jurisdiction over the e. ftc but the fcc has the authority to regulate broadband taking it from the ftc and now it's with the fcc. now it is under this committee's jurisdiction. the good news is i'm still with

you by the folks back home want to know why what is the problem with the ftc that brought the last east that forced this change and then to respond to the questions - >> as you know the ftc act at-large says that it doesn't have jurisdiction over the telecommunication carriers. they say we are telecommunication's and that triggered that. what constituents should come as we work closely with the ftc. the jurisdiction as far as its providers and what we do which will be forthcoming in the next few months on our privacy proposals, we will do our best so that there is a common set of concepts that govern privacy.

>> your response? to have the classification it is deprived of jurisdiction as the chair man pointed out because of the carrier extension and jurisdiction has explicitly been given authorization for things. second because the fcc irrigated that issue for itself unfortunately the authority under the statute is circumscribed as pointed out section 222 is narrow arcane piece of the puzzle if you will so we don't actually have any rules in place and the guidance given out has been completely helpful. the guidance of the privacy that said its executive privacy protection in line with the tenants of basic privacy protections. what does that mean? i have no idea.

consumers have no idea. >> the level of experts that protect the consumers over many years. >> and it's important that the ftc has expertise as opposed to the fcc. >> there was another issue about privacy and its providers. the chairman in the interest group filed a petition asking you to start rulemaking to start the consumer because he protection on the providers. are we going to see a response? you believe they should have a different protection than the isp. the rules of the telecommunication carriers isn't as if we just fell into this

patch. there's a long history with regard to the telecommunications carriers insofar as extending the jurisdiction i have said that is not our intention. i do not know when the specific response to that petition will be coming out. i will get you a date. i don't know the planning process. >> this is part of the problem when the they crossed in february. if you believe that the internet is a virtuous cycle and you have to providers interacting the providers interacting with one another to provide a better consumer experience that would follow it would follow that if the edge provider is acting in any way why shouldn't they have the jurisdiction to extend the same rules to the providers? and moreover if you look at the standard is isn't clear to me why they should limit the focus

on the internet service providers, so that is a part of the uncertainty that was opened up and i hope that we don't follow that in a logical conclusion. >> thank you both and i will yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you mr. tran and i want to thank the ranking member for today's hearing. mr. chairman, i welcome both of you to today's hearing. i want to list one of the most troubling that is under consideration and i am referring to the prison phone call rates.

the phone rates for the prison phone calls said mr. chairman we must stop the practice of the unmatched reform for this phone rate robbery. i'm guessing once and for all we must do away with the practice and we must count in state. as you know mr. chairman president calls - prison calls and if there is any doubt in the

washington post article, they paid millions to call loved ones every year. now this company wants even more this article referenced how to the company and the industry brings to investors before .6 million dollar future profits on the very same. i've been fighting this issue for over a decade and it's now time for the fcc to take action and rein in the predatory

practices by capping the rate at 5 cents per minute and eliminating all ancillary fees. but more importantly, the fcc also missed the predatory companies that right now are trying to circumvent the law by offering video phone calls and the same predatory raids than the offer on phone calls. mr. chairman my question is when will the fcc rule? >> i agree this is a very serious issue and you and i can come and people across america over a huge debt of gratitude to the commissioner who took this

issue for ten years in the petition and brought it forward. but you know what happens is that. next month we have a decision on that. the point that you make about the videophones is another legitimate point but the reality that we are talking about is a monopoly that is granted to persons to determine how people communicate and like any monopoly ends up being exploited, and the people who are hurt by the exploitation are

the very people that rely on it and i can assure you that the commissioner commissioner keeps our feet to the fire on this and i'm fully supportive of her efforts. in this situation left me move on. my time is up. >> we are going to do a second round of questions so if you are here for that there will be more time. >> thanks to both of you for showing up today thank you for your testimony. in march we discussed the public safety complaint responses and the result in the quarterly report which you thought was a

good idea. would you provide the committee on the website so the public can see what's going on and what you're doing? have you posted online? >> i can't answer that question specifically. >> can you get that to us as soon as possible. >> and if you haven't can you post that online as soon as possible? >> commissioner thursday in a lot of attention and concern regarding the auction rules. do you the leave that there are now correctly balanced and if not both what should be done to fix them? spinnaker i don't think that they have moved in the opposite direction. my principle for the small business program is that they should benefit small business. but unfortunately the agency had

enlisted the restrictions in posted the bipartisan basis has now opened the door for the large corporations to use the program and ironically enough to squeeze out a lot of the small businesses of those that need access to capital in order to provide us the service is a weasel services that we saw in the option where the small carriers try to compete but they were not able to because of the fortune 500 corporations to prevent them from bidding and that is part of the reason why i proposed proposed my thought what i thought were commonsense reforms if you're making in the upper eight figures you don't need the taxpayer-funded discount on the option. if you are a genuine business with less than $15 of revenue you don't need 50 million in taxpayer-funded credits to get the spectrum in the option. if you are a genuine business you should be able to provide facility-based service not to flip the spectrum to the corporation.

the proposals have restored faith in the small-business programs. it's been a good meal than the order you committed to take the steps to prevent increases in the attachment rates that might result from the reclassifies broadband. what steps have you taken to prevent such increases, and what additional steps are expected? >> there is a proceeding under way and we started in the last six or something like that. and it's designed to make sure that sure the disparity between the telecommunication service and cable service. can you continue to update us on this appreciate it very much.

>> thank you mr. chairman. >> in the recent response to questions for the record as to whether you think stakeholders who cannot afford to have regulatory lawyers or lobbyists in washington, d.c. should also have the same access that other speakers have, you made a point that the commission does not have funding for routine field hearings. they've been traveling to various event and it seems that both you have been wheels up quite frequently in your travels, select the pose the question this way. given that you have a robust travel budget, isn't the issue how you elect to spend the

money? the people i keep turning down saying i'm not going to cut talk disagree and my travel is significantly less than other members of the commission but your point is the well taken point and that is the positions designated. there is a travel but each commissioner has. >> you've answered my question. it really is up to your discretion on how you spend the money. if so, could you let us know for the record how much the fcc has spent on travel in fy 2,013th for 2014, 2015 so far? >> okay, great. i would like to see that.

