term and long-term. infrastructure would be another thing. we're getting the cheapest financing right now. in 50 years, we have a huge backlog of projects. if we wait, they get much more expensive. it's much cheaper to repair a bridge than it is to rebuild a bridge. so for all of these reasons, there are things that actually we can do now. we can create jobs. we can boost our long-run capacity. and at the same time get us back on a fiscally sustainable path that don't actually require -- and i don't want to say there is everything because it makes me sound like i'm saying, oh, yeah, to but generally speaking, there is a lot of really good policy there's that don't have a lot of pain that we could be doing now but we really aren't. >> one quick point on their math only works if the interest rates that we pay for public debt are very low. so if chairman ryan is right and

we see a skyrocketing of interest rates next year, that immediately wipes out what they're proposing. >> sure. >> sorry. i guess i wanted to make a math clarification. >> on the jobs point, actually, th public's perception of defense di the importance of defense spending is to congress, it's all about jobs. they've got guys coming into their office every day. literally, i talk to officer staffers, i had a guy come in from raytheon today that there are 3.5 jobs. 3.5. >> one person is different in a another level. >> this is one of the reasons that i think there is just a lot of anxiety. and at a time like this when we're in an economic crunch, it

becomes maybe the main reason why there is so much anxiety about taking on defense spending in congress, because there is -- the democrats kind of don't want to go there. but for both sides, for both parties, it's the jobs concern. >> and very tangible jobs, jobs you can literally say these are the 3.5? >> yeah, it's very difficult. but i do want to point out there have been many studies that have shown that not all of those jobs are sustainable in the same way that other sectors might be. so defense spending is actually not as sustainable an investment in terms of employment as some other sior winners or losers. but i think an argument that industry will often make is like you say, these are really good long-standing jobs. and then you gethe keeping these plants open or the bases open and that kind of thing. i think that's where we're going to see a lot of difficulty in the upcoming couple of years. >> steve, can we do these two things? the reco iile, and in my opinios

a little more fragile than most people think it is. but it's healing, slowly but surely. can we continue that recovery? can we continue to boost growth and find a way to assuage the fears of the deficit and the pending debt crisis moving forward? >> yes, we can. as bernanke said a couple of days ago at the nabe conference, there are still dangers. you don't have to be a genius to figure out that maybe greece has been bailed out, but spain still poses some challenges. so you have some economic sluggishness for sure on the european continent. brazil has had to cut interest rates so that its real is more competitive. they're having problems. and the question of the soft or hard landing, however you want to define that in china is very relevant. so we're not out of the woods. indeed, if you took a look at the underlying unemployment, you find that the length of

unemployment for the average person now on unemployment insurance is larger than it's ever been since we've had the program. >> more than 40 weeks. >> more than 40 weeks. and that tells you something important, that this is still a lingering sore. how do you do it? what we said the domenici/rivlin task force said we have to have a tax holiday and try to get this economy moving beyond sluggishness. we still hold to that. then you begin to phase in deficit reduction. at the end of our plan, you're the imf and the world bank want you to be at 60. but this is ten years from now, 15 years from now so, all the numbers are wrong. but you try to make policy changes. i just leave you with three

thoughts that i think are important. one we have a bunch of promises that we've made to americans that we can't keep. end of discussion, we can't do it under present circumstances. and we need to think about what breaking those promises mean for the future and for investment in the future. the second thing is don't listen to people who tell you what percentage of gdp it used to be, because if they talk about the last 40 years, you've got three major conflicts in there that caused. so i would say let's go back to 1900 and the percentage of gdp of medicare was, that's correct, zero. and social security was, that's right, zero. and 85% of the people in this country lived on farms and made their money from agriculture. i think it's fair to say we've changed a little bit. and the last thing is demographics. today net of deaths, 11,000 people, are going to join medicare. that's a fact. and we're going to put another 40 million of these people into medicare. is it relevant what percentage

of gdp we used to spend or used to raise in a world that is profoundly different than just 1964, just 45 or 50 years ago. the answer is maybe, but i think there is a certain nostalgia to that that is not useful. so i think that you're going to see these guys kick the can down the road. i think they're going to do what they just did on the highway bill, which is fight about two or three months extension. and i hate to say it, but until people get everything resolved overseas, and we start paying the real interest rate on the tenure. one last thing i want to say, without trying to dominate it, the tenure was at 7.1%. that's the lowest since eisenhower. so you can borrow money at that rate. why not build things? why not do things? you're borrowing money at below inflation.

