alone. >> america detests robocalls. >> it is the largest single category of complaints that the fcc gets year in and year out. our friends at the ftc get even more. >> right. >> so i am proud of the work the agency has done to try to improve the possibilities of do not disturb technology, give consumers the right to revoke consent and when and if we have to proceed with the legislation, you just described, we would be perfectly happy to work with your office to make sure that american consumers get a little more of that privacy they deserve. >> i'd like to see a rule that could make one robocall a year for ten seconds. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccaskill, and my understanding is that i think that provision that's in the budget agreement is something that the administration proposed in the budget in previous years. i think that's something they put on the table in this current discussion as well. [ inaudible ] i figured you would say that. thank you senator mccaskill, next up is senator bloomenthal.

>> i strongly agree with senator mccaskill, and she is verywe aware of my views because we have discussed hers and mine at length and i know that you agree that consumer complaints about this intrusive, invasive practice are very well justified. the fact that consumer's union conservatively estimates that $350 million are lost annually to phone scams, generally a lot of them the result of robocalls and the good news is advanced technology's available and affordable to stop these very intrusive and invasive machine-driven calls and telephone companies ought to make locking options available right away.

even in advance of the rule, the telephone companies have the ability to offer that service. and so, i agree with senator mccaskill about the inadvisability of the suggestion made in the budget agreement, but more broadly, i would like to ask what the next steps are that you would view as most likely and most achievable to address this scourge of robocalls that we both have seen across the country. >> thank you, senator. like most people, i'm not a fan of rachel from card member services, and i'd like to make sure that more people don't hear her voice. i know that one of the things we did this past summer was we made very clear that it is permissible for telecommunication providers to offer do not disturb technology. in other words, technology that helps block robocalls. we recognize that the do not call list itself is far from fool-proof, we're looking for

technological solutions. and so that end, every week now, the fcc will be issuing information about its complaints under the telephone consumer protection act. and it's our hope that by putting more data out there, we will get more innovators to create more technologies that could be easily adopted by telecom providers and also ultimately available to them at no cost. >> i want to, since my time is limited, talk a little bit about cramming. as you know, that is the unscrupulous practice by phone companies and wireless carriers to allow third party to place charges on monthly bills, without the authorization of them, without the knowledge of consumers, and often without consumers receiving anything in return for those charges. our report on this committee found wireline and wireless cramming was a serious issue, which caused as much as $2

billion a year in fraud. you're well aware of our report so i'm not going to belabor all of the details. the carriers must declare conspicuous disclosure of any third party charges can and must give consumers a third-party charges and other commitments. my question so you is what can we do to guarantee the future of warless markets for consumers and to prevent harm to consumers in the future, not just after the fact. >> i found that 15 to 20 million consumers a year find they get saddled with fees on their wireless bills that amount toe $2 million. so the fcc decided to put some rules in place. but no surprise, that fraud migrated to wireless bills. and we saw settlements with the four major provider, settlements

between $300 million and $400 million in teeth l. it sends some money to the treasury for penalty. but the bulk of the funds are refunds for consumers. and that's a good thing. but if you really think about fixing this problem after the fact we should be making sure it doesn't occur in the first place. it would be smart to take what we know from the settlements and make sure the scams and fees don't show up on your wireless bill from the start. >> i agree. just one last question. have all the refunds been completed and are there additional settlements that you anticipate? >> i don't know the answer to that question right now, but i would be happy to get back to you. >> thank you, very much. >> senator hiller. >> he's yielded his time to me.

>> of course he has. >> new jersey, nevada axis. first of all, it's great to see you. incredible to see your family. your kids, probably this ranks as the most boring experience of their lives. they are the most well-behaved two people. it is incredible to see them. real quick. >> thank you for the hearing. thank you for coming back and spending time with us. i appreciate your families being here also. and also the rest of your family that's on tour. >> thank you for acknowledging

my kids like that. of course now that you have, they might start to misblaif. our forebears used to come together and build together. when the communities found that the marketplace wasn't delivering for them, they got together and did it ffr themselves. i think that's fundamentally american. i think our democratically elected communities should have this opportunity. i believe your legislation reflects that and i don't think it's always easy to deploy. but i think they should have that opportunity. >> thank you very much. and then senator rubio and i and supported by others introduced the wi-fi innovation act. you know, the demands on spectrum have really increased considerably. and what we did back in the 1990s really has tied up a considerable amount of spectrum. and i just believe that we should be focused on safety first and security. but i do believe that there should be more done.

i was pretty happy to read your blog, which i'm sure your children found equally boring. but it was exciting to me. and you were sort of outlining the importance of freeing up spectrum in the 5 gig hertz ban. what can the commission do to swiftly move, given the demand, every day we don't meet this demand, what can we do to move this process forward making it available for wi-fi use and how can the congress help? >> i think the 5 giga hertz band is very exciting. >> we've seen technology evolve. and it's possible now to engage

in more sharing in our spectrum bands. we feel this is a prime place to consider sharing for unlicensed with the auto manufacturers. and as you know, senator rubio wrote a letter to us recommending the framework for testing with the department of transportation and the department of commerce. and i think that that is a terrific start. i hope that you check in with us regularly because i think pressure from the congress keeps us on guard and keeps us on course. >> we will. in the remaining time, unlicensed spectrum has become very important. a lot has changed in the 1990s. in the 1990s, i had hair. with the bipartisan agreement, i agree that the serious need. but i really want the see more folks on licensed spectrum. i'm not going to waste the remaining minute i have on that. i do know you agree with me on

how important lifeline is. i've heard you say before it's an essential program. i would like to ask my last question just about, is there a need for congress to reinstate the minority immediate tax credit? >> i think the answer is yes. you know, who we see on the screen says a lot about what we are as individuals, as a community and a nation. and media ownership says a lot about that. we know that the ownership of major media properties is not as diverse in the country as a whole. but we also know that to fex that requires access to capital. and the most effective tool we had was the minority tax credit. it helped increase the number of minority owned media properties from roughly 40 to over 300. and i believe we should look back to that tool and consider how we can use it in the future. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman i see that my brother from the pack-12 is

back. i'll yield the remaining time. >> all right. yields back and we will recognize the senator from nevada. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and i yield for purpose. as usual, as friends, my job is to clean up after stanford grads. i just wanted to hear what he had to say first. thank you for the hearing. thank you for the hearing and thank you commissioner for coming back and spending some time with us. i certainly do appreciate your family being here also. and also, the rest of your family that's on tour. i have a son and daughter on tour right now. i don't know if you have any jurisdiction over tour buses. but i still to this day do not know how 16 people can live in a tour bus for 30 days. no hotels. 16 people, 30 days. anyway, do you have any -- >> no. i'm with you on that. >> i think you have to be under the age of 25 to enjoy and appreciate something like that. but anyway, thank you for being here.

thanks for taking time. i want to talk about fcc reform. there has been a lack of transparency, some openness in certain regards with the commission. several years ago you came before the committee for your first nomination hearing. i laid out at that time some of those concerns. and i think many of them still remain today. you are probably aware of the process reform act. and it is my push for greater transparency in the commission. it does five things. you've actually spoken on some of them. the appropriate comment time period. two, providing a shot clock for items pending review. three is specific languages of rules before a voting amendment.

four is commissioners' ability to collaborate. and one you did talk about with the senator, and that was cost analysis. it has passed the house. it has not yet passed in the senate. i urge my chairman to continue to work on that. this particular piece of legislation. is there anything else, any other common sense measures that can be addressed by this commission and yourself personally that you believe would bring greater transparency to the commission? >> thank you, senator. obviously transparency is important. i'm not sure they require congressional action. but i think it would be valuable for the public to have a list of the decisions that are presently before the commissioners, along with with a brief description so that it surprises no one when a vote emerges from the agency. it would also be valuable to have a systemic way for those who petition for relief to find

out where it stands in the process. >> yeah. i think there's some concern for that. a priority you identified. and that was certainty to some of these companies. that's essential to promoting innovation, creating jobs. do you believe it would provide more certainties to these companies if a shot clock was available? specifically what are your feelings on that? >> the statement against interest where i work. i think shot clocks and deadlines are really important. they have a way of motivating us towards action. any legislation that emerges from the committee or oversight of the fcc, i would encourage you to have more deadlines in the work that we do. if i can bring up another piece of legislation, the fcc consolidated reform act, something you're familiar with, especially with the time that you were working with them at chairman rockefeller. looking at this piece of

legislation as i see here, this report, i think the chairman did a great job in trying to meet some of the values on both sides of the aisle here. it has passed the house. we're at a standstill right now. that is unfortunate. i'm talking two houses that need to come together to try to work this out. can you speak to the importance of having a single report like this. >> sure. senator, i think the greatest value in that legislation is candidly we have some reports that we have to produce annually that are a waste of commission resources. >> is this one of them? are the reports -- >> all the reports are not. there are ways in which longitudinal data -- >> some of us do read them. >> yeah, i do.

