the next hour and a half but its presence and its future and we could ask the panel to join us if we we could end in coded and in the interest of time, i'm

going to forgo any further introductory remarks. we want to take full advantage of these folks. they are stars as well and we only give you the chance to ask questions as we possibly can. as i said, we are joined in this effort by the foundation and i just want to say where this video is not the only hike one of the resource on medicare and other health policy topics that you can find by going to their website. and we have one of the countries experts as a matter of fact right here so she can do more than just refereed the discussion and i can assure you. i'm happy that the alliance are on the house side.

i do want to apologize for the sidelines that some of you in the corners might have. but it is a limitation if you can't get in the room then here you are so bear with us and we will try to make the best of the shape of romantic clarity of the conversation i think will make up for it. you can see the hash tag and there are instructions on how to connect at the hair on your table and on the screens that you see there as well. lots of important information in your packet including the speaker biographical information more extensively than you will you'll hear from us and there are some materialists that have everything indicate listed and

all of that is on the alliance website at all hell.org so you can pass it along to some of your colleagues who may not have been able to get here today. speaking of which i should notice if you are watching on c-span and you have access to a computer as well you can find the slides in the background materials or you can follow along even more closely. there will be a video recording of the briefing available on kff.org probably monday if not tuesday and a transcript later on the alliance website. >> the green question card you can use to ask your question at the appropriate time.

>> there is a blue evaluation form that will help us improve the programs for you and get the subject since speakers and the treatments that you need to do your job. one final thing that all of you do not have in your hand is a sheet that is more general and we want to try to get the opinions of the staff so that those of you that identified your soft as such i hope you got a yellow evaluation form and if you didn't come to see one of the staff folks and we will get you one. we are going to start with

j-juliett the associate director of the medicare policy program. she's one of the leading analyst of analysts of medicare today and the proposals to change it. her task today is to keep it simple and prescribed the basic structure of the program who is in and what is covered and what is not somehow and by whom it is paid for and she can do all of that in eight minutes. >> i am just going to jump right in. >> it was established 50 years ago to provide health insurance to people age 65 and older back when most seniors had no were very inadequate insurance coverage. the program was expanded a few years later to cover people under 65 with permanent disabilities. today it covers 65 million but

also 9 million people with disabilities. beneficiaries get the same benefit with regards to their income and medical history. it covers the comprehensive benefits including hospitalizations and physician visits and prescription drug benefit the prescription drug benefit which is delivered through the private plans that have been playing a larger role in recent years which i will talk about briefly. medicare covers the population and has greater health needs than people who are not covered by medicare. for example nearly half have four or more chronic conditions and one third have one or more functional impairment. many people on medicare live on modest incomes primarily derived from social security in 2013 half of all had an income below

$23,500 which is the equal to one to 200% of poverty in 2015 for an individual. so now let's look at what's medicare covers. most people on medicare get their benefits through the traditional medicare program as distinct from the medicare advantage program which i will discuss shortly. in the traditional beneficiaries can see pretty much any provider that participates in medicare which is a vast majority. coverage of medicare is divided into parts which are funded differently and have different cost-sharing structures. part a is the hospital insurance program which hopes paper hospitalizations and post acute care. in 2015 the beneficiaries pay a deductible of about $1,200 before medicare began paying for hospital stays and they pay for each day as an extended stay in a facility. most people become entitled to part a. after paying payroll taxes for ten years and

enrollment is automatic if you are receiving social security when you turn 65. and there are some details about financing here but i will come back to that shortly. >> part d. is the supplementary medical insurance program that helps pay for physician's and is another outpatient service. must beneficiaries pay a monthly premium which is about $105.2015 but this premium is income related meaning people with higher incomes pay a higher premium. the services are subject to the and also a coinsurance about 20%. and the enrollment is voluntary but most people who are entitled also enroll in part be. c. and d. are different from the traditional medicare because they involve the delivery of medicare benefits through private plans. part c. is known as medicare advantage which is an alternative to traditional medicare where the beneficiaries

can sign up for a private plan such as an hmo and they are paid by medicare to provide enrollees in a typically also provide the drug benefit. they also often provide often benefits medicare doesn't cover such as vision and dental services. and today about 16 million people or 30% of all people on medicare are able to give medicare advantage plans. part d. is the prescription drug benefit. the coverage is voluntary meaning people who want the perception drug benefit must enroll in a private plan either a stand-alone prescription drug plan to supplement traditional medicare or the medicare advantage that covers prescription drugs. plans can offer the standard drug benefit which is illustrated here on the slide or they can. the design of the benefit as long as it is at least equal in

value. they pay the premiums for the planet for the prescription drugs in terms of copayments. if you've heard nothing else you've probably heard about the coverage gap where they have to pay 100% of the costs. as a result of the affordable care act however it is gradually being phased out and will be completely by 2020. beneficiaries in part d. with low incomes get additional assistance with premiums and cost sharing sand in total about seven out of ten beneficiaries are now enrolled in the plans. the money to pay for these comes from several different sources. it's funded primarily through the payroll taxes paid by workers and employers while part b. and part d. are financed primarily by general revenues

and also monthly premiums paid by beneficiaries. part d. is not shown here because the medicare advantage program is not financed separately. in 2014 medicare spent about $600 billion on medicare covered benefits. payments to medicare advantage plans into spending on hospital patient services for beneficiaries in the traditional medicare accounted for about half while the payments for the physician services and the drug benefits for about 10% each. despite there are some missing pieces in its benefit package. a traditional medicare doesn't cover vision or dental services or hearing aids and it doesn't pay for the long terror. care services such as extended stays in the nursing home. medicare also places no limits on beneficiaries out-of-pocket spending each year unlike the typical private insurance plans.

so to help with out-of-pocket costs medicare doesn't cover most beneficiaries have some form of additional or supplemental insurance. a primary source and another source is private insurance policies which help pay for deductibles and coinsurance. and for about 10 million low income people on medicare medicaid pays their medicare premiums and cost sharing is it for most of her most of these so-called dual eligible beneficiaries medicaid provides some benefits but they do not cover notably long-term-care. but even with medicare and supplemental coverage must beneficiaries pay substantial out-of-pocket costs. in 2010 for example the beneficiaries spend close spent close to $25,000 on average out of their own pockets both but for premium for medicare and supplemental coverage in for the

and further costs for medical and long-term-care. so now i'm going to take a turn and give you a quick overview of some of the major changes that were included in the act of 2010. there were benefit improvements including eliminating cost sharing for preventive services. there were provisions to improve the quality of care and lower cost through payment and deliver a system reforms and also some explicit savings including two hospitals and other providers in medicare advantage plans and there were new revenues in the payroll tax increase for people with higher incomes. the congressional budget office estimated that the affordable care act would reduce the care spending by $428 billion over ten years. so it was a big deal not just for the uninsured but also for

medicare. the program does taste pretty big challenges, so i think it is clear that it will continue to undergo changes in the future. perhaps the very near future as we are all kind of witnessing with the latest debate. it represents a growing share of the federal budget with the population and beneficiaries themselves face rising costs and the complex coverage landscape in the proliferation of private plans in the program and providers are navigating the way through the payment approaches in the delivery system reforms and all of these could be a springboard for future changes to medicare. and with that i will turn it over to you. >> he is an institute fellow at the urban institute. he was a practicing insert for 20 years and he has helped shape the medicare policy from the inside as a senior staffer and

served on the payment advisory commission advising congress on all things medicare and today we've asked him to describe the complicated world of medicare payments. thanks for joining us. it's a pleasure to be here and it's a complicated topic. i'm going to start by going over some terminology which is some of the terms are used certainly in the media about with serious policy analysts and researchers are you going to set the timer for me? >> you are out already. >> it's important to understand that some of this terminology there are important concepts and some of the terms being used in some ways are misleading and i just wanted to point that out.

many people will continue to use them but at least it helps to understand what we are talking about so the first one is fee-for-service and it is the payments made for each individual service or item provided during an encounter. and it's not each service that provided from its individual services that actually are codified and receive a designated code that they can be built and paid for. so is the medicare physician fee for service schedule where you have the services for which the physicians can build but even then there's a lot of activity they do not get paid for because they do not have a separate reimbursement or payment code. so that's fee-for-service. fee-for-service medicare i put in quotes is a very commonly used term to designate the part

of medicare that is not medicare advantage. many people just refer to as it as the fee-for-service medicare and a half that. they were unable to change that and i noticed that kaiser correctly uses the term traditional medicare rather than fee-for-service medicare because as i will point out, most of the traditional medicare is not fee-for-service. it's the number of services performed which most traditional medicare payments are in fact our volume-based and i will go over that in more detail.

they refer to the same concept as activity-based. there is a little bit of a connotation of doing services because you get high volume and doing services that involve activity for which you may get paid. i don't want to belabor this point. let me go to the next one. the alternative alternative as it is being presented in most of the public dialogue around the payment and medicare is the alternative to the volume-based payments is value-based payments. and here, the payments include a level of financial rewards or penalties for the measure quality and/or incentives for putting down cost with the view that under the volume-based payment the incentive is to generate more volume and get more payment. the idea here is to have some incentives for being more preventive health care spending. one of the points i want to

make, and i think it's important, is that value-based payments, and is currently being implemented and we will go over much of this in more detail than we have time to do are usually placed on top of the value. it's for the most part. so what you have is the current payment models which we will talk about and then on top of that some new payment incentives or marginal reward of penalty related to an assessment of the value. and then finally, a basic term to get out is what is now generally described or called population-based. these are payments are made to a provider prospectively meaning ahead of time to a provider responsible for a population of individuals irrespective of the actual services provided.

so here the payment goes for caring for an individual. so if they do few services or lots of services, they are basically getting the same payment. so the notion is that the payment is pieced on the population for which the provider is responsible. now there are other terms, now we are getting more concrete about the unit of the payments which is where the action is. it can be at the individual service level that i described so in the peace schedule i don't know what the actual count is i think i said 6,000 here i put down more than 7000 in the medicare physician fee schedule. those are for individual services that the physicians provide and request payment for.

there's a concept called packaging which isn't used very much in the general discussion. it's when the various services that are performed at the same time are not paid separately but are actually packaged into a single payment. you go to the doctor for an office visit and some of the incidental lab work like the urinalysis isn't paid separately and isn't just a part of the payment that goes to the visit. it's used a lot and there are two different meanings in the bundling and you can get very confused. i've been a very confused about what people are talking about. one is that it is used at the same way the packaging is used. services are bundled together for the single payment and that is the term that is used a lot in the dialysis in the end stage renal disease where there has been a recent reform that

instead of paying separately for the dialysis and then the drugs that the individual receives its become a bundled payment or a package payment, single payment with the drugs being included in the payment. it changes the incentive for how much drugs you provide and that is a reason to package or bundle it. the other meaning of bundled means putting different revenue streams together. money that goes to different providers that can be a hospital or dr. went out of bundling that into a single payment that goes to one of the entities as a bundled payment or we will go into detail but that is the basic concept by building across the providers. and if it is that is the payment for service extending overtime.

i will give you examples. the case rate is one example of a payment to a hospital. the episode is the hospitalization is called a case rate so instead of paying for each service performed in the hospital or even for each day in the hospital is a case rate and it's a payment for the episode of the hospitalization and then a bundled episode is when you combine putting it out over time with putting different providers together into the same payment model. per diem's czar where you pay a package payment for service provided for each day of the hospital stay you are not paying fee-for-service you are paying a fixed amount for the day in the hospital. a diagnosis related groups is the term for the whole system of acute care hospitals of paying the case rate and cavitation is a common form of the payment. we now have bonus and of

penalties for the pay-for-performance so the pay-for-performance and medicare terminology is called value-based purchasing. these are marginal payments that are made up up or down based on the performance against the specific attracts usually a quality of care or service used and then shared savings and we will talk a lot more about some of this stuff. that's where there is an incentive for the spending less than a target amount or achieve that for the provider in this case and medicare will share in the savings. i'm not going to go through any detail of this. we have a lot a lot of heat schedules but notice that some of these have an extensive or some packaging. so it's not a payment for an individual individual item, but it's still a payment for services individual services.

the health agency receives a payment for a 60 day episode of care not fee-for-service for each business they make. it's the payments to medicare advantage and the part d. plans. it's the evolution of payment models. it's a growth rate repeal modernization act. i had to do my slides before the

title was actually put on this year's legislation and this turned out to be the title for the title i of the act which is called the medicare action but there's a repeal called the sustainable growth rate and in addition comes from notion of the provider payment modernization which means the position payment of modernization. briefly, the background is that the sustainable growth rate which was enacted in 1997 was in a formula that was passed in an effort to control the volume of services, which is the concern about the volume-based payment method is that you get a lot of volume and what was called unsustainable growth in medicare part b. spending. so, the spending targets were established and the theory is

that it is extended at the target, the fees would be reduced from individual piece of the 6,007000 services. so that the spending would then revert back to the target. that's the treasury would not be out of pocket. that extra spending. and in fact, since the early 2000's, spending has exceeded the target price of the clinicians and i used use the term clinicians because the medicare physician of wasted health professionals. they did receive a reduction of a little more than 4.5%. and based on that experience we can't be cutting it by 4.5% said each year there has been a fix. so instead of reducing the fees

and there is a cumulative factor so it wouldn't be reduced to 4.5% but in the 20 to 30% range is that the actuaries came up with, we have to do a fix every year. the original theory, and i went back to 1989 when this was first talked about in the notion of putting a total cap on the physician spending and reducing the fees the theory is that it would discipline itself while it was exceeding the target they would establish in the clinical practice guidelines comes off policing mechanisms so that the volume of the services would come down. well, that's never happened and if you think about it and many people thought about it or it wasn't a very good. to begin with, so now we are at the point in here is my last flight of the bill would repeal the sustainable growth rate

specifying the updates for the opinions, forget that fight your thing in there. improved payment through what is called a consolidated merit-based payment incentive system. and under this basically there's an expansion of the pay-for-performance. as much as 9% down. it would be applied to the physician based on the performance of the measures of quality and resource use. so there is a fee schedule that has specified updates but the fee schedule to any physician can be adjusted by their performance. and that is improving the value. and then finally, the bill would set up alternative payment systems with 5% additional payments going to the physician to actively participate with all alternative payment methods such

as accountable care organizations, patient centered homes, bundled payment. so there is an incentive in here to move away from fee-for-service and in this case it is fee-for-service to the alternative payment methods and that sets up the role in the next discussion. >> he is the acting deputy director of the center for medicare and medicaid innovation as was referred to as the cnn by so you have one of the acronym things explained.