commissioner i was listening to your discussion with my colleague mr. bilirakis regarding the designated entity program and i'm struggling with the commissioner's decision to eliminate the attributed relationship rule and the facility requirement in the rule for a couple of reasons, and you pointed those out. you made a compelling case that this sets the stage for arbitration. how are we going to prevent that from happening, what action does the commission need to take to make sure that these small carriers are able to get the credit that it was designed to give them so that they can serve those underserved and

underserved areas? stanek to be honest we need to return to the status quo before the most recent and about commonsense reforms to make sure the corporations don't get in the system again. it's in the same option that we have low hanging fruit that's already prohibited by the antitrust law. i'm talking about genuine reforms to make sure the people that want to serve the folks in ohio and kansas can do that and lending the amount of credit people can get and making sure that they can't own the majority of large companies and that we preserve that as it is known so people don't end up flipping over spectrum they'll have a partisan affiliation and i wish

the majority had agreed with me. >> is a concern for me and other colleague that represent the areas of the country. i've got high school students that don't have access to broadband internet service and as a result they have to go to a public library nearby or some other location where they can get a wireless signal or something like that to do their homework and research into that kind of thing and this is 2015 for crying out loud. hispanic one of the reasons the requirement is so important is in a lot of cases they don't see the business case building out to that area where the smaller provider who does want to connect them to the internet wirelessly they have a strong incentive to make sure they are connected so when they are squeezed out because there is no more that really doesn't cut the

consumers. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you all for being here today. mr. chairman or chairman wheeler, july trade with your agency announced granted with conditions the approval of the transfer we hear much about the agency's 180 day shop for reviewing such transfers yet the congressional grant of approval took over twice that amount of time as you are aware. i have some questions i would like to have answers to. >> it is aspirational to begin with but it's something we try to manage in this particular

situation. we were hung up by a court proceeding and a court decision that itself took as long as the shot clock but that's specifically dealt with the kind of information we could have on the public record and we had to get through that before we could get to the decision. >> on the 170th day of the shot clock, your agency stopped it for three months. the reality here is there is right now pending before the commissioner on the protective order so we have put out in order for outlining how you

protect confidential information so that we can be in compliance with the court so that this will not happen again added the absence of that is what held up this proceeding. >> same question to you. in the context of the transaction at another transaction we decided to get the confidential information from the programmers and without any kind of due process. there's issues in of the transactions into the dc circuit court of appeals calling the decision and unexplained insubstantial departure from the previous policy. and even though they amended it

and told them here's the roadmap you need to follow if you want this information despite that it was critical to mislead the data and seek it or rely on it and making the decisions of the shop clock needs to be more than aspirational. we give the public and the parties have uncertainty as to how they are going to do it. they control the license operation from directv to at&t. the department of justice announced after an extensive investigation that concluded the combination of the land-based internet business from a satellite based business does not pose a significant risk to competition although the justice department closed its investigation without any conditions on the transaction your agency announced that it

was opposing a number of conditions to address potential harm presented by the combination of at&t and directv despite the justice department's view that the combination of the two video businesses did not pose a risk to competition. what significant risks to competition that your agency identified that the justice department last? stanek we worked closely with the justice department on this and i don't think there was a sliver of light between us. we have a different test. they have an antitrust test of a face and we have a public interest test so we have two different standards that we measure. what was happening was that in about 25% of the area of at&t

service area, direct tv was a competitor to at&t for video service. and if so, eliminating that competition, the question became does that create an incentive to eliminate the broadband competition as well. so what we required is that they expand its broadband coverage which increased competition for broadband by a significant amount and create an opportunity for those video providers not to have to go through an increasingly - a decreased chokepoint. >> we have a red light, so i will be back around.

back in june to at pretty much every new york member of congress as well as the essential letter and while the issue may not be a terrible issue in some parts of the country actually is evidenced by not often you can get 27 members of new york to the very upstate and downstate. so we are extraordinarily disappointed that the fcc is clearly set a priority. we got the letter from you yesterday and i understand the budget concerns. i guess what i am trying to emphasize is this is an issue

even though it's not to you and you are the chairman we really don't appreciate you saying as you put in here the time and expense of the cases in the budget environment where the staff is 30 years the time is available so we must prioritize our work based on existing resources and hard to the public. matters posing a threat to public safety are directly harming large numbers of consumers and must take precedence over other matters such as the radio. so i understand what you're saying but what is the size of your budget? >> the letter in those particular words that i wrote were not designed to say that this is a low priority but to

say the first issue is public safety. it has to exist inside and i believe we have been aggressive. during the chairmanship we have had 200 private radio enforcement in the last we had 100 or - >> how many in new york? >> i don't know the exact number but may be% of those. and the commissioner meeting with broadcasters focused on that and helped us focus on that so we formed an inner agency working group task force to work with new york broadcasters. >> so you had a meeting at the fourth point that can out is basically you need more folks in the local enforcement office.

there was additional enforcement options. but we talked about how you've been reducing the local field offices and pulling those folks back to headquarters and some of us would presume that would-be the title to disagree on us all but it seems a little disingenuous and/or big concern is words are words and actions are actions and the actions haven't convinced me it is at all a priority in your letter y. ... maybe someday if we've got nothing else to do what i could to find but that is a low priority. >> if that's how you interpret this i apologize because that isn't what was meant. the office where it tends to

exist this is a lockable. one of the things i encourage this congress can also be helpful because we can't - weekend showed somebody down and then we are just constantly changing. if congress could also an act and make it legal to carry this out and i think that's also what the group has recommended if we can get at those that are eating and abetting because they pull this off you my move to mine over here and you don't know anything about this and so there's a totality of the package. the 200 enforcement 200 enforcement we have a task force working on it we can use

additional authority - >> i'm about out of time. maybe this is a rhetorical question that there've been suggestions that the fcc directed the field offices to step down and back away from enforcement. any truth to that? >> i've heard that suggestion but i didn't hear that command. can you provide me the language that you might suggest because i can appreciate and can you bring me the language we might then that might assist you, it is important for us in new york and we don't want to be the last thing. >> the chair recognizes the

gentleman. >> thank you once again for suffering along with me. thank you, commissioner for referencing the letter that 114 of my closest friends invite sent to the chairman regarding the standalone and to both of you for addressing it so thoroughly today. and i might go in and a little bit on the finer points regarding the timeline because in the letter that i received you've often referred to a lack of consensus there seems to be consensus pledged by the end of the year we will solve this but we need more from stakeholders. as you both know the community presented a plan in 2013 and modified the last couple of years to meet the moving targets. i'm asking you, you offered up.

