parents, worked with the education department to the extent that we can resolve these issues through better technology in the hands of more parents, that would be preferable and should work better than other courses of action. >> mr. mcdowell, did you have anything to add to that, to the child safe viewing act? >> no, i think he's done a great job. he's on a roll. you mentioned the -- the cvaa. 21st century disability act. the commission is what, halfway through or maybe more in trying implement that? >> that's about right and hitting our targets and will continue to do that. >> one of the commissioners helped on, basically, it has the -- has the commission taken steps to get the clearinghouse established yet? >> i don't remember. commissioner rosenworcel -- >> i believe it's underway, but

certainly we will make sure that that continues. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back my time but i do have other questions for the record. >> i understand. thank you. >> thank you, senator pryor, senator cantwell? >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman genachowski, we spoke last week about several issues, enforcement action on the declaratory order on call completion to make sure that's being taken seriously. about phantom traffic and how we can get the inclusion of carrier identification close to close the loophole, find a solution. the implementation from the local community radio act and so i'm optimistic we will be seeing low powered fm stations in the near future or by the end of the year i should say, but we spent a lot of time talking about the media over ship -- ownership role and cross-ownership. i've expressed my disappointment where the commission is when released in december.

seems to be the habit. then congress is gone. oops. where's congress' ability to raise objections on this. i'm curious. because the martin rule that came out, this is very, very similar, had 28 senators including senators obama and biden co-sponsored a resolution of disapproval that subsequently passed the senate. what has changed that you think is going to convince me and my colleagues that the martin rule and now the genachowski rule from four years ago is simply okay? to follow-up, too, on that, when you are looking at that public interest standards, why did you look across media ownership rules in the top 20 markets versus the top 10 or the top 30 and so -- just because i'm trying to get it all in for the chairman here. >> good. i'll keep my answer brief. senator, you've been strong and consistent on these issues, and the views that you're expressing have been expressed by others in

the record. the proceeding is still open and reviewing the record and we recognize the conviction that you have on these issues and all of these arguments will be taken into account as we move from the notice to an order. >> well i would encourage you to come to seattle as a previous commission did and encourage you to really pay attention that many members of congress passed, the senate passed, the disapproval of the very thing you're thinking about issuing again. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator warner, then -- >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'll try to be brief so we can get in before the vote. the spectrum, one of the things i would point out, i think commissioner mcdowell said 55% owned by the federal government. we still haven't -- we have a bipartisan bill to do a spectrum inventory. we won't know how to reallocate or nudge or federal partners unless we have that full inventory. unfortunately, we've had some parts of the administration pull

back on that. i think it is essential to us. senator wicker just coming in at this point, talking about the spectrum inventory bill. it's an important step to move forward. i've been concerned with mtia's approach on some of the government spectrum about spectrum sharing as opposed to sharing. full relow indication. it's my understanding you are working on something innovative with mtia and the private sector that might allow a more official use of spectrum sharing. do you want to comment? >> two things. one, spectrum sharing is important opportunity. not reallocation, that's inefficiently used by government. in some cases it may be more effective to have sharing to, for example, auction a license, but protect particular areas around the country where there is a use where it's very expensive to move.

so t-mobile with support of the wireless industry filed an application for an experiment's license to conduct tests around a military base. we're very supportive of that to identify the base to move forward and free it up quickly. >> i would commend you to move forward on that and again recognize with one of the senators here i would add i really support the efforts you've done in usf reform. clearly, there is going to be, i was -- curious with your answer that said, none of the fixed rate return players will see a decrease. i'm sure how that all happens on a going forward basis, since we're re-doing the formula, but i -- i do think that getting these dollars out towards

broadband towards the 18 million unserved americans and really appreciated the fact that you all are working together and i hope we won't have, there will be many efforts to try to delay that. while we may hear from certain, we don't flare an organized fashion from the 18 million americans who don't have broadband so godspeed. thank you. >> senator? >> thank you, chairman. chairman genachowski, we talked a lot about the spectrum being held by the government right now. i just want to the ask you about a particular band. 1755 to 1780 which you commented on your opening statement, and my question to you is, as we go forward to repurpose that spectrum, how is the pentagon being included in this to protect our national security interests and how can we ensure it's an open and transparent process so that all stakeholders can weigh in so we handle it properly? >> the ntia represents all of the federal agencies in the process. we coordinate with ntia and

speak with the military agencies. of course i agree it's important to make sure anything that happens in this area protects the needs of the military, but as others pointed out, there's wide agreement that there's inefficient spectrum use on the part of the federal government and it's in all of our interests to address those and move forward to free up spectrum. >> and has the pentagon expressed any concerns about how you're moving forward with that band? >> my understanding, there's real interest in this idea of sharing mechanism for that band that would free up significant spectrum for commercial users in options soon and preserving the military's ability to use that in the limited area where it needs it. >> i quickly want to jump in on the universal service fund, because you know, it's the usf fund. certainly we all have different viewpoints on it, and new hampshire in the last data out, 2009, is donor state, $25 million. so i commend you on the reform, and i do think it's important that you're slowing the growth of the money that's being held in the fund. so i think that the more we can get the money out it's