we have asked them to bring us up to speed about what we are giving to identify and to spread helpful innovation. thanks for being with us. thank you for having me with you today. it occurs to me if of young congressional staff in the room probably the most important thing you will learn here today if you have a lot of fun and the fact if you want to see a member of the executive branch and squirm a little bit invite them to the building and put them on c-span and ask them a bunch of questions. that is what you will see over the next ten minutes. this is an overview. parts number one is why this is

important and what are the goals let's start with the patient. the way that we pay for health care actually matters. that is my thesis. if you remember nothing else i say today is all in that one sentence. it matters because it signals to the providers and the market what it is we value as a peer into society and a nation. the first service sends a signal to the survivors that as he was saying the more you do the more volume you produce the more we will pay you. and the purpose of cmmi is to send a different practice. they are a participant in a model called the comprehensive primary care initiative. they do some things that are different.

the clinical decision support so when the patient has a missing lab or screening the electronic medical right granted by the clinical support for the provider and then they risk stratifying the patient to identify the patient that are high-cost or like me to be high cost and thick and they take care of them in teams and they included doctor and nurse. how do you move from the fee-for-service to the world that looks more like this where the physicians are practicing in teams and providing proactive preventative care and risk stratifying the patience. we are trying to change the way that we find providers testing the new models of payment and if they were to expand the

national. number two, changing the way that they deliver care. so they promoted the engagement in the decision-making and third information. being transparent getting as much medicare and getting the data out into the world as possible into the uptake of electronic records to make sure both providers and patients have the information they need if they have the right place at the right time. this is a basic taxonomy in the first bucket of payment. this is the taxonomy that bob alluded to. this is my entire world. so category number one is the fee-for-service as it existed say 20 years ago. we know that they link to the

quality or value. category number two are the fee-for-service payment to pay-for-performance have a link to the quality or value. so think of programs like hospital value-based purchasing or the hospital acquired condition program and reduction program were under the physician side the modifier. category number three is alternative payment models and this is the work of the innovation center. they are largely built on the fee-for-service architecture as described. something is like the accountable care organization bundled bundled payment on advanced primary care medical homes. category number four is the future. where that payment is no longer tied to the delivery of a particular service that it's tied to taking care of entire populations. these are the goals that the secretary announced.

it focuses on the dark circle on the page. as of the dark circle is the percentage of medicare fee for service payments in the alternative payment models. in 2011 they were zero. no medicare payments in the model. in 2014 at the end of 2014, about 20% of the $362 billion of the medicare fee-for-service payments payment is excluding medicare advantage. but the numbers are similar. 20% of the payment models. the goal is by the end of 2016 30% of the fee-for-service payments will be in the new alternative payment models that work and 50% by the end of 2018. so this is the first time in the history of the medicare program that we have set broad national goals and what is critical to understand is it's not just a medicare product. at the white house you may have seen president obama picked up

something called off something called for healthcare learning action network where we have convened a the commercial peers, peers can't take medicare organizations and purchasers to join us in matching or exceeding these national goals and for the last five years, the division center has been using a number of strategies to bring the private sector a long in reaching these alternative payment model targets. so in a number of models we actually convene and ask them to do models with us. in some of the models we give providers the incentives and we say we are going to enter the contract but by the end of the second year we want you to enter the alternative payment model that other figures and then thirdly partnered with states through a number to convene the commercial peers and help us achieve these targets.

so parts number two what do we see in terms of the results? taking a risk knowing who else is on the panel so we can have a debate about this one fact is true we see an unprecedented slowdown in per the per capita medicare expenditure growth for part a and b.. we think that at least part of the power here is the changes in the way that we are paying providers. similarly we have seen a significant reduction in the medicare costs and hospital readmissions and this means from 2010 to 2013 about 150,000 fewer patients were readmitted to hospitals and they are a key measure of the health care quality. by show of hands how many of you have at least heard of the term

accountable care organization a-qwex almost everyone in the room. i will give you 30 seconds of dramatic oversimplification of what it is. aco is a group of providers that get together and say we are going to be accountable for these 10000 or 30,000 patients and this can be in the commercial world or in the medical world. now what that means is we've got these beneficiaries and we look at how much they cost over some historic co. of time and that is the baseline. then we use a formula to project what we think they are going to cost. over the performance here that is the benchmark. and the aco contract is a deal between the group of providers and medicare. and we say if you beat the benchmark we will share in the savings industry succeeded that we will share in the losses. by the way, we will measure you on the 33 measures of quality.

and we are going to adjust those payments based on your performance. on those measures of quality. so we have two years of public results and the pioneers beat the national benchmarks on which they are comparable national benchmarks and they beat benchmarks on four out of four patients experience measures for which we have comparable benchmarks and then the improved by the composite in the second year. for two years in a row that generated savings were up $284 million into the savings increased from 2.7 million in the first year to 4.2 million in the second year so they are organizations that are advanced and they have an experience in bearing the risk and delivering

care in this new system of the reform. another model the partnership for patient is pretty patchwork of programs including some of our pay-for-performance to include care in the hospital. partnership is a model where we invited about 75% of hospital ceos in the country to join us in setting up aggressive targets to reduce the patient harm in hospitals. 50000 lives saved, 1.3 million patient events avoided and $12 billion in the savings. the section 2031 is one of the most inspired sections of the

aca. i would think of it this way. we are scientists, so we are testing. we have about 50 research scientists that work with us to evaluate these models. if they work and improve quality and the cost remains neutral or option number two if the quality is neutral and cost is reduced or option number three the one we all hope for if quality goes up and cost comes down, the secretary of the secretary of health and human services has the authority to extend the models nationally in duration and scope. this is a quick overview of the portfolio testing about 25 different models. we couldn't talk about all of them today but it's in your package. this is a slide that shows innovation is happening pretty much everywhere in the country. they are currently aligned or signed and we have more than 400

operating now. last slide, here's what i think you will see over the next couple of years. we are increasingly focused on integrating with his arrest comes away really important point. it is a part of cms. we couldn't function without the rest. everything we do is to improve the program that the agency runs. we are focused on evaluating the results and launching them in the portfolio. i think you will see a steady drumbeat of results and expanding models that work. one last thought we'd give you three reasons why it's important. i want to add one more to that list, so here is reason number four. all of us should we live long enough will become medicare beneficiaries. we can work on other areas of domestic policy and it would never touch you are personal life but if you live to the age of 65.

but god forbid you you would become a medicare beneficiary. and that's right the delivery system reform actually matters because, in the brief time that i've been in the government can i have been admitted to a hospital myself and i've taken my children to see their pediatrician. we will all be patient since of this matters not just a matter of public policy and to your bosses but to all of us as individuals. again, thank you for inviting me. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. the final panelist today is a sheila burke a faculty member at the school affiliated with the public policy law firm. she spent a number of years on the hill as many of you know most prominently as senator bob dole's chief of staff if she was a member of medpac and serves on a number of the nonprofit boards. she is our designated visionary today charged with identifying some of the major challenges

facing medicare as it enters its second half-century and i'm looking forward to hearing from you. >> thank you very much. i have to admit i've never been called a visionary but maybe it is my tried -- trifocals reflecting my age. it's a pleasure to be here to talk about the medicare program. i am essentially going to start where j-juliett left off and then try to reflect looking forward on what some of my colleagues have commented on in terms of the challenges facing medicare but i want to begin by underscoring the point that was made on how we pay who we pay and what we pay for makes an enormous difference. as the have seen since the passage of the program in 65 as medicare does so largely to healthcare delivery systems. we saw it and how we transition

the payment and how that occurred. the private sector has an enormous role as well do it again because he -- the collaboration that we put in place with respect to the private sector will in fact fact drive the delivery system going forward. so again, let me start with where juliet left off. let me talk about these three groupings of issues on the spending finance beneficiaries and providers and again reflect a little bit on what we might expect both short-term and long-term to try to look at the program going forward. while much has been made about the slowdown in the medicare spending, it will continue to be an issue of tremendous concern to your colleagues and to your members. in part obviously as you can see from the pie chart it consumes a big piece of the federal outlays and that is growing.

it's an issue because a portion is financed by the payroll taxes into the workforce is not expected to keep up with the number and the growth of the beneficiaries. we are looking at approximately 2.3 million workers per retiree said that as an underpinning of the financing and it becomes an issue in terms of long-term stability. an issue as well is because the increasing percentage of funding that is required in the general revenue the other portion of the medicare financing package as was pointed out leaving far fewer resources available for the other federal priorities. again if you look over time it at the changes in the social security medicare and medicaid, they become an increasingly huge part of what it is we spend on the federal side. ..

at the outset and arguably less expensive for the near-term that changes. the good news is we're living longer. the bad news is we are more expensive as we get old analysts of course live to 95 and a new, less expensive or you die. in 2011 the average per capita medicare spending tripled between the ages of 66-96. this is not entirely attributable to end a life care. we hear a great deal of what

that contributes but that is, in fact, not the only factor. in many cases there are individuals who are chronically ill and the management of these patients is enormously important. and, of course, there are the sheer numbers of those were going to be eligible. the first baby boomers began to arrive in 2011 when approximately 40 million americans were over the age of 65. by 2030 that number will have grown by 30 million and by 2050 that number will have grown by 40 million. so as you can see the percentage of the old old as in the orange and yellow boxes in this chart rose very quickly. and again if you think back to the chart in chompie's amount of per capita spending that increases as people age, you see we are looking at a growing number of individuals who in fact, will be the most expensive portion of the medicare program at the same time we have fewer young people coming in and fewer

people pay payroll taxes to essentially support the program. and, of course, among those were the most costly and juliette touched on this issue, are those who are dual eligibles which we'll talk about for a moment. but rising health care costs in addition to an issue for us is also an issue for the beneficiary. as julia pointed out as the population there not all living in palm beach. they are relatively low income population in terms of looking and medicare. health status and chronic conditions are also significant drivers of health care costs and out-of-pocket spending which becomes an issue. and rise with a number of conditions that, in fact, that you have. you recall some of the gaps in coverage that juliette mention. most significant is long-term care which is an issue we have successfully avoided dealing with for a number of years but those are major contributors in

terms of that as will simply the program itself. as note i would say women are disproportionately represented in this group with the highest out of pocket cost and they tend to live longer. women tend to be caregivers for their spouses for many years or for their parents. they tend to live longer, have more conditions and tend to confront these out of pocket costs. and often in fact you see they become substantial at ages 75-84, and 85 and beyond the as i noted and as julia pointed out the our unique population within the medicare population but also as we begin to think about the beneficiary challenges that we are confronting. of the tools were individuals were both low income and eligible for both medicare and medicaid -- transport -- disproportion counted among the high spenders.

they are you a unique challenge in terms of managing his population. they are poor. they generally have more medical needs and other beneficiaries. they are more likely to be frail with multiple chronic conditions and have functional and cognitive impairments. there are approximately 9 million of those individuals and to protect the concern that onto the federal government as you look at the spending for the medicare program and planning going forward their are a huge issue for the states are also financing and they are as this reflects also a very high-cost population for the state. if you look at inefficient issues and we look at the medicare program going forward looking at this unique population one of the provisions in the aca essentially begins to try and get the state medicaid program and the federal medicare program to begin to coordinate with one another, which is not been the case in the past. so people often fell through the cracks.

their services were coordinated. their system payments were not coordinated and begin many require things that fall outside of the traditional health care package. they require transportation services and often dictation services and a variety of things that as we managed his population and look at the beneficiary challenges going forward, this will be among the most unique population that the two programs had to contend with. finally as part of the discussion with respect to providers, given the aging of the population, the increase in the number of beneficiaries increasing attention is now being paid to workforce which is something we have talked about in the past but have not made great deal of progress on. over all access to physicians and other health care professions is adequate medpac tells us. however, there are clear differences in the access to specialty care versus primary care. with primary care be much more difficult to essentially identify, and align with in terms of beneficiary. this is in part a function and a

result of the biased in medicare payment historically towards specialty services and the financial models, the history of silos that we pay people to do things has essentially discouraged the development of primary care and the availability of primary care providers. there's no question that our system of educating physicians and nurses is among the best in the world. but, unfortunately, they're not fully aligned yet in the education system in the changes in the delivery system that rahul mentioned. it is evident basic it, multidose great teamwork care coordination across essentially sites of care so that we begin to think about people in the context of the full continuum of care, not simply in silos. hospital-based and hospital-based -- or the nursing home patients or the home care patients that we begin to think about and pay for as has been suggested looking across the

systems and the manpower workforce population has begin to think in those terms as well. medicare is the single largest payer for medical education. in 2009 we spent somewhere approximate $10 billion a year on medical education. we paid far less with respect to nursing education but these are levers that we begin to look at in terms of how we incentivize the choice of specialty the moving into primary care and all these payment models acos and others to begin to think about teen face care which is something our medical training programs and nursing thing and other providers need to begin to think about going forward. and begin to think about it in school, not simply when they go into practice. so that we begin to get exposed to when i was in the school we practiced and were trained in largely a siebel-based system rather than in a disciplinary way. that's one issue we will be looking at. it's an important part of how we

think about providers going forward. then quickly going forward in the issues that have been raised, first there are the internal kinds of changes. we spent a fair amount of time this afternoon talking about payment reform aimed at reducing cost and incentivizing changes in practice of specialty makes your the house passed sgr bills still pending in the senate. again is a movement clear movement in that direction and that is towards payment reform movement away from fee-for-service and the linked to quality. in the context of delivery system reforms again the activities that were outlined by rahul in terms towards pushed towards organ systems of care the focus on quality, care team-based care are all steps in this direction and again is unique population of high-cost high risk in the transport will be at particular focus of attention for folks going for the eligibility and these are all again in criminal kinds of

changes based on the program and benefit restructuring. again the confusing structure of the medicare program that julia outlined suggestions about combining a and easily look much more like traditional health insurance comment also hopes to begin to organize in excess of the cost sharing and potentially provide some limits on out of pocket for catastrophic costs incurred by people. the reform and medigap you begin to see the indie sgr bill. again it's to get people skin in the game to remove the first dollar coverage, even for those under medicare. so they become more sensitive about their providers they choose. the eligibility issues one that continues to come up and will no doubt come up again. 65 isn't what it was in 65. people are living longer. they are staying in the workforce longer, largely healthy. so the question is is that the right age. it was a big issue for years because people who fell through the cracks, when they have private insurance available to

them that was affordable? that now has been less of an issue the ability to purchase coverage through a network or through essential and exchange rather than in the individual market. but again this question of who ought to be eligible and that what point will no doubt come up. then there's of course a final note which is this attempt to rethink the entirety of the medicare program and move away from a guaranteed benefit to a essentially a guaranteed contribution and that is whether we ought to get out of the business essentially of the program as we know it today and begin to essentially allow people to take the money we give them on a per capita basis and purchase coverage, and a truly a step beyond medicare advantage as we know today but mr. wright and others have talked about premium support so all of these things are things that he think of going to be both short-term priorities force as well as long-term. >> terrific. thank you, sheila.

let me remind you enough a chance to enter into this conversation. there are microphones at the four corners of the room. there are green cards that you can write a question on. if you do go to the microphone i would ask you to keep the question breathe and to identify yourself. so that we can get you as many questions as we can do and i should remind you, this is a primer. there is no question that is too simple to ask. because that's what we're here for. >> yes, go right ahead. >> amy from the center of just wanting what you think about the government part d non-interface clause? on hearing a lot about that in what do you think the government could save costs if they're able to interview with those negotiations? thank you. >> you might whoever wants to take a crack at it explain what is the we are talking about.