there are assisting amendment as an outcome and one of the things i noticed. that is the model or are there other issues that have caused this to take so long? >> thank you for the kind words about the proposal is modeled on your letter. if studying back the problem is basically this. there's a number of problems. my position has been to the companion letter in the senate to targeted changes to the rules to make sure that we have to return to care.

that's not to say that they are not important but for the purposes of this issue. the issue in the consensus, i appreciate the effort of my efforts of my colleagues to find that consensus but nonetheless number one it is not necessary to adopt the standalone broadband issue and number two if we end up waiting until it leaving until it emerges on those other issues we will not bring the deadline we set forth for ourselves and publicly to get this done by the end of the year. are we attaching to any other things to the simple solution? >> those are the questions. i expect to do it. a couple of points. in order to do that, you cannot

be wedded to consensus. as you know from your previous somethings you have to pull up and shoot. but if you can't get everybody to agree at some point in time and we will put forward a timely basis by the end of the year because at the root of this we have to do better for the consumers, period and it's not just one simple fix, it is a broad set of fixes because i'm in agreement on the issue but it's not enough independent enough independent of irresponsibility for the people that are paying for this agreement agreement and therefore google to make sure the money is spent responsibly and i hope we have consensus. but if we can't have consensus, we need to have progress.

>> i don't want to consensus to mean 100% as you might imagine. in my remaining time we spoke of course about the auction and that's what it used to be called it is in fact voluntary and as you know the one $7 billion congress put in for the fund is probably not good enough considering we're looking at about 1100 tv stations will have to involuntarily move. there's a plan to deal with that shortfall but i can assure the broadcasters they won't have to bear all the costs. >> i've long suggested we should

treat the relocation funds in the budget and start the auction in such a way as to minimize the possibility and it did -"and i heard from broadcasters 36 months isn't necessarily as long as it might seem that there is a shortage of people able to do the work and the equipment that's necessary and that the commission should be mindful of that as well. >> i want to make sure that they are held harmless in the expenditures. >> we do need to make sure that we live in the budget and want to manage things in the budget. you gave us a number. we can't change that number and we have to come up with a program that will make it work.

>> if you hang around we are going to do a second round. we are going to go to the gentleman from new mexico. >> thank you for having us here today. ranking member it is an honor to be here with you. thank you for joining us as well. i appreciate the testimony. as the commissioner said he represented a rural district in as we talk about many parts of the country that need propaganda access and affordability and you heard me say this many times we can have connectivity at 30,000 when we are flying across the united states there is no reason that we cannot have the activity when we are on the ground traveling all across america not only in the rural communities and states like new mexico. with that being said 77% of

those in the rural communities do not have access to the rock band. as you sit in your testimony you pursued an aggressive agenda that includes reforming the program modernizing the wifi program and extinguishing. can you discuss with this agenda means for people that have access to broadband and communication services not just with the build output making it more affordable for people are able to take advantage? >> thank you, congressman. and i hope that we can do better than those that are covered in the area that is what we are doing. i have been in new mexico multiple times in the tribal areas and other remote areas to personally visit and talk to the individuals involved. i remember a situation there was

a fiber going down the road and there was a high school didn't appear was the letter he and they couldn't get a connection from the fiber to the high school because it was cost prohibitive. now we pay for that candidate is in and that is in large part because of these kind of specific examples that we have seen. we need to make sure that this is the case and also that while income individuals that are disproportionately represented or in tribal areas have access to broadband support and that is why we are not only over hauling

butt changing the orientation of the lifeline program to go to broadband. >> at all of these areas i will submit some other questions into the record but as we do this i appreciate the conversation that we've had today and the focus to see how we can grow the family as well. the other place i want to compliment you is on modernizing you've embarked on decreasing backlogs and responsiveness to consumers. can you both tell me what you're doing to provide greater information to consumers including transparency and accountability standardizing forums? >> i'm glad you asked that question.

>> in my first trip i saw in the corner a humongous machine to staff proudly announced distaff proudly announced could take 17 different forms and put them into one envelope and i said why aren't we sending up 17 different forms and they said because that's the way we do it so you contact the fcc and we will send you the form as well as the form for loudness on commercials as well as any other complaint. we now have totally updated it and put it on the web. we just won a prize for being the best government site and

taking that information and putting it back into what should we be doing to help us focus on our priorities. >> if there's other areas i look forward to having those conversations and if i'm able to because of the length . >> going back to the translators does there is all this talk now about setting the channel is not for the unlicensed. we've made a lot available and there is more to be done but old setting this aside contributes to the problem that we are hearing from? >> at will by definition.

it means the station can't occupy it. >> in its reality probably not because what we are talking about are using the spaces and creating these kind of additional applications. in those areas where the gap is not sufficient that is going to be a handful of areas that i doubt will be in any areas that are the typical. >> will you commit to that having the priority over the unlicensed. >> it was clear - i think the mandate from the cavity is clear there is no priority given.

i don't think that it comes down to that kind of a solution with all due respect. it's possible what we are breaking our tale on its to be able to accomplish both of these and i think that - >> my recollection of the statute was never satisfied on the nationwide band. we had a lot of discussion about the fact that you don't clear all of this instead give it away to affect pretty major operators >> part of the reason that i suggested we adopt the solution where to put broadcasters if we put them in the uplink then we avoid this issue altogether wherein the duplex gap they have to find a home - >> this is a good point that the commissioner has raised that there is a serious concern.

so first of all let's remember what you are talking about here is how do we minimize the aggregate impact across the country and that is in the handful of the markets it is a percentage that can be in the single digits. he is proposing that you put in the uplink. what that does is knock out an entire station to impact. >> i think that you have a disagreement with the commissioner but i have to move along. i hear from my colleagues they are concerned translators will go dark because they will get squished out and if they get out because you created a whole band of unlicensed if it only adds to the problem and there is a public interest obligation underpinning all of this to provide for. realize they don't have all the

rights. i was with the translators myself myself and i knew i could be pushed out through this you've got flexibility to manage i want to switch cheers here quickly because this issue in the autodialer has come up and in your order, you adopted a pretty broad definition of an autodialer although you acknowledged there are limits and there must be more if it can be modified to the definition. is my iphone and autodialer? there are at least three that we found the bug turned my iphone into an autodialer. >> what we were trying to deal with on this order was not the hardware but the impact because

since congress acted in 91 the technology has changed and what the instructions to us were is no contact without their permission. >> if i push somebody's name i don't ever dial your number i just push chairman wheeler and it dials. is that an autodialer? if i have a database of names i want to reach out to let's say voters and has a device that calls until somebody answers than i can take the call is that an autodialer? >> yes sir. >> if i have a town hall in my office which i do and there is a company that does call for thousands of people are they prohibited from doing this? >> unless the consumer asked to