important, but even donor states like new hampshire have rural areas that aren't, don't have broadband access. how do i continue to ensure my constituents with reforms being made that as a donor state, that that is going to be addressed in a better way for the return or investment for my constituents? >> look forward to working with you. our uniformed goal, joint goal is to make sure that unserved americans everywhere including new hampshire get the benefits of the money that goes into this fund. so if you're an unserved american, our commitment is in the years ahead, this money will be use efficiently to provide service to you and not wasted where it's not needed. >> great. real quick, you only have data from 2009 by each state. we've been trying to get data from you for 2010 and '11 for each state-by-state breakdown. i hope you'll get it out soon so everyone can see what it means in each of the states and what they're contributing or not contributing. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you senator. the vote is in process, senator wicker, you're free to ask a question, but you'll also be chairing the hearing. >> thank you, and shall i adjourn to them? thank you. >> let me ask if you will be willing to answer questions, also, that we didn't get the chance to ask for the second round? >> of course. >> i have a couple. >> oh, yes. >> i appreciate you accommodating me. we'll report the bill to the full senate in your absence, mr. chairman. chairman genachowski, thank you for sticking around. we all have full schedules this afternoon, and i'm sorry i haven't been here for most of the time. you know i've advocated device interoperability along with a number of competitive wireless

carriers operating in the united states. so let me commend you for moving to a notice of proposed rulemaking, addressing the prospect of interoperability in the lower 700 megahertz band. of course, this is only a step. so if you could, tell us what is the status of this notice and when do you expect the fcc to take final action on the issue? >> we're taking this seriously and we appreciate your, your urging in this regard, interoperability is a real issue for the smaller carriers that have that a-block spectrum. there are interference issues that came up and we're working with stakeholders to analyze and determine if there's a way to address them. ultimately to make sure that all the carriers who have spectrum in that band have the ability to use it and get devices for their consumers. >> okay.

now, how is that process going? because i'm, what i'm trying to get is the timeline. >> i -- if i could respond in writing to that. i don't remember whether the proceeding is still open or not, but our intention is to move quickly because it's a real issue in the marketplace for the carriers that have the spectrum. >> well, good, then. if you could take that, for the record, and give me a specific answer on when you expect to the take final action. that would be terrific. and let me just ask this to commissioner mcdowell. about the -- the universal service fund and relief mechanisms. the last time the committee addressed this issue, i said the fcc needed to focus on broadband availability while reigning in costs and being responsive to

the unique needs of rural america, which most of my state compromises. not all of my colleagues agreed with every aspect of the order, particularly the funding dedicated to wireless service. and i share that concern. however, i believe the commission took an important and necessary first step. i urge the fcc to move forward on the second part of usf reform, focusing on the contribution to ensure that we complete modernization of usf. however, i do understand that some companies will have growing pains during this transition. it's my understanding that part of the usf order includes several relief mechanisms for those who believe that reform will have an adverse effect, adverse impact on their businesses. so are you in a position today to elaborate on those relief mechanisms, mr. mcdowell? >> i believe you're speaking about the waiver process at the

fcc. >> all right. >> and we had an interesting dialogue earlier regarding that. we do, we're taking this very seriously. we want to make sure that the waiver applications are as detailed as possible. so we truly understand what the hardships may or may not be for the applicants. we also want to keep it as streamlined as possible. this is a work in process, and we hope to be able to refine our process going forward, and learn a lot as we go. >> the process proceeding. >> i think it's proceeding fine thus far and we will make determinations as quickly as possible. on those waiver applications. >> well, thank you very much. and i appreciate folks sticking around. i look to counsel, to see if there's magic words i need to say. do i need to adjourn the hearing or -- >> this is the most power i've had in quite a while. if there's no objection from the

other members of the committee, we'll keep the record open for two weeks. hear nothing objection -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. up next on c-span3, radio and tv talk show host ed schultz talks about the 2012 campaign. then the chief economist for citigroup weighs in on the global economy. and later, a meeting on u.s./russia relations. the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck japan in 2011, washed nearly 5 tons of debris into the pacific ocean. some of that debris has reached the u.s. and canadian shores

