before. and remember that under the 2010 rules, they were not stayed by the court. and so they were in effect for four years. >> can you give me an example. >> there was great investment during the period when they were in effect. >> give me an example of regulating a large part of the economy that's resulted in spurring innovation and increasing economic activity in jobs? >> look at the period 2010 to 2014 when the previous open internet rules were in place and we had unprecedented growth. >> commissioner -- >> there's other examples too such as when dsl was regulated under title 2 during its greatest period of growth. there is -- i think there are track records here that establish this kind of growth. >> do you have a sense of that. >> i respectfully disagree with the chairman. the explosion in particular when it comes to wireless investment was specifically because the 2010 order exempted wireless from the net neutrality rules. one of the reasons why we now live in an increasingly mobile

world is because the fcc was relatively retrained in 2010 compared to what it did now. time will tell. the best example is europe where europeans have significantly less access to high speed broad band than we do. 82% of americans it only 48% of europeans. and when it comes to wireless in particular, the u.s. has 50% of the world's 4g lte subscribers. the reason is because till february 26th, we were relatively retrained and a bipartisan consensus that served so well since the clinton administration. >> mr. chairman, i'm out of time. i have additional questions i'd like to submit for the record. >> senator sullivan, thank you. we'll make sure those questions get submitted for the record. since i can't see anybody else '-z coming in -- senator manchin's turn. >> the chair recognizes the senator from west virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate that so much. this is such an interesting topic. i keep thinking back to those who are old enough or grew up basically before there was mobile phones. cell phones. internet. computers. >> television. >> i didn't want to go -- we can go there if you want to. in west virginia, there's still discussions did al gore really invent the internet or was it something we all contributed to and all of us being involved. i think when you look about where we are, we all will agree, this is an intricate part of our life today. and we all depend on it. we might not know all the answers to the questions, but bottom line is we don't want to lose what we have. in rural states such as west virginia, they told us when you divested yourself of the telephone ma bell it would be better. it wasn't. they told us if we deregulated the airlines, it would be better. it wasn't.

deregulation hasn't -- when you deregulate the utilities, they said it will be better. it wasn't. so basically with all that being said, you know, in a rural area, rural states we're a little bit leery how much better you want to make it for us. we want to make sure we still have access, we're still able to have all our schools connected in west virginia. every school in our state is connected. we made sure of that. how do we now be able to take that homework to home and still make sure the child has the ability to do that? i can assure you that there's not enough market in west virginia for all of our friends on wall street or in silicon valley to do that. i know that. but i'm still looking for the balance. somehow we can all -- i understand where the fcc -- i know you're taking a lot of flack on this. i understand. i do look at it as a necessity utility to a certain extent. with that, i know i wouldn't have what i had if the market

hadn't been able to do what it did. so there's some of us on our side of the aisle looking for that middle road. without going to court. can we help alleviate that? can we do legislation working with our colleagues on our republican side, working to the as americans and finding a solution to this without battling it out in the court system and ending you be -- it's going to be costly no matter what happens. and the consumers end up paying. i would say just coming down or any of you, mr. o'reilly maybe since you've had a lot to say with this. have you all among the five of you tried to find commonality here we could work? >> so let me suggest an answer also to senator sullivan's question. the commission is a creature of congress. anytime congress can speak, i think it's helpful for my purposes. so whatever you're able to agree in terms of legislation, i think that's helpful. i don't know the particulars.

but i leave it to your capable hands to whether you can get legislation and the best outcome in terms of policy decisions. >> when you look at the gdp, i looked at china at 9 trillion. russia is at 2 trillion. great britain's at 2 trillion. we're at 17 plus trillion. so we've done something right in spite of ourself. and we want to make sure that we can continue to grow and the internet's been a big part of that gdp. you've got to give us direction here. if you find can't find some areas of agreement or consensus, and right now i see you split 3-2, pretty evenly split. i think you're probably all good friends. you all talk and work together. but on this, you're split. if you can't come together, how in the world do you expect us to work together? i'm going to skip over you.

i'm going to come right back. >> miracles do happen. i'm a believer. >> we're on the same wavelength. >> one of the things that i don't think we could have envisioned just a few months ago is that this body, congress, recognizes the importance and need for rules for free and open internet. we are encouragers and enablers of innovation and investment. that's why this conversation i think is healthy and important. we might not agree on the particulars but we agree on the end what we think the end game is. and that is a robust open and free platform that will allow every community to be the best it can be. >> what we're seeing, would it be accurate for me to evaluate saying that the system that we have right now the way we're operating -- the internet right now, is giving us the access and protection that we need, the average citizen in america, but

also allowing the innovators and creators to continue to invest and get a return on that? does it come down to basically i'm just corporate america, i'm not getting exactly what i intend for my stockholders to see? i'm getting a return on investment so i won't put the money into it because you haven't let unfettered let me go? you want to jump -- >> one of the things i lost -- i'm sorry. will you forgive me? >> wait a long time. maybe we'll give me a couple extra. >> he said he would forgive. >> go ahead. >> you're right. so there are pro competitive elements of this order that nobody's talking about. when it comes to pole attachments, that has been you know in your community, that has been a bottleneck. this order helps us, gives us tools to enable that type of investment to get rid of the barriers to that. when we talk about our national priorities of connecting

america, completing that stool of getting rid -- my colleague talks about the homework app. it is important for us to have connectivities and connectivity in our schools and libraries but it's just as important that learning does not stop when people get home. so enabling more people to connect with pole attachments to provide service will hopefully make things more affordable for more people, will allowing them to connect at home. all of these things are linked. and that's why it's so important for us to continue this conversation. we might not agree on every footnote which is my internal joke but we agree on the end. >> i would encourage you all to work together. >> senator, i would answer that question simply by saying title 2 i think takes us away from the direction of getting more broadband options.

one of the most unfortunate things about the debate and i say this as someone who grew up in rural america far away from any big city is that there are a number of different fcc policies that we could pursue to give folks in west virginia and folks in kansas and folks in south carolina the same options that people here in washington take for granted. we can make it easier for deploy wireless infrastructure. we could get more spectrum out there so that wireless isps can deliver high speed in places like west virginia where you can't lay fiber. we could make it easier so these carriers don't have to invest every single dollar in copper but can deliver fiber to west virginians to make it fairer for rural schools who currently don't get a fair shake out of the program to get funding for that program and connect kids with digital opportunities. >> control of how that's delivered, correct? >> i'm sorry. >> it's a possibility of losing control of how it's delivered? who is going to make the decision how i get that? >> all of us would set the regulatory framework in the private sector and have maximum incentive. >> i understand. i'm not objecting to this.

i understand where you're coming from. i want the best of both worlds i guess. i got a pretty good world right now. can i make it better without throwing the baby out with the bath water and losing the protections i've got. that's what i'm looking for. >> senator, you raise an excellent point. i have to say that in this hearing room, i keep hearing the echo of years ago sitting at this table when senator hollings was sitting up there in the chair and he kept saying in his great south carolina drawl, i'm a born again deregulator. because he learned as you said, what are the realities when you say the people who run it are the people who are going to make the rules and what we're trying to say is that this this is the most powerful and pervasive platform in the history of the planet. and there ought to be some rules that are made by people other than those who run it. >> yes, sir. >> and i would say to my -- the senator from west virginia that

perhaps on this issue, we here can find consensus and inspire those five to find consensus. >> can i pick up on that and say yea and varily. >> if we could work together on a solution, because i think there's -- i think that would make a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. senator wicker has one more question he'd like to ask. >> one more line of questioning. senator manchin is right. we've got it pretty good now. innovation is pretty good now. i do wonder if this is a solution in search of a problem. but talking about rural america. commissioner clyburn, thank you for visiting mississippi, thank you for visiting rural sunflower county specifically louisville in the mississippi delta. and there you saw a telemedicine program that is treating and attempting to defeat type 2 diabetes. so thank you so much for coming.

this program depends on usf supported robust mobile broadband connections. what is the fcc prepared to do to ensure that sufficient usf support remains available so that rural wireless networks remain up and running enabling access to these critical life saving and cost saving advances in medicine? >> you know about phase one of mobility fund as well as our us,,connect america fund. we're moving ahead in the next phases of that which we will hope will be further enablers for investments. we've got broadband experiments and rural initiatives that will help us work out the kinks to for us to go to the next stage of broader series of investments. so what we're doing is on a very parallel course working out the kinks in terms of ip transition and the like and really

continuing to fuel innovation and monies and investment. and working with communities with the private sector with government officials to ensure that the monies that are needed to close these gaps to ensure that ruralville mississippi has the connectivity it needs to further the positive het outcomes that i witnessed in that area. incredible outcomes. >> when you were there, did we get you down to indianola to see the b.b. king museum? >> i missed that unfortunately. >> world class. >> we didn't allocate enough time. but if you invite me back, i'll be glad to. i didn't get a chance to do too much eating. if you could work on that next time. >> chairman wheeler, university of mississippi medical center

and the delta council have written you imploring you to preserve universal service support for rural areas. can the commission assure rural consumers like the ones i'm talking about that there will be no reductions in their access to wireless services and what assurances can you give this committee that rural consumers will not lose their current ability to choose among quality providers? >> i think commissioner clyburn, thank you, senator. can i get an invitation? i'd like to see lucille. >> absolutely. >> the -- i think commissioner clyburn hit the nail on the head in terms of we are now, we're looking at moving to phase two of the mobility fund. and that it has to fit into all the other activities which we've spoken about earlier in this hearing in terms of what we're doing for universal service.