>> the part d nonimmigrant clause basically references the fact that is part of medicare modernization act in 2003 which created the part d drug benefit their supervision that prohibits the government from interfering or doing any negotiating with pharmaceutical companies over prescription drug prices. there has been quite a fair amount of back and forth about this provision, and the question about whether the government could actually get a better deal for medicare beneficiaries who are enrolled in part d plans than the plants themselves. i think the congressional budget office has looked into this but i think medpac has looked into this, and i think the prevailing view is that the plans are doing a pretty decent job of negotiating rebates and other some question about whether the government could do a better job than the plans are doing. for most prescription drugs are one of i think sticking point about this issue though is drugs that are unique, that have no

alternative, no generic substitute, no therapeutic equivalent, is there a way for the government to intervene or perhaps try to come up with some alternative way of arranging pricing for these drugs where there is no equivalent, whether it's basically the pharmaceutical company able to kind of set whatever price it wants. and i think there are various discussions perhaps not official discussions, but there has been a just proposed about ways to get a better deal for beneficiaries on drugs where there is no ability for the companies themselves to negotiate with the pharmaceutical company. so i think that's the issue where there could be a potential for medicare to play an important role. >> do you want to go ahead of there? >> sure.

[inaudible] question for rahul rajkumar. quality and cost reduction seems to be pretty easy achieved in the first couple of years, which soon take a lot of -- beforehand. are the same solutions being thought about for the rest of the health care system like the ac in the open program does or just for medicare? >> that's a great point. a couple of things. we learn a lot from in general the approach that the innovations and has taken to set the table for providers. and give them incentives to innovate in care delivery. and within any of our programs, whether it's icy owes our primary care for bundled payments, providers are using lots of different strategies. what we see is that different providers are able to find different pockets of savings at

different parts of the system. i don't think that there is a single universal theme that we see in terms of how, where there is anything to be had. i think, i interpret your question as a question about multiplayer online that and i think that's absolutely critical success factor for payment and delivery system reform. and it's a huge area of focus. so all or nearly all cmmi models attempt to engage other payers because if you think about it from a business standpoint if you're a provider, you cannot succeed with one foot in fee-for-service and one foot in a sea of our alternative payment model but because of other operational strategy is different. if you try to keep patients out of the hospital for one population and then on the other side you are trying to maximize your hospital utilization, you can't manage two different

goals. so as i said, we tried a number of different strategies to engage other payers, and so in some of our models we actually went around the country in seven different markets and actively convened about 30 payers to do the model with us. so cpp i ask again we engaged these certain payers. and other models we have relied on the participants to go out and get the of the risk-based contracts themselves. i think the other huge aperture setting i was just announced this past week is we are not convening national payers, providers and patient groups in a national health care payer learning action network, where our hope is that we will learn from one another about what the difference factors for success are in alternative payment models and that the uptake of

these models will spread and other payers will either match or exceed the pretty ambitious goal that we've set for the medicare program. >> i have one other question -- >> i just want to add one cautionary note that is the transparency of information. one of the things we hear about even within a single system is the inability to essentially easily access information across that system. and one of the challenges i think is sir richard owen to talk about multiple payers, but even in the context of a single system whether it's a kaiser system or any other integrated system, the inability to convene in one place all the information, the outpatient inpatient services and track and share that information, warning that occurs by the ability sort of report on what is occurring across the system, and i think that's one of the things people struggle with is that ability

because the systems don't necessarily match up. >> my other question is regarding medicare eligibility. because i encounter a lot of adults who have now brought their elderly parents into the country who are now new citizens and residents but will never have what they need. so what is the thought process of the elderly adults who are now living in the country but don't have the eligibility requirements for medicare? >> to be perfectly frank it's not been an area of attention. you correctly note that the 40 core issues one that is fundamental to the eligibility program and the focus has surely been on those who would otherwise qualify, and the question about the time at which they it into the system. but not frankly a lot of attention to people who essentially don't qualify. you could imagine the unique set of circumstances, and tricia will remind if i'm incorrect, every a unique set of circumstances early on with

religious groups for example, who didn't and couldn't have 40 quarters. there was a commendation for state-based employees, so it's an issue that's not just unique to be put them into the country. people have chosen to for example, work-at-home. women have chosen to work at home and didn't have essentially 40 quarters of traditional work behind them and contributed into the system. so it's an issue that is broader than just that narrow population but it's not one that's been given a great deal of attention, to the best of my knowledge. [inaudible] >> i don't know that it has come up to be perfectly frank at least not in the recent discussions but it is a good point. it would apply not only in the context of new citizens but to people who don't traditionally transition into the system. >> i have a question about incarceration -- >> do you want to identify yourself? >> i am in love. i'm from the senate side. so we have seen -- high i am

emma. we've seen issues of mandatory minimums and such like that and we're keeping people in prisons longer and better care is becoming more challenging especially as we develop chronic illnesses. so i was wondering how does medicare sort of navigate what happened to that specific population so that people who do qualify while they're in incarceration that that causes redistributed to states or other health care providers? i know its competition with state and federal so any insight would be great. >> i can be easily corrected by anyone here. as a general matter is considered outside the medicare program as it is outside of the medicaid program in terms of the present system and the health care funding that essentially present context of the federal and state prison systems. to the best of my knowledge bother may recall i don't think we crossed over in terms of medicare coverage.

i don't think they carry their benefits to prison. >> i don't believe so. and one other those who have paid into medicare or living abroad don't get the medicare coverage either. and that becomes an issue for some as well. the coverage is not affordable except for emergency situation. >> good point. >> next question. >> my question to you is with regard to these problems we're having with the sgr coming up this year, do you feel the problem is more rooted in the sgr formula that is inherent to the pro-rent, or is it more so congress is inability to allow the cuts to go to plays and now they have compounded to 21% or 22% as we are currently facing? >> yes.

[laughter] i mean one i mean bob will comment on this, the ultimate structure, i think and we are confronting at the time in the part b program tremendous escalation and the cost of the program and this was thought to be what you try to bring that under control. it was quickly realized was not going to be a system that worked and i think there's been the holocaust related issues. you've heard a lot of discussion about, bargain basement price of the moat of 140 billion. so those issues have driven it but it's a combination of both. one it wasn't the right answer to the problem and secondly there was a great deal of reluctance to allow 15, 20% reduction in physician payments. rob, you may have -- >> i agree with it. what i would emphasize just a couple of things. one is it was some fanciful thinking that would be a collective incentive that the medical profession somehow we come together and figure out how

to collectively they would live within this sort of target amount. but if you think about it for more than two seconds you realize that the incentive on each individual's position is to do more services in their fees are being cut rather than to produce the indie collective. and that at the time we're being on the notion -- big on the notion of evidence clinical practice guidelines and that everybody could follow them and that would keep the volume down. there is a role for clinical practice guidelines but it got overemphasized at the time. i do want to get one fact out which is that in the last decade physician services were rising very rapidly. imaging services sort of doubled in a five year period. that's all for now. in addition to sort of overall health care spending being rethought, and medicare spending being pretty flat, even physician services now and so

the sgr it became a political problem and the budget problem. it's never been a mechanism for actual restraining spending -- spending by physicians so congress is looking at ways to try to get the incentive down to the individual physician level. i personally have some difficulty believing that what's happening is likely going to be for the good. we don't have him in my view, the ability to measure at the individual physician level their quality or their resource conservation, how could they are efficiency. i think we can do that at a large group level. so congress is about to pass legislation that a don't think it's going to be achieve what it's nice goals are, this ability to measure at the individual physician level. >> great, thank you. >> i should just point out we

have five or six minutes left before the witching hour of 1:30, and i would ask you to pull out those evaluation forms and fill them out as you go through these last few questions, and it looks like we have someone at a microphone. >> hello, good afternoon. i have a question concerning the tuition assistance given to primary care physicians that practice care in urban areas and rural areas. there's been a little bit of doubt concerning the sustainability -- >> sorry. stand a little closer to the microphone. >> i'm a little too tall. there's been a little doubt about his ability of funding these education grants. what do you all think about that? look into your crystal ball, but d.c. about the sustainability of this tuition grant?

>> their code is a desire to incentivize the decisions that increase the number of primary care providers. this is to both with respect to positions as well as with respect to nurse practitioners. there was money in the aca for innocent program to create an opportunity for increase in the number of nurse practitioners as well. the question is always going to be are the incentive resulted in what you hope to achieve. the national health service corps has a long history, the concern is people tend to go into those areas and they tend to leave. is that the right answer? although it has recently gotten additional funds i think there's additional money in the last piece of legislation. it's clear something we've done. medicare has a strange sort of history of not wanting to interfere in those issues through the gme program although the route is the way we pay has

a direct influence on choices that are made in terms of specialty. but i would put odds on continued effort to increase the number of primary care providers. certainly you people particularly in the senate, and i'm sure it's true in the house as well i know the senate far better, and by the commitment to maintain rural health care into the resources that are necessary in rural health community to a real question about what does that mean, does it mean having a hospital? i spent a lot of time in kansas as you might imagine and at 1.50% of the hospitals in kansas had fewer than 50 bits. went hospital shut down but doc left, the promise of a, a nursing home left. lots of questions about what do we need to support rural america, what is the right answer to that problem. i think there are enough people to deeply about that debt to be continued against i forget what the right solution is in terms of mix of services and the availability of care. >> i want to follow up. this is my chance to make my one

quibble with the cms framework for categorizing payments to providers on this issue of how do we get more primary care, which i think we've all said and she particular is the need. category one says there's no link to value. my view would be there's a fee schedule. we have a fee schedule that is tilted far too much towards procedures and tests and research that we've actually done as the urban institute, pretty well documents that medicare compensation through specialist 60 that by about two and a half, to three to one for every hour worked, at least for some specialties like radiology and cardiology. that's not sort of innumerable. we are making choices to have a fee schedule that is tilted in that direction.

we could have a fee schedule and some of us have suggested that that recognizes many more primary care activities and, in fact, seem as if moving in that direction by creating new code for complex chronic care management transition care. we could also change the relative values so that the time spent with the position was given much more payment than just interpreting a test. to me if we did that we would have a different mix of services. we would have different signals to what specialty to go into and we would be improving value. and i think in some ways we would be improving value more than just by adding a couple of quality measures which gets you to category two. so the point i would make is that while i absolutely agree with all the work that cuny is doing to come up with good models -- cmmi -- for payments

how we actually what i call administered the legacy payment models real important to producing more or less value. and even in some of these legacy payment models that i put up in some of the slides we have a sufficiency incentive. when a home health agency is paid for a 60 day episode for care, rather than each visit they have an ability to use telemedicine, to use different personnel to do a number of things that presumably can improve efficiency. so this division division between category one and the rest strikes me as a little arbitrary, and that we don't come in the policy world don't pay enough attention to that category one. there are people in cms working hard to improve that and the providers who the stakeholders in the systems are very involved with that but it somehow hasn't risen to sort of the same level

of policy attention. it's a quibble or. >> well, we have time for one more question. >> i'm james with -- my question is bouncing cause with innovation as we're going forward especially with medical equipment. items such as stair climbing wheelchairs might allow patients to stay in the house longer over glucose monitor paid for in europe but not here. might have up front cost are longer but have long-term cities. how do we balance that? >> reasonable question. it is a reasonable question and weight issues, anyone else can chime in from time to time over the years there's been several proposals that is come forward and cbo is very skeptical organization and they look at

these ideas of expanding coverage and they are very doubtful about cost offsets. savings. one of the opportunities that is out there with more people in capitated rate. there's nothing to stop medicare advantage plans, testing. ..

[inaudible conversations] /more about the fix issue

yesterday the house of representatives passed a permanent fix he wrote in those cuts to medicare payments to deduct the payments to the medicare doctors that are dictated by the sustainable growth rate and msn as they are likely to take up the measure when the senate returns on april 13. the majority leader saying i think there's every reason to believe it is going to pass the senate by a very large majority and after the senate late last night passed the plan for 2016 the minority leader released a video in which he said he would be retiring. the los angeles times i broke that broke the story with this picture on its website until november the democrats insisted he would run for the sixth term

and here is the video for the released this morning. >> these bruises i have on my face are an inconvenience but trust me they are nothing compared to some of the bruises i got when i was fighting in the ring. i dreamed of being an athlete and i listened to the games on the radio and i -- and i -- but the joy that i've gotten into the work i've done for the people in the state has been just as fulfilling as i have played the center field at yankee stadium. the job of the minority leader in the senate is as important as being the majority leader. it gives you so much opportunity to do things for the country and that's what i'm focused on. but this accident has caused us for the first time to have

little downtime. i've had time to ponder and we have to be more concerned about the country. i'm going to be here and you know what i'm going to be doing. we have to make sure that the democrats take control of the senate again and i feel it is inappropriate for me to soak up all the resources when i could be devoting those resources to the congress and that is what i intend to do and the decision has nothing to do with my injury and nothing to do with my being the minority leader and nothing to do with my ability to be reelected because the path is easier than any other time.