>> but having a single report would be very advantageous for all of us here. >> i think it was every other year. the only point i would make is the internet age moves really fast. we want to make sure our decisions are informed by data. maybe having an intermediate effort would give us the kind of data that would support better decision making. that would be the only pause i would have. though i don't think the legislation would preclude us, for instance, from doing those kinds of things. >> if i could encourage you to work with us as we move forward and continue to grapple with this particular issue. you make a good point on how often reports should be available. having consolidated reports for us here trying to do our jobs i think very, very helpful. >> let me say your good work has been a good foundation for us to build on. i hope that the commission will work with us on that. i think it would get at some of the issues that had been raised

today. earlier today we talked about responsiveness. and i just think that having more regular reauthorization process would perhaps bring the commission up here and get them to respond to a more regular basis. which might address some of the concerns raised earlier as well, i think, creating the transparency for the public that they expect. i hope we can continue to move forwards in that. the commission will be a partner in that. the senator from viking country is recognized. >> thank you, commissioner, for being here. i know a lot of have been discussed. you're certainly knowledgeable about them. the call completion bill.

you talked about that and that continues to be a problem. i just did a forum with colin peterson a few months ago about the dropped call. i will let your answer on that stand. spectrum bill that you mentioned several times which i appreciate, with senator fisher. the work that senator thune and i are doing about getting more funding from the universal service fund for a broadband, which i think is the number one thing i have been hearing. it feels like a complete resurgence of issue. i attribute it to, one, the economy is better. number two, technology has shifted. this is no longer do we have broadband. it's do we have high speed broadband. the kid on a reservation that goes to one house and you have 20 kids stand in a back yard

because that's where they have wi-fi. i think you understand the enormous need here. and also the great opportunities. one thing i don't think has been focused on too much -- senator gardener and i introduced the streamlining and infrastructure act. federal highway construction project and streamline gsa policies. what else do you think congress can do to promote more efficient permitting procedures to reduce construction costs and speed up deployment? >> senator, thank you. i think the policies are terrific. they should be put in place all across the country. when crews are repairing or building roads, adding broadband conduit adds less than 1% of the price of the project. we get lots of rewards. i think there are other things we can do.

i think we have particular problems on federal lands in this country. one-third of our lands are federal. we should come up with deployment practices -- or practices that make deployment on those lands easier. we should have a shot clock for the federal government to respond just like we do for municipalities. we should have a regular gsa schedule to make sure everybody knows how to deploy and gets a standard contract. we should have a list of federal assets that could be used to help with deployment on federal lands. if we combine those things we would have a much greater state of deployment on the ground. >> can you talk about investing in broadband adoption. there are places that have broadband but people aren't educated yet on how to use it. >> we have historically focused on broadband deployment. adoption is just as important if you want people to take full advantage of the commercial opportunities. i focused extensively on the homework gap.

because we are finding there are 5 million households in this country that have school age children in their home and don't have broadband a at home. their kids have to go to that mcdonald's parking lot or line up where there is a wi-fi center. that is a cruel part of the digital divide and something i think we should fix. >> smartphone theft doesn't work on this. kill switches. do you have any updates? >> yes. one in three thefts in this country involves a smartphone device. carriers are working with us for remote lock capabilities, in other words, they're available on newer sets. we are starting to get that in place. we have to improve the data bates for stolen phones. not just nationally but

internationally so we reduce the opportunity of thieves making money off the devices. >> speaking of internationally, a different issue, when it comes to wireless service or broadcast service along our northern border, as you know, i can see canada from my porch. we need to make sure there are no problems with interference. this is an issue i've discussed many times in the past. i'm glad to see the fcc announced the statement of intent with coordination in the upcoming incentive action. are you committed to continuing to work with canada throughout the auction process and beyond to ensure that there are no interference problems? >> yes, senator. >> thank you. lastly, the fcc was asked to take action. i introduced that. i know the fcc took action and committing wireless carriers to unlock consumer phones, and that they have met this commitment. do you think there is a further role for the fcc or it has pretty much been done. >> yesterday the librarian of

congress announced its most recent set of exemptions under the digital millennium copyright act and made clear that tablets and cell phones are elabigible r unlo unlocking. >> thank you. and last, i want to thank you for your extreme amount of preparation for this history. we were amused you could reel off these statistics without looking at one note. we aer all impressed by that. and also having a woman in your role has been great. i know you have been working on getting more women in technology. and we head up the diversifying tech caucus. we will have you speak at one of our meetings. >> fantastic. i would love that. >> certain advantages to knowing what certain members of this committee is going to ask, having been up here all those years. good preparation. now the gentleman wearing his kansas city royals blue today.

>> thank you for noticing. thank you very much. thank you for this opportunity to have the commissioner with us again. let me express my gratitude to you and other members who have been attentive to issues i've raised on behalf of ckansans an americans. i appreciate the relationship that we have and your responsiveness. so thank you very much. it's valued. let me ask just a few questions. you addressed the issue of call completion. i was not certain of that. i didn't hear what you said is maybe a better way of saying that. it seems to me you have taken steps, but i am not sure i've seen the evidence that call completion rates have improved. is my impression wrong? >> no. you're right, senator. i, too, am not yet satisfied with the situation we found ourselves in. we know this is a real problem

for rural carriers and residents of rural america. it is not acceptable when calls don't go through. now, what we have done is issued a declaratory ruling to make clear there is a violation under the law to not transmit and complete those calls. we've had some enforcement actions. but what we realized is that we lacked the data to really go after bad actors. so we put in place new reporting obligations for originating long-distance providers. those obligations just kicked in. we have our first set of reports from them. we are going to comb through them. not just look for bad actors, but look for patterns to make sure we get rid of this problem once and for all. >> there is a way to develop the evidence necessary to determine where the problem lies? >> that is exactly right. >> that is very encouraging. you indicated you understand its importance, and i would only reiterate that one of my focuses

and as a member of congress has been trying to keep rural america alive and well. it is so discouraging to talk to a business owner who knows of failures of call completions -- failures of the call. there is no completion. but they don't know how many others they're missing. the lost opportunity. and my guess is that if you make that call, the call is not completed, you are likely to try a second, third, or fourth time to become a customer, as we try to keep businesses located in rural communities across our state and the nation. please keep your attentive eye to that topic. again on a rural issue, one of my rural telephone companies has told me that although they've been designated as one of the commission's 100% overlap areas, they've been measuring the competition signal and find it almost nonexistent. and my question is what steps does the commission take to confirm that their determination

is accurate and maintained? >> yes. we have a defined challenge process for our price cap carriers at present which allows carriers to believe they're deemploys. and also incouple bentz believe that we're wrong about our information about private sector entities that might have deployed. we also have a process for our rate of return -- >> the phone company -- there is a process by which the phone can company can make this fact known to the commission. >> absolutely. it's a challenge process. we have interested in that information. i think we're still doing some work on our rate of return carriers. but we have a defined challenge process where where they can voice the concern and we'll investigate. >> is that something that is affordable to a small rural telephone company, that process? >> the goal of that process is pointed out to us and then we go investigate. >> so they don't have to develop the case to present to you.