i am a -- you talk about the great job that the university of mississippi medical center is doing. i'm a huge believer in what mobile health can do. i was before i took this job, i was the chairman of the u.n. foundation's mental health alliance literally going around the world and saying here's how you can use mobility to solve these problems. and we want to make sure that those kind of opportunities sure do exist in this country. >> thank you. thank you, my colleagues for the second round. >> thank you senator wicker. senator nelson, you want to ask another question or two? >> we're almost there, guys. >> not quite. mr. chairman, i have a letter that the leadership conference on civil and human rights, they're weighing in on this. i asked that it be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> let's go back. you know, this flap started that

prompted 4 million comments, i take it that's fairly unprecedented. >> a record. >> and a lot of that was expressing their angst because they thought that their internet was going to be messed with. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and by messing with it, if we think back to what was in the public's mind at the time, it was were they going to have to pay more because certain content was going to have to pay more to get on to the internet pipes. is that correct? that was one of the major issues, the so-called fast lane issue. >> okay. and by you drawing the order as

you have drawn it, does that allow you, the fcc as a regulator, as a referee along with future regulators if someone suddenly wants to charge more for certain traffic on the internet than other types of traffic, that an fcc is going to be a referee there now or in the future to prevent that? >> yes, sir, we have a flatout ban on those kinds of paid fast lanes. >> and that's in the order. >> yes, sir. >> mr. pai, do you disagree with that? >> i agree it's in the order. but i also agree with chairman last year when he testified. >> the obvious question is do you disagree with that provision in the order. >> yes, i do. absolutely. because number one, there is no paid prioritization now. there are no fast lanes now. this is an entirely hypothetical concern.

as the chairman pointed out last year -- >> i'll tell you, mr. pai, it wasn't of no concern to 4 million people. >> you put it well, senator, when you said they had angst about what was going to happen. if you look at the actual document, there's no evidence in the record of any systemic specifically with paid prioritization. even if you agreed there was a problem as the chairman testified before the house last year, you cannot ban paid prioritization under title 2. i agree with him. >> you're putting words in my mouth here. >> i'm quoting you. >> let's be real clear. i said that there is a waiver process under title 2 that is a way out of what we have done, as you know, is to have a flatout ban on paid prioritization and to specify what the waiver test ought to be. if you're going to represent my position, let's be specific on what that is. >> let me ask you, chairman

wheeler, is there a difference in the issue about the application of title 2 that is before the court this time that was different the last time that this issue was before the court? >> yes, sir, i think that the issue. >> would you explain that to the committee? >> the issue before the court in the 2010 rule was the court determined that -- that the kinds of requirements that the commission had put in place were only requirements that could be applied to a common carrier. and because of the fact that the agency had not said that the broadband providers were common carriers, they therefore couldn't reach and impose on them. a point that is of interest in that lawsuit and is relative to what commissioner pai said a moment ago about paid

prioritization, is that verizon's counsel during oral argument said i have been explicitly authorized by my authorized by my client to tell the court that the reason we are appealing this decision is that we want the kind of unregulated environment that will allow us to do the things that you are talking about such as paid prioritization. and that -- it was those issued all involved in that decision. >> let me give you, chairman wheeler, the chance there was one of the senators here, i it this was senator johnson that he had asked a question. commissioner pie answered it. you requested an opportunity to respond and there was not time. and the senators, do you

recall -- >> this is like watching a tennis match, sir. i'm not sure i remember the question. >> i think that's what you wanted to voice your agreement with what i was saying. >> no wonder i forgot. >> thank you though, senator. >> i've got some additional questions i'll submit for the record because of the lateness. >> the previous question and we're absolutely accurate, i'm quoting may 20th and 2014 there is nothing entitled that prohibits paid prioritization. >> so let's just quit playing on words. >> the representation of the oral argument was completely misconstrued. >> i will stipulate to the fact that i said that and what that statement says is not how you are interpreting it. >> go to youtube and watch it.

can you interpret the rules to fashion some sort of make work -- >> there is in all of title two a process where you can apply to the commission for a waiver. >> under what section? >> and if you take that -- don't take that out of context the reason what i was saying in that hearing was that there is always under title two to come in and seek a waiver under our general procedures. if that's the argument the fcc has general waiver authority. it can pledge to anything under this. >> i sure fouled up in my explanation of things then, didn't i? >> i take you at your word then that you didn't believe title two banned prioritization. i agree with that. the record speaks for its environmental.

>> this is very interesting. >> it's much watch tv, senator. >> let me just say that i have the shared responsibility with the chairman of this committee as the majority of this committee, the chairman to see if there's any common ground. and i'm not sure will is common ground if the issues are as divided as they are.

and this has been typical throughout the last three hours and 15 minutes if the chairman says the sky's blue, you will say, no, it's a different color. >> senator the best -- >> and that's what's gone on on all day. >> my willingness to s. to find con sense justice i've had the privilege of serving as a commissioner. we had 89% of unanimous votes in terms of meeting items. that percentage has gone down to 50%. you'll find even on neutrality in may of 2014 the chairman's office asked us you would be interested in talking about a possible solution? i said, yes. they never got back to us. on this particular issue, and great number of high profile issues we consistently put a proposal on the table that allows us to find consensus. not just on net neutrality, you name it. all of my statements are on the roared. you can look at them on my website. they repeatedly been rebuffed for god knows what reason. my door is always open.

perhaps my foolish midwestern optimism, i believe we can get to yes because in the first two years of my tenure, we did get to yes. >> since i'm the one who's being impugned here -- >> and you have my permission since this is my time. >> you know there's a difference between staking out a position and saying this position which is contrary to the goals of the majority, if you don't agree with this position then you're not compromising with me. but we'll let that slide. i just want to -- i just -- i've heard commissioner pie on this. here's a communications daily headline. "wheeler sitting on mprm on redefining mpd in hopes of consensus with republicans." here's a statement from commissioner pie on our location orders. saying "at the time i expressed concern the proposals would fail to meet that test.

that western was borne out by the record and i'm pleased we adjusted course and now adopting requirement that's meet these two watch words. i want to kmenltd parties that work cooperatively on this effort." there is a -- i sit down with all of my colleagues every other week. we have a regular meeting for an hour. on the schedule at least for an hour to say what are the issues? and what do we need to work on. we need to be real careful of talking about how redefining things and then saying because you won't take my redefinition you won't compromise. that's not compromise.

so i have great confidence with you as we go forward on a lot of issues on this committee. and whether or not we can work out something on this, it's to be determined. but i can assure you that the conversations again senator thune and me are quite civil and in the best spirit of friendliness. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the ambiguity and this shows

me we need a law. that's a straight forward way of resolving this issue and eliminating a lot of uncertainty in a lot of lawsuits. i look forward to work wug and members on both sides. i hope we can find that title x as you referred it to. sweet spot. all right. i assume that the senators from the northeast are back because they want to ask some questions. can you be very sh, very quick. >> with that suggestion, certainly. we'll seek common ground on brevity. >> i want to second what my two colleagues have said that we're certainly going to seek common ground. i think there is a clear policy that has merged from the fcc on an open internet and net neutrality and that policy now even if it is the result of a

divided commission. even if that is the law and challenged as i indicated earlier, i certainly would do everything in my power to support it. because i think clarity is to be greatly sought and prized here. i talked to a local radio station and they wrote to me regarding notification he served from verizon that they provided to the station would be immediately terminated in 90 days and the station must find alternative service options. and he was upset understandably, that other options cost 2.5 times what the station currently pays. and also would take weeks to

install. wgch is a station that serves more than a million people with information that they need and deserve on emergencies severe catastrophes and listeners rely on that. as more legacy providers go through this process of obtaining permission for the commission to discontinue existing services in favor of newer technologies and more and more consumers receive these notices of discontinuance, i want to make sure there are sufficient protections for consumers. consumers are properly informed. i also like to know what the commission is doing to ensure that consumers have recourses and forcible standards so they're not literally like wtch cut off from service.