>> i get upset sometimes when i hear politicians say that they are going to go and spend time with their family after they decided they are not going to be in politics anymore. >> he's a wonderful husband and father. ♪ someone in my background and my upbringing in the experience that i've had is a miracle and i want people in nevada to know i am so grateful and i've done my best and i tried my hardest to represent the people's state and nevada.

♪ paul can of the "washington post" interviewed harry reid who said he told him he will support chuck schumer of new york. currently the number three democrat in the senate and of the new party leader dick durbin of illinois currently the assistant minority leader created more reaction to the announcement to chuck schumer. senator reid has left a major mark on the body of the country and on so many who've met him

and have gotten to know him. barbara boxer or self is retiring says i've known harry reid for 30 plus years and since the day that i've met him he is given every bit of his energy and devotion to his job and family. more at twitter.com. ahead of the national republican senatorial committee and part of the statement today on the verge of his own and after the majority, senator harry reid has decided to hang up his rescue spurs. not only does he become your relevant and a lame duck that his retirement signals that there is no hope for the democrats to regain control of the senate.

fcc commissioners were on capitol hill last week to testify to several congressional committees about the latest open internet rules. last front of the fcc approves new open internet tools designed to prohibit internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against illegal content moving through their networks. commission members appear before the house energy and commerce subcommittee. i'm going to exert a little chair man's prerogative here because we haven't always gotten along and i have my opening statement here but i'm sick and tired of my string approach to

winning and the way that few are willing to tackle and a run over the top of people and score points. now that the game is over for the national football championship. i've kept my promise and warned the ohio state five. you are an honorable man. to the backup quarterback -- >> you think this is going to go better for you? >> i do think the color is becoming. >> i would wear the ohio state tied and vice versa. i also want you to know there is a pending matter to be settled. i did offer up eggs for lunch

and i will suggest february 26 might have been a wonderful day to have lunch with me. think the commissioner for being here and my colleagues. this is a quote unquote go away day. this is important business we are going to take up as we always do in the committee. on to the serious matters. it's over two weeks ago we have the commission's managing director present us with his rationale for the largest budget request in history or the federal communications commission. we were able to discuss whether the funding levels requested would yield the of the affected and incredible agency and today we have the opportunity to ask themselves if it is producing the high-caliber policymaking in the society requires and deserves and i for one have to

confess i'm skeptical. i think i have a good reason for my skepticism. federal communications commission is a transparent predictable agency presiding with a light touch over an explosion of the internet investment and innovation that has greatly benefited from consumers and today that agency in my opinion is the fault in the statutory obligations left to languish in favor of scoring points. the agency's capitulation to the president's demand comes at the end of the preceding and what i say is a procedural failure and at the white house is behind the influence on the process has been well-documented by the credible news sources including "the wall street journal" through e-mails and the senator's office last may. there is responsibility of an agency to issue detailed notice when they intend to act and apply the expertise in the policy. the process should be transparent and every effort made to politicize the outcome. perhaps in the respect the fcc should learn a thing or two

about communication and the fcc recently rendered protecting the consumers. the closed doors to bypass the administrative process and to a properly functioning conditioning doesn't make sense on the number of click and abate interest e-mails to generate. in the legally sound analysis being carried away by the politically generated a populist the open internet proceedings are not the only place for the fcc response to abandon the good process and also concerned about the use of delegated authority they have the responsibility for dealing with matters that are controversial and shouldn't simply delegate the decision to that result. the concern to transparency is suffered between the lack of agreement that shouldn't be in the documents are kept from other commissioners until the 11th hour. i'm concerned about a number of practical proceedings remain unresolved in the thousands of businesses to wait in the wings

while the commission focuses on extending its regulatory reach. mostly i am concerned about the overstepped jurisdiction to regularly the next atrocity as the obvious example here but there are others. an agency only had the authority given to it by statute and i can't see how any reading communications act would give the impression the congress rendered the authority to be the ultimate arbiter of the use of personal information. i cannot see how the communications act could be read to the tenth amendment to place them in the position signing up to states to send their talks dollars and how they can interpret the governing statute to address the control of the content through the mandate and the presentation on the internet. but for the fact that i only have five minutes for my statement we could keep going. waiver for the government researchers and newsrooms of a thing that images without the notice of excessive merger conditions and last-minute data dumped into the record they appear to believe that the authorized approach to its

authority and i know it when i see it. to be fair some of the responsibility lies right here in congress. we haven't updated the communications act for decades. the technology is horrible things regulatory framework. they do not have the tools to do its job but this doesn't mean that they should distort or ignore the current law were threatened and manufacturing authority should the regulated industries have the disparity to reduce the demand. instead to work with congress we offered a way forward on a neutrality. it isn't clear to me that the objection to the legislation is based on the policy. but if we could work together on fixing the next atrocity situation we would be able to chalk up a victory to all of us and for all of the consumers and the american economy so that starts today trying to fix the agency itself and it's our job to do our due diligence and reauthorize the agency for the first time since 1995.

i think the commissioners and the chairman for their attendance today and i look forward to the productive session i had. i would yield to the vice chair. >> i appreciate you yielding and the commissioners for being here. the success in the communications and technology industry never cease to amaze me. as it has been and is a constant spot in the economy as a representative for the consumer demand. given the internal role in the marketplace is critical in that the and that the agency is transparent, efficient and accountable. to reclassify the broadband internet services in the total communication services despite the fact it was fundamental for providing the industry the flexibility needed to with flexibility needed to invest innovate and create jobs into the process wasn't trans. and represent a regulatory overreach that will have lasting negative consequences.

today's hearing is a step in the right direction in an effort to make the agency effective and efficient. i look forward to hearing from the commissioners and i yield back with a point of personal privilege for i think that your tie looks great. >> i'm glad i yield my time to you. i will turn to my friend from california. >> think you mr. chair. i don't have any sports in which he and obviously i hold a much different view and i want to express that view with the intensity that needs to be brought to what this issue is all about and i appreciate having the hearing. but i think the main point is that on february 26, the american people finally one and

it was big. the regulatory guys and gals in the country part of the b. league or the middle class were hurt. it was a bright line open internet folder protect the ability of consumers, students and entrepreneurs to learn and explore create and market all on equal footing. this is a .net e. quality. the decision and ensures the internet remains open and accessible for everyone. a source of intellectual enrichment and an engine for economic growth and prosperity in our country. the internet is the public library of our time and most robust marketplace imaginable. and the fcc declared it open to all and for all.

this is nothing short of extraordinary. it was the day when an average person witnessed something very rare. the big shots in washington, d.c. cited decision-makers actually took him aim and consider the advice of over 4 million americans. i remember when he addressed a million people on the mall. it was a sea of humanity. it's over 4 million people that weighed in. and way then. and i think that kind of public engagement with our government should be celebrated and not rolled over and disrespect it. disrespected. today the majority offered a draft intended to reauthorize the fcc. i have reviewed the draft

legislation and concluded that in fact it is meant to squeeze an agency that's already operating at the lowest number of full-time staff in 30 years. the fcc has to have the names to fulfill its mission to protect consumers, prague competition and advance innovation. that is their mission. this includes huge issues and they are huge like freeing up the traditional spectrum promoting the deployment and enhancing the services. any attempt to overhaul the funding structure should be fully analyzed and the implications of the changes and should be fully understood. we shouldn't be horsing around. it's simply insufficient. so i find myself wondering why are we having this hearing today. i hope it isn't the next

possession. the majority seems to have chosen to ignore the glaring fact. over 4 million americans did something. they did countless more in and contacted their members of congress and we don't want to pay more for less. we don't think any kind of discrimination blocking or throttling is good or fair. we are tired of poor service for the providers confusing the bills to wait for a half-hour or more and we don't want any gatekeepers so that is what this is all about. i welcome that debate and i the debate and i welcome the discussion with the commissioners and yield the remainder of my time to the

congresswoman. >> thank you very much ranking member. i would also like to welcome the chairman and the commission today. we know over the last year the debate over the future of the internet hasn't been an easy one but in the end the net neutrality rules ensure that the paper your decision schemes or the so-called internet fast planes never see the light of day in the economy. americans will not experience the internet's low interest low range gate keepers traffic. we know how they preserve and net neutrality is not over. that said it is time for us to get back to working on issues that are on the internet economy. i think spectrum should be at the top of the list. they demonstrated appetite for the spectrum. i look forward to reintroducing the bipartisan legislation with the congressman that would create the first ever incentive option for the federal agencies. with that i yield back the balance of my time.

>> we have questions and we want to write on to them. i think that the recent actions taken by the fcc have raised more questions about your scope and reach and authority and i would also say about transparency. i will tell you i do not think it is acceptable for the commission to pass a net neutrality rule before the american people have an opportunity to find out what is in it and what is disappointing to us releasing the draft final order should have been a part of the rulemaking process and it is

disappointing that it was not. every dollar that you spend is a taxpayer dollar. every action that you take effects the american taxpayer so that lack of transparency is incredibly disappointing. i'm sure that you're also hearing from some of the other stakeholders that have been disappointed on what they found out once they started to read the 322 work field pages. as the former state senator from tennessee and some that worked on the telecommunications and interactive technology issues there. i was terribly disappointed to see the action of the commission to choose, to take a vote and choose to preempt the state law in tennessee and north carolina to restrict municipal broadband

injury. we recognize most of the load for five minutes. >> over the past few days we have heard quite a bit of the process here in this transparency at the fcc. given how it's transpired over the last 48 hours i wonder whether our own house is in order and as the witness testimony was already being submitted to the republicans release with no notice is a partisan discussion of what completely overhauled the fcc funding. and this maneuvering is unfair to the witnesses and unfair to the members of the subcommittee.

we try to be open and transparent. >> mr. chairman and this congress, we seem to have halted a tradition. i am not sure that it's in the rules, but we have a long tradition of sharing all of the members of the subcommittee at least a week prior to the legislative hearing and we feel the same partisan tactics. >> volvo gentleman yield on that point? >> when you all are in charge we have a list of examples where that was not the case. we should be more transparent. i would like to see us go back to a tradition process that we have. the same thing happened in the

consumer manufacturing and trade subcommittee in the last couple of days. i understand you give an example of the things done in the past but mr. upton, your self, the subcommittee chair, they want to act in a bipartisan way they want to bipartisan bills and i appreciate that come about if you are going to do that we need to have more time than just the 48 hours that occur today and we had the same thing yesterday and in the subcommittee. if we are going to move forward to try to do bills in a bipartisan basis, we need to have more than 48 hours. in addition to that, i have yet to hear the explanation of why the legislation is a good idea given what we just went through with the department of homeland security i doubt our constituents are clamoring for us to create another funding

cliff especially for an agency that just netted $41 million for the public safety and deficit reduction without raising a dime in taxes. >> nonetheless i'm grateful that we are having a hearing today. it gives us the opportunity to show our appreciation in public and in person for its work. so thank you chairman and to the fellow commissioners for all that you have accomplished. this has been an eventful year and the commission has certainly received more than its fair share of attention. in the level of the engagement 4 million americans weighed and overwhelmingly calling for the strong network neutrality rules and 140 members of the congress engaged in the process and of course the president expressed his opinion as well which is not something that we should be in there is about by the way. ..

>> if we're able to find a real partner in this process we must make sure our efforts do not come at the expense of all the other work the commission does. the fcc must remain an effective cop on the beat to protect consumers. they must continue to promote universal service to all americans. the fcc must insurance and telecommunications and media markets are competitive and fcc

must maintain the vitality of our public safety communications. that's what i look for during debate how the fcc can continue to serve an important role in the broadband age and so does the commissioner, thank you for coming today. take you for a public service. i just ask, i know because i yield the time to you i wanted to yield a minute of my time to mr. lujan. if i could ask unanimous consent -- >> without objection. >> thank you. >> thank you. let me second your comments about the need for us to work together. telecommunications policy is a long history of to be made on a bipartisan basis and i would hate to see the polarization that defines so many of our policy debates dominate our efforts on the subcommittee. before our real challenges. we still have 77% of mexicans living in rural areas like access to broadband. as i shared with chairman wheeler before if we can have internet access to 30,000 feet on an airplane we should be without internet access all

across rural america including new mexico. i'm interested in hearing from commissioner rosenworcel on the innovative potential of unlicensed spectrum and am i'm excited to hear from former public utility commissioner a colleague of mine as well commissioner clyburn for the lifeline program here i want to from all commissioners on how we can work with the fcc including strengthened information technology system that collapsed under the weight of millions of comments generated last year when a friend of ours filed comment to the fcc with crushed its servers. 4 million comment is a lot but surely the agency that's charged with overseeing the event should be able to handle the traffic. with that i want to thank everyone for being here today and i look forward to this important conversation today. >> thank the chairman first comment. we'll go to the chairman of the sec for an opening statement. thank you for being here we know you have a tough job and we look forward to your comments. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, ranking member eshoo. it's a privilege to be here with

all of my colleagues. there's been some reference about the open internet. i'm sure we will discuss it more today. clearly the decision we made was a watershed. you and your legislation, mr. chairman, and we and our regulation identify a challenge, a problem that needs to be solved. we take different approaches to be sure, and no doubt we are going to be discussing those now and in the future. but there's common agreement that the internet is too important to ignore and too important to not have a set of yardsticks and rules. we've completed our work now open internet rules will be in place. let me move onto another couple of issues that i think are important to the committee and one is that there is a national

emergency in emergency services. and congress holds the key to the solution. the basque country of the calls to 911, public safety challenge. the passengers of calls to 911 come from mobile devices. in a unanimous decision of this entire commission, we have established rules for wireless carriers to provide location information as to where the call is coming from. the carriers are stepping up but delivering that information is only the front end of the challenge. mr. shimkus, about 15 years ago led legislation making 911 and national number. and basing it had never been that. the calls to go through but many times it's like a tree falling in the forest it was a recent tragic example in georgia when a

lady called as she was drowning in her car and the signal was received i an antenna that happened to be in an adjacent area, public safety answering point, that did not have that decide not to have maps of the area next door. and i've listened to the call and it's heartbreaking to she keeps saying, here's what i am here's what i am. the dispatcher keeps saying, i can't find it on the net. i don't know where you are. to know where to send somebody. there are 6500 different tensions in the country but also by incredibly dedicated individuals -- psap -- but there needs to be some kind of set of standards and only congress can do with. we'll dealt with the front and but now it's message refers to do something about the backend. this is is not a power grab i don't care how it gets done or what

agency is responsible. but we owe this to the american people. the second quick issue of like to raise is i know mr. chairman, both you and i want the commission that works openly fairly and efficiently. while 3-2 votes always get the attention, about 90% of our decisions during my tenure have been unanimous. about 2% have been 4-1 and hundred and 21 under 253 votes that have been 3-2. we also have during my tenure the best record of any full commission the century for getting decisions out quickly. 73% of our decisions are released in one business day or less. the measure of that is the last republican-led commission, it took a week before they could get that number.

