emmett joseph, age 5. they are our sweetest accomplishment and greatest joy. i know they are not here today, i would also like to note my parents, elliott and william who are at home in hartford, connecticut. my brother, brian who is touring the country as drummer for the band, so my parents have the unique ability to claim they have children who are a rocker and a regulator. it's a tremendous honor to have been renominated by the president to continue to serve as commissioner at the fcc. that's because we are in the early days of the communications revoluti revolution. network technologies are reaching further and faster into all aspects of civic and commercial life. they are transforming the ways we connect, create, employ, and educate and entertain, and govern ourselves. for the commission, all of this required. it all -- also means we must recognize what is time tested and enduring. that is why i believe the work of the commission must be guided by four essential values, that have informed our communications laws for decades. first, our public safety. our networks must be available when the unthinkable occurs and

we need them most. second, universal access. no matter who you are or where you live in this country, for a fair shot at 21st century prosperity, you need accesccess first-rate modern communications. that means we need policies that foster deployment and adoption in urban areas, rural areas and in between. third, competition. competition increases innovation and lowers prices. fourth, consumer protection. communication services are multiplying, but the marketplace is also bewildering to navigate. so we should always be on guard for ways to help consumers make good choices. these values derive from the law and they have informed my work at the commission to date. in light of them, i am especially proud of agency efforts to strengthen 911 service, and i am proud of our work to increase access to

broadband in schools and enhance opportunities for digital age education. i also believe our spectrum policies for licensed and unlicensed air waves have made our wireless markets competitive, innovative, and strong. i'm aware there's more work to be done to bring communications policy into the future. that includes supporting the world's first spectrum incentive auctions, managing the impact of this transition on our nation's local broadcasters, and building on our wireless success with the next generation of mobile service, known as 5g. it requires new ideas to spur competition, spark entrepreneurship, incentivize the deployment of new networks and help bring the benefits of the communications revolution to everyone everywhere across the country. if reconfirmed, i look forward to working on these tasks with my talented colleagues and the

skilled staff of the agency. if reconfirmed, i will continue to be guided by these fundamental values and the law. >> and if reconfirmed, i will continue to respect the priorities of this committee. i also pledge to continue to listen to you, those with business before the commission, and above all, the american people. so in closing, let me thank the members of the committee today for the opportunity to appear here, and i look forward to asking -- answering your questions. >> thank you, commissioner. we'll go in five-minute rounds. i'll start by asking a question as you might expect about universal service fund rules, which currently require a rural consumer to buy voice service from a small rural telephone company in order for that carrier to be eligible for usf support.

same rule for broadband services only without a telephone subscription. this outcome stands in direct contradiction to a broadband focused on universal fund. on march 18th, you and all of your colleagues on the condition made a commitment to solve this growing threat to rural communications by the end of this year. since then, it's my understanding that chairman wheeler has chosen to broaden his scope to include updates to legacy usf models and support systems, and while i'm not opposed to the action, i do want, i should say, i do not want a solution to be subsumed by the weight of a larger effort that may not come together. and so my question is, do you believe the commission will be able to keep its commitment to the committee that will fix the stand alone broadband problem this year and will you reaffirm your commitment to work toward that goal? >> yes, senator. we need to fix the problem with stand alone broadband for some of our nation's rural carriers through a technical and legal quirk today. we'll offer them universal

service support if customers order both voice and broadband service. that does not reflect modern communications and it is time for us to fix it. so if reconfirmed, i will continue to press my colleagues to get this done. like you, i'd like this done by the end of the year. >> i hope that you will make that goal and make that deadline.

>> well, i think we could continue to have conversations about it, but i would like us to produce a decision that we have confidence will be something that the agency can take up and vote on at some point in the future. so we want to be certain that

the statutory terminology is not evolving, but sufficiently stable support for decision making. >> have you given your views about the title 2 order delaying this process? considered asking congress for guidance on offering or offering recommendations, i would say, to congress that might point to a way of resolving potential questions of commission authority regarding universal service contributions. >> thank you, senator, that's a very good point. obviously the universal service program, we have is in large part of creation of this committee back in the 1996 telecommunications act. and i think any guidance that you'd like to offer us with respect to both contribution and distribution would be absolutely welcome. >> well, and we would welcome your looking to us for that direction as well. and perhaps giving us your thoughts about that. i want to ask one final question of call completion. it's something that a lot of consumer groups and rural customers continue to report