they present the allegation. >> it allows us to get our investigation under way. >> on a broader issue about spectrum, senator udall and i and a number of members of this committee had solicited information from the administration, particularly from omb with regard to the spectrum relocation fund. and omb, to their credit, was very specific with policy recommendations, legislative changes. that legislation has been introduced. i think fortunately it's been included in the budget agreement and so is potentially on the path to becoming law. i'm happy to have any general comments you might want to make about their recommendations. but i wanted to specifically raise the question with you about unlicensed spectrum. there really isn't any effort i

can see under way to increase the chances that unlicensed spectrum that, as we relocate federal spectrum to someone else, that it seems to me there is no emphasis on unlicensed spectrum. and i welcome your input if there are policy suggestions you would have how we enhance the chances that that might occur. >> okay. first, i think this committee's response was terrific. we're already seeing benefits and that we are rethinking the possibilities of adding incentives to the spectrum relocation fund. i think that's exciting and is going to yield more spectrum for commercial markets down the road. your point on unlicensed is well taken. i think the congressional budget office traditionally values licensed spectrum over unlicensed by virtue of the fact that by all spectrum that raises funds. but what they miss in that

acting is that unlicensed spectrum is tremendously beneficial for our economy at large. we have over $140 billion of economic activity every year that relies on unlicensed spectrum. so it would be my hope if you did produce more spectrum legislation down the road, you will consider doing what you did in the past, which is making sure in every piece of legislation that has commercial auctions there's also a cut for unlicensed or wi-fi dividend. >> i appreciate you reminding us of that. i assume one of the challenges, perhaps the congressional nature, administration nature is when we are looking for an off set, you are looking for something that raises revenue. it would be a short-sighted decision to focus solely -- it would be a short-sighted economic decision to focus solely on spectrum. >> i agree with you completely. >> thank you very much. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, senator rand. i'll turn now to senator peters. >> thank you so much for being here and answering all of our

questions. and actually just to pick up on comments by senator moran on the unlicensed wi-fi use and how we want to make sure we're expanding on that and thank you for your work that you have done for the 5.9 gigahertz area in which you have been committed and said you are committed to opening up a process to do testing to know the auto industry, which has that portion of the spectrum can continue to operate effectively and safely. particularly given the technological breakthroughs occurring rightá now in that space. i know you were in my state recently, in michigan. before i talk about that, i wanted to mention i had the opportunity this week to see the vehicle-to-vehicle technology in real time driving on a road in the community. and we're able to have automatic braking, even if you're blinded

by a car that may be in front of you and then serves out of the way. because of vehicle-to-vehicle technology you know the car is slowing. you're able to stop. that is a major cause of accidents. suddenly you find a stopped car in front of you. you are able to know that or your systems know that. you're able to know when cars are in blind spots and stop. it is incredible stuff that's happening. i know you saw some of that in michigan. i just wanted to remind everybody that these technologies are expected to eliminate up to 80% of all crashes in this country at a time when 30,000 people die on our highways, this is a big deal. this is about safety. we're on the verge of seeing this incredible developments being deployed commercially. the m city that yaw visited at the university of michigan is a 32 acre test track. that allows us to fully test and put together the systems in order to deploy this on a wide

basis. you will see thousands of vehicles throughout southeast michigan that will be testing these systems as well in the short-term, in the months ahead and in the years ahead. i know chairman wheeler was also able to visit m city, just yesterday he was there. tell me about your reelection. what was your takeaway from m city and what they are doing with this 5.9 gigahertz. >> thank you, senator. the future of connected cars is big, really big. by the end of the decade i think the statistic is that 97% of the cars are going to be internet connected. they are going to be in effect mobile phones on wheels. m city, which i was privileged to see just before it was open -- and you probably cut the yellow ribbon. >> i did.

>> -- is the test ground for all of that next generation connected car activity. it is exciting that it is there in the backyard of the auto industry. and i think it is going to be an incredible00 of economic activity. i would like to actually go back and see as new developments arise. as far as 5.9 gigahertz, i think as far as 5.9 gigahertz, i think you know i have spoken about how it is possible for the auto industry to share that spectrum with unlicensed services. the most important thing is at the direction of this committee we are working with the department of transportation and the department of commerce to set up testing. and it is vitally important that when we test we make sure safety is intact. >> i appreciate that. these are the issues that we're deal with in the future, the traditional companies and all of the innovators who want a piece

of that. how do you see that not of the auto industry but others that are innovating the a rapid pace and facing new innovators with disruptive technology as well? >> i think technologies are going to be a part of every industry going forward. wireless in particular. the car industry is one that embodies that more than any other. while there are challenges i think the opportunities are enormous. >> one last question in my time remaining here. i heard you respond to questions related on the homework app. and i wanted to thank you for an op ed you wrote in one of the detroit newspapers talking about that homework gap where it is clear when roughly 7 in 10 teachers assign homework to their students that require the internet access. yet in detroit, for example, it's almost a complete opposite where 7 in 10 students do not have access to the internet. so it is a significant issue. i know you have been very supportive of updating the fcc's lifeline program to allow

consumers to choose between applying the program, support the broadband service rather than voice service. can you give us an update on that front and where so you see that going? >> yes, senator. we have an open proceeding on that. i think moving forward, if you want to modernize lifeline it has to be a program run without any abuse. we have to make sure it reflects modern services. that's the goal of my effort. it is my hope we will have another tool to help support households that do not have internet access, and particularly those who have kids that simply need to do their homework. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. senator peters and then ranking member nelson. >> senator peters, i wanted to recall when i went to your city, detroit. pause of the allocation of

spectrum, i'm in a car going to a blind corner that there is another car. all of a sudden this car that can't see this car coming through that intersection stops. stops on its own. that was impressive. now, i know sure that i'm ready to get into a car that drives itself, but that application was instructive and optimistic how we might use it in the future. mr. chairman, if i may, since i was engaged earlier in the morning, enter into the record an opening statement. at the request of senator schumer, i want to also enter into the record a letter from the general council of the mayor of new york.

and i would like to just quote, speaking of commissioner rosenworsal. championship of modernization of the e-rate and lifeline programs are two examples of fierce, determined commitment to expanding public access to high-speed broadband for working families. and it goes on in another paragraph to say, her work is not only helping families and children access the internet, but also helping communities like ours to build stronger schools, improve city services, and unleash more entrepreneurial and creative potential. and that's from the city of new york. if we could enter that into the record. >> without objection. >> and speaking of that, commissioner, on e-rate, just talk generally to add to what

you said about the importance of e-rate to students, teachers, librarians and communities. thank you, senator. knowledge, jobs and capital are going to flow to communities that are more connected and more educated. we can use the e-rate program to update education in our schools and give more students the skills to participate in the digital age economy. i think that's really exciting. i think it also offers other benefits. because when we deploy services to our schools, infrastructure improves. >> may i, on another subject, make a plea on behalf of telephone consumers that when they get and sign up for the do not call list, it's not working, people are still calling. and i hear this all the time.

even to the point at which i have some friends, former member of congress, that they have taken out the hard line. even they they put it on. anything we can do about that? >> thank you, senator. as i said earlier, i can't stand robocalls either. i don't think there's anyone who likes them very much. i would point out to you that the do not call list only works so much. it is not fool proof. the fcc this past summer made clear that do not disturb technologies are lawful in order to provide a solution to reduce the number of calls. but you also asked if there is anything congress can do. i will just point to this. the telephone consumer protection act is a law from 1991.

it is old. it treats wireless phones and wired phones differently, just as you described. and given that 40% of our households are wireless only, i'm not sure that differential treatment anymore makes sense. it might be something that is worthwhile for this committee to address. >> and of course the trend of the future is we're going to have these tablets with us. and that's how we're going to continue to communicate. and i see that among many of our friends. they don't even have a wire line coming in to their house for a telephone. do not call list is one thing. but spoofing is another thing. for the record, i just want to tell, since the spoofing technology has evolved since the law that we passed in 2010, and

now the scammers are getting more sophisticated and they're calling from abroad and they're using text messaging services. cnn reported the story of albert poland, an 81-year-old who received nonstop calls from a person claiming to be part of a jamaican lottery. that he had won the lottery. this 81-year-old ended up giving away thousands of dollars until he realized he had been had. and that drove him to suicide. a number of us have introduced a phone scam act. it would improve the 2010 law by going after off-shore spoofing

criminals and those who try to pull off these scams. but it would also encourage the fcc to work with the private sector on new technologies that could protect consumers. do you agree with all of this? >> yes, i do, senator. >> and finally, any further comment on spectrum, of what role congress can play to support your efforts and to ensure adequate spectrum availability for all the wireless services? >> thank you, senator. i think two things. first, while i recognize that in the most recent budget deal, there is opportunity for more airwaves to be pushed to the fcc for commercial auction. i would just say we need a steady and strong spectrum pipeline and that you not stop