we also have the lowest number and percentage of actions made on delegated authority of any commission, republican or democrat, in the last 15 years. but regardless of this we should be constantly striving for improvement. commissioner o'rielly has raised some really good questions about long-standing processes. e. and i were in the same position. we walked in the door at the same time and we found processes in place that have been typical both republican and democratic administrations. as i say he raised some really good questions. to address these questions i'm going to be asking each commissioner to appoint one staff person to work on a task force to be headed by diane cornell who ran our process

reform task force. and i'm asking diane i've already asked her to, to begin a review of all similes situated independent agencies so that we know what the procedures are for those agencies and that can be a baseline which, ma against which we can measure our procedures and move forward to address what i think are some of the legitimate issues that commissioner o'rielly has raised. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we will now move to the honorable mignon clyburn commissioner, it's a delight to have you back here former chairwoman, we are delighted to have you here. please go ahead. >> thank you, chairman walden, ranking member eshoo distinguished limits of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to share my perspectives with you this morning. in my written testimony for the record i discuss the commission's work in several policy areas. this morning i will focus on spectrum auctions an inmate calling services reform.

in march of 2014 we unanimously adopted a licensing and service rule to auction 65 megahertz of spectrum in the aws three bed. this is not only important for wireless carriers seeking to meet skyrocketing consumer demand other networks that it was critical for the promotion of more competitive auctions. my colleagues and i agreed on a plan with smaller license blocks and geographic license areas. we also agreed on the need for interoperability between the aws one and aws three bands. such rules encourage for dissipation by smaller carriers, promotes competition at local markers and ensure the option allocate spectrum to the higher the highest and best use. most experts predicted intense bidding in this auction, but no one forecasted that the total gross amount of winning bids would be a record-setting

$44.89 billion. the success of this auction was due in large part two of painstaking effort to prepare the aws three spectrum band that involved the broadcast of wireless industries, federal agencies, and members of this committee. and for that i thank you. we should follow a similar collaborative approach in the voluntary incentive option. robust participation by small and large wireless carriers in the forward auction will encourage broadcast television stations to take part in the reverse auction. a unanimously adopted notice of proposed rulemaking seeks to strike the proper balance between licensed and unlicensed services. we also initiated a proceeding to reform our competitive bidding role in advance of the incentive option. we propose comprehensive reforms so small businesses can compete more effectively in auctions,

and sought comment on how to -- an example of how the markets do not always work integrated with backdrop is sometimes necessary. while the petition requested the relief from egregious inmate calling rates remain pending at the fcc for nearly a decade, rates and fees continue to increase. calls made by deaf and hard of hearing inmates have cost $2.26 per minute. add to that in the endless array of fees, $3.95 to initiate a call. a fee to set up an account can another fee to close an account. there is even a fee charged for users who get a refund from their own money. these fees are imposing devastating societal impacts that should concern us all. there are 2.7 million children

with at least one parent incarcerated and they are the ones most likely to do poorly in schools and suffer severe economic and personal hardships, all exacerbated i an unreasonable rate regime. studies consistently show that meaningful contact beyond prison walls can make a real difference in maintaining community ties promoting rehabilitation, successful reintegration back into society, and reducing recidivism. ultimately the downstream cost of these inequalities are borne by us all. we have had caps on interstate inmate calling rates since february of last year and despite dire predictions of losing phone service and insecurity, we have witnessed nothing of the sort. what we have seen is increased call volume ranging from 70% to s.i.s. 300% and letters

expressing at this relief has impacted lives. i look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues to finally bring this issue over the finish line. that's the best of going to do this morning by reforming all rates while taking into account robust security protections. mr. chairman, and ranking member eshoo and others of the committee i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and i look forward to any questions you may have. >> i think you have a winner. we are going to go now to commissioner rosenworcel. we're delighted to have you back before the subcommittee, look forward to your comments as well. thank you for being here. >> good morning -- >> i don't think that microphone state on. >> i've got it now. good morning, chairman walden ranking member eshoo, and distinguished members of the committee. today, communications technologies the count for one-sixth of the economy, and

they are changing at a breathtaking pace. how fast? well, consider this. it took the telephone 75 years before it reached 50 million users. to reach the same number of users, it took television 13 years, and the internet four years. more recently to reach the same number of users it took angry bird 35 days. so we know the future is coming at us faster than ever before. we also know the future involves the internet. our internet economy is the envy of the world. it was built on a foundation of openness. that is why open internet policies matter and that is why i support network neutrality. as you've undoubtedly heard, 4 million americans wrote the fcc to make known their ideas thoughts and give a held opinions about internet openness. they have the upper phone lines

clogged e-mail in boxes, and jim our online comment system. that might be messy but whatever our disagreements are on network neutrality i hope we can agree that's democracy in action and something we can all support. with an eye to the hook you want to talk about two of the things today, the need for more wi-fi and the need to bridge the homework gap. first, wi-fi. few of us go anywhere today without mobile devices in our palms, pockets or purses. that's because every day in countless ways our lives are dependent on wireless connectivity. while the demand for our airwaves grow, the bolt of our policy conversations are about increasing the supply of licensed airwaves available for auction. this is good but we also need to give unlicensed services and wi-fi its proper due. after all, wi-fi is how we get

online in public and at home. wi-fi is also how our wireless carriers manage their networks. in fact, today nearly one half of all wireless data connections are at some point offloaded onto unlicensed spectrum. wi-fi is also how we foster innovation. that's because the low barriers to entry for unlicensed airwaves make them perfect sandboxes for experimentation. and widely is a boon to the economy. the economic impact of unlicensed activity has been estimated at more than $140 billion annually. by any measure that's big. so we need to make unlicensed services like wi-fi a priority in our spectrum policy. and that the fcc we are doing just that with our upcoming work on three got five gigahertz band and an guard bands and the 600 megahertz band. but it's going to take more than

this to keep up with demand. that's what i think the time is right to explore greater unlicensed use in the upper portion of the five gigahertz band. and i think going forward we are going to have to be on guard to find more places for more wi-fi to flourish. now second i want to talk about another issue that matters to the future and that's the homework gap. today, roughly seven in 10 teachers assign homework that requires broadband access. but fcc data suggests that as many as one in three households today like access to broadband at any speed. think about those numbers. where they overlap is what i call the homework gap. and if you were a student and a household without broadband just getting homework done is hard. applying for a scholarship is challenging, and while some students may have access to a

smart phone let me submit to you that a phone is just not how you want to research and type of paper, apply for jobs or further your education. this is a loss to our collective human capital and to all of us because it involves shared economic future that we need to address. that's why the homework gap is the coolest part of our new digital divide. but it's within our power to bridge it. more wi-fi can help as will our recent efforts to upgrade wi-fi connectivity to the elite program. but more work remains. i think the fcc needs to take a hard look at modernize its program to support connectivity and low income households and especially those with school-age children. i think the sooner we act the sooner we bridge this gap and give more students a fair shot at 21st century success. thank you. >> thank you. we appreciate your testimony.

those bells of enough, or buzzers as reliably say we have to votes but we should have time to get to both the other commissioners testament and they will probably break to go vote and then come back immediately after votes to resume the questioning. so welcome, commissioner pai. thank you for being here. please go ahead with your testimony. >> chairman walden, ranking member eshoo mentors of the subcommittee. thank you for giving the opportunity to testify today. it has been an honor to work with numbers of the subcommittee on a wide variety of issues from making available more spectrum for mobile broadband to improving the nation's 911 system. i last testified in front of this subcommittee more than a year ago. sense that hearing on december 12, 2013, things have changed dramatically at the fcc. i wish i could see these changes on balance have been for the better. unfortunately, that has not been the case. the foremost example of course is the fcc's decision last month to apply title ii to the internet. the internet is not broken.

the fcc didn't need to fix it. but our partyline vote overturn a 20 year bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. with a title ii decision of the fcc voted to give itself the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the internet works. the fcc's decision will hurt consumers i increasing the broadband bills and reducing competition. that title ii order was not the result of a transparent rulemaking process. the fcc has already lost in court twice, and its latest quarter as glaring legal flaws that are guaranteed to my the agency in litigation for a long time. -- meyer. turning to the designated entity program, the fcc must take immediate action to end its abuse. what was once a well-intentioned program designed to help small businesses has become a playpen for corporate just to the recent

aws three auction is a shocking case in point. dish, which has annual revenues of $14 billion, and a market cap of over $34 billion holds 85% equity stake into companies that are now claiming $3.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies. that makes a mockery of the small business program. the $3.3 billion at stake israel money that could be used to underwrite over 580,000 pell grants, fund a school lunches for over 6 million schoolchildren, or incentivize the hiring of over 138,000 veterans for a decade. the abuse had a nose impact on small and disadvantaged businesses from nebraska to vermont. it denied and spectrum licenses they would've used to provide consumers a competitive wireless alternative. the fcc should quickly adopt a further notice of proposed rulemaking so we can close these loopholes in our rules before our next auction.

turning next to process. the fcc as it is at its best when asked in a bipartisan collaborative manner. during my service under chairman genachowski and chairwoman clyburn 89% of votes on fcc meeting items with the agency vote on the most high profile significant matters affecting the country were unanimous. since november 2013, however only 50% of those fcc meetings have been unanimous. this level of discord is unprecedented. indeed, there have been 40% more partyline votes at the fcc in the last 17 months than they were under the entire chairmanships of chairman martin, cox, genachowski and clyburn combined. i'm also concerned that the commission's long turning procedures and norms are being abused in order to freeze out commissions. or example it has been customary for bureaus planning to issue significant orders on delegated authority to provide the items to commissioners 48 hours prior

to the scheduled release. back then if the commission as for the order to be brought up for a commission level vote, that request from a single commission would be honored. recently however, the leadership has refused to let the commission vote on items were to commissioners have made such a request. given this trend as well as others i commend the subcommittee for focusing on the issue of fcc process reform and to welcome the chairman's announcement this morning to finally i would like to conclude by discussing an issue where it should be easy to reach consensus. when you downline 11 you should be able to reach emergency personnel wherever you are. but, unfortunately, many properties that use multiline telephone system require callers to press nine or some other access code before dialing 911. this problem has led to tragedy. unfortunately the phone systems at many federal buildings are

not configured to allow drag 911 dialing. recognizing this problem congress directed the general service administration to issue a report on a 911 capability of the telephone systems in all federal buildings by november 18, 2012. i recently wrote to gsa to inquire about the status of that report and i was disturbed to learn to a press report just a couple of days ago to gsa never completed it. the fcc's headquarters is one such federal building where direct 911 dialing does not work. as ranking member recently observed when it comes to emergency calling the fcc could be the example.org for the rest of the federal government but for the entire country. i commend her and congressman shimkus for their leadership on this issue. chairman walden, ranking member eshoo and members of the subcommittee, thank you once again for inviting me to testify. i look forward to question the working with you and you step in

and you step into basic and. >> we now turn to the fifth commissioner, fourth commission and the chairman, commissioner o'rielly. we're delighted to have your. please go ahead with your full testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman ranking member eshoo, ranking member below the numbers of the subcommittee for the opportunity to deliver testimony today. i felt the energy and commerce committee a nice regard given by past evolve as a congressional staffer with oversight hearings and responsibilities that you have to face everyday. i applaud the subcommittee for focus on this issue of reauthorizing the fcc and improving its process and i we commit myself to being available at any results again in the future. in my time at the commission i've enjoyed the many intellectual policy challenges presented by the ever challenging communications sector. it is my goal to maintain friendships even when we disagree and seek out opportunities where we can work together to provide a brief snapshot i voted with the chairman on approximate 90% of all items to unfortunately this has dropped significant

approximate 62% of the higher profile open meeting items. one of the policies i've not been able to support its insertion of the commission into every aspect of the internet. as you may have heard a commission pursued and ends justified the means approach to new title to regime without a shred of evidence that it is even necessary, solely to check the boxes on a partisan agenda. even worse the order -- to review current and future internet practices under vague standards such as just and reasonable, unreasonable interference or disadvantage, and reasonable network management. this is a recipe for uncertainty for our nation's broadband providers and ultimately edge provided to nonetheless i continue to just great ideas to modernize a regular in violent to reflect the current marketplace often through my public blog. i have written extensively on the need to reform numerous outdated and inappropriate commission procedure. i have advocated any document to

be considered in an open meeting should be made public with the devil on the commission's website at the same time it is certainly to the commissioners typically three weeks in advance. this is not type in detroit i've although it provides an example why change is needed. under the current process i meet with numerous outside parties prior to an open meeting by the conclude from telling them having read the document that their concerns are misguided or already interest. it could be huge waste of time and effort will involve and allows some favored parties an unfair advantage in the hunt are scarce and highly prized information nuggets. the state of chechen to this approach presented under the cloak of procedural law are really grounded in resistant to change and concerned about resource management. the commission has a questionable postadoption process that deserves significant contention -- attention to while i refrain from commenting on legislation appreciate the idea approved by by the subcommittee of applicable house last congress which would address a number of commission

practices to keep the public out of the critical and stages of the deliberative process and i believe these proposed changes as well as others would approve the commissions the function of the of the commission and approved consumer access to information. i would turn to a host of other commission practices but i believe reserve computer potential to the 40 hour notification my friend mentioned, test would provide the outside witnesses at the commission open become delegated that authority to make critical decisions or so policy, the flexibility act and paperwork reduction act compliance and accounted for the enforcement bureaus assess it. i've been outspoken on me substantive issues such as the need to free up spectrum resource of wireless broadband both licensed and unlicensed. i look forward to work with my codescollege on this issue and so many more in the months ahead. i stand ready catch any questions you may have spent thank you commission. we appreciate your input as well. we will recess now so that

members can go to the house floor until. please regard as proper as possible as we we can are questioning their after. we stand in recess. we have two quick votes. [inaudible conversations] >> all right thank you very much and we will resume the subcommittee on communications and technology. we are now into the questioning phase from the members of the committee. we want to thank all of you for your testimony today and the work that you do with all of us every day. so we do appreciate that. throughout the debate on the internet proceeding i was amused there were some comparisons with former chairman kevin martin did or didn't do with respect to his ownership proceeding. they wrote a late in the op-ed put out a public notice,

