>> i don't. i think it should be an extraordinary circumstance in which the government tells the consumer, you have to buy a television package as a prerequisite of buying more of what you want, which is essentially what the rule does. the other grounds on which i think it's fatally flawed is only cable subscribers have that obligation. dish and direct satellite subscribers do not have that obligation. and they're the second and third largest mvpds in the united states. yet a consumer who subscribes to directv does not have to, under the rule, buy programming but if they switch to comcast or cable, they do. that was the parody i was making. >> chairman copps, thank you for being here today. the man with real wisdom.

the man that we always count on to put -- place democracy front and center of everything. you know so well that since citizens united, the last two election cycles that have set records for money spent, including hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed sources, the bulk of this so-called dark money spend iingy outside groups that hide their donors go toward negative tv ads. we all know that. would you recommend changes to the communications act to ensure that voters are informed about who exactly is behind these anonymous tv ads? and is there anything in your view that the fcc can do on its own without congressional intervention? >> i would recommend them enforcing the statute that we already have. if you take a close look at section 317, which has to do with sponsorship identification

and which goes back even before the telecommunications act of 1934 was written, goes back to 1927, ensuring that listeners and viewers more recently know by whom they are trying to be persuaded whether it's a commercial product or political product. those rules were last revisited in a meaningful way by the fcc in the 1960s, which repeated that people have a right to know by whom they are being persuaded. since then we have all these new avenues of dark money and super pacs and all of the rest. we also have the authority recently reemphasized by the government accountability office, the recommendation that the commission update those rules and get on with the job. so, we can have this kind of information available to consumers so that when you see that negative ad and it says brought to you by citizens for

purple majesties and amber waves of grain and it's really a chemical company dumping sludge into the chesapeake bay, potential voters, citizens have a right to know that and will know that. that's basic information that you need to have, if you're going to have a viable civic dialogue. this is something that the fcc can do. it doesn't await a president making a proposal to do this. it doesn't involve congress having to pass a law. it involves the federal communications commission doing its job. it could do this in 90 to 120 days and update the rules to take mind of the new dark money avenues i was talking about earlier. so, this would be a real way to shine a little bit of sunlight on the dark world of tv political advertising. >> thank you very much. and mr. wiley, thank you for your wonderful, distinguished public service. i'll submit my questions to you in writing. >> all right. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we'll now turn to the vice chair of the full committee, the gentle lady of tennessee, miss blackburn for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you all for the time this morning. i want to pick up where the subcommittee chairman left off, talking about the responsibility of the fcc and what it would look like going forward. i think that it's fair to say -- and mr. powell, i will address this to you. i have heard you say aol was on top at one point when you were -- on top of the game and where are they now, i think, was the comment. anyway, looking at where the fcc would be and as we look at the telecom act, should we look in terms of the fcc being more enforcement rather than regulatory in its scope or in its -- really in its scope? mr. powell and then mr. wiley, i

would like to hear from you. >> i think some aspects of that deserves a fresh examination. i was a huge supporter of, served there with great people. it does an enormously great public service. int introspective management. it is one of the last of the new deal agencies that has regulatory power. that is, the ability to set the prices, terms and conditions of market activity as opposed to having a more significant enforcement, policing or consumer protection role. not to say that some of that may or may not still be warranted. i do think that that is a kind of hold over from judgments of different administrative eras. if you're going to look at -- you should look at the -- >> look at the balance? >> the diochotomy and balance of that role. i do think that many have migrated more toward that role.

i think they're worthy of second consideration. >> mr. wiley? >> i would agree largely with what chairman powell has suggested. i think the commission does have strong enforcement efforts today and some would say almost two strong in some instances. but i think, frankly, a lighter touch is the way to go in this area. >> let me ask you this. privacy data security, front page news right now. it's going to be. do you think that now is the time for the fcc to focus on its core competencies or should it move over and look at privacy data security or leave that to the ftc? mr. wiley? mr. wiley? >> i didn't hear that. i didn't hear it. i'm sorry. >> privacy data security, leave it to the ftc and the fcc focus on its core mission or what is your thought on that? >> i think so. >> you think so?