>> exactly. >> they're basically paying us to spend their money. >> exactly. let's go to the audience. any questions out there for our panel? yeah. back there. >> hi. good morning. my name is amy melnik. my question is really to laura, but really to the whole panel. why are those anecdotely your defense jobs in that district somehow more valuable or more important than research jobs or public health jobs that are also funded by the federal government? >> well, you know, i think there's a lot of things that are going on in the congressional mind. when when somebody comes to your office and talks to you about this. frequently, you know, there's major -- you might have a major industrial base in your district. you might have a major military base that's been there for

decades and generations of people have worked at it. and i think people think of the government, this is the irony, again, people's attitude towards government, as being a very stable employer. so if it's a military job, it's got to be a good job. it's got to you know, have all kinds of benefits. dod have increased their number of contractors, specifically service contractors, just exponent shlly over the last decade. so a lot of the great military jobs are not really being performed directly by military. they are being performed by a lot of these smaller companies that have popped up around this boom in defense spending and has proven very lucrative for a lot of entrepreneurs. so i fear that a lot of people see the government, specifically

the defense department, as being a gravy train. that's not a good perception, i think, for the public to have for something like the military. and of an institution like the military. the military -- national security is not a jobs program. it's something that we keep trying to drill into peoples' minds. its function is not to, you know, create -- it's job to to protect the country. that is supposed to be -- in the same way that congressman ryan was saying, it's strategy to drive our spending, not budgets. all right then. this a lot fromt of defending defense ministers but at the same time, they get someone going up to the hill and saying basically, you know, they are all for like, you know, tax and spend. as long as it's defense. we need to put more money into this sector in order to create x number of jobs with no strategic

framework for that argument. and so that's something that i worry that is always present in our military spending because of the sheer size of the defense department. and i think over the last decade and the explosion of defense spending that we have seen, it's gotten even worse. and i think we really need to wean america off of this idea of the defense department being a big, a big jobs creator. >> we need to go into withdrawal on gravy is what you're saying. we've got time for two more other questions out there. >> matt benjamin. steve was pointing out an ugly scenario about how these legislators needike to get them cooperate.

but i have an uglier scenario. because the dollar retains or even strengthens its reserve dt cetera, the bond vigilantes never show up. gradually, higher interest rates, bigger portion of our budgets going toward debt service, and in the long run, just a degraded standard of living. is that a scenario? >> very concerning. 20 years ago, which to me seems like yesterday, but probably most of the people in this room remember 20 years ago. say 1992. we had named the united states and we were without really equal at that time economically and militarily. we were able to support ourselves and most of the debt

was held by american citizens. therefore, it revolved within the indigenous economy. now 50% of our debt is held by . a bunch of other places. so the bond vigilantes if they don't show up, we have a cliff. i don't think mr. van holen was wrong when he said we have a cliff. relatively soon, we will not have enough money to do the things that we are used t to doing as a country. and i don't know how far away that is. i think two to three years is a little soon. my friends who are hedge fund managers in new york and most of whom have lost a lot of money this year believe it will bereo. at some point, we are going to run out of money and we're going

to spend 100% of the revenues we anticipate on everything except defense and nondefense appropriated accounts. everything. and at that point, there's going to be a lot of pain. because we're going to jump to big tax increases and we might jump in big spending cuts, sequester at large, and that's a form of insanity to do something like that. >> do you want to take that? >> yeah. two points. i think one is that -- i know you're looking at the long run estimates for the long-term budget outlook. we should remind ourselves that that is completely based national health care spending is going to be doing. basicall basically, they say what's it been doing? and just assume that continues forward.

there's a huge amount of uncertain uncertainty. imagine if we go back to the '30s and said let's try to figure out what health care is going to be like in 2012. it never would have been possible. saying that we can get electronic files and that might be one way to cut down on costs. there were no electronic files because computers were something that the vast majority diof't k. so it's very hard to -- this is why they look at ten-year windows because that is highly uncertain. on one hand, i don't think we should necessarily be saying this will definitely happen. i think that our approach should be more of let's make sure it doesn't happen and have a contingency plan and ensure against that. but at the same time, i don't think we should be saying this is definitely going to be this. so, yeah. i'll leave it there. >> fantastic.for

