politicians more ability to appoint the civil servants. because you can't have direct exhibit. my view is you need a little of both. i think we got a situation where -- i do think that secretaries of state should have a choice of permanent secretaries. across the line of being acceptable appointee. i think the greater choice for foreign ministers, but some greater level of accountability for civil servants as well. that's a good position to have. .

want to open up public sector procurement to private organizations, there are going to be occasions of confidentiality. i am not sure about extending f.o.i. further. i'd rather -- i mean, i think transparency on the way in is better than endless information requests on the way out. but i'll have a look at those. >> before you commit yourself to doing less than you do now, it is quite common now for purchases making contracts to ensure that they can gain

access to the information they are required under the freedom of information requests because their contract with the supplier allows them to do so. >> right. >> we are beginning to find issues like the services, g.p. services in cornwell, it was a whistleblower, it was found there were 250 occasions where the contractor lied about what he was providing. the issue around the work program that we spent some time on where there was -- it was very difficult to say what was -- what level fraud or inaccuracy meant that the provider was not fit for purpose. i think transparency -- >> i think what i found for the work program as a for instance, i think better than having endless deep dives into what is

actually more published information -- >> yeah, i agree. >> in the end, i prefer the f.o.i. process. i think what the taxpayer needs to see and what frankly the government needs to see, what is the outcome of these initiatives? how many people are being helped? how many are getting jobs? how long are they staying in jobs? it is where we need the transparency and then judged by outcomes i think from what i heard -- my worry is if you overregulate the processes, you may actually find you're not going to get good businesses coming in to run and find value for money where government needs it. by publishing outcomes i think is far more powerful. that would be my sort of prejudice, as it were, coming to it, publishing the information on the way out. but i'll have a look at it. >> we need to look at that. can i just say last year the education secretary attacked the p.a.c. in a speech in which

he said, and i quote, national audit office and the public accounts committee, the most influential watchdogs in the country, are the most fearest conservatism. and on your behalf as spokesman at the lobby said that you sympathized with that view. why did you seek to undermine the taxpayers champions? >> don't take it personally. i think the p.a.c. does an important job. the national audit office does an important job. we want champions for the taxpayers. i think the point michael was making -- and this is felt a little bit. we might as well have this exchange. is, you know, the p.a.c. has got to look in my view, got to look when you have a status quo that's failing -- sometimes we feel if you try anything new or

innovative, the p.a.c. will come down. we don't look at failing status quos. let's see the p.a.c. reports into failing local educational authorities rather than, you know -- what you need is both is the argument. >> can i assure you that actually -- >> look, failing the status quo -- one last point so i can get it off my chest. in business if you innovate and fail, you don't get slammed and told you're a failure. don't go home and bury yourself. that bit of innovation didn't work. keep going. keep innovating. we have to invade in government. you got to do -- innovate in government. you got to do that. so a failed innovation doesn't necessarily warrant a great -- you get my point. >> i do agree that actually the only way in which you will cope with trying to get more for less is through innovation, but i hope that you'll agree that when you innovate you need rational analysis and you don't

just need ideological fervor. i think it is the job of this committee and indeed parliament to ensure that the government is delivering value for money for hard woorking taxpayers. >> i will just -- sometimes you need to give the innovation a little bit of time. that will be my other point. i'm sure this will be a debate that we can continue. >> richard. >> foreign policy and syria and the e.u. embargo on armed sales to the rebel -- to the rebels in syria. you got on the one hand the turkish foreign minister calling for the lifting of the banff supplying arms to rebels in syria. and then -- can you force these circumstances whereby you would veto the arms embargo when it's up for renewal in may which would effectively mean lifting it? >> i would hope that wouldn't

be the case, but i don't -- what i'd like to do is continue with the e.u. approach. we just amended it, as you know, so we can supply equipment. i hope we can persuade our european partners if and when a further change becomes necessary they'll agree with us. but if we can't, then it's not out of the question. we might have to do things in our own way. possible. >> sir, so it's quite possible you would veto an extension of the embargo? >> we are still an independent country. we can have an independent foreign policy. if for instance we felt that action needed to be taken to help bring about change in syria, to help this a-- to help end this appalling bloodshed and if we felt our european

partners were helding that back, then we'd have to change the approach. but that's not what i hope will happen. i think they did a very good job persuading the colleagues to amend the terms of the arms embargo so we can supply this nonlethal equipment. we stand back and say, why are we doing this? it seems to me if we want to help bring about a transition in syria we have to work with the opposition groups and we ought to work with the opposition groups to try and shape them and help them and encourage those that are committed to a plureistic and democratic future for those in syria. you can't do that if you're simply not engaged in -- if you don't supply anything in terms of, you know, help in the work what we're doing. >> supplying the rebels with weapons -- >> let me just be clear. that is not a decision we've

taken. that is not -- and i hope we don't have to break from a collaborative approach across the european union. i was just making the point if we thought it was the right thing to do we'd do it. >> fair enough. the foreign secretary said if he can't get an agreement amongst his e.u. partners, we'd stand ready to ensure that sanctions on syria remain effective. that's a very bold unilateral statement. >> it's a responsible statement because of course if for whatever reason -- and this could have happened when we were discussing the terms of the e.u. arms embargo, if for some reason we couldn't agree amongst the 27 the changes we thought necessary to supply nonlethal equipment, if we didn't agree we'd have a choice. either you let the whole sanctions package fall, you supply the nonlethal equipment but at the same time britain, as a major financial center and important player in all this, would have to put in place its

own sanctions legislation very quickly. so of course we drew up that legislation. it was ready to go. if we couldn't get agreement across europe because it would have been irresponsible to see the sanctions package fall, but for britain not to put in place its own sanctions regime because otherwise members of the regime would have been able to access money or finance or who knows what. so that was just responsible planning. >> sticking with arming the rebels. it's widely accepted that jihadists are gathering from all over the world to fight their cause in syria at the moment. don't you think it would be a mistake to be arming rebels who we don't really know their identity and their intentions are uncertain? >> obviously there are dangers in any course of action we take. the point i'd make, there is a danger in inaction, right? while the world has stood by and frankly not done enough in syria, what has happened? 70,000 people being murdered.

you've seen the jihadist elements of the opposition sort of grow. so doing nothing is a positive choice in this case. it maybe that doing nothing, the situation gets worse and the level of jihadism gets worse. my argument is by working with the opposition, by supplying part of the opposition and helping part of the opposition you can have at least have some influence with your partners. we're closely with the jordanians, americans, the french, trying to work with the opposition to help and shape that opposition and encourage, as i said, parts of the opposition that want a pleuralist democratic syria that has rites. if we stand back and say, sorry, we can't reach an agreement in europe, i would say that's a positive choice but with a negative outcome. >> we've taken the lead in syria. the reason is, i quote, we

can't allow syria to become a breeding ground for terrorists. couldn't that apply to around the world? >> i make the argument, just as you can't do the right thing somewhere doesn't mean you shouldn't do the right thing anywhere. of course it applies to other places around the world. i would argue that britain, we shouldn't overstate our global role and what we can do, but with partners, with allies i think we can help to have an effect in countries and to reduce hopefully the level of threat that we face. so if you take, for instance, you know, what we're doing in mali -- i'm sure. just as an example. we're assisting the french. we're helping freezing rain the african forces. we're not in a combat role or anything like that. but is it better to play that sort of role and to help? can you have an effect as a

supporter? yes, you can. i think that's the role that britain should see. we should combine that tough and intelligent approach and work out where we can best maximize our national interests, reduce the level of jihadism and in mali i think we've done just that. >> can i address the refugee fallout of this? because the number of refugees hit a million last week. humanitarian crisis. but the support of those refugees is 3/4 not funded. the u.k. has given 139.5 million. are we going to give more? would it leave to more refugees and crisis? >> i'll answer the last question first. i don't think what we're doing helping syrian rebels will add

to the refugee crisis. this is something that's happening anyway. again, what our policy aim, what we're trying to achieve, we're trying to help a transition in syria. there are two ways that can happen. you can have a political transition at the top, diplomatic pressure. we need to keep pushing that. or you can have transition from below where the rebel forces eventually push the rescombreem, which has done such appalling things to its own people, eventually push them out. this is happening anyway. there is a humanitarian crisis anyway and britain is playing a very leading role with 139 million, as you say, in helping with that humanitarian crisis. we will go on responding to it as it unfolds. which we are responsible for this humanitarian crisis. it is assad himself. >> but it spreading not just to syria but to its neighbors.

turkey, which has strong foreign policy interests of its own. and then fragile countries like jordan and lebanon who are really struggling. indeed this refugee problem could further destabilize those countries. will they get support and will the u.k. government give them support? >> yes, we have giving the refugee camp i visited in jordan that was partly funded by u.k. taxpayers and so we'll look at a case-by-case basis. we should use our generosity -- as i say, i don't -- i wouldn't accept the argument that actions are making this worse. our actions are designed to try to help achieve transition and ease the humanitarian crisis at the same time. >> i'm saying they could. >> sorry. the point you're making which

is this is a very fragile region, what's happening in syria is adding to the fragility is absolutely right, but i would argue that's an argument for engagement. and trying to help. >> one final question. >> actually, we need to go back to this. >> just on the subject of mali, in your common statements that you said and you talk about the islamic terrorists, we must beat them militarily, we must address the poison they feed on and close down the government space. you are pretty well aware that foreign secretary made an important speech about restructuring of the intelligence relationships in north africa. is that -- is that speech the response to how you're going to beat them militarily? >> just -- sorry. i think -- i add into that as well as defeat militarily, close down our government space, defeat the poisonous

narrative, you have to drain the swamp of issues on which they feed. you also got to think about how you develop political systems in which, you know, the moderates can beat the extremists and you can have -- all those things. >> sorry. i am being hassled. >> i don't want to be misinterpreted as i believe somehow every problem is a nail and every answer is a hammer. that's not my view at all. this is a tough but intelligent approach. you take mali, for instance, you need a political settlement that includes north and south. you need all those things as well as the tough action that the french have taken. >> and the intelligence -- restructuring the intelligence arrangements, is that part of the response? >> it is part of the response. i don't think we should -- we can't take on all these responsibilities ourselves. where we have strong relationships, for example, in nigeria, we need to build on

those. like the french in mali, they should build on those and we should partner up with countries where there are real threats of extremism, jihadism and the export potentially of terror. we should try to get ahead of these problems rather than wait for them to grow. >> in the defense and security review in 2010, there was a very strong statement there had to be a clear stroo t.j.ic aim and exit strategy before we deploy u.k. armed forces. the problem in mali is supposedly limited. one in the communications -- also training of the other forces that are involved. sometimes in their own countries. but sometimes, of course, in mali. >> yes. >> what is the exit strategy? >> well, the exit strategy is to train the people who will take over from the french and that is the military exit strategy, both for french and

arguably for our trainers who will be training nigerians and others, as the physical force goes in and the french can go home, there will be less need for our training. so militarily, there is an exit strategy. i'd argue, though, more importantly, you won't solve the problem purely by military means. the real exit strategy is to build the capacity of the malian government to reach a political settlement that both north and south mali feel included in, it's engaging with the neighbors to help stabilize the country. it's all of those things which will over time and they've all, mali, to have a more stable existence. >> isn't this the kind of situation where presence forces us to stay longer and makes the exit strategy difficult? those of whom are working are asking us to do things not part of the original strategy. >> i think we're very alert of

that problem because what is happening elsewhere. and i think the french, they want to get their troops out of mali relatively quickly because they know the longer they stay the longer they might potentially become part of the problem. that's why replacing those troops with african froops is sensible. and britain's contribution here -- african troops is sensible. and britain's contribution here, the c-17, which is helping to resupply, it is some troops with a huge training mission, which is training the malians and others to take over security, and then of course troops hopefully in nigeria rather than mali training nigerians and others to play that role. so we're not -- you know, this is not -- i think we've learned the lessons from previous conflicts when perhaps we haven't thought these things through as carefully as we should have done. >> you got a position where

there's been vulnerability over the years, drought, economic collapse, and lack of governance, you call it, ungovernment space in which terrorists thrive. we have actually withdrawn our development support we had in inside jeer baffer this crisis -- in niger before this crisis began. do you think we need to rethink it? >> we should always keep these things under review. i don't think this was a bad decision. we have a lot of different programs in a lot of different countries, some too small to make a big impact. i think trying to focus on areas where we can both be contributing aid but also trying to help with real political and economic development, probably makes more sense. so what can we do in this area that is the most constructive? i'd argue nigeria is a country we should partner up with more. we can have greater effect there.

whereas niger probably makes sense for the french to do more with historical connections. >> can we take particular action to protect women who are the most vulnerable in this crisis? we've seen their rights are being brutally suppressed. we have evidence that shows whenever there is a crisis of this kind women suffer rape, violence and very often death. and yet the international community doesn't always respond and because we can't -- do you believe there is a role with the u.k. government with partners to really step in early? because what we'll find otherwise is six, 12 months we'll hear all the horror stories and people want to know why we didn't do anything about it. >> i think that's a good point. there are two things. one, where we got these jihadist style regimes like we have in northern mali, i think that's another justification for the sort of action that the french, supported by ourselves, have taken.

women in mali will be better off. and i think gathering the evidence faster so the world can try and act where there is rape, brutalization and other things taking place, there are lessons to learn. >> can i press you -- account u.k. -- >> this is something that the foreign secretary has given quite a lead on internationally and wants to raise part of our aid. and gathering information what is fuelly happening so you can galvanize opinion. and i think the department is focused on that. >> in relation to malli, in the last couple months, politicses reaching for -- to locate the country and certainly the south region but you appointed someone back in september of 2012. what intelligence information did you have at that time and

awareness this was going to develop in the crisis we've seen? >> what i was receiving and it's worth sort of paying tribute to the work they do, the joint intelligence committee in the cabinet office that produce really good security and intelligence briefings in other parts of the world and threat levels, this was showing up as an area of concern because of the issues of ungovernance space and extremism and extremist groups. so we did reopen our embassy in 2010. the national security council discussed mali in july of 2012. so july last year and then again in january of this year. and i appointedo brian as my enroye -- i appointed o'brien as my envoy. he had good contacts with the

french in this area and has been a helpful appointment in that he's been able to brief me and the foreign secretary in quite a lot of detail about a lot 69 international meetings that he's attending on behalf of britain to make sure we regalvanize action. this is something that flashed through the national security council and the national security strategy and as i said, i think it pays to try to get ahead of these problems. i can't sit here and claim that today mali and what's happening in mali is a massive security threat to the u.k. i think there's plenty of evidence that it's a threat to british people in the region, as tragically we've seen in recent days, but i think all these spaces have the potential to provide a direct threat to britain. we've seen that with somalia. we've seen it elsewhere. and so it pays to get ahead of the threat which is i think is what we're trying to do. >> notwithstanding the

reopening of a couple of embassies and the investment in foreign languages and the support for the commonwealth countries in africa over other noncommonwealth countries. would you agree that there's been an underinvestment in northwest africa much beyond a decade prior to your arrival in number 10, and if you do agree, what can we do going forward if this is going to be an increased threat? >> i think there has been an underinvestment in diplomatic networks and relationships and i think credit to the foreign secretary what he's done to turn that situation around. we've opened a lot of embassies, not only in africa, but other parts of the world. he's reopened the foreign language school for the foreign office.

we do face difficult spending decisions across government, but in the foreign office budget hasn't been protected but the focus on trying to extend our diplomatic punch has been pretty good. my whole argument is we're in a global race. we need to succeed. we need to grow links with countries. and have a strong foreign office and embassies and trade partners are a big part of that. >> thanks to the cooperation by our colleagues who've enabled you to get to your next appointment. you might want to -- we will next see you which we -- >> i'm sure we can negotiate it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> order. >> order. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> and if you missed any of david cameron's comments, they should be available on our website at c-span.org. at 2:00 eastern we'll go live to the house. members today are expected to take up a couple of noncontroversial bills. privacy issues and flood insurance programs. the house will be gaveling in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. legislative business will begin at 5:00 eastern here on c-span. also, a quick reminder later today the senate commerce, science and transportation committee will hold oversight of the f.c.c. all five f.c.c. commissioners

will testify. that begin at 2:45 eastern right here on c-span. once again, the house will be in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. they'll work on two noncontroversial bills. votes after 6:30. we'll have live coverage of the house when they gavel in at 2:00 p.m. eastern right here on c-span. on c-span2, of course, live coverage of the u.s. senate. senators today working on the c.r. earlier today senators me culls

key and others started debate on the house-passed resolution. that's available on our website if you'd like to see it. this c.r. would keep the government funded past march 27 and would in fact take government funding all the way up until september. live coverage of the u.s. senate on our companion network, c-span. official debate on the c.r. gets under way at 2:30 eastern on c-span2. again on capitol hill, the president continuing what is being called his charm offensive as he's meeting with members of congress. he's this afternoon meeting with members of the senate democratic caucus. that meeting just about to get under way around 1:30 eastern. afterwards there may be

comments from members of the caucus. we'll attempt to bring those to you on the c-span networks. while we wait for the house to gavel in at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a segment from this morning's "washington journal" where there was efforts to abolish the death penalty at the state level. host: richard deiter is here to talk about state efforts to repeal the death penalty. let me show "the wall street journal" from march 7 with this headline, maryland moves to end execution. since 2007 five states have passed laws to abolish the death penalty. maryland becoming the sixth. what's going on here? guest: this is a radical change on american views on the death penalty. this is not just states but across the country death sentences have dropped 75%. executions have dropped over 50% in the past decade. now it will look like six states in six years abolishing

the death penalty that clearly is a rethinking of this punishment. host: why has it dropped? guest: i think innocence. i think mistakes in capital cases where people have been freed, sometimes through d.n.a. testing, has caused a lot of concern about this system. this is irref kabul punishment so -- iirrevocable punishment. host: which states have the most numbers of executions, which have the least and why? guest: texas by far has over 400 executions. the next state is virginia with 100 or so. it's texas by far. the least are many states have no executions. there's now going to be 18 states without the death penalty. even states with the death penalty -- last year there were 43 executions in the country. only nine states carried out them. so most states are not carrying out executions. host: why texas, virginia?