testified before congress but he didn't do a further notice of proposed rulemaking and that seems to be precisely what the third circuit through his newspaper broadcast ownership rule out. apparently against federal appellate judges don't think much of op-ed news release or even congressional testimony what comes to satisfying notice and comment requirements. they think the agency should go to the procedural steps to make sure that all interested parties even those outside d.c. policy circles get a real opportunity to understand significant shift in direction and at a reasonable amount of time to comment. i've got just a couple of questions and perhaps i will direct them to the mission of pi. how many of the commission's tentative conclusions found in the nprm were reversed in the final order? >> virtually all of them. >> and how many of the commissions well, what number paragraph in the nprm says that

the commission plans to assert its authority over ip addressing? >> it was not in the there. >> what number paragraph in the nprm put the public on notice that the commission intended to redefine the term public switch network? >> there's no such paragraph. that's what i was concerned about. >> i didn't see that either. the are a number of issues that are pending at the commission can add another chairman has had a lot on his plate. you all have. i get the. it's a rapidly changing department. you have limited resources and all. some of you heard me talk about our little applications for fm translator, 10 years waiting, 30 days dissatisfied requirement that all. we get a lot of input from constituencies out across the country. just because a limited time, has commission acted on the am modernization order yet? >> mr. chairman, it has not yet and the nprm as you was adopted

about a unesco. the record is clear and unanimous support from the public. >> there's another issue that came up i was speaking at a group, and it involved this issue to allow small cable operators to operate as a buy-in group for the purchase of content. has not been acted on get? >> it has not. i voted on nprm i was about three years ago. the summer of 2012. i'm not sure the status of is but i stand ready to vote whenever it is keyed up for a vote. >> my understanding is the commission has not yet issued its quadrennial review of rules for 2010. i believe that's about five years ago, is that correct? >> five years ago but december 2007 was the last time the actual rules were adopted. >> so it's been eight years? isn't that a statutory obligation to? >> that's why we need to put the quad backend quadrennial. quadrennial. >> what about the work on the connect america fund?

has the commission finish its work on how connect america will work in the mobile support mobile? >> my interest in it has not yet but work is underway. >> these are some the things that trouble is, to say the least. we also had an issue come to our attention involving the western amateur radio friendship association interference case and maybe, chairman, i could direct this to you. i do think it's been going on for quite a while. and is quite disturbing. i've been told about from the audio recordings allegedly there's this jamming that's included, really awful repulsive racial epitaphs and threats against a female member. it's come to our attention that this has been sitting there for a while where these operators are jamming and using really awful language. do you know the status of that? can you give us some update on

the? >> i can't ought that. >> i think it's called the western association interference case. i guess there are a couple of these involving pirate radio operators. which leads into discussion and i'm going to run out of time about the closing of the regional offices to you know when we had the cfo i guess close managing director here we weren't really brought up to speed or advance notice at least to this osha critical as these regional office. isn't that what this enforcement activity generally takes place to? >> mr. chairman, yes indeed. i think they perform with the core function which is to protect the public interest by among other things resolving it is concerned, public safety. while and sustained a show that a chance to meet with union representatives.

congresswoman clarke has expressed concern about the function to want to make sure how whether it is organized we protect the public interest. >> i will quit here in the second, but we clearly don't have, it would leave only two offices, nothing from west coast. i was pleased -- >> can i -- on that. there's multiple things going on. first of all we need to make sure that in flat budgets or reduced budgets that were spending our money efficiently. when you have more trucks than you have agents which is the reality that exists today you've got to ask yourself the question, are you distributing resources as they ought to be shepherded? when you've got one manager for every four people you say to yourself to is this the right -- >> i fully agree and understand -- >> then how do you fix that?

>> what we would like to have is a backup for this because it's been that wasn't what we propose. i think we have a request pending for that and we are told, i don't know whether we were told we can't get it or whatever, but we would like to see -- >> if my understanding is correct, you asked for the consultants report, the final consultants report, and you will have it when i have it. >> what is -- >> i have seen a draft but i also sent back for some more detailed information. >> thank you. i've exceeded my time. i appreciate the indulgence of the committee. i recognize the gentleman from california. >> i will ask you for the same. thank you, mr. chairman. welcome again to the entire commission. it's obvious that we have different takes on the issues but i sincerely thank you for your public service. and two commissioner o'rielly,

this is a graduate of this committee. you were here under chairman bliley, whom i had the pleasure of working with and getting a lot of things done together, so welcome back. commissioner pai, thank you for your advocacy on the 911 issues. you know the mother and father a mommy and daddy of as a writer at the committee, congressman shimkus and myself founded that caucus and then helped -- [laughter] >> we did. what's so funny about that? i think it's terrific. when no one was paying attention to the issues, but it was before our country was attacked. commissioner rosenworcel thank you for your clarity and your passion when you see

commissioner clyburn, go get them. just go get them. into the distinguished chairman, distinguished chairman i don't know how many people realize this about the chairman but he is a man of history. and so i want to pick on the vein of history. because i think it's very important for us, around here life is incremental. it's incremental anyway. out of gives us life and at a time. so those are increments. but i think what i would like to do is have you and i want to say a few things about it first, to widen the lens of what is before us today in terms of history. now the majority has defined or tried to define net neutrality with some very scary things.

they call it railroad regulation, billions of dollars in taxes new taxes are going to be levied. no investment is going to be made. the market is going to be chilled. in terms of history, we been through the stone age the bronze age, the iron age the age of invention, the industrial revolution, the technology age and now the information age. and i think why this is difficult for some to actually see, and when you see something, you either get it or you miss it. we are at a moment in our nation's history where we are moving to a new age. and i would say that those that are on the other side of this

issue are back in an older age where you have huge corporations gatekeepers, the wobblies -- duopolies to that's not what the internet is all about. so what i would like you as a historian, to address what this moment is and place it on the stage of history. >> thank you, ms. eshoo. you get me start on history and -- >> we don't have a very much time. i've got a minute and 40 seconds left. >> i think we are living through the fourth grade network revolution in history. and if you look at of those what you'll find is that every single time it was the end of western civilization as we know it that was being, people didn't want to embrace the change would say this is awful.

i have hanging in my office a poster from 1839 that was put out by people who were against the interconnection of railroads. and it was all patterned around women and children are going to be hurt by this. it was paid for by all the people whose businesses would be affected because the railroads would interconnect. yet that interconnection drove the 19th and 20th century. we always hear these imaginary horrible awful things that are going to result, and we also always end up seeing as a society, you know we need rules. we need to have a known set of rules. we need to have a referee on the field who can throw the flag. and that is the process that we have gone through since time

immemorial, every time there's a new net worked revolution. and we have the privilege of living through that and trying to deal with those realities today. >> i think that's magnificent in such a short project on. i wish i could question that life question for all of you. i'm going to cement them to you, and with that mr. chairman i would like to ask unanimous consent that the congressman's questions be submitted for the record is a guest of our subcommittee today and demonstrates his great interest in the issues at hand, and another from, many many, i don't know maybe 50 racial justice, civil rights organizations who have addressed a letter to the chairman and myself in support of net neutrality. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> the lady yields back. the next questioner will be the gentlelady of tennessee ms. blackburn, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. chairman wheeler, i would just add my viewpoint when you look out economic revolution in society what it was agricultural for the industrial the technology, the information, successful revolutions are about freeing up not restricting. what we are looking at right now is the vantage point that you are coming from is taking away and restricting, not freeing up. commissioner o'rielly, but they can do for a moment. you and i and an op-ed back in july going for the need for a cost-benefit analysis, and we look at what had been said by ppi free press professor farber, you become what they would happen with taxes "new

york times" agreed with the. i want to hear from you a little bit, 30 seconds worth about why we should have a cost-benefit analysis of what you think the outlook is. >> i believe we should do that at the sec on cost-benefit analysis. this is a perfect case. >> none was done. >> this was a woeful job done in this instance. we are talking hypothetical harm and real world impact on businesses. in terms of your question on taxes, i would switch 40 tax and see the question of bit on universal fees and what happens in universal service going forward. the chairman has made very clear the item in and of itself the for us does not -- that is something we will punt for about a month or two over waiting for the joint board meeting. we are going to see does fees in the months ahead. >> commissioner pai, you gave an interview this week and stated there was going to be a tax on broadband and the commission is waiting for a joint board to decide april 7 to how large that

tax is going to be. you want to expand on that? >> thank you for the question. the order suggests the joint board will make a recordation on april 7. the order also says a short deadline might be appropriate. at some point very soon the joint board is going to recommend whether and how to increase these fees. in addition it's not just the fees that commissioner o'rielly pointed out, it's state and local fees. for example, property taxes localities impose taxes. the district of columbia poses an 11% tax on gross receipts. these have to be paid by someone. >> chairman wheeler i read something from professional lines the boston college and he said title ii is fundamentally a regime for regulation. and then we are looking at another thing what you said about a person which might include a large company can file

a complete with the fcc under section two '08 if they don't think their charges are just and reasonable. so you have denied that the sec is going to get into rate regulation through this net neutrality order. i understand the order does not explicitly state that the fcc will be regulating rates on the date the rules are effective, but what about the first time that a complaint is filed with the fcc under section two weight because the party feels their grades are not just and reasonable? what's the remedy going to be? it isn't true that the fcc will be engaged thereby thank you, doctor rate regulation? >> so thank you, congresswoman. i hope somebody files that kind of complaint. as you know there hasn't been a complaint filed for 22 years in the wireless voice space despite the fact this authority exists.

if somebody files that kind of complaint and i don't want to prejudice a decision but i will assure you that there will be a process that will look at that and that will develop, i would hope, a record that would make it very clear that the fcc is not in the consumer rate regulation business. >> mr. chairman, don't you think what you just said about there hasn't been a complaint filed for 22 years proves the point the internet is not broken? this space is not broken and it does not need your oversight and guidance to? >> no. i was referring to wireless voice, not to broadband. i think the key thing is you said -- >> let me cut you off. i have one question for commissioner clyburn. i want to go to the lifeline program with you. you advocated restructuring and

rebooting that program and you have had several supply-side reforms aimed at eliminating incentives for waste, fraud, and abuse. the fcc's inspector general as you know has performed a review of the verification process on this, and recommended that the fcc may improve the effectiveness of the warnings that it gives subscribers and reduce the level of fraud in that program. we have had hearings on this and i want to work with you on it. >> thank you. >> is a two under the current system the penalty for a subscriber defrauding the program by having multiple phones is to lose the subsidy for those phones, all but one one of them take you to keep one, and then the carrier is prosecuted. i tell you why your answer is important to you all are talking about getting the end to broadband. and in addition to the phone, and you've got to reform all of

this before you talk about expanding. >> i totally agree. one of the reasons why i set out 5.4 from is because i recognize two things. one, you need to eliminate all incentives and all existing waste, fraud, and abuse. you need to do that and the key way to do that is to get those providers out of the certification business. they will no longer greenlight customers -- >> we need to prosecuted the user, not the carrier. >> with the guidance from my colleagues and while i was acting chair -- >> i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady years back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from -- gentleman from new jersey, the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want the commission should know my district was ravaged by hurricanes and in 2012. one of the most concerning

impacts of the storm was a loss of committee patient services but a lot of people couldn't called a friend, family. and 40% of our cell towers were knocked out in the state. a lot of people basically learned the hard way that when the power lines go down communication services go down along with electricity. i wanted to ask commissioner rosenworcel. i know you two are pictured after sandy. i asked what lesson did you learn about how to prevent these kinds of committee patient failures during future emergencies. >> thank you for the question. i did a tour the new jersey shore with public safety officials following hurricane sandy, and i won't long forget what i saw a lot of broken homes and businesses and cars and boulders strewn it this way and that, and piles of sand many blogs from where the ocean is because the wind and water had delivered if there. i also saw people who were committed to rebuilding, and i

learned a lot about how communications succeeded and failed during that storm. what stuck with it was that many of the wireless towers in the affected areas went out. throughout the 10 states that were impacted by the storm about a quarter of the wireless cell towers went out of service. in new jersey it was about 40%. i would bet the number was significantly higher on the new jersey shore. in the aftermath of learning those things were able at the agency to start a rulemaking to ask how do we fix this going forward? because we know that 40% of all households in this country are wireless only and in the middle of a storm at the very least they should be able to connect and get the help they need. so we issued a rulemaking in 2013 and among the issues discussed in that was the question of how much backup power is necessary at cell sites and how much reporting duty our wireless carriers should have when these sites go out of

service. i hope that we can turn around and deliver a decision on that in short order because we don't know when the next storm is going to hit. but a british or people are going to try to use communications when it does. >> let me ask chairman wheeler understand the fcc as was mentioned considering updates to the tools to ensure that consumers have access to essential communications during disasters. can you commit to updating those roles this year? >> absolutely. the issue commissioner rosenworcel raised as a paramount issue. there's broader issues and that is the whole issue of copper retirement which got forced by sandy, and how do we make sure that when the power goes down and you are relying on fiber which doesn't carry its own power, but you the ability to make a 911 call, we have a rulemaking going on that literally just closed last week. all of these issues interrelate,

but first and foremost in our responsibly, which is why i focused on the 911 location issue in my statement, first and foremost in our responsibility as public safety. >> i wanted to ask about the designated entity rules, mr. chairman. small businesses are so important in my state and elsewhere. i just don't think small businesses can survive in capital intensive industries like telecommunications without some smart public policy. i'm concerned that the current rules for small businesses still could be bush era loopholes that allow large corporations to game the system to i introduced today the small business access to spectrum act to update the fcc's rules and get small business after shot at assessing the nation's airwaves. i will start, and i know there's not much time left start with chairman wheeler, if the others want to chime in would you commit to maintain a robust designated entity program focus on genuine small business of?

