growth or disease or injury. that does not mean we don't take it seriously and consider whether additional procedures need to be implemented. this is going on now with respect anthrax. we will consider it in a broader complex. >> for the committee's sake walk through the ownership of the different elements of the federal select process as respects your two agencies. who owns what part? give me the highlights. what parts to you on? where do you handoff? >> and oversight program. the main activities the improvements that have been made through the execution of this program include screening and assessing facilities and staff for their suitability.

that means the facility, as an appropriate facility has good laboratory practice and appropriate rules. it includes the fbi review of personnel reliability on all of those who we will be using it includes a set of requirements elevate biosafety and security inventory management, access control and it includes a process and ability to detect and respond including the notification of jurisdictions that have these facilities including but we did with the anthrax response being able to go in investigate, identify whether people are at risk and whether they are -- >> and this involves private sector as well as public sector institutions; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> where you find the best

practices going from? doctor hassell was talking about going to the private sector. where are we finding the best practices today? private or public sector? >> it is a combination of both. we will look at the private sector. that often does not happen as a 1st reaction. the department of defense my centers for disease control nih are outstanding facilities doing cutting-edge work which have risks places where best practices and not best practices will occur because of the broad range. >> i have additional questions that i was a bit for the record later. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate you being here. i am sure you are having a blast. it is frustrating for me to

see what is taking place. to here you guys say you have protocols. it is hard for me to follow this. is it the practice of the dod to send out a death certificate with select agents when they leave. >> it has been. >> it has been? how long has that been going on? >> i apologize. >> one similar to this. i am not sure. we can look at that back 12 years. i will find out. >> this dates back. we know it has been going on for at least five years.

why is it the private lab, lab why did it not have a death certificate? >> originally tested they did not see growth. >> if it shipped out the practice the dod with any shipment to have a death certificate. why was they're not one ship to a private lab. >> that particular operation, sending out blind tests. >> to see if people could protect the present. >> we knowingly shipped live anthrax? >> say again? >> shipping it to them to see if they could find it. he knowingly shipped live

anthrax to this lab. >> did not provide the certificate. we did not knowingly shipped live agent. >> to the shipment and have as your place or some other place a death certificate? >> yes. >> who produced the death certificate? >> the originator. >> the difference between the test private lab showed. >> very similar. >> one showed in life. >> one of the key differentiators. who is responsible for showing the procedure. >> who is responsible for it at the time? who was it? >> it was dugway.

who do they fall? hassle, so some? who oversees dugway? >> army. >> narrowing down for me. help me. help me figure out who is responsible, the chain of command responsible for the death certificate for the procedures that show the agents leaving is truly dead >> the. >> the chain of command of the laboratory. >> the chain of command to find out. this is not a hard question. finding out for sure the procedures defined that the agent is dead. >> it would be -- >> you don't no.

>> can you answer that question? >> i cannot. >> can you answer that question? >> not specifically. >> as i was going through the background information i cannot figure it out either. there is no clear line of chain of command. you have to have someone responsible for something. thissomething. this goes back to line of questions that was already asked. no one takes responsibility. we assume everyone is doing there job in here we are shipping out live anthrax? no one takes responsibility for. going to leave it like down where they could not be shipped until you declared a line of command and procedures. >> a minimal six months.

>> if you could find out all the players in. >> the scientific studiesok. >> live anthrax was shipped out and no one takes responsibility. no one can answer it. we have identified the problem. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you. collins from new york. >> thank you. the bacteria ground agent such as anthrax completely different than a virus. easy to kill a virus. part of the concern i have heard the last question is

all we know there's a lot of biological agents, a lot of potential weapon issues going on and i think the concern of the committee if we had this with anthrax might we have it was something else like smallpox , whatever? that is where not to give you suggestions you might want to help the committee differentiate bacteria from virus to give them the confidence level, different bargaining going on. he is radiation because your trying to penetrate this poor. you want to penetrate the spore which was hard. the way that you prove it's death, the death certificate is take a sample and put it in culture and try to grow it. you make that clear. i am guessing the problem is they put it in culture for a

month command it should have been in culture for six months. is that safe to assume that they did not run the culture just long enough? >> we cannot identify for certain but it is a possibility. anthrax grows in culture within two days generally. >> no. it can last six months. >> this is where you take something like anthrax which is a spore which can pop up at five months time if it's arriving in the spore five months and someone is creating a death certificate after two months they are saying it is dead. >> it germinates and grows. that happens within 48 hours

>> i can beg to differ. it doesn't grow in a month two months and then in five months it shows up. >> i would suggest respectfully that i believe the big issue here was it was not radiated with enough intensity but to validate that it was dead they put it in culture to see if it would have. if it was in culture 48 hours and did not drop -- did not grow i can tell you your problem right now. you did not put it in culture long enough. best practice and industry you will see that batch sit in the refrigerator or in the freezer for six months and have that culture spore for six months not 48

hours. i think you would have to agree if it is in that culture for six months it is dead in a doornail. again, this is different than a virus. i think some of that confusion is going on. you doyou do the best certificate at the lab after it has been radiated and held in isolation until the culture test is run and then say i did not see anything. now the entire batches good to go. that is what happens. shipped out exempt because it had the death certificate the issue would be that is up to the lab to decide. >> at this.in time the sterility testing is a laboratory procedure.

there we will be additional requirements as a result of this incident. >> and that is what i encourage you to do my think that it falls apart. you trust these labs to be at the top of there game. i can assurei can assure you best practice and private industry on anthrax and on see death is six months. six months of testing. forty-eight hours. that is best practice. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, and we now recognize the congresswoman from indiana for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this important hearing. i have to say in my prior role i was chair of the subcommittee on emergency preparedness response communication for homeland

security and it opened my eyes to the vital need to protect the american people and our country from bio attacks and bio defense incidents. i will say that at that time i learned this administration did away with a position that have been in place under the clinton administration the bush administration called the special assistant to the president for bio defense. i think we learned about that position being eliminated when the ebola attack when people if this country. i think it goes to the.of what doctor crosses talking about as a government we are not -- they're is no central line of authority no central entity, no person who all of these issues bubble up to that as a government we have a massive enterprise with so many

different well-intentioned hard-working scientists and government workers but yet they're is when it comes to bio defense for this country no organization and we are not doing a good enough job. later this week we will be introducing legislation that addresses the need to strengthen and streamline the existing bio defense initiative. i have a question. if lab workers or other medical professionals have been exposed to live anthrax apples are you confident as to whether or not we would have had proper vaccines and therapeutics in place to save lives? >> am confident that we do. >> are you confident, doctor hassell? >> okay. are you confident that we have enough proper vaccines and therapeutics in place to save lives?