problems in receiving long distance and phone cal-- wirele calls on their home telephones and to address a lot of these problems, as you know, the fcc adopted new rules last year in november that were designed to monitor deliver of long distance calls to aid in the prosecution of violations of the communications act. what has the fcc monitored? >> thank you, senator, for the question. rural call completion has unfortunately been a big problem and it's distressing to know that people will reach out to friends and family in rural areas or try to make a business connection or worse, reach out for public safety call and find that the call does not go through. so the agency has issued a

declaratory ruling to make clear that failure is a violation of the law. we've also gone after some bad actors, as you acknowledged. the most important thing we did is update our data collection so that carriers have a responsibility to report to us on these matters. our hope is with more data and more reports we'll be able to track failures to complete the calls and go after bad actors more aggressively. the first filings with that new data collection were just made, and we're reviewing them right

now. my hope is we can identify some patterns over time, figure out where the problem is, and that we'll have the record to bring this to a stop. >> senator. >> the emerging budget deal asked to identify federal spectrum to be made available for commercial use by some accounts, that's about one tenth of what the private sector will need. i think this is a pretty good start, but i'm interested in your thoughts about what more can commission can do, what more the congress can do to free up more spectrum and possibly generate more revenue for the treasury. >> thank you, senator, the wireless economy is growing of? fast. we all know that intuitively knowing just how often we reach for our phones and mobile devices. we have so much more activity in our air waives and if we want

the growth to continue, we are going to have to mind nor spectrum for it to do so. that continues to provide us with air waves for licensed and unlicensed services to make sure the wireless economy continues to grow. >> thank you. i want to thank you for the homework gap. i know you're passionate about this. what i'd like for you to do is describe it in as simple terms as you possibly can on a human level if you wouldn't mind. then talk about what the fcc is doing, can be doing, and what the committee could be doing to address this because i find it frankly shocking that we are in the public and private school systems assigning homework that depends on the internet, and then not providing access to enable kids to do their homework. >> thank you. so when i was growing up, when i wanted to do my homework, requires paper, pencil, and my brother leaving me alone. today, more often than not, it requires the internet. there are studies that suggest that 7 in 10 teaches -- teachers

assign homework that requires internet access. the data from the fcc suggests that 1 in 3 households do not have access. and the survey found that there are 5 million households with school-aged children in this country that do not have internet access. so just imagine what it's like to be a kid in one of those households, getting your basic school work done is hard, applying far scholarship or job the challenging. this strikes me as the cruellest part of the divide, but it's within our power to fix it and bridge it. there are programs that we have that support low income right now and households that we could update. we could clear more of our skies for wi-fi services, which is an easy way to get more people online.

then we should support public and private sector partnerships that help get broadband access and computing power into studen students' hands at home. >> right now there is a connect home initiative, connect ed is designed to help support connectivity in schools, connect ed is an effort, excuse me, connect ed is an effort to designed to support connectivity in schools, connect home is an effort that is designed to support it at home. it is a new element we should all be on guard for ways to solve and fix. >> we want you to be relentless on this and we look forward to working with you on this. thank you. >> and senator. >> commissioner, i bet your brother got out of the way when you told him to. and i hope he's doing well, also. let's talk about the universal service fund. it's wireless component, the mobility fund, as those relate to rural america and specifically precision agriculture. we had a representative from john deere a few days ago testify before the committee about precision agriculture technology, and he said it

supports the expansion of the fcc's mobility fund. in your judgment, is existing rural wireless coverage at risk of being reduced without continued usf support? >> yes. >> and what needs to be done in response to that risk of this important segment of our economy? >> well, to date, the fcc has proceeded with the first element of its mobility fund. we've made available roughly $300 million in that fund to support deployment in rural areas. but we need to move on to the second phase of the fund, and what i'd like that second phase to do is focus with laser-like accuracy on areas of the country, rural areas, that do not have service today. because we know that areas that have better broadband and wireless service are better equipped to compete. that's true for urban america and rural america alike. >> and actually, i think you, you used that very term laser-like focus earlier this year when you appeared before

this panel to talk about spectrum and wireless broadband. how is that issue proceeding now among the five members of the commission? and what concrete steps should the commission take in mobility fund to preserve existing levels of wireless coverage? what concrete steps should the commission take in areas such as remote patient monitoring, which is a huge concern of mine, precision agriculture and public safety? and what should congress do? what can congress do? >> well, the examples you just gave are examples of just how useful wireless is in every aspect of our lives. remote patient monitoring can help with health care, particularly for the elderly or individuals who live in rural areas where traveling to a hospital or health clinic takes a long time. monitoring at home is incredibly efficient and cost-effective. precision --