cultural, societal reasons? what's going on? guest: i think both of those things. texas is a large state and strong believer in the death penalty. but even in texas, death sentences have dropped considerably. they had nondeath sentences last year. 10 years ago they had 40 death sentences in a year. there are things happening, even in the larger committed to the death penalty states. host: from your group, states with the most death row inmates, california, 724, florida, 411, and texas, 304. california with a large number there. guest: what's happening in california, of course, it, too, is a large state but it doesn't execute people. it hasn't executed a person in seven years. keeps sentencing people to death. so you have a growing death row but no one leaving except by their natural death. that's the most inefficient or nonsensical system. i think eventually that's going to be abolished in california

too. host: is it more costly to have people on death row than it is for the states that actually go through with these executions? guest: well, the whole process of the death penalty is more expensive than keeping people in prison. carrying out an execution is relatively small, but, yes, keeping the system going, even without executions you still have appeals, you still have a process of -- death row, for example, is much more expensive as a security measure than a regular prison. people are -- brought their meals and guarded daily. host: the numbers are going down. not as many people -- the states are not following through with executions. talk about the cost. yet, look at the polling that's been done on the death penalty over the years. it has remained a popular option with people. are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder? in 2012, 63% were in favor. 32% opposed. guest: yeah.

people philosophically do not oppose the death penalty. they don't have a moral objection. i think this has become more of a pragmatic issue. that's why we're seeing states take action. they have to make policy decisions and financial decisions. and on that basis, the public is much less supportive. when we talk about the costs or the risks of executing the innocent and would it be possible to substitute life without parole, you get 49% to 50% sort of breakdown. host: i mean, how much money are we talking about? guest: about $3 million for one death penalty case from trial through the end. if you do the same case without the death penalty it will be $1.1 million. it's about three times expensive to do a death penalty case rather than a life case. host: let me throw out other numbers from your group. the cost of the death penalty in california has been over $4 billion since 1978.

study considered pretrial and trial costs, costs of automatic appeals, etc. in maryland an average death penalty case resulting in a death sentence costs approximately $3 million. in kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable noncapital cases. and enforcing the death penalty costs florida $51 million above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murders with life in prison without parole. so is this coming down to costs for states? guest: you know, people say you can't put a price on justice, but i think we can put a price on security of society, and we're spending $20 million to $30 million per execution in this country. there is a question of choices. is better lighting in crime areas, more police on the streets a way to reduce violence or this one execution every couple years? it's not just about money. if it worked i think we'd be willing to spend it, but it's not working. host: what happened here historically when you look at this gallup poll?

in 1967, 1968, that time, the popularity dipped. you see it went around 47% and 42% opposed. guest: in the 1960's, civil rights changed. i think people felt that the death penalty was caught up in the racism of our society and therefore probably should be abolished. it also occurred at a time of rising crime. the tensions went to let's keep it just in case even though it has these racial problems. i think what slowly now evolving is that it's very hard to extraindicate that racial bias in this system and perhaps it's time to do away with it even though people still have fears of crimes and want severe punishment. host: is there a racial bias? if you look at the information your group put together. 56% are white. 46% are black.

the 15% black. guest: yeah. it's sort of a settle thing. if you kill a white person you're much more likely to get the death penalty than if you kill a black person. certain communities are supposedly getting the benefit of the death penalty, this serious approach to crime. other areas where minorities are the largest group don't get that benefit. well, that's racism. it's having its effect. i think another reason why people are uncomfortable with the death penalty, even though they support it philosophically, they know it's unfair. host: we are talking about state efforts to repeal the death penalty with richard deiter. want to take your questions and comments on this. democrats, 202-737-0001. republicans, 202-737-0002. -- go ahead, john.

caller: good morning. just kind of talking about racism. i had an 80-year-old aunt that was killed by a black guy. they caught him right after he killed her. he bludgeoned her to death and then set her on fire and burnt her and robbed her house. he was sent to a mental institution. now, the d.a. is hiding information that would prove that a guy was innocent and to make limb guilty to try to win cases, if it was proved that they withheld information and

lied, if they were charged with the same crime, then you would put a stop to that. host: all right. richard deiter. guest: well, certainly, you know, crimes are committed by blacks. crimes are committed by whites. you know, there's no denying this terrible crime out there. i think the caller is raising concerns about mistakes or even prosecutorial misconduct in death penalty cases. one of the problems with the death penalty is you can't take it back when you've carried out that execution. and we do sometimes find that politics or race or even simply wrongful convictions through misidentification sweep into death penalty cases. i mean, these are emotional cases are. we want a conviction. sometimes it's wrong. so an irrevocable punishment is at risk. host: who comments for you on twitter.

guest: what's happening in texas is phenomenal. they have had fewer executions, fewer death sentences. that's the capital of capital punishment. and the writer says, you know, it may be medieval. the rest of the world is moving away from capital punishments. not just the united states. i think there's certainly something going on. it's something that doesn't fit well, the death penalty, within our constitutional system that always has the protections of the defendant in mind. host: what's happening in other countries? guest: well, most countries, for example, over 100 countries voted in the u.n. for a moratorium on executions. all are allies, our european allies, canada, mexico, around the world, not only don't have the death penalty but they're urging the u.s. to do

something. even to the point of withholding the drugs that are used in lethal injections. it's hard to carry these executions out because a lot of the drugs come from europe. they don't wan want their drugs used in our executions. it's even economic sanctions against the u.s. caller: good morning. host: hi, bernie. caller: i am a correctional officer -- i should say retired correctional officer in new york state. over the years i've been asked to sign petitions for the death penalty by my co-worksers because they felt they were needed. i refused to sign under the assumption there are some people in jail that, yes, i believe there are innocent people in jail and i believe there are people in jail who committed crimes that didn't deserve the death penalty. but that having been said, that's kind of a common feeling amongst many of my fellow correctional officers. we are not all arch conservatives. but one thing i've also wanted to comment on, many years ago, about 15, 20 years ago, pbs ran

than interview program with young criminals. towards the end of each interview, they had an overview of their life of crime and if it was an option for them would they continue it. one of the things they said, if it was an option to, many of these were black, working for the white man for minimum wage is not an option and the second part of the final comment was, and this is the vernacular, and there ain't no death penalty. so, yes, it is common knowledge amongst the young criminals that they know there's no death penalty and if they kill somebody they won't be executed. do i believe people are in prison that deserve the death penalty? yes. these are the comments that need to be said and the public needs to be said, when they ain't no death penalty, they don't mind telling you that because they don't mind paying the ultimate price. i can continue but i'll leave it at that.

thank you very much. guest: i had a couple occasions to speak at the correctional association. there are preamble talks about lifting up those incarcerated and they do a superb job. i think they face -- correctional officers face risks but they face those risks from people who are not on death row or not identified as the worse of the worse. those tense about getting out, etc. i think the caller knows about that. it's true, the death penalty isn't applied. and you'd be right to say, you know, i'm not going to worry about that particular punishment, because, you know, 43 executions last year in the u.s., we had 15,000 murders, it's a nonentity. and therefore spending hundreds of millions of dollars to keep it as some sort of myth or symbol i think is a serious question. host: beverly on twitter. $20 million to $30 million to

put someone to death? what was the cost 20, 30 years ago? who gets that money? those investing in the prison system? guest: you know, it's little hard to understand how you can spend $20 million to execute somebody. the place that comes from is it costs $3 million, as i had said earlier, to do one case. but only one out of 10 of those cases is actually going to result in an execution. so at the end of the day, a state has spent $30 million to get one execution. you know, it goes to lawyers. it goes to prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, the whole system. it takes 15 years to get from sentencing to execution. all of that time, because it's the death penalty, is spent in high-level security, costing more, people -- you know, meals are brought to them. they're escorted to everything. appeals, lawyers, etc. host: we'll go to terrell, a democrat in chicago. morning. caller: yes, hello.

how are you doing? host: morning. go ahead. caller: how you doing? i feel that the death penalty should be brought back for the simple fact jails now are being glorified. when you go to jail it's supposed to be a place you don't want to go. the killing that's going on in chicago, it doesn't make no sense. they say that it's inhumane for the death penalty. the electric chair and all that. i feel that's the only way they can come here and get a hold on the city to stop the crime that's going on. host: all right. richard deiter. guest: illinois is one of the states that did abolish the death penalty. they did it because they realized so many mistakes have been made. the governor said more people were freed from death row in illinois than were executed. he said we can't keep going on like this. it's in theory will take these terrible criminals and punish them with the death penalty and everybody will get the fear of god and not commit any more murders. the reality is some of those we get will actually be innocent. most of those who were thinking

about crime aren't thinking about what punishment they're going to get. the theory and the reality are so far apart. i think what we have to do is let's take a look at new york city, comparable to chicago. tremendous drops in murder without the death penalty. so things work to prevent crime. the death penalty is not one of them. host: here are the states, according to "the wall street journal" that have abolished the death penalty and the years they did it. 1846 is when michigan decided to repeal the death penalty. 1853 for wisconsin. 1887 in maine. minnesota, 1911. alaska and hawaii, 1957. the state of vermont did it in 1964. iowa, west virginia in 1965. north dakota 1973. d.c. in 1981. massachusetts, rhode island, 1984. and 2007, new york and new jersey. new mexico 2009. as you said, illinois did so recently in 2011. and then connecticut in twelve

-- in 2012. do some of these states reverse it? guest: you take a state like michigan, 1846, and never gone back to the death penalty. that's true of countries as well. and why? well, if you look at that group of countries, they actually have a lower murder rate than the country -- than the states that do have the death penalty. it's true of countries as well. if you don't get a benefit from having the death penalty, if -- as a matter of fact, if you have a lower murder rate, why go back? host: what's the alternative? guest: the alternative is life without patrol. that's a punishment that keeps society safe. it's certainly a severe punishment. it's actually less expensive. it doesn't have that risk that if you do find you made a mistake you can still free the person. guest: that's a good question.

it was in november of 2012 during the election and very close vote. it was 52% to 48%. so almost half of california wanted to abolish the death penalty. it failed because people don't have to pay, you know, when they go to the voting booths for the death penalty. they think, let's just keep it on the books. legislators know they have to balance the budgets. wasteful programs. you know, but balance -- you can see evolution. i think 20 years ago in california, 70% supported the death penalty. now it's down to 48%. i think if they do it again at some point, we might see something different. host: fran, your thought in pennsylvania. your thoughts, fran. caller: good morning. i think he just made my point i was going to make very well. i can't think of anything that would be worse than spending the rest of my life in jail without parole if a horrendous

crime were committed. i think the death penalty should be abolished. basically for that reason and for the costs associated with it. i just can't -- i just think that life without parole for some crimes is the answer. and that's my comment. i thank you. host: all right, thanks, fran. mac, an independent in gilbert, arizona. caller: hi, good morning. i was just going to say i think the conversation is missing the key idea and that is as the gentleman rightly suggests, it's because it's done behind closed doors. it should be done in public. i know it sounds goolish and backwards and medieval. i don't think it's a deterrent because actually no one sees it. it's sanitized. it should be done in public. i think it sounds really regressive, if you will.

otherwise how can it be a deterrent. host: ok. got your point, mac. guest: they should do hangings in the public square. people came, brought their children. tickets were sold. you know, it was kind of a festive thing. you know, that sort of death penalty i think can have a fatal attraction. people, believe it or not, want the lime light of the death penalty. when utah had the firing squad, inmates were volunteering having that as their method of death because it was a spectacle. people worried about them. i think it's a dangerous precedent to say, well, spread out the violence and people will suddenly become, you know, virtuous. i think, you know, here's your punishment. you're never going to get out. your appeals are over. we're done with you. life without parole, that's a serious punishment. this death penalty has

attractiveness to some people. host: are juveniles executed and what about women on death row? guest: juveniles, those who are under 18 at the time of the crime, no. they cannot be. it's the age when they committed the crime. women, there's no particular rules against it other if a woman is pregnant, but very few women are on death row. only 12 women have been executed since 1974 compared to 1,300 men. so it's who's committing the crimes is part of the story there. host: jim on twitter. how much of the problem is due to prosecutors' job prospects dependent on high rates of convictions? guest: well, it is up to the individual prosecutor whether to seek the death penalty. in counties that, you know, where they have big contested elections and they have a lot of money to spend, there's nothing like the death penalty to show, you know, how strong on crime you are and how -- it

gives that appearance. there's the danger of politics shifting into the death penalty because it puts you on the front page. rural counties often never seek the death penalty. that's kind of a disparity that doesn't make a lot of sense. i think that's slowing down. i think prosecutors are realizing the death penalty is not a sure thing any more. juries are too skeptical. host: this is another tweet from our viewer. one of our viewers -- the death penalty is a colossal failure as a deterrent to capital crime. your data points to that. do executions lower homicide rates? 88% of those surveyed said no. what's behind this? guest: we naturally think if you're punished people will commit less crimes. i mean, 80%, over 80% of the executions are in the south and of the four regions of the country, the south has the highest murder rate and that's been true for 40 years.

it's just not working. the area of the country with the least executions is the northeast. it is the area with the least murder rate. that doesn't prove deterrence but it certainly throws cold water on the idea, if you have the death penalty murders will slow down. it doesn't bear out. host: elizabeth in ridge, new york. republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i live in new york and at one time we did have the death penalty and then they stopped. i have a question and a comment. in new york, if you kill or shoot or murder a police officer or a law enforcement person, you can receive the death penalty or it becomes first-degree murder versus second-degree murder. and i'd like to know if that still exists. i don't believe that a police

officer's life is more valuable than any other life, but they are there in a particular job defending us. so although even though police officers have been shot and killed, they don't get the death penalty and i'm wondering, does that still stand in new york? host: go ahead, mr. deiter. guest: it does still stand. with one caveat. and that there is the federal death penalty. there's actually an inmate in new york who actually killed a police officer who is facing federal charges and the death sentence. but new york's law was found to be unconstitutional and it hasn't been fixed. the legislature said we don't want any part of it any more. it really is not even being, you know, voted on very much any more. so it's not possible, but people can get life without parole which didn't used to exist in new york until they adopted the death penalty.

host: we'll go to greg next, a republican in clover, south carolina. good morning, greg. caller: hello. i had a question about the costs that you were discussing earlier. and all those millions of dollars that they were talking about. is that just for prosecution or how much the cost is to keep these folks in jail for the rest of their life? thank you. guest: it's mostly for the costs of both prosecution and defense. lawyers are expensive. the incarceration adds up. it's probably about $25,000 a year to keep somebody in prison. it's more like like $50 year a year to keep somebody on death row because you have to watch them more closely. more guards per inmate. and so it's more expensive, but the major part of costs of the death penalty are the legal costs and the fact that only about one in 10 cases result in

an execution and yet the other nine are adding to the expense. host: here's lee on twitter. a nation that claims to be civilized shouldn't kill its citizens, for profit prisons should be abolished, america's sick morally. however, there is the argument and one caller made it earlier, that if the lower the penalty for murder, it signals less regard for the victim, for another person's life. guest: that's a concern. and the concern also occurs even with the death penalty because obviously we don't use the death penalty for every murder. we don't have a life for a life. which cases are, you know, worth more? well, it turns out if you kill a white person, that's worth more. if you have a good lawyer, your case might not get the death penalty. we do do choosings. i think that does divide, we say, we diminish the value of life because we say some are worth more than others.

but life without parole levels the playing field and says everybody's life -- you commit this crime, you forfeit your life in society. that's what's happening. host: du darrell rich says life without parole will be worse than death in my opinion, but who pays for the criminals' upkeep in life? who is being punished financially? guest: life without parole may be worse but it doesn't have those risks. it costs money. it costs $25,000 a year to keep somebody in prison. if they live for 40 years, that's $1 million. don't forget the death penalty costs you $3 mr. so, yes, we're paying for -- >> see that segment in the c-span video library. if to c-span.org. going live to the u.s. house as members are gaveling in for a moment to begin legislative work. they'll recess shortly and resume legislative work at 5:00 eastern. now live to the floor of the house here on c-span.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear lord, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the house reassembles, there are new efforts at communication between the branches of our government to address the issues of our time. may all members of the people's house be led by your spirit in the negotiations taking place. may they possess an abundance of wisdom and good judgment, as well as a discerning ear for the possible inroads through productive legislation might emerge. bless as well those in the executive branch as conversations resume in a more direct manner. help all engage in these efforts. emerge as honorable statesmen and authors of a new chapter of

great american history where our system of government proves once again to be a model for all nations to respect. may all that is done this day be foreyour greater honor and glory. amen -- for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from hio. miss beaty: gallery guests please feel free to join us. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: to suspend the rules -- suspend the rules and allow me -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. today millions of americans are looking for work. at the same time there are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant in part because there aren't enough qualified applicants to fill them. what can we do to erase the skills gap? washington has tried to the tune of $18 billion to run more than 50 different work force education programs that are supposed to be teaching job seekers the skills and expertise required to compete for jobs. but despite the hefty price tag, only a fraction of jobs

seekers are completing these programs, and many more are getting slowed in a maze of duplication and one-size-fits-all mandate. in 2012 president obama said, quote, i want to cut through the maze of confusing job training programs so that people have one program, one place to go for all the information and help that they need, end quote. the skills act is the only plan on the table that treats job seekers as individuals and brings us closer to the president's stated target. let's pass the skills act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? seek recognition. ms. beaty: -- mrs. beatty: to address the house for one minute. i rise to recognize the ohio state psychological association founded in 1949 for their outstanding contributions to psychology and mental health

development in ohio. it is the seventh largest psychological state association in the country and it is located within my third congressional district. they have taken psychology and mental health development to a new level of member services and effectiveness. they advocate for the continued advancement of the professional and supportive legislative initiatives that include an improved medicare for their patient. i would like to recognize executive director michael rainy, dr. james mullick and dr. bobbycyless for their hard work that has ensured that the profession of psychology has remained vital, relevant, and in the forefront of ohio. thank you. i yield back the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states.