joining us. thank you to our panel. you were fantastic. and have a great day, everyone. a deeper look at the president's 2013 budget request, this afternoon at 6:30 eastern when we show you energy secretary steven choo before a house appropriations subcommittee. the energy department has requested $27 billion, an increase of just over 3%. house republicans passed their budget last week making cuts to a number of programs president obama wants to expand. the president will respond to the gop budget plan this afternoon at 12:30 eastern. you can see live coverage on c-span. and in wisconsin, maryland, and district of columbia, it's poll day. we'll have your reaction starting at 7:00 eastern on c-span. tonight here on c-span 3 it's american history tv prime time. each night this week, the

founding of america the university of oklahomaos symposium with historians that include david mccull hackette f. this is c-span 3 with public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs on our websites. you can join in on the conversation on social media sites. the president is asking for $347 million for the federal communications commission with a push for expanding access to the internet in rural areas and making broad band space available for increasing use of mobile devices.

the hearing will come to i'd like to welcome our two witnesses from the federal communications commission. thank you all for being here today and for testifying on the fcc's fiscal 2013 budget request. while the fcc is funded by fees, congressional oversight over your budget is an important check on agency's activity nps committee is committed to fiscal skponlt we intend to make sure all agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction are operating effectually and effectively. the fcc plays an important role in our country's telecommunications industries. with technology changing faster and faster and the fact you all have to keep up, it's amazing

that you can do so while not hindering innovation. overregulation of american communications systems hurts our economy at a time we're still coming out of a recession. and i will say, i still have serious concerns about the net neutrality order as well as the commission's proposed disclosure of political files, which we'll talk about after you all testify. while i appreciate the agency's eagerness, i think in many cases, it would be helpful to slow down and consider the ramifications of commission rule making in lots of different areas. nshould also some reform in thiversal fund. however, i think there are some serious concern cans about the fund that have yet to be addressed and just so you all know, i heard a lot about this while i was home last week. we do appreciate the job that both you and your staffs do and

once again, i welcome you and i look forward to your testimony. now i'd like to recognize my friend and colleague joe sarano for his opening statement. >> thank you. the first thing we discuss quietly here is baseball. but today we're discussing the fact that both of our district plans for our future political districts are in the federal courts and we have no idea where we're running this year. >> actually, i think ours have been in the federal courts and state court. this is in the state supreme court back to the federal court. and i'm not sure that most judges undertake their judicial responsibilities thinking they are going to draw congressional lines at the same time. >> let the record reflect that arkansas is done. >> missouri was third done and then we had a lawsuit filed very late.

>> we measured twice and cut once in arkansas. >> amazing. thank you, madame chair. i would i would like to join you in welcoming the commissioners. like many agencies the fcc plays a vital role in our everyday lives even though much of its important work takes place behind the scenes. the role of the fcc grows in scope as technology becomes more affordable and as more people have access to the internets through a variety of devices. i will be interested in hearing whether with these rapid innovations you have the resources to ensure that consumers are protected in the marketplace. as improvements in technology give more people access, that means that resources move online and, therefore,eing able to get a good education, find a job or simply to connect with family around the world.

therefore i'm interested in the steps you're taking to broaden access and make sure that everyone who wants access can get it. one way to increase access to broadband is by allowing more spectrum to be used for that purpose. i know in the upcoming year the goal is to increase the available spectrum for broadband uses and congressionally mandated spectrum auctions. i look forward to hearing more details about how pl what your expected results of them to be. we will have time to discuss these issues as well and other priorities during the question period, for now i want to thank you both for your service and my appearing before us today, new ipad works properly. make sure nothing interferes. thank you. >> you have the new, new one? pass it over.

i now recognize -- now recognize the chairman. chairman jankowski. if you could try to limit your nks.ing remarks to five minutes >> thank you very much. members who are here, i appreciate the opportunity to pe i'm proud to say that few if any federal agencies deliver a higher return on investment than the fcc. more than $50 billion for the u.s. treasury in tas decades. economists regard the economic value created by fcc auctions as being about ten times that number about $500 million in value. a few weeks ago, congress authorized the fcc to conduct voluntary incentive auctions. a new market based mechanism to repurpose spectrum for flexible

use such as mobile broadband. incentive auctions which i'm proud to say were originally suggested by the fcc two years ago are an opportunity to unleash vitally needed additional spectrum for mobile broadband and create tremendous value for american consumers while raising billions of dollars for deficit reduction. at the fcc we're focused on faithfully implementing the incentive auction provisions and maximizing the opportunities of the new law for the economy and all americans. it's a privilege for the fcc to be entrusted with this responsibility which of course will require a great deal of work and effort by the agency. incentive auctions are unprecedented. the u.s. will be the first country in the world to conduct them.ulticeted task affecting major parts of our economy involving many challenging questions of economics and engineering. fcc staff is analyzing the complex incentive auctions law. it's well over 100 pages. assessing the challenges ahead and developing a plan for implementation.