>> you could even monitor in ambulances now. >> uh-huh. >> do we not? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> agriculture too, underappreciated how important wireless technology is to help support our nation's farms. and then of course public safety. so, when you contemplate the breadth of what wireless services can do, we need to make sure that our mobility fund, the second phase of it, moves ahead and focuses on the benefits that we can provide rural america. i think that we should find -- make sure that we put the remainder of our universal service work on a timeline so we can commit that we will have the second phase of the mobility fund in place in short order. >> and how is that debate proceeding among the five members of the commission in your judgment? >> in my candid judgment, we have some differences of opinion on that. i would like however us to follow through. we committed in 2011 to having a second phase of the mobility fund, and i'd like to see us put in it in place as soon as we can.

>> i wonder when the commission might be moving toward a consensus in that, on that question. >> well, i can tell you, senator, if reconfirmed, i will press my colleagues to work to consensus on that. i think it is important to do so. >> do you have any recommendations as to what congress can do to encourage more rural broadband build out? >> i do. i think there's actually legislation before this committee from two senators, the rural wireless accessibility act, and in fact, it recommends that in areas of the country where large carriers might own licenses to deploy, but are not deploying, that they make sure they lease that out to smaller rural carriers so they can deploy in rural communities. and in order to make them more inclined to do that, it gives them license extension. and i think that kind of incentive-based system is a way to push secondary markets to

work well and better serve rural america. >> so you're endorsing the bill, correct? >> i think they're going to want me to say yes. i believe the fundamental idea in there is spot on and could be particularly helpful for rural communities. >> thank you very much. >> senator markey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. big decision earlier this year at the fcc, and i appreciate the fact that your decision on net neutrally, title 2, is in the courts, but i also believe that the construct we have today under your new regulation is the correct one. it's a good balance between the broadband companies on the one hand, and on the other hand, you have all these start-ups, the software and internet-specific companies all across the country, all these smart, smart young people who are listening

to guster right now, who really do, you know, make the difference, the change in our society. and right now, they're drawing 65% of all venture capital in america are going to software and internet-specific new companies, so it's a good balance and that's really the change in our society. so i wanted to compliment you on that because i do think that there's a high probability of that decision being upheld. and i think it's on very strong legal grounds. but i'd like it turn, if i could, to your decision of just a year ago, which was to increase the contribution that is inside of the education rate to make sure that we're wiring schools, that we wire the libraries, that we give the young people in our country the access to the technology, which they need in order to compete. and so, you know, we've got

wi-fi in starbucks, and people go in there now, and that's a constitutional right people have to go to a starbucks and to use their wi-fi, but not so much in schools or classrooms. a kid doesn't automatically guarantee that that's the case. and you talked about the kids that don't have the internet even at home. and i guess that's kind of what i'd like you to elaborate a little bit more on, because when i was a kid, you know, my father was a milkman, but if i took my books home, i could compete with the school superintendent's son. we all do that, people on this panel. but in a modern era, the school superintendent son has access to all these incredible technologies, and the poorer you are, the less likely you're going to have it. in a way that's going to allow you to compete in a world where businesses and schools are going to be looking towards your familiarity, your ability to be iebl -- able to use that skill

set. so that's kind of a big divide that continues to be out there. and you really led the charge to increase it up to $3.4 billion a year. the funding that's going into that, and wi-fi is a big part of that. could you elaborate a little bit more about how you see that unfolding and what the fcc is doing to monitor that to make sure it gets implemented properly? >> right. thank you, senator. erate is if nation's largest education technology program, as you know. when i got to the fcc, what i found was it was frozen in the era of dial-up. and if you think about that, that just makes no sense. we know that half the jobs today require some level of digital skill, and by the end of the decade, it's going to be 77%. we need to make sure that every student and every school in the community has the ability to participate in the new economy. >> thank you. and you are right. this was a program that was put in place just as the 1996 act

was passed. and it was a dial-up era, not one home had broadband when we passed that law in 1996, and senator rockefeller and i created this erate program back then, and it's now spent $36, $38 billion making sure that kids have access to it, but the modernization just has to continue. and if you could just elaborate a little bit more about just how you see wi-fi, specifically as a technology, you know, unfolding at -- in its role to give the kids the tools they need. >> it's so important. students used to march down the hall once a week where a