>> i do not have sufficient information to answer that question. >> nor do i. >> would that be for the workers that are being exposed or how about with respect to the committee building on the congressman's questions about one of these individuals if you have been exposed to presented to any our? can you explain to me what your view is if you have one? >> thank you for that question. the strategic national stockpile did provide vaccine for the states that have workers while receiving prophylaxis. i am confident we have the ability to do it the vast supply of countermeasures for anthrax,anthrax, the nature of the events you might be trying to prepare for always determines whether you have enough but they're

have been a variety of processes and procedures to review the requirements set by the federal government for this threat and we meet those can't requirements. >> how we can ensure that we have the medical countermeasures in place. >> that is my colleagues purview. >> what i think this event going back to what this shows us while we are trying to respond to the managerial level are you familiar with the private sector involvement with the medical countermeasure development of procurement? >> i have done some past work looking at how the federal government has built flexible manufacturing facilities to be able to respond.

>> i have nothing to add. >> okay. i would like to go back to -- with respect to the death certificate is it building on congressman mullins question could both of you please explain with more detail how that congress -- how that process works and how that process works what is required to be placed on the death certificate and if you are sending these spores to another lab what is it that the one lab should have that the other lab -- what is common in looking at the death certificate? is the organism required to be listed on not listed when doing the sample blind test? can you please go into more detail? i am sorry that my time is up. if we might have a couple more minutes.

one more minute and if you could submit any further explanation writing. >> if i may we could submit our explanation. we are considering not using death certificates and current operation. at least we are reevaluating that. that is of concern. >> the laboratory itself makes the determination about death certificates. that is not a select agent regulation requirement. >> thank you and i yield back. >> chairman. >> last words. >> the chair now recognizes the congressman from north carolina. >> thank you for bearing with us.

would you like to expand on my colleagues question? >> i need to get more detail on that and get a better answer. >> okay. >> i noi know the cdc does issue a death certificate with materials on the occasions it needs to my do not no the particular details. >> i would appreciate it if you would follow up. common practice to send a death certificate when you are doing online sample. we would love to see a more thorough answer. overall if anyone on the panel -- trying to grasp the mission of the federal select agent program your

understanding and if you think it is being fulfilled open to anybody. >> clearly the incidence you have seen a serious the kinds of indicators that we need to do more. an important message from us as forhistory for the regulation and authorization in 2,002 this program has continued to receive input and advice from bond -- broad-spectrum improving the program which has changed and improved over time. thisthis incident and these incidents have elevated the importance of some procedures requiring more direct oversight and review which we will address if there

is a broad question about how many labs. important andimportant critical policy questions. the federal enter agency has an important role. cdc will contribute. when consensus is achieved what direction is given we will follow the instructions >> the mission is worthy and salvageable? >> absolutely. >> dugway has had problems in the past. it has been referenced body of times. in summation how does this continue to keep happening and how do you see us getting out of the cycle? >> this falls under the army

the army takes this seriously at the highest level which sounds easy to say,say, but my interactions with them, this is taken personally and seriously. the secretary of the army on down is taking action. they will look at issues specific to dugway but not limiting it to that. it is not just that this can be a better reporting chain. they're may be opportunities that arise. the laboratory that you sent rid. many have capabilities. perhaps it was preventing the free flow of information i am not sure that is the case. getting all the laboratory is working better together standardizing where appropriate and moving forward.

>> i guess i would offer this to the gal or oig what existing tools would allow it to better oversee and take corrective actions? >> we have a concern that the reporting is just one level up from the lab and more senior management is not necessarily informed. focused within the laboratory but not necessarily ensuring the accountability of the chain of command is occurring. we are just undertaking work at the request of this committee. the scientific questions how

the methods validated. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate your testimony. >> i want to thank the witnesses for coming and really a conversation i had. i am urging him to have a hearing later this fall for the end of the year after you i've figured out what your improvements in the standardization and oversight are going to be what i have found is what we

have some crisis like this witnesses come in and say we need to do better. oig and gal command. i have urged the chairman command i think he is an agreement to hold your feet to the fire to make sure these improvements gaps you have identified are felt the standards and coordination plans are completed. i believe he will have the hearing. on both sides of the aisle we agree that needs to be done. >> i would ask you that we have some accountability. several questions have been about how many people would lose their job. that is something we will be looking for to see how many people have lost their jobs.

with that in conclusion i would like to thank the witnesses and members who have participated. membersmembers have ten business days to submit questions for the record and i ask witnesses agree to respond promptly. with that the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] q&a.

[inaudible conversations] >> federal communications commission chair testified on capitol hill about the increased use of video streaming services and efforts to provide broadband internet access and rural areas. joined by republican commissioner. this hearing on communications and technology is three hours. >> we will call the subcommittee on communications and technology to order. i want to welcome everyone here today and wish you a good morning. delighted to have you back before the subcommittee.

we appreciate the work you are doing at the fcc and look forward to your testimony and opportunities to pursue issues. at the risk of sounding like a broken record i continue to be concerned that the commission's failure to adhere to sound regulatory process. i have consistently pushed to make the fcc a better more transparent agency but the chasm between commissioners deepens over time. in the committee considered process reform legislation i hope we reach the bottom of the well and the commission would find its way back to the collegiality that has characterized it since 1934. unfortunately that appears not to be the case. things might actually be getting worse which is disappointing to say the

least. with all that is going on we have much ground to cover in today's hearing which likely will necessitate a 2nd round of questioning. let me highlight five areas of policy concern that i and other members of the committee have. for a successful auctiona successful auction we know that sellers and buyers must fully understand and support the rules. when it comes to the plan questions and uncertainty abounds. layered on top is growing concern including as it relates to the television stations and translators. it was never our intent that these voices but the silence. there are the issues of potential interference with whatwith this handle and can do men auction as has occurred.

the action on the designated entity issue raises concerns.concerns. they claim the changes will strengthen the integrity of the program but sadly they simply replace one set of rules foryou said. the commission's rules remove the obligation to provide facilities -based service that sets the stage for a sophisticated spectrum arbitrage are to participate in the next spectrum auction bringing nothing to the competitive market. the chairman's advocacy is puzzling given the assurances that the changes would protect the program from people taking advantage of loopholes to unjustly enrich there clientele. my colleague from new mexico and i have had serious discussion about the approach that has been taken as it relates to the fundamental nature of democracy and practical communication.

