conspiracy theory, you're overlooking the stipulated fact that the irs conducted misconduct here and i think we're missing what we should truly be going after. can you suggest what we should be doing? any of the witnesses here in terms of getting to the bottom of this? getting to the irs misconduct? >> witnesses, if someone wants to respond, great. if not, we'll move to our next -- >> okay. that's great. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you. i appreciate mr. lynch's statements that this was wrongdoing and misconduct. the issue we have that we're all struggling with, which is how mr. lynch ended his question, is what do you do to pursue that wrongdoing and misconduct? we're still sitting here without a complete understanding of the basics of an investigation which are who, what, when, where. everybody knows the four "w"s, who, what, when, where, and we know the missing e-mails in part thwart the ability to complete

that story as also is included miss lerner's failure to willingly testify before this committee. i'm going to put all that aside for a second. miss o'connor, you're white house counsel. i'm a lawyer, you're a lawyer. i want to step away from the irs problem and investigation for a minute and just have a comparative discussion because i think in the responses there may be some misunderstanding with respect to the independent -- the treasury inspector general for tax administration and i'd like to talk to you a minute about their powers. not with the irs, but just in general. i'd like to compare the powers of the treasury inspector general for tax administration with the fbi because one of the things we heard from the commissioner yesterday is, we're going to do -- the inspector general is going to do an investigation, and that is probably a good thing. there are many who don't believe it's enough, but you and i having a discussion on a

comparative just of authority and powers perhaps can let other people decide whether or not that's sufficient investigation or whether additional investigation needs to be undertaken. so let's just talk about the inspector general and the fbi. the inspector general's mission statement is that they were staeshed under the irs restructuring and reform act to provide independent oversight of irs activities. they promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the administration of the internal revenue laws. it is committed to the prevention and detection of fraud, waste, and abuse within the irs. the department of justice says the fbi includes upholding and enforcing criminal laws of the united states. pretty big distinction. so let's go down with some of those powers because the fbi is involved in criminal investigations and the inspector general is involved in internal investigations and the fbi -- excuse me, in the irs. we give them different powers. let's go over some of those. now, the inspector general does not have the ability to compel people to testify outside of the

irs, isn't that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> the fbi does, correct? >> yes. >> yes. so when the inspector general undertakes an investigation of the irs, they're only going to be able to interview those people that are there, only the people at the irs are the only ones they can compel to testify. if there's somebody outside the irs who may have been involved or have information about it, the inspector general falls short, doesn't have the ability to do that. they can't even do that krpt to contractors. so when people say the ig is doing an investigation, it's not the same. let's go to another one. the ig doesn't have the ability to arrest anybody, right? >> so i actually -- i want to be helpful but i'm not an expert in thei g -- yew knou know the ig arrest -- >> the five things i'm going to ask you are basic comparatives. the ig cannot arrest subsomeone.

>> i trust what you're saying. >> we know the fbi can. >> yes. >> warrant. the ig cannot execute a warrant. the fbi does. the difference is the fbi can seize things where the inspector general has to request them like we do and ask for things to be delivered to them. so the fbi can actually go in and take hard drives and take materials that could lead them to an investigation. the ig is in a responsive or requesting mode. subpoena power. again, the ig has that but only of treasury employees. the fbi, as you'll agree, the fbi can subpoena anybody who is relevant to the investigation, right? >> yes. >> okay. the issue we have here is when people say, well, we are doing an investigation, the ig is doing an investigation, you and i can agree it's not the same type of investigation the fbi would do and the fbi's mission is enforcing the criminal laws of the united states, and as you know and as mr. lynch was saying, the concern that people

have of this wrongdoing and misconduct is perhaps a law was broken. now, if you're going to do a criminal investigation, wouldn't you agree that the fbi is the one that should be doing a criminal investigation versus the ig? >> so my -- >> i'm not talking about the irs. just in general. come with me on the issue of just in general. you have a criminal investigation and you are the white house counsel, do you assign that to an inspector general or to the fbi? where would you put that as an attorney? >> my understanding of the situation here is that -- >> we're not on the situation here. i'm saying if there's a criminal matter and you are assigning it, do you assign it to an ig or the fbi? you'd give it to the fbi, right? >> i recall when i was at the irs that the ig had a number of deputies, one of whom was his deputy for investigations. >> i'm certain they are competent people but they are limited in their investigate of powers and the scope they are

given is not the scope we gave the fbi. we don't need five fbis. so wouldn't you agree that if there's a criminal matter, you wouldn't choose the ig, you'd choose the fbi. >> if the matter is what happened to a laptop within -- >> i'm not asking your opinion on this matter. just criminal. it belongs in the fbi. the ig has very limited powers. they should not be the sole source of this investigative authority. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. davis is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. o'connor, let me continue with the focus of your work during your tenure at the irs because supposedly that's the reason you were subpoenaed to testify here today. when were you hired by the innertenial revenue service? >> may 30th of 2013. >> and it is my understanding that you had a role in assistant

acting commissioner werfel into irs employees handling of applications for tax exempt status. is that correct? >> yes. >> and according to an august 2nd, 2013 letter from mr. werfel to this committee, that would be back when you were still there. the internal revenue service went to extraordinary length to cooperate with congress. the letter explains that the irs dedicate dedicated more than 100 employees were working diligently to gather documents, review them and protect the taxpayer specific information in them as required by law. is that correct, and if so, did you have a role in setting up

that process? >> i had a role in advising and helping the people who were engaged in that process, yes. >> well, thank you. mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent to enter this august 2nd, 2013 irs letter into the record. >> so ordered. >> when the irs set up the process, what was the goal? >> the goal was to get as much information as congress and other -- the four different committees and other investigators such as the ig to get them what they needed to be able to conduct their investigations and to do it accurately and with care with regard to the redactions and as quickly as we could. >> there appeared to be a lot of confusion about why the irs did not discover the lot st e-mails earlier. let's see if we can clear that

up. it is my understanding that it was congress, not the internal revenue service, that prioritized what documents you searched for and congress, not the irs, that provided the search terms. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> well, in addition to using congress' search terms, what did the irs do to further facilitate the production of documents? >> among the things the irs did was to ask lawyers and other staff people who were dedicated to things like implementing the tax laws and enforcing them to put aside their jobs and work full time to review documents. the irs increased the i.t. resources to the effort, bought servers, got additional i.t. resources in order to stabilize a very large system.