computer lab showed up in shrink-wrapped packages. that's no longer the way it has today. they need to be capable of device learning, that requires wi-fi. and one of the best things about what we did is we updated what's known as category 2 in the erate program so make sure that wi-fi support is available for schools. and many more schools are going to be able to get support from this program to not only get broadband through the front door, but move it around the school and to every classroom as a result. >> well, in december, we celebrate the first anniversary of that change in the law, and you were a real driving force in doing that. so i want to congratulate you on what you have done for the children of our country. it's a great accomplishment. >> thank you senator markey. >> thank you, chairman. and commissioner, it's great to have you here and thanks for your work on the spectrum auction that comes up next year. it now looks like maybe as many as 1,000 local broadcast stations will have to move where they are to somewhere new and if that's going to cost twice as much as the estimate of what it would cost, i think the cost comes out of the proceeds of the auction. you can correct me if i'm wrong on that. but, what kind of preparations are you all making at the fcc

for 1,000 stations to have to find a new place to be and for that cost to be twice as high as you initially thought it was going to be? >> thank you, senator. you're right. we have a very big auction coming up next year. we have the world's first spectrum incentive auction, and that'll put more mobile broad ban bands into commercial carriers' hands. we'll make more on licensed opportunities available. and it will give broadcasters an opportunity to participate by getting out of the business of broadcasting, or continue to stay in. some segment of the broadcast need to relocate their stations. i can't tell you right now if the number you have is correct because until we're in the middle of the auction, i don't

think we're actually going to know how many stations need to relocate. under the middle class tax relief and job creation act, congress set aside $1.75 billion from the auction proceeds to assist those stations with relocation. i think it is important that we make sure that those funds are ample. every station that's being relocated should have the ability to access those funds. the present time, i think the money that we have before us that congress tasked us with setting aside is adequate, but i think we should stay on guard because if we find out that it is not, we'll have to come back to congress and ask for your assistance. >> on the thousand number, do you all have an estimate that you're looking at? surely there's some estimate over there as to how many stations you think will take the relocation as opposed to the go out of business option? >> i don't think we have a specific estimate. i think that's because we won't have one until closer to the date of the auction. we are certainly socializing these opportunities with broadcasters all across the country. we are finding some are interested and some are not, but we won't ultimately know until we start the forward auction. and when we have signs from each of the broadcasters before that auction begins about whether or

not they'll participate. >> and at some point, if you believe you don't have enough money to make those relocations work, what will you do? >> i believe the minute, if we determine that we do not have enough funds the first thing we should do is come to this committee and come to the congress. i think broadcasters should not be unduly charged with having to manage this spectrum of relocation. >> all right. on one other topic, and i think nobody has ever been on the commission who understands this committee better than you do who went to the commission with a better relationships than you do. and then and again today, you promised to work the committee to get back to the committee promptly. i know there are at least two occasions where i was part of a group that contacted the commission, you as a member of the commission, not just you individuall individual individually, one five members of the committee, including senator wicker, who was the

ranking republican of the communications subcommittee, expressing strong concerns about the fcc's upcoming vote on retroactively changing their mind on joint sales agreements. another, senator thune and i and others have contacted the commission on our concern that we shouldn't try to apply the anti-monopoly title two regulations to the broadband marketplace. neither of those letters ever had a response. not even a response. we got your letter and we're not going to respond. so how does that work? do these letters go to the commission and collectively you

and the chairman just decide you're not going to answer? how does that work and how do you think it should work? >> well, senator, i apologize if you did not get an official response to those letters. most of those letters do in fact go to the chairman's office, i'd be perfectly happy to offer responses myself. i think it is important we continue to work with this committee and you're the folks that created the law that created the agency. so i want to make sure that our relationships are actually improved and we're more responsive. >> well, i think maybe, maybe in the future, i'll see that you for sure are copied in because if the letter goes to the chairman's office, the chairman is not responding, and i look forward to talking to the chairman wheeler about that the next time i see him. though i personally talked to him about both of these letters and he wasn't particularly responsive even in person on the views that the committee or the congress had on these issues. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank for being here, commissioner. and i wanted to ask about the erate program. so a state like new hampshire we have many rural areas in our state, and we've really, i think, been left behind on this program. so if you look at the history in