>> we just finished comment period on rulemaking on this issue. we shorthanded call it copper retirement. and there are three principles. the first principle is public safety principle. you can't negatively effect the ability of people to call 911. secondly, the consumer needs to know what is going on. there has to be transparency. not none of this surprise, we're change things. and thirdly is that small and medium operators like your medium companies like you're talking about need to continue to have competitive choices.

we teed up on all questions in this rulemaking and we're wrestling with bringing them forward in an order. but you put your finger on a very important issue. >> and what will be the timing for that? >> i hope to be able to work with all of my colleagues to deliver that, you know, sometime around football season shall we say? i'll give myself a little leeway there. >> great. >> we take this quite seriously. >> i want to just conclude on the subject that i raised during the end of my last question. one of the most promise areas in the video marketplace these days seems to be the flexibility offered to consumers by online video services.

i'm talking about netflix and apple prime. yesterday "the wall street journal" reported that april sl in talks with tv networks to offer a less expensive, slimmed down service. a bundle of 25 channel this is fall. but here's the comment that struck me and i'm quoting, "for now the talks don't involve nbc universal, owner of the nbc broadcast network and cable channels like usa and bravo because of a falling out between apple and nbc universal parent company, comcast corporation. the people familiar with the matter said." i'm concerned that the abt anti-competitive behavior is reel as the quote indicated. these new -- these companies that offer new services,

competition require high speed internet access to reach their customers. and that risk of amount anti-competitive behavior is one reason i raised concern about the comcast merger that we discussed with time warner. competition is the most effective tool for driving innovation invest. and consumer and economic benefits. unfortunately, the reality we face today is that as broadband increases, competitive choice increases. my time has expired. perhaps gratefully in your view, but i just want to invite your

comment if you have any other comments or from other members of the commission because i think in a central principle is so important. i know you can't comment on the merger. i'm not asking you to. but if you or any of your colleagues has a comment on this general area, i would welcome it. >> yes, i have opinions. i look down the table to see if anybody -- does anybody want to -- >> sure. television is going to change more in the next couple of years than it has over the last several decades. we all now want to watch what we want to watch it when we want to watch it on any screen handy. and i think the commission going forward needs to be mindful of all of these new services and help find ways to make them successful so that consumers have more choice and that there's more competition in the provision of video services.

i've heard from so many members about cable pricing and these kinds of things. the answer is in competition. that competition is coming over the top. it is coming over the top through the internet. here's one of the reasons why there has to be an open internet. historically cable systems have chosen who will be on. i will take this service not that service. and we cannot be in that kind of a situation if we want to have true video competition. >> thank you. senator marky? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. did the fcc follow the rules when processing these rules? >> yes, sir.

>> tease are tough decisions. it's a process. and out of the process came a decision. that i agree with. i think it's historically correct decision. i don't think there should be a question whether or not you use prot ses that allowed all voices to be heard and the final vote 3-2. it's based upon the totality of everything that all five of you had the opportunity to hear. 3-2. it's a process. it gave everyone the ability to be tubl hear what they needed to hear. and i think you made just the right decision. and i think you made the right decision looking at the whole history of the fcc and what you've done for our country. back in the 1970s you know the ceo of sprint and mci came in to my office and they had less than one half of one half of one half of percent of the market. and they wanted the fcc to change the rules so he didn't have to dial 23 numbers before

you dialed the number your mother made you memorize in case you were ever in a car descent. that's what created the industry. the fcc said no competition. they passed the rules that said a cable company doesn't have to put down a separate pole, use the telephone pole and use a fee to do so. we don't want the whole street filled up with just poles. it was reasonable. it added to the competentition. at&t didn't want to be broken up. we had black rotary phones. you wnlt stay there forever. you have to move on. it's all about competition. it's all about innovation. when you did the light touch on wireless, 1939 the fcc using title two, it was intended on unleashing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of new investment. it worked. the fcc made the right decision. the agency of expertise. when we created the third fourth, fifth sixth, seventh

cell phone license, the reason we had to do it is the first two companies this monopolies charging 50 cents a minute. the phone was a size of a brick and nobody had one. people have two devices in their pockets. the fcc made the right decision to advance competition. that's what this is all about. the cable industry did not want at&t and the telephone companies to get into cable. they want aid monopoly. at&t did not want the cable industry to be able to provide telephone service. they all fought. these are big players here. big players. and i understand it. big players. he don't want little people coming in. ruining this nice little world that they have going. and even the decision you just made on municipal broad bands, individual communities across the country, you can provide competition. and that's a 3-2 decision here.

3-2, 3-2, 3-2, i understand the commissioners that vote no. these are tough issues. there were tough issues on allowing mci and sprint to be born. tough decisions. you're taking on the monopolies. you're taking on the big companies. so we're at a cross roads here where the innovation the investment dollars, the creativity, the content creators are not the big companies. there are thousands of little companies that all benefit from that neutrality. you got it just right. it's the heart of our economy. it's where young people want to go. of all races. it's where the venture capitalists are putting their money. and as you correctly pointed out, all these companies then reported within days after you passed this rule that wasn't going to affect their long term investment and infrastructure going forward. they all said the exact same thing. you know what else happened?

all over the country all over the people between ages and 20 and 35 say this is great. i have new apps, i have new technologies, i have new services. i have new stuff. i can reach 10 million americans. as soon as we do that in america, then we're selling across the world. branded and made in america. it's the new companies that make the difference. and just like sprint and mci all the way through today, that's what the fcc is all about. and you're the agency of expertise expertise. and you've used this framework brilliantly over the years. brilliantly. and i think you got it right again. it will be ill advised and there is now consensus that has already been built by the statements of the largest companies that they can live with it. that they'll invest the same pace and the enthusiasm that comes from the smaller software apps, companies new internet

stops. it's just been overwhelming. so i just say this to putting context, the whole history of how far we've come in a brief period of time. you don't have to win a long distance phone call comes into your house anymore yell hurry, hurry, it's a long distance call. at&t had charge $ed$2 a minute for years because they could get away it with. we're not letting people getting away with saying, no there is another way of doing business. that's what net neutrality makes possible for our country. >> i thank the senator from massachusetts. i assume there wasn't a question in there. >> if n. fact the first question was a question for the senator. it was a leading question but it was a question. >> mark the senator down as undecided on our draft bill.

i want to very quickly it got asked once before and a couple of you responded to it. i want to as the question of all the commissioners and is that something you think we ought to do? is it something we need to reauthorize the fcc? >> that's a decision that you make, congress has made the decision not to thus far. if you want to change that decision, you're the congress. you make the rules. >> i agree that's up to congress. >> it's congress's decision. i, too agree it's time to move forward with something. >> i yield to the expert body. >> can i say 25 years is a long time. i've agreed with it. >> your hair was a different color back then. and very quickly one reform that you would recommend that we make or a top reform is you

think about fcc re-authorization re-authorization. anything come to mind? >> one that i talked about that i think there is a need to have an accountability of our enforceme in. t procedures. we issue a number of nels and in judgements in that case. there is no tracking of what happens to the money? are we getting the money that we're assigning penalties for? i think that would be helpful. i tried to get the material for this hearing. and the information just came back we don't track that. i think there is something wrong. we should know that if we're penalizing somebody is actually being paid? you know, what is the ramifications for it? that's one thing i would add to the multiple layers that i've already talked about. >> as it relatesed to board sunshine reform is top my list.

>> in addition to the proposals and process reform act and consolidating reform act i would sat communication act is to ensure that full commission has an opportunity to weigh in on serious and substantial policy questions which currently are often resolved on delegated authority about it bureaus. >> i think we need a program to bring in more engineers. we have more wireless technologies evolving faster than at any point in human history. i think that if we were able to bring in more engineers to review the new technologies and equipment authorizations which are multiplying, we would be a lot faster at making sure that innovation makes its way to the marketplace. >> i think this is a series gf ideas. i'd like to be much more forthcoming and more detailed in response with a laundry list, sir. all right much it's been a long day. i appreciate your indulgence. i just say in closing, i think the issues that we've discussed and debated today can you tell there are strong feelings about. i still believe maintain for a

long time that better served in the long run if we can provide clear rules for the road. and i think clear direction of the fcc but limited, tailored to me is a better way to approach the issue of how best to achieve an open interit in. as i mentioned before with senator nelson and others about it. i would hope going forward that the commission could play a constructive role, not discourage us from legislating. but perhaps be helpful if we decide to do something that would put something in statute that i think again addresses the issue of uncertainty and lawsuits which is going to plague i think this order for some time to come. that you could all play a contributing role to that and not work against that. >> can i just be supportive of those comments, sir. i think that we're in a

situation of we will, we will provide you whatever expertise that we can including from different points of view. and this is going to be a class ig situation of we'll report and you decide. >> okay. >> i asked that question as well of the chairman. and he has assured me that he will. my sense is as a result of what we've heard today from the five commissioners is that we're going to have to let this percolate a bit before we can actually sit down and have this consensus building that you all -- that you and i are talking about. >> okay with that, the hearing record will remain open for two weeks. the witnesses are requested to submit written answers to the committee as soon as possible. i thank the panel. this hearing is adjourned.