we also -- i personally and mr. werfel as well, met with and talked with the staff of the investigative committees who, in addition to saying who the employees were, whose material they wanted and which search terms they were interested in, they also had very specific requests for certain types of documents. i'd like the training tomorrows, you kn materials from this period of time. we worked hard to satisfy those one-off requests as well as getting to everybody. the large body of material that was sought. and at the time at which i left, more than 400,000 pages of material, i think, had been produced. and i've read in the media that they've produced nearly three quarter million of pages of material. it's a lot of material. and to have been able to produce in that period of time, i think reflects a very serious effort to be able to provide what the committees were seeking in a

speedy fashion. >> let me ask you, how do you respond to allegations from republican members of congress that you were part some of irs plot to obstruct congress? >> well, it's not at all true. and i thing record of the irs while i was there and since then reflects very, very hard work and diligence at providing the colors that the investigating committees were seeking to them. >> my time is up. i thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> we now go to the gentle lady from wyoming. ms. loomis, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opined that we're getting a little off base about the attention that we're focusing in

this investigation so i'd like to focus back on some of my concern concerns about the failure of lois lerner to testify, her failure to testify truthfully about whether she broke no laws, whether she violated no rules and whether she did nothing wro wrong. my concern is if someone can come before this committee and say that and then assert their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and then subsequently, this committee finds that their own e-mails refute the fact that she did nothing wrong and that she violated no laws, that we should be aggressive in trying to find those e-mails. we already have some of them, and some of those e-mails

suggest she was very actively involved in violating laws. we know that she gave confidential taxpayer information to another agency. and that that violates the law. we know that she specifically, while saying that it was rogue agents in cincinnati who were involved in this, was actively involved herself in looking at, for example, crossroads gps, which is a karl rove-linked organization. karl rove being one of the agitators that the political left most dislikes. here "the wall street journal" editorial board writes ms. lerner twice refused to testify before congress. wilkins claimed 80 times he couldn't recall events and subsequently it goes on to

explain that the most troubling new evidence or documents showing that ms. lerner actively corresponded with liberal campaign finance group democracy 21 and the campaign legal center, which had asked the irs to investigate if conservative groups, including crossroads gps were violating their tax-exempt status. after personally meeting with the two liberal outfits, ms. lerner contacted the director of the exempt organizations examination unit in dallas to ask why crossroads had not been audited. i believe that ms. lerner was appropriately held in contempt of congress. i, quite frankly, believe that ms. lerner should be tried for her violations, and that she should become an example that's held up to federal employees and especially employees in the irs who violate the rights of americans in their role and

capacity as public servants. and that is why i'm interested in knowing why her e-mails are not all of her e-mails are not available. that's why i want to know why we find out just now that her e-mail crashed. so i believe that this investigation is on the right track. it's perfectly legitimate. and i'm of the opinion that this inquiry is well placed. you know, every single night the university of wyoming backs up every e-mail for the entire state of wyoming. n every night the state of wyoming backs up every e-mail for the university of wyoming. along with their own. so they not only have a backup system. they back up each other so there's a redundant backup

system for all the e-mails in the wyoming state government and the university of wyoming because they are reciprocating with each other. why that kind of thing isn't happening in an agency like the irs where people are relying on the veracity of what's going on there to get consistent, clear rules and regs, interpretation, guidance to taxpayers and fair treatment of the people of this country is beyond me. now here's my question. ms. o'connor, during your time, so far in the white house, have you been aware of any instances of the white house reviewing documents requested by congress under the guise of white house equities? >> as i explained earlier, and i'm not sure if you were here yet, i came today to be able to answer questions about my time in the irs. the six months that i was there, which is what the charm's letter

to me said that this hearing would be about. and so i'm not prepared to talk about my other experiences today. >> now if we were to subpoena you and ask you to talk about whether you were aware of any instances of the white house reviewing documents under the guise of white house equities, would you come back and answer that specific question? >> well, i've been here for a long time today, but what i would say about the issue of questions about the white house, i'm happy to work with you and the staff to see if we can accommodate and provide some of the information or what we can do. i'm happy to provide that kind of assistance to support legitimate oversight inquiries. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. cummings, do you have anything further? >> i have nothing further.

>> i am going to close, but you may close first. >> let me ask you something, ms. o'connor. going back to some of mr. goudy's questions, and i was sitting here trying to figure this out, you -- i take it that you went to -- you said the search terms were given to you by the committees. is that right? >> yes. >> so mr. goudy made a big deal that maybe you shouldn't have used search terms. you should have just said from and to. i assume, and correct me if i'm wrong, i take it that what you were trying to do, you all were trying to do was to get the relevant documents out first? is that how that works? in other words, because you had 6103 issues, you had to go through the documents. i take it that how did it come about that you even got the committees to even be giving you

search terms? you follow what i'm saying? >> i do. the volume of material, what i recall was there were 82 or 83 employees. and the way the irs went about collecting their material was just to pull all of their e-mails on whatever computer they had. and from employee to employee, that was massive. and because of 6103, which is the law that requires the irs to protect taxpayer information and, therefore in this instance, to redact taxpayer information, every scrap of that information would have to be reviewed before it's produced. and that would take a very, very long time. and in order to make it much more efficient and to get you the documents about the subjected issue, the tax exempt organizations and their screening process and how applications were processed, we said to the committees if you can tell us the terms you want us to use, we will zero in on the material in v get you the material about the tax exempt

organization process. our staffs were very cooperative and -- >> the staff knew what was going on. they knew what was going on there. and you were trying to get the information out as fast as you could that the committees wanted. is that right? >> yes. >> so when you get that -- let's say, for example, you used the search terms. you cull out the search term e-mails, what happens with the ones that are left? so you are trying to get them out. so you -- but you still have some left that might very well have information in them that the committee would be interested in. and a lot has been made of making sure that we got all of the e-mails. what happens? do they go back then and look at those? you follow what i'm saying? >> so when i left the irs, we were still producing the rolling productions of documents that had been culled through the search term process. and i don't know other than from

what i've seen in the media what exactly they did after i left. but my understanding from what i've read is that they pulled at least ms. lerner's and i don't know if other people's from the initial set that hadn't hit the search terms in order to provide them to the committees. >> but do you know whether that was the plan to go back and pick up the ones you may not have gotten at the beginning? you follow me? after the initial search term? >> at the point at which i left which was midstream, the plan was to continue complying with the subpoenas. a lot of decisions were being made day-to-day, what's next. but the intent was to continue to comply with the subpoena. >> thank you. mr. ferrio. this whole thing of 2000 computers crashing, we're in trouble, aren't we? it's 2,000 so far this year.

>> as i said earlier, the state of technology in the federal government is not where it should be. >> but, i mean, that's a light weight description. sounds like we're in the dark ages. i'm not trying to be funny. if you have got computers crashing, 2,000, and we're only half a year and there was something that was interest ent -- entered in the record not long ago about services for repair of computers, services not being needed, and apparently said something about not delivered. there's one thing to have the money. another to spend the money effectively and efficiently. for what you've seen, are we spending the money effectively and efficiently in these various agencies, including irs, or do we need to do something differently? >> i think we're on the right

track. we have for the first time have the cio, council and records management council working together on solutions. we've engaged the agency in developing new tools to help the agencies do their work more efficiently. so we're on the right track. and from what i just heard about your support for increased funding for i.t., that makes me very optimistic. >> i want to thank you all for being here. >> thank you. i now want to correct the record as best i can. i know mr. lynch will not agree with this. but he cited a number of reports august 19th, 2013, in a follow-up report. and i just want to make it clear, our comprehensive staff report of april 7th, 2014, debunking the myth that the irs targeted progressive groups

stands for itself and it comes after these earlier questions. i know none of you are here for the core question of -- >> mr. chairman -- >> i'll let you go. go ahead. >> it's my time. the core questions of who was targeted. so we're going to leave that aside and let the report speak for itself. i think the paper record is fine. >> i actually asked a witness, though, mr. chairman. i derived that information from a witness using the documents there. i wasn't relying on the documents alone. i had independent, you know reassurance from the witness what the document indicated. that's why i used it. >> from ms. o'connor? >> yes. >> somebody who had absolutely nothing to do with the underlying investigation. >> no, she was actually there when the witnesses from the irs came forward n said they had targeted progressive groups. that was her testimony.