new hampshire, we've been 50th out of 50th for many years. in 2014, i think we moved up a little bit, but we're still at the bottom of the list unfortunately toward the bottom. of course, we're a net donor set, so my constituents are paying into this but not getting back even the full value of their dollar and qu a diminished value if you look at the overall fund. and so in rural areas, what i'd like to know -- so we've had this discussion about your vote and others to increase the cap to $1.5 billion on erate, but i would like to know what are we going to do to address adequate distribution of erate, because your role at the fcc, we can't leave rural students behind in all of this. so i'd like to get your impression on that and in turn with it, one of the issues that i see with it is prioritizing

instructional facilities like schools and libraries because right now administrative offices are also eligible, but as we look at the priorities it seems to me that direct student services, while i don't diminish the role of administrators when we have to prioritize, let's get it directly to those interactions with the students. can you give me some impressions on what are we going to do on d d distribution, what are we going to do directly on this program? one of the big complaints i get from my constituents about why

more of them aren't applying for erate dollars -- let me be straightforward. there's six forms, and we don't have an army of people in new hampshire to be able to -- we can't hire, you know, all this group of people to be able to put this application in maybe oth other larger school districts can do that. and we need to simplify this application. and i think that's something because i've been reaching out to schools and libraries, how can we get more dollars to you? get more access to our students. so i want to hear more about distribution, how do we direct it better? and how can we get this done to a very simplified application so that we don't disadvantage smaller states and rural areas based on bureaucracy?

>> thank you, senator. those are good points. you might be surprised i agree with just about all you said, and as a new englander, there are parts of new hampshire that are very rural and have not traditionally been the beneficiary of most of our universal service programs. that's why i think the reform of the erate program is so sustainable because by reforming our category 2 services, we are making wi-fi more available in more schools and new hampshire is among them. for the first time, new hampshire as a state has been eligible for that support in several years. so we are going to find that more funds are actually going to flow to rural communities for wi-fi support, which i think is terrific and helpful. i take your point that schools and libraries and student-centered activities should be the focus. i'd be happy to follow up on your concern about administrative offices.

and then finally -- >> not that i don't think they should be available, but i think if we prioritize that, that should be the last priority as we look forward to serving students. >> that's a fair point. i don't know enough about that today to get back to you on that. but your point about streamlining the application, i've gone around the country and spoken to lots of schools and student groups and state technology directors, and they all say the same thing. we streamlined the application, and our reforms last year, but i will be the first to tell you, it is not enough. it is a continuous process and we need to have our ear to the ground and listen to the schools that apply and find out. >> my state is so critical. and i just wanted to follow-up briefly on the issue of the open internet order. and one of the things that in my view was lacking in it was this idea of a independent cost benefit analysis where many, you know, minority members on the station had called for an independent cost analysis and given obviously the directive to act and necessity, do you think it's important for the commission to include an independent cost benefit analysis of its rules to ensure that it does meet the public's interest, convenience for the broader purpose. >> that's right. the president had an executive order back in 2011 directing to the extent feasible that

agencies engage in cost-benefit analysis when they make major decisions and i fully support that. in 2010, when we first came up with the policies, we had a fairly extensive cost benefit analysis. it is candidly less extensive in the most recent decision in part because that was a response to an opinion from the court of appeals, but i take your point that that should be a part of our analysis going forward, and i could commit to doing that for you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator fisher. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, commissioner. you've talked about opening up more unlicensed spectrum for wi-fi, even highlighting your concerns with the way the cbo has scored the license spectrum over the unlicensed. so what are the potential implications of releasing more spectrum for that unlicensed use? >> thank you. unlicensed spectrum is incredibly important for our economy think of it like wi-fi. it demock ratizes internet

access. it is the source of $140 billion of economic activity every year, and even our licensed carriers rely on it when they offload service onto it. it grinds it through an analysis that sometimes produces results that are at odds with some of the committee and the congress. and one of the channllenges is that the congressional budget office prefers licensed spectrum to unlicensed spectrum, and that's because licensed spectrum raises revenue when we auction it off to commercial carriers. but what it misses is that unlicensed spectrum is a source of so much economic activity as i mentioned, $140 billion every year, so it's my hope that going forward, spectrum legislation and job creation.