with much more expected. tomorrow, officials from the coast guard and noaa will testify about the u.s. response to this growing problem. live coverage starts at 10:30 eastern here on c-span3. >> when immigrants start to show up in significant numbers which is somewhat the case in the 1820s and 1830s, but really very much the case in the 1840s and afterwards, they're showing up in a political environment in which they're already qualified to vote as soon as they become citizens. to give you a sense of the kind of politics we're talking about, this is an image around election time or just after election time. it shows a saloon and polling place. if you wanted to vote, you can see the doorway all the way in the back, you had you to go in there to vote. >> this weekend on leake tours in history, from muncie, indiana, james conley examines immigration, voting and the roots of pluralism in the united

states. saturday night at 8:00 eastern. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> now, radio and tv talk show host ed schultz talks about the 2012 campaign, gay marriage and the recent trading losses at jpmorgan, from washington journal this is 45 minutes. >> ed schultz' radio and tv talk show host, is joining us today. >> good evening it's nice to be here by way of las lasz. >> through pen. we want to talk to you about campaign 2012, the progressive vote, and where things are headed. let's start off about this new york times poll done on president obama's stafrns on gay marriage. a majority of americans think he was politically motivated. >> i think the climate is so toxic, it's easy to say that, it's easy to think it. the big measurement is going to

be election day. if president obama wins re-election, he's going to be viewed as someone who took an historic and brave stance on marriage equality. if president obama loses, then the critics will be out and about saying they should have never gone down that road. it's about the election, but i think personally for president obama he has evolved. and i take him at his word. i think that obviously the gay community in america is very influential. they're getting politically stronger all the time. in business they're very strong, and they can raise money. and so i think that president obama made a personal and moral choice on this. he's proven in the past he can raise money, i don't think he did it for the money, i think it's a beneficiary of it, no question about it, but the final

judgment politically is going to be election day. all of that will be weighed into it, i think that when you look at what president obama campaigned on, don't ask/don't tell. he delivered. he didn't do it right away, but he did what he said he was going to do. said he was going to get us out of iraq, he did that, and that was no easy lift. and he told the gay community officer the years that society is changing, views are changing, and this is a pivotal move i think for america, and it was the correct move to make. >> there's a story in the washington times this week, that he's planning to stay mum on the doma acts and whether or not that should be repealed. another piece if the wall street journal looks at how this might affect some contentious senate races. john tester supports civil unions isn't going as far as calling for gay marriage. some democrats are keeping their

distance as the party tries to hold on to the senate chamber, do you think this will cost the president votes in swing states? >> it may. it may cost him some votes, there may be a political upside as well. so this discussion is going to go on all the way until election day. it's a courageous stand. and it's a stand that is not an easy one to take. and that's why a lot of rural senators don't do it. rural america sometimes comes around a little bit slower than more of the highly populated areas of the country. but that doesn't mean they're not going to eventually get there. marriage equality is a big issue. it's a little issue as well. inequality in our country is something that is not going to be tolerated. i think that generationally speaking, as we evolve, it was the right move. every senator is going to have

to make their own determination, are they going to do what the people want or they want. >> you've been heavily involved in the recall election in wisconsin doing broadcasts from there, following that issue closely. do you think this think this is bellwether moment for unions? and if governor scott walker, the republican, is able to retain his seat, what does it say about the political climate in america? >> you know, libby, this is really a test case for citizens united. i think that the country is watching wisconsin. and it's hard to watch a story unfold for 16 months, but this is a state that has been through protests, been through recalls, nine recall elections. the democrats have won five. they have met every benchmark to get to this point. and walker has done what he has had to do. and he has developed a war chest to defend his office. and he has dunn it under the guise of citizens united. he has outspent the democrats 20-1. so we're going to find out if it's corporate money or the people who are going to win out.

this is now a battle to get out the vote. and i think the democrats are a little frustrated right now about some national help that they could use, and that will all work itself out. but i really believe that this is a test case for citizens united. can money win over the people's choice? i mean, can money influence people to the point where a guy who is involved in a john doe investigation, a guy who has the worst job record in the country, a guy who has seen six of his associates be brought up on charges. he's got a legal defense fund. there are a lot of things swirling around this governor. if it were any governor, i mean just any governor, any state being involved in these circumstances, it would be politically an untenable situation to be in. but the fact is the money that is pouring into wisconsin is

helping save this governor. he leads in the polls by five percentage points. i think it's going to be important for the democrats not to lose their faith and to do what they have to do, and just realize that sometimes when there is so much money floating around, anybody can buy a pole. the democrats are -- and the independents are going to have to belief that change is going to be good for them. look, i just think that this election in wisconsin, this recall, it's only the third time in american history. there was a governor in the 1920s that was recalled in north dakota. and of course gray davis in california. this is only the third time in american history. i think it's one for the archives. it has all the ingredients of the political twists that i think people are interested in. >> a story relating to the financing. wisconsin democrats are furious with the dnc for refusing to invest big money in the walker recall. >> well, we reported this story. the plum line got it. greg sergeant got it a few weeks ago. we put it on tv for two nights in a row, and now it seems to be in the mainstream media all