beyond that members are beginning to here from adversely affected users about the disruption this we will have. expansion of the lifeline program. all one has to do is read the day story and politico to understand why it is so essential before any agency moves to spend money it should have tight control on the budget. for ratepayers in a partyline vote the fcc decided to rush forward with little reform and no limit. amid this world of controversy that continues to surround the action let us not lose sight of what is not getting done. the a.m. revitalization proceeding has been described as grinding to a halt despite the chairman's assurances to the subcommittee. the quadrennial review

continues to languish in open violation of the commission's legal obligation. each member of the commission is bright talented, and passionate and as is evidenced by recent public comment, it is clear they believe the process too often fails to include them in a meaningful and substantive way. we will here similar complaints from stakeholders this is neither necessary or helpful as the commission and all of us try to work through the complicated issues. on a final note the good news side of things the background i have a pleased to note that at&t announced there reach an agreement to allow fm chips and cell phones making at least the 2nd carrier to do so and we hope others will follow

suit. i have used of my time. >> thank you and good morning. welcome back to the committee. we are happy to see you. we welcome you back. today's hearing marks the chairman's 3rd appearance before our subcommittee in just over four months. the congressional research service tells me that the chairman and eight appearances before congress market new record so congratulations. put that up on your wall. in the past 14 years now fcc chair has testified more times before congress in a single calendar year. of course we are only in the 7th month. it is our subcommittee's responsibility to conduct robust oversight.

we should here regularly from the chairman and his fellow commissioners. responsible oversight includes recognition that the fcc -- and i think we should be doing this. there are many legitimate things to raise in the minds of those arrays them but we should include a recognition that the fcc has undertaken unprecedented steps to promote competition enhance public safety and ensure consumers are protected against deceptive or misleading billing practices here are a few highlights. modernize the program to increase the presence of wi-fi in classrooms and bolster higher capacity internet connections to the anchor institutions in our communities across the country. ways to record 44.9 billion dollars repeal the outdated

and anti- consumer sports blackout rules which for four decades 40 years presented fans from watching games on television when they were not sold out. there are a lot of people that are thrilled about that launched a knew consumer health center to streamline the complaint process and improve how consumers interact with the fcc command i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record a terrific article from ford's entitled how the fcc chain -- fcc changed me -- fcc safely. free up 150 megahertz of spectrum established indoor location accuracy rules for wireless calls made a 911.

that could be a life-saving stuff right they're. adopted bright line rules that prevent broadband providers from engaging in blocking, throttling and paid prioritization levied a hundred million dollars fine for misleading consumers about there unlimited data plans. preemptive stateline tennessee and north carolina that prevented local communities from deploying broadband which they want to do across the country. i saw in one year, and is much more ahead.

technology transition the world that preserves the core values of competition, public safety and protection. i think the chairman and commissioner. continuing commitment and yield. >> thank you very much. we are encouraged by the tech transition progress. that is going to be helpful to many businesses that need efficiencies the helpful to consumers. i hope you do not stop they're. one of my main concerns is to have competition is much as possible. we believe that leads to innovation and better prices for the consumers. special access issues continue to be a top concern and i would like to remind you of the bipartisan working group that we have set up because even if we represent urban areas with rural districts with special

problems we want to continue to work with the entire commission to make certain rural services there and we will be they're. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back >> thank you. and i want to welcome you. we appreciate that you are here. i disagree with my colleague from california as she talked about tennessee. we saw that as stepping on states rights. you and i disagree on that. i am pleased you are here. i know you saw the ctia report command i am sure you have read the op-ed in today's paper by each of your predecessors. getting spectrum to the

marketplace is where we need to have our focus. rather than getting into all these tangential issues your focus should be the core of your mission which is dealing with spectrum deployment and usage. when you look at the expected increase in the wireless arena command draws more attention. i was thinking when you go back and look at the industrial revolutions we have had looking at the agricultural and industrial mechanization when you look at technology information we are almost at a place where we can say there is this wireless revolution is going on because business transactions healthcare so many things will depend on the spectrum and we wish to

make sure you are focused. we welcome you. we know we must be diligent. we look at what south korea is already talking about doing. recapturing the momentum that they had. we do not want them to be the world leader. we wish to be the world leader and must have you work with us. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. i think the gentle lady for yielding. i want to thank the chairman and commissioner for being with us. it is great to see you both. i look forward to your statements and are questions the communication and technology industry is a productive sector of our economy due to bright minds

and because this has been regulated the ability to grow and evolve to the demands of our consumers cannot afford to live with overlook the policies. this is why i am concerned. i hope today's hearing will provide us with an opportunity to discuss the commission's policies, decisions, and processes command i think the gentle lady for yielding. >> i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from new jersey. >> thank you. i know it has been a busy few months and i appreciate your willingness to give us an update. i am particularly grateful for the opportunity to hear from the chairman about how is addressing the priorities

for many of which are shared by republican colleagues. champions for improving universal access to broadband. they have been tireless advocates for the rights and remedies -- writes a residence. unfairly left on the wrong side of the digital divide. i hope to here how they can improve deployment. ..

to free up more space for unlicensed use. these can allow for more vigorous competition and finally i hope to learn more about what the commission can do to support our work to protect consumers are you for instance i know several members of the subcommittee up and focused on the fcc's recent actions to address robo to address robo-calls. they'll that more needs to be done to correct down on the commercial calls and i hope to hear whether commission can do to address the issues are members have raised. i would like to yield one minute each of the time i guess a minute and have to mr. doyle and a that minute and a half to ms. matsui. c thank you very much mr. blunt for yielding and thank you for loving this hearing and to commissioner pai thanks for being here today.

mr. chairman i would like to recognize the accomplishments of the commission and that this chairman. since tom wheeler took over as chairman the fcc has done that to advance our telecommute patience agenda. from establishing the open internet order to keeping the incentive action on track updating the lifeline probe ran for the internet age and many steep fines to telecommute asian companies that have used consumers. i also want to commend determined for advancing a procompetitive agenda both in wireline and wireless service. the commission's upcoming vote on tech transitions its action on special access and the establishment of the spectrum reserved in the incentive auction are all important steps towards preserving and preserving competition. mr. chairman keep up the good work rate thank you and i will yield to our colleague ms. matsui. c yankee for yielding to me. welcome back chairman wheeler and commissioner pai. i know you have a busy agenda

and i want to highlight two priorities and i know we are all interested in. the first is making more spectrum available. spectrum is there infrastructure of the 21st century. critical to keep our wireless economy growing. we need to talk about how to did more spectrum into the pipeline so we can continue to meet demand. congressman -- we need to continue to explore the solutions. the second is making broadband access more affordable. millions of americans are still on the wrong side of the divide. the lifeline probe ran can and should help these americans get and stay connected. i know the fcc has started work on these very important reforms but we need to finish the job. i look forward to working with the full commission as we talk about these matters and hopefully make progress on this and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you.