get this, the congress - the statute is explicit, so the town halls now - those are prohibited and they always have been. >> part of the reason why is if you look at the statute it says the capacity means in actual capacity the smartphone has in itself intrinsically the ability to do that and the majority rejected inside "-begin-double-quote an act and there's other things to make it an autodialer even if it isn't in terms of cleaning transit. that is part of the reason why every communication device is

the subject to the ability. >> it's time for you to come in and have some tests done. maybe prohibited. are you aware of that? >> it doesn't surprise me because we've seen from a number of industries has been uncertainty but the rules of the road are. >> what we are doing is responding to remember if petitions. people said what is the view interpreted so if somebody wants to petition us on the kind of things you talk about they have

an exemption to have fraud and how. things like this i know you spoke out and said basically they could go the way of blacksmiths. >> they have been, right. that industry and effect in terms of trying to do a random sample is put out. how do you do a random sample on the pole if you can sample and dial clocks we wrote a piece on that insofar as wireless. that went by the board. the issue is if you come to us and say the statute says that it's the only folks that aren't allowed to be are allowed to be called are those that want to be

called and i'm supposed to be strict on the statute. >> it seems to be they would disagree with the interpretation and you are constantly encouraging me to be. >> it's an important discussion and i think that we need to talk about this more because of the statute it's like holding a mirror to the up to the country n91 that's a long time ago when you think of the generations of

how many have taken place so whether someone wants to be a strict constructionist we have to have the elasticity to stay up with the times. maybe we have to reach out to every single one of them if we possibly can not in my view, meeting with people relative to the telephone townhall meeting has been overwhelmingly been braced plus it saves tons of money. i don't think they could be satisfied with the statute and change whatever they have to change but keep up with the changes that are taking place.

since we are going into a second round. >> to talk about -- to talk about the budget. the appropriators have we have members asking questions today. i think that whatever you do and how you you doing do that it would be interesting to see. it may be something for us to discuss. the bill has $315 million.

it's below the fy 15 and acted the level level and 73 million below the request. they've also placed and writers a relative net neutrality. what i would like to ask is if you've ever had conversations with the appropriators is there anyone in the majority here that's been asked to leave and we are constantly putting on the oversight of these issues come up. i don't know who is going to do this work and follow-up. members said it don't close them, we need them open. an open. but there are so many things that are reliant. i am talking about the agency.

have you had conversations with appropriators on the majority side, have you had conversations with the majority side to see what can be worked out with the budget? the president isn't going to sign something like that and at the end of the day the appropriations process is so messed up around because we don't have regular order speaking of transparency and process and all that but we are going to end up an omnibus bill so compare and contrast and

address any conversations to the budget of the agency. >> we have had conversations with anybody that while listening to someone who won't and i'm not saying people aren't listening. we talked to this committee the first time i've ever known a chairman and - the second time i was there last year. i was there right behind you. we have to live with the number that congress gives us.

>> worthy cutting were they cutting the budget or were they against the? you know what i would like to ask you to do, to things. what will you be able to do with the budget. it will be the voluntary option and all the topline items and also if we have an omnibus bill and i look forward to revealing that and i think it should be sent to everyone on the committee.

we are walking into the members of the committee that has oversight responsibility to understand the have to curb the appetite for giving the fcc assignments if they don't have the dollars to carry them out. one of the current things we are out of the employees in modern history for the agency. >> i thought he really do like me. that and i looked around and no one else was here.

it fell into the legal gray area where the companies may not even realize they are doing anything wrong. i know that you've raised concerns about this. can you kind of explain your concerns and what can be done to address? >> many of the enforcement initiatives have the due process going back and i think part of the reason why we've been so outspoken about it is that the private actors from companies all the the way to individuals told about the rules of conduct are than they have no reason to know the conduct is violating what they think should be with respect to the notices of the liability the agency has issued its almost more for the headlines first and we will figure it out later if at all but that has it but that has it backwards. we should look at the facts and

if there is a gap it's changed to make sure people are abiding by what we think is a proper conduct. we can't sanction someone for violating the rule if they have no reason to know. >> to the two of you i am curious about the broadcaster's relocation fund and how the money is going to be spent. ..

and so let me give you the number. >> i appreciate it. same question. north of $3 billion. if that figure is correct we have 1.75 billion the relocation fund which is something i hope to avoid. >> well do you have any estimate?

>> no, i do not. >> i have heard figures and have difficulty believing it will cover the estimated numbers they are talking about. i am going to yield back with 1,000,037 to go. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman. >> i would like to associate myself with the questions pertaining to be our ability to the american people. when i travel especially in rural communities one of the things i here from members is sometimes we have to travel three to four hours

how much they appreciate being able to weigh in. if the rule requires them to often how would we reach out to constituents with them too often? we cannot send them an e-mail. based on the press release only 48 percent of those have broadband service at home. if we cannot reach out to often do i send them a letter? you don't want to be sending letters and forms out. i certainly hope we can look at this to see how we can address this. i visited the chairman to look forward to working with you on that as well. some additional questions about broadband penetration.

there has been conversation about broadband. do you see broadband penetration or accessibility as a necessity your luxury? >> thank you for the question. my goal has been to make sure that any american anywhere anyone who wants digital opportunity should be able to get it which is why we have proposals to make sure we have competitors out they're competing to provide every american with an opportunity that is something i will leave to wiser minds than myself. >> the semantics associated

how would you characterize the importance of accessibility to broadband? >> it is absolutely critical i have enjoyed having a chance to travel to us and how people have used broadband. this is the case in your district that if you don't get that high-speed connection there will somewhere else. in rural america it will whether on the vine which is something i am passionate about. >> i would characterize it as a necessity and appreciate you considering it for characterizing it is absolutely critical. with that as we look to the lifeline program and in the testimony your dissent and

it they're were concerns associated with the cost to the program to date and you did recognize that they're have been reforms that we have looked back to 2012 understanding that we saw a transformation from landline phones to going in the mobile phones. since then the commission came forward with a unanimous opinion which resulted in a reduction of 214 million in savings with the substantial projection. trying to stoke of the numbers on those real life savings but you listed a concern where they're were providers that were signing people up fraudulently which we need to crack down on. in the 2015 order there was a reform that stated the ftc