>> i would agree with that. >> okay. mr. powell, coming back to you, 706. we're hearing a lot about that today. and you may have others who think that, you know, the fcc -- that this is an invitation, 706 is an invitation to come in and regulate internet services. as you look at 706, do you agree that the provision was intended to give the fcc the ability to forebear from regulations that would stifle broadband investment and innovation? >> i agree that the decision certainly gives them the power to forebear and for many years many people interpreted 706 as principally deregulatory. it speaks of removing barriers and obstacles, less so about introducing them. i certainly was serving at a time where the commissions have

held that was not a separate basis of authority. and in fairness to the fact, every commission had so held until recently. so, that was the position of the law when i was there, at least. i will say, though, that i think if the commission is going to have a role in broadband, i highly would prefer that be under the construct of the light regulatory information services definitions that reside around 706 than to make a radical transformation to title 2 as a regulatory framework for those questions. >> okay. thank you very much. mr. chairman, i will yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the committee, mr. waxman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. my colleague, miss blackburn, suggested that the fcc needs to act more like the federal trade

commission, ftc. consumer protection work. i believe we need an agency like the fcc that can write forward-looking rules of the road for industry and consumers. chairman hundt and copps, do you agree with that? >> absolutely, mr. waxman. forward-looking is -- here is the best example of a useful forward-looking law. it's in the incentive auction legislation that you passed where this congress said we want the fcc to establish before the auction a generally applicable rule about how much spectrum anybody can buy. that has to be forward looking. you don't want to go into the auction with your money and not know whether or not you're going to be permitted to win -- keep the license that you thought you were the high bidder on. that has to be forward looking. that's a great example of you all asking for a forward-looking

rule and really deserving a forward-looking rule. >> we all talk about how rapidly the telecommunications technology and services are changing. the commission has to be aware of that, have the flexibility to react to that and certainly to fulfill its responsibilities to look into the future and try to determine how best to fulfill its mission, which includes consumer protection, includes privacy and includes ubiquity of services. >> mr. powell, in light of yesterday's decision, the d.c. court circuit recognized the authority of congress in the act. do you believe that the agency can properly oversee the growth of broadband infrastructure services? >> i do. for a matter of record as the chairman of the fcc and the

commission that classified broadband the way it is today, we quite pointedly recognize that the -- the importance of that role to a continuing degree. and we believe that existed within that title 1 framework to take care of those circumstances. whether you agree or disagree the court certainly validated yesterday from a judicial standpoint that title 1 and 706 do provide that flexible authority. >> mr. wiley, if you agree the fcc has the authority, do you think it ought to use it? >> the court said that the commission could have authority in this area. i would strongly advise in my own view the commission to let the marketplace develop and if problems do exist, then to step in. there are avenues, if we find blocking, if we find discrimination, there are avenues that can be taken. i think the problem is sometimes we're in search of a problem here that may not exist.

i think if you look at all the suggestions of the carriers that have come out of the decision from yesterday, they all want to keep the marketplace open, all want to give consumers access to various kinds of content. and i take them at their word. i think that's going to develop. >> if we want to keep the marketplace open, isn't it reasonable to anticipate that some of the players will not want it to be so open if it's to their financial advantage? shouldn't the fcc play a role to make sure prospectively that we haven't opened competitive market with the consumers being in charge? >> i completely agree. if i might, i think it's important -- let me say this. i have the view that the case in the statute have the following meeting. section 1706 gives the fcc the authority to accomplish the goals you just stated without

also requiring the fcc to make a classification decision. that is to say, it can make a classification decision and act with the authority that would come from that, but it doesn't need to do that in order to pass rules that are authorized under section 1706. meaning 1706 and the common carrier provision are two independent bases for fcc action. that's why the fcc can choose both or either in order to have a decision making that would accomplish the rules you describe. >> didn't the courts say the fcc made the wrong choice and they have two titles they can rely on? you are saying they don't need either title? >> i think what the court said is if you do choose the information services classification, then you're bound by the restrictions in that. but you don't need to make that choice in order to accomplish

the goals that you are desiring, which the court has said that it approves of the goals. >> and you don't need to be -- regulators common carrier either? >> beg your pardon? >> you don't have to regulate it as a common carrier. >> you could choose that, or 706 or both. what you can't do is choose classification and pass common carrier rules. >> thank you. that's very helpful. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes for five minutes the former chairman of the full committee, mr. barton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to make a brief statement before i ask a question. i was here in 1996 and that act was a philosophical change from

where the committee had been and, to some extent, where the country had been in terms of telecommunications policy. you had a republican congress, house and senate for the first time in over 50 years, maybe 60 years. you had a democratic president, mr. clinton, who came from a kind of conservative pro-business background down in arkansas. and the former chairman of the committee, mr. dingle and mr. waxman and mr. markey and some of those folks had a very regulatory approach. although not totally so. and the teleco act of '96, mr. bliley and mr. fields, we decided to go with a market approach.