the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president to deliver to the house of representatives a essage in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, it is budget week in washington. today house republicans under the leadership of chairman paul ryan unveiled the new budget. our nation has racked up nearly $17 trillion in debt due to out-of-control government spending. in order to prevent our children and grandchildren from paying higher taxes with no results, house republicans have found a way to balance our budget over the next 10 years by cutting wasteful spending, reforming our tax code to create jobs, preserving entitlement programs, and expanding opportunities for all americans. house republicans understand the severity of the issue and are willing to work with the

senate and president to balance our budget. i am pleased that due to the passage of the no budget, no pay act the senate will return to regular order and pass a budget for the first time in four years. i look forward to working with the senate and the president to cut spending and make substantial job creating reforms that will encourage small businesses to create jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will 9/11 forget september 11 anti-global war on terrorism. -- and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i would like to draw the house's attention to the compelling issue of climate change that the house majority continues to refuse to address. there are a number of us who plan on speaking every day on the house floor and the need for congress to take action on climate change. we are making this commitment because this chamber is filled with such a large collection of

climate deniers. here in congress, though, where long-term strategy to address this issue will have to be crafted if we are to avoid the worst case scenario and the catastrophic consequences of climate change. today there should be complete consensus on the science of climate change. that the higher concentrations of greenhouse gases over the past 50 years are due to human activity. that the rapid increase in global temperature could not have been caused by natural factors alone. and that the severe temperatures and extreme weather events we have experienced in recent years including the devastation wrought by hurricane sandy all fit into the predictive pattern of global climate change. failure to take action dooms future generations to more powerful -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: mr. speaker, it's time for us to take action. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ran for congress to prove the lives -- improve the lives of north carolinians by advancing initiatives that reinvigorate our economy and put people back to work. to achieve this goal bemust curb washington spending addiction to balance our budget for the sake of our country, sake of our children and grandchildren, we must stop the reckless spending of our taxpayer dollars. it has weakened our liberty, diminished our prosperity, and mortgaged our future. i cannot in good conscience stand by and watch our nation self-destruct because our leaders don't have the discipline to say enough is enough. just yesterday the white house said that the president's not looking to balance the budget. this comes on the heels of four long years of senate inaction to even merely present a budget. mr. speaker, leadership on this issue is clearly long overdue. fortunately that leadership americans thirst for can be found in the chamber today as chairman paul ryan presents a budget that balances in 10

years. i applaud his work and look forward to working against washington's unbridled spending and for a path to economic prosperity. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. walorski: today, hardworking hoosier families sit around kitchen tables and make tough decisions to keep a balanced budget. the federal government should do the same thing. in the state of indiana we were able to balance our budget and get our fiscal house in order. we created jobs. we kept taxes low. using a commonsense step by step approach. it's time for this congress to pass a responsible budget that reins in spending and promotes economic growth and job creation. house republicans have introduced a budget that balances in 10 years while protecting the most vulnerable among us. it the budget by the senate

democrats will never balance and will jeopardize our seniors and poor by spending our country into bankruptcy. we cannot afford to wait. i urge my colleagues to support the house republican budget resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i ask unanimous consent to rise, drem, revise and extend my remarks. thank you, mr. speaker. here we are the affordable care act is going to be three years old in just a few days. we are continuing to uncover things within the law that nobody knew about. remember all the stuff that was sold to the public because it was going to be free? we all know nothing is free. so how do you pay for it? well, it turns out there's going to be tax on insurance companies and taxes on employers. which, guess what? that's going to be passed on to the employees and the beneficiaries. the deadline is quickly approaching. plans are submitting their bids. they are faced with no choice

but to raise costs. in response to the rate increases the federal government is attempting to limit higher premiums by something they call rate reviews, but any time you treat only the symptom of a disease and not the underlying cause, you are going to end up with something you didn't expect. continued regulatory pressure, continued pressure on employers, continued pressure on insurance plans is going to result in actually further increasing rates. government is attempting to control the market, but we all know, this market is one the government cannot control. the end result is we'll all suffer. let's face it, instead of if you like what you have you can keep it, what they meant to say was you're going to pay a lot more to get a lot less. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, this week the senate is expected to unveil

its first budget plan in nearly four years. it relies on a failed policy of raising taxes and increasing federal spending and will not put into place a requirement for the government to balance a budget. how can this be taken seriously? our national debt is over $16 trillion, how does spending more and increasing taxes make any sense? why not simply stop spending money, money the government doesn't have to spend in the first place on frivolous programs. mr. holding: for example, the $2.2 billion spent last year on a program that hands out free cell phones or the $17.6 million paid to p.r. firms to promote obamacare. for the $1.7 billion spent in 2010 or quote, operating costs, for the federal buildings, federal buildings that are no longer even in use. madam speaker, the list goes on. we must make spending cuts and commonsense reforms.

we need a butt that is reflective of our growing economy not one that continues to grow our government. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? without objection. >> oklahomans are ready for washington's dysfunction to stop and the country to get back on stable fiscal footing. we must make commonsense cuts to federal spending that do not threaten public safety, national defense, or our economy. there is plenty of waste that can be trimmed to the federal budget. the free cell phone program that's angered people across oklahoma including myself will cost the federal government $2.2 billion this year alone. or the improper payments of $115 billion made by the federal to people who are not entitled to receive those payments or not provided documentation to qualify for those payments.

this one item alone would more than replace sequestration. clearly federal spending is out of control and it's not difficult to find ways to cut. mr. mullin: but that requires strong leaders willing to look past the next election and put party aside and put country first. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., that the senate passed senate 166, that the senate agreed to without amendment house concounterresolution 14, that the senate agreed without amendment house concurrent resolution 13.

appointments, advisory committee on the records of congress. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergency act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to iran that was declared on march 15, 1995, is to continue in effect beyond march 15, 2013. the crisis between the united

states and iran resulting from the actions and policies of the government of iran has not been resolved. the actions and policies of the government of iran are contrary to the interests of the united states in the region and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and the economy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to iran and to maintain enforce comprehensive sanctions against iran to deal with this threat. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 5:00 p.m. today.

>> tomorrow the president will chat with house republicans, thursday he'll gearl with senate republicans, and friday the president is off campus. this all part of what's being called the president's charm offensive. as he reaches out to the opposite party to craft budget legislation for the nation.

incidentally at the conclusion of those meetings today, we have cameras in the capitol to get reaction from the senators who met with the president today. we'lltry to bring that to you as soon as it's available. today's white house briefing spokesman jay carney said the president's budget will be released in just under a month, the week of april 8. today the house budget committee chair released his butt proposal for fiscal 2014, it seeks to balance the budget in 10 years and includes nearly $6 trillion in spending cuts and changes to the tax code. it also assumes repeal of the nation's health care law. here's a look at that briefing with the media early this morning. >>s this not my clicker. somebody's recorder.

good morning, everybody. what we have here is the house budget committee, republican majority, putting out yet again a budget that addresses america's needs. a budget that balances the budget. it's a path to prosperity and responsible balanced budget. we believe that we owe the american people a balanced budget. and for the third straight year we have delivered. in fact we balanced this budget in just 10 years. this is a document, a plan that balances the budget in 10 years. now, the house budget committee has spent the last several weeks working together with each other just like families and businesses do around the country. we have been assembling a budget so that we can make sure that our country can live within its means. it's a reasonable goal balancing the budget. and we keep spending money -- we can't keep spending money we don't have. that's the basic acknowledgement when you are budgeting just like families and businesses do that you cannot continue to kick the can

down the road, that you cannot continue to spend money we just don't have. how do we do this? we cut wasteful spending. we repair the safety net so that we can help those in need. we protect and strengthen key priorities like medicare, a program that's going bankrupt, that's jeopardizing the health security for millions of american seniors. we foster a healthier economy so we can create jobs and grow more wages. you see, balancing the budget is not simply an act of arithmetic. not just getting expenditures and revenues to aupped. balancing a budget is a means to an end. it's a means to a healthier economy. a pro-growth society and economy that delivers opportunity. that's first and foremost why we are doing this. let me walkthrough a few of the charts if i could. there we go. here's essentially what we do to begin with. this budget cuts spending by $4.6 trillion over the next 10 years. historically we have paid a little less than 1/5 of our

income to the federal government, but the government has historically spent a lot more. we watch revenues with expenditures. so our budget watches the spending with our income just like every family and business must do throughout america. we bring our deficits down right away. this shows you how our deficit path goes down precipitously to begin with to the point where we end up with a surplus in 2023. in the 1990's, democratic president worked with a republican congress to balance the budget. this is the goal that both parties have been able to achieve consensus on achieving in the past. we think it's something we ought to do again. number three, this is the picture that should scare everybody. this is the picture that shows you the path we are on today. we know without a shred of doubt we are consigning the next generation to an inferior standard of living. we know just like in europe we are facing a debt crisis in

this contry. and a debt crisis hurts everybody. but the people who the debt crisis hurts the most are the poor, the elderly, people who need government the most. they are the ones who get hurt first and worst in the a debt crisis. what are we doing? we are addressing the most predictable economic crisis in this country's history, the coming debt. the red line shows you the path we are on right now. the green line shows you the debt reduction path we achieve by putting this budget into law. not only will we balance the budget but pay off our debt so we'll give our children a debt-free nation. and it helps grow our economy as well. at this time i'd like to turn it over to one of the distinguished members of the budget committee who is one of our ways and means designees will talk about some of our pro-growth economic policies. please know that by balancing the budget we grow the economy. by including pro-growth reforms like tax reform we are making it easier for businesses to plan, to invest, create jobs, be competitive. we want more jobs, higher wages, families getting out of

poverty into the middle class, and that someone of the cornerstone policies we have here is tax reform. >> thank you, mr. chairman. our budget is an opportunity to change the course of our nation. we have a responsibility to avoid the debt crisis as the chairman has already said, and the mood for -- move forward is a prosperous future. common sense and math tell us that balancing a budget requires two things. cutting spending and economic growth. a huge obstacle right now to this is our complicated tax code. today the tax code is nearly four million words long and about 60% of our taxpayers need to hire professional to help them to prepare their returns. every year americans send six billion hours and $160 billion filling out their returns.

clearly something is wrong. now, our budget pays the way for tax reform. and it reaffirms that the ways and means committee will pass comprehensive pro-growth tax reform legislation this year. this budget builds on bipartisan consensus in favor of lowering the rates to create jobs and broadening the base to ensure fairness and simplicity for our families. the purpose of tax reform is not to take more money from our families to spend more money here in washington. it's to create jobs. and to increase the wages for our working families. i look forward to working with my budget members and also the ways and means committee to advance comprehensive tax reform this year to help us to strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit, and get americans back to work. thank you.

>> at this time i'd like to turn the podium over to the vice chairman of the budget committee, dr. tom price from georgia. >> thank you, paul, so much. budgets are about priorities and priorities that the american people overwhelmingly support include getting federal speppingd under control. getting our economy moving again so folks can get back to work. and getting our debt crisis under control so that we may preserve the american dream for future generations. within our path to prosperity, our budget. this path to prosperity is the response -- way to a responsible balanced budget. american families all across this great land know that the federal government shouldn't spend more than it takes in. and we agree. sadly the budgets proposed by president obama have never, ever, ever gotten to balance. the legal deadline for the president to present his budget to congress this year was february 4.

it's now march 12. and past experience tells us that when he does bring his budget that that one won't balance likely, either. american families can't live this way. and neither should the federal government. republicans believe that people work too hard, too hard to have the federal government take more of their money to spend more here in washington. we want the american people to keep more of their hard-earned money to save and spend and to invest as they see fit. now, senate democrats on the other hand haven't adopted a budget in nearly four years. they'll do one this year because of the no budget, no pay act that was passed in the house earlier this year. will they continue to say that we need more taxes to chase ever-increasing spending? the truth is that they can't ever tax the american people enough to pay for their skyrocketed levels of spending that they want. now, we look forward to seeing their budget. the next he test will be whether or not they can pass the budget that they introduce. will enough senate democrats be willing to endorse a plan that

taxes more so that washington can spend more? that washington way simply isn't working. the american people are sick and tired of political games being played with our economy. where special interests and backroom deals seem to dominate policymaking. our plan, the house republican budget, finally puts a stop to that so washington uses hard-earned tax dollars in an accountable and effective way. now, we wonder will the house and senate democrats be able to say the same thing about their budgets? or will we just see more accounting tricks and budget gimmicks and wasteful spending? this path to prosperity, this budget here, will create a healthier economy where job creators are hiring, job seekers are finally finding more jobs, more work, and more american families and entrepreneurs are realizing their dreams. this path to prosperity ensures that we are honoring the commitments that americans most important priorities. our budget saves and

strengthens medicare, protects our national security, cares for the poor and sick by repairing america's safety net programs, and expands economic opportunity for every single american. republicans will protect these vital programs while we will control spending and solve our nation's debt crisis. our hope, our hope is that democrats see these vital programs as something that they want to save and strengthen not semito -- simply to democrat nothing. we believe in the industriousness, ingenuity, and american dreams of the american people. it's time the government starts acting worthy of the people that we represent. thank you. >> thank you, dr. price. this is not only a response, reasonable balanced plan, it's also an invitation. this is an invitation to the president of the united states, to the senate democrats to come together to fix these problems. we don't think it's fair to let critical programs like medicare go bankrupt. we don't think that it's fair to take more from hardworking

families to spend more in washington. the most important question isn't how we balance the budget but why. a budget is a means to an end. an end is the well-being of the american people. an end is a growing economy that produces opportunity and upward mobility. a balanced budget will help provide the kind of economic security we need for families. it will help secure retirement for our seniors. and it will help expand opportunity for young people who have a hard time finding careers and jobs in this stagnant economy. now, the final point i want to make is, and i mentioned this to the president the other day. we want to revise the budget process so we have regular order. what does that mean? that means let's do our jobs. that means we want to pass a budget here in the house. we are very pleased that the senate is going to pass a budget or going to at least attempt to pass a budget. what that means is we are reviving a process that's not in the backroom but that shows how we are going to accomplish these goals.

we revive this budget process so at the end of the day we have a vehicle to actually get something done. i don't think the president disagrees with that. so this is an invitation, show us how to balance the budget. if you don't like the way we are proposing to bat budget, how do you propose to balance the budget? are we going to continue to be complicit with never, ever balancing our budget and therefore guaranteeing an inferior standard of living to the next generation? we know that this debt and deficit is hurting our economy today and destroying the future tomorrow. this is a specific plan to show how to get it under control. it's our vision for a pro-growth upward mobile society. and the final point i would make is this. nar too long -- far too long in washington we measure success of our efforts by inputs, how much money are we spending on these programs rather than measuring success by outputs. are they working? we have put so much money into our welfare programs, into our poverty fighting programs, yet we have 46 million people living in poverty.

some of the highest rates of poverty we have had in a generation. so rather than measure how much money are we spending in these programs, let's think about measuring are we helping people? are we getting people out of poverty? are we getting people back on their feet again in the lives of self-sufficiency and upward mobility and dignity? these are the kinds of questions that we are tackling in this budget. as we do this, we are showing the country a plan to balance the budget, to grow the economy, to get people out of poverty, to get the american dream reignited especially for those people who have seemingly seen it slip away from them. let's take your questions. >> you spent months on the campaign trail arguing against raising taxes. most of your colleagues opposed racing taxes as part of the fiscal cliff deal. but in this budget you say that you balance in 10 years in part by using $600 billion in new taxes that you oppose. isn't that disingenuous? >> not at all. we are not going to refight the

past. we know that's behind us. what we are showing here is that with the fiscal cliff and all the other things that have occurred in the past, which spend something going down in this baseline as well, that clearly makes it easier to the balance the budget. what we are saying is let's replace this anti-growth tax code, this crony capitalism special interest written loophole tax code with a pro-growth tax system that helps families and businesses. what we are saying is get rid of the tax system we have and replace it with a letter growth system. lower taxes, fewer loopholes, and we can still balance the budget. we are not going to refight the past. law is law. we know that's not going to change especially with respect to these issues. that's why we are saying not only can we not balance the budget faster. we have always balanced the budget. we can do it faster. we want to do it with a better pro-growth tax code. >> you said we are not going to fight the past, yet a key tenet of your budget is the affordable care act. we always hear the generals fight the last war is why go

through that again? or is that just -- because that's a big part of spending. the second part of the question is, did you feel you had to include repeal of the affordable care act because otherwise it wouldn't pass the house? >> there was never a doubt in our mind. point one, point two. the fiscal cliff occurred. but we don't like the tax code that it has produced. therefore we are proposing a new tax code that is more of a pro-growth tax code. let's take obamacare for example, affordable care act. we don't like this law. this is why we are proposing to repeal this law in our budget. more importantly, we believe that this law is going to collapse under its own weight. please know that when americans see exactly what this law entails, which they have not seen all of these details, those of us who work on these oversight committees, know what's going to happen to the provider networks, who know what's going to happen to people when they lose their health insurance, they are not going to like this law. this is why we are not only repealing this law because we don't think we can afford to borrow $1.8 trillion and extra

spending this law entails, we think we can replace it with a better health care system. that's also something we are going to be proposing. not only are we saying that's saving strength in medicare for current and future generations. but a better system to replace obamacare. this is consistent with everything we believe in. getting rid of obamacare because we think it destroys the health care system and make it interior and there is a better way to go. this to us is something we are not going to give up on because we are not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the american people. we want to prevent this law which we do believe will do great damage to families in the health carecies tesm america. >> senator murray if she follows along with the president is probably going to offer something balancing the debt a little bit more of an esoteric role or near balance depending, why is it so important to you to reach balance or near balance in a year certain versus simply

getting the debt to stabilize? >> getting the debt to stabilize does not fix our problems because the debt's already too large. i would also question the integrity of some of the statistics on what primary balance means. let me say it another way. we believe we should balance the budget because families and businesses must do that, but also we have to get to getting this debt down. you can't start really paying down this debt in a serious way until you balance the budget. we start running surpluses in 2023 and then on and actually show you with this chart that we get this debt under control. the problem is the current high levels of debt we have today are a threat to our economy. and they guarantee that we will destroy the future for the next generation. and so simply trying to make a statistic look a little less bad is not much of a budget. unfortunately the senate democrats seem to be going down that path. >> if you can't repeal obamacare, how long would it take to balance the budget under your plan?