over. it's a big story. wisconsin is a big state for president obama. and the one thing about the republicans, they're in it to win it. they have the republican governor's association. they have the super pacs working. they have the koch brothers working, adelson, a lot of outside influence coming into wisconsin because they view this as a benchmark issue to attack collective bargaining, go after labor, and of course go after the public sector. and to reduce expensives. because the resources aren't coming to the states from the federal government because we've spent all our money on two wars, big pharma, and tax cuts. it's a fact. so this is -- this is a very pivotal moment. i think the democrats nationally are making a serious political miscalculation if they don't resource the effort. and a lot of people talk, well,

this is about unions. well, it's a component. but it's not the issue. because mr. barrett, the mayor of milwaukee, did not have union support. kathleen falk from madison had the union support. and as soon as the primary was held last week, they quickly turned and said okay, we're going to support mr. barrett. the unions didn't get what they wanted. they didn't get the candidate that they wanted. but obviously they don't want scott walker. so we'll see how it all plays out. >> if you would like to talk with ed schultz here, call. independent callers 202-628-0205. let's get to the calls and hear from roger, the democrats' line in waterloo, iowa. hi, roger. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: thank you for c-span. >> thank you for calling in. >> caller: mr. schultz, i've watched your show quite a bit. i'm a big fan. i've always wondered, during the

bush years when they were putting all these unfunded money against these wars, i don't believe they paid a dime on any of it yet. who do you suppose the interest alone on all that adds up to? >> well, we're going to be paying for iraq and afghanistan for generations to come. but i think that the country needs to realize right now whether it's president obama or whether it's someone else in the white house, the fact is that spending is down. the deficit is down, and taxes are lower. i mean, that's a fact. it just so happens that president obama is in the office, and this is what is happening. maybe his policies are working. 26 months of private sector job growth. under the issue of dealing with spending and the deficit, to my

recollection, president obama said let's go big. he was willing to take the big three -- medicare, medicaid and social security and say okay, we'll rearrange it, but let's go big. and the republicans said, well, no, we're not going to do that. you can say that the president was politically called on his bluff. this president has tried to do something about the spending. the spending is down, the deficit is down and taxes are lower. wall street in march of 2009 was in the 6,000s. look where it is today. so there are some good things that have happened. but whether it's president obama mopping it up or anybody else, the next president is going to have to deal with the war costs too. if mitt romney wins election in this country, the iraq expenses aren't going to go away. the afghanistan expenses aren't going to go away. the sequence of protecting this country isn't going to go away. so it comes down to an ideological bent on how exactly you want to pay for all of this stuff.

so the president has been obstructed to a record amount, over 190 filibusters. that's a fact. that's a number. whether it's president obama or anybody else, that's what is happening in congress. it's been total obstruction. so this is what your tax dollars are going to. two parties that somehow just can't come together, and one president who has thrown -- if you look at it, president obama has thrown just about everything on the table. >> our host is ed schultz. also on radio, the ed schultz show which is on 12:00 to 3:00 eastern time. he is a veteran of 30 years in broadcasting. paul is up next, a republican in petros, tennessee. good morning. >> caller: good morning. mr. schultz, i feel like i'm talking to the mouthpiece of harry reid here. i hope your host will give me a minute. i want to tell you about me and my family. we are all disabled coal miners. my daddy was a coal miner all of

his life and ended up working for nothing. what we got in this office right now is a man who said he can fix this thing in one year. he knew what he had. he knew he could fix it in one year, okay. he said if he couldn't fix it in three years, it would be a one-term proposition. this guy is sitting here telling the world that spending is down when his party passes budget. the senate hasn't passed a budget in three years, running everything through appropriations, spending out the yazoo, more than all the other presidents combined. and this guy sitting here telling us this guy is going to win the election. probably enough stupid people to vote for him again. and if they do, i hope they get a belly full. >> all right. let's get a response from the guest. >> well, it really wasn't a question there, it was a statement. and i understand his frustration. there is a lot of people in the country that feel frustrated. but we are making progress. i think that we need to realize from a historical perspective

just how close we were to losing our entire financial system. president obama was handed something. the country was handed something that was historic. you would have to go back to the great depression to compare it. so it's going to take time. along the lines of healing, there is going to be some frustration. it's going to take time to do it. i go back to what i just said a moment ago. when president obama got in, the republicans made a concerted effort as a strategy that they were not going to allow anything to proceed. they went along with constant obstruction. and so they have played that strategy out, and i don't think it's helped the country at all. i think the gentleman from tennessee who is a coal miner, who is a laborer, i think that you will see that there is one party, the democrats, who are in favor of labor, who are