and mr. copps, as he has pointed out, markets don't always work. but generically if they're open and transparent, unless there is a natural monopoly, they do give a lot more choice to people. and that's what the teleco act of '96 did. it rejected the philosophy that the government knows best, that the regulatory knows best, that if they have access to appropriate information, people can make choices that are good choices. and we see reflected today in some of the questions that mr. waxman especially just asked, you know, that some of my friends on the democrat side just don't like a market approach. how dare it be possible that under title i informational

services you can have an open, transparent internet and you don't need the fcc to tell you what to do. my god! that's scary. we better get that fcc back on the job. they just maybe -- you know, if they can't do it under title ii as a common carrier, well they're just going to have to figure out how to regulate under title i. well, you know, if you look at the explosion and what's happened -- i mean, i have -- i had somebody, a young person, a very young person, about 9 years old, come into my office down in texas and apparently did not know there was such a thing as a hardline telephone. did not know what that was on my desk. this young lady thought a phone was just something you carried

around with you. her parents were young, didn't have hard line phones in their home. her dad worked out of his truck, doing stuff, contracting and stuff. she didn't know what it was. so, this thing mr. upton and mr. walden are starting, working with mr. waxman and miss eshoo, it's a good thing. where i have to depend on the intelligence of mr. copps, mr. hundt, mr. wiley or three or four other wise people at the fcc to know what's best for me in the telecommunications policy. i think if we set the ground rules -- i agree you have to have a traffic cop. but i don't agree that you've got to be so prescriptive that

the market just flat gets strangled before it even has a chance to get under way. so my question -- and i'll throw it open to the panel -- is there still a need for a title i? i mean for title ii, for common carrier? in the telecommunication marketplace today, could we deregulate the telephone companies in totality because, you know, there really is no such thing as a natural monopoly anymore? >> if we can find a way to assure that some of the qualities that people fought for long and hard in terms of privacy and public safety and consumer protection do not accompany the new tools of broadband and the internet as they accompanied telephone, then

i think we're in trouble. i like the market approach, too. and it was decided long ago that the telecommunications industry, the media industries would appropriate under the capitalistic system. you don't blame business for trying to seize market control or capture the market or even to have gatekeeping. but we've always, since the very early in the last century, had protections against untrammelled building toward monopoly and duopoly. i wasn't as intimately involved with the '96 act as you were, but i followed it with some degree of interest as being somewhat more proactive. i read that act as instructing the federal communications commission to do what it needs to do to encourage bringing the most advanced telecommunications feasible to all of our citizens no matter where they live and reasonably comparable prices,

reasonably comparable services, allowing them to access media that serves communities and provides information that are necessary to exercise a citizen's responsibilities in a democratic society. so, i think, yes, a light touch where possible. but, you know, we sit here and talk about what we have to do away with these stove pipes and all. i agree with that to some extent. in trying that, if we're going to say we're going to treat a telephone call entirely different than you make a telephone call somewhere else, that's not functionally equivalent or treating technologies alike. >> i know my time is way over, but it's something -- it's something to think about, because we've got a real chance and the rest of this congress and the next congress to build on what we started in '96. >> i would just like to say that i agree with much of what you're

saying. i think in a competitive marketplace that we see today with the kind of ip centric world, i think economic regulation has to be considered with some skepticism, because if the markets are competitive, if you don't have market failure, then the question is why should the government be stepping in? consumer protection, e-911, those kind of things, that's a different story. we're talking about economic regulation here. and i think it's more questionable. and i certainly wouldn't be thinking about going back to common carrier world in an information services environment. i don't think that makes sense. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired and the chair recognizes for five minutes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle. >> thank you, mr. chairman. once again, thank you to our witnesses for your testimony

today. we've talked a lot about neutrality and the court decisions. i would like to maybe go to a couple of different topics and ask chairman hundt and chairman copps about special access. how can the fcc enhance competition in the special access marketplace? and is new statutory authority necessary or do you think the commission has the sufficient authority to ensure that the markets are competitive? >> on special access, yes, i think the commission has the authority to make up its mind. i was before this committee. i think you were here, too. perhaps it was mr. markey or somebody who asked us all back in 2007 to sign letters saying we would have this thing resolved since september and we all said whoopee, let's do that. and it hasn't been done. enormous amounts of money are at stake here. the availability of competitors