with that legislative effort. so continue your work on the spectrum pipeline. second, the most of our focus is on the airwaves. the ground also matters. coming up with better deployment policies for cell towers, for small cells, making sure that our practices are modern is also worth your time and effort. >> i was encouraged when we started talking about cell towers the other day. i noticed the technology is getting very sophisticated where these towers can be very small. they can go on the arms that come out for stop lights at intersections and so forth. and, yet, also reminded in many other foreign countries you can be in the middle of the desert

in somalia and get cell service, which we are continuing to lack in many places in this country. so we have a way to go. you keep that in mind. finally, i want to thank the chairman publicly for his willingness and the willingness of his staff to continue the dialogue as we work on the issue of net neutrality. we have come a long way, baby, since the beginning of this congress, since the end of the last congress, and we are narrowing the differences. so whether it is title x or something else, the chairman has certainly been willing to dive in. and i want him to know how much i appreciate that. >> thank you, senator nelson. if it's title x or we give it a

florida designation in our honor. as long as we can get to the finish line, that will be great. we'll continue working on that. i think providing certainty and clarity and clear rules for an open internet would be something that would be a worthwhile effort of this congress. we appreciate you and your staff's continued discussions and participation with ours in trying to reach a solution. commissioner, i wanted to ask one last question. bring you walk to e-rate. you answered several questioned. when the e-rate program was expanded, it was a significant increase in the cap. you go from $2.3 billion to $3.9 billion a year. which in turn has significantly increased the universal service fees on the american public by more than $15 billion over the next decade. so the question i have, does the new e-rate program guarantee those schools which currently

lack adequate communications will receive support ahead of schools that already have quality facilities. the goal of this ought to be to extend that access to the schools that currently lack it. >> yes, senator. thank you. the e-rate system has prioritization built in for the lowest income and most rural schools to get the most benefit. that is the proxy by which you described. i would say our reforms are generally designed to make sure the benefits are available more broadly. we got rid of some old services, some legacy services. we put new incentives in for efficiency. and the goal behind all of that modernization was to make sure the benefits touched schools that had not historically not been touched by this program. and category 2, which involves wi-fi. >> i would just say that connectivity for all of the schools, currently the schools that don't have that, ought to be a priority. and those that are paying the fees i think would certainly

want to see those funds used in a way that extends that connectivity to all of the schools across this country. well, with that, i think we have reached the end of the line, i'm sure you will be glad to hear. and your 8-year-old daughter, i'm sure when she and her classmates are talking about unlicensed spectrum will be way ahead of the game. but we thank you again for being here today. and we'll look forward to processing your nomination. we will keep the record open for an additional two weeks for members to submit questions and would ask that you be as prompt as possible. >> of course. >> thank you. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> this week on c-span's landmark cases, we'll discuss the historic case of schenk very was the united states. in 1917, the united states entered world war i. patriotism was high and some forms of criticism of the government were a federal offense. charles schenk handed out anmailed leaflets against the draft. >> this was the flyer that was produced in 1917. 15,000 copies of this were produced. and the point was to encourage men who were liable for the draft not to register. the language in this flyer is fiery. it equates conscription with

slavery and call on every american to resist the laws. he was arrested and found guilty. he then appealed and the case went directly to the issues of d present danger and freedom of speech. our guests include attorney thomas goldstein, co-founder of scotus blog and beverly gage, professor of history of yale university on c-span, c-span-3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch order your copy of the landmark cases book available for $8.95 plus shipping. on the next washington journal, representative sheila jackson talks about the bill that passed in the house and the house speaker election. then more about the budget deal

with charles dent of pennsylvania. washington journal is live every morning 7:00 am eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> state department official thomas shannon has been nominated to be undersecretary of state for political affairs. he will be one of president obama's nominations up forf[j2ç review before the senate foreign relations committee tomorrow. watch it live here on c-span 3 at 10:00 am eastern. the u.s. immigration system was the focus of a panel hosted by the american constitution society and the economic policy institute earlier this week. immigration law professors focused on the impact of immigration and nationality act of 1965 and the current immigration policy landscape. this sn ayou are howe and a half.

hour and a half. hello, everybody. good afternoon and welcome to our program today, equality gained, equality lost. the 1965 immigration act andity aftermath. i'm caroline frederickson, president of the constitution society and for those of you who may not know acs, which i hope is very few of you out there, acs was founded in 2001. and we are a national network of lawyers, law students, judges and policy makers who believe that the law should be a force to improve the lives of all people and shape the debate on constitutional issues such as the ones we will hear discussed today. first i want to thank the

economic policy institute for co-hosting this event today and co-sponsoring today's event. and it's certainly not the first time we have partnered with epi on programs of neutral interest and i know that it will not be the last. the civil rights laws, civil rights act of 1964, voting rights act of 1965. but we wanted to make sure that we didn't forget the immigration act of 1965, which was part of this effort to make our laws fair and more respectful of equality. it dramatically changed the way

we entered immigrants. favoring northern and western europeans and opening up our immigration system to those from other parts of the world. yet many contend that the act inadvertently led to more discrimination and the immigration policies that we see today, and the devisive politics we sau see today. to lead us through a discussion with our distinguished panel we have a real expert, charles kamasaki who serves as senior adviser at the nation's largest hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization. among his other duties, he has been preparing the nclr network for the implementation of executive action on immigration. he has authored, co-authored and supervised the preparation of dozens of policy and research

reports, journal articles and editorials, testified frequently at congressional and administrative hearings, coordinated pro bono litigation and analysis and represented nclr at symposium. he has been working as a part-time resident fellow at the migration policy institute and is working on a board of the immigration reform and control act of 1956. please join me in welcoming charles. >> so hi, everybody. thanks to acs and all of you for coming today, for this terrific panel. welcome to our c-span audience. just a word about format. i will begin with some very brief remarks. each of the panelists will then provide about eight or ten minutes of their opening remarks. we'll have a few minutes of discussion among the panel and

then we'll open it up to audience q & a. in terms of order following my remarks, rose villazor will open with a discussion of the 1965 act, will discuss events since then and jayesh wrathod will follow up. i will note that we're not going to go into detail on each speaker's bio. all of that is available here at epi. before we get there, let's start with a brief recap of what came before. institute colleague who did a very similar introduction about a month ago for a different

event. let me try and give you the history of the pre1965 u.s. immigration policy in three minutes or less. and it's actually not that hard because for the first hundred years or so of our country, we had essentially no immigration policy, an open door immigration policy. beginning in the late 19 -- i'm sorry, late 1800s, congress began establishing what one might call qualitative restrictions on immigrations, not so much limiting the numbers of people who came but the kinds of people who came. there were exclusions written into the law for certain kinds of diseases for so-called paupers, prostitutes and so forth. soon thereafter, congress passed what are now known as the chinese exclusion acts, the titles of which should be self explanatory. and the government took other steps to essentially bar most

asians from entering the country. in the early 1920s, the u.s. passed its first comprehensive laws, the so-called national origin quota laws. these statutes created an immigration quota for each foreign country base d on 2% of that -- of the percentage of that population that was already -- or that nationality that was already in the u.s. so if, fox there were, say, hypothetically, a million people of irish descent already in the u.s., ireland was given an annual quota of 2% of that number or 20,000 people. in other words, congress wanted to make sure that the future flows of the country resembled exactly those that were already here. in 1952, congress passed over president truman's veto the second immigration reform bill

in the country, immigration and nationality act which retained those national origin quotas and also established for the first time priorities for family reunification and family visas. this has been called, by many, the architecture of our current immigration selection system, which remains in one form or another to this day. which brings us to the 1965 act. as we consider the 1965 act, we might think about several key questions. today's panel will attempt to answer an historical one. what happened, why? what have been the act's principle effects? the second set of questions are the major implications. how did the act shape today's migration flows and immigration policy framework? finally, what lessons can we draw from the 1965 act that

today's policy makers, skolers and advocates can learn from as we confront major immigration policies in the 21st century? to begin our discussion, we'll turn to rose. >> thank you very much to acs for sponsoring this event. i am very pleased to be here today. it's helpful to specify exactly what the 1965 immigration act did. so let me just quote briefly from the statute itself. in 1965, congress provided that there shall be no discrimination in the race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residents of immigrants coming to the you state. so for the first time in 1965, congress provided that race shall no longer be a factor in