>> the gentlelady yields back and the gentleman yields back. i think all time is now expired so we go who are two distinguished witnesses chairman of federal committee qishan services mr. wheeler. we are glad to have you back. we welcome you and mr. pai but mr. wheeler when are you going and leadoff. >> i'm tempted to make some comment on the national champion appearances before. >> we could arrange that. >> i would want to go down that route. but in the 10 weeks in all seriousness in the 10 weeks since i was last before this committee there has been a lot happening and i look forward to discussing it with you today. we have made significant process -- progress to begin the incentive auction on march 29 8 months from tomorrow.

so there's a lot of pressure on here. we have continued to grapple with the tech transitions issues that were raised by the movement from analog to ip networks and we have approved one merger with conditions and another was withdrawn. a new one was added. and of course on top of that the appeals court denied the request for a stay for the open internet rules. one issue was frankly caught me by surprise was that which was raised by a letter signed by every member of the subcommittee having to do with local number portability and i want to report directly to you on that. our rules require that local of the portability be ubiquitous but it looks as though the manner in which the industry has set up a system does not fulfill that requirement and i appreciate this committee

bringing it this to our attention. implementation of the rule apparently requires that the multicarrier have a presence in the home market of supported phone number before the transition can occur. this is not possible for smaller regional carriers so the effectiveness is if i were to move from washington to a market served by a carrier not in washington and to choose that carrier in a competitive choice process i couldn't port my number. that's contrary to our rules and i've asked that it be fixed.

broadcast and mobile eyes and says. where on the spectrum exit of places licenses could therefore affect us and our u.s. licenses and we are placed our licenses could affect them.

thanks to the hard work of international spectrum auction task force and the good negotiations of the mexican ift this has been -- and i want to thank him terrorists although far or their leadership on this matter. to the north we have been making simply productive progress with our friends the canadians. i believe once we have a decision next week on incentive option for procedures we will be able to conclude that coordination as well. and finally we have had frequent discussions with this committee about the open internet world. now that the d.c. circuit has put it on an expedited track for judicial review we are only six months or so away from that ruling which i know we all have been waiting for. so thank you mr. chairman, ranking member.

i look forward to discussing these or any other issues. >> thank you chairman. we will now go to commissioner pai. we were glad to have you before the subcommittee again. >> thank you mr. chairman ranking member issue members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me to testify. this hearing comes at a critical time. the fcc is making judgment that will shape the communications landscape or years to come. i will start with the broadcast incentive option. the fcc is conducted to bipartisan efforts. time and again commissioner mike o'rielly have offered common sense ideas for improving auction rules and procedures. often we have received no response at all. when we do receive a response is almost always no. fortunately it isn't too late to change course. broadcasters, wireless carriers and unlicensed advocates agreed the commission's current plan is

seriously flawed. i stand ready to work with stakeholders and fellow commissioners to do what congress did when i passed the landmark incentive auction legislation compromise to find a consensus solution. here specifically is what we should focus on. the purpose band plan allows for too much variability and would put too many broadcast stations in the wireless portion of the 600 megahertz band. this would compare spectrum sold in the forward option and cause interference between broadcast and wireless services. in my view of the commission should try to minimize band plan variability. broadcast stations must be placed in the wireless portion of the band bandit should go on the uplink spectrum not the downlink. and in order to reach compromise for me to make more information public great right now stakeholders and commissioners alike are essentially being asked is mostly about every aspect of the commission's proposals the incentive auction well and.

i preferred to reagan approach trust but verify. would like to discuss the fcc discuss the fcc is decimated into c. program which has been plagued with abuse. the program is supposed to help small businesses large corporations routinely try to game the system. that's why he was disappointed when the fcc recently voted to make it easier for big companies to profit from the program. we were promised fcc action to close loopholes that could be exploited by slick lawyers. instead the commission reopened loopholes that if it close on a bipartisan basis years ago. loophole through which a minimally competent attorney could drive it. specifically the fcc paid the way to obtain a discount on option spectrum and turn around and immediately reach 100% of it to a large incumbent carriers. at the time we were told opening up new loopholes and rde rules was a quote attack on economic

and quality. this assertion is baffling. let's be clear, those who profit from these new dt loopholes are speculators who were already are ensconced in the 1%. case in point under the new rules donald trump would be allowed to own most give a taxpayer-funded spectrum to at&t or verizon. so during the commission's deliberations i'm a proposal to prevent this abuse of the program. for example my proposal of anyone making over $55 million a year should be prohibited from getting taxpayer-funded benefits. unfortunate a majority rejected this and other commonsense reforms. shifting gears when it comes to broadband as congressman wells pointed out to many rural areas are left behind. specifically we are failing area served by smalltalk and medications carriers greatest because of vague regulatory history. our rules governing these

carriers give universal service report only to companies that offer telephone service not stand-alone broadband service. that's why i put forward a specific plan for correcting this historical accident that my plan is based on the principles set forth by 115 members of the house of representatives by congressman kevin cramer. this group group urged the fcc to adopt an media targeted solution to the stand-alone broadband problem and to implement a much simpler and straightforward plan for rate of return carriers than was adopted for price cap carriers. i humbly submit that exactly what my plan does. it implements a single page of changes to existing universal service regulations to solve the stand-alone broadband problem. the simpler. these implements the bad world consumers choose broadband. it would give carriers the insurance they need to increase broadband appointment and critically it would do all of this within the existing budget. chairman walden ranking member

eshoo thank you for inviting me to testify. look forward to answering your questions and continuing to work with you and your staff in a time to come. symantec thank you commissioner pai. we appreciate your testimony as well. chairman wheeler as you know lpt feed and translators play an important role in providing important information to consumers and businesses and when it comes to translators serving difficult to reach terrain in rural communities. would you plan to do to minimize the impact of repacking on lpt be an translators to ensure their important programming continues to reach viewers? >> thank you mr. chairman. we share your interest in making sure that this voice continues. as you know the spectrum of legislation does not create a repacking role for translators. so the question becomes what do