to is at stake here. i am pleased at some signs now that the fcc is beginning to move and i especially want to commend you. i know you were a big proponent of getting this data collection process going and that's the prerequisite of doing some -- something final on this. the commission also has to look at allegations of anti-competitive practices and special access, such things as loyalty mandates and excessive early termination and shortfall penalties. but getting this right is important. and each year that goes on is billions of dollars going to maybe where they should go or maybe where they shouldn't be going. >> thank you. commissioner hundt? >> i echo commissioner copps' thoughts. this is a forward-looking rule.

or to put it another way, we could always use a forward-looking rule on this topic. >> commissioner copps, we have been waiting years and years and years and i hope before my tenure in congress is over that well-see the fcc do something on special access. and i intend to be here a little bit longer. commissioner copps, the fcc recently closed a very successful low-power fm application process and currently is considering thousands of lpfm applications. i personally want to thank you for your efforts in that regards and ask you what other opportunities you see for the fcc to further empower communities in innovative ways. >> first of all, i want to thank you. without you and your colleagues, this wouldn't have happened. we wouldn't have had that window, first one open since 2000. it's a window of enormous potential. so, number one, we want that to move forward with all dispatch

and maybe go from 800 low power stations to maybe thousands of them. going beyond that, though, we just have to look at whatever kind of options we can think of to encourage community radio to revive the channels and not just cast aside. noncommercial media, nonprofit media. that applies not just to media companies, but to telecom companies, newspapers and so many other things. there's a lot of potential here in a market that doesn't seem to be able to provide all the tools that we need for media and for news, for nonprofit media to step in. dragging its feet on making a lot of these determinations that it should be -- so, low power, yes. looking at channels 5 and 6, all sorts of options out there.

put some special emphasis on using community radio, diversifying communities and native lands. it's just a field that's rife with potential, if we could just step up to the plate and realize our responsibility to do it. >> thank you. gentlemen, thank you for your insight today. we appreciate it here on the committee. and i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. the gentleman yield backs the balance of his time. and, mr. powell, thanks again for you being here today. if i could just start with some questions to you -- >> yes, sir. >> it's kind of interesting. reviewing your testimony and also mr. wileys, you both used very similar language in spots. and in your opening statement you said that this market requires a greater degree of business flexibility, fewer p prescriptive rules. technology-neutral basis and creates a better investment climate. i also saw that mr. wiley also

had said in his testimony about the government can't keep up and there's a need for flexibility and technology-neutral framework in his testimony. so, very similar language. in your testimony when you go through it, i find it interesting because you're going through your seven points and for simplist simplicity. since 1996 we've seen $1 trillion invested in internet infrastructure. and then you also laid out the simplicity that has to be there. but also in that simplicity, you said practicing simplicity can be scary. it takes courage to discard old ideas and rules that aren't needed. can you give a couple of examples of those? >> yeah. it's a great, challenging question. i think i might actually go back

to some of what mr. barton was talking about. if you think about one of the wisest things that was done in the 1996 act, it has nothing to do with the individual rules but the fundamental judgment that the government rejected the monopoly thesis and decided instead that competition was the more fruitful approach. common carriage law inherently is about a government-sanctioned monopoly. it's essentially the queen of the realm who grants an exclusive license to a ferryboat captain in exchange for all the privileges of that monopoly, they agree to be bound to serve all the citizens in a nonzrimtry way and other things that the zorch wishes to have as part that have benefit. mutual in regards they get the exclusive profits and the realm gets the benefits of serving all the citizens. in some ways in 1996, the government sued for divorce from companies through exclusive

monopoly and instead said go compete. raise your own capital. no guaranteed return on investment. no guaranteed success. but yet the lingering notions of common carriage, which are still in the statute and, by the way, are still being raised in the context of the net neutrality debate still hover around our regulatory questions. to me, whether the country comes to some committed conclusion that even with its challenges and the need for oversight that were really about competition and were ready to truly let go of common carriage is a fundamental example of how to make that decision. >> thank you. and another question. when you're looking at assessing the competition and the communications industry, do you think an updated communications action modify how the fcc currently conducts its competitive analysis?