>> tonight on american history tv and prime time, a person of the year 1865 forum starting off at 8:00 p.m. author elizabeth barn prior who treated wounded and sick soldiers during the civil war. at 8:45, a. wilson green makes the case for robert e. lee. and then cassandra alex and dra on freed slaves. also william cooper on the president of the confederacy jefferson davis rounds out the person of the year nominees. all of this tonight on "american history tv" on c-span3.

>> live today at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span i-tv will host the first leaders debate of the general election campaign featuring all seven party leaders vying for ten downing street. the debate will also include audience questions. the general election is may 7th. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battle fields and key events. touring historic sites to reveal what artifacts reveal about

america's past. the president sishgs looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures and history with top college professor delving into america's past and our new series, real america featuring educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and fund bid your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> next, the mayors of los angeles, araura, colorado and anaheim, california discuss how their cities are addressing immigration issues. the january sessions were part of a national journal forum on immigration and urban demographics around the country.

>> good afternoon. i'm the senior vice president at national journal. i'd like to welcome all of you, including all of you this is a new setup for us, as well as those watching our live stream video at national journal.com to today's town hall next america population 2043. this event is presented with support from emerson collective. before we get started, we would love for you to silence your cell phones. we would love for you to tweet the kmebts and questions on this event via #njnextamerica. if you like to use the wi fi network, must seem guest and there is no pass word. we have q&a after each portion of the event. we have standing microphones throughout the room. please state your name and organization if you have a question. just a quick overview of the

topic today. america is experiencing one of the largest demographic shifts in american history. diversity is deepening both in cities where it has already been well established as well as in communities where those currents have not previously been felt. the nation's demographic shifts are creating challenges and opportunities for communities as they grapple with these issues. despite washington gridlock and polarization on immigration issues, state and local leaders are addressing this issue. and in dozens of cities, mayors and local leaders are debating the topics and creating solutions to immigration that could create blueprints for the rest of the country. first we will have mayor eric garcetti sit down with ron brownstein for a keynote interview. then we'll have a panel new faces, new places a conversation with mayors. that will feature mayor ralph

becker. mayor steve hogan and mayor tom tate. and then following that will be immigration and diversity in communities across the country panel. and to close the program we will hear from our immigration in the new year expert panel. i'd now like to introduce ron brownstein and mayor eric garcetti. ron brownstein will be moderating multiple portions of the event today. he's a two-time finalist for the pullser prize and the editorial director. and joining ron is mayor eric garcetti who is the 47th mayor of los angeles. his back to basics agenda is focused on job creation and solving every day problems for l.a. residents. ron, i'll turn it over to you. >> thank you. thank you all for -- thank you for joining us in the cafe next america or the relaunch of play house 90. i'm not sure which. one or the other. mayor garcetti who is my mayor,

i'm a constituent these days thank you. i want to ask you a little bit to start talking a little bit about the executive order, the executive action the president is pursuing on immigration and there are a lot of political legal logistical challenges some of which i want to talk about that this action faces. one thing we know already is that southern california is right at the ep iicenter, roughly half a million living there, depending on the estimate, before we get to the challenges of making this work let me ask you if this does go into effect what will change in the city of los angeles? >> if this goes into effect, it will be a huge boom for us economically, socially in terms of public safety. and i think the questions we should ask ourselves as americans right now kind of a head, heart and gut check will

we be smart? will we be good and will we be brave? in a city like los angeles, if this country manages to see this through and maybe even future steps for greater integration because let's not kid ourselves this is a very important temporary and interim step. it's not the final destination of citizenship or american integration. we see an economic benefit about $3 billion we estimate for los angeles. >> $3 billion from what? increased economic activity? >> students who now can get scholarships, get the college degree thatz booms that the boom to our economy, the education and the economic benefits that come from full citizenship in the rightses and responsibility. >> l.a. is already -- california in general has passed a series of laws, driver's license in state tuition, access to financial aid in state. it's already a pretty welcoming environment for people who are undocumented. what impractical terms do you think will be different in the way people live their lives?

>> well let me challenge one piece. you're right. more welcoming. i think for a lot of folks, there is still a lot of fear out. there while they may hear something good from local government or state government, there is still a climate of fear if we come too far out of the shadow something bad will happen. even as we see a court challenge to the administrateive relief now that, is going to send scare tumblers all across this nation and for folks who are right now sitting on the sidelines may not know may not speak english as fist language, it is a scary environment. but for us i think we're trying to make that less scary. what do we do to give people full information? what do we do to get them on the pathway to make sure they're not preyed upon as well. but we're looking at finding the partnership as cross america and the best part of the state of the union last year, the president said if you're a mayor or governor don't wait for washington to take action. we haven't been weechlt been coming together as coalitions of cities

cities, coalitions of municipal and state areas that say we have power to do things even though the federal government has immigration policy, we can do things in the meantime with driver's licenses, wed indication, with our school system, community college ands state schools. and in our public education system as well as even offering path ways to entrepreneurship and my town, had 44% of new businesses are started by these people. >> let me come back to the cities and what they're doing and can do to make this work before. we do, let me ask a question about the ledger. you talked about the positives providing more people legal status. are there any down sides can you see? are there any costs in terms of increased public demand and services, increased competition for jobs. are there ways can you foresee tensions or pressures arising from a movement toward legal status. >> not in my city. it is a release volume of for pressures that exist and opportunities both economically and as i said socially as well. what we wonder as we're seeing our graduation rates rise,

they're still too far behind dwoevenlt have enough people who feel comfortable participating in the civic life of the city. i'm being very honest. i try to think what are the negative effects, people are working anyway. people are here anyway. the department of education requires we educate folks who are undocumented here anyway. the whole argument that administrative relief is somehow causing our schools to be newly filled with new students is just false. so cities don't have the luxury of being able to, you know, determine national policies. what we have is obligation to make things work on the ground. that's what we're finding in l.a. >> let's talk about making this work on the ground. you've been working with a coalition of cities aren't country. and one thing that is striking about this executive action is that although l.a. has many more potential eligible than any other city it is pretty well dispersed. you look the top 20 counties only account for 40% of the

total eligible. there are substantial numbers dispersed around the country that could benefit from this. what do you think it is going to take in large cities and small to have substantial takeout of the executive action? >> i think it requires a dedicated commit. at the municipal level or state level to putting in the programs and training and personnel to make this happen. and that doesn't have to mean additional costs. give one example, in l.a., we have something called cities for citizenship together with mayors diblasio and emanuel, it's 13 cities doing. this they get advice on immigration issues. that sounds expensive to a mayor. where do you find that money? we took our librarians and there is a library in every neighborhood had support from city bank, foundations and others and trained this cadre of immigrant and immigration advisors who are just librarians. people go to for information all the time anyway to help with the job, find out about schools.

and the librarians love it. we had 10,000 people go through. this that means they've become citizens, they filled out the paperwork, all the things that allowed my city to get actually more money stabilize, have a more of a role in the economy to play and that was with existing resources. so now that these other ten cities came onboard, we're trying to get a template that smallest town and the biggest city can use a light. we all have public libraries. we all have school systems. and our unified school district in los angeles we're training a whole group of students, administrators and teachers to identify students and their parents who will be eligible for administrative relief. what better army of folks are willing to do that excited to do that and know these people better than anybody? >> talk more about the schools. one way to -- i mean this is -- you have five million roughly lyly 5.2 million eligible around the country. it's a community that is not necessarily easiest to reach. it is more accustomed to staying out of the spotlight than walking into it. how important are schools in the outreach? what do you specifically plan to

do in l.a. around that? >> they're critically important. there's not one parent who doesn't care about his or her, you know child and their education. so they're already engaged with the schools. even if they're engaged with no other kind of civic activities, they'll go to that parent. you have to have multilingual capabilities, we do that in spanish, korean and multitude of languages. that is very important. you have to use also the language media of that group. but in the schools we're trying to figure out a way that we can institutionalize it and actually the schools came to us as well. because you have all the students who care a lot about this issue. who see the fellow classmates who may or may not have documents and they want to be able to help them and have them help their parents. i always said that students are the best environmentalists. they'll go home and tell their parents, why aren't you recycling? they'll take the trash out and sort it themselves. it's similar with immigration policy. sometimes parents don't know all the pathways but teach the kids and they will change the entire

family's legal status and outlook. >> as you analyzed it from the city level, what is the biggest potential bottle neck here? it is outreach making people aware of it? it is legal help? is it documentation which is going to be challenging? what are the biggest bottle necks you see? >> the biggest bottle necks are the sheer number. for instance we're having driver's licenses for everybody in the state of california something our police chief supported, something that will make our streets safer. >> by december, by the way. >> exactly. in january we started that. just the sheer number of people lining up to do that becomes bureaucratic. i do think that documentation hasn't been as difficult. legal assistance is critical. you have people that prey on folks saying give me $1000, i'll take care of this. they may or may not do it. they don't realize there is free or low cost legal assistance out there. we've done a lot of workshops with our legal aide partners public council groups like that that are nonprofit that's can

help people not just identify that but sometimes fill out in the workshops the paperwork while they're there and before they leave. >> in terms of outreach, is there someone in charge? you have the cities. you have foundations. you have nonprofit groups working. is there a coordinated effort? how does that run? >> so i restarted an office of immigrant affairs in my office. we are seeing more and more cities have that or dedicated coordinator. mine is dr. linda lopez over at university of southern california. and i have a whole staff behind us. and we have a lot of volunteers. we have folks working on their masters. this is a issue that is very hot. you don't lack for volunteers. but it does require i think having somebody who is a coordinator in place with the city hall. because that reassures folks out there who may be fearful that they'll have some protection and then for the folks that are wondering whether or not they have to play with you, oh, it's the mayor much it's the mayor ace office. now the librarians, school

district, everybody is eager to help. >> you have two recent press -- not only in l.a. but the country, we have two recent precedents in this community. one is generally seen as pretty successful in getting people to come forward who are potentially eligible eligible. the other is the affordable care act which is much more difficult. they put a lot of money and effort into hispanic outreach still ran into people whowere reluctant. are there any lessons you take from the two experiences about what it will take to make this work? >> i think it's very important. like i said, to meet people where they are. not to expect them to come some place where you are. either geographically on or conceptually. we have great partners for instance, our spanish language networks who help set up help desk that's people can call into.