>> you wrote us and asked us to that, and i replied yes we will, and yes we are. we have had a rulemaking going on, and we will issue shortly a public notice making sure that it is broadened out the discussion is broadened out, the record is built on the question of the auction and some of the very legitimate concerns that have been raised about that. the thing that is frustrating to me congressman, you say yes these were bush era rules, they haven't been reviewed since then and it is time to review them. what is really upsetting is the way in which slick lawyers come in and take advantage of rules that this committee -- i was in the room, this room when this committee created designated entities. and as you say, the world changes dramatically in how a

designated entity can be structured and can play. now it is a big market was before it was a much smaller market. our rules have not kept up by the slick lawyers sure to get out how to do it and we want to make sure whether it's in this or whether it's in slick lawyers playing around with broadcast licenses, that there's no way that we keep our rules current and we're going to do that on this issue are going to make sure the commitment that i will ironclad give you is that we want to make sure that we have a new set of rules in place before the spectrum auction that takes place early next year. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. and yields back to the chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. again, thanks very much to commissions for being here today. commissioner pai in january the fcc voted to update the broadband benchmark speed to 25 megabits per second for downloads and three megabits per second for uploads.

the speech had praised and said that four megabits per second. while understand the need to update the broadband speeds, i'm kind of curious as to the process commission shows the speed of 25 megabits and the three megabits. it seems to an outside observer that an arbitrary number was picked, especially considering that recently the commission vote to spend $10.8 billion over the next six years to the connect america fund to deploy 10 megabits per second broadband. accordingaccording to the commissions the benchmark 10 megabits per second will no longer be considered broadband. can you walk us through how the agency came to these new benchmarks? and also can you follow up and how does it still plan to spend over $10 billion on those 10 megabits per second performance in light of that new definition of? >> thank you for the question. the problem is the agency has each issue in a vacuum. in december when we're talking a room broadband deployment we agreed to spend over the course of a decade billions of dollars

to establish will be considered to be broadband at the time which was 10 megabits per second. but for one month all of a sudden we learned that is the broadband. broadband is 25 megabits per second and which standards there's no such thing as mobile broadband because even the fastest connection can't get you to 25 megabits per second. flash forward one with a more we learned there is such a thing as mobile broadband and it will be classified as a title ii. the schizophrenia we've seen the last several months from the commission as to what is broadband illustrates the basic point. we need intellectual consistency that is grounded in the facts. the fact in this case stem from the question, what do people use broadband for? by and large is a look at my statement with respect to the january quarter, i was trying to look at patterns of usage. there's kind of be some folks who use the internet for very high bandwidth applications, others use it for less. the goal shouldn't be to artificially pick a number to

declare broadband marketplace is uncompetitive and justify regulation. it should be to try to tailor with some forward thinking what broadband means in the current era. that's why think the problem with a 25 megabits per second standard chip forecast would be jettisoned soon, i did know to be one month simply based on i think the more press release grasping for press lives as opposed to what was in the record. >> let me follow up. i'm also concerned this new threshold to reduce broadband in rural areas, look at my district and you've seen it it could deter competitors from entering the broadband market. do you foresee benchmarks unfairly impacting this is his in rural areas of? >> that's a great question and coming from a rural area myself that something i take personally. the sec or from a great number of small wireless small

providers, net service providers who told his title ii ironical would take us in the opposite direction of getting more competition to folks in rural areas if they have an option is going to be from one of the small providers. we heard from 43 minutes of broadband providers who sent title ii regulation will undermine our business model. ..

it's for the rural americans that have a tough enough time as it is. >> let me ask a question now the chairman mentioned in his opening statement about the task force of the agency process and -- >> find out by the actual task force backs this was my knowledge the quarter of last year issued in february there was an interactive process that asked each office to weigh in and that is subject to my memory sometimes is challenged but last year it was a february -- >> cash and are. >> at the issued a report last

year. >> commissioner? >> if you are referring to the task force this morning. >> he spoke about in his opening testimony. >> commissioner o'reilly? >> i just heard about it this morning. >> my time is expired and the chair now recognizes mr. doyle. >> i want to take a moment to recognize along with my colleague the historical step forward the commission has made in its open internet order and the order on municipal broadband. taken together these actions represent an incredible winds for consumers, entrepreneurs and millions of americans who call on the commission to take action. innovators shouldn't need to ask to deploy new products and services and the fcc actions will ensure that this remains

true. the colleagues on the other side of the idol have been talking about the title like it is the end of the world. up until 2002 the internet was treated as a service. it was a republican fcc chairman and commission that acted to reclassify as an information service. they were finally setting things straight. chairman last september you testified before the committee and the were asked about net neutrality proceedings and stated title ii is on the table. my republican colleagues are making the allegation you only started looking as a result of white house interference in november of 2014. was the fcc considering using its authority before president obama joined millions to take that course of action?

>> in the small business committee that you cite there was one member saying to me don't you dare do title ii and we were considering it but there was one member who was saying we want you to do title ii and i said we are considering it. >> the open internet order makes strides to protect consumers and innovators. by including the protection for consumer privacy in section 222 in this order i want to get your commitment to commission will move quickly to complete the rulemaking on the section 222 and ensure that the commission has rules in place to protect privacy online and i also like your commitment to take seriously this new responsibility on interconnection. with all of the recent announcements by over-the-top providers releasing the streaming video services, i think it's more important than ever the gatekeepers do not

restrict the access to consumers. and also mr. chairman, while i have you here i would read remiss if i didn't take the opportunity for special access. the data collection is complete and i would encourage you to move forward as quickly as possible to complete the analysis and take action to address any harms taking place. fixing this situation is a great opportunity to improve competition and economic growth across the country. >> let me see if i can go through. next month when we are holding a workshop that gets the party together to see let's talk specifically about how section 222 exists in the new reality. then we moved after that. with regards to interconnection, i could not agree more with your point about how over-the-top services are revolutionizing an art going to be the consumers

save your. i said before the committee before and other committees and it is a bipartisan belief that something has to be done about cable prices. and that starts with alternatives and those are delivered over the top and abide the internet and that is why the internet has to be open so that there are competitive alternatives for people. >> my hair wasn't gray when i first started asking. >> we have begun the data collection on the special access. special access is an incredibly important issue that is particularly essential to those that bring the competition to the communication. and my goal is that we will have this whole special access issue

on the table and dealt with before the end of the year. >> one last thing. this question raised $43 billion of the revenue meeting all of the funding targets before the next gen 9/11. considering this reality into the respect for the carriers hasn't the fcc been liberated from these fully funded objections and the reconsideration on the spectrum that we served in the option? >> that's one of the issue the issues we will be addressing again as we put together the final rules for the option. i understand we've lived up to our obligations and this is an issue we will be dealing with in the next couple of months.

>> all predictions were wrong. to and a half three times the amount of money predicted was raised and you were right we've met our obligations and we will continue through other offices in the incentive options to deliver the spectrums to the american people. >> we will be looking at is the next few months. it's important that we follow the statute and it's also important that we make sure that everybody has opportunities to bid in this upcoming option and that's no community walks away from all the spectrum. >> i appreciate your indulgence and i would like to include from the public spectrum coalition in regards to the incentive option. >> the gentle man yields back. the time is expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> welcome to the commission. it's good to have you here. i want to be careful in history

does tell us a lot of things. on the committee in september 11 the chairman of the subcommittee at the time took us to ground zero because we have a verizon switching station across the street. what i learned in walking through the process it is a fake company to get wall street back online. you have individuals and tying the copper lines. as we talk about the competition and large entities sometimes they are very important in the security of the country. thanks to the team effort we

have been fortunate to work on this, but it is a process you have to stay vigilant on. first we dealt with 911 and then we went to the location. then we went to voice over internet and now we are back in the location because i'm being told by some that there are too many right now and that we should maybe centralize those. any comments if you can. >> one of the things interesting in the bill that you had is you ask the states to voluntarily of the state-level coordination. and by and large that has been observed in the breach. there is no state-level coordination.

they need to be able to talk to each other and have similar standards. let me give you one more. you tipped off some of the issues in the technologies. the other is text to 911 and which of the 6500, 200 or implemented and that means that those that thanks but thanks to the unanimous action of the committee have the text to the capabilities provided by the carriers. they can text and nobody hears it >> the other thing is the testing that you did on the elevation. >> we are excited about the opportunity.

>> i know that it's probably important. give me some comfort my concern with the rule being presented is on litigation. i have a concern about how to when it looks like you are moving back to the regulation and that if you are regulating the u. have to have ac fee. so is it really about the megabit 10:25 and how do you encourage in this venue is cometh the individual consumers decide what they want versus

being forced to buy in the speed which they will never do. >> it's interesting. they cite their mother cited her mother with her mother-in-law and that example. there is nothing in here that regulates or establishes the terrorists for the consumer services. there is nothing in here that says a company cannot have multiple levels of services so your mother-in-law get e-mail only. >> can i have you addressed them which i'm about out of time. >> a couple of different issues. anyone can file a complaint

either with the commission or any federal courts across the country and that commission will have the commission will have to add adjudicated whether or not it is reasonable and the fact that while on the surface you might allow for differential services nonetheless it is ultimately up to any given commission or courts to decide after the fact if it is just and reasonable. additionally you pointed out the effect this would have and we've heard from companies responsible for the largest capital expenditures in the country when it comes to broadband and very small market areas and they told us the impact of this kind of regulation and other regulations is going to impede them from delivering those services whether it is higher bandwidth or your mother-in-law. >> i will yield back now thank you very much. >> the chernow recognized for five minutes from iowa for five minutes.

>> thank you mr. chair and all of you for being here today. great discussion about various issues and i will start by saying i don't want to be too presumptuous about this but we have a lot of concerns about the broadband and in particular i know that that is a big concern. we have 24 counties and although the committee chairman reminded me that his district is a lot larger than mine, the chairman and we have some from north dakota is a lot bigger in my district that 24 counties and we have a lot of the broadband as you mentioned. but a lot of the steps need broadband for education educational opportunities going forward we are going to need that. for farmers to access gps so they can plan and give it

efficiently and make a living. and for economic development i have one quick statistical question for you. you mentioned you gave us some numbers as far as immiscible providers and small providers. can you repeat those numbers? stack we received a letter from 24 broadband providers each of which serves. >> how many small providers are there in the country you receive 24 do you know what the number is total? >> i'm not sure the overall number but -- >> about 800. >> mr. chair man as an sure you are are aware of the authorization bill that we had before is on the committee and has been offered by the majority that would make universal

service funds subject to the appropriations process. i've been here nine years and things are pretty dysfunctional when it comes to the appropriations process. in the current environment we seem incapable passing the bill through the regular order and we saw some last minute as it is important to do good appropriations i know you may not be willing to weigh in on this but my question is do you support attaching the funding to the process quite >> let me see if i can answer that by talking about what we hear from the kind of carriers you were talking about. >> you are asking us to deploy

capital and we need to know that the capital from you is going to come behind that and we need to know five, seven years of certainty that this money is going to be there. that's the way the universal service program has been done to provide that kind of certainty. clearly the serious concern is if all of a sudden. if they move like this or don't move and we are dealing with whatever the case is the ability of these carriers to make the investments that are necessary to provide service a service in high-cost areas will be significantly impaired. this is a huge concern for so many of us. the rural broadband issues i

mentioned. we can have access to those because we also know that a lot of them are paying into it in the first place and we've heard the complaints that sometimes the funding doesn't come back to them and they feel they are being disproportionately put upon if you will. and what they've been putting into it what any of you care to respond? >> if i could respond, particularly from the small rate of return we are going to be putting into effect this year a revision of the universal service program for them. we are going to deal with the

heat of the quadrennial analysis and we are going to come up with a model that says here is what you can base your business decisions on. and if i could post we do need them to come together because we forgot multiple voices talking about what they need and everybody sits in a slightly different position and we have to come together with a common theme and they would say that is helpful. >> the national represents the small carriers.

they can be provide a useful framework and does not need to be in impediments to investment and ongoing operation to broadband networks and that small wireless carriers in the the statement said a similar thing that they will not object to this and so we have to be careful we do not make a greater generalization. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you congressman for the opportunity. one of the folks between the isp end of the customer had no idea

because they never published the proposal but this would go all the way to the far reaches of the internet including the intricate action. >> by definition they represent the public interest in the community and one of the municipal broadband providers was visited in the week leading up to the vote and they themselves said please don't fall prey to the argument. it won't have an effect. it's important to remember that with respect to the affected will have on the investment and opportunity that no one has said, none of the services have been subjected to the title previously. the regulation has an effect. we can all debate about the numbers that are indisputable.

the google executive chairman. and the prioritization development of the market which appears to be this objection by many to the chair hands proposal frankly acknowledged section 706 to the telecommunications act could be used for such a ban and while they are resisting the need after all it only authorizes the fcc to prohibit the unreasonable discriminations in both the commission and the courts have consistently interpreted provision to allow the carriers to charge different

prices. could you elaborate on that? >> it has been textbook ball and this was back to the 1880s where they are regulating the differentials services that could be assessed extending that towards the telecommunications have long been the case as i pointed out in my dissent you cannot than the paid prioritization and i completely agree that there was quote nothing that stands the paid prayer decision. how long do you think this is likely to be litigated in the courts. it's where it can be final in any of the regional court and

then if there are multiple deals they will be chosen by the lottery. >> and is it your opinion that this will eventually reach the screen part of the united states lacks >> it is a substantial question of which can usually match. this is a debate. >> commissioner, your views on that. >> i believe we will see litigation. >> commissioner clyburn it is an honor to serve with your father in the congress. >> i'm 99.99 or send sure. there will be. >> so this is even more pure than the ivory soap. [laughter] >> i will go better than my colleague because the big dogs promised. >> i do think that we need

certainty going forward. and i'm deeply concerned regarding that. of regarding that. commissioner, in the speech that you gave several days ago you said that without forbearance there can be no classification. and i believe he went on to compare it to peanut butter and jelly, batman and robin. would you support the classification under title to without forbearance? >> one of the things i think we did right is recognized by current dynamics of today. this isn't your father's or your mother's title ii. we have the 27 provisions over 700 rules and regulations. so, i am very comfortable in saying this is looking at a current construct and i can see you looking at me. my seconds are up. >> you should have compared it to bogard.

>> i will yield back my time. >> we now recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> i think the commissioners for your hard work regarding the litigation issue. is there any decision you can make whatsoever on what wouldn't involve the significant litigation? >> you just hit the nail on the head. >> most or all stakeholders believe that it's important to to meet the big three of the net neutrality no paid prioritization and no blocking but there's other stuff that might be controversial in the recent decisions. is there anything you would want to bring up that might be of interest? >> there's only four regulations in here. no throttling and transparency. you have to tell the consumers what you're doing. the other thing that we do is

establish general conduct rules that says you will not harm consumers or innovators were the functioning of the public institute. it's interesting because people come in and say i don't know what that means. that is exactly the way the ftc operates in and the way that the carriers have been saying that take things away because we like this case by case case analyst has been case analysts than having somebody come in and make a rulemaking so we are not adding a rule making that says we know best. this is the way you are supposed to operate. what we are saying is that there needs to be a judgment capability and there needs to be the ability if it is found to do something about it. but never to prejudge and always be in a situation where you are weighing all of the interest.