the ability of immigrants that come to the united states. as we consider then the historical implications and the lessons that we might learn from the 1965 act, it's important for us to think at least of two key questions. these are questions that seems that a book that my colleague and i have published -- so a plug for our book -- overall theme of our book is to underscore ways in which the 1965 legislative led to a new america today. one theme that we examine in our book and one thing that we ought to more broadly think about with the 1965 immigration act is if we can consider it a civil rights law. was it effective in terms of the other -- in terms of a civil rights, a piece of civil rights legislation or was it the

opposite? was it a failure? in thinking about that question, it's important for us to think -- to examine the law's intent, right? what exactly did the act intend to do? i read to you the specific statute, the statutory language. is that consistent with what the framers of the '65 act actually intended? on the one hand, jack chen at uc davis school of law has argued for quite some time now that it should be considered a very important piece of civil rights legislation. it was passed in between two different laws, what was mentioned earlier, 1965 civil rights act and then it was followed by the 1965 voting rights act. we know today that many of these laws were instrumental in facilitating equality in many different parts of american society but they, too, were not -- they were not perfect laws. by contrast, jack chen argues in the 1965 act should be

considered to be the most effective of all the civil rights laws that were passed during that period. here's why. because not only did it abolish race and national origin discrimination within the u.s. borders, for purposes of immigration law but it did open up our borders that this norm of nondiscrimination beyond our borders by allowing millions of immigrants from asia, from latin countries, particularly mexico, to come to the united states. so from that perspective, we can think of the 1965 act as a truly effective piece of civil rights legislation. that view is not shared by all. so also in this book, we examine the critical perspectives. one argument is because for the first time it imposed

limitations on countries, the ability of immigrants from countries in the western hemisphere to come to the united states, effectively then the 1965 act restricted the immigration of mexicans to the united states. pratheepa gulasekaram will discuss the impact of the 1965 act with respect to restricting the immigration of people from the western hemisphere. there also are other critics of the immigration law of 1965. for example, one has argued that it did nothing for the immigration of people from africa. most of the immigrants from africa or those of african descent from outside the united states came here through either the diversity lottery program that was established in 1990 or through the refugee law that was put in place in 1980.

another scholar also from uc davis has argued that, in fact, it continued to impose some type of national origin quotas by limiting what was then a limited refugee program from those immigrants coming from communist or communist-dominated country or the general area of the middle east. was it truly effective from a civil rights perspective or did it, in fact, put in place ongoing discrimination that has a disparate impact on the base of race and national origin? the other thing that i would like to highlight here before then turning it over to the other speakers is that the 1965 act, as charles mentioned, is

part of a larger family-based system that we can trace to the 1952 act. 1965 act brought in what was put in stone the 1952 act by allowing for unlimited immigration for immediate relatives, few u.s. citizens. spouses, children, parents of u.s. citizens and also allowed u.s. citizens to sponsor their older children, unmarried and married children. and also allowed for lawful permanent residence to petition their spouses and children and ñ unmarried older children, so sons and daughters. so ultimately we can see the 1965 act is promoting one of the corporate immigration law and that is family unification. on the other hand when you look close -- upon closer examination, you can see that the 1965 act, because of the system set in place in providing

for limited quotas for certain family groups, for defining very narrow version of what is a family, who counts as family and also per country limitations imposed. all of these different factors led to and still continues to lead to significant delays in the ability of family members to unify together. so from that perspective, we often think more critically what exactly did the 1965 act promote with respect to family unification and thinking of how we might go forward and the lessons we might learn. we need to also consider then how we might rethink this family based immigration law. so, in sum, the legacy is quite mixed from both the historical and contrary perspective. >> rose's observation about

family immigration is really important. opponents or critics of the law have argued that by encouraging family-based immigration that that's what led to so-called chain migration, what we call family unification, that led to the changing demographics of the society. an important historical point about that, though, is that amendment to the law was actually intended to preserve the national immigration origins. so 30% of visas were reserved for family members, the intent of that was to restrict immigration to those who already had family members in the u.s. it's just a little point there. you want to take us into post '65 developments, theep? >> sure. thank you to acls for the invitation to be here. rose points to the central

tension in the 1965 act. it is equality promoting in many ways but it also has this tension that creates the problem of illegality as we know it today. by creating essentially a disconnect between, on the one hand, need and demand for immigration of the u.s. and on the other the legal and political restrictions that would curtail immigration from certain countries, very high immigration, for example, from mexico. it creates formal equality in the sense that immigration has opened up to countries from all over the world. but that formal equality is juxtaposed against inequality in relationship with the united states. for example, mexico, for purposes of immigration, is treated just like mozambique but the demand for immigration from

those two countries is obviously very different. so, in 1965, we get this arguably equality expanding, but also problematic act that then creates this concept of illegality as we understand it today. immediately, it starts to create political and legal significance at both the state level and the federal level in the united states. and that's what i really want to focus on. it creates then a cascade of problems that political and legal developments attempt to grapple with. they attempt to grapple with it without addressing that fundamental disconnect at the heart of the 1965 law and so you see a series of enactments at both the state and federal level that are, perhaps we could say, biting around the edges of the problem but not really getting to the root of it itself.

so immediately after 1965, or very soon thereafter, you start to see some of the effects of the state level. in 1971 california passes an employer sanctions law. for the first time it's able to sort of connect the idea of who should be working within california to the concept of illegality that the 1965 act helped set up. california is in a fairly -- 1971, yeah. california is in a recession at this point. this law, this employer sanctioned law that stops employers in california from -- or at least penalizes employers from hiring unauthorized workers. this goes before the supreme court in 1976 and in that case, the court has to gra approximate. ple with this idea of states really re-entering the sphere of immigration regulation in a way that they had not after 1880. as charles pointed out there was significant state regulation up until 1880, what we might

substitute as immigration law. from 1875 on it becomes really the federal government dominant in this notion of the regulation of immigration. post 1965, though, with the creation of the concept of illegality and the creation of significant migrags flows, states start to re-enter. and the court says in response to that case, in thinking about it, it says the power to regulate immigration is unquestionably a federal power but the court has never held that every state enactment which, in any way deals with aliens, is in any way an attempt at regulation and is thus preempted. so the court ends up upholding this law and it starts to again set up a series of political concerns that trigger both state and federal action later. several other states join california. 11 states join california in this form of employer sanctions law which ultimately in 1986

with the immigration reform and control act become preempted by federal law. in 1986, you see the federal government again attempting to deal with the fundamental problems created by 1986 -- i'm sorry by 1965 by setting up mass legalization program. one of the first mass legalization programs that the united states has had. but perhaps charles can shed more light on that, providing the possibility of the undocumented population at that time or significant portions of the undocumented population at that time to legalize. it's an attempt. but it becomes very clear within the next few years, by 1990, that that one-time fix has not work. undocumented population of the united states continues to grow. 1990, 1996, federal government attempts a more punitive response to that same problem.

1990 and 1996 federal enactments attempt to enforce the united states out of this problem of illegality by setting up significantly harsher deportation standards and, through law, creating a larger class of people who might now be subject to deportation. as it turns out you can't enforce your way out of the problem either. so 1996 in many ways amplifies the problem that the illegality created by the 1965 law at its inception. 1996 also does something that's less recognized but extremely interesting. it provides in the law several provisions that allow for sat-level enactments with regard to the control of immigration or at least regulating the lives of immigrants. many of those provisions actually -- although enacted in 1996, lie fallow for the next several years. as we argue in -- as my

co-author argue in our new book, what ends up happening is in the last 10 to 15 years those provisions of the 1996 law that allow for significant state and local involvement become activated through political mechanisms and you start to see what we have witnessed in the last ten years of immigration and that is no federal law but significant state and local enactments both on the restriction aside but more recently trend toward integration aside that attempt to deal with, again, this fundamental problem of illegality now which has grown to roughly 11 million people in the country, who are unlawfully present as defined by the ina. >> the current landscape, and this goes to the theme of our discussion here today with regards to whether the 19 -- or how we should think about the