>> we believe that obamacare is going to be so unpopular in this country because of all the broken promises that it will prove. remember the president said if you like your health care plan you can keep it? americans' going to have a rude awaken. remember if the president said if we passed obamacare it would lower health care prices and costs? it's been going up. remember when he said he would do it in the open. it's a backroom deal. look at all the things the provider will experience with obamacare, you are going to see substandard health care. are you going to see young people not wanting to go into the field of health care because of obamacare. we believe that in the interest of health care for seniors and interest of health care for families, in the interest of making medicaid work better for low-income people, we need a repeal and replace obamacare with a better system, patient centered system. so we will never be able to balance the budget if you keep obamacare going. because obamacare is a fiscal train wreck. >> one thing you campaigned on

quite a lot during your vice presidential nomination was the $716 billion that were part of the medicare cuts to the president's health care law. you said in your speech, $716 billion funneled out of medicare by president obama an obligation we have to parents and grandparents, all to pay for anonymity we didn't ask for. you count that $716 billion in your budget as well as on dana's point you count the savings from the fiscal cliff deal as deficit reduction. so if the $716 billion from the president's health care plan deficit reduction, $600 billion from the fiscal cliff plan is very much his deficit reduction, and it brings you closetory balanced budget, doesn't that go against everything your conference stands for? two of your primary areas of deficit reduction are out of the white house? >> we believe on the revenue side that we can still have a pro-growth tax code that lowers rates and broadens the because

at the current revenue line we have. this is why we are saying to the president and democrats who want to continue raising taxes, you will destroy tax reform. we still think with the revenue line we have, which makes it easier to balance the budget, we still have a very good initially competitive, family supporting pro-growth tax reform. to the medicare point, let me make it really clear. what we do in this budget is we stop the raid of medicare. you have to remember president obama took money from medicare to spend on creating obamacare. we end that raid and make sure all those dollars go back to medicare to extend the sol van hollen sift trust fund much there is one more point we make in this budget, we are concerned about some of the provider networks. we are concerned about some issues that might arise just like what we had with the doctor fix. we have a special fund, special procedure to address any inadequacies we might have in the medicare provider system if those situations arise. we want to make sure every penny of medicare goes to medicare. it extends its solvency. if we find just like we have found with doctors that there

is a problem that needs addressing, we have a special procedure to do just that. >> people out -- outside of this process might look at this press conference today, the document is similar to the one last year. and they might say -- probably not for the best. people outside this process might be watching today and saying, well, ryan did this last year and then -- >> and the year before and year before that. >> he was on the ticket, ran on this -- not exactly the ryan budget but darn close, president obama ran on what he calls the balanced approach, raising taxes on the wealthy, and his medicare and social security position. he won that election. house republicans lost seats in the house. got a million fewer votes than democrats. senate republicans lost seats in the senate. and people outside this process might wonder if elections have consequences on the budgeting process. do they? >> the question is we -- the

election didn't go our way. believe me i know what that feels like. that means we surrender our principles? that means we stop believing in what we believe in? look, whether the country intended it or not, we have divided government. we have the second largest house majority we have had since world war ii. and what we believe in this divided government era, we need to put out our vicks. we think we owe the country a balanced budget. we think we owe the country solutions to the big problems that are plaguing our nation. a debt crisis on the horizon, a slow growing economy, people trapped in poverty. we are showing our answers. elections do have consequences. we are in the majority. the president won re-election and the democrats are in the majority. this is our offer, this is our vision. what you do is you actually show the country what you believe in. the senate hasn't passed a budget in four years despite the fact that the law requires

them to do so each and every year. because of the budget -- no budget, no pay act, the senate is finally doing a budget. we think that's good. i'm very pleased that patty murray is attempting to pass a budget because we haven't seen that attempt in a long time much the reason i'm encouraged about that is if she can pass a budget, then we actually have a process out in the public for the nation to see that gets us going down the path of solving problems. this is one of the things the president and i talked about. let's revise the budget process so at the end of the day we can get a down payment on the problem. will the president take every one of these solutions? probably not. are a lot of these solutions very popular and did we win these arguments in the campaign? some us think so. so what we are saying is here's our offer. here's our vision. here's how we propose to balance the budget and grow the economy. repair the safety net. save medicare. we hope that the senate actually follows suit and shows their vision because if they actually put their plan on the table then we can start talking, looking for common

ground. we think that's a constructive way forward and that's why we are doing this. >> you want to get down to two tax brackets, 10% and 25%. what do you say to the arguments that in order to do that you are going to have to go after middle class tax breaks like mortgage interest, charitable donations, and health care exclusions? >> this is what the ways and means committee is going to do which is as you probably know the ways and means committee has set up working groups. the ways and means committee is doing hearing after hearing, going through the tax code and trying to figure out a better tax system. we believe -- our goal is to have a two bracket system that actually is pro-growth. and what that means is closing down loopholes. maintaining important ones that we are going to have hearings on to find out which ones are the most important for milled income taxpayers. i would also argue with those who think we need to keep racing taxes on higher income people, there are different ways of doing this. you can actually plug loopholes

and subject more of a higher income per iners income through taxation through a lower tax rate. we think that's smarter because don't forget eight out of 10 businesses in america, they are not corporations. they file their taxes as people, as individuals. and those tax rates are as high as 44.8% today. i represent wisconsin. and among our greatest competitors are canadians. last year canada lowered their tax rate on all of their businesses to 15%. the top tax rate on our small businesses, nine out of 10 businesses in wisconsin file as individuals, is 44%. how can you compete when your competitors are taxes their -- taxing their businesses at much lower faction rates than we are taxing ours. we think the current tax code is destroying jobs. it's making american businesses in this global economy much less competitive. that is why the ways and means committee is proposing this kind of a framework and will advance legislation to plug these loopholes, lower the tax rates so we can get more people

working again. our defense spending level in here reflects exactly what the president's joint chiefs and secretary said are the minimum levels necessary to fund the mission of the pentagon. now, we think that we -- this is our first priority of the federal government, national defense, so we are funding it at the levels the joint chiefs and last secretary said are necessary to maintain national security for the country. i'll give andy the last one. >> i think you were talking about how the fiscal cliff deal and other improvements in the baseline made your job easier but you still take some steps to get to balance. what are those steps? >> one of the things is the b.c.a., budget control act, the discretionary caps end within the budget window. we extend the budget control act discretionary caps out the final last two years. we also wanted to extend our reforms on the public work force, on federal employees to include all federal employees

tend of the budget window so that their pension contributions match those that are commensurate with those in the private sector. we don't think that federal employees should be able to have pension systems that are so far in excess of what their private sector counterparts get. doing those things combined with the baseline makes it easier for us to balance the budget. remember, we have always proud a balanced budget in the past in each of our butts. it's taken a little longer time. we have gotten close, but with this new baseline, with some these new reforms, the two i mentioned, that gets us to be able to balance the budget by the end of the budget window. point i would make is now that we know it's easier to balance the budget, we should not drop the ball on balancing the budget. the president and democrats should join us. it's an invitation to actually balance the budget. because balancing the budget helps our economy. it helps give us a healthy economy and pro-growth economy. it helps make sure our kids inherit a debt-free nation. this is a whole all of us should have whether republican or democrat.

thanks everybody. appreciate it. >> house budget committee chair paul ryan earlier today. you can read the entire budget proposal on line at our website. go to c-span.org. during the afternoon today white house spokesman jay carney revealed during the daily briefing that the white house will release its budget in about a month. sometime during the week of april 8. president obama has been meeting with senate democrats on capitol hill today. part of his charm offensive to reach out to the rank and file in crafting a budget. we have cameras on capitol hill to get remarks from leaders as that meeting comes to a close. we will bring those remarks to you as they become available here on the c-span networks. live now to capitol hill. we are about to bring you coverage of a hearing looking at f.c.c. oversight. expecting to hear testimony from all five of the commissioners. expected to get under way in a

moment here. live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> everybody find their seats, please. we'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. i want to say thank you chairman rockefeller is on his way with the rest of the democrats. senator thune, this is the

moment we have been waiting for, right? isn't that right? >> let's do some business, mr. chairman. >> now we'll do some good around here. >> mark, you didn't get invited to the lunch? >> they kicked me out of the lunch a long time ago. senator rockefeller wanted me to come to get this launched because we know that several members here and several members of the commission have tight schedules. let me just say i'm not going to try to give senator rockefeller's opening statement. what i'll do we'll just proceed until he's able to get here. let me just say for my part i'm pleased to serve as chairman of the communications, technology, and internet subcommittee and together with ranking member wicker and all other of the committee and subcommittee members i want to look forward to a bipartisan exchange of views on all the key policies that are in that subcommittee jurisdiction and that also that the f.c.c. has jurisdiction over as well. in today's fast changing

information and communication technology environment it's vital that the committee and the subcommittee take a fresh look at regulatory and consumer landscape. that's why i announced yesterday that the subcommittee will hold a series of hearings to examine the state of various communications markets. i think all the committee and subcommittee members will have the benefit of hearing from stakeholders and opportunities and the challenges that they face. we are going to do subcommittee hearings on wireless communications, wired communications, video, and rural communications. all of these are kind of state of hearings to find out what the lay of the land is right now. as the committee begins its examination, i believe we should keep several key principles in mind. foremost we need to ensure that investment continues to support and the expansion of technology advancements in broadband

connectivity. this includes our commitment to ensuring access to robust broadband to support 21st century smart choices in things like health care, education, energy, and job creation. we must also make sure that consumer confidence in our communications networks and policies is there. this includes continued work and practical steps for online privacy and safety. we must aggressively fight fraud and abuse. i want to thank all five f.c.c. commissioners for being here today. i know you-all have a lot on your plate and i appreciate hearing from you on the issues for your agency. i'm particularly interested in your work on the pending broadcast television senate auctions, a topic which the subcommittee is also planning to explore. i was pleased that the february 2012 public safety spectrum legislation provided the commission with the authority to conduct incentive auctions.

this authority hopes to bridge the need for additional wireless spectrum through a voluntary program under which the broadcasters can trade spectrum, usage rights to -- in exchange for a share of the proceeds. the proper groundwork for these new auctions is essential to ensure the full benefit of this new authority is realized. i expect the f.c.c.'s work on these auctions to be faithful to the statute which i know it will be, congress tried to carefully balance competing concerns in the statute to free up much needed spectrum for wireless broadband while ensuring a healthy future for broadcast industry. and while recognizing the greater of modernizing public safety communications for mobile broadband. which brings me to senator rockefeller's favorite topic which is first net. these incentive auctions should provide a critical $7 billion in dedicated funding for a

nationwide wireless broadband network for public safety. this network will provide a new era of lifesaving communication and efficiencies for first responders. it will equip our firefighters, police officers, medical responders with the tools they need to communicate with each other in real time during crisis around the country and across state lines. finally, i want to touch on our -- on your ongoing implementation of the 21st century communication video accountability act. as you know i was the primary sponsor of this legislation, the stvaa is incredibly important for the economy. already millions of americans are able to more fully contribute to the economy because of the law. i will continue to closely monitor your work and i look forward to doing that. i look forward to hearing from you and get an update on your efforts. in closing, there are a host of other issues from being a vigilant -- from being vigilant against consequences of texting

while driving, to universal service, to the future of rural communications networks. i look forward to reviewing with my colleagues all of these issues and look forward to working with the commission on all of them. senator thune. if you're ready. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for -- and chairman rockefeller for holding this hearing and want to welcome chairman begin scow i ask -- again could you i ask and all the members of the force today. thank you for being here. this is an important subject matter and your subcommittee is obviously going to be a very busy one. and obviously you can tell by the turn out a lot of interest and i'm glad to seat great representation we have from members on our side. i hope that we get an opportunity to have a little interaction with the commissioners as we move forward. we are living in the middle of a digital ref lution which is being powered in large part by the huge investments made by the broadband industry. there is enormous potential for job creation, innovation, and broadband internet and

technology sectors and this potential may be most evident in the area of mobile broadband. according to recent cisco report, mobile data traffic in the united states grew 62% last year and by 2017 there will be a 13 -- 13 fold increase worldwide. the mobile broadband industry directly or indirectly sports 3.8 million jobs contributing more than $185 billion to the gross domestic product and driving $33 billion in productivity improvements in 2011 alone. unfortunately a single point of failure under the government's control could jeopardize this great potential for job creation and innovation. that's access to wireless spectrum. mobilities driving innovationtry and spectrum fills wireless mobility. without the spectrum the private sector will not be able to keep pace with consumer demand. that's why we must make it a priority to increase the spectrum for commercial uses as quickly as possible and do so in collaboration with industry and government stakeholders. more broadly i believe we also

must focus on establishing a 21st century legal and regulatory structure that serves the purpose of our 21st century economy. it's time for this committee to take a look at modernizing our nation's rules and regulations to better reflect today's converged marketplace. our technology and telecommunications sectors have been profoundly changed by the internet. much of our country's communication laws were written in a preinternet world. these sectors are characterized by extremely dynamic companies, and we must ensure that the f.c.c. is as nimble as they are. it's been 23 years since the f.c.c. was last authorized by congress and it may be time to develop a new f.c.c. re-authorization bill to ensure the commission is an efficient and truly modern regulator, one that is a reliable resource for congress and effective agency for american citizens and industry alike. i want to make sure all consumers, including those in our rural communities, are able to ensure the economic and societal benefits of the

internet. so i want to thank chairman rockefeller. he and i share the same goal of getting rural america connected to advanced communications and one of the best network strass -- some of the best network infrastructure in the world exists today in. so most unlikely places due in no small part to your leadership and keen interest in making rural america a priority. >> i hope that an independent commission like the f.c.c. will not be just another agency following the white house's lead in trying to find cuts that can trigger a press release before overlooking the internal cost saving measures that are less newsworthy. so chairman rockefeller when he gets here i look forward to working with him and with the commission to unleash the great potential of the american people to grate jobs and to spur innovation for the 21 stf century economy. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to hearing from our panel today.