you do about it so here's what we we are going to do. one, there are channels we are going to help them find channels that they get displaced as part of the auction. one of the things that is the reality of an auction is you don't really know where this placement is going to happen is you don't know the outcome of the auction says that one is we will work to that. step two is that they're going to begin a rulemaking that will allow for channel sharing by opsec stations just as we are counting on channel sharing in this broadcast auction and that kind of technology should provide a similar kind of solution. thirdly the rule is constructed in such a way that they don't have to vacate until the wireless carrier in fact is ready to turn off service so there is a significant buffer of time and there that we believe

as we help them find new channels and as we have a new rule that allows for channel sharing but that will mitigate the impact you're concerned about. >> are you going to give them like in the dtv transition there was an opportunity to apply. they got some preference to move in the application process. >> let me get back to you. >> if it was a displacement relief. >> we are laying out a full process that will help them through this process in finding those. >> all right, thank you. i want to talk about some of the financial issues that you have spoken about so eloquently before the appropriations committee and publicly and i know that you addressed the field agents during a recent agenda meeting regarding the issue of closing the field

offices, and you seemed to takes takes -- a point that your budget comes from congress which is true. and i want to ask commissioner pai is it true that the enforcement bureau's front office management staff has more than doubled in size since 2008? >> that's my understanding, yes. >> is the true mr. wheeler? >> no sir. the enforcement staff is now give you the exact statistic 20% smaller than it was under chairman martin and since i have come in to office we have reduced the front office staff by 14% rated. >> okay. we will want to follow up because obviously there's a trick -- disagreement between you two on this matter. isn't it also a fact that the enforcement bureau has more vehicles than field agents?

>> yes sir. >> i will tell you sir i have been trying to visit the offices. we have a policy that says you have to have two employees in each vehicle. and because there is one that is driving and one working the equipment and is like texting and driving. we have two people in the anchorage office and we have two vehicles. >> but we are talking, not just anchorage. >> this was one of the problems we inherited when we walked in the door that there had been as purchasing. what we are trying to do now is repositioned this vehicles so they will be available when they come in. >> and they keep airing stories that you all have cars and drivers on all that sort of thing. is that true? >> al.

>> i don't know about you all, i don't have a car and driver for my prius out there but is that true? >> it's true although i do try to walk whenever i can. >> it shows. my time is running out. the gentlelady from california. >> thank you. i want to start with chairman wheeler. i just want to ask my questions and you can respond to them and i have one for commissioner pai. these said in your opening statement that the upcoming incentive auction end quote more moving parts than a swiss watch and i agree. one example is the reserve trigger which i think is really very important and it's critical that we get it right. because we want to ensure that competitive providers have real access to spectrum. so can you commit to addressing the concerns of the competitive

carriers prior to the start of the auction? that's my first question. my second question is sown in the medical community have suggested that the fcc delay implementation or consideration of its technical rules for the use of channel 37 by unlicensed tv white space devices. now delay is highly concerning because this is one of the three channels that tech companies say are at a minimum to stimulate and sustain investment in enhanced wi-fi. so do you think that your proposal already adequately protects patients and will prevent harmful interference to hospitals? i think i could ask a lot of questions but i think those are really important. also this year mr. chairman there have been eight broadcast

television blackouts involving 30 u.s. cities. can you tell us when the fcc will complete its review of good faith rules and when we can expect a new rule to be put in place to better protect consumers? those are my questions for you in a quick one-two commissioner pai. i read recently and he's not here but something that commissioner o'rielly said in a said quote his but it does deal with fcc the fcc's governing principles. and he stated that one of the fcc's governing principles should be that the internet is not a necessity in the everyday lives of americans and i know that he brought up that is not even close to being a human rights i don't think that's the jurisdiction of this committee, human rights but it's disturbing

to me that we would move away from that relative to a principle and i wanted to know if you agree and disagree or want to add or subtract from it. i will go to chairman wheeler first and then to commissioner pai. >> thank you ms. eshoo. let me see if i can hit those one, two, three. >> reserve trigger channel 37. the blackouts. >> what we have tried to do was to make sure that there is reserve spectrum available. it has never before been done. as mr. welsh and others have pointed out it's an important component of delivering service to rural areas. the question then becomes after you do that you want to create rules that allow people to withdraw from the auction early and not have to pay as much as

if an option has been ongoing. that is what is being requested. that is not what is currently in our proposal. we don't think that there should he a quick out. i have gotten what i wanted let me stop the bidding right now for reserve spectrum. secondly insofar as your channel 37 and medical devices they had changed in our upcoming order, we had changed from 180 meters to 380 meters the distance that an unlicensed device would be allowed close to these facilities using channel 37. that number was arrived at as a result of some studies that were done by the medical folks and so that's how that why that number

was increased. there is a fail-safe in here and as you know all the licensed spectrum has to go through coronation process that involves the database where you get permission to use it by knowing there is nobody there. if that 380 meters is insufficient in a particular area because of some rare equipment they have god or whatever, that database can be adjusted to stay no you can't do it here so i think what we have done with regards to medical equipment is twofold. one, to expand the absolute blackout area and two, to have in their a flexible system that will reflect what reality is and shut down if there there's a situation that would cause interference. in regard to your third question regarding tv blackouts in good good faith the gauche asians we intend to have an nprm out by

september 4 as this committee has told us to do. on that topic and to discuss exactly what are the full set of issues that should the involved. >> thank you congressman for the question. i've raised the fcc's charge given by congress and in fact the communications act which is to make available to all the people of united states rapid and efficient nationwide communications services and in the digital age that increasingly as you know means broadband and ugly than i'm only because i'm assigned to bri area but have seen it as a commissioner across this country. a few weeks ago i was in nebraska population 287 where a husband and wife meat processing plant at 20 years ago was literally a two-person operation now thanks to broadband connection they export retail

server state in the country and around the world. they have exported at whole foods -- >> you are saying you are disagreeing? >> making sure abroad planned -- with broadband climate is as wide as possible. >> thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee miss blackburn. >> thank you mr. chairman. commissioner wheeler i won to thank you for your letter dealing with the spectrum auction in small businesses. they got it yesterday and i may come back to you with a couple more questions on that. you know my concern and i appreciate your responses. i think we can all agree that we are for a successful spectrum auction. everybody agrees with that? i'm so happy we are all on the same page.