1965 act in terms of equality. we currently have an extreme -- patchwork of laws across the united states in which state and local laws are affecting the lives of immigrants in significant ways. where the prospects for somebody who is illegal or undocumented in the united states very drastically -- for example, somebody in california has significantly different prospects than somebody who just might be 50 to 100 miles away in arizona, for example. it's a form of structural inequality that we might want to think about as we move forward. how should we think about this extreme variation of laws in the united states that, in many ways, are the laws that impact the lives of immigrants on a daily basis. second, an internal question of equality with regards to how we think about integrationist laws in places like california, which i think california as a state is probably a leader, in the way in

which it's thinking about, treating immigrants generally but undocumented immigrants specifically, and cities like new york city, which i think at the local or city level are significant integrationist platform versus restrictionist laws in places like alabama, arizona, cities interested in significant immigration enforcement. should we think of these two different types of laws as similar for purposes of our judicial understanding and discourse around how -- whether we only need require one immigration law at the national level or whether we should allow these various state and local efforts. and finally a question of -- you know, thinking about how this landscape has developed where federal law is creating the conditions that essentially create 11 million unlawful present persons but have state and local responses to this federal law. to what extent should we allow

the state and local enactments to act as our form of de facto national immigration policy. one of the reasons this has become significant, as our research suggests, is that state and local efforts, once they become entrenched, affect national law making. becomes quite difficult for federal lawmakers in congress from those jurisdictions to vote in ways that would override those local preferences. so, for example, john mccain, who used to be -- if you look at early 2000s, even late '90s, immigration policy was what i think most people would describe as a moderate on immigration reform, would have even promoted and did promote certain acts that we think of as part of comprehensive package, including legalization programs. but after sb 1070, after arizona's proposition 200, after arizona workers act, he no longer can hold those positions

of moderate immigration positions in the federal go congress and is forced to take more extreme positions and more restrictive positions, i should say, and you really see that middle disappear. i think to get back to the theme -- i'll sum up by saying the legacy or one of the legacies of the 1965 act is the creation of this concept of illegality because our major federal enactments since then have actually not dealt with that fundamental problem. what we've seen is a significant number of state and local enactments and federal enactments attempting to chip away at the problem, address the symptoms of the problem without getting to the root of it. it's led to a situation that i would argue in 2015 in which prospects, at least in the near term for significant comprehensive reform to that 1965 act have become extremely difficult. thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you, charles. again, i want to thank both the acs and epi for hosting this event. i'm pleased to be here. i'll build on the remarks of my fellow panelists and talk about the impact specifically of the 1965 law on the workplace in the united states and landscape of workers' rights. when lyndon johnson signed it into act he said this is not meant to be a revolutionary bill and that quote is often tossed around. when we look at how the law has transformed the landscape of the u.s. market we can only say it's been transform active in some positive ways and some very negative ways. as some of the other panelists have mentioned the 1965 law is credited for creating the sizeable undocumented population that we have in place today. now keep in mind that before 1965, there were no numerical

quotas on immigration from latin america and for centuries there's been a significant economic interdependence between the territory that we now know as mexico and the united states. we see a quota of 120,000 visas from the western hemisphere. of those initially only 40,000 -- mexico was set at 40,000 limit. by 1977, it was cut down to 20,000 visas from mexico. now as theep alluded to, this is a critique we can make generally to the legislation enacted in the 1960s. did it, in fact, create the equity that the legislators were looking for? one might say certainly in the immigration context that it hasn't created that equity, given the unique relationship

that the united states has with mexico. to understand how specifically that this law generated the growth of undocumented population, we need to understand what's happening historically in the united states at that time with the foreign-born workers and the labor market. as many of you know, beginning in 1942, the united states and mexico had entered into a bilateral treaty, essentially, which allowed for foreign workers to work temporarily, mexican workers to come temporarily work in the united states. the program allowed a total of about 5 million workers between 1942 and 1964 to come to the united states to work temporarily. and the program fueled the agricultural sector, and fueled some industrial work as well. it obviously played a significant role in the u.s. labor market. initially, of course, was positioned as a replacement, labor supply given the shortage of workers during world war ii.

it eventually became an important feature of the u.s. economy. the program ends in 1964. ten months later, 1965 immigration law is enacted. there, we have, of course, hundreds of thousands of mexican workers who had been participating in the basero program with no real pathway then to immigrate permanently into the u.s. labor market. this is one of the factors contributing to the growth of the undocumented population, right? at the same time, we have employers who are continuing to rely on that labor supply and, therefore, turning to undocumented labor. now there's some interesting historical lit tur around this. was it all nefarious in terms of mexican workers? certainly some part of it was intentional. there was a significant lobby at the time pushing for the exclusion of latin american workers or latin american visas with the concern that they may overtake the u.s. population.

there's other lit tur that interestingly notes what's happening in the agricultural sector was mechanicization. thinking technology would save us in terms of harvesting cotton and tomatoes. at the end of the basero program is one significant impact. also what we see at the same time was there was not -- not only was there a number of visas available to mexican nationals, right, but we also see a shift in the temporary worker programs. so at this time, there had been, prior to 1965, a temporary worker program, h2 program. it was relatively small in scale and continues to be relatively small in scale. prior to 1965, the burden was on the government to show that the workers that were coming in under the temporary programs would not harm the u.s. workforce.

beginning in 1965, that burden then shifted to employers. what this meant was there was more of an active, ex-anti-screening role that the government played in determining which temporary workers and generally which foreign-born workers would be able to come into the united states, giving the government more control in terms of limiting the access of mexican and other latin-american workers into the u.s. labor market. i'll also note that, of course, during this time we see the united farm workers coming out specifically, taking the position that undocumented workers should not be in the agricultural sector again, which set the relationship between undocumented workers, immigrant workers generally and the labor market for many years that would follow. so, what is the larger consequence of this today, of these historical developments? i always argue there's a few of them. one, of course, is that by not creating a permanent pathway for these hundreds of thousands of

mexican workers, it's kind of labeled the mexican workforce at that time. arguably today with the type of permanent transients. the idea that they aren't able to be formally and permanently integrated into the u.s. labor market. and some scholars have argued that in some respects the 1965 law replaced the asian immigrants with latino immigrants as the kind of outsiders. asian exclusion was in place during the national quota system up through 1965. that was eliminated and that was a good thing. there was then de facto exclusion of latin americans and concrete ating this permanent outside class that could be demonized and exploited. significant economic interdependency of the regions then the end of the basero program, the change in labor

dissertation process which i alluded to. inevitable result is huge, vulnerable and exploitable undocumented population in the united states, which we continue to see today. now, what is the impact of this population? of course, we see it as foreign-born workers in the u.s. labor department, disproportionate levels of wage theft. their experience with workplace injuries and fatalities are disproportionate to the representation in the u.s. labor market and the list goes on. so building on top of that, of course, is we then have a culture of immigration enforcement, which has fueled -- has been fueled by the growth of the undocumented population which, of course, is also affecting the experience of workers in the workplace. so i know i've been sounding like there's a lot of gloom and

doom with the 1965 law. there are positive things. charles mentioned of the entire visa allocation of the 1965 law, 74% were allocated to family based immigrants. only 20% went to employment based. some might say this was the root of the major structural problem in the u.s. immigration law. 20%. in 1965. yeah. so as of -- the way the visa allocations were laid out in that law, 10% went to members of the professions or workers with exceptional ability and another percent, 10% went to those who were performing skilled or unskilled labor. as an overall -- that's relatively low and the balance wasn't the right balance. and there's a larger critique around the u.s. immigration law and whether we're doing what we need to do to attract the best talent in the united states. we can have a conversation about that.

there was an impact, right? we did see, despite that relatively small -- in the late '60s and early '70s and many of these immigrants from asia and elsewhere have made a significant impact on the economy. so we could say was this the right allocation? that's a good question. you could also note the positive contributions. you could also note the particularly inclined nature of immigrants toward self employment and how that's affected u.s. business markets. on the flip side, you might -- we could reflect on how these employment-based categories have caused economic difficulties or brain drain in countries of origin. that's another aspect to look at. just two more points and then i'll wrap up. the first is the impact of the 1965 law on african-americans. this is something that gets relatively little attention but deserves more attention.