. >> since we're not here let's start with our panel and the way that we had this set up today is we have all five commissioners here and we very much appreciate your attendance. what we're going to ask is ask chairman genachowski to ask an opening statement and also commissioner mcdowell and we won't ask commissioner rosenworcel and commissioner pai. chairman genachowski. >> thank you. congratulations on the chairmanship of the subcommittee. it's been a privilege working with you for the last several years. senator thune, you as well. i see some new faces i'm looking forward to working together. let me briefly start with two actions the committee took

today. mobile and spectrum. senator thune, as you mentioned, this is good news for our mobile community and mobile users. i want to mention rural call completion which a number of you raised an issue. our enforcement bureau took significant action today. when consumers can't receive calls that are made to them, it's a serious threat both to public safety and also to our economy. today we announced our first major enforcement action in the space. $1 million consent decree. we'll continue to follow the facts wherever they lead and we'll hold responsible parties accountable. now, since we last appeared before this committee, the commission has been hard at work to maximize the benefits of broadband for our economy, our global competitiveness in americans' daily lives. and we continue to receive news that the i.c.t. sector, what

some call the broadband economy, is thriving in the u.s. we have gained leadership in mobile as as much of the world combined. while mobile infrastructure investment in europe and asia has been roughly flat since 2009, annual mobile investment in the u.s. is up 40% over this period. last year more than 19 million miles of fiber were laid in the u.s., more than all of europe combined, and the best year in the u.s. since 2000. the f.c.c. continues to make progress on key elements of our strategic agenda as laid out in our national broadband plan. i'll touch on a few here. since the last f.c.c. oversight hearing, moving forward with the implementation of the spectrum and public safety law that congress passed last year, originating on a bipartisan basis in this committee. last september, we launched our first incentive auctions proceedings, a comprehensive

proposal to implement the law, free up significant spectrum and designed to help drive continued u.s. leadership. as i said, free up the spectrum that our mobile economy needs. we're on track to run the world's first incentive auction next year. of course, first net is another important piece of the new law. the commission is taking its first net responsibility seriously, has met all of its obligations under the statute on schedule. another key safety priority is improving our resiliencey during times of emergency. we need to enhance 911 authority. cybersecurity continues as well. building on smart actions last year to address challenges relating to baut nets and d.n.s. sec. we're trying to improve the security of wireless devices, apps and networks. u.s. service continues to move forward with bipartisan support from congress, we adopted last

year a major transformation of the multibillion-dollar program that puts us on the path now to broadband access for all americans by the end of the decade. this past july we supported projects to bring broadband to nearly 400,000 americans in unserved rural communities across 37 states. in october, we held the first round of the mobility fund, an unprecedented reverse auction that used $300 million to efficiently expand wireless coverage to 38,000 unserved road miles across 31 states. where global competition is fierce, challenges remain. we need to continue to free up more spectrum for mobile broadband. we need to continue to drive increasing broadband speed and capacity, including to our schools and libraries and other anchor institutions. there is a big need and opportunity around education technology. we need to continue pushing for broadband adoption.

we must continue to promote internet freedom at home and abroad. we continue to update our policies for the broadband era, a process kick-started with our work on the national broad bant plan in 2009, 2010. we need to promote media diversity. we need to continue to promote vibrant and healthy competition and protect and empower consumers. in my written statement, i outlined many of the actions we've used to tackle the gigabits city challenge to have one gigabit and the transitions technologies task force to enhance the rules. let me close by addressing sequestration. the f.c.c. is currently operating at its lowest employee levels in many years. i do have serious concerns that the cuts ongoing sequestration will require will harm the f.c.c. to deliver on its vital mission, including vital service, spectrum management and consumer protection. i look forward to continuing to work with this committee on

these and other issues and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. chairman, because of our delay, we went ahead and started and i can either recognize commissioner mcdowell right now and give you a few moments or i can recognize you for your opening statement. which do you prefer? >> second. >> of recognizing you for your opening statement? >> right. >> mr. chairman, you're recognized. >> i apologize. i don't use gavels. ok. communications technology obviously is reshaping every aspect of our society. i believe that this changes overwhelmingly positive, but as last week's hearing on cybersecurity reinforced this

change is not without substantial risk to our economic security. just as harnessing technological communication is crucial to our future, addressing the dangers of an ever interconnected world is just as critical. cybersecurity is one of the -- are you sure this is my -- yeah, it's right. i've got two speeches about cybersecurity. and this is the right one for here. [laughter] it's one of the great national security challenges we face. it's the main one we face. it will keep bigger. at an intelligence briefing this morning, they're scared to death of it. everybody is sort of taking it for granted. somebody's going to fix it and we can't get legislation passed and we have to. and john thune and i and dianne feinstein and saxby chambliss

and tom carper and susan -- dr. coburn are all going to work together this time. three committees working together. i believe that two other areas are absolutely critical for government and industry to come together to addressing pressing needs. first, the construction of a nationwide interoperable public safety network that our first responders are owed and have been given under law. second, we must make sure that every child in this country is prepared to compete in the global economy and that means having access to the internet and all innovations deriving from the internet. as most of you have heard me say, the the gentlewoman yields back of being an f.c.c. commissioner is surely one of the hardless, difficult, perilous jobs in all of washington, but then again we just had our caucus lunch with the president, so i'll modify that a little bit. your actions affect how we commune kuwait, what we see on television, the deployment of

new technologies and services. making sure our first responders have the spectrum and communication networks they need to keep us safe is frankly an incredibly proud achievement for this committee. i think it's a defining piece of legislation for this committee. congress allocated $7 billion for the construction of this network, which will come from the auction proceeds of spectrum voluntarily, can spell that if you want, offered by broadcasters. the agencies incentive auction proceeding is one of the agencies' most important undertakings in its history. i know this is a complicated proceeding, i know that, that affects all industries but i believe the auction must be driven by one single principle. it must maximize the resources available for the construction of a nationwide interoperable broadband network for first responders on which we have already voted. i urge the commissioners to

move forward on an aggressive timetable to get the proceeding too don. i have no doubt that when we are completed on that the public safety network will save a whole lot of lives. and i really mean that. this is an area where government and the private sector must continue to work clab are atively to solve the most important public safety issues that we in fact face. just as we are future proofing our public safety, we must also future proof our efforts to make sure every child in america has access to cutting edge technology. mr. chairman, i apologize by not starting out by recognizing you who i have now double inconvenienced. as part of the telecommunications act of 1996, olympia snowe and i created a program. i thought it was a toy. at first. early in the legislation. i believe that this program is

incredible. our little provision helped drive the broadband revolution in this country by exposing a generation of kids to the power of the internet. it is an unbelievable revolution. unbelievable revolution. the eray program has transformed education in this country. we have connected our most remote school areas and libraries to the world while. why libraries? because adults are -- in elementary school but they can go to libraries. it has enabled schoolchildren across this country to participate in the information society and have seen firsthand the benefits of it in my state, which is not a red state. the impact of the program in our schools have been amazing. more than 92% of classrooms have internet access. you just have to have an understanding of what that means. but then again, i think when we started california, only 15% of

their classrooms had access, which surprised me. anyway, 92 is good and we got to get better. but as impressive and as important as this statistic is, basic internet connectivity is not sufficient to meet our 21st century educational needs. i repeat that. it's not sufficient for our future. as every educator knows, digital information and technology will continue to play an increasing role in education so we need to think about how we're going to meet the broadband infrastructure needs of our schools and libraries. we need to think big about the future of eray. simply put, we need to create the program two. we need to fund and adapt erate to meet the needs of a data-driven society. by the end of this decade, i believe that every school in america should have one gigabit of connectivity. and if every coffee shop can offer wireless conneck tift,

but by -- connectivity, by golly, every america should offer this as well. we owe this to our children. i end simply by this. actually it's more than this. in 1996, everyone dismissed the need for the erate. telecommunication companies took the f.c.c. to court over the program. many times, they all swore in written letters that they would not take us to court. they all took us to court and they all lost. it was wonderful. [laughter] we have two decades of proof that the erate has worked. it enabled an education revolution that exposed a generation to the power of information and learning. it literally connected the least among us in world never possible. i ask industry to join us in an effort to make sure that every child in america has a bright future, that every child has

access to the transformative power of technology and i thank you for your courtesy. and patience. senator wicker. >> welcome to the commissioners. appreciate you being here. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss not only the wide array of issues before you, but also ways that congress can work in conjunction with the commission to ensure that quality broadband access is delivered to all corners of our nation. particularly rural areas like my home state of mississippi. and the chair's home state of west virginia. to achieve this goal, i believe we must ensure that there's a

level playing field for all broadband providers. we-plus seriously examine the need to modernize our nation's telecommunication laws, particularly in the ultra competitive video marketplace. to create a landscape that will foster the flexibility necessary to provide the best service and most competitive rates to consumers, thereby maximizing broadband adoption. as we continue to work our way out of the still-ailing economy, it is imperative that we focus on one of the few sectors of the economy that has grown, the telecommunications media and technology industries. with its virtual onramps to unlimited information and boundless potential as a tool for business, for education, health care and others, broadband is providing the seeds of economic development for the 21st century work force. it is the responsibility of

congress and of the commission to help foster continued growth and innovation. i look forward fought hearing today on how we might best achieve this goal and i look forward to working with all members of this committee in my new role as ranking member of the communications subcommittee. i'm committed to working with my colleagues, including senator pryor, my chair, to help ensure that our committee fully exercises its oversight, shines much-needed light on these important issues and that our panel is fully engaged in helping with our broadband and with economic growth. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator wicker. and now commissioner mcdowell, and the chairman has already given his testimony. and i obviously apologize to you, particularly, for that. and clyburn, jessica, ajit,

aren't really giving testimony. i am really disappointed but i have to go with what the boss says. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having us before us again today. and ranking member thune and ranking member of the subcommittee, wicker, congratulations on your ranking memberships and also it's a delight to be in front of the new members as well as the veterans of this committee as well. i'm hopeful that this year the f.c.c. adopts some sensible policies in many areas, but especially when it comes to implementing congress' incentive auction law. by written testimony -- my written testimony covers a great deal of other important topics but i'd like to use my opening statement time to emphasize my serious concerns regarding increased international regulation of the internet. ladies and gentlemen, we are losing the fight for internet freedom. the internet is in longer at a crossroads with freedom and prosperity down one avenue and command and control government domination down the other. the course of the internet's fate was dramatically altered

for the worse during ar treaty negotiation in dubai last december. as a result, this freedom enhancing and borderless network of networks, the greatest deregulatory success story of all-time is being centralized topdown choke points that employ the power of international law. unless defenders of internet freedom and prosperity act quickly, this tragic trajectory will become irreversible. my testimony on this important matter can be summed up in four main points. first, last year's world conference on international telecommunications dramatically ended the era of international consensus to keep intergovernmental hands off of the internet. second, defenders of internet freedom must act quickly to turn the threat of increased intergovernmental control of the internet to an opportunity to reverse course. third, we must offer other nations, especially those in

the developing world that feel disenfranchised by intergovernment processes, an alternative by improving and enhancing the multistakeholder process, especially entities such as the internet governance forum, or i.g.f. finally, congress can and should play a constructive role by ampfying the call for more internet freedom. for many years the global consensus centered pour policy in lieu of government regulation. that consensus started to unravel several years ago, however. in 2011, for example, then russian prime minister vladimir putin stated that was his goal and that of his allies to establish, quote, international control over the internet, end quote, through the i.t.u. last december, in dubai they succeeded in establishing an insidious foot hold in their patient and incremental quest to control the operations,

content and economics of the net. we allowed this to happen even though we were explicitly forewarned. hindsight allows us to see with great clarity that not only were defenders of internet freedom to slow to take this seriously but they all too seriously fell victim to a campaign of deception as well. for instance, before the wict, i.t.u. leadership made three key promises. number one, no votes would be taken if he wict. number two, a new treaty would be adopted only through unanimous consensus and number three, any new treaty would not touch the internet. all three promises were promptly broken in dubai through near-perfect orwellian cynicism all making the internet more democratic. i.t.u. leadership and pro membership states succeeded in arguments for preserving a freedom-hen hansing flat,

bottomup intergovernance structure while turning the logic on its heads to justify their power grab. hopefully it is obvious we must act quickly. internet freedom's foes around the globe are working hard to exploit a new treaty negotiation that is far larger in significance than the wickette. in 2014 the i.t.u. will convene in korea to conduct what is lirlely a constitutional convention which will define the i.t.u.'s mission for years to come. this scenario poses both a threat and opportunity for internet freedom. the threat is obvious. more international regulation of the internet. we have an opportunity to change debate by finding arguments that are more compelling to the developing world. we can remind member states to bring forward liberalism and competition. benefits such as innovation, universal connectivity and global prosperity. furthermore, we have an opportunity to improve the current multistakeholder

structure to include more meaningful participation by developing world nations. a disproportionate amount of aspiring nations feel left out of the decisionmaking and such perceived disenfranchisement has fueled the i.t.u. the best avenues amplify the voice of the dofrling world would be strengthen the forum. it is the ultimate democrat and bottomup multistakeholder group. in conclusion, congress must speak loudly to promote policies and internet freedom. as we dine in our thanksgiving dinners in 20 14, let us not look back on today and lament how we did not do enough. we have but one chance. let us be resolute and tell the world that all nations will benefit if we stand strong today for internet freedom. thank you for having me before you today and i look forward to

your questions. >> thank you very much. i'll start the questioning. and this is my first twor questions, probably my only two questions this round will be for all commissioners. and they're about the erate. the erate program has been tremendously successful and i think we have to protect what we have and i think we have to understand the digitalization of virtually everything, everything going wireless, everything going everything. we got to be prepared for the future. so my question to each of you, and if you would answer individually, would you commit -- and hopefully with a yes or no -- if the speech is necessary -- a speech will be heard -- would you commit to working with me to protect erate's accomplishments as well as updating the program to meet the pressing future needs of our schools and libraries? >> yes, absolutely. i've mentioned in my opening

remarks, erate has been an extraordinary success. there is a big opportunity and need around technology technology. i look forward to working with you and the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> yes. must -- but we must address contribution reform. how we raise the revenue. >> ok. >> commissioner clyburn. >> institutions like schools and libraries are important to communities. erate has been important to schools and libraries. hence important to all communities. so yes. >> thank you. commissioner rosenworcel. >> yes, absolutely in my time at the commission, i have been visiting superintendents in places as far flung as alaska and also miami, florida, places where you can't get more different on on this earth. what's neat is that together they consistently believe in the power of erate to bring digital learning to schools. i think it's important that we update it now for this new

century. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner pai. >> yes, mr. chairman. one of the things i've been struck by is the power of a broadband connection in a school beyond the educational context. for example, when i visited kansas city, recently, i visited -- i visited with a school nurse who by a video connection to the university of kansas medical center was able to develop an on-the-spot recommendation for a health care plan for a child who's feeling ill which had the need for a parent to take time off from work, which enabled the child to get much quicker medical attention. i have think we would consider some of the other benefits beyond mere learning that the erate learning through broadband connections in schools can provide. >> thank you, all. my second question, again, for all commissioners, hopefully yes or no, when congress authorized voluntary incentive auctions earlier this year, we made a point of providing

funding for first net as congress has always done, we deferred intory cassies of action and -- intricacies of action and how happy the chairman is, to the experts of the agency, such as the f.c.c. now, getting these auctions right to have sufficient broadcaster participation will be incredibly complex. burdensome. consistent with the law, the f.c.c. is free to make the policy and technical decisions are it finds are in the public interest, but i hope it cannot lose sight of the broader national purpose of funding first net. asry said before, the success of these auctions will be judged by their ultimate ability to provide sufficient revenue to fund first net. which is yet pretty much unknown to the public, but to those of us that know it, it's a blockbuster. so question number one, do you

understand the need for the incentive auction rules to provide sufficient funding for first net? >> yes, very important. >> thank you, sir. >> yes. i want to make sure we don't undermine that goal. >> ok. >> yes, and i believe a market-based engagement will give us maximize opportunities to achieve that goal. >> yes, absolutely. >> yes. >> thank you. do you agree that acting expeditiously to commence these auctions and avoiding unnecessary delay is important? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> you see, it's wonderful being chairman. [laughter] and my next question is for chairman genachowski and it's about violence. which you can't do anything about. but my time has run out. so the senators from south dakota, tall, handsome,

prepresidential -- [laughter] >> let's move on. i want to continue that -- not that line but the line prior to that, mr. chairman, and because this incentive auction thing is really important. as i mentioned in my opening statement that we figure out how to free up more spectrum to meet the demand that's out there. mr. chairman, you're closely part of the tv spectrum, particularly when it was first proposed in the national broad band plan. in your prepared statement you said that the agency plans to run the auction next year but your term ends this summer. what steps are you taking today to ensure the incentive auction will be a success and will occur in a timely fashion irrespective of who might be leading the commission next year? >> well, as you mentioned -- thank you for mentioning it. this is something the incentive auction idea as part of a larger idea to free up spectrum

that we have been working on for four years at the commission. the truth can be told we started working on implementing the law before it was passed. we were able to move quickly with a comprehensive proposal in september. we've also put out for comment the software we would use in the repacking piece. i think comments came in today, so the commission is on track to move forward with this auction and other steps to free up spectrum for our mobile economy. >> let me ask of any other commissioners, are you all optimistic that the commission will be holding these auctions next year? mr. mcdowell. >> i lived through the a.w.s. one auction and the 700 megahertz auction. these things can take longer than planned. there are a variety of unforeseen probably probables that can pop up. the bidders asked us to hold off.

this auction without any hyperbole by far is the most complicated spectrum auction in world history. while i have always been a proponent of shot clocks at the f.c.c., just like in basketball, i think it's important to work hard towards a goal but let us not be surprised if there's something unforeseen that arises. >> anybody that would like to comment on that? i would ask the question and that is what would be the key challenge you would see in meeting that timeline. and the rest of you can comment on whether you think next year is a possibility of that overly optimist uck but second question is what would be the key obstacle or key challenge? >> senator, it is a very aggressive, ambitious timeline that i feel confident that we will meet. we've got a designated, dedicated team to that end. we've got an incredibly open process. you've got a learn -- we call it learn.