would remove the ability for providers to sign people up. with that principle is that something you agree with? is a something we can work on together? >> i think that verification is a critical issue. one of the problems is the case that friday night operators have created lifetime customers. he spent it on his own private expenses which is something we need to weed out. we need to have that conversation. >> i appreciate the reforms. is 1.6 billion the right? share a concern and know

that we agree is not just accessibility but affordability. should it be arbitrary are based upon data? >> i think that it should be fact-based. the program was at 800 million and is the only one of the programs that is not. we need to have a balance making sure we target people who are off-line and make sure we are responsible stewards of the consumer tax dollars. 1.6 seems to be a good starting.to have. >> based upon last year's numbers. that is what the number ramped up. thethe inflation from 2008

to 2012 was because reforms were necessarily in place to back the number down. this scenario we can work on it together as well probably forward to having more conversations. >> thank you, and we put -- we appreciate your participation. in closing the quadrennial review the last one is a years old. ii hope the commission will deal with the quadrennial ownership report on a basis. a.m. modernization is something that is high. we ask that the commission deal with the downloadable security issues and it appears that committee was given direction work on disaggregation of data. again we are after the downloadable security issue.

oneone letter to put in the record from care payment. i think you heard bipartisan concerns. you are implementing the law that was created when you get charged for incoming phone calls. no one is talking about robo calls but there is an issue that we need to take a look at. thank you for your diligence and patients. with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> coming up the senate

debates a highwaya highway spending bill followed by our interview with former transportation secretary ray lahood. testify attestify at a house hearing about how packages containing a live anthrax virus were accidentally shipped to labs around the world. >> on the next washington journal florida republican will talk about the process for congress to review the iran nuclear agreement and then a discussion to resolve the $72 billion debt with resident commissioner and later from a look at a story in american prospect on how the south drives the low-wage economy. the editor at large will join us live every morning at 7:00 o'clock eastern command you can contribute by phone and on facebook and twitter.

>> the c-span cities tourñ( +isits cities across the$r(ááv and this weekend $iz we are joined by comcastkjk.e sitting here in the augustine museum of history command a decision was made to do a permanent military display. i did my research on the book and went through over 9,000 recipients. the 3500 or so. he is the only person ever to have earned both awards. my.out. very humble and never talked

about the carnegie medal. i interviewed people who knew him people knew him well. i do not know anything about it. i've known a lot of medal of honor recipients. mostmost of them will tell you i did not deserve this middle. it is a peace of humility and i think have been in that category. >> we visit the home of the 20th president. >> president wilson to adjust -- to augustine as a child, lived in another house and moved to this house when he was three. his very 1st memory was in november of 1860 before he was four years old standing on the front gate in front of the house and two men came by in a hurry with

excited tones of voice and said abraham lincoln had just been elected president. tommy ran inside to ask his father what was more. we think it is remarkable his 1st memory was about another president and the war. of course wilson would have to leave the country through world war i. >> see all of our programs saturday at noon eastern on c-span book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 o'clock. >> in the senate today several members discussed highway funding. current highway spending expires at the end of july.

we began with illinois democrat dick durbin. >> madame president. >> the democratic leader. >> the business before the senate is the construction of highways and bridges and the aberration of mass transit and buses across america. how important is that to our economy. in my home state and is critically important. our infrastructure, roads and bridges are critical for business to operate profitably and for people to have good, paying jobs. we all no the tragedies that occur when bridges collapse or are closed and the thousands across this country need repair. when it comes to mass transit come on down in the

morning and stand with me and watch the folks streaming out of train stations and of the buses headed to work every day. it is essential to the economy of chicago and illinois. on friday the authorization to build these highways and bridges and maintain mass transit and buses expires. the 33rd short-term extension of the highway trust fund the 33rd. there wasthey're was a time when we would pass with regularity and predictability a five or six year highway bill bipartisan basis and were anxious to do so from a time a time when members of the house and senate. he's back home and knew that

the federal government played a critical role in filling no space and so they voted for highway trust fund reauthorization. in my state of illinois 80 percent of highway construction is paid for by the federal government. when the federal government something. working. you have seen it the potholes highways that are unfinished and wonder why in the heck they put these blockades up. the problem has to do with the way we are currently funding our highway program. you are doing it in bits and pieces. senator boxer tries an interesting analogy. if you are setting out to buy a home in front of the bank and the bank said of course we will offer you a mortgage here is a 60 day

mortgage you would say wait a minute. i will not make an investment like buying a home if i can only get a loan for 60 days which is what has happened to the highway trust fund. the expiration of this temporary authorization is the end of the 60 day mortgage which we have offered to america to build highways. several members of the senate decided to do something unique not totally unique but unusual trying to find a bipartisan compromise that can move this country forward break through the rhetoric and debate on the highway trust fund and find something that works. i want to salute senator barbara boxer for leading this effort and joining with senator mitch mcconnell the republican majority leader

and senator and off of oklahoma who is chairman of the environmental public works committee. this is an article from the barbara boxer and mitch mcconnell but they have come up with a plan a compromise to solve the problem. when i go on to illinois what i here over and over is when are you folks in washington going to stop squabbling. fighting and basically sit down and reach an agreement to solve a problem. that is what they have done and i have joined in the effort and here is what they are proposing. instead of a 60 day extension it be a three-year extension six years of authorization for three years with the money is on the table. i jump at that. more than ten years since we

have had a highway bill that one. there is a modest growth each year spending. i wish it were more and it ultimately will give the resources back to states and localities so that they can build the infrastructure that america needs to be successful at the command we have worked long and hard on it, and it is controversial. it has divided carcasses. forty-six democrats in the senate 21 voted to go forward. even within our ranks they're is a difference of opinion. i am by the senator's here to keep me on my toes. i wish all of them were on board tomorrow but some of them have there own concerns when it came to the

necessary for 62 and 22 were democrats. we stepped up and made a difference to hopefully this process forward. here we are close to the finish line. because of the procedures in the senate we cannot do it as quickly as you would like we're likely to get this wrapped up tomorrow and you say thank goodness. friday deadline you will get something done this week. from the senate.of view that is exactly right and means that i can say not only to the mayor's home the governor the contractors workers here are the resources to move forward but i can say that we have done what we were sent here

to do to solve a problem and do it on a bipartisan basis. there is a problem. the senate action alone is not enough. we need the house of representatives to do the same thing. there was an announcement yesterday that the house is not going to take up this measure. they want to go home and start their august recess earlier than any has been started in ten years and leave. the republican majority has decided they do not want to take up this bill which is truly unfortunate. this is our chance to solve a problem on a bipartisan basis from our chance to invest in our country and put people to work building roads and bridges and expanding mass transit buying the buses we need to serve communities, our

chance .". "we here from the republican side in the house of representatives is sorry we're going home. >> yield for question. >> happy to yield to my colleague. >> the senator from illinois has just said that the house is planning to bug out this week before the friday deadline when the highway fund collapses for the august recess. may i ask is it even august? isn't it july 28? >> according to the calendar it is still july. tuesday, july 282015.