don't ever treat the immigrant community as one group. i mean you have to reach out to canadians. you have to reach out to armenians. you have to reach out to others. suddenly the network that those groups have are very tight and they will pass that information along. but probably nobody's ever reached out to them. >> so speaking of health care, are you confident that the federal government will hold up its end? do you -- you have been briefed? is there a sense to implement this that will be function smoothly? >> yeah, we feel good. our health care experience was quite good in los angeles. we need more young people. that is not so much the immigrant community. we need more young people especially of color to get that health care. we all think when we're young we're invincible. we need more coordinated

outreach. health insurance is a good thing. we have positive experience with immigrant community. and i think the lessons learned there are also if can you touch people on one issue they care a lot about, give them information about other things, too. so we've taken all of our city just like i said with the library, all of our city facilities if, someone comes in for tax preparation help we may tell them about after school programs. we might also then show them how to open up a bank account and they qualify for that and get them if their family needs mental health counseling. i hope we have a time of lesser resources. and a recognition that families live all these problems at once. if you're going to attack poverty and see economic development, you have to cluster them together. one stop shopping essentially for government services. serve them instead of serving ourselves. >> you talked about it before. california has done a number of things already in state law

relating to the undocumented. what are the policies you think are necessary if any to wraparound the federal law to create the maximum impact in this community? what are the things you think cities and states are looking at doing? >> i think if you want massive civic participation either in a selfish way for folks to help the status or to participate more widely in the community. first you have to address the fears that people have. so things like we took a policy that iced detainers without a judge order we would not respect anymore. if you have a legitimate judge saying you need to detain a criminal, we'll still do that. but these kind of random ones that we're sending a lot of fear into the community making people less likely to be a witness, rooting out the crime that we need you have to establish i think first something which people feel safe. secondly, you have to let people know that you're there. you will be close to wherever they are. you'll hit them at the school library, you know the dmv when they're getting the driver's licenses. and i think that's second. and then third, really challenge

them to step up more than getting something to also give something back. we found a whole leadership class that we developed called government 101. we've done it in korean, spanish, chinese and thai. this is how laws get passed at the local level. you want to park, you want a pothole filled, now take the next step. that creates a whole army of folks within communities that can help other people come out of the shadows first again for the immigration changes but also then for the civic life. that is the american tradition. that is really my goal is to just turn people into citizens. i want more citizens here. >> you mentioned cities are coming together. there is an alliance of cities. california is a place where you have a lot of potentially eligible people and a state government that is supportive of what you're doing. there are large eligible populations in states that where the city may be active in trying

to bring in the eligible and sign them up, but state may have a different posture. we have the more conservative states have the more -- larger potential populations. arizona, texas georgia, potentially florida. do you think that cities will face any resistance if they try to aggressively sign people up for the order from some of the state governments? >> i haven't seen a lot of state governments try to block them. your right. they can be incongruous. for instance, the 25 26 states that have sued on administrative relief, we're looking to do a brief of a bunch of cities to counteract that. and many of the cities are larger than the states that are even suing. the way we can plan things coordinated, we found in red states that are tl are republican controlled legislatorses and governors who are doing better than the democrats and cities around the

country. this is an economic boom to their state if they get this right. sl tl is legislation we'll come back to a minute which is intended to stop it. 25 states are participating. do you think that will have a significant or material effect on the willingness of people to come forward? might they fear it is contingent and this may not really happen? >> i think it will have a great chilling effect. i think people will hear that a court decision that may apply to certain states even if you don't live in that state, you'll say it's not happening or i don't qualify anymore. with it difficult for people to come out and qualify for citizenship today who are here legally, when these things happen i think the unintended consequences is people retreat back into where they are. we need to have more of those people qualify for citizenship today becomes citizen. but they'll see that court case

and they'll say well no not in this country, not now. it's why i'm here. it's why sox us are in here in the audience, ourselves, parents, grandparents, et cetera. i think america will return to the roots. no place cannot afford not to. >> if the 25 states are suing in district court and texas, if the court does rule in their favor, issues an injunction against the federal government moving forward either in those states as you eluded to or all states that, would not affect cities. planning if there is a junction against the federal government? >> absolutely. absolutely it would. >> what about in your conversations with other mayors? do you expect to move forward? >> we can't afford not. to this puts us in a place where again, i think that head heart and gut thing.

we have the guts to do this to be brave. in our hearts we want to be good. i mean whether it was the images of folks surrounding buses of unaccompanied minors and where you were on the issue when i reminded people, can we be parents first and human beings first? you know i would send no child across that border. if a child got across the board border, what is already elemental than trying to find your parents? we have to be smart. i think mayors, republicans and democrats alike, we have a coalition of folks here, tom tate is a great mayor in anaheim next to me. he's republican. i happen to be a democrat. we're both really nonpartisan guys who see the importance of serving all of our people. if we can't move forward with this, you're assigning us a worse economic condition, a worse criminal justice system, less safe streets and less prosperity for everybody. >> just to be clear, even if the federal court temporarily stops the federal government from moving forward, your own work at the city level will continue? >> oh, yes. we're committed to this. our citizenship corners and libraries continue.

the driver's license work continues, iced detainer work continues. we can't afford not to continue. >> do you have a goal? as i said before roughly half a million people in l.a. county, significantly more in southern california, big populations around, orange county and the inland empire. but in l.a. itself do you have a goal of what you think is reasonable to sign up over the next year or so? >> we don't have a goal but striving for 250,000. if that takes us a series of years, so be it. it takes us back many times over every single time we get somebody fully integrated. it makes business sense first and foremost and also ethical sense. >> and you eluded to this before, the cities may intervene in the litigation on the other side? >> yeah, we're looking to do an ammicous brief and have cities that stepped up saying they want to be a part of it too. we don't have local government or the federal part of the government saying oh, we're against this because, you know just a few voices decided to challenge. we think that we can get a

coalition of cities much larger and that is an important counter balance for any court especially as they may win the first round judging by what i've heard about the court that it's in. but it will be appealed, of course. as it's being appealed, its very important for americans to speak up. >> you are confident and those who brief you are you confident that federal government does have the authority to do that? >> i think. so again, political terms, i think history is on our side. if we need to see the progress come through changes in laws as well, it is only a matter of time. it makes sense across the board. you know, seven out of the ten top new companies started in this country were started by immigrants or children of immigrants. gave you the stats of 44% of our new businesses in the city of l.a. if we become a place seen as anti-immigrant or shutting off that valve i was sharing a story, i just came back from asia. and when i was in seoul and when i was in tokyo and different cities in china, they were asking how can we get more

diversity? they realize that this is important for competition in the global economy today. we can't afford a conversation that's backwards saying how do we keep these people in the fringes because they're not going anywhere. they're going to be here. we need tomorrow brace that diversity, figure out a way to incorporate and see populations continue to grow in united states. >> let me ask you two final things and then bring in the audience. first, you mentioned the importance of the goal here really is citizenship in the end. not just legal status. that will require legislation. do you think this executive action in the long run is bringing us closer or further away from a legislative consensus on immigration? >> no question. i think that it is bringing us closer. and to use the metaphor from before, gay marriage civil unions, the sky didn't fall. it was a necessary first step not the ultimate goal. as i joked with friends, what's going to happen when gay marriage goes through? nothing. straight couples get married and

divorces and so do gay couples. i think women inauguration, we have a similar thing. any steps we take shows it gets better, not worse. seen what do we have to fear snt argument that's somehow this is going to be corrosive to a democracy or to our economy have not borne out. we take these steps. i think this helps us get to the place ultimately of citizenship. and i would say to anybody today who is still an opponent of being able to bring people fully into citizenship is don't ask if tell us how. because the alternative is something that this country can't afford. the status quo is completely broken for all of us that deal with it. and we need you to be a part of that solution instead of just saying what you're against. that's the challenge i think for this congress. i think that's a challenge for kind of immigration opponents that are out there right now. it's unamerican. but i'm very hopeful that we'll move closer. >> does the magnitude matter? you have the house voting last week to block it. probably a majority of the senate but not enough will vote