make your day, right? let's talk about the steps. commissioner you were just laying out some of the steps he thought were necessary. let's back it up a little bit and i think when you look at the ctia report that came out and mr. chairman i want to submit that for the record if no one has put that into the record. >> without objection. >> i think the prelude to a successful auction and to the steps that you just articulated is to know how much spectrum that you have then we know for federal agencies are squatting on a lot of spectrum and they are not utilizing it. they are sitting on it just in case they think they might want to do something with it. when they look at 13 years between the auction and the

deployment that is a lot of time and you look at the increased usage that we are expecting i think it is dangerous to first of all not inventory and know exactly what you have got so mr. chairman to you have you inventory the federal agencies and do you know it's

to think in terms of what is full application so the answer is we know what your question is and we know who uses what spectrum. the specific use inside that spectrum however is something that the licensee controls. ..

spectrum is a very valuable commodity right now and we cannot allow federal agencies through laziness or lack of creativity or lack of innovation to squat on spectrum. before we get too far afield with the 350 megahertz option i would like for you

to come back and say this is what each of these departments have and this is what they are utilization is and this is how we can pull that back and redeploy this into the marketplace an option. because if we need a federal overwrite for something just like with the a.m. band come back and do something like that but don't let them squat on the spectrum. my time has run out. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. we go to original and from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. three questions and three different areas. you committed that the fcc would complete a proceeding by the end of this year to make our wireless networks more resilient dealing with

communication and emergency. i want to thank you for that commitment. former commissioner edelstein promised the industry would work closely with staff. approaching the heart of hurricane season in the 3rd anniversary of sandy. what is the status of the fcc? >> we are working with the industry on that. it is essential that we be able to stand up and address the backup power issue. if the powerthe power is standing but there is no juice it is not worth anything. i am happy to do a more detailed response. >> okay. if you have something you could update as with now i would like a written response. >> without objection.

>> thank you. >> with regard to designated entities i mentionedi mentioned i support your decision to modify the fcc designated entity rules. since the rules have passed i heard criticism. how do you respond to those critics that question is decisions? >> we have tightened the rules substantially and would be happy to discuss specific ways in which we have done that. the key thing is also to take a look at -- and i must be careful at how i talk about this. if you look at what is currently on the record with regard to the de their relationship with fish in aws three auction we use a

totality of circumstances test that had never been applied for to say we do not think that is a good idea at a staff level as coming to the commission. i must rule on that but the fact of the matter is that we took the totality of circumstances and put it into the rules in this rewrite. we have shown that there is a total picture that we have whatever it takes to step up and blow the whistle and say that is not right. >> with regard to the incentive auction and consumer outreach as we head toward the incentive auction i am concerned about whether consumers are prepared for the transition. education effort we will be more difficult because we do

not have funding for consumer outreach and have to deal with the flash cut. i raise this issue and i can say they committed to work with us to plan on how best to reach out to consumers. can you commit to working with us to provide the comprehensive planning to ensure consumers will no what they need to do? >> yes, sir. >> okay. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. barton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you and the ranking member for this hearing. i am one of the advocates for low-power television. they do not have any real standing in this repackaging of the spectrum if the

mainline broadcasters give it back, but they have a product. they have provided valuable service to the country command i would like to see them help in some way if at all possible. my question, start with the chairman and the commissioner what can be done to ensure we still have television was this repackaging is complete? >> thank you. i would like to associate myself with this position you have taken. an important voice in the committee and translators as well. i set up a special meeting with low-power operators. a big convention to make sure i was hearing from them

and we were talking about itm.7ú there are multiple things we can do inside the statutory constraint you reference. one is that we will help them find new channels after the moving. we do not know which we will be affected. we don't no what we will be available to move, so we must sit in limbo and watch. beyond that we will begin a rulemaking in which we will allow translators to share a channel just like we are allowing licensees, broadcast licensees to share a channel. that will create --[ @will take advantagethat will take advantage of the benefits of digital and created other path. >> there will still be in low-power television role? >> yes, sir. >> your assessment and the chairman's assessment that

there is valuable service which is why i like almost three years ago the importance that we do what we can especially in martin -- markets where we don't need the spectrum. the policy cuts we are on the brink of making my end ( and that they can channel is one example of that. we will reserve those. to denigrate the importance but this is the tv band we are talking about.8 they do not have a place to go. but we should do what we can to prioritize. >> thank you and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california. >> mr. chairman.

>> i am going by the list. >> i will give my two minutes. [laughter] >> i have a minute 55. >> i don't want to get in the middle of this. >> a vote for my bill. >> i yield. >> go ahead. >> i am going by your list. >> thank you very much. thank you. chairman, after next year's auction the fcc will of implementing the last option congress identified consumer demand for wireless services that rely on spectrumnb continues to explode and we know it takes a long time to plan for the spectrum option do you agree that we need to create a spectrum pipeline

for the next decade? >> yes, ma'am. >> what do you think are the 1st steps for policymakers to consider? >> you and mr. guthrie have pointed toward that by providing congressional oversight and encouragement in the process. clearly the fcc has a role to say where the current allocations but it then goes to the executive branch to determine the allocation within the specific executive agency and the answer those questions. i like forward to working with and we have a working relationship with an tia to try and address these issues and it is something that we both can work together on but i must be candid and say that the kind of leadership

that has been shown in keeping the spotlight on is essential to paying attention to things downtown >> we intend to keep the spotlight on. congress passed the fcc with balancing many priorities. new spectrum for less as mobile broadband for protecting consumer access and creating new opportunities for unlicensed spectrum use. the fcc can assure incentive auctions clear a significant amount of beachfront spectrum needed to fuel the economy while protecting over the air broadcasting and preserving the chance from isis innovation. concerns have been raised about the fcc schedule to make key decisions. what is the fcc doing to make sure stakeholders can feel confident in an incentive option? >> thank you.

the challenge of the incentive option is very complex except for the fact that there is no picture on the front of the box. and so what we have been trying to do is to make sure that of all the parties interested that they can walk away with a solution. it may not be what they have come in and asked for. as a person who used to go in and asked the fcc to do things my way it does not always must be that way but you must make sure that has discussed you have an answer command answer for wireless mics, an answer for unlicensed spectrum and all these must balance out. i believe the item we are bringing forward contains

that kind of balance. you push year and something busts over here. i think the spectrum auction team has done an excellent job in wading through all of this. >> i will ask you are we on track to see the incentive auctions successfully completed in a way that preserves the goals that congress intended. >> yes, ma'am. >> i am a longtime advocate for modernization of the lifeline program. necessity. i applaud the fcc for starting rulemaking earlier to bring it into the 21st century. what are the next steps? >> i hope that we will have a rulemaking to follow up as

soon as comments are closed and we can sift through them but i think -- let me address an issue that the commissioner was dealing with a moment ago. broadband is the information pathway of the 21st century. to deny access is to deny access to the toy 1st century. we need policies that make sure everyone in america has access to that essential pathway. >> i agree. thank you and i i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the vice chair the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. we all no consumers are offered an array of video

choices and internet delivered options complemented by the growing use of consumer apps on mobile devicesv:. as a result it seems more online entertainment options have transformed the marketplace. with that said what is your assessment as a video marketplace? do you remember a time when consumers have had so much choice? >> i cannot think of a time when consumers of video services have ever had a better. three broadcast stations in the satellite and no cable when i can power of my laptop it is a benefit and is part of the reason why i came out a couple of weeks ago and said ii don't think the fcc needs to regulate over-the-top video consistent with the digital media association.