>> i think there is some ambiguity there when managed in responsible hands works fine. at times, it doesn't. i am worried about the fcc marginer review process in part because it professes to do a competitive analysis following anti-trust guidelines administered by other departments. but under the public -- which i do think is valuable, it turns into a competition of conditions. anti-trust lawyer, i used to believe the fcc, if they're doing something bad, shoot them. if they're not, don't let them cure harm by how many good jelly beans you can put on the scale and make the thing go away. and then by doing it in a way that it extracts these concessions as a voluntary proffer, you make sure that the case can't be appealed by the courts. i think insulating the review process from judicial review through the conditioning mechanism and allowing the commissioning mechanism to be a

vehicle by which the commission with legislate beyond its authority can get companies to do things in the context of that proceeding. borders on kind of administrative improbableabil y improbableability. does that happen every time? no. does it happen sometimes? yes. you should examine the review process and see whether better controls can be in place. >> thank you very much. i see my time has expired and the chair now recognizes five minutes the gentle lady from california, miss matsui. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of the former chairmen for being here. this has been a really interesting and informative discussion. under section 254, carriers have certain obligations to provide universal access. in the d.c. circuit's decision yesterday, the court made clear the fcc has a similar charge under 706 to ensure that all americans have access to broad

band and that the fcc has authority over broad band providers to meet that mandate from congress. i have two questions for all the chairmen relating to the court's decision yesterday. the first, do you agree the fcc should and must promote universal access to broad band for all americans? mr. wiley? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> yes. >> mr. powell? >> absolutely. there's no way you can be a functioning member of society without access to this technology. >> okay. then does the court's decision yesterday affirm the fcc's authority to transition the universal service fund to broadband? chairman wiley? >> i think the fcc has done a good job in looking at that. i am concerned somewhat with the size and the growth of the universal service fund. and i think the commission has to look at the compensate -- the pay covering that. some issue has to be looked at. >> but generally yes? >> yes.

>> generally? >> yes. i would commend them for migrating the fund to general broadband. and the ruling yesterday only strengthens the commission moving in that direction. >> good. chairman copps? >> yes. >> great. i appreciate your views. biggest unintended consequences avoided by the court's decision because transition usf to broadband is really a critical step toward achieving universal access and adoption in this country. chairman hundt, you said that yesterday's circuit decision is a victory for congress and the smart, flexible approach of the 1996 telecom act. how can we continue that success? are there any unintended consequences we should watch out for as this committee starts the process of updating the communications act?

>> which i believe chairman wheeler has already said that he intends to do. and naturally that should be and will be an open proceeding. i'm sure this committee will have an ample opportunity to express its views. i don't, myself, have the ability to forecast where that will come out or should come out, because i think it's really, really important to examine all the new facts about emerging network architectures and about competition problems on both sides of the two-sided network. i would just say that's why it's so useful that the court has said that the fcc's authority is broad and powerful, because the technologies in the network architectures and the competition problems are constantly changing. and the fcc and rule making has

the ability to adapt to those changes, sometimes eliminating rules, sometimes writing new rules. this is a very, very workable process that we have here. and, as i said before, congratulations to this committee for the 1996 act, which did create this legal culture. >> chairman powell, would you like to comment? >> i'm sorry. can you refresh the question? sorry. >> well, i'm really -- >> sorry. >> you know, we -- as chairman hundt commenting that the court decision, he felt, was a victory for congress and for this smart, fixable approach of the '96 act, are there any unintended consequences that we should watch out for as we re-examine and update the communications act moving forward? >> i more or less would agree with chairman hundt. i think to the degree that, you know, in some ways i saw a quote

the other day that i thought summed it up great. it's not a victory for any side but it might have been a victory for the debate. and that is that the commission continues to have a meaningful role in the oversight protection of broadband without crossing the line into the more dangerous concerns around common carriage. if that's ultimately the outcome, maybe that's workable. unintended consequences, i do think even the court struggled with them itself, 706 is an extraordinarily broad, unconstrained provision. how it's interpreted and how responsibly it's interpreted, i think, is important. i think congress hasn't spoken with much specificity about broadband regulation. to take a position as open-ended and vague as 706 and see that as the foundation for everything broadband going forward has potential risks and dangers, but i think that will be worked out over time through its application, through dialogue