in other words, every time that there is an instruction to auction licensed air waves, there's a cut for unlicensed or a wi-fi dividend. i think if we get the right mix of licensed and unlicensed services, our wireless economy is really going to grow. >> so legislatively, you would suggest that we be clearer in the proposals that we put forward? >> yes. >> thank you. also, in march the senate passed a bipartisan resolution on the internet of things that senator ayotte and bookers and i put out and it stressed the importance of developing a national strategy so that we could encourage the internet of things. as the resolution states, innovation is the key to the united states remaining a world leader in technology. however, to move forward with these creative ideas, i think we

have to have some clear rules and some clear expectations. so i'm concerned that the proposed net neutrality rule moves in less than a -- i would say a market-driven direction. so what can the fcc do to foster innovation so that the united states continues to be a world leader in technology and also in telecommunications? >> thank you. the internet of things is exciting. by the end of the decade, we could have as many as 50 billion devices with wire lessen soless. we'll have people talking to machines. machines talking to people and machines talking to machines. there are four fundamental policy areas of the internet of things. i think we have to be concerned about security. we have to be concerned about privacy. we have to be concerned about

the adequate si of ip addresses for all those devices, and we need to be concerned about spectrum. back to your prior question, making more unlicensed spectrum could help the internet of things really flourish. >> do you think that would be the main thing the fcc can do is maybe step back to offer more encouragement in many of those areas? >> yes, i don't think we should be overly aggressive at this point. i believe that we should allow experimentation with the internet of things, and i think inteyñ how we'll see its think possibilities grow. >> thank you very much. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is good to see you here today, commissioner, and good to see your family here with you as well. emmett joseph, that's a sharp looking tie you're wearing today as well. thanks for coming to montana

last month to participate in the callispell workshop where you saw firsthand the opportunities to technology can truly bring to rural america. in your statement to the committee you mentioned one of your top priorities is securing access to communication services for all people no matter where they live, and i couldn't agree more. access to technology is allowing us to remove geography as a constraint and allows montanians and those who live in rural areas to start and grow world-class companies, but we still have a lot of work to do, a lot of issues to overcome to connect. the communications act tasks the fcc with providing fcc with providing services to rural consumers that are reasonably comparable to services in urban areas.

now some areas are about to get 5g service. in many areas of montana don't know what g is. we'd love to see g anything. can we really say that this is comparable service? >> thank you, senator, for the question. and thank you for acknowledging my family. i think we have work to do. you can travel in rural america and rural montana and know that connectivity is not yet everywhere. and we are continuingly adjusting, tweaking, and evolving our universal service policies to make sure that we reach those areas with more precision. that is not something we can do one time, we have to constantly identify those areas that do not have service and making sure we direct our funds towards those areas. >> what, what is the fcc doing to incentivize buildout and bring rural states up to comparable levels?

i think it often comes down to the senate? >> senator, i agree with you. i think it is important we use our licensed terms as incentive. they should be longer if you meet buildout requirements. buildout requirements that are specific to rural areas, we should also think about how during our auctions we auction off small enough sizes that small carriers compete. and finally in redoing our designated entities rules recently, we created new providers. and i think the mix of policies like that and incentives built into them, we have a chance of actually providing better service. >> you brought up the issue of spectrum, and as you know, we have plenty of spectrum in montana, the problem is deployment. we have companies in montana who want to build out infrastructure, but the spectrum they need is owned by companies that aren't using it. so i'd like to get your thoughts on what are some ways to encourage companies that have spectrum in rural areas, in rural states, to build out or at least lease the spectrum to rural providers? >> thank you.

i guess this is where i'm going to give a plug to the bill i mentioned earlier, which i think thoughtfully suggests that companies, large companies that have spectrum licenses in rural areas, to the extent they're not deploying there, should be given an incentive to lease it out to small companies that are willing to do so. and that incentive could be an extension of their underlying license. >> could you explain how the fcc determines the buildout requirements for spectrum holders? a rural state like montana, company could meet its buildout requirements by only serving two or three small communities, but still leave 70% of the state's population unserved. what could the fcc do to ensure buildout in the rural areas so that everyone's served? >> you're right. traditionally, i believe most of our buildout requirements have been on a population-basis. which means in a vast state like montana, you could service a handful of towns and succeed in reaching that milestone.