this is not a marketplace that has failed. it is thriving. >> in your opinion is driving innovation. >> absolutely. all these business models are thriving because everyone can deliver services over the internet. >> should the government be out they're picking winners and losers trying to impose knew technology mandates to slow innovation and limit choice? >> absolutely not. the worst thing the government to do is regulate the entire market. that would simply serve to distort the marketplace. >> thank you. in my district you are familiar a community hospital and other large hospital associations.

a number of expressed a serious concern regarding technical use by unlicensed tv white space devices. it has been decided channel 37 the available. however technical rules the provider protect wireless medical telemetry service allow for the safe use of tv white spaces that have not been mutually agreed upon. do you agree that because wireless devices could cause harmful interference to hospital operations and jeopardize patient safety it is vitally important all providers have the ability to work cooperatively before the commission considers it in the august of mean? >> i agree that there is a technological challenge that

we must make sure we deal with command i believe we have a bill to suspend this approach to say that 380 meters from such a site is a no go zone which is essentially tripling where we were before in response to what the folks of said, the trials they have run in minnesota. the suspenders are also coordination database if there is a problem in ohio in a particular area that information gets fed into the database which then becomes a no-fly zone. but we have put in place is hard rock and flexibility

that is going to deliver the kind of security both you and we are looking for. >> do you think they have enough time to make sure they get that information to the commission? is they're enough time? here we are on the 27th of july -- 28th. right at that time. they just submitted additional information based upon that that we altered what our proposal is. this is not an issue that has not been dealt with since you pass the spectrum. this is something that has been going on for multiple years. tests were helpful which is why we tried to make sure we harmonize with the kind of things they discovered and provide the flexibility to move in and do something if

there is an aberration. this goes to miss blackbirds.about sharing the whole reality that we want to create a structure that says that you can deal with the aberrations. this committee told us in statute to do that which was a wise decision and we are following through. >> thank you. i would like to submit for the record a statement from the american highway association. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the dillman from vermont. just kidding. [laughter] mr. doyle. >> that would have really gone bad. >> if your goal you succeeded. >> mr. doyle. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

listening to your opening statement where you were lamenting how you have these wonderful ideas that are met with either no response or no. we on the democratic side were feeling your pain. it is called being in the minority. >> just for a 2nd we have been informed if you could pull that microphone closer. they are not able to hear you quite as well. >> we feel your pain. i just want you to no. >> i have questions. you are a strong advocate for competitive telecommunications marketplace and have been a great advocate and moving these issues forward. i have a number of questions and concerns. i am concerned the window for moving forward is narrowing particularly with

the latest extension of the common window. additionally the fcc has not made the data the special access data request available to stakeholders. but the comment deadline looming when all stakeholders be able to access this data in order to make fully informed comments? >> thank you. i do not know the specific date we will announce a specific date. i cannot reform it here but there have been multiple challenges with special access that start with the collection of data that was thwarted for years. finally able to begin collecting metadata. insofar as we will make sure that there data is on the record and on the record in a timely manner command i share your interest in wanting to make sure that we have an opportunity to address the special access

question, but it must be fact-based. >> can you give us any idea when you anticipate the commission taking action? is it going to be in my lifetime? >> i hope that it is while i am chairman and that that is shorter than your lifetime. >> let me ask you another thing. i also have concerns about the trigger for the spectrum reserve. we have been working hard to ensure this we will enhance competition and that consumers will reap the benefits of lower prices and greater innovation. what is the commission doing to address the concerns many of us have about the reserve trigger particularly regard into it coming into place a late in the option.

>> the issue -- let me be sure which trigger you are speaking out. the assignment? >> the reserve. the question then becomes are you going to cut back on the amount of bidding that goes on for reserve spectrum? and we have taken the position that you should not that the reserve has been created. that in itself is a huge step that there are a lot of people on this committee and the commission that disagree with. then the question becomes do you want the auction to function through the whole process, or do you want to truncated for a quicker trigger for the spectrum

while the other spectrum auction keeps going and it seems to me what that ends up doing is reducing participation in the auction probably reducing the prices people will pay because it means that hear in the reserve you stop while the bidding keeps going up here in the unreserved and i think an auction is something that proceeds to a conclusion not an auction that is terminated to favor one party or another. the establishment of the reserve is a huge issue. but we should not do is pick winners and losers inside that reserve. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from illinois. >> thank you. you both agree that to facilitate rural broadband deployment is going to take usf reform; is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> commissioner, in your opening statement you mentioned some principles. can you restate those? >> with respect a twofold plan. targeted changes to our universal service rules to allow return carriers to get universal service support for the costs they incur further.broadband in rural areas. that support extends to voice service. secondly, creating a voluntary path where rate of return carriers could get into a similar connect america fund. the so-called model is not perfect but if it is found

to be preferable they should be given a limited window >> thank you. chairman wheeler these are all rural questions or rural service. it is like a lot of rural areas. on this drop call issue i can go to my family-owned companies. i think we have talked. it is intermediary carriers called the least cost routers that seem to be the problem. can you tell me how we are going -- because these companies get blamed. an intermediate carrier that causes all sorts of problems >> thank you, congressman.

you put your finger on it. it is the intermediate carrier and a failure on the part of the major carriers to police their subcontractors. we have done several things. there used to be a game that played where they would give a false ring to pretend the call was being completed what it really was not. that is out of business. secondly we have been enforcing this within the last few weeks we find verizon $2 million and required him to do 3 million of additional improvements to stop this because in 26 rural areas they were not paying attention which is the heart of the problem what you call the intermediate carriers, that they need to be paying attention. thirdly we have a data

survey out they're right now to try and identify exactly what the extent and other causes might be so that we can take additional action. we understand that call completion is a serious issue. >> that is good because we are on to the august break. they are going to come visit me again and ask, and i'm glad i got a chance to ask a question and continue to address this issue. commissioner, when it comes to the ip transition and the ability to upgrade technology do all providers face of regulatory level playing field? >> i do not think that they do. some segments face no barrier.