>> okay. i'll reset the time. i'll ask unanimous consent i start over then. ms. o'connor, what is your independent knowledge that progressive groups were targeted and treated unfairly by the people in cincinnati, lois lerner or others in washington? >> so i now can't remember the exact question, but -- >> that's my question. >> but the bolo spreadsheets had progressive and other terms on them that reflected progressive organizations. >> isn't it true they had the couple of terms that might have done it in another section and when they looked for reconstituted acorn, that was a criminal enterprise, an entity that went out of business because it was found to have committed crimes? is that really the same as looking at all tea party patriots? now i'll ask you the question again, not a rhetorical question that we know the answer to. what treatment are you aware of to progress any progressive group that gave them unfair

questions, hauled them over the coals as to who their donors were, whether anyone in their organization intended to run for political offices or any of that treatment that has been specified as what conservative groups went through? what is your knowledge of that? >> so my knowledge is limited, and i want to make that clear. >> what is your firsthand knowledge of any of that? >> my only firsthand knowledge of it is the fact that i did see some of the e-mails, and not all of them produced in the period of time when i was at the irs and the e-mail production was not complete obviously. i didn't conduct an -- >> so you have no personal knowledge of abuse of progressive groups or liberal groups at all. studies have shown there were a number of names that came up that were not all conservative patriot groups. but the unfair treatment of these groups, the two years and more of withholding their approval granting them either a yes or a no, do you have any

knowledge of that treatment or mistreatment occurring to any progressive or left leaning group? >> my knowledge is not direct from being there. i saw some of the e-mails -- >> i want to make sure your answer is no. you do not have -- >> the title of the report that you -- >> wait a second. this is my time. if you have a point -- does the gentleman have a question? >> what's the title of your report? it says you are debunking the myth of progressives being targeted. >> i just stopped the clock to let him go as long as he wants. >> my line of questioning was to counter the assertion in your report and the timt of your report at progressives were not targeted. the questions to the witness indicated that progressive search terms and bolos were used to target progressive groups. that's the simple point i was trying to make. i think it's relevant and admissible. that's all. >> steve, i appreciate that.

but as you know there was a -- there were additional names added sort of after the jig was up that brought additional names, progressive names in. but no evidence has been found of their being unfairly treated, which is different than a search term. we've never -- >> they're targeted, though. >> targeted -- >> they are going out targeting -- >> it is relevant in both cases of the irs intent, which is to go after certain people with -- >> lois lerner's intent has been well demonstrated in over 1,000 pages of multiple reports. >> and it includes these progressive names at all. >> lois lerner's internity wnt overturn citizens united, and her e-mails show that. we have the president shaking his fist at citizens united and then her saying in public statements that they want us to do it. they want us to do it. >> that's a characterization. >> no, those are her words. ms. o'connor, you have no first hand knowledge of mistreatment

of progressive groups, do you? >> all of my knowledge is based on having seen selection -- >> so written records provided to this committee would be the best for both sides to put out in their reports? >> written records and the records of the witnesses you've spoken with, yes. >> okay. now we called you here because, in fact, you were at the irs during the time in which a vast amount of documents were delivered pursuant to search terms. is that correct? >> i think you called me here because i was here -- i was there for six months during -- >> during the time vast amounts of documents were delivered pursuant to search terms. you've been testifying to that. i just want to set the stage. during that time in august, because in fact, we were getting voluminous amounts of documents based on search terms not of our choosing but of everyone's choosing. they just kept adding to it. and we were not getting -- and they were being prioritized. we were getting, quote,

progressive stuff seemingly first. and the minority was using it at hearings and so on. we knew lois lerner was beginning to irk merbegin ing to emerge as a key figure. item one on my subpoena said all documents on lois lerner, all her e-mails. did you have any question but that i was saying stop, at least as to this committee, both sides, stop bombarding us with documents that you -- your organization would constantly say we have given you 64,000. we've given you 64 million. and you never went and looked for them for the rest of your time. they were not safeguarded. it was not discovered they weren't there. we asked for lois lerner because she became a person of interest for being the center of the unfair treatment and the deliberate effort to overturn citizens united using the power of the irs.

so we issued a subpoena. that subpoena was very clear. we wanted all her e-mails while the irs continued to, as you said it, slowly go through these search terms, right? >> your subpoena asked for a number of things. >> the subpoena was much broader than that and --

>> senate dependence and ways and means have the ability to see all documents unredacted. did you send it to them in bulk? >> no. so you applied much of that $10 million worth of time and effort going through and selecting what to give. you never gave those documents in bulk to the 6103 entities allowed to receive it. had you given all of lois

nl millions of social security numbers of our veterans that were on a laptop that left, sis time to protect information. very clearly, no one knows what was on lois lerner's laptop that entered and left as a portable as i understand it or any of these others. the protections that we expect, the private sector to do, and we're handling a case where the ftc holds the private sector responsible if there's a loss of responsible information. we don't hold ourselves responsible for. so i'm delighted that you

accepted our subpoena. mr. ferrio, mr. webster, i'm even more delighted you are partners in trying to help us bring a level of accountable to the federal government to maintain the important records the american people have a right to. i look forward to follow-up investigations and follow-up legislation, including portions of mr. cumming's bill if we can find offsets for the cost of the bill so that we can, in fact, bring up the standards of the federal government and accountability. the american people right now do not believe or trust that, in fact, we're getting the honest answer from the irs. and much of it is based on not getting prompt answers to questions but much of it is based on the systematic failure to retain documents for a period of time that the american people assume the documents will always be kept at. i want to thank you. i believe this panel was unique in that it really had people

that you ordinarily wouldn't see next to each other, but it played well together for a problem we're dealing with and mr. ferrio, mr. webster, for a problem we're going to deal with for many years. i now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to say, i was listening to you -- first of all, i thank you for being here. mr. chairman, i'll be very brief. ms. o'connor, i know the irs employees are watching this. and i want them to know that we appreciate their efforts. when i listen to what you were saying, before committees and what you had to do. these employees are working very, very hard. i just want to thank them for what they do. and i know it is kind of difficult sometimes, and i know you are no longer there. they said they were working very, very long hours. hard hours trying to deal with various priorities, getting all kinds of information from staff and trying to balance all of

that. and i'm sure many of them have come under criticism, but i just want them to know, on behalf of our nation, we appreciate them. >> thank you. and there's always one more thing that arrives at the end of a hearing that gets into the record. and this one is from mr. cummings. hr-1234, his bill that's been mentioned several times, has a score by the congressional budget office of only $15 million for the entire government which says very clearly that in fact, the $10 million claimed last night by the commissioner would seem to be in excess cost compared to cbo's governmentwide score in order to meet mr. cumming's legislative initiative. so i look forward to working with the ranking member to try and, mr. ferrio to try to make this a reality. i guarantee we'll find the $15 million. and with that, we stand in recess.