to block it. possibly every republican presidential conditioned date in 2016 will promise to whatever else repeal the executive action. does a number of people who get signed up between now and then assuming it goes forward zshgs that -- is that a significant variable you think on whether this stays in place? it's an important variable. the question they then have to answer is if you don't like the president didn't have the power to do this will you do it legislatively? and you as a president will you sign that in? i don't think the white house this was the preferred mode of action. and i think it's a bigger question that american people are asking any candidate. and any party. what you are doing to fully intergrate now must cousins, neighbors, co-workers. this is no longer something which people don't know who these folks are. i think increasingly people recognize who they are. the importance, you know when you meet a dreamer who has been a straight a student only known the united states, gets a scholarship to go to a wonderful university and can't afford it

because there's no financial aid, why -- where do we expect that individual to go and why wouldn't our country benefit from hit or her? >> i guess the challenge to supporters of policy, the cities, the advocacy groups, the neighborhood groups. if there are millions of people signed up, is this more likely to endure than if there were hundreds of thousands? >> absolutely. i think once people are in there, that becomes an advocacy group and the people parts of those families. because most of the families are blended, full citizens people here legally but not citizens and folks that don't have any documentation in singular families. i think that you have a huge constituency. once people get in the system, they should be able to, i think, full trust and faith be able to see the end of that as well. >> let's bring in the audience for a couple questions. and over here. >> i stood up here, i guess that's obvious. it was interesting. thank you for being here today. a lot of questionsst but i'll boil it down to two. having covering this issue many

years, i realize there's a great deal of fear. it's not just fear from the government or fear of the government or fear your neighbor, but when you lined up and you've seen people cross the rio grand and they're being exploited, there is a fear now that there will be an exploitation in the neighborhoods as this comes to pass. so how do you deal with that? that's the first question. and then the second one is i run two newspapers and three web sites and i can tell you on any given day if i'm not tweeting or involved in social immediate yashgs i'm doomed. so how do you take this message to social media and deal with the naysayers who as the man wiser than me once said, you know, a lie will make its way around the world before the truth puts the boots on. how do you deal with that? >> you know, social media is a -- it's not one world, it's a lot of world that's exist unto themselves sometimes. i think it's important not to lose all of our focus and spend all time rebutting arguments

from folks who may not, you know ever change their minds but to actually social media to reach people who need help. and that's what we're primarily using social media for in multiple languages to reach out and for in multiple languages to reach out and find people that say come on in. we have folks who know this and can answer your questions et cetera. to the first piece i think you're right. it's a very fair point that anybody who is pro-immigrant or pro-citizenship in this argument has to have their hearts break when they see the condition on the border and cannot ignore that and cannot have an open border and like i say, for their children. i wouldn't tell any children yeah, go try to cross that border. you're putting your life on the line and looking to be exploited, et cetera. so having a strong border is a path toward citizenship and to me, that's progressive on these issues and wants to see people not be exploited and. what we do in our towns once they get there it's very

important to create relationships between law enforcement and the immigrant community. los angeles has led the way. charlie beck and before him, bill brattin, we let folks know that there is special order 40 which means if you come into contact contact with a police officer and we're not just going to ask you for documentation status for no other reason not because of a criminal act, but because of that. we want them to testify. we want them to be witnesses and we want them to report crimes and we have a very good working relationships who trust the police department and it makes our streets safer, which helps us solve a lot of crimes which helps them be a part of civic life, too. >> over here, question? >> peggy ochowski, correspondent with hispanic outlook and lifetime southern californian. >> all right. >> i agree the hispanic community who is here illegally will benefit tremendously from

this, but i've got a different perspective on immigration when i came here to d.c. and that is that a lot of jobs especially that blacks used to do in this town especially construction have been completely taken over by latino contractors which often use illegal workers and underbid the black contractors. i've talked to many and i've interviewed them. i appreciate your pollyannaish view about the good, but there's no doubt that illegals do take jobs and when can you -- how can you face that? every person i talk to who will benefit this, their first thing says that they'll take a better job. they're going to go get a better job than they have now. so who will do the jobs that supposedly americans don't do. >> with all respect, i don't think it's pollyannaish and it's practical and rooted in a lot of research on this and we had to

answer your question in the construction trade and it's very important not to inflate the trade and undocumented workers and not to say that some don't in a lot of industries and african-americans not in the hotels where there were a lot of employment and so we worked consciously on apprenticeship programs in south los angeles and work with the building trade unions to bring 3,000 or 4,000 african-americans that weren't becoming plumbers, electricians and carpenters to go specifically into that. we found on the work site in los angeles if people didn't speak spanish sometimes they couldn't get on to those jobs and we recognize that issue and we've taken that on, brought people in and same thing with our hotel industry where we saw african-americans no longer in those positions and we've worked with other unions and we've consciously drawn people now to learn those trades and to become apprentices and to become there

with quite good success and there are ways to deal with issues that come up with this. quote, unquote, illegals take jobs. people who are here want to work, and i think that that's great. we want hard-working people no matter what their color and no matter what their religion and background, and there are ways to do that. >> let's go to the next question. >> thank you so much for coming all of the way over to the west coast. we appreciate you spending time with us today. >> hard to argue in january. just a brief question, pretty simple, straight to the point. do you feel that individuals applying for citizenship required to learn english? >> i do. i support that. i think it is the language of success. i think it happens in every generation that people do. it's tough for some people once you're past 5 years old to learn a new language and you have folks who come from their teens and early 20s and by the time they die their prime air language will still be lithuanian or whatever, but i do

think it is a good idea and i think it will be something that's supported and something that we can do. people want to. i've never met in my interactions immigrants who don't want to learn english but can they work it into their two jobs? do we have the adult schools to allow that? it's a big focus of ours in los angeles and adult schools to provide those classes and through my classes of immigrant affairs. >> my name is megan taylor representing taylor consultants. >> hi megan. >> california dreamin, how about that? >> this may semelem elementary and i know we don't quite air it in public, do you think that america can go back to immigration, period, and reviewing it as a whole if we want to relegate who are immigrant and who are native. >> right. >> do you think we could benefit at all from re-taking that course and even going back to

reviewing whether christopher columbus even actually discovered the land and what happens with the indians and so forth and so on that we can actually get an education that would then allow all of us to make an informed decision as to comments behaviors and actions that relate to immigration said civil services and orth wise? >> i think you make a great point. we should all know our history before who was brought here willfully and brought here in chains and who was here before anybody else was here and when did they even migrate here themselves. i love the line that nobody actually originally came from here even those from here 10,000 years were immigrants the original ones. we sometimes get so caught up in the history piece back and forth about who is right and wrong that we forget to solve the practical problem, and i love history. i love trying to untangle the morality and we all have blood on our hands and s ands and we've all been victimized and they can lay

claim to both and it's not just where they came from and where the past is and where do we want to go and who do they want to be? and they're struggling with having population growth and japan has the struggle now and how do we stay strong and korea the same thing where we have an aging population and no new folks being brought up in low birth weight and similar to what we have in the differencemaker in the united states has always been immigration and to keep the economy growing and to have innovation happen and why should we invite so many great foreign students who are great minds to come here and study and as soon as they invent something we say start your business anywhere, but america and getting back to that history can help inform the future. >> we need you to go to the mike because otherwise it's real quick. >> can i ask you real quick? >> sure. one of the things california is considering would be extending the medical program and the medicaid program to the undocumented. would you support that? >> absolutely. we wind up paying in the emergency room. preventative care is always cheaper than what we pay.