>> have we not worked into the early we call weeks of august before taking the so-called august recess? >> it has started in august. the house of representatives wishes to started in july. >> and friday is when the fund runs out of money in the funding comes to an end and it appears to be the houses intention to have gotten out of dodge by then in order to dodge and the consequence for not having met us on the bipartisan terms? >> apparently they need a rest and was to go home for that purpose. i wish they would stay and finish this business. >> the senior senator from oklahoma. >> i observe that we are all talking about the actions that have not been taken

formally but several members of the house and talked about. my feeling is that -- asking a question to the chair one of the reasons i think statements have been made is that they never believe we will get past the six-year highway reauthorization bill with that realization and command i will make an appeal for whoever is trying to straighten this out to shorten the time so that we can have a vote to take place and get on with the final vote so that we would have that ready when the house is in session and they could take it up. the individuals that is not going to happen but i don't know.

>> let me respond to my colleague from oklahoma and thank him for his bipartisan leadership. you have set a standard of bipartisanship when it comes to this issue and produced a six-year authorization bill. though i may not agree with the thank you on a bipartisan basis. as far as your efforts to speed up the vote in the senate i support completely but you and i both no any single senator can divert and stop that effort. i will support you in bringing this forward as quickly as possible. >> i appreciate that. there is time to do this. i will personally make every effort. senator boxer shares my anxiety to get this in the

position and all we need to do is move this up so that we are not expiring for a vote at 4:00 o'clock in the morning to give us time to allow the house to look at it and come up with better judgment than they have expressed so far. angels of our colleagues' nature in a cooperative effort, which would be somewhat mir lack us miraculous effort, but i'm happy to support you. this is a chance to do something the american people expect us to do. why were we sent here? why did we get elected? i'm rowd to represent proud to represent illinois, but i was sent hear to solve problems make life better. there's nothing more bipartisan and more important than the infrastructure of this country of the and if you wonder about that go visit china and look

what's going on there. their building cranes in every direction. highways and train routes being built in every direction because they are preparing their chinese economy for the 21st century. is america? i don't think so. what we're doing is pass being short-term extensions of the highway trust fund. we cannot patch our way to prosperity. we cannot on a short-term basis have a long-term plan to build america's economy. because of the hard work on both sides of the aisle compromises being made, we're at a point where we can have a three-year highway bill. and it is time for us to do it, no excuses. i support what the senator from oklahoma said. let's accelerate this, if we can, in the senate, and then pray that our colleagues in the house decide to hang around long enough to take up this bill, which i believe would be a worthy alternative to another short-term extension.

mr. inhofe: would the senator yield for one last question? i know you are getting ready to vaivacate the floor. mr. durbin: i would be happy to. who have butmr. inhofe: but would the senator join me in trying send -- in send out to try to get unanimous consent on going forward? if they don't like the bill, that's one thing but to bring it forward so this can be done, i am inclined to hope that we can encourage any of those who are just killing time right now to join us in doing this. so it is my intention to go ahead and make that request. the and i would ask if the senator from illinois would join me in that effort? mr. durbin: i'd just ask my colleague through the chair let's sit down and put this u.c. together and then you take it, as we do by custom, to your cloakroom, i'll take it to mine, and let's see if we can get this moving forward. i want to protect the rights of members, but i think many of

them would like to join us in accelerating this process so there is activity on the floor which is productive. i would be happy to work with you. mr. inhofe: thank you. mr. c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with ray lahood former transportation secretary, who served seven terms in the house and is the cochair of building america's future. let's talk about the highway debate between the senate and the house. do you like what the senate is doing? they have a six-year bill. they will not fund it by raising the gas tax. guest: i like the fact that

there is real bipartisanship between senator in half and senator -- between senator in hofe and senator boxer. this is the same thing that happened when she was the chair. this is the bipartisan part of it that i think is a good signal. transportation has always been bipartisan. there are no republican or democratic bridges or roads. this is about what we can do for our friends and neighbors around the country in terms of putting them to work and filling potholes and fixing roads and bridges. i prefer a six-year, fully funded bill. i prefer raising the gas tax. it has not been raised in 20 years. but the idea that the senate has come together and is working together, i think it is a very strong signal.

it is a good signal. host: "the wall street journal" editorial board way in this morning. they said it would really keep the status quo, that it would increase funding by 76 billion dollars above current law, 3% per year. politicians in washington will still pick winner and loser states, as they have since eisenhower. the bike trails, scenic overlooks, and trolley cars that consumed $.25 on the dollar since 2014 will proceed as scheduled. guest: i would prefer a $500 billion bill over six years. i think that sends a strong signal, but we are where we are. the idea that senator infhofe and senator boxer and people on the ep w committee, in both parties, have come together. it is a little bit of congress.

it is not everything i would want, but it is progress. we should be applauding them for doing that and encouraging the house to take a close look at it. host: is that how it works, though? federal politicians in washington get to choose winner and loser states for transportation funding? guest: the wall street journal does not have it quite right. this bill is a bill that really reflects what needs to be done around america. we need to fix up the interstate system, which is crumbling. we need to fix a lot of bridges many of which are in a state of bad repair, one of which here in washington, the bridge that leads to arlington cemetery, is about falling down. there are a lot of bridges like that. there are plenty of roads and bridges all over america without any politician picking them, and really then it is up to the governor's and people in the states to make those decisions.