a house hearing on the search for extra terrestrial life and ap interview from the international space station with commander steven swanson. that's all tonight starting at 8:00 eastern an our companion network c-span. here on c-span3, talks from the gettys burg college annual summer conference focusing on t war in 1864. a discussion on robert e. lee's strategy in 1864 followed by a look at ulysses s. grant for fighting the confederate forces. and later the sand creek massacre and john bell hood's tennessee campaign. american history tv in prime time begins tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span3 .

american history tv in prime time begins tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span3. up next, congressman john dingell of michigan on the lack of bipartisanship from the national press club. he talks about some of the changes he's seen during his neeshl 60-year congressional career from the growth and the size economists to a lack of compromise among members to pass legislation. this is about an hour. >> thank you for your gracious introduction. and thank you all my dear friends for your kindness and such a gracious and gentle welcome. i hope that when this is finished that you will feel the

same way. i want to thank the press club for inviting me and for allowing me to bring so many of my friends here today. i am particularly pleased that my colleague jim is here today. stand up, jim. we're very proud of you. it has been a particular honor and privilege for me to serve with you. and he has been a role model for any and all. i also want to welcome and to recognize so many of my dear friends and former members of my staff who are here today. and i ask that all of you, whoever worked on behalf of the

people of southeast michigan or with me on the energy and commerce committee will you please stand and be recognized? there is a strange thing about my association with my staff. i have picked not only the most extraordinarily able, but also some of the finest and most loyal people whoever drew a breath. i am proud of you all and i am grateful that you would be here today and grateful indeed that you would be my friends. it is true. i've served in the house for nearly 60 years. and i've seen many things, good and bad, and much change. i've had the privilege of

watching washington change from a little town in the woods to an institution -- rather to a major city of international proportions. and i have had the privilege of serving with, not under and not for 11 presidents. from eisenhower to obama. and i would observe that sam rayburn used to get very much touched off when people would ask how many presidents he had served under. i've had the privilege of casting some 25,000 votes. i've served alongside more than 2400 colleagues. and i have sat in the chamber of the house of representatives to witness some 51 state of the union speeches from all of the 11 presidents with whom i've

served. in my service, i have been able to author and to pass landmark legislation that helped to protect the environment and ensure civil rights for all and to help our middle class to grw and prosper. and i am proud of what i have been able to do. i was thinking as i made by mind up whether i was going to run as to whether i should stay and serve and when the lovely deborah and i sit to talk about these things, we look to see and we have completed those things which my dad set out to do when he was here. and we've also been able to move forward to complete all of the goals which i had when i started out here. i want to make it clear, this is not to brag about my accomplishments. it is simply to show that there

was a time when congress could and did work. and when congress passed major legislation and earned bipartisan support to move the nation forward. where its business was done with hard fighting but also with good will and mutual respect. i want to make it clear, i did not do these things by myself. no man and no woman could. we did them with colleagues who were more interested in seeing this nation grow than to seeing it falter. people who were willing and able to put partisan labels on the shelf instead work for greater and common good, where the hallmark of those congresses. in those days, that was how it was. in these days, i often remind me colleagues of the very

definition of the word congress. it means a coming together. it means a body which has come together. and it is a part of the historic understandings that this country had when we had a congress which worked. sadly, however, it has not been doing much coming together lately. and i imagine that you have observed this also. this is not a congress that is working, but it could be. and, frankly, it should be. last year, we saw some 57 bills signed into law by the president. that's 57 total. we created as many laws as there are varieties of tyson's famous

products. perhaps that is the way we should name that congress. but do not get me wrong. getting things done does take time. i remember years ago, i brought up a set of bipartisan clean air amendments. it passed the house with a vote of 401-21. just 13 hours of work took the house to complete. folks came up to me afterwards and said, dingell, how in the name of common sense did you pass that bill in just 13 hours? i looked at them and i said, it took me 13 hours to get a bill that both sides agreed to on the floor. but it took me 13 years to do the work that made that

possible. that tells you how hard legislation is to do, and my former staff here, most of you newsmen and women and my good friend jim moran can testify to the difficulty of the process of compromise, of getting legislation with good will. one of the interesting things about the congress is the change. it's become in too many instances a money chase. it has become in too many instances an instance where it is the goal of members to have the name of a committee on their letterhead which draws and attracts attention and support politically. it is unfortunate indeed that this is so because the congress is an important national trust.

it is something where we have a duty to the people to do what is necessary in the i serve on one committee or served on one committee where i found that the number of members in the subcommittees exceeded the number of members on the full committee when i went on there. and it could go on and on as to how it's gotten so big as to be capable of carrying out it's responsibilities and it's functio functions. others are making things go badly. the supreme court decision allowed unlimited, anonymous or dark money to flow into our

political system. we have a court that has taken the most literal approach to so many of these important decisions that the consequences are beginning to have a very serious effect on not only democracy but the trust of people in their government and i regret to note that there are still more god awful cases rattling around or there at the supreme court that are almost certain to do more harm. any layman reading the citizens united decision will assume that surely this was in no way written by a group of intelligent individuals. [ applause ] >> or people even remotely aware

of what's going on in our current political structure. the decision flies in the face of so much of what our representative government was founded upon. allowing people to incorporate interest groups and others to spend an unlimited amount of unidentified money has enabled certain individuals to swing any and all elections whether they're congressional, federal, local, state, or whether they're votes about the creation of some kind of resolution of local

question and state initiatives and anything under the sun that will help them to get what it is they want. unfortunately and rarely are these having goals which are in line with those of the general public. history shows that there is a very selfish game that's going on and that there -- and that our government has largely been put up for sale. we have also had many in congress that wish to do nothing more than shrink the size. this without taking into account the veterans, the active duty

military, the countless others that rely on this government and our nation. and these people forget that there are even more than 300 million americans and that those 300 million americans and more are living in one of the most dangerous times in american history. many of my republican colleagues sign a pledge saying that they will carry out his goal to shrink government down to the size where we had drown it in the bathtub. these are his words. these are not my words. and so, with this pledge and similar tests these are only made worse by redistricting where a similar event has

occurred before to enable legislatures to be owned by the same special interests. we see state legislators draw and state legislatures draw congressional lines with small concern about protecting regional boundaries or any link of consideration for any part of the voting rights act which is, again, under attack. they operate simply in the interest and the making of majorities for one political party. and for achieving one particular set of views. as redistricting creates more and more safe seats we see members focus only on winning primaries, not about the public

interest and not about real discussion of the concerns that members have or that citizens have. the pledges are signed and they attempt to become the imagine of what their political party is or should be. it's a work product that equals their goals and facilitates their wishes. now, there is also no incentive to stick one's neck out and to compromise. it should be noted that many on both sides can only run further on the fiercely narrow and partisan fringes. a simple analysis will tell us that this does not help our