same argument on homelessness and they say one weekend can cost $25,000 for one individual chronically homeless going into an emergency room rather than treating that and not even on the ethical terms and just on pure financial terms it makes sense. >> one final question. >> going back to the original question in terms of economic impact, what do you see the economic impact of the executive action and potentially, eventually comprehensive immigration reform on housing, for example, and home ownership specifically? thank you for that, too. >> los angeles is now, unfortunately the least affordable city in the country or the region and it's not the highest rents and you can find them other places and given wages and that gap and we want more people to earn that money and we want them to start businesses legally and we have a record number of jobs we think, in los angeles and not a record number of payroll jobs because a lot of those are either and now people are starting those things

and are off the books. that gives me more money to hire more police officers and have paramedics. it's economic effects and the $2.8 million that we estimate that this could give the city and it's also the fiscal effect on my city. i can't afford to have integration of immigrants because we have to pay for that. it's the same thing as poverty wages. we often say let's not raise the minimum wage and we all pay for it anyway in the emergency room and food stamps when people aren't home to help kids with homework. let's figure out a way for people to become citizen, get a decent wage and have access to home ownership and that to me is the american dream and that's what i'm fighting for in l.a. and a lot of my colleagues are around the country. >> join me in thanking mayor garcetti. thank you so much. [ applause ] >> thank you so much mayor

garcetti for joining us. our next panel is new places new faces and joining ron on stage is the honorable steve hogan, mayor of aurora colorado. the honorable ralph becker mayor of salt lake utah and the honorable tom tate, mayor of anaheim, california, and joining ron on stage is amy sullivan correspondent of national journal and director of the next economy program who will help moderate. i'll turn it over to you. >> hi, amy. >> welcome mayors. let me start and amy and i will take turns grilling you and let me start with the point they left off with mayor garcetti. although there are big cities that have a lot of undocumented by the estimates that would be potentially eligible for executive action in fact, the bestest estimates is that this is disbursed. they only account for 40% of the

total pool of the eligible population. there are a lot of people out there. orange count we anaheim, estimated $15 157,000 people, and salt lake county, 22,000. when we think, when we get beyond chicago and new york and l.a., is the infrastructure to work through this process in a city of your size, mayor? >> i think the short answer is yes. the city of aurora is 250,000 we are already a city where the caucasians are a minority, 6% asian, 19% african-american, 28% hispanic and 1% to 2% whatever. that leaves less than 50% caucasian and it's been that way for a while.

and we find ways to get things done. we have no choice. the federal government doesn't work. state government is dealing with many of the basic issues that the federal government used to deal with. that leaves local government to do the rest and we think we do pretty well. >> usually in salt lake city in listening to mayor garcetti we wish we had the resources of a larger city like los angeles but i think we're confident that a combination of city government and faith-based organizations, partnerships at the state level that we are pretty well prepared to be able to house the immigrant population and provide for them. salt lake city and resettlement facility and we have 50,000 refugees that r resettled in the public schools and salt lake city.

we are in the continuous effort around dealing with folks who are either in poverty or come to our country and come to salt lake city or in need and it's a remarkably giving society and community where the number one service volunteer state and city in the country. so we feel we can address this. we're anxious to incorporate the new immigrants into the community. >> you might be doing larger numbers than the other two. how do you feel? >> anaheim is the largest city in orange county, about 350,000. very ethnic, 70% ethnic. i think 55% latino, 20% asian and one of the largest arab-american populations in the united states. so it's wildly diverse. we were listen toing mayor garcetti and saying man, he has a lot of resources and formalized stuff going on. we just get things done and so basically, we've been doing it

in our city. we treat people as people, and regardless of status, if people if there is a crime being committed and our police officers go and it doesn't matter whether they're here legally or illegally or documented or undocumented, it doesn't matter. so we treat people as people i guess. as far as when these programs start rolling in, we rely on a lot on the non-profits, the charities that do a lot of work with us. >> will the city undertake its own effort? >> we're in the midst of it. >> probably not but that's only because we're in a fairly unique status. we are actually in three different county and we have five different school districts. so we end up being more of a facilitator, but certainly there are programs that city

government is in charge of and as was said -- we don't care. we just deal with people and make it work. >> amy sullivan, director of the next america project joining us. >> thank you. mayor becker, i wanted to follow up on something you had mentioned and see if you can talk about it a little bit more about your experience with salt lake with the mormon church or the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints because a lot of cities i know are feeling some financial strain and will need to lean on some local actors as this process goes through, and perhaps that could be kind of a model of what you've seen happen already and maybe what you expect in terms of the cooperation with some local people. >> think our goal in salt lake city is to be as inclusive and welcoming as we possibly can be for everyone that comes to our community and whether someone is healthy or a new corporation, we

really want folks to feel like we have an inclusive environment. in salt lake city and utah, we went through a fairly unique experience, i think when the wave of anti-immigration action started to occur in arizona and was literally the wave was sweeping into utah, as you might expect. leadership of the state, political leadership and certainly the business leadership and the non-profit leadership on every end of the spectrum came together and said wait a minute. this is not who we are and over a period of a couple of months developed something called the utah compact and we as a state and society want to foster these principles in the way we address immigration and didn't specify particular legislative solutions and recognized the federal system is broken and we want to support and not have families separated. that we want to take advantage and integrate the prosperity

coming into our society and a number of factors and said this is how we want to operate and it stemmed that tiedel wave almost that is coming over utah and it is a set of principles that has served us well. we are a conservative state and we do not want to be treating people in a way that is discriminatory or in a way that is inhumane or in a way that doesn't recognize the benefits that come from immigration. so that spirit seems to prevail and we have incredibly generous folks both privately and publicly that allow us to get more things done and we're at the city level. that's what we're about. we can argue ideology all we want, but when it comes down to it, it's serving our community. >> let me ask you. in your own experience and looking more broadly in your role as co-chair of a task

force, do you expect any resistance from the state which is a conservative state and i believe, one of the states on the lawsuit. if you're out there trying to implement the executive order, do you think there are other cities that might face resistance from their state governments? >> you see anti-immigrant sentiments. they're loud, and they're a very strong voice in our state but so far whether you're talking about providing tuition and, in-state tuition and benefits or talking about the basic services that people need, i think our state has been pretty welcoming. the litigation that the state of utah joined on you would have to ask them and to me it seems inconsistent with the kind of spirit we've reflected in the

utah compact, but i think we're going to have to sort of let it play itself out. there are still people who operate in a very ideological realm or may be appeasing certain view, but i'm not seeing that reflected in the way that we're taking actions. >> do you see -- do you think cities will face any meaningful resistance from states and some of the more skeptical states? not the order? >> certainly not from california. [ laughter ] >> that would not be high on the list of threats. >> in talking with your colleagues with the task force you look at a texas or arizona or georgia or florida and some of the other places that we have large concentrations in and urban areas that want to aggressively implement the order and do you think any of them will face pushback from the states? >> as mayor what brings us together is we often deal with issues of assault problems. that really is where government where the rubber hits the road. so we have to deal with this and that's why you have a bipartisan

group of mayors on the task force and we had a letter assigned, 150 mayors and there's com prehundredsive immigration reform including security in the borders and i've allowed to come out of the shadows for the american dream. >> can i follow up very quick when he comes back in? >> given that, do you think the president asking on his own here, did that move us closer or further away among what we endorsed? >> you will get debate among mayors. i wish it didn't happen because it moves us away. it throws in a constitutional argument because this is sch a big issue. there needs to be a law that everybody can get behind and it would make it easier. i guess i like the action he took and i don't -- i guess i don't like how it happened.

>> what do you think? does this bring us closer or further away from a final resolution? >> i'm not sure it matters. again, cities have to deal with whatever the result is and we'll deal with it whether it relates to school programs or whether it relates to police relationships with minority community anies whether it's driver's licenses and whether it's lunch programs in the summer when school isn't in session. it doesn't matter. we, as cities will deal with it. obviously, i wish it were taken care of but we'll deal with it no matter what the result is because we have no choice because there is no government under city government. we have to do it and if the feds can't do it and if the state can't do it, we'll do it. >> mayor becker? >> on behalf of the national league of cities, this has been an issue that the national

league has been involved in and started vetting within cities for well over a decade and when the president made his announcement we were there the next day saying we support the action because it does begin to address, not complete and it does begin to address the problems that we face in cities and we may disagree that we wish congress had taken action, but with congress not having taken action we support a comprehensive immigration reform and this helps us do our jobs better in cities. >> you mentioned the problems that you face in cities right now and how this may address it. i'm curious to know how each of you has been thinking of this any anticipating the process going forward in the next few months and in terms of the on the ground changes that you might be able to see?

>> it's -- i guess a big picture i was -- i'm hoping for congress to get together and pass along and it could be signed by the president and that could be a way of that happening. short of that, again, seeing what the mayor has said, we'll just deal with whatever comes our way because our job is to serve the people in the city regardless of legal status. so we'll just keep doing what we do. >> given the large people in the community who are eligible do you think that will make a difference in terms of the character of your community? in terms of the economics and the local economy? >> we probably -- and arizona probably has 50,000, 60,000 undocumented folks and this affects 30,000 and if it helps them that's all a good thing.