a dynamic where broadcasters can continually get updated and ask questions. the opening engage -- open engagement and the desire to achieve this market-based dynamic is so strong that i feel confident that we will get there. of course, there could be unforeseen circumstances with all of the momentum and -- but all of the momentum and all of the incentives are in place to achieve that 2014 goal. >> yes, i agree with commissioner mcdowell. these are the most complex spectrum auctions that the world has ever seen. but we have a terrific team in place ready to go, and furthermore, i think it's important for the agency to set deadlines, both for its incentive auctions and its traditional and commercial auctions. i think auction make clear to stakeholders how they should organize their activities. and i think they encourage the formation of capital which is important in this case for funding first net. >> senator, i agree with my

colleague and i think although it is more important to get it right than get it done right now, nonetheless, i believe, i said when we kicked off the implementation process last september 28 that it was important for us to set a deadline. i don't think it serves either of those industries or the american consumers very well. in terms of your second question, the biggest challenge i think there are a number of them from international coordination to the details of sharing. ensuring the commission structures the auction in such a way that both participants in the forward and reverse auction have an incentive to come to the table. the auction is going to be a failure if we don't persuade broadcasters that the rules are simple and compelling enough for them to participate. the auction will be a failure if we artificially restrict on who can participate. so if we at the f.c.c. keep our focus on what the chairman said in his opening statement, maximizing the resources for first net and making sure this

hawkes is a success in terms of participation will be on -- we'll be on the right track and hopefully we'll be on the right track next year. >> mr. chairman, i have a lot of questions. we have a lot of people today. i will yield back to you and allow others to ask. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank everyone for being here today. i appreciate the work done by the commission. chairman genachowski, i want to follow-up on the conversation you and i had in my office not too long ago about spectrum. in particular, spectrum that is -- we've already heard about the value of spectrum and how important it is to our economy and our communications network. but the pentagon holds certain spectrum. you and i talked at length about that in my office. i wanted to follow-up. where do you see us in terms of the commission's discussions with the pentagon as to how we might get access to some of that spectrum and in an appropriate way that still

protects our national security but also allows us to use that spectrum in an appropriate way? i serve on the armed services committee, so this would be sort of where the two committees intersect. >> so there are two tracks to freeing up more government spectrum for commercial use. as i think we talked about, the government has about 60% of the most desire spectrum. and even though military needs in the u.s. are going up, that's more than necessary. a lot of those is ineffectly allocated. where we can clear government spectrum and make it available for commercial where he should. we should also move forward on a second track which is identifying opportunities for more sharing of government spectrum with commercial. there's government spectrum, for example, that's only used in certain parts of the country at certain times. that can be made more available more widely. this is good for everyone because there's a growing gap between military communications

equipment and commercial. growing gap is measured by price and functionality. and more government commercial can help close that gap by bringing more commercial know-how into the military's processes. my discussions with senior military officials on that are promising, i would say, and i think we're seeing the military lean more into it but that is something i look forward to working with you and the committee on. >> i would open it up but for not only your comments but for anyone on the commission, for us to free up some of that spectrum in a is currently allocated to the pentagon in a way that even if we had to move some of their activities and that would incur some costs but also we would go through an auction in a way that would actually cost beneficial to our government. >> yes. and in general that's how it's been done. there are rules in the book that require the measurement of the costs of moving and making sure that it's on a cost-benefit analysis survives. spectrum is so valuable in the

commercial market now, even unlicensed is tremendous for job creation that this is a net win for the country. >> obviously we are talking about the spectrum that the government has, but we have to move beyond that to meet our capacity. so i wanted to get your thoughts on how do we then occupy ope up the spectrum pipeline beyond -- let's assuming we can work through the issues to more efficiently use the government spectrum? >> well, first of all, back to your previous question. it's absolutely true that the federal government occupies the vast majority of the most valuable spectrum. and simply spectrum sharing is not going to meet our nation's needs. we need to have maybe work between congress and the executive branch on forming a way to provide incentives for the executive branch users of spectrum to yield it, to surrender it for auctions for exclusive use licenses. that's where there is the most valued proposition. right now it is an opaque process that doesn't really

work. right now i think there is a few audit of all federal spectrum that is as transparent as possible, given all the classified use of spectrum, but have that audit so we know what we're talking about and then determine from there because right now the process is far too opaque. >> does anyone else have anything to offer on that? >> in our traditional means of delivering spectrum to market, auctions, a.w.s. auctions and the like, all of those things, retooling and reconfiguring and recal brathe our rules to ensure that gets to market, it's an all-of the above approach and i think the f.c.c. -- you would be proud of the f.c.c. because we're talking about that and facilitating that through our rules and regulations. >> thank you. i wanted to follow-up. i'm sure there will be other questions about it, commissioner mcdowell, but what you talked about with respect to what happened in dubai, what

can congress do to stop this enfringement on the internet? >> i think it would be very helpful. i know the chairman was there, too, as members of your staff were there as well, it came up very frequently that the bipartisan unanimous resolutions, thank you, senator rubio, that were passed last year, were really heard quite clearly. i think amplifying even further, perhaps even making those resolutions the law of the land could be very, very helpful. but we also need to act very quickly. we also have a power vacuum a bit at the pentagon. dick beard retired. i know those positions will be filled soon but it can't be filled soon enough. the groundwork for the 2014 basically constitutional convention of the i.t.u. really starts now. there's a big meeting in geneva in may that will start certificate the tone for that so there's a lot congress can do.

>> thank you very much. i appreciate what you do. >> thank you, senator. senator blunt. >> thank you, chairman. chairman genachowski, on the universal service fund, i think 2011, you all initiated a rules making process so that that could be applied and/or transitioned to broadband. one of my concerns about this, i think you'll recall, has been the failure to define appropriately underserved as opposed to unserved. my belief is now that you decided in that rule that underserved was a current carrier that needed to upgrade as opposed to a current competitor, am i right in that? >> two points. i'm not sure. but when we did adopt the

comprehensive reform last year, and part of the design principle was that the funding would go to unserved areas and not to fund compet force. >> right. and then -- how do you allocate the underserved money or do you allocate that money? >> we have the core design principle of our reforms is the money should go to unserved areas and help get broadband out built where it doesn't exist and not fund -- >> good. that's my concern all the time has been that. now, how are we doing in getting that money out? are you in the process of further implementing that rule or updating the amounts or what it takes to get money out there? >> yes. we got a first traunch -- very quickly. it was about $140. and that's being used now to build out broadband to about 400,000 unserved americans. we're looking now with the next step. we want to balance moving quickly to support broadband to

unserved homes and making sure we do it in an efficient and fiscally responsible way. >> do you have a cap on the money to unserved homes? >> overall, we have the program now on a budget and so we're operating within that budget. >> somebody told me there was a cap around $750 or $775. >> in order to determine how much funding goes to a particular home, we need to come up with a number. and there was a lot of debate over that number. in the first traunch of funding it was based on $775 per home figure. some companies want more. if we spend too much we're wasting money. if we make it too low then we're not reaching everyone. so we're now looking, having gotten that $775 out in the first traunch, how should we handle subsequent funding under the program. >> how do you think you should do that? >> we have a record that's open on that. our goal is to maximize the

bang for the buck for the program. it is on a budget. we can only spend the money in a limited way, and we want to maximize the number of unserved americans who get broadband as a result of the program. >> so you're evaluating how many homes you get to at this level and how many you might add at a higher level and if there is a cost-benefit analysis there? >> that's exactly right. that's exactly right. >> on media ownership, another topic i wanted to ask you about -- i got on my tablet here that's with me, i got three missouri newspaperses, couple national newspapers, three or four -- i suspect i have a dozen different ways to get news right here with me. media ownership requirements are long before any sort of proliferation of media like this. where are we on updating those requirements? >> well, we're in the middle of an open proceeding, and on one hand, as you say, the world has changed. newspapers have certainly come under real pressure.

on the other hand, the new news and information that you see still isn't received about 30% of americans. i think we're in an interim period where the concerns about immediate gentleman consolidation remain important as -- immediate consolidation remain important and we continue to have vibrant news gathering in the u.s. >> any additional views were anybody else on media ownership, mr. mcdowell? >> senator, i think we're long overdue. the last time the commission voted on this was in 2007. i thought at the time those were mild and meek. i think the marketplace has moved past the commission. the investment and the eyeballs are flowing to new media. i think there are a lot of mill stones on the chest of new media as they face that competition. congress mandated in the 1996 act under section 202-h that we modernize these rules in the face of new competition and its high time that we do that.

>> mr. pai. >> senator blunt, i associate myself with commissioner mcdowell's comments. things on the table that should be off the table involves the effective prohibition on joint sales agreements and services agreements. especially in smaller markets like joplin or springfield. that might be between a broadcaster staying in the business or exiting the business. in the southwest part of your state, it allows a broadcast station to save $3.5 million which they would then pour it into upgrading their doppler radar station which proved to be valuable in 2011 when the tornado hit. i have think we need to be careful about our media ownership rules especially in smaller markets like that. >> and i agree we should be very careful looking at the current markets, looking at the critical needs of critical information needs of all communities. and so when we move towards this path and we rightfully

should every four years review, if not -- every four years mandate, review our current framework. we need to be careful that every citizen has a pathway to engagement, political engagement, public safety engagement and the like. >> i think we're grappling with a lot of different trends here. on the one hand, just as you said at the outset, the ways that we create, distribute and consume content are very different than they were just a few years ago. on the other hand, when you look at how consumers get news and information, it's not all that different than it used to be. the pew research center has done some stut studies and they found 74% of consumers still get their news from local broadcast television stations and the rest of them get their news typically from radio stations and newspapers. in staudy they did up in baltimore, they found that 95% of originating news came from traditional news media,

newspapers, television and radio. so we're dealing with new and novel ways to get information, but sometimes those creating the information are the same as they used to be. on top of that, we've got a duty to respond to the third circuit court of appeals which criticized the f.c.c. last time they tried to relax these rules for not taking into consideration the diversity of media ownership in this country. so we're going to have to deal with all of these trends, how everything is changing, how sometimes the origination of news still lies with traditional media and how ownership affects the news that we get. i think we have before us a whole bunch of issues on that and i think every single one of us at this table is grappling with the way forward. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> that's it. ok. senator, i apologize. i was handed with a new piece ofings information. first you have to listen to

senator pryor. >> i'm always happy to defer to senator pryor. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, senator coats. chairman genachowski, let me start with you about connect america, the connect america fund. certainly you guys are working very hard to do a -- i guess a final design on the long-term connect america fund. i know that you also could, with your discretion, do some incremental funding now. i think we have about 400,000 arkansans who don't have access to rural broadband. they say time is money but also time is lost opportunity. i'm just wondering if you all are considering doing some incremental funding now as you put the longer term connect america fund in place? >> first, senator pryor, i want to thank you, other members of the committee, my colleagues for working together to being in a position where we can talk

about implementation of a connect america fund focused on broadband. four years ago people would say this is impossible. the implementation issues are challenging. this is a similar issue to the one that senator blunt and i just had an exchange on. we want to get broadband out to unserved rural americans as quickly as possible and do it in a way where we're not overspending because if we overspend we're taking money away from some other rural american who would get it. we've been working together as a group with an excellent staff on this. we are diligently working to get this implemented as quickly and diligently with our principles. >> thank you. commissioner clyburn, let me talk to you about the 21st century accessibility act. it appears the f.c.c., the device industry and the disability industry are working closely to try to come out with a right set of smart rules. do you know the timeline when those rules might be completed? >> there are a number of things -- there's a good story to toll

about that legislation, which is the most significant piece of legislation for those people with disabilities since the -- the act in the 1970's. so what is happening is this incredible desire to connect all communities. this incredible desire to ensure that programming is accessible to all. so we've got a lot of things that are going on, particularly as it relates to emergency services, next generation 911, all of these things are on the table and are being discussed. the text to 911 is important. how do those with disabilities, you know, how do they find out what is going on around them? so we got a series of timelines that you will hear about during the course of the year that will bridge those gaps. in terms of crawls, television programming, ensuring that you have an audible means of knowing if you're sight

impaired, all of those things are going into place, some significant deadlines that are being met this year. this is a great year for this act. it's going to bridge some incredible gaps with those with sight and hearing disabilities. you should be proud with i.p. captioning coming up, it's just the sky is the limit, it's just wonderful. in terms of implementation of cbaa, we have not missed one deadline. there has been cooperative relationship. there has been equipment manufacturers and the like. we are bridging incredible designs and the communities are very elated what we've done. >> commissioner rosenworcel, you know i didn't ask you about it because you know more about it than i do and i thought you would embarrass me. i know you helped write that legislation. it's been a good success story. let me change gears on you if i

can and ask you about public safety in wireless and i.p.-based networks. i know if we look at superstorm sandy, i hear right after the storm about one in four cell towers were out of commission and it's complicated because a lot of these are independently powered. but my question for you is -- what can congress do, what can the commission do to make sure we address these problems as we go forward? >> well, as you suggest, superstorm sandy wreaked havoc on our communications are systems and it's hard to forget the images that we all saw -- the floods, the fires at the shore and some of these impossiblely large snowdrifts out west. i think that it demonstrated a few things to us. first, as the nation transitions to i.p. and wireless networks, we need to have a conversation about

commercial power. our old copper plant in this country had an independent electrical source, so when unthinkable weather occurred you could pick up the phone and call for help. but now our wireless and i.p. networks are dependent on commercial power, and when commercial power goes out, they don't work. a lot of people realized that in superstorm sandy. as you said one in four of our wireless towers in the affected region was out during the storm. so i think now as we make this transition to new wireless and i.p. networks, this is the right time to have a national conversation about what it means when all of our communications relies on commercial four. we have to identify how providers get access to fuel, how they have generators, how they have backup power and we also have to talk to consumers about this so that they have solar chargers and backup power for their own hand held devices as well. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i am going to ask chairman genachowski for the record

about cybersecurity and the things that they've done at f.c.c. and what recommendations they may have to the congress on what we should be doing on cybersecurity but i'll submit that for the record. thank you. >> thank you, senator pryor. and senator, i want to do it but i can't. senator wicker, subcommittee ranking member. >> i apologize. i do have something i just have to go to but i'll be glad to pick it up at another time. and i understand. >> he's yielding. >> roger, i'll tell you what. i'll be very brief and i'll yield you the balance of your time. you can do 7 1/2 minutes. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, thank you. it's good to be on your committee and serve with you and senator thune. and in another life i served in the energy and commerce committee in the house of representatives a long time ago

under john dingell. while i guess as a republican i prefer to be serving under chairman thune, i had a good experience with congressman dingell and i know i'll have a good experience with you in your last two years with you and it's a privilege to serve with you. back then, this was in the 1980's, my eight years on energy and commerce, the competition and innovation was occurring so fast -- at least i thought it was fast -- that we had a tough -- the process of legislating and regulating could hardly keep up with the change. we are light years ahead of where that was 30 years ago. and today it's mind-boggling how quickly it changes. and so i guess my question is, how do we begin to, through the legislative process and regulatory process, keep up

with this innovation? we are passing laws and regulations that are out of date before they even get enacted. and my question is this, chairman -- looking back over your tenure and reflecting on that, do you have any suggestions or things you want to leave with us relative to, boy, if we'd known that or could have done that faster, this would kept us up to speed, is there any advice relative to barriers to regulation or the process in which it was played out that you on reflection would want to change? >> it's a great question. you know, one of the things i think working together we've gotten right is that we focused on some of the enduring principles in this space that remain consistent even aztec nothing changes. you know, one is make sure that we have an infrastructure to support the new economy. the second is principles like universal service and competition and public safety.

and i think keeping ourselves focused on that has led us to ideas like we need to free up spectrum in creative ways and it pushed through incentive auction. it led to reform of the universal service fund. and so i think working together on those issues, they were largely bipartisan when you were in the house, they should remain so, is a strategy that's worked and i think can continue to work. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time, if it's -- it sits with the chair -- >> yield the balance of your time and his time. >> no, it's the other way around. i made him a deal and i'll stick with it. >> the ways of the committee are complex, but i'm glad to be talking. mr. pai, it is generally acknowledged that modernization of the 21-year-old 1992 cable

act is a major undertaking that will take some time and take some doing. you made a speech the other day saying there are some things the commission can do to provide relief in the interim for folks like cable services and multichannel video programming distributors. through the use of expanding and extending the f.c.c.'s forbearance authority, are you making any progress with the other four plebs on this -- members on this and do you think it makes sense to expand the biennial view in the same vain? >> it's a very recent proposal so i didn't have the chance to pitch them. >> surely they read your speech though. >> i apologize to them in advance in they did.

they had to go through that speech. it involves the video marketplace. it's changed so much when i was a kid. we had three channels and my dad would direct me to put the rabbit ears just so so we could get reception. now we can receive on any number of devices high definition programming and i think one of the central problems we confront as regulators is our rules simply haven't kept up the pace with the changes in the video marketplace. i think of the telecom sector as providing a useful example of how we can operate in the video context. section 10 of the communications act, as you know, allows the f.c.c. to fore bear of a statute or regulation if it determines such enforcement is no longer necessary to protect competition or to promote the public interest. it seems to me it would be valuable for the f.c.c. to have similar authority to title 6, the video context. that i would you a lao us to do what we've done on the telecom

side, trying to reach underserved, unserved and in some cases even served americans with better, faster and cheaper telecom services. i think if we did have that forbearance authority it would allow the commission to be a little more flexible in terms of its application of the statute because right now we don't have that flexibility. and the 1992 cable act, as you pointed out, captured a snapshot of the market of a moment in time that no longer really applies. the cable operators that has gone below 60% right now, over-the-top distribution was unheard of and now you have people with cable-only channels. i think it would be very valuable and would allow us to really update our regulations. >> so we'd have to give you that authority? >> that is correct. >> and what about this biennial review question? >> so i am -- i've been

promoting a more robust provision of what the biennial voting could be. we would comprehensively review all of our regulations and see if any of them need to be repealed or revised to meet the needs of the modern marketplace. we're demanded to do regularly by congress. i think if we spent more time as a commission really doing that i think we can update our rules appropriately. >> commissioner rosenworcel, that sounds like a really good idea, don't you think? >> well, let me start by saying 1992 was a long time ago. i had a dot matrix printer. i certainly didn't have a cell phone and i never would have imagined i could watch video on my tablet in my lap so i agree with you nat law is order. there are virtues in that law in a still are important to us. i think the law speaks to competition. i think it speaks to making sure everyone can have local content, including local news. and i think it speaks to the diversity of ownership and programming being an important

issue. so i think there's still some enduring values in the law that matter to us and we can still apply but i'd agree with my colleague, commissioner pai, that we can scour our rules and try to identify those that have outlived our usefulless. while we may not agree on every single rule we should do away with, but i think this is a good exercise. >> did you read commissioner pai's speech? >> i slotched through all nine pages of it. >> what about then specifically -- >> tough crowd. >> working with us on a simpler solution, putting off cable re-authorization >> the thing that i know of cable and satellite services now is that their rates go up year in and year out. and both as a consumer and as someone who sits in a regulatory position, i think that's a problem and i think it's something that merits a fresh look. >> if i had time i would ask the chair what he thinks of that.