democracy. i have said before that i would be scared to bring up the ten commandments for a vote in the congress because i'm not sure they would pass. and i'm almost certain that they would have a vast number of amendments laid upon them. unfortunately i still am compelled to stand on the validity of that concern. we also now know that we have a congress that is decidedly begun writing policies and legislative priorities out of the speaker's office. the congress was built over a long period of time to achieve particular goals by seeing to it that every member and that every body in the chamber and that

everybody out side the chamber represented by people in the chamber would have a right to be heard and would have the right to be able to see to it that the congress functioned in a way that heard and attended to the fears and the hopes of and the dreams and the concerns of every american. so beginning back with gingrich, delay, that's a funny word isn't it, delay. we came out with the idea that we would facilitate it by allowing one man or one entity to run the congress of the united states. and so now we had seen a clear effort by both republicans and by their democratic successors and now the republicans again to

ultima ultimately do the committee process. when i started there were only a handful on each committee and 3 to 9 members on each subcommitt subcommittee. 3 to 9. the interesting thing was some of the most complex and difficult. when members would come together they were first hear the testimony and then they would run everybody out of the room and remove their coats and one of my colleagues used to say fight like hell for however long it took. the result was that we had committees that knew and understood legislation they could explain it and defend it

and they had the trust of their colleagues. today there's committees with nearly 100 members on them. if each member gets five minutes, multiply that out and see how much opportunity there is for real and intelligent discussion of the important issue of the day. and if at any time there's an important meeting, each member then gets only minutes and maybe seconds to address their interests or ask their questions. i repeat, what do you think the chances are for intelligent debate of important national questions and important national concerns. >> now we see new members that come in and head right to the floor to make some of those great big wonderful speeches

before they even know where the restrooms are. they land in washington on a monday or maybe a tuesday and their first question is what time is the first plane on which they can return home. how is this going to facilitate a significant national debate or intelligent discussion of the legislative business. we hear from the members, i am against this and i am against that. do we ever hear much about what they're for? but more importantly, the question is what are they willing to make a compromise on because compromise is an honorable word and i'm going to try to continue pushing that

view during my remaining time in the congress. so we ought to ask these new member what is are you for? what are you going to compromise on and what are you going to try to achieve to see to it that we come up with a program in government that gives us a resolution of the difficult controversies and difficult national questions of the day. now i'm sad to leave the congress. i love the congress and i'm delighted that my wife is running for the congress because she's smarter and descent and certainly much prettier than i am. i will observe that my sadness has the poisonous atmosphere that we see in american politics today i'm comforted to know that

they can only improve. so when the dictionary defines the word congress as a coming together it also defines the very way we can emerge from this current mess. first and foremost lit take a congress willing to put aside petty differences and live up to the definition of the word compromise is not a dirty word or evil thing cooperation is not an unspeakable act. the sooner that the congress realizes this and that american citizens realize this and that they begin impressing this view on their candidates t better the situation is going to get.

so then the congress can begin to focus it's work more on the public interest. but it also is going to take an american people that are willing to and interested in seeing to it that the congress works. it also is going to begin to require a control on expenditures of money. first race i ran i spent 19,000. i thought good god what an awful number. i later had the fight of what up to that time was my life. 35,000 more recently i had a serious fight with an incumbent colleague and i had to spend 3 million. she spent 6. so there are some needed changes where people understand that their congress is not something

that should be traded or should not be traded on the commodity exchanges. >> the congress is something that belongs to us all and it's something that has been achieved only at great bloodshed, great loss of life. great suffering. huge hard work and the wisdom of men and women far smarter than any that we see running around now. and interestingly enough those men and women were not people who had education. they were rather people who understood by hard study of the wisdoms of persons earlier in the history of this world. so what we need to do is to have

the american people dictate that which must be done. i am proud that i have been able to be a part of the body and truly a child of the institution. i will keep this nation and all of my colleagues in my thoughts and prayers and i have to say more often in my prayers than in my thoughts. in any event, in any event, thank you for what you do. thank you for the great power you weald with your pen and your typewriter and your ability to communicate thoughts including the wonderful computers. and thank you for your leadership and what you are doing because we desperately need good thinking people and

people who are determined to see to it that this oldest institution of its kind in the world continues to be the greatest gift of all. you know when i go to bed at night and when i get up in the morning, i thank the good lord for the gift which he has given to me. making me a citizen of the united states some 87 or shortly 88 years. and the opportunity to be an american having more real good things and more money but more freedom in indedispense and opportunity than any person in the world before. so, thank you. and god bless us all. but more importantly, god bless the united states of america. thank you. [ applause ]

thank you again congressman dingell for being with us today. for delivering your speech and for following the question and answer session. and the first question is, what has changed in congress the most since you first visited capitol hill while your father was a member of the house from 1933 to 1955? >> well, obviously the quote

reforms which have opened the place up and then point of fact which have denied us the ability to really talk about the concerns which we have. second of all, the size of the committee. third of all, the unworkability. fourth of all, the lack of capacity of the members to carry out their function because of the size of the committees, the size of the subcommittees and the harsh fact that nobody trusts the committee. we used to have an entity which was called the tuesday through thursday club and this was the crowd that showed up one tuesday and got out of washington on thursday. that's not the way the government should run. government should be a full time business where we seek to serve

the nation and see to it that it's business is well conducted. this is not washington and the congress, is not a place where everybody comes to have a good time. this is a place where the most important of the nation's business is supposed to be addressed. there are other things that i could mention to you which i'm sure you all would recognize in which any or all of you could come forward with your own wise and necessary additions to my comments. >> do you ever see congress returning to a more bipartisan ways of days gone by? what would make that happen?

well, two things. some kind of a national event that forced the members and the leadership to do that. a war, something like that. but beyond that, there are other things that could do that one would be some kind of a national calamity or perhaps something else which would be almost unique and that would be a wiping out of almost the entire membership by seeing to it that the voters threw us all the hell out of washington and installed their own people in our place. there are other things but that would be a fair summary of some of the things that might be helpful. >> do democrats deserve any of the blame for the partisan divide in congress?

>> of course. everybody deserves it. democrats deserve it. republicans deserve it. but you know, if you look around, you will find that the news media, the public at large, the citizenry in general all have their faults in this and their reason for feeling guilty about this. look and see what the listenership of the president's state of the union message is on tv. and you'll observe one thing, that is it usually timed to fall after and instead of super bowl or something. i'm not going to tell you the super bowl is not important and not good to watch or listen to or not exciting.

but i am going to tell you that from the standpoint of the nation's wellbeing, it's not important. and so what we have to do is to get the american people to say, we want you to do something. when you have a town meeting say what are you going to do about compromising this matter into something where the citizenry can accept it? one of the strengths i had as committee chairman was that i always would see to it that i got the left and the right to compromise together on legislation. the end result was we passed enormously difficult legislation after off times and we passed

it. we passed it with very large votes. that's still doable. but it requires leadership and it requires people be elected to lead in the congress. >> you had the less than kind things to say about the supreme court. >> i thought they were quite kind as a matter of fact. as a matter of fact i thought they were not only deserved but right. but truthfully if they had listened perhaps it would have been a bit helpful. >> what do you think motivated their citizen united decision? >> money. and the fact that almost the entire court was selected on the

basis of technology and not legal training or anything. i probably shouldn't say any more. so far i have been overly kind to the supreme court and i think probably staying in that particular mode is where i ought to remain for the day. >> what has been the lowest point in your congressional career? >> oh, boy. i saw my worldcom down around my ears when i had to get a divorce, get the custody of the kids and raise four kids alone. thank god i was able to do it through the help of a sister who is going to find the lord waiting for her in heaven. and i was able to do that in a

way that made my kids solid, succe successful. it was tough. at that time we were having a huge battle over energy and energy prices. something that we regularly do on the hill. but something where the administration was putting out a title quote, shove it to dingell. so i was in the midst of this dogfight about whether they were going to shove it to dingell or whether i was going to survive and by a narrow marriage i did.