in the era of no earmarks, the idea of picking and choosing does not really exist. the idea of saying to states here is the amount of money that is going to be allocated to you and then there are also opportunities for other funding. host: "the wall street journal" says "the virtue of gas taxes is user paid, user benefit. if the taxes become less of a proxy, prioritize federal highway money for the most urgent national needs and evolve more power to the states and cities, which can use tolls and their own fuel levies to lay asphalt." guest: a lot has not been happening in washington. 14 states in the last year raised their own gas tax. almost all of them were controlled by republicans. conservative states like utah

raise their own gas tax five cents a gallon so they could fix up their roads. in the absence of any leadership in washington, d.c., in the absence of any major transportation bill, wyoming raised their own gas tax. is it easy? of course not. it is hard for politicians to raise the tax, but the one thing they know is when they do that, the constituents they represent realize that potholes are going to be filled, roads are going to be fixed, bridges are going to be fixed, and people see their friends and neighbors doing the work. the money does not stay in washington. it does not go in some politician's pocket, it goes back to the states. people in the states see progress, and that is the reason there is not that much heart and about the idea of raising the gas tax. host: you served as a republican from illinois and the congress dealing with transportation

issues while you were there, served as the transportation secretary for the obama administration. why is the transportation department needed when some republicans get the federal government out of it, that it should go to the states. why do you say the transportation department -- guest: this idea of devolution which is what you're talking about, where you give the money back to the states and they have at it, we would not have a national program. we would not have an interstate system because really when eisenhower signed the interstate ill, there were some governors if you look -- the interstate bill, there were some governors if you look at it that said we are not going to have an interstate through our state. here we are 50 years later with an interstate system because we have national priorities because we set that as a priority. there are is not enough money in the states to fix of the bridges that need to be fixed up. these range projects are very expensive, in the neighborhood of $50 million to $100 million

to fix up a bridge, rather than -- not to mention building a new one, which is very, very expensive. states left to their own simply would not have the resources to do it. they really would not. and we would not have the national priorities for safety safe roads, safe bridges standards that may be some states simply would not adopt. host: what about competitiveness with other countries? anybody that's been to china or asia or south america knows that high-speed rail, new highways, new roads. every time you go to china there is a new high-speed rail line. why? because the national government has set that as a priority. you build it, they will come. you build it it you develop economic opportunities.

and people go to work building this kind of infrastructure. we are being out-cpmompeted by every place in the world. that's why companies are moving to those places. they have good infrastructure. they have good roads. they have good bridges. you build infrastructure, you build economic opportunities. a road becomes an economic corridor. look at how many jobs have been created by the interstate system. they are small businesses. they all employ people. that is what a road or corridor does. infrastructure is a win-win for america. for the people who do the work, for the people who benefit from the roads, for the jobs that are created once it is in place. this is kind of a no-brainer. if we want to jumpstart the

economy, the largest segment of unemployment in america right now is in the building area. these are the people out of work. because there is nothing happening. there is no transportation bill. the highway trust fund is broke. so nothing is happening and a lot of people are out of work. here we are at the end of july. right in the middle of construction season. not much happening in america because we don't have a road program. we don't have a highway program. and the highway trust fund is broke. gas taxes have not been raised for 20 years. you can't think of another thing in america -- a dozen eggs, a gallonwould it be ok if you took off his shirt, because he is jerking off right now -- host: ok. another caller. caller: good morning. i have written my congressman

and my senator and i do not believe that when you raise the gas tax at the federal level. the big project. that is just one of hundreds. it first came in at $2 billion. that hole in the ground in massachusetts. it went out with cost overrun at $22 billion. the money was siphoned off. it is nothing but corruption. kennedy was alive. then when they opened it up, the ceiling fell in because they used garbage up there and it a woman. remember that? we don't trust the people in the federal government anymore. i was drafted during vietnam and i was a policeman for 25 years and retired. i can tell you this. we have the most corrupt

government in the whole entire world right now. until you straighten out, that is why the people don't trust anymore. host: ok. guest: will thank you for your service as a 25 year policeman. we appreciate the work you did. i don't agree with you. i don't think our government is corrupt. i think the big dig was a huge cost overrun. it is inexcusable that that project cost so much money. i'm proud of the work that we did at d.o.t. while i was secretary. we funded a lot of projects that kept a close eye on them and major they were done correctly. i worked with mayors and governors all over the country. who are people that really want to get things done. and really innovate in infrastructure.

but i take your point. that project was a huge cost overrun. host: jim in florida, a republican. caller: the previous caller stole my thunder. i was also going to raise the issue of the big dig. the last four governors of illinois have gone to prison for corruption. republicans used to stand for conservative fiscal policy. this is the old concept of just spend and spend our way out of economic woes and problems. we have an $18 trillion debt, mr. lahood. your grandchildren's grandchildren couldn't pay that thing off. host: ok jim.

let's get a response. caller: i served in congress for 14 years. i am proud to say we passed two six-year bills and fully funded them during that time. speaker gingrich was the speaker and i was part of the majority party. we passed three balanced budgets. though clinton was in the white house. -- clinton was in the white house. we passed major legislation very competence of transportation bills, and balanced the budget at the same time. people in washington can do those things and i think there are people who want to do that. host: how was it funded? caller:guest: the two bills that we passed were funded primarily by the gas tax. it had been raised in 93 and i was elected in 94.

under president clinton's first administration, the gas tax was raised $.18 a gallon. during president reagan's administration, they raised the gas tax five cents a gallon. he was a pretty conservative fella. he saw the need for resources and that is what we need today. we to say the highway trust fund is broke and there is no money there. and it has done a good job helping to build an interstate system and some pretty magnificent infrastructure in our country, which now is crumbling pretty badly. host: beyond raising the gas tax, how do you pay for the highway fund? guest: there are a number of other things that can come into

play. a lot of states have raised their own gas taxes. some in very conservative states. a lot of states are doing tolling. i'm from illinois. i still have a home there. we have done a lot of tolling around o'hare airport. in northern virginia, tolling is -- has come into play in order to build roles. that is one way. public-private partnerships. when i was in d.o.t., we funded the silver line here. that was a public-private partnership. not totally funded by the government, but funded by private funds. public-private partnerships, tolling -- there are people around the world that want to invest in infrastructure, too. you have these investment bankers that are looking at infrastructure as ways to

invest. we don't say it is all through the gas tax. you have to have other resources. host: john, a democrat in michigan. caller: good morning. i drove over the road 22 years. the last truck company, i drove with them for 15. never had a ticket. guest: congratulations. caller: the only way to do is to raise the gas tax. because we were reporting miles and you guys up in washington -- the drug company was paying the mile maker. they were stuffing them up 22% out-of-pocket. so the easiest way is just to go ahead and raise the fuel tax. most people don't realize.

a couple of cents at the pump and we don't have to worry about the roads. host: is that true? guest: well, not really. we need a pretty big chunk of money right now. the infrastructure in america is really really in bad shape. there is a list of bridges at d.o.t. that are in a state of bad repair that need funding. these are very very costly projects. the bridge that leads to arlington cemetery is in a state of bad repair and it costs millions of dollars to fix that bridge alone. we know that the interstate system is now 50 years old. it needs to be fixed up. there are roads all over america that need repair. we are talking billions of dollars.