incentive auctions are part of our overall agenda to unleash the opportunities of modern communications technology to benefit our economy and all americans. we focus the agency on broadband communications, wired and wireless. together with my colleagues at the fcc we've made tremendous progress in the past three years taking many steps to unleash investment innovation and job creation. these include freeing spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed use. the service fund and removing barriers to broadband buildout. indeed private investment, innovation and job creation are up across the broadband economy. these metrics which are outlined in my written statement are up both when looking at broadband applications and services and looking at broadband providers and network infrastructure. in 2011 the u.s. information and communications sector grew three times faster than the overall economy. broadband is helping create new

jobs all across the country and not just for engineers, although it's vitally important that we lead the world in ne but also for sales people, construction workers and small business owners increasingly using the internet to boost sales and lower costs. these -- sorry. we're also now ahead of the world in deploying 4g mobile broadband at scale with 64% of the world's 4 ge subscribers here in the u.s. in the next generation networks are projected to add $150 billion in gdp growth over the next four years created an estimated 770,000 new american jobs in. todayed hyperconnected flat world, the success of american companies as well as global prosperity depends on a dynamic and open global internet. an the internet as free market globally and oppose international proposals that could stifle innovation. the health of our broadband

economy would be enhanced by closing broadband gaps. so the fcc is focused on bringing usual service into the broadband area. today millions of rural americans live in areas with no broadband infrastructure. our plan adopted in october to modernize the universal fund will spur build out to hundreds of thousands of rural homes in the near term and puts us on the path to universal broadband by the end of the decade while keeping it be fund on a budget. together with my colleagues we drafted a set of reforms that will drive efficiency and help bring broadband to rural america. in addition to the broadband deployment gap, we're making strides on the broadband adoption gap. many of americans, 100 million people, haven't adopted broadband, the connect to compete initiative enlists government and nonprofit sectors to tackle the barriers to adoption, one of several public private initiatives to promote

solutions to major challenges. public safety is a core mission for the fcc and the agency is working to harness the power of communications to make our communities safer. we're working with multiple stakeholders to advance next generation 911. we accelerated the launch of wireless emergency alerts that april lewes local, state and federal authorities to send targeted alerts to mobile devices in an emergency. the fcc also provides value by protecting and empowering consumers. working with wireless providers. we found a common sense solution to bill shock. costing sometimes thousands of dollars in unexpected charge working with private sector, public and nonprofit partners we developed a small business cyber planner to help small businesses guard against cyber attacks which are estimated to cost small businesses who are targeted an average of $200,000 in damages for each attack. our work on cyber security continues, and i'm hopeful that working with private and public stake holders

on our advisory committee will promote greater security in our communications networks. i'd like to highlight not only what the fcc has accomplished, but how we conduct our work. the fcc is committed to smart responsible government we've taken significant steps to modernize our programs and ensure they're efficient and fiscally responsible saving billions of dollars. usf i mentioned in carrier compensation, lifeline, video relay service. in each case, these are examples of modernized programs whose reforms are collectively yielding hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savial in addition to our programmatic changes, we have reviewed rules and processes asking touge sure agency is operating efficiently and effectively. in connection with this review we've eliminated more than 200 outdated rules and five unnecessary data collections. we've identified two dozen more data collections for elimination. internal reforms like consolidated i.t. maintenance and new financial system has saved the agency millions of dollars. we've done everything i've

listed and more with the lowest number of full-time employees at the fcc in ten years. maximizing the ability of 21st communications technology to deliver value to the american people and in a smart and responsible way. that's the fcc's record for the past three years and that's our plan for ahead as reflected in our 2013 requested budget. to implement our responsibilities under the communications act, the budget requested a 2% increase oesh the previous year. from about $339 million to $337 million. this proposal is essentially flat for inflation -- adjusted for inflation. as in previous years the amount will be derived entirely from fee collections. the budget includes a few small new initiative, primarily technology investments designed to savemond and public safety investments aimed at saving lives. the budget provides a flat number of full-time employees which represents the lowest number of ftes in ten years. the number of -- excuse me --