>> and carrying on what's been the biggest highlight of your time in congress. >> i answer it this day. every day is a lesson. and when i get up in the morning i always look down and see there's a little green underfoot and i say thank you, lord. but more importantly. what i remember was obamacare. the wonderful bill we got through took care of health care for all of our people. it was something my dad wanted. something we finally did. there were a lot of other bills we did too that were important.

and in the legislative standpoint, that i think was probably the one thing that was most important. >> why does congress need members like you that stayed for many years as part of the institution? >> well, you learn the business. a lot of people think you walk through that door and all of a sudden you're an expert. you have a lot of people that never learn where their office is or anything. you have a lot of people that frankly never learned how to get along or don't know the names of their colleagues or aren't able to compromise because congress is a necessarily comprise. it's getting along with your colleagues. it's knowing what it is they

need and what they have to have. years ago i got a little guy by the name of gross from iowa. everybody says, dingell, that's awful. i said no. gross is a good and descent man and if i could get a reasonable and we were going to run the committee well. we wrote more conservation legislation there than we have ever done since. it was a tremendous period. i got another guy and today god rest his soul, he's gone. i still think warmly of him. but a lot of people said he has a terrible sense of humor.

you got underneath that you find what a wonderful fellow there was down there. he said my wife is filing for divorce. and she is going to name you as a correspondent. we're spending more time together, you and i, than he was with his wife. it's his right wing crack pots and i would have a few crack pots of my own and we can try to do it.

we had trust and we had friendship and i solved a bunch of rail strikes because i had trust and friendship and got the secretaries of transportation up and said you don't know me from adam and i don't know you but i'd say we have to work together and our word has to be good. and we have to trust each other. and we did. one of these strikes we solved in 48 hours and the others we solved in 18. and they took jurisdiction away from the commerce committee because we had done -- nobody knew we had done anything. but there's a lot of instances like that. to know how important the human

relationship is between members in the congress. if you have that, you need everything. if you don't, you have nothing. >> one of the criticisms often made of politics in the united states is that that is corrupted by money. during your six decades in the house, you have amassed a network of between 2.8 and $7.6 million according to an analysis of personal finances disclosures making you the 71st richest member in the chamber. how do you account for that wealth? and did a lifetime in washington help you get rich if that is a true portrayal? >> well, first of all, i ain't rich. second of all i live very frugally. third of all i'm very careful about how i spend money as is

deborah. we lived in the same house in virginia for better than 30 years. almost 40 years. we made it and the average american if he uses good sense can do something like that too. >> how have relationships between the members of congress changed over the course of the past 58 years? >> about the same. there used to be a guy on the

committee. i would always tell whether the media was going to be there because he'd show up. that's the tip is things were pretty important that day. the business of the house has been a little bit corrupted. not a lot but a little because it's interesting to note -- it's interesting to note that that money or rather that relationship with the media is one that generally scares the member of the house. it also is a situation where if you watch the members -- and do

this on c-span or something like that and watch. he's not talking to his colleagues. he's got his eye on that television up there. all of a sudden, you have a guy that is making a big speech to the television. which is quite different than it would be were he to make his speech to somebody he was having a real discussion of important issues. just to return to one point, i have done pretty well because i

learned something. and that is how one can take and use the compound interest rule to benefit himself. and one of the reasons you know that is that i have to report it. so you can be pretty sure that it's fairly truthful and it does very frankly keep me and the system sort of honest. >> now on to questions about the issues. at the start of every congress you always introduced a bill establishing a national health care system. we don't have that. but we do have obamacare. how is obamacare working in your estimation? >> well, it's a little bit like

asking how is this child going to do in his presidential race -- as that child boy or girl does in his or her race for the presidency. i happen to think very well. this is the biggest single undertaking of this kind ever done by this nation social security was like something maybe 50 million. this is more like 350 million. it's not by people working with their government. it's done by people who are working with insurance

companies. so all of these is done by everybody pitching in and cooperating. and so their complaint is that they weren't hurt. but we would invite them and they wouldn't come. so it went about as well as it could. going a little further than that, if you look, first of all, almost every american is covered. second of all, the long standing complaints to the american citizenship had been largely

addressed. they're going to cancel their policy when they go into the operating room on their gurny. they're also going to know that they' there's not going to be any preagency conditions and a number of benefits is 100%. the office was paying 360 something in insurance. guess what? he went out into the market, said you can't have this. we'll give you the same pollty for 160. so then he went into the market and looked at them and said this is costing you too much for your wage. so he winds up paying about $68

a month. same policy. haven't heard a word of squawk from him. although you hear from the republicans yelling their heads off that it ain't working. insurance companies. if insurance companies aren't satisfied they're all of a sudden finding that they have to pay too if they exceed the cap of 80 or 85% depending on the size of the committee. a lot of people got that. you haven't heard the republicans complaining about that. i guess they're busy with other more important things. >> well, speaking of republicans, republicans point to the irs scandal, the va scandal, and iraq and say that president obama is incompetent. but how do you think he compares

to other presidents you have served with? >> well he din get us into the iraq war, did he? and he wasn't involved in watergate. and he did a -- he run a pretty honest administration. so let's take first the va. one of the reasons that the va is a problem is that he has got to take care of 100 million vets and he has to make sure that he not only takes care of them but sees to it that they get the care that he's supposed to. that's what gets to congress that had a cut of $10 million or

10% that the republicans are prepared to give. i don't have any real problem with that. and a lot of these people are getting -- in the va, are getting their benefits and they're not qualified to go in at this particular time. they're not going -- not confronted. what was the other one? >> well, i think that we have -- i think we have covered everything as we're nearing the end of our hour. >> i don't want to run out of here with my tail between my legs. i want to address what these no good republicans say because every once in awhile they say the truth and i'd like to praise them if you could find me an instance.