i think the question is, can we come up with a system that is more geographic-based or road-mile based so we can make sure service goes more places, because people of course travel through those places to do their business to move through the state and to get to work. >> we just had a situation, in fact there was a bow hunter attacked by a grizzly bear, i met him last week back home. amazing story of survival, but it was his cell phone that saved his life. as he was in a pretty remote area, was able to get a signal and get help and probably save the young man's life. last question, universal service. many companies in montana rely on universal service funds, but there's issues with the fund include overbuilding as well as duplication. you mentioned the importance for all americans, what's the fcc doing to make sure usf funds are bringing connectivity to unserved communities, back to the same drum beat here, rather than communities who already have access? >> you're right, senator. we have got $4.5 billion that we

can make available annually for high cost areas of this country. rural communities. we would be wasteful if we chose to continue to allow those funds to support areas where the private sector has already supplied broadband services. we are making efforts to make sure that if there is a private sector supplier, we no longer provide funding to those areas. we're going to have to continue to work on that. we cannot afford duplication because our funds are not infinite. >> couldn't agree more, thanks, commissioner. >> thank you, senator. and reminder to check your bars of service before going into bear country. i would think would be a good -- and bring your bear spray. and perhaps some other fire power along with you. senator mccaskill. >> thank you. commissioner i -- back in 2013, 2014, there was announcements made about fining being levied against those carriers who had abused the lifeline program.

as you know, this has been an area of great interest for me for many years trying to get at the waste and abuse and fraud that was inherently embedded in that program because of a lack of programming when it began during the bush administration. i thought it was great when more than $94 million in fines was announced. i thought, okay, we're making progress. i am beyond confused as to why not one dime of that has been collected. um, and i look at the list of the people that owe money on these fines, one of them is tracphone. well, they're getting a big check from us every month. i believe all of these people that owe millions of dollars are still part of the program. and i think it's really important, and i mean like now, that i get some kind of answer from the commission, why not one dime of these -- i mean, this is

like a big -- we might as well have a big flashing sign that says, doesn't matter, do whatever you want in the lifeline program because we're not going to bother to collect the money. and we're going to keep paying you. explanation as to why none of these fines have been collected? >> senator, i agree with you, that sounds problematic. $100 million in fines during the last two years for bad actors who have played fast and loose with this program. we have absolutely got to make sure that they are paying up, and if they are defrauding the program, they should have absolutely no reason to continue to participate. i agree, but on the specifics of their payment schedule, i would need to get back to you. >> there's no payment schedule because there's no payment. i'm not aware of any major fines levied since february of 2014. i would like to know specifically if you all have the tools to cut off their participation in the program until they pay the fines. i see no reason why they should

be allowed to participate until they've paid. >> we do have a debarment program and we need to make sure we apply that. the challenge with applying it, of course, is we don't want to the cut off the consumer. we have to figure out -- >> believe me, there's plenty of people out there to pick them up. they're soliciting for folks on every street corner. i can assure you. it is not hard to get a lifeline phone. this is not a difficult challenge. and believe me, everybody who has them knows how to get them. so i'm not as worried about that. about them getting cut off, especially if you give them notice or direct them to a different carrier which should not be that hard if we're keeping the records we should be keeping around this program. >> that's exactly what i'm talking about. we need to give them notice, find a way to get them to a new carrier so they are not cut off from basic service. >> well, i'm going to be paying really close attention to see if some money comes in on that. i was confused when i looked at the budget deal. i don't know this provision got in there, and if anybody knows,

i would love to find out. i just think it's a really bad idea that we've put something in this budget deal that's going to allow the federal government to participate in robocalls to collect debt. and the interesting thing is when i looked at the backup for this, for the changes in direct spending and outlays, cbo doesn't say we're going to get any money from it. so i'm not -- i'm against that provision. i will probably vote for the deal because i can't see something this important compromise because of that, but you're going to have the power to issue regulations with nine months dictating the frequency and duration of such calls. i hard time imagining if someone has got debt collectors coming after them, i have a hard time imagining that robocalls are very effective. you know, i don't think robocalls are effective for anything, including politics, but i'm pretty sure if you owe money to a bunch of people, including the federal

government, you're not paying much attention to robocalls. so i would like to see really aggressive regulations around this if this actually does become the law. about how frequent these calls could be and the duration of these calls. i just think this is a stupid idea. robocalls, we should be getting rid of them, not empowering the federal government to make them. i would appreciate your feedback and the commission's feedback on the regulations that you'd be willing to put in place if we go down this, i think, nutty path of -- >> so like you, i detest robocalls, and i know i'm not 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 fr 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 youcommissioner, 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