on the other hand, another segment faces antiquated rules that require them to maintain the networks of yesterday. obviously every dollar they must spend is by definition a dollar they cannot spend deploying fiber never allow them to compete with others. want more broadband competition. let's have a level playing field. the strongest possible playing field. >> great, and i will end on thanking you for your work. i look forward to getting together with the ranking member. there is always work to be done. >> thank you. i think the gentleman and we will work together. how does the commission come up with the amount of what a fine is going to be? in one case it is

100 millionná/?. we just mentioned 2 million. these are considerable sums. >> for some kinds of issues such as lifeline they're is a schedule. for others it is a totality of circumstances kind of situation where you make a judgment call. >> make the call. >> the time is expired. the gentleman from vermont for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i thank you for joining us today. universal service is an important issue and you have been implementing reforms duringto rename asking you tell us the status of that and what you are doing to make sure public resources are being responsible used.

>> thank you. the commissioner and i share the belief that he has been talking about insofar as the dichotomy between narrow brandon broadband which must be fixed. i go further in my approach. i have developed what i have now started calling the role that rule because i read the other day that you said that usf should spend money where no one else will spend which is core principle. asas this committee has been telling us so often you must review what our rules are. the fact that we're spending money to subsidize telephone company around disney world

is because we always have does not make a lot of sense the fact that we have no guidelines for operating expenses are we just had a man in hawaii go to jail for tax fraud. he is a provider -- recipient of universal service and it ended up that he was charging his family's education expenses to universal service and the people were having to pay for it. we ought to have some standards for what is in optics standards for what is in next. i was just asked the other day to approve a waiver for universal service trial to a company that could not produce audited financial statements.

thatthat is wrong. this is not my money. is the people's money. we need to get it out. that is why the commissioners and i are working together on a bipartisan package of reforms for how we're going to deal with making sure that rate of return carriers have what commissioner by has called a two track solution a model that deals with the knew broadband realities and a review of what standards ought to be and are moving down that path. >> thank you. >> congressman, you captured the sentiment perfectly. when it comes to broadband rural service should be they're and be high-quality which is exactly why oppose this plan to make sure that we do not leave them on a slow lane but given the exact same opportunity they would have whether they are

in montpelier or new york city. given the time frame we have committed to get this done by the end of the year. it will be better to embrace the approach to have a target solution for the standalone broadband problem i agree there are abuses that must be corrected and i am willing and able to change that but we cannot let the necessary and the perfect be the enemy of the good. >> my view is that it is an important program there is fraud and abuse and one of the things that happens is out of frustration when they're is fraud and abuse sometimes we attack the very existence of the program command i think bipartisan agreement is that anything we can do we want to. >> thank you.

>> that is for both of you. >> we are going to have a rulemaking on lifeline before the year is out. it depends upon the comments that we receive and it begins with overall. there are two problems. it was designed in overseeing wrong. other than that everything is fine. it was designed run. this was put in place by previous administrationsw3 which we have inherited. it is ridiculous to have the people who are benefiting from the receipt of the funds. incertifying the folks getting the mother right folks. it is ridiculous you not require those people receiving the funds to keep records and on the administration side is ridiculous that you not have

a database for duplicates and that you not put structures in place. but we have done 25 percent reduction on expenditures 20 million people inappropriately on it are no longer on it. $100 million in penalties. but we have done what we can to fix the oversight. what this rulemaking we will do is continue that and fix the underlying problems. >> thank you. my time is up. >> i might address the eligibility database. >> i have the support the chairman's vision of having a more fiscally responsible program. we did not adopt the more basic reforms tapping or putting a budget on the program.

targeting broadband adoption we want these funds to go to connecting people who are off-line to help them get online. 40 million households are eligible for the program. if we're going to modernize the program let's make sure we have fiscal responsibility measures in place and target the help the people who need it which is an important conversation to have. >> what about the eligibility database? >> the duplication database we have in place and operational and is working quite well in so far as the eligibility database our ability to get access to data held by state agencies and are in the process of working our way through the. >> that is something we need to get done obviously. the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes.

>> thank you. commissioner i want to speak with you about the fcc recent order regarding tcp a he stated thehe stated the attempt to modernize it is likely to the american consumer not to mention the american enterprise worse off. can you elaborate to the committee how you believe the commission may not have gotten this correct and what it should have gone to protect the american consumer? >> thank you for the question. a plague of the american consumer. i don't want to get those calls, nobody does. our problem is that it takes us in the opposite direction exempting entire industries. now the prison payphone industry can robo call you

and dramatically expanded devices now considered to be auto dialers. it opened loopholes. there are 37 million members reassigned. legitimate businesses have no reason to no to have a number in stock or the prior phone numbers consent no reason to no the number has been reassigned but nonetheless can face liability and other kind of loopholes that we will generate more litigation which has become a flood. last year alone there was something like 1918. my concern is your opening loopholes while not cracking down on really bad actors unwanted mobile callers. we did not create a safe harbor for carriers to allow them to develop technology.

we did not take more aggressive enforcement effort despite the week at 96,000 complaints last year in the 1st nine months -- for seven months of this year we have had one citation against the do not call registry which is unacceptable. >> why do you think the commission did not have a safe harbor? >> i am not sure why but it has created tremendous uncertainty among the host of legitimate businesses can everyone from restaurants to the los angeles lakers. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you, mr. lance. first of all, we want to make sure -- exemptions we want to make sure there were

opportunities for if your dr. or hospital is to do something because of a medicala medical emergency or your bank is to contact you because of fraud that they're should be those kind of exemptions. secondly on the question of you get to make one mistake and discover that the phone has been transferred to what you don't have to do this three, four or hundreds of times as some people have. excuse me, this is not the number and provide notification. it was the congress that created the private right of action which is something that is a decision that is out of our hands. to your keep issue specifically we addressed it because the carriers were saying to us all we are

afraid to offer blocking services because you might charges with blocking calls which would be a violation of our rules. so we amended the rules to say no and have now had a workshop coming up for we are bringing the carriers and other affected parties in to sit down and say exactly how do you do it? how did you handle a voice call is different. how you put those in place. this is something where we have said to the carriers our rules now specifically allow you to block calls. >> thank you. >> congressman, i.out that the safe harbor was not given enough granularity. the carrier is willing to trust the carrier