>> the question was -- i thought you had covered the three. it was republicans point to the irs scandal, the va scandal and iraq. >> irs. >> here we're giving gigantic amounts of money under the citizens united to those that try to buy the government so the irs is looking at them. i say whorray. the guys that are doing this very frankly would steal a red hot stove and then go back to get the smoke. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are almost out of time. but before asking the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all i'd like to remind you about our upcoming events and speakers. on july 17th, anthony fox, secretary of the department of transportation. july 22nd, dr. thomas fredan,

directors for centers of disease control will address concerns about other key health issues. july 31, good luck jonathan, president of nigeria. august 1, dennis, president of the republic of congo will discuss peace, security and stability in the central african region. next i'd like to present congressman dingell with the traditional national press club mug. i don't know if you already have a set of a half a dozen but here's another one we're honored to give to you and finally our traditional last question. given your reputation as one of the toughest questioners in congress, what advice do you have for reporters asking members questions as you experience today. >> know the answer before you ask the question. [ applause ]

thank you congressman, thank you all for coming and i thank once again the national press club staff including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. we adjourned. sinchts hilary clinton on her book hard choices a memoir and it's american history tv looking at the civil war in 1864 from a recent con depress at the

gettysburg college civil war institute. >> remind your children in this bicentinneal year when we're the first group of americans that have experienced attacks on the continental united states. we are the first generation of americans to have felt what it was like to have our government buildings attacked, remind your children that freedom is not free and that our country's greatness is found in one another. that's what the star spangled banner is about. that's what this commemoration year is about. to tell that story and to lift every voice and to sing. >> a three-day fourth of july weekend starts friday on american history tv including the 2000th anniversary of the star spangled banner friday at 8:30 p.m. eastern. saturday night at 8:00. visit the college classroom of joel howell as he talks about

experiments conducted after world war ii through the cold water and jeffrey's manuscript on george h.w. bush and the peaceful end to the cold war. a house judiciary subcommittee looked at music licensing laws and ensuring song writers and publishers get paid fairly. the heads of the music academy testified along with country song writer lee thomas miller. this is 2.5 hours. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the first of two hearings on music licensing issues. probably everybody here knows i am an avid bluegrass fan and country music as long as it's old time country. i'm dating myself when i say that. but i know many of you welcome our new and veteran witnesses today although every industry goes through changes over the

years, i think everyone would agree that the music business has seen more than it's share of changes over the past decade or two. many of us grew up in a world where we looked forward to buying our favorite albums at the local record store. tod today's youth may not know what a record store looks like since they prefer to download songs from itunes or stream it on pandora. however times change and i'm glad to see the music industry continues to adapt to the preferences of his fans and making new music available. however the current licensing system hasn't changed. many feel that our music licensing laws railroad designed for a world that existed decades ago and have become outdated. music lovers can access music anywhere on an ever changing variety of devices. i may be old, i am old, but i'm

also old fashioned in my view. our copyright laws should promote access to music and still protect the interest of copyright holders. i see no reason why we cannot restore this balance. if not, we know consumers will resort to pirate sites on the internet for their respective music. finally, there are some long standing issues in the music business that i feel are important for congress to address. how royalty rates are determined. who pays music royalties and how older music works are treated under federal copyright law. i've also been a friend of broadcasters for some time and i hope that the broadcasters and the music industry can find a way to work together to resolve their common issues. in closing, i did want to thank our panel this morning for making time available for this

hearing. while i would prefer to spend the next few hours learning about how to make bluegrass music more popular. i will instead spend the next few hours learning about how to make all music more popular. again, i thank you for your -- the panelists and those others in the audience for your presence today and i yield back and i recognize the distingui distinguished gentlemen from -- well, i was going to go to john first. >> oh. >> from michigan for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member. this is an important hearing and it's good that everyone is here. i worked with congressman holding of north carolina to introduce hr-4772 the respect

act which addresses a loophole that allows digital radio services to broadcast recorded music before february 15, 1972 without paying anything to the artist and labels that created it. this bill would ensure that legacy artists and copyright owners of all works whether recorded before or after february 15th 1972 are compensated by those that benefit from the federal statutory license. now the current failure to pay these legacy artists is shameful and it's harmful to communities like mine, detriooit which has many artists at the forefront of

the industry and should be compensated fairly for their ground breaking work. taking someone else's labor and not paying is simply unfair and this bill seeks basic fairness for artists who created sound recordings before '72. a related issue is whether our emp em efforts are fair if it does not include performance rights for some recordings. it's no secret i'm a strong supporter of artists and believe that the current compensation system on radio, am, fm, isn't fair to artists, musicians or the recording labels. when we hear a song on the radio, the individual singing

the lyrics or playing the melodies receives absolutely no compensation. every other platform for broadcast music, including satellite radio, cable, internet, web casters, pay a performance royalty. it's the only platform that doesn't do this. this exemption from paying a performer's royalty to artists no longer makes any sense if it ever did and unfairly deprives artists of the compensation they deserve for their work. we have a diverse panel of experts that joined with our committee and welcome them and look forward to hearing them and to working with my colleagues to ensure that music licensing process is fair and does not have unintended consequences

that harm artists, song writers, or producers. thank you for allowing me to make this statement at this time. >> thank the gentleman from michigan. the chair recognized chairman of the judiciary committee. >> thank you mr. chairman and good morning to everyone. welcome to the subcommittee's first copyright review hearing on music licensing. last month the subcommittee travelled to new york city to learn about the first sale doctrine. one of the issues was the apl applicable sale. as we heard at the hearing consumer expectations have changed substantially in the digital era. probably in no other area of copyright law have consumer expectations changes no more than in music. in a world of constant options on internet connection devices, laws that hinder or stunt access to legal music not only hurt

consumers but also the artists and the services that provide music to consumers. unfortunately, consumers that want to be able to easily access their favorite songs any time on all of their digital devices face a legal frame work written for the world of vinyl albums and atrack tapes. problems that emerged from this current legal frame work include among others a lack of a unified, robust and easily accessible source of ownership records upon which music delivery services can be built. on certain dividing lines between mechanical and performance rights. artists being treated differently under the law depending on when a work was created. artists and music delivery services being treated differently under the law depending upon how music is delivered. artists and music delivery services being treated differently under the law depending on when a music service first began operation and an overall lack of

transparency in the industry regarding how revenue is accounted for. during today's hearing we'll primarily focus on the rights and legal regime associated with musical competitions. we will hear from a broad spectrum of stake holders from song writers to those that collect revenues on their behalf to those that deliver the musical works to consumers in new and innovative ways. >> interested in parties have changes in our nation's copyright laws as they pertain to our structure. some called for tweaks and others called for more fundamental changes such as moving toward a more free market approach. i look forward to learning more about both the problems plaguing the current frame work and possible solutions to these problems and i thank you all again for making the time to be here this morning and i yield back. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman.

we now recognize the chairman from new york. >> thank you mr. chairman. as part of the comprehensive copyright review. i'm sorry this hearing as well as the last is not in new york because everything is better in new york but we have to make due. this is the first of a two part hearing which is fitting as these sections need scrutiny. it is often said that if we started from scratch nobody would write the laws that stands today. music copyright and licensing is a patch work of reactions at different times to changing technologies. from the development of player pianos and records the law has been playing catch up and failing. today satellite and internet based radio stations deliver music to listeners in their cars, homes and at work. each of these uses of music require licenses from copyright owners for the underlying musical work and the sound recording. with the rights to each often owned or managed by different individuals or entities.