$.10 a gallon, i would say $.10 a gallon and index it. if the gas tax had been indexed in 1993 to the cost of living we wouldn't have a problem. the truth is gas taxes are pretty low right now. in some places they are below three dollars a gallon. host: do you that happening in this congress? guest: i don't. i am not optimistic and it is very difficult for politicians to raise taxes. host: and independent in san diego. you're next. caller: good morning. i have been in this city for 42 years and i own my own business for 25 of those years. and i traveled as a salesman all those years. i think san diego has done a terrific job with their roads.

maybe there is one exception i would complain about, the toll road from san diego to chula vista that was originally paid for by a company i believe out of australia. you could count the cars on that and i have used it. i had one of those easyz passes and i used it frequently. i am probably one half of 1% of the people that use that road. it was so bad and so underused that it had to be taken over by the state and i don't know how much money we had to pay for that. and secondly, i'm going to ask a few things and then i'm going to hang up. if there is 100 million people in the united states that are on government subsidies of some kind, how is any increase in test tax going to help those people? and i noticed, mr. lahood how you brushed off the big dig as a big mistake. that was an enormous mistake.

and, i mean, that set the highway trust fund back years. host: ok. we will take those points. what does raising the gas tax due to lower income americans who are already struggling? guest: if we raise the gas tax we have the ability to put together a comprehensive bill. there are a lot of people in america that use mass transit. think of the people here in washington, d.c. that use the metro system. it is true all over america. if you have a good transportation program, it is not just for roads and bridges. it is for people who don't want to own an automobile or can't afford one. but still late to get to work and get to the doctor and get their kids to school. and they need mass transit. that is part of a comprehensive

transportation program. you can't have that unless you have the resources and we don't have the resources right now. that's why the senate is struggling. they put together a six-year bill but only funded it for three years because the resources aren't there because the highway trust fund is broke and we need to replenish it. host: what you make of the senate last night attaching reauthorization of the export import bank onto the highway bill? guest: i am a big supporter of the export import bank. if i were serving, i certainly would be supporting that. it was a commitment that the senate majority leader made to people in the senate who support the export import bank. a way to revive it. frankly, that is laying dormant right now because it ran out of its authorization. so the senate majority leader said that there would be a vote on it and obviously there is support for it in the senate.

it is a way to get that organization up and running again. obviously it passed. host: what happens at the end of this week? the house says they are not going to take the six-year bill. the senate says they are going to pass it before the recess. let's say they didn't come together before the august recess and the funding runs out. how does the transportation department and the federal highway at ministration respond? guest: i don't think that will happen. as a former staffer of 17 years i think there is a lot of discussion going on between the speaker staff and majority leader staff about putting together an extension similar to what the house passed. before everybody leaves here on

thursday, there will be something.

caller: i am retired as of a couple years now. i was a telik medications engineer. you are correct as -- telecommunications engineer. the department of transportation has basically failed because if they hadn't failed, all of these things wouldn't the in such disarray and horrible conditions and we wouldn't be out of money if it was a true trust fund. it wouldn't have been rated in order to buy votes. the american pack taxpayer pretty much gets screwed. i think they should fire

everybody because when i worked if you didn't take care of business you didn't have a job and it should be that way for the government and everyone else. host: ok. do you have a response to what she had to say about congress and how they work? guest: when i served in congress , we passed to six-year bills. they were good bills. they really put people to work and kept our infrastructure in a state of good repair. i think that is what we need to get back to. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers who says, you were part of the obama administration, so please explain were all of the stimulus money promised to fix crumbling roads went? guest: we got $48 billion at d.o.t. as part of the $870 billion. within two years, we spent $26 billion on roads and bridges. $8 billion to begin to implement high-speed rail. $8 billion for transit.

a billion and a half to start the tiger program which funds projects in cities. $1 billion for airports. that money was spent in two years. host: not enough? guest: of course not. no earmarks, no boondoggles, no sweetheart deals. we did it the right way. put a lot of people to work. host: there is a story in the new york times today. more fees propel airlines's profits and embittered travelers. profit margins for add-ons could be as high as 80%. this is how the airlines are making their profits. by charging for these add-ons. what do you make of that? guest: i think the fact that energy costs have come down so dramatically, that has been a boon to the airline industry.

one of the biggest costs other than buying airplanes for the airline industry obviously is the jet fuel that they buy. as these costs have come down, it has been a tremendous boon to the industry. obviously, charging for a pillow or a meal or a better seat is a great source of irritation. but these are private companies. they have a bottom line to meet. they have a board of directors they have to report to. they have figured out ways to make money. the main reason they are doing so well financially is because their energy costs have come down so dramatically. because gas prices have fallen and the price of a barrel of oil has gone way down. host: suzy in california independent. you are next. caller: hello. i have a question, but first i want to say shovel ready, shovel

ready, shovel ready in 2009, $1 trillion stimulus, about two years later, president obama yucking it up about how shovel ready wasn't shovel ready. i am always on the side of the taxpayer and i wish that every time a politician asked for a tax raise that the whole of america would say, not until you stop disrespecting our tax money. do not disrespect the hard-working taxpayer's tax money. the question is, do you think if a republican president had sat and left with jeff inimill over a trillion dollars, with a have gotten away with that? guest: um. of the $870 billion from the

economic stimulus bill that congress passed within the first 30 days of president obama's first term, we got $48 billion. we spent it all correctly. we put a lot of people to work. we show that when you invest in infrastructure you invest in the american people and provide jobs. so i make no apologies for that. i am proud of the work we did. and we proved that we could put people to work and jumpstart that segment of the economy. as i said earlier, even republican presidents like president reagan raised the gas tax five cents a gallon. because he was a former governor, he saw the need for infrastructure and saw the need for the kind of resources that were needed. that's the kind of leadership we need today. host: paul in north carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning. i would just like to comment on

the fact that we live in one of the highest taxed states in the union. like a lot of other states, they are always broke. no matter how many taxes they put on us, there always broke. they start the lottery a couple years later. they have no money for the highway fund except to help the developers. they build major bridges across the island's so that developers from the north and south can come here and to develop violence and so forth. that they should be developing to start with. even on the lakes they do it. they have all the money to build an entrance into a huge store somewhere, but they can't fix a dangerous intersection out in the community. and they are always broke. we have a bridge down here on the interstate they have been working on for like two and a half years with stimulus money supposedly.