>> commissioner. >> the practices are unregulated >> is that something that would be of value? >> privacy is important to all americans and individual ages and evil thinking. our statute which dates back to 1996 and vaults customer proprietary network information under section 222. and that is where double of the privacy authority comes from with respect to the telecommunication services. >> are there enough engineers to help you do your job?

>> we have terrific engineers but we should make it a priori. it's also multiplying exponentially and if we have more engineers i believe we would be in a position to help facilitate more innovation getting to the market faster. >> do the engineers tend to stay out of the politics of the commission or are they like others and want to get in once in a while? >> i'm not sure that i want to answer that one. >> you mentioned there should be greater use. can you expand that a little but please? >> we benefit about 50% of us go

online regularly in positive places and 60% of us use wifi at home. it takes place on the gigahertz band but it's getting mighty crowded. we also have spectrum in the band that we use many of us for instance our systems are based on it. but only a portion is dedicated to the unlicensed services. we've got other uses and i think we should start studying the others and find out if we can free up more spectrum in the van so that more people have more access to the service. >> what are the physical limitations of the van? what are the limitations? >> the way to describe it as the higher you go you get more capacity capacity doesn't travel as far. so, five gigahertz is good inside buildings the buildings and households and it is more

the devices that are not tethered to the core. having that functionality is important. >> i will yield back mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yield to back and recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> welcome to all of the commissioners. folks back home notice the commissioner notice to noticed the rules on february 26 this past year. they've got questions they want answered. they want to know what had been at that rollout. in other claims about the rules that they do not violate the fifth amendment by the taking of the properties. the commission states that they do not break the fifth amendment because they quote the enhanced value of the broadband networks by protecting innovation.

if they enhance the value of the networks as the fcc majority claim why do they oppose the rule? >> thank you for the question. part of the reason why the established providers oppose the rule is that they have invented literally hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars since the inception of the internet and reliance in reliance on the bipartisan consensus in the clinton administration that the internet would remain unfettered in the regulations. that same combination of president clinton agreed. in reliance on the determination if of the providers went to the capital markets and took a lot of risk to build what i consider to be the best intranet environment in the world.

the corporations have a question about whether they've been disturbed by the title to regulations and that is something the court has to take very seriously. >> i would suspect there would be an argument made and challenged and they are likely to be put on the test in court. >> i have some questions. the edits in the proceedings were rejected and yet we came back to introduce the same. is that true or false?

>> i put my own proposal on the table two years ago. when they teamed up their own proposal last year i suggested okay i don't need to go to my proposal. i was told they are and we don't want to vote. obviously they didn't go to the corner of the item they said i want to allow schools and libraries to use the funds for the servers. it doesn't seem troublesome to me that that was rejected as a red line. miraculously when the order was ultimately adopted and my colleagues on the other side suggested it was agreed to and at the same on the incentive option i made 12 different acts and i was told no to 11 and on the 12th, one of them that was on the red line was extending the common deadline because we put very complex proposals on the table to understand the public thought about it but i was told no it would risk the weighing the option.

is that the state of practice? >> it hasn't been historically. >> we've disagreed with some parts of the order. ultimately it again the buy-in from all of the commissioners and ultimately it makes the products stand the test of time and legitimacy. >> they say that it's because it is a central to our life and that the current situation is outdated and must be changed. this is a change. so should that be for the american people as opposed to the five elected commissioners i'm going to go home today and

take good and bad about what happened to review can go back your families and be okay. any thoughts? >> when they rendered their decision last year i said without our knowing this would turn out we should go to the guidance. you were the elected officials who should decide how the economy should proceed. this was to be socially constrained the authority and we should turn to the experts. >> constitution, yield back. >> the gentleman yields back into the chair recognizes the gentle 80 from california.

as he went through the litany of your ideas and you didn't get your way welcome to the minority. [laughter] >> let me ask a few questions of the distinguished commissioners and the question is to the commissioner. chairman, i am concerned about the legal broadcasting alert and the issue to the 911 upgrades and what we do to make sure that they reflected the growing ethnic and language diversity of the nation? >> you asked that question yesterday and we were with our safety and security body that is

an advisory group talking with them about the importance of updating the recommendations that they have put out in the so far as making sure that those updates are communicated to all of the parties. we have to fix it to represent not only the technology but also increase the diversity. >> in the challenges that we are facing in the climate change and flooding and of the terrorist attacks it's becoming more and more of a pressing need. the next question has to do with the 257 report. congress requires them to report or mark the entry barriers every three years. but the latest report to

congress the 257 report was due december 312012. how will they prioritize this is a process to ensure more diversity and inclusion in the media and the telecom industry. >> thank you. this has been an item of contention. the commissioner when she was acting chair was moving the process forward and i think that it's fair to say that it ran into some difficulties in spite of the commission among the commissioners. she did an admirable excellent job of that and i'm attempting to pick up on and move forward on because these kind of issues are important to not only the

future of how we build to the communications of the future economic structure in the country. >> i appreciate that. two years ago i sent a letter to the chairman jankowski asking that cell phones be examined. you are interested in this issue and while progress has been made to ensure that the constituents have every tool at their disposal to receive life-saving information at the event of another terrorist attack. >> they are a great idea and they are at an increasing number of phones. they bring a number of challenges and one is an antenna in the device that becomes an issue. they also can dream but they are

showing up and they have the ability to purchase them and some specifically focused on them. i think the broader question is whether or not the commission should be forcing wireless carriers to activate the chips or whether they ought to be leaving that to consumer choice. i know that broadcasters around the country are running commercials saying write your congress person and make them do it. we ought to monitor that and watch what happens. >> i have a few more questions and i will submit them to the record mr. chairman. thank you and all of you commissioners for your hard work intelligence. >> thank you. the gentle lady's time has expired.

the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you all for being here and for serving your country and spending all afternoon with us. we appreciate it. hopefully not much longer. commissioner, have to tell you when you were asked about your suggestions to the commission they were ignored and that other folks made then other folks made the same suggestion and they were taken. i chuckle about how the minority but i hope the commission doesn't become like congress because i think the intention was not to be overtly partisan. that is the congress job. we battle issues and debate them and that is what happens. we look at compromise. i hope that the commission doesn't fall on that. in your statement on the open internet order you spent some time talking about the procedures surrounding the notice of the proposed rulemaking specifically talking about how much it's changed from its initial creation and stated

that the standard is whether all interested parties should have anticipated the final rule and not get if they could have anticipated the final rule. what was originally proposed as compared to what was eventually adopted. >> thank you for the question congress when. the problem with respect to the notice is substantial. it is a good friend proposal from the one that ultimately adopted. it was based on section 706 and it never mentioned such things as redefining the public switch network and the extent of the forbearance or with specific sections were being from. and a host of other things and i think the problem is once 18 of the plan a lot of the things in there unfortunately have not there is no record to support

them. it is an example of that. enough on the geographic market of the geographic market basis to support the finding to grant forbearance on a lot of these things and that is part of the reason why they completely recast the analysis that was drawn to a lot of these previous to find the forbearance and i think that they are going to be substantial problems with it. >> earlier you said if asked to regulate rates the commission would make it clear they will not regulate the retail on broadband. would you agree that a prohibition on the commission regulating broadband rates is consistent with your view? >> i've said repeatedly we are not trying to regulate the rate and that again if the congress wants to do something in that regard it's their authority.

>> do you believe that under under title ii they have the authority to regulate? you've created something that will be passed down. >> as i said in my earlier response if this comes before us i would hope without prejudging the issue that we can build a record that will make it difficult for that to happen. >> i understand the concern of congress where you implement the rule and then i'm not going to prevent -- one of the things we did is patterned at this after section 332 in the regulation of the mobile voice. and for 22 years, this exact same authority has rested at the

commission from the voice service and has never been used. >> if notwithstanding any provision of law the federal communications commission may not regulate that charged for the access service that would be consistent with that view. >> the mobile broadband service have no impact on the investment because the mobile voice service has been suspect and we have seen substantial investments in the mobile voice under that regime do you agree? >> i do not agree for a couple of reasons. it's critical to remember that it didn't occur because from the inception they determined that it was sufficient in the voice marketplace but that there wasn't a need for the regulation. here by contrast he explicitly find it is not competitive so it opens the door to the kind of rate regulation that wouldn't.

with respect to the mobile investment one of the reasons we see such huge investments in 2007 is because of the inception of the smartphone and the huge increase in the mobile data traffic that was generated as a result. wireless carriers carriers began small have big and small have to keep up for the infrastructure spectrum to deliver some mobile data traffic and it has never been classified as the title ii service. that is what has been driven in the mobile investments, not the application. >> thank you all for your service. i yield back. >> a return to the gentle lady from covering it. >> i want to thank you commissioner for being here. i have a question for the commissioner. one of the keys. we need a spectrum plan that considers both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. you have done a lot in this space, i know. can you share briefly some of

your ideas to generate revenue from the spectrum sharing and the way to incentivize federal agency to relocate? >> the fuel is a spectrum and if we want to have a modern spectrum economy, we are going to need a more consistent spectrum pipeline. today as you probably know, when we need more airwaves for the commercial mobile use we knock on the door from the federal authorities and we begged them in overtime they will give us some scraps and then congress will probably protect the federal authorities to clear out of the spectrum and relocate and then ask them to auction off the airwaves. the process is slow it's not reliable and it's not the

pipeline that the economy needs. that's why i think it's important that we develop a system of the structure of incentives for federal spectrum authority so that when we trick to secure the more airwaves for commercial use, they see the benefits and reallocation and not just the wall. that could obviously include anything from the changes in the budget to benefits in the appropriations process from the good the ready to good of you to actually secure but the sequestration might have taken away. i don't think that this type of pipeline would actually make the spectrum markets more evicted and work more fast. >> thank you for those comments. chairman, i have a question for you. i remain very concerned about the devices used by a number of local law enforcement agencies. there doesn't appear to be any

oversight and the public should actually have more access to the information about the device including what is it used for or their surveillance capabilities and who has access to that information that it collects. despite the assurances to the contrary, it is unclear to me and many others how the device doesn't collect data on innocent americans. you announced the creation of the task force on the similar technology. i would like to know the status of the task force and why we haven't seen anything come out of it and what series of questions -- what you are doing to address the lack of oversight over this device. >> the task force did look into the situation and what we found was as follows. our jurisdiction is to certify

the electronics in the components of such devices for interference questions and about if if it was being made in conjunction with law enforcement then we would approve it. this is for the technology. that we would approve it and that from that point on its usage was a matter of law enforcement and not a matter of the technological question of whether or not the piece of hardware interfered with other devices. >> said, you are saying that out of the jurisdiction we have to go to other federal agencies including law enforcement because i'm concerned about the

device being sold on the market or over the internet to them on the law enforcement so this is something we have to follow up with the law enforcement on. >> it is followed up with. i think that we would have enforcement jurisdiction on and on authorized usage of the device if infected were being sold illegally. >> i just want to bring up another issue. more consumers particularly the millennial's are opting for the tv channels and programming content they want and we are seeing the market react. we are offering mostly online subscriptions and on and on. i think that this is the future and no doubt it is a complex issue. however soon we are basically

paying for bandwidth and we should look for ways to end however the consumer tribunal to paper programs they want to watch. so i think that this is something the subcommittee should explore moving forward in a bipartisan manner and i would put that out there and yield back the balance of the time. >> the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. i want to thank the commission for their patience today and also patients today and also for the testimony. >> mr. chairman, there was an enforcement action in the tampa bay area that i represent in congress last april. it seemed he had one powerful enough to jam the local law enforcement radios and calls to 911. he's been doing this for over two years when the local company reported interference.

they quickly tracked him down and entered a significant threat to the safety of the folks in the area. the plan to the enforcement office in the area as a former chairman of the homeland security. >> how many offices if you are closing any do you plan to close it would be moved to the area yes or no? are you closing the field offices to support the enforcement of the bureau under the net neutrality or per? >> what we are finding is that costs two to three times with a centralized operation would cost

that we've got too many people doing to few things in a specific area that we can get greater productivity if we follow the kind of model. it would be the necessary equipment and would bring people in out of the miami office to deal with the kind of situations that you're talking about and that is a more cost efficient way of accomplishing the kind of goals that you are talking about. >> according to the budget requests on page 50 the agency will preserve the integrity of the public safety communications infrastructure by taking action on the 99% of complaints of interference to public safety communications within one day.

will you commit to an insure that this metric is not and has been met and will you commit this will be met? >> we can do this without a degradation in quality. >> will you provide a quarterly report detailing the enforcement of the bureau success including the list of actions taken through the remainder of the chairmanship. >> what do you want me to tell the deputies i know that you talk about if you elaborate a little bit more what would you like me to tell the deputies and other first responders in the tampa bay area by the delayed response inevitable and losing the enforcement field office.

we have unfunded mandates imposed by the congress how can we increase efficiency. i don't want the others that are going to lose offices and hear the complaint. but i have a fixed amount of dollars to work with. so the question becomes how do you become efficient. that is what we are trying to do. >> commissioner o'reilly, how do we in the united states have any credibility telling other countries like china or iran not

to control the practices in the borders if we are taking large steps in the direction in the recent overreach in the broadband reclassification. >> i think there is an extreme trouble by the passage of the item on the net neutrality. i think it sends a wrong message internationally. the patches the conversations internationally but i went by going to the spain recently and i was in south korea. they were interested in engaging on issues of the broadband and they would like as much involvement as they can. those regimes that you speak of obviously have a greater government control on the practices of internet innovations so it is one we were able to send before but you shouldn't do it here or there and now we are saying we are willing to do some things on regulating broadband but you shouldn't do them over there where it's okay to accept the practice across the world which is the typical message.

i would associate myself in the state department's view is five years ago when they represented we are concerned that some of the atrocities he be used as a justification for blocking the access for the purpose of preventing the political social or cultural information from being disseminated to the citizens and this is a bipartisan issue which the u.s. has starkly stood together and i hope notwithstanding the order that would continue in the future. ..