overtime, and in an effort to help insure he kequity and accen this universe, congress created a licensing scheme. unfortunately it's marred by inconsistent rules that place new technologies at a disadvantage by their competitors and equities that deny compensation to creators. the rules vary by internet, broadcasters, cable radio and satellite radio providers. internet broadcasters pay royalty rates to reflect a willing buyer and seller model. by contrast, the rate is established through factors in 1998 that predated the development of internet radio and that many believe results in a below market royalty rate. as a result pandora complained that it is at a competitive disadvantage and created it's works or access through cable or satellite and receives less than when a consumer receives the

same work over the internet. draft legislation established parody among all digital radio services. the act recently introduced by the representatives would modernize the law to assure that the same willing buyer willing seller standard governed song writers, and reproduction royalties. other preventions prevent song writers and publishers from proviegd evidence under consent decrees governing licenses of their works that came into existence in 1941. the act would remove that ban thus helping song writers obtain a fair market value for their work. in the meantime, the doj, the department of justice just announced a much needed review of the consent decrees that govern them. two of the organizations for compensating and delivering

royalties. meanwhile, aretha franklin and the birds and the temptations. the respect act would close an existing loophole in the law cl loophole in the law that argues that they should be paid any royalties for these great legacy artists. one of the most glares inconsistencies that our performing artists and other right holders of sound recordings receive absolutely no compensation when their music is played on the air. congress required payment when sound recordings are transmitded digitally in 1995. we've yesterday to extend this basic protection to artists when their songs are played on fm or am radio and this is incredibly unjust. the terrestrial radio profits of the recording art itselves for free. i'm aware of no other instance in the united states where this is allowed and it needs to be remedied. we're on a very short list of

countries, a list that includes such wonderful models as iran, north korea and china that do not pay performing artists when their son songs are on the radio. these countries with hold the royalties from american artists since we refuse to pay theirs. this committee's copyright reviews have revealed an exthe record they're in and bipartisan consensus in favor of copyrights. this issue is right for resolution. although the existing music licensing and copyrights are difficult to understand the solution is quite simple. if congress is going to maintain compulsory licenses they should replicate the free market to the greatest extent program tabl.

and it's well past time to harmonize the rules and put an end to this. there have been several proposals to introduce the inequities some of that i just outlined. if we had to rationalize the law and level the playingfield we should take a kprcomprehensive approach. this was echoed by the democratic leader nancy pelosi who agreed that the time has come for congress to address these issues in one pa kamg. i agree and i plan to take up their charge. with colleagues on both sides of the aisle i'm developing legislation to develop the various laws of existing law in one unified bill to bring fairness and efficiency to ensure that no particular business enjoys a special advantage over new and innovative technology. the consumers don't know that the buttons they push

arbitrarily determines how much artists and songwriters will be paid. we can created a better system for radio systems for artists and songwriters for the fans who depend on the vital healthy market for music and music services. we've a wide range of witnesses here today and our second hearing scheduled for june 25th. i hope we can all come together to agree on and pass meaningful comprehensive reform. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> all other opening statements without objection will be made part of the record. >> we have a distinguished panel today. seven in all and i'll begin with swearing in our witnesses prior to introducing them. if you would, gentlemen, please stand and i'll submit the oath to you. do you square the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record show that all answered in the affirmative and now i'll introduce the

witnesses. you may be seated, gentlemen. our first witness this morning is mr. neil portnoy. prior to being on the academy he was vice president of the west coast division of jive records and received his degree from george washington university. our second witness, mr. lee thomas miller, songwriter and president of the national songwriter's association international. a three-time grammy award nominee. has written country singles that have reached number one. he received his bachelor's degree in music theory from eastern kentucky. and our third witness, mr. david israelite. office of the national music publisher's association where he protects and advanceness the interest on music publishers and songwriters in matters relating to domestic and global protection of copyrights.

mr. israu us rail -- our fourth witness, mr. michael o'neal. broadcast broadcast music inc. he received all of their domestic and global business operations and directs the company's strategic growth. mr. o'neal received undergraduate degree in business administration of the montclair university and has his mba from rutgers university. our fifth witness is mr. lee nye. digital media association. prior to joining, mr. nye practiced entertainment law in new york for 20 years. mr. knife practiced law in new york for 20 years representing individual songwriters, recording artists and producers. mr. knife earned his ba from st.

john's university and jd from the brooklyn school of law. our sixth witness is mr. will hoyt. executive director of the tv music license committee. prior to joining the television music license committee he spent 20 years as an executive with nationwide communication's inc. and he graduated from ohio western university and received his jd from ohio state university school of law. our seventh and final witness is mr. jim griffin, managing dreb tore and elder of one house llc. mr. griffin extensively digital music, media registries and scholarly publishing. prior to one house he served as president of the music licensing at warner music group. mr. griffin received his degree from the university of kentucky. gentlemen, we have a full roster here today.

goods to have you with us to assist you there will be the timing panel on your -- reflecting certain lights. when the light goes from red to yellow, strike that. when the light goes from green to yellow, that is your warning that you have one minute to remain. and the ice on which you're skating is becoming increasingly thin. when the yellow light appears, that gives you notice that one minute is upcoming. so if you all would comply with that we are would be appreciative. we'll now commence with you. but, again, thank you all for being here. chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee. i'm neil portnou and i'm president and c h ceo of the recording academy known for our

academy awards that's the trade association that represents my suck's creators, songwriters, proormers and studio professionals. i thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee this morning and since i have the honor of being the first witness, let me start at the beginning. with the copyright clause of the constitution, the framers gave authors the exclusive right to bear works in order to promote the progress of science and useful art. today's hearing is focused on music licensing we should at the outset remember who the authors of music are. they are the songwriters and composers who create the very dna of music. they are the featured and background performers who perform those songs and bring them to life. they're the producers and engineers that create the overall sounds of the recordings that we love. over the next two haergs i urge you to keep the music creators foremost in your mind. they are the authors or founders expressly protected. of course, the framers intended

copyright to be an incentive to create. today we have a patchwork of laws that do not address the challenges of the digital marketplace and often created a disincentive to make music. low streaming rates prevent creators from making a living. performers and composers must police the entire internet to take down infringing works and traditional radio continues to use artists recordings without compensation while leveraging this unfair advantage as they into the digital world. this last point is most glaring. terrestrial radio is the only built on eyesing another intellectual property without permission or compensation. broadcasters in every other developed country in the world compensate their performers. the national association of broadcasters have spent a lot of money lobbying to maintain their free ride. since they're not on the panel today allow me to recount the history of their failed argument on their behalf.

first they said the radio artists relationship is, quote, simil similar buy yotic. but they are different because radio is free until they remembered that internet radio is free but still pays royalties. then they said a royalty will put small stations out of business until we offered the smallest of stations a flat royalty rate of as little as a few bucks a day. then they said the free market would take care of the issue. until they opposed the free market royalty act that would have created one. then they said it was a taxer said it wasn't. they have run out of arguments and time. the white house, the copyright office and political groups ranging from the aflcio and the