it would be better if it helped all the folks so if -- i forgot your question. >> i wonder what the practical consequences would be for anaheim. >> i think the practical consequences are that it will help the people in anaheim, helping out people in anaheim and therefore it's good for anaheim. >> it's a question that we're asking mayor garcetti. if you think on the ground for people living in salt lake city or in anaheim, what's going to change in a positive way and are there any negative outcomes? a backlash -- any backlash that you expect if this does, in fact, go forward? >> certainly someone who is currently illegal, undocumented and if they are legal that changes a great deal. attitude if nothing else, not quite as a phrase of being stopped for a traffic light. not being as afraid when you go into a store to buy something

and somebody asks for identification identification. so that will be a good thing and that will be a good thing on a general psyche. i find it difficult to identify any bad -- >> to down size. >> people are already there and they're already living every day and they're already working wherever they're working and they need help and we find ways to help. >> yeah. i think it's going to be a challenge for us. this is not an easy process for us to help members of our community work through and we're gearing up to figure out how to best help people and we'll have forums in english and spanish and both community dialogues and assistance as best as we can provide it and we're reaching out with our other partners and many organizations within the city and within the salt lake region, but i'll tell you what

concerns me as much as anything is the fear over the cloud that's hanging over the litigation because there are people -- you know if i come forward, does that mean that at a future date this might get reversed and i now am going to be identified and profiled as someone who the government is going to come after. >> do you think you'll have a significant and chilling effect? >> it's something we're concerned about because obviously we haven't hit the start button yet and we're doing everything we can to try to reach out another community and to provide assistance to people to work through the process, but things we're hearing in our community today is can we trust the government in the long term not just in term of our immediate actions to provide us the security we need to fully be an integrated member of the community in society. >> along those lines, the thing about anaheim, what was the experience there? was that a positive experience?

are there lessons you can take from that that may be relevant to trying to implement this assumes that you do get the -- it passes the legal test and it is implemented and what was the experience like and what can you learn from it? >> um -- anaheim, what we do is work with our non-profits and i guess we direct people for non-profits for help and things like that, but that's probably the direction we will take. we don't have a lot of resources and that's when we listen to mayor garsety and the resources are set with keeping people safe and there really isn't a lot left for additional programs. that's why we work closely with the non-profit community and we'll probably do the same. >> yeah. one of the things i was thinking of as ron was asking you to imagine some of the challenges

is the fact that this executive action does not do a lot of things and one of the things it doesn't do is provide eligibility for healthcare for example, for people who are eligible overall and it strikes me that it's possible to kind of set that issue aside when you're just talking about a community of undocumented immigrants, but when you have people who have now been covered by this executive action who are still going without health insurance that becomes more of a challenge and an issue for your communities and i'm wondering what the possible ways of addressing that might be and whether that does indeed pose a challenge in terms of resources? >> again i think the answer to that unfortunately, does not lie in cities. we just don't have the authority or the power to solve the problem. we just have the responsibility

to deal with the problem and that's the -- that's the tough part. in a city like aurora we've got three major helps and another one coming online shortly. i hope. it's a va hospital. you never know but we'll find ways through the non-profit community through the faith-based community and through our own programs that we can put in place and the mental health area to try to get services to people, but we can't change the law that says you're going to get health insurance. we can't do that part. we can just deal with what's on the ground. >> i wasn't suggesting changes to the law. i guess it was more as an interim measure, how do you provide health care to thousands of people who aren't eligible for health insurance? i would just say, we're doing

that now. if someone shows up in an emergency room they get treated and it's a very expensive way to provide health care and so to us, and i'm speaking regionally now, not just as salt lake city, if we can find a way to better manage our health care costs and provide better health care, we're all better off as a community and as a society. so to me, in a way, with this executive order it may not change healthcare, but it's not that we're not providing health care today. it's just a very expensive way we're providing it in some instances and if we can find a better way to do it we should. >> california is exploring and it has discussed a change in the law and what do you think about the idea of making undocumented eligible for the state medicaid program? >> i think it's very reasonable and it is -- people are being treated already of course and it seems like -- i think it would be reasonable. >> we've seen it's a bridge too

far politic that there might be a backlash even in california or not? >> probably somewhat but i think people in california they understand that there's a problem that needs to be solved and it might not be the way everyone wants to solve it, but obviously people need to have health care medical care and they're getting already somehow, and the hospitals are treating everybody who comes as they should, provide some sort of framework for them. >> you have maybe one more or do you want to bring in the audience for questions? >> two microphones, one on each side. >> i introduced myself earlier and i'm brian careman and i run two newspapers in montgomery county and prince georges county, maryland, and we deal with the issue every day and mayor garcetti said something about the friend of the brief -- a friend of the court brief being filed and are the three of you a party to that? if not, why not? >> salt lake city signed on

actually just today so -- >> before the meeting. >> that action is something that very candidly i had not heard about until today. so that's something they have to go back and talk to my city council about. >> it will most likely not be. the council voted not to support the action before it happened. i think there needs to be a long pass and i don't know if this helps us get closer to that or not. >> over here? >> thank you all for being here. i'm not sure if any of the mayors are republicans, but my question is for you or for your republican colleagues and fellow mayors is it more difficult to take an outreach to new americans because of pressure from the national republican party?

i'm a republican and the answer is no. i've been out front in the community and politically in terms of statements to the press, appearing at meetings and i've had numerous other republicans in colorado along with me not alone and there is no pressure. no. i'm also republican and i've felt no pressure and i've chaired the immigration task force with the u.s. conference of mayors and trying to get a comprehensive immigration reform. no one has ever called me on that or objected. >> can i ask a different version to broaden the question with a similar kind of theme for our two republican mayoral colleagues. >> by the way -- >> i'm a republican, too. >> i thought you were a democrat. >> no. >> the reality is -- the reality

is that in today's politics most urban areas are democratic. most mayors are democratic. most republicans in the house represent places that are less dense and less urbanized and in many ways less likely to be dealing directly with the on the ground effects of this demographic change and in particular the immigration issue and leaving aside the question of pressure you not to be where you are. do you find in the republican party less sensitivity to a less urgency about solving the problem because many of the people in office are simply representing communities that are less affected by it? >> i think a lot of it has to do with two issues and i guess a path to citizenship and the naturalization and the other is the border. it's probably republican party focuses on the border first, but the fact is they both have to happen, otherwise the problem will continue and continue until the border is somewhat secure.

so i think it's more a level of focus. i find that my republican colleague, so many agree with me. they know people who come to this country who want a better life to work, why would we want those people not to be part of us, part of this country? so -- >> i think to a certain extent it always depends where you're talking about. for example, in aurora, eight of the 11 city council people are republicans, but if you turn it around 12 of the 14 state raptives and state senators are democrats and that's the same city. we had a congressman who in -- who engaged his opponent in a debate this last election entirely in spanish. so it's not as unusual perhaps in colorado. >> he was one of the few who

voted -- mike hoffman you're referring to in aurora. one of the few who voted and the vast majority of house republicans did vote to not only block the new executive overturned dhaka, as well and 26 voted not to overturn dhaka. i just wonder, that experience that he is -- that he is representing is very different than most of his colleagues each in colorado. you think about republicans at the federal level andmore rural areas and dominant there. do you find a gap in discussion perception about what this issue is? >> i think there probably is a gap, but again i don't have time to worry about it. >> i'm busy with trying to deal with what's going on on a daily basis on the ground, and i'm going to do what i think is right for my city and the residents of my city, and i'll

worry about the nicetyies of the political philosophy later. >> you're in the opposite situation. you're kind of the island in a very different statewide. >> beautiful island. >> statewide politics. talk about the difference between your community where some of this is more immediate and perhaps other places where it's more a matter of belief principle, ideology? >> i think it's what we've all been talking about as mayors and we deal on the ground with serving everyone in our community and making people feel protected. making people want to participate in our community in a lot of ways and have equal opportunity and that is a very different dynamic than the ideological discussions we see going on in this city, and i walked out with meetings with members of my congressional delegation chien joy personally and know uks and i shake my head and i think that's not the world. i'm living it. i have to respect them.

they're elected like i am. washington is a far place where these discussion goes on compared to the yefrt day world in cities. >> the question i asked mayor garcetti before, if in fact this does go forward. let's assume that the arguments carry and it is not blocked through litigation congress is not going to be able to block it. if it does go forward, does it -- mayor tate did not think it moved us closer to the legislative solution because you have this added layer of controversy, but if in fact, several million people are granted legal status between now and the end of his presidency does that bring us closer or further away toward the obama presidency. >> i wish i had this great confidence in congressional congress' ability to act, but i do think it moves us closer to bringing more people into the full ability to be part of our

community, and if we get half of the problem solved and it rolls over to the next congress maybe the next congress can pick it up and we in the meantime will have more people in our community who are paying more taxes and contributing more economically and having more opportunity through school and through the normal parts of our society. >> all of those things happen and more opportunity and pay more taxes and participating in school and owning homes, does it become, do you think it's practical to take it away at a later date? >> no it's not practical to take it away, but again. whatever happens, happens and the mayors are pretty pragmatic. we deal with it and we will deal with it and we'll find a way no matter what to make our individual communities better. >> amy, do you want to on. >> yeah. i'm curious. talking about members of your

state's delegations who may or may not understand the pressures that you're under what you would ask them for in terms of support? what can they do to help you with this? >> congress needs to get together and pass immigration reform. some sort of comprehensive reform. this needs to be solved by a law. you get the entire country behind. you don't have to worry about it being overturned in the courts years down the road in litigation and that gives us certainty and the uncertainty of the current situation people living in anaheim, a big issue in our city is trust and we want to build up trust with our police department and with our city. if there's a question of whether they will be able to stay here or even with the executive action it's hard to build up that trust. so, we're the ones that have to