the law was part of civil rights legislation. and we often talk about the impact on asian americans or latinos but it's reflecting what the law has meant for african-americans. of course, there's a very vigorous debate about whether or not immigrants and immigration generally is positive or harmful for americans and whether there's a recent study put out two years ago which showed that, in fact, there's a positive impact. for example, those municipalities that attract immigrants tend to be more positive in terms of the economic impact overall, including african-americans on wages, income. there are, of course, other general studies that show that -- including epi that's done some great work around the wage impact of immigrants, showing there's a small, positive impact. at the same time we can look at particular industries where employers have intentionally chosen to replace traditionally

vulnerable groups such as african-american workers or longstanding latino communities with guest workers, right? and that is purposefully in some instances because those guest workers are more exploitable and vulnerable. so i think that's something that is worthy of some more broader consideration. i think it's also helpful to think about this in terms of broader frame of civil rights and equity. so when we look at the vulnerability of the latino immigrant community and the ways in which both the undocumented population and the corresponding enforcement efforts have affected latino communities, racial profiling and racial discrimination in some cases i think we have to ask ourselves what is the impact of that on other communities of color, right? is it nurturing a type of anti-minority attitude that is going to be harmful to african-americans? another way to look at it, we now have, of course, a large undocumented population, which

has then spurred the growth of large enforcement apparatus. that reform apparatus and the enforcement has then forced some employers to move away from undocumented workers and rely more on guest workers or prison labor, for example. right? or other types of workers who are more -- maybe lawfully working but more legally controlled. i think we need to think about perhaps an even subtle ways, the ways in which that type of series of events is now impacting the series of economic communities. and in some ways the indeterminancy of all of this. of course, we note there's been significant growth nun documented population, we look at family based. but the interplay between these things are complicated in immigration law.

you have people who come in, as family-based immigrants but then, of course, make incredible economic impact. then you have people who come in under the employment-based scheme as entrepreneurs but then they'll bring in family members. so it's difficult to cabin in a very isolated way the impact that workers have had. as we look forward, they still continue to be a significant deficit in pathways for temporary migration. that's a major flaw in the u.s. immigration system. there were some attempts to remedy that in 2013 but there still is a long way for us to go. >> it strikes me that in addition to this equity versus equallity frame one of the lessons of the '65 act also has to do with supply and demand.

that is to say pre'65, 90% of immigrants came from europe. post '65, it was reversed. the supply side, as it were, of how we changed our visa systems for that explanation. surely, that is at least partially true. it strikes me that very few people talk about how much demand was there in a booming western european economy and also eastern europe which was largely behind the iron curtain that did not permit immigration. was this really a question of what we did on the supply side or is it is it more of a question of what happened with respect to demand for visas from other countries? at this point, i guess i'm curious about what the panelists might have thoughts about with

respect to each other's presentations. without necessarily going in detail but -- or in order, let me start with rose, whether you have additional comments. >> well, i wanted to respond to what jayesh said about the gloom and doom. it's true. we're here, being very critical of the act. but one of the things that we have yet to mention is how the 1965 act relates to the overall population today. and where we will be in 2043, at least as predicted by demographers. by 2043 the prediction is that the united states will no longer be a majority white population, country. if anything, it would be the opposite of that. and that is that there will not be a single, quote, race that would dominate the u.s. population. instead, different pockets of minority groups will then emerge as one of many different

populations in the united states. and we can trace that demographic change to the 1965 act because of the migration, immigration of many immigrants of color, particularly from mexico, china, india, philippines and the dominican republic. those are the top countries to date in the last several years. so, one way to examine those numbers is to think of it from the perspective of what were to happen if congress had never imposed any kind of racial restriction on immigration? will we be -- would we be in a different place today? and if so, how differently would our population look like? so one argument would be that the 1965 act can be thought of as sort of essentially erasing the effects, both intentional and the effects of those racial

barriers to immigration law. so, just invoking from affirmative action theory it's a way to address the ongoing impacts of formal discrimination. so that's -- from one perspective, we can think of the 1965 act as a positive -- from a positive perspective. nondiscrimination and erasing the effects of discrimination. others may say it's a negative perspective and we don't want to promote diversity in that way. that it's one thing to think about allowing everyone to have equal access to the united states for purposes of immigration. but it's another to think about immigration law as a means for diversifying the immigrant's dream. so i wanted to put that in there as a way to also consider the role that the '65 act played in

our population. >> i will say a couple of things. jayesh's point about taking us back to the brasero program is worth reemphasizing. directly preceding 1965 you had a set form of cyclical migration between united states and mexico. there are certainly significant concerns with programs like the brasero program, choice of agency might have been coerced with regard to those workers. on the other hand it was a way of promoting a cyclical season, form of migration that in its time processed over 2 million immigrants in its 22 years of existence even in the last couple of years, processing over 200,000 mexican workers per year into the united states. to bring that to an abrupt close ten months after that program

ends is going to have significant effects because people simply don't respond in that way when they have ties in the united states. employers don't respond that way when they depend on that lib and become used to that labor in the united states. the other thing i'll say is i think it's interesting to think about what rose just mentioned, about the demographic changes in the united states in the coming years and very soon in the coming decades, significantly shifting what we think of as minority and majority populations -- i wonder. this is an open ended question. to what extent without significant federal immigration reform whether even as those demographic changes happen our concept of illegality necessarily changes. if we think about prior -- by the late 1800s, illegality, as

charles pointed out, meant asian, this nefarious group of people from asia, coming to take jobs, apply opium in the united states and generally debosh the morals of the united states through asian prostitution, for example. right? so 1975 -- 1875, the page act is really directed toward this problem of chinese prostitution coming into the united states and deboshing the morals of places like san francisco and its surrounding areas. i wonder even as now we don't necessarily -- although, for example, when you think about jeb bush's campaign rhetoric, he was saying i was thinking about birth tourism i wasn't talking about latinos. i was talking about asians. somehow that made it better in his mind. but as a general matter we have

replace replaced that and the way in which we now think about the latino population is, in some sense, an immigration question even though that doesn't actually track with the demographics of that population. significant numbers of citizens with long histories in the united states. but we label them as illegal. illegal operating, i think, as a very thin veneer for race and racial restrictions. open question as even our demography changes, to what extent does our legality change without significant changes at the federal level? >> last point is a very interesting question. just a couple of reflections. when we think about the demographic diversification of the u.s. -- and i definitely think about that as a positive. particular pathways in which asian immigrants have come to the united states post 1965 have

certainly created some publications in terms of how the groups are racialized and how they're positioned in terms of the class position within the united states. i think this is something -- my father was a beneficiary of the 1965 immigration law, able to come to the united states because of that law. as a consequence, many asian americans are then positioned as affluent, successful, high achieving, et cetera. and while that's certainly true for some portion of the population, i think it's then created a lack of a complex understanding of the real diversity, economic and otherwise within the asian american community. i think the same might be said about latinos and i think african immigration is such a

phenome phenomena. it doesn't come about as a result of the '65 law but the subsequent enactments. and the same might be said about -- i'm certainly not an expert on this but was thinking about the interrelationship between the african-american community and more recent waves of african immigrants and more recent waves of opportunities and what that means, how do we define african-american in growing african immigration the in the united states, and historically present african-american community and african immigrants in terms of their access to different kinds of opportunities. it's a fascinating question that we can think about. theep's comments and others emphasize the complexity and interests that are at play in immigration reform. now when we look at it, sometimes it feels hopeless,

rig right, to see all these different strands of interests that are trying to be aligned. but i think what the -- pratheepa and others emphasize is that it's always been this complicated. lots of interests have been at play in terms of crafting immigration policy, certainly with respect to the workplace issues and there's been a particular uncertainty with how to deal with immigration from the western hemisphere. i was talking about -- and what others have talked about, it wasn't a done deal, right, from the beginning. it was something that was done as a result of tense negotiations in the months and years preceding -- that's where the negotiations landed. if you read the law, in addition to putting in the cap they called for a creation of select tradition on western hemisphere migration. i think we still need that

today, in light of what's happening in central america. just a deep uncertainty, fueled by racial concerns, economic concerns, about what to make of this longstanding historical relationship between the united states and the rest of the hemisphere. i think that it's always been politicized, still extremely politicized but remains our greatest challenge. >> are there mainly retrospe retrospecti retrospective, 50th anniversary of the major reform law, are there lessons we should take from that over the last 50 years and apply them today so for scholars, legislators, advocates? if we could maybe identify one thing we think is most meaningful from this history that is applicable to current contemporary debates? >> i would like to focus on

family. who counts as family. in fact, the last -- the bill that passed the senate, the one that almost -- many had hoped to become law had different ways of thinking of family base. they would have cut off the ability of u.s. -- the bill would have cut off the ability of u.s. citizens to petition for their parents, to petition some of their older children, who are married, if they reached 31 years old, then they will no longer be eligible for immigration to the united states. and on the other hand, that bill would have also allowed for permanent residents to bring in their spouses and children. so in terms of lessons in how the 1965 act, building upon the 1952 act, redefining the meaning