>> i think that continuing to look at our rules, working with the committee and the best processes to do that remains vital. over the last few years, we've not only done reviews, but we've done major actions to remove barriers. the elimination of intercarrier compensation could be the single largest elimination of a set of rules that the f.c.c. has done in a very, very long time. removing barriers to broadband buildout, things like tower sighting, shot clocks. at the same time, as i depree with the commission that are we should think about how to continue to do this and i agree that there are enduring values in the communications act and issues that we need to continue to focus on. the nature of the sector now and we heard it in the opening statements from both ranking members and the senator and the chairman, this is a sector that's thriving, that's growing, where the opportunities are getting larger, as are the challenges and so staying current with the

obstacles and barriers to ongoing private investment and innovation is absolutely essential and we still have a lot of work to do. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much and now, senator finisher. >> thank you chairman and ranking member and thank you to aum -- thank you to all of the commissioners for being here today. if i could follow up, please, commissioner. you spoke about the communications act and i believe you said that in that it guarantees local contact and local news, is that a part of that? >> i think that's an important element of authorizing and creating local broadcast channels so that they have a duty under the law to serve their community of license and that duty includes things like providing local news and local content. >> and how are those licenses decided upon? i live in nebraska and i'm sure you've heard from some of my

constituents in the the sand hill of nebraska because we are unable to get what we consider local news which would be nebraska news. we receive south dakota news and we do love south dakota. [laughter] but -- and also in the western part of the state. so we keep up with you by the way. but in the western part of the state, my constituents there receive colorado news. if they go off the satellite. how do we change that? so that we can change those licenses in order to truly receive local news and local content? >> we can't even get local weather, which i believe is a right that communities should have. >> i'm sympathetic to the situation you just described. at the outset, most of that is a function of neilson markets. we have 210 of them in this country and they divide the

country into different television and media markets in a way that are often rational but not always. we have orphan counties like the one you're describing that might get their news from another location. i would point out to you that in the upcoming renewal of the satellite television extension and localism act, as a senator you have an opportunity to speak to this issue. and i would certainly encourage you to do that. i think it is a legislation -- a piece of legislation that gives you an opportunity to talk about this in more detail and i think you'll find that some of your colleagues also have the same situation where they have orphan counties and they can't get news from their local state house or their local weather. >> correct. thank you. thank you for that information. as you know, rural broadband deployment is one of the engines for economic development in many states and especially in a state like nebraska. and i've heard varying reports about the impact of the 2011 transformation order. and what that impact is on my

rural communities. you recently stated, maybe this was in another presentation you gave, i didn't read the whole thing, though, but you recently stated that the changes in the federal universal service programs have caused unpredictability in funding and it appears the investment environment has cooled as a result, impeding the deployment of next generation technologies in broadband services to rural americans. i share those concerns. what actions do you recommend that the f.c.c. could take to ensure that these areas are going to be served in a predictable and a stable manner? >> first, i want to commend my more senior colleagues for the effort they've put forth in adopting these reforms in 2011. as the chairman said, it was not an easy task to reform the rules which were in need of reform. but i applaud them for having

political will to do it. with respect to some of the reforms on the high cost program that you mentioned, i've expressed a number of concerns about the effect of unpredictable -- of the unpredictability of the rule. for example, the aggression analysis that the commission has adopted, i've supported some of the more recent reforms that commission has adopted, for example, combined capital expenditures and operating expenditures to make it more understandable for rural carriers where the threshold for a cutoff will be. but i think there are other ways the commission could live up to the statuary command of prohibitability. i've outlined a number of them in the comment us that noted. but i think by and large what we have to do is really listen to the concerns of rural carriers about what their planning process is. because a lot of their investments are not made every six months or one year or two years. these are long-term investments in broadband and rural communities. so if a commission is effectively applying these -- the q.r.a. or benchmarks every

single year, or more frequently, then it's going to be virtually impossible for them to make informed decisions without getting penalized for it. >> thank you. did anyone wish to add to that? >> i think it's important to note that this was the first federal entitlement reform enacted in a generation. that the rate of return carriers before the reform were receiving $2 billion a year. after the reform they're receiving $2 billion a year, not each carrier is receiving the same amount, some are receiving less. some are receiving more. but this is a bipartisan, unanimous vote, along a 3-1 party divide. and i think it's notable that we have said all along that it's an integral process and as facts come our way, we can make midcourse corrections, but i think it's important to adhere to the strict budget that we put in place. and i think that's going to be best. no company we regulate should

be guaranteed that it's going to have a certain income level based on a subsidy. and i think that's important for all of us to remember. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator heller. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and to the ranking member also, thank you for holding this particular hearing. i want to thank the panel also for taking time, for being here today and answering our questions. but before i ask a question, i'd like to touch on a couple of points. commissioner mcdowell and pai have been discussing f.c.c. regulations and whether they make sense in today's world. i agree with them that we regulate telecommunications when the world we live in today is becoming more interconnected each day. and i also agree with senator wicker, believe it or not. actually we always agree. but we need to have a strong discussion here in this committee, this senate committee, regarding the 92

cable act and the 19 6 telecommunications act and whether those laws are promoting or hindering innovation, investments in infrastructure and broadband adoption. i also want to mention that i was visited recently by the nevada broadcasters and our pbs stations. i'd like to convey to the commission their concern regarding the spectrum auction. in nevada we have over 300 translators and low-power television stations and i hope you'll keep that in mind. as you move forward next year and in completion of this auction. but i'd like to bring to attention the bipartisan f.c.c. reform measure, a reform measure. the f.c.c. consolidated report that i introduced last year. the bill identifies 16 reports required of the f.c.c. that could be eliminated. eight separate reports that could be combined in a single report and produced to the

congress at a specific time. this particular piece of legislation passed with bipartisan support in the house. last year i asked all of you your thoughts on this measure. four commissioners who answered did not have significant issues at all with this bill. commissioner mcdowell said that congress and the f.c.c. would benefit. so, see, mr. chairman, i do believe that this is a good government bill and, commissioner mcdowell and p.a.i. both agree that it would benefit congress and the f.c.c. would you agree with that? >> i've survived in part by not endorsing specific legislation in my time here. but the ideas of reform are something that we're happy to work with you on. and the committee on. certainly consolidating reports is something that we'd appreciate. we've been trying to do some of that on our own. so i do think that working with the committee, the continue -- to continue to reform our processes is a very healthy

thing. >> commissioner mcdowell, do you have any comments? >> absolutely. i think there's some very meritorious ideas in that legislation as you heard me say before. i also would hope that in the coming months and years this committee would seriously consider the seemingly daunting task of a comprehensive statutory rewrite to erase those silos, look at all of these services and technologies through the lens of consumers like my children who don't care if it comes through copper or wireless or broadcast which is wireless in another way or a cable or fiber. let's look at how our consumers potentially are benefiting and also harmed and if there's constations and abuses of market power. that's a daunting task but i think if we all work together it doesn't have to be partisan, it can be unanimous. >> thank you for that. do you have any comments on this? >> i do think that the consolidating reporting act would go a long way to streamlining the efforts of the commission has to expend in order to report back to

congress. i think it would also do congress a much better service because you'd get in one place a comprehensive snapshot of what is going on in the marketplace. let me as well, the endeavor reform or processes from a legislative standpoint shouldn't operate to the exclusion of what we at the commission can do ourselves. to keep the trains running on time. a number of the proposals i've put forward which i believe are politically beneficial to anybody, they're just a matter of good government, setting deadlines, employing more sunset clauses, creating a dashboard where the public can monitor exactly how the commission is performing with respect to key performance metrics like the number of petitions for reconsideration that are pending, how long it takes us to issue a license renewal and those kinds of things. all of which speak to the value of the accountability. i think too often what we've heard over the last number of years, not limited to any particular agency in terms of political leadership, is that the commission doesn't necessarily respond to the industry as the industry is moving on its own. so i think that's one of the

things i know my colleagues agree with. as we move into the 21st century, deep floor the 21st century, we need to make sure we're acting at the same pace as the private sector. >> thank you, commissioner. i'm running out of time. mr. chairman, i plan on introducing -- re-introducing the f.c.c. consolidated reports act this year. certainly hope to get the support of the committee. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator heller. let me just, for the convenience or misery of members, senator warner will be next, senator rubio, some guy named senator nelson. so, show your love for the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see all the commission members here. one of the things that that senator wicker and i and senator snow before that worked on at some length was trying to

make sure we've got a good inventory of the spectrum and i know we've got to get our other colleagues in the federal government to be on the d.o.d. and intel side to help us help you get there on that because some of the most valuable commodities we have, we don't have good information about how not only private sector but much of the public sector is using the existing spectrum. relate to that of course the spectrum gets more and more valuable, somebody who benefited from that increase in value in a private life, we've got to make sure we get as much utilization as possible. i want to talk a little bit about inner operability. maybe i'll start with the chairman. i understand that as we look at all of the new technologies coming on, particularly obviously in the wireless space, if you'd like to comment on how you're looking at the whole question ofer standards

and whether this is going to be a mandatory system or are we looking at potentially a voluntary buyin? because we're continuing to see new opportunities, auto industries and others, who want to think about smarter cars as well as smarter phones. yet there is constant question here about interference issues which obviously has hit a couple of your other actions in the past. mr. chairman, do you want to start on that? >> there was a time when people thought that spectrum wasn't scarce anymore and all we'd ever need and there were no issues. now of course we know that the opposite is the case and we have some real challenges on freeing up more and more spectrum. part of what we've learned as we've done it is that where we have spectrum that is being inefficiently used, sometimes because of restrictions like satellite restrictions, we'll see receivers come on the market that get interfered with

as we remove unnecessary restrictionsment and we have to tackle that. we're running a process at the commission to determine the best way to do that. i know the committee is looking at it. but we need to alter the incentive structure so that we don't see that kind of issue. >> anyone else want to make a comment on that? >> i would actually adopt my reference to everything the chairman just said and receiver standards are very important. we hope that there could be a private sector consensus here. so let's push toward that. it should be part of an overall goal, though, to increase spectacular ral efficiency. because even if we could identify all the 500 megahertz that the national broadband plan calls for to bring to auction or market, they're going to take the better part of a decade to actually get it into the hands of consumers. so what do we do in the meantime? we have to adopt policies that promote spectral efficiency in a varpte of ways. but also one thing we should avoid with the upcoming incentive auction is making it too complex, too complicated. having been a veteran of the

700 megahertz auction, my first dissent was cast on the c-block. that income ambulance among other unforesenior citizen circumstances probably resulted in an inner operability problem which we now face. so let's be very, very careful of trying to make he's things too complicated -- make these things too complicated. >> speaking of interoperability in general. one thing that comes to mind that i've been talking about a lot. the lower 700 megahertz where there are issues as it relates to interoperability. there has been engagement for almost a year. i am still hopeful for a voluntary solution. but the f.c.c. in its history has either mandated or encouraged interoperability across the board, a rule in urban areas benefit from it so where we can, we should. either mandate or encourage strongly voluntary engagement.

>> i agree with the voluntary component. although i know in the past it's not always been successful. and at the end of the day, pushing out new technologies, we're going to need to get it used on the spectrum. i just am concerned as well, got a whole series of questions i'll submit for the record, but there seems to be a bit of back sliding on u.s.f. reform and i just believe that this is a naughty problem, this is obviously, you know, a change of technologies. but if we're going to get the kind of rural broadband deployment that i think many of us all want to see, this is going to have a componentment. >> i just saw that what i heard you say is there shouldn't be any back sliding. >> yes, that's right. >> and i completely agree. >> my time's gone up. i just want to also echo comments i think some of my he ore colleagues have made -- my

other colleagues have made and i know it opens up a can of worms but with the marketplace and technology moving so quickly, at some point a broader-based, looking at reworking of the whole telcom act, should be the subject of this committee, at least starting down that path. it may not happen overnight, but great, great potential. so i thank the chairman and the commission members for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, commissioners. thank you to the commissioners who come to minnesota in the last year or so, including the chairman and the commissioner, as well as commissioner clyburn and you're invited as well, commissioner mcdowell. thank you, commissioner pai, thank you so much for your work. i want to first start out with unlocking. i appreciate the leadership of the f.c.c. on this issue. i've introduced a wireless consumer choice act with senator lee and senator blumenthal. and we are taking this very

seriously. we think this is a great opportunity to open this up for competition. i think you know that there's been a lot of outrage over the recent decision by the library of congress, not a common foil for people, but the recent decision that creates uncertainty for consumers who want to unlock their phones from one network to switch to another. and again, i see this as an opportunity and i wondered, i guess, mr. chairman, if you would commit to work with us on this bill to address any concerns and to take action and do you agree than you locking is an impediment for consumers, choosing to switch carriers and therefore is a barrier to competition? >> i do. i think that decision from the library of congress raised real competition and innovation concerns. i was happy to see the legislation introduced. and thank you for your leadership and it appears to be a bipartisan issue. we need to address it because right now there are criminal penalties for someone who gets a new phone and unlocks it.

doesn't make sense. >> no, it doesn't. anyone want to add anything more? >> i think it's important to get past the headlines a little bit on this issue. and while the need to quickly dispel this image of consumers being hauled off in hand cuffs if they try to unlock their cell phones. >> without their phones. >> with or without their phones, we also need to understand that we need to protect intellectual property rights and there is contract law which your bill speaks to that can convey and give consumers lots of options and lots of freedom here. so let's make sure we're not undermining intellectual property rights and that we're also preserving the right to contract. >> i agree with my colleagues. and also affordability is a factor. and environmental factors. if you've got to make all of these changes every time -- if you have an option to change providers, that's not good for the environment too. all of those things go into play and thank you so much for introducing that. >> i agree, would be happy to

help, whether that's through the f.c.c. or updating the digital millennium copywriting act. the great thing is to find out about the great power of the librarian of congress. >> i thought the same thing. senator leahy has a bill that i know senator lee and i are also on. and i think it's a different approach and we can somehow combine them, we will all work together. but i do think it's important, mr. chairman, for this committee with its jurisdiction over telecommunications, to be involved in this decision. and that's one of the reasons we introduced the bill this way. yes. >> i would add that contract law in my view, rather than criminal law or copyright law, i think should govern the relationship between a wireless consumer and the wireless provider. so that end i would be more than happy to work with you. whether it's an exemption that allows consumers to unlock their known or another measure, we stand ready to aid. >> thank you very much. good news today of the f.c.c. is taking the issue seriously about call completion, with our

level three communications. thank you very much. could you discuss, mr. chairman, what this consent agreement with level three means for the industry? we've had huge problems with call completion in rural areas in my state and in others. >> i think it send as clear message that it's not acceptable. that we will take seriously any instances that we find of failure to complete calls. we'll continue to investigate reports and if it's necessary to have more enforcement actions, that's what we'll do. >> ok. another question, i understand the f.c.c. has an open proceeding considering the legal and policy consequences of expanding or redefining what a multichannel video programming distributor is or is known as mbpd. what have you found so far that would promote competition and bring prices for video services down for consumers? we've had some issues come up in some of our suburban areas about the price of cable and so

-- and also transparency for wireless service disclosure. >> we haven't reached any decisions in that proceeding. i am, i think we all are concerned about rising prices to consumers. and the need to keep on pushing competition policies in this area. >> thank you. i'll follow up more on that. i'll let my colleagues go on. but i just will put some questions on the record, especially on metal factor and copper telecom wires, a growing problem. senator graham and i have a bill that senator schumer has sponsored and i appreciate your interest in that and we'll put some other questions on the record as well. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator rubio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, thank you all for serving on this commission. it's an exciting time to be on there with all these things happening. i may not use all my time for questioning. i have a 4:30 appointment to unlock my phone.

[laughter] >> are you going to need a lawyer for that? >> at 4:40 i have to go see the librarian of congress. i'll start with commissioner mcdowell. you were so involved in the internet freedom debate that took place. here's my question. i am interested in working on some draft legislation with others that would declare the policy of the policy of the united states to promote a global internet free from government control and maintain the current multistakeholder governance. i'm not asking you to endorse legislation, although feel free to do, so any of you, but i would ask you, do you think that that sort of statement from the congress is something that's helpful in regards to the position of the united states and these international bodies and beyond? >> first of all, thank you for your leadership on this issue and many thanks to every member of the senate for unanimously supporting that resolution last year and the short answer is yes, that would be tremendously helpful. >> great. good. did we get that on tape? >> i'm sure, yeah. >> second question, it really is about spectrum. the way i've explained this to people back home and across the

country when they've asked me about it, we'll often hear a lot of conversation about roads and how important roads are to economic development. you've got to be able to get your product from entry point to end use customer. spectrum is identical to that on a different level. spectrum capacity is what allows people to quickly get information on tablets or cell phones or what have you. itually would give us the cutting edge. i've been concerned of course about staying on competitive edge and we've heard differing reports about where we are in comparison to the rest of the world in terms of our capabilities and now -- and moving for. it seems to me and i may be wrong and if i am i want to you point this out. i'm concerned that in the wireless industry the demand for wireless broadband might outstrip our ability to provide the supply. so my question is, would it be helpful if congress authorized multiple spectrum auctions, maybe staggered over a period of time? just to ensure that you have a pipeline of spectrum entry into the marketplace and a steady and predictable manner?

is that something that you all think might be helpful? >> i think you're thinking about spectrum's infrastructure exactly right and one of the challenges that we all face is it's invisible infrastructure so it can be hard sometimes to generate the action that we need. it's why this committee's action on incentive auction legislation was so important. you're right to identify the supply-he can -- supply-demand issue, i think. the real issue is getting more supply of spectrum to auction. so the issues that for example the senator raised about how do we get more spectrum from government use, would be helfful. and i think we can hold an auction any time but we need the supply of spectrum in order to auction. and that is something that i'd look forward to working with you on together. >> he's absolutely right. federal spectrum has got to be a priority. getting the federal government to liberate spectrum for private sector use through exclusive use licenses rather than sharing. >> and you of course can provide the incentives that might be needed by the federal

holders of spectrum and i look forward to working with you on that. >> you're absolutely right. the broadband beneath us and the airwaves all around us are the roads, ports and canals of the 21st century of the. the challenge is making sure we have enough spectrum in the pipeline to meet the demand of that infrastructure. i think what we're going to have to do moving ahead, though, is identify ways to make sure that our federal users of spectrum are rewarded when they use it efficiently. if they use it efficiently, they should see some gain, whether that's through appropriations or budgeting or some other system. and if they use it efficiently, they will return more spectrum for commercial use and we'll have more in the pipeline which will help grow our wireless economy. >> senator, i agree with your characterization of the problem in terms of more intensive spectrum use. the devices we're using today are in some cases 128 times more data-intensive than a simple cell phone was 15 years ago. so there's clearly a need on the consumer side. considering federal spectrum, one of the processes that is

established now under the csea involving the notification and auction process and as i outlined in my testimony, that is an established process by which the f.c.c. would notify ntia about a federal spectrum that could be repurposed for commercial use. if we adopt that process and invoke it in a robust way, it would be fair and flexible for everybody. and i hope we use it more often. thank you. >> thank you. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. and i want to thank my colleague for her leadership as well on the unlocking bill which i've been very glad and proud to co-sponsor. let me ask just very quickly, the merger, proposed merger involving t-mobile and metropcs

, has that been approved? >> it has been approved. >> when? >> today. >> so this information was released at what point today? >> i don't remember the time that it was released. earlier today. >> hours in advance of this hearing? >> yes. >> and let me ask you, was it approved at the bureau level or the commission level? >> the bureau level. >> and can you tell the committee this deal involving 40 million subscribers, billions of dollars, are you aware of any transaction of similar size that has been approved at the bureau level rather than being circulated for a vote by the commission? >> there have been large transactions -- >> as large as this one? >> -- >> my information is that none of this size in terms of dollars and impact on consumers has ever been approved by the bureau as opposed by the commission. >> this may be the largest, the

global crossing transaction was very large. there was a major radio transaction. when there are no petitions to deny, no issues of commissions policy, these are typically done at the bureau level and this was consistent with the precedent in the area. >> i don't want to take time on this issue now, but i will have follow-up questions for the committee. >> of course. >> second area, i noticed that today, that at&t has announced a rate hike. i'm sure you're aware of it, on its d.s.l. service. this comes just one week after verizon announced an almost identical rate increase. both of them trouble me. price increases sometimes are a fact of life. but when we see increases in the market as important as this one, not only in its impact on consumers, but also our economy in general, i think we ought to pay closer attention. let me ask about the f.c.c.'s

efforts to monitor price the marketplace. as you know, the national broadband plan recommended that the f.c.c. collect and monitor prices and make that data publicly available. so consumers could make more informed decisions have better choices. i know the commission has an open rule making on that issue and i wonder if you could tell this committee what the status is of implementing this recommendation and do you believe that the f.c.c. needs such data to better meet your statutory responsibilities, and, well, let me invite to you answer that question first? >> sure, as the broadband plan pointed out, that would be very helpful data. what's underlying your question is something which is very important which is the need for competition to drive lower prices, better products, more private investment and i completely agree with you and it's something that we've worked very hard on in the mobile space. week of seen much better trends

in mobile competition over the last couple of years than we'd seen before. but there's much more work to do. >> are you troubled as well by these rate increases? >> i'm troubled in general by rate increases that aren't based on competitive factors. these aren't something that we've studied specifically yet but it's something we can look at together with you. >> i would appreciate that. i will follow up on that area as well. finally, because my time is limited, blackouts. sports blackouts. grave concern, deeply troubling, especially to many in connecticut. when they see that their favorite football team on sunday or their favorite baseball team or their college sports team has been blacked out in their area. the commission, as you know, put out a noticed inquiry but hasn't yet moved to a notice of rule making. i wrote to the f.c.c. back in 2011 to ask that you open this proceeding to discuss whether

the nearly 40-year-old sports blackout rule, i think it's 40 years old, is still relevant in today's environment. and i wonder if you could give me an update, a status report, on where you are on this issue which is profoundly important to people in connecticut, but i think across the nation. >> blackouts are of tremendous concern to consumers. we certainly hear from them as you do. an area where it comes up too often is in the retransmission consent area. this is an area where we've had discussions with committee in the past and look forward to continuing it because it may be time to update those provisions, to reduce the chances of blackouts during retransmission descent negotiations. >> are you planning to move to a rule making proceeding? >> as we said at the time, our authority under the existing statute is limited. and this may be an area that we have to work with the committee to address the blackout issue. >> my time has expired. i thank the chairman for his indulgence. i'd like to follow up on this

area as well and get more specific and detailed answers and want to thank you and all the commissioners for your very diligent work. thank you. >> senator blumenthal, you only exceeded your time by 31 seconds. so i wouldn't get too worried about it. your questioning is always excellent. >> thank you. >> senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe that disclosure is one of the strongest things that can happen in the public sphere. and two decades ago the federal communications act had this provision. section 317. requiring the on-air identification of sponsors of all advertisements, political

and commercial. and then when the f.c.c. wrote the regulation they said that political ads must, quote, fully and fairly disclose the true identity of the person or persons or corporation, committee, association or other unincorporated group or entity, end of quote. that pays for them. well, as you know, as a result of a supreme court decision, we have been beset upon in the political sphere with an avalanche of undisclosed, unlimited money from sources that the public does not know where the political communication, either being for

or against, a particular candidate comes from. indeed, in the citizens united supreme court decision that set off this crazy contortion of campaign finance law, there was an interesting statement by the court, joined by 8-9 justices that says, disclosure is the less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations. that would indicate that the court is looking improvingly, approvingly of disclosure. ok. you've got the statutory power. we don't have to do what we failed by one vote with 59 votes and we didn't get 60

votes four years ago, to have the disclose act. you have the power. so i'd like to know what each one of you thinks about implementing the statutory authority that you have for all of that undisclosed money that is hiding behind the committee for god, mother and country and yet it is fueled by various special interests. >> senator, thank you. the very important issue and i agree with you that disclosure is a first amendment friendly powerful tool in this space. last year, and this was a contentious decision, we approved new rules that required broadcasters to put online the information that they now receive about political ads and they do

receive a significant amount of information. by a 3-2 vote, we adopted those rules and that started rolling out before the last election and it will continue and part what have i think we're obliged to do now is look at effect of that as it rolls out and determine what steps are propose and -- appropriate and necessary. >> the statute passed two years ago, requires on-air identification of all sponsor it's of all advertisements. and then the f.c.c. rule that implemented the statute says, quote, fully and fairly disclose the true identity of the person, talking about political ads. or persons or corporation, committee, association or other unincorporated group or entity. so does that mean that you're a no vote? >> no, i think there are requirements that are in place

on disclosing, including on-air the sponsors of ads. i think you're suggesting that we look at going more deeply into who the actual funders are. i think that's a very important issue and something that we should look at. >> i'm talking about enforcement of the f.c.c.'s rules that fleshed out the statute. that was passed. would you indull me, mr. chairman, to just -- indulge me, mr. chairman, to just see what the rest of the commissioners say? >> thank you, senator, for the opportunity to comment on this. and you're absolutely right, disclosure and transparency are good and curetific in many contexts and as the chairman pointed out, a year ago we had a vote, it was only three of us at the time at commission, there was a -0 vote in part and a 2-1 vote on the other part. i de-- i dissent the against the disclosure of broadcast rates. i'm concerned about collusion. so we want to encourage

transparency. at the same time we need to balance that against what is the right forum? should that be the federal election commission or the federal communications commission? should broadcasters end up being the enforcers of political campaigns and these other groups that are formed? should we put the burden only on them? i think there are a lot of equities to balance here as well. there are a lot of groups that get formed in this context of elections and public issues ads. so where should all the burden go? the money flows to new media, old media, a lot of different places. old media, not just broadcast licenses. so we need to be careful to balance. >> there's no balance here. it says requires on-air identification of the sponsors of advertisements. so does that mean you're a no? >> there are already both f.c.c. rules and f.e.c. rules regarding these sorts of things. so all the mouse print and the quick fast talking at the end of ads covers a lot of them.

>> we just came through more than $1 billion, probably $2 billion to $3 billion of outside ads from these undisclosed sources. so this is not a matter of -- it's not an issue in front of the public, it's here. it's right now. what but? >> senator, i will look forward to working with you if there is anything that we have or have not done that you identify as deficient. we moved a long way in moving the information that stations were previously keeping on premises to the airwaves. it made the opportunity for investigative work and the like more clear. again, if there was anything that we left out, if there is any i not dotted, i look forward to further engagement with you. >> so that's a maybe. how about you?

>> i will make it easy. yes. i agree with you. sunlight is the best disinfectant and we should look at our rules, make sure they're updated under section 317 and make sure that the filings that we receive are as transparent as they need to be. >> mr. pai. >> i share my colleagues' value of openness and transparency in all faces of our work. -- phases of our work. one of the issues we're confront something that section 73.112 of the rule which implements section 317 of the act, requires entities that are sponsoring the advertisements. so there's a question under current rules whether that requires the disclosure of all the sponsors who are underlying the actual sponsors. so there are also some practical considerations. would you have to identify every single sponsor who is funding the corporation or the outside committee?

one of the other things i would like to bring your attention to, september, 2012, g.a.o. rainstorm which studied this issue in some depth, it pointed out that regardless of what congress does with respect to the law and what we do with respect to our rules, it wouldn't hurt for us to update some of our f.c.c. guidance to broadcasters. some of that guidance hasn't been updated since 1963 and it still talks about the print that you use to produce a film might warranty sponsorship identification. there are things we can do internally to provide greater clarity for the industry. >> that sounds like a maybe yes. [laughter] in which case, i need one more vote. need three votes. now, this is of great consequence to the political sphere of how it was influenced by undisclosed, unlimited money. thank you, mr. chairman. >> would the senator yield to a question? >> to my chairman? of course. >> it's a fascinating question.

and it is -- goes to the very root of the integrity of democracy. there were two fairly -- one very clear one conscious one fairly clear yes and then there was sorpt of a yes, maybe, and then there was, you know, there is no complexity to this question. there's no way cerebraly to avoid answering his question. to say that the f.c.c. could do it or somebody else could do that. that's not what he's asking. he is saying, you have the power to do a and he's asking, will you do it? i don't think it's unfair for him to insift and you have my permission -- insist and you have my permission, i think he should press his point. >> i'd be happy to add to that.

we took a major step last year in increasing transparency around political ads and making the information available to consumers. >> you might have done that and i commend you for that. but it didn't affect the outcome. here's the outcome. it's disclosure. once all of those entities have to put their mouth where their money is, it's too embarrassing for some of them. now, some of them of course it was obvious. they made no bones about it. but when you hide behind that committee of the flag, mother and country and in the name of that entity all of the contributions are made, you are violating the statute and the rule that you all implemented to flesh out the statute.

thank you. >> thank you, senator nelson. thank you for your patience. >> i'm happy. that was very interesting. it would be interesting at some point to -- for further discussion. as many of you know, i always start and first i want to say thank you for all the work you have done in regard today some of the adjustments you've done and the work you've done in regards to alaska. but always being parochial and care being my state, i want to lay a data point. i have a couple of questions, mr. chairman, if i can direct them your way and others may want to respond. a new study came out, a very respected group found that 60%, 60% of alaska has wholly inadequate telecommunications. 16,000 census blocks in alaska have no wire line broadband service or no wireless service whatsoever. another 4,300 census blocks

have no wireless service at all. to get just the 3-g, forget 4-g, just to get 3-g in alaska is a quarter of a billion dollars of investment. so we have significant investment needs. mr. chairman, i'm going to ask you a couple of questions in regards. two recent ones. i know you just finished i think it was order six and one of the issues -- i think it was in order six that came out. let me kind of state it here. you've done some positive impacts again for alaska. but it's clear and it appears there's an error in the regression analysis. the first that comes to mind is designation of tribal lands. the f.c.c. itself in previous dockets consider life line and linkup services, recognize alaska as designated 100% tribal lands. we're not like any other state. we don't have reservations. so, in 2012, july, the wire line bureau conceded that that

was an error and it should be corrected. to date that correction has not happened. what's more disearthing is the more recent arbitrary designations, the north slope, 23% tribal. where do you come up with the data to back that up? because being born and raised, i'm going to tell you, i mow commissioner pai is going up north slope, they're going to be anxious to talk to you about what tribal land is. i don't know how you come up with these designations. i'm anxious, one, how you came up with it and then i want to see the data. because i'm going to tell you, i'll be surprised that the f.c.c. understands, no disrespect to all of you and your step, what tribal lands are. 23% of the north borough is one example, is not tribal land. the whole area is tribal land. to be very frank i'm a little

agitated because it has offended many of my constituents in alaska, how an agency can determine what tribal land is. when you already have one of the bureau saying they made an error. it should be 100%. how do you respond to? and then, i want to get the data and i hope it comes from somewhere. wherever that somewhere is. >> senator, first of all thank you for the positive remarks on our overall reform efforts. in alaska. although not in the north slope. and certainly i recognize, we all recognize, the staff recognizes that there are elements of alaska that are unique and that we have to take into account in our rules. and that the tribal issues this alaska are complex and very important. on the specific question that you're asking, if i may, i'd like to follow up with you on that, because the particular north slope tribal issue is not something that i'm familiar

with. >> it's throughout alaska. many different areas have different designations. i'd like to know where the data came from on that. >> we'll work with you on that. >> senator, first of all, thank you for raising this issue. as you know, if it weren't for senator stevens, i would not be here and i'm eternally grateful for that. >> he probably ingrained in your mind about tribal issues 100%. >> it is. >> i'm just here to help you remind that. >> we always fight for alaska native land fs it's not in our contract already. it's been a priority of mine since my very first trip as a commissioner. was to alaska in august of 2006. i've been to the north slope in winter when it was a balmy 55 degrees below zero. so, i want to work with you on this issue to help correct it if we need to. >> very good. >> senator, as you know, i came to alaska in the dead of summer

and i am unapologetic for that. [laughter] but i want to assure you, and we talked several times, that we run a data-driven process. and all data and methods in terms of regression analysis and any other analysis that we come up with are open to you. so, again, i invite to you come down to the office or we can come to you, might be easier for you to come down to the office on some of this, and if there is -- there are any remaining questions -- >> we'll make it happen. >> all right. >> my time has just about run out. >> senator, i've been to alaska. i've been up there with you. i think there are two points here. first of all, when you have a regression model, it is only as good as the data you put into it. and the second point is alaska's big and vast. and it's possible that it does not fit into the model that we use for the lower 48 states. >> very good. i'll take two seconds to go through. one other one was a letter that

was sent to alaska delegation dated august of 2012, mr. chairman, adopted a variable that specifically accounts for provision services in alaska, that variable adopted the commission for construction in alaska is a negative could he efficient. in other words, the data actually says, which doesn't make -- i'm trying to hold myself here for a second, that it is 46% lower to construct in alaska than the lower 48. that is impossible. based on my experience. so, as you said, data going in creates something that doesn't work. 679% higher in senator warren's district than alaska. we have less than four months in our area's constructing season. san juan may be a little warmer, 12 months. how can you explain that? can you get me data that explains this? or fix this problem, it doesn't make any sense. >> i think there may be a

misunderstanding there. our staff recognizes the cost and expense of building out in alaska and so we'll pursue that with you and your staff. and i look forward to. that >> very good. let me end and just say, commissioner pai, thank you. given the new data that i showed and some of your commentary, i did not read the nine-page speech but i got good commentary on. it let me ask you, do you agree that it makes no sense or that there should be clearer review of additional reductions in the u.s.f. fund, sferbley in alaska based on this data that i just laid out on the 60% accessibility issue? >> senator, first i want -- >> you had a little different view on the last order. >> yes, thank you for the question. i want to express my appreciation for productive exchanges both in public and private on these issues. i know it's important to you and it's important to me and my colleagues as well. i think one of the issues that we are confronting and you encapsulated in your question which had to use the words in a

negative could he efficient and things like that, an elegant model, even one that in the abstract is math commatically sound can often run aground on the shores of alaska. from barrow to adak, there are am inform unique challenges that state faces that aren't adequately captured in the model. there are two solutions to that. one, is you know, to stay with things the way they are. the other is to make the necessary changes to the model, either be tweaking the variables or putting in better data. as you know, i've expressed to you before, i stand with you in terms of my willingness to get it right. and make sure that we do what we can to provide predictability and adaptive conditions of alaska. >> thank you. look forward to seeing you in june. >> june, july, august, yes, we'll look forward to that, too. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking the chairmen, thanking each of the

commissioners for your service, for being here for your extended testimony today. i appreciate your being here. i'd like to ask a couple of questions about spectrum policy. but i would like to begin with just a word of caution. about the recent exchange with senator nelson. the f.c.c. has a long tradition of being nonpartisan. and as each of you know, the disclose act is a subject of deep, deep division within the united states congress. and many are concerned that the disclose act, if passed, would have a profoundly partisan impact and would raise grave first amendment issues. so the word of caution i would raise is were the commission to endeavor through rule making to end-run congress and adopt a rule that would be perceived as overtly partisan, i would

caution that doing so could well undermine the integrity of the commission and imperil the independence of the commission. so i give you that word of caution. you have an important statutory mission and my counsel at least would be to leave the political disputes to the members of this body who are elected to decide them. and i don't require an answer to. that that is simply a word of caution. i want to turn to the question of spectrum now. i've seen estimates that the federal government owns or controls roughly 85% of spectrum that is suitable for wireless broadband. and the question i would ask the chairman and each of you is twofold. number one, does -- do those estimates -- are those consistent with your consistent with your understanding and