of family, it's important for us to think about whether we might want to expand meaning of family. other countries allow for grandparents to immigrate, for other close family members to immigra immigrate. one thing would be to think about broadening the meaning of family or we might consider narrowing the meaning of family. limit it to spouses and children, young children defined by the statute as 21 years and below. so because the way that our family-based immigration program right now is structured leads to, on the one hand, lead to immigration but on the other hand extremely long delays and separation, then there's something wrong with the system. right? it's important to rethink how we define the family. >> one way of thinking about that question is what's the best

immigration policy. in 2065, what would we say or look back and say? if we're going to do that, we have to ask what exactly is our goal? what are we trying to accomplish with any form of immigration reform? you might ask the question from the labor perspective, our goal is to maximize the economic output of the united states to be functioning at an efficient level. perhaps that's one goal we might pursue in significant portions, constituencies with the united states are doing. want to pursue that goal. there's a significant portion of the united states that's committed to this goal of the purpose of immigration law should be not to have illegal immigration. and that's a more difficult and complex question to address. one way of addressing that would be to say if the law doesn't create illegality, you won't have illegal immigration or

unauthorized imgrachlt ed immig. if you start from that premise -- it's unclear which path you should take. we could simply match our immigration in the united states based on demand. if availability matches demand it's likely you could get down to very -- at least a manageable number of unauthorized migrants. if what you take from the last 50 years is that we should have greater enforcement as a way of reducing that 11 million number then your immigration policy is going to look significantly different than it is today. it will require an enforcement apparatus that is exponentially bigger than what we have today. one of the lessons that perhaps we should take from the last 50 years is regularize or psycycli mass legalizations will not be a way of reducing the illegal

population to zero. mass enforcement and ratcheting up of mass enforcement system also will not reduce that number to zero which leaves sort of this last choice of really thinking hard about how demand matches availability in some meaningful way, again, sort of what i would argue or what rose's pointed out, one of the root concerns of the 1965 act. so i think that's, these are some questions we might want to think about, including what's the goal, what are we trying to accomplish with this immigration law going forward? >> i'll be brief. i mentioned this earlier, and of course looking at these questions often from a labor or economic angle. and the historical record if my view is very clear is that historically since 1965, there simply have not been enough pathways for legal immigration into the united states, for people interested in coming for economic purposes, whether that's coming for unskilled

work, semi-skilled work, high-skilled work or small-level entrepreneurship. there simply aren't enough visas available, whether you're talking about temporary visas or permanent visas, and i think that's a fundamental flaw in the system and one that has created a range of pathologies leading to immigration enforcement, economic problems, kind of locally, and otherwise, and i think that's something that needs attention. and the 2013 bill in the senate went significant ways towards remedying that by creating a new, non-immigrant visa category that would allow larger numbers of temporary workers to come to the united states to work temporarily. they wouldn't have to be beholden to some specific employer, there was a visa portability which is another feature that needs to be introduced into the employment-based immigration system.

so i think that's a tension that just needs to be worked out. it is complicated, because there are a lot of different imperatives when we're talking about foreign-born workers. we're talking about attracting talent, boosting the economy but also protecting you as workers, right? and often these are at odds with one another, to be candid. so not always, but there are ways to reconcile these different interests, but that, i think, is the larger project that needs to be undertaken. >> thank you. let's, you all have anything else to add? you're free to jump in on. now is the time for audience q&a. we have a mic. please wait for the mic to get to you, and then please identify yourself before asking your question. >> yeah, thanks. so i know i've kind of been jumping out of my seat here. i'm peggy orchowski. and i've been covering

immigration for the last ten year, and i just wrote a book called "the law that changed the face of america", and i'm just really pleased with this panel. because you talk about some of the stuff i struggled with. i'm glad that deep corrected you in that there wasn't a law in 1986, there were the states and localities. if you were jewish, forget about going to boston. there were a lot of ways cities and states regulated immigration, and i'm glad jay corrected you that mexicans were not included in the quota of 1920s, and i'm really glad you talked about family unification. i mean, i'm, i think what you haven't spoken about are the drivers of immigration and how they change, and how they change the demand. so, like, for instance, technology, you know with skype, do we really need family unification, you know, you can talk to your mother-in-law every day if you want.

does, especially things like the nationality, you didn't talk about the 7% rule. the thing was that in 1965 they, the 1964 law prohibited national origin as one of the civil rights. you cannot discriminate on national origin. every nationality had to be treated equally. and discrimination also means preference. it doesn't just mean discrimination against, it means preference for. you can say now we're not going to have preference for all northern europeans but we're going to prefer the mexicans. how do you do that, that every nationality is treated equally, so they put a 7%, that no nation can have more than 7% of the green cards put out today. that still exists today. so mexico doesn't get any more

than 7%. if iceland doesn't use 7%, that number goes into the amount. but nowadays, in terms of globalization, and this is getting to my question, because it's something i've been really struggling with, does it really matter anymore that we give a preference or not to national quota and globalization, we're seeing how high-tech workers, a lot of them are from a single country, china, india, you know, are we really going to say we're going to do the 7% rule on that? if we illegalize most of the legal, especially dreamers and the vast majority are mexican. doesn't that give a huge advantage to mexicans, come in illegally and get an amnesty? that's kind of preferring mexicans. is that civil rights? is the executive orders for daca going to go against the civil right of giving preference? is that important anymore? and the last thing that i've really been struggling with is,

and you guys, this is the question you guys can really answer. immigration's not a civil right. but i think that the 1965 act and all the fervor about immigration and i used to see kennedy pounding the table and saying immigration is the next civil right in our nation. and, and it isn't. so i'd love you to address that. >> i mean, there's a lot in that. i think honestly, your question boils down to immigration, go. no. so, but a few thoughts. so the questions of how we should think about things like dreamers, daca, dapa, the questions that are partly influenced, again, by 1965, because those questions may not come up at all if immigration law is fund amly structured in a different way, but it also

suggests, your question suggests that once you have, should we in a sense reward a tech population for, for, you know, legal transgressions of entering unlawfully or having been unlawfully present and does that fit into a civil rights narrative, and i'm mott sure there's a great response to that except to say i think your perspective on that depends on how you view the law and illegality, if you think about illegality as something preordained, as there is this concept of illegality and once you cross that threshold there's no way of rectifying it except through violations of what we might fundamentally think of as rule of law, priorities and any quality norms, i'm not sure there's a lot that i can say here that's going to change your mind about that. but, if you think of, i think, if you think of that the creation of those populations, for example, a dreamer

population as a result of a functional, this is how functionally law works on the ground when you have significantly harsher congressional penalties against the historical backdrop that jayesh beautifully laid out for us, then it suggests that that transgression of unlawfulness or illegality is not the ending point of our discussion, that the real question, then, is how should we as a populace think about that population? how should we direct enforcement efforts toward that population? to what extent does it make sense to enforce law against that population, and if that's our starting point, then i think we have a very different orientation towards the rights and civil rights of those sorts of groups. i do think that one important lesson, going back to the question that charles asked about 1965 and rose's comments was that the 1965 immigration act occurred against this backdrop of significant civil

rights advancement in the united states, including the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965, ten years on the heels also, of brown versus board of education and equal protection jurisprudence in american courts. what's the lesson we can draw from that? i think one lesson is that in our current push for comprehensive immigration reform should also take that frame of a civil rights, as a civil rights legislation. this is, i think, the civil rights project of our time and will continue to be, as long as we don't try, as long as we avoid addressing this problem of illicitness and illegality. >> just a word or two, just to build on that, and i think deep has really nicely framed this question of legality, which i think it really does shape how one looks at this.

but and i think that really is the key frame that one has to grapple with, but in terms of, is it fair to call immigrants or immigration law as a civil rights issue? i would argue that absolutely in light of kind of the types of americani mechanisms that have been deployed by the state against foreign-born persons, and there are very clear parallels between the experience of african-americans, latinos and other historically disadvantaged groups and the experience of foreign-born persons. now i'm not equating the experiences, nor am i saying the legal frameworks are equivalent. but if we look at practices like racial profiling or mass incarceration, the same experiences that african-americans and others had experienced are now being replicated in some respects on foreign-born persons, especially latinos. and that is more than just a