with congress. >> thank you very much. chairman copps? >> while i'm pleased that the court recognized the authority of the commission, i don't know that i'm ready to declare victory yet. if it is a victory for the debate, that's not necessarily a good thing, because we've had so many years of debate while the evolution of the internet continues and gatekeeping shows the rise of its ugly head. it's a victory if the commission reacts and acts promptly and provides some certainty and some guarantees. but we've lost a couple of years, looking for third ways and other ways and i don't want to lose a couple of more years going down that road. >> well, i think there's an opportunity here. yes? >> i think it's a victory. i think it's a victory for technical innovation, a victory for investment and ultimately a victory for the consumer. and i think thus we ought to see how the marketplace develops in this area and see whether problems, as i said earlier, really come about, as some

people predict. >> i think this is an interesting moment in time. and we have to provide a thoughtful way as we move forward. and i appreciate all your comments. thank you very much. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. the chairman now recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, chairman. welcome, all. it's good to have you. i think it would be safe to say that no one envisioned this technological world we live in, no one envisioned it in '96. in a rewrite for public policy elected officials or even folks of the commission to envision what would world would be like ten years after a rewrite, that's got to be almost -- that's impossible to do. is that -- most people view that as correct? no one knew in '96 what would come. so that talks about what these

basic premises that i enjoy, democracy, freedom, marketplace, capitalism. one thing that hasn't really been addressed is consumer choice. and how that really does drive innovation and drive -- and understand marketplace. i remember going to the consumer electronics show and the mp3 was being unveiled and i just was amazed at how much capital flowed for just music in this space, in the technology space. that's the same thing now with internet, broadband, downloads, you name it. it's all migrated to that. we don't ever want to lose the aspect of the power of the individual consumer in this debate versus what some people would say would be the power of

government regulatory arena or agency. and i think that's true for these segments of society that feel they don't have access. i think that you can pull together based upon technology the ability to get the word out through broad band, information, newsletters and the like. technology has allowed us to really -- there's really no excuse for people not to have access to information flow today even if they go through universal service fund or go to the library to get on broadband through what we've been able to do through the e-rates and all that which we talked about a lot through your day, mr. hundt. in your opening statements, a couple of you talk about silos. you are all members of the commission and you all were chairmen, which is a different position than being a standard commissioner. you have the responsibility for

the whole body of workers within the fcc. so, we've got the bureaus and the other things other than the bureaus. you go on the website and see all these other little offices and stuff. consumer and government affairs, enforcement, international media, public safety, wireless. so in a rewrite of the '96 act, should there not be some discussion in how we reform the commission itself based upon what current technology is today? and i think, mr. wiley, you kind of talked about this a little bit? and just a guess of where am i heading in the future? there is a future, right, mr. copps? there is a future. but how do we reform the fcc itself and start tearing down some of these silos, which some of you have addressed are a problem? and if we can go from left to

right, mr. wiley, if you want to go first and that will be the end of my questions. >> i think what's changed in the internet world is that you find different parties doing the same kinds of services, providing the same kind of activities that you wouldn't have thought of before. you wouldn't have thought of broadcasters being in the technology end or cable being in the wire line field. but this is happening now. and i think, therefore, the commission probably does have to change its internal structure. if you have -- in a digital world if you have functionally equivalent services being provided by different parties, i think they should be regulated in a functionally equivalent way. and that's not the way the xigs has do commission has done it through the years. it's not the way they're organized. it's going to take some change. >> thank you. mr. hundt? >> the french say that works in practice, but maybe doesn't really work in theory. and i think it's really, really

important to focus on practice. the current structure allows the fcc chair in what i will definitely describe as an open process to reorganize the fcc to meet the objectives that are set by any particular congress in any particular situation. and that's a good thing. so, when this congress had the wisdom to ask the fcc to auction the spectrum in 1993, i was allowed, thanks to you -- but not because of a statutory mandate, but because of flexibility, i was allowed to create a wireless bureau, which previously did not exist. at any given moment it's hard to say exactly what the administrative structure ought to be. and i think the current system, which tells the chair, figure it out. tell us what it is. you're held accountable. that's a good system. >> i do think form follows function. and i think -- certainly when i

was chairman, we merged a few bureaus. cable was a separate bureau from broadcasting. today it's the media bureau. changes we made to try to reflect. a common principle is organize around the way it's seen through the eyes and ears of consumers. to me at the time, television was television to most americans and making sure you had cross pollenization of the bureaucrats, professions -- the bureaucracy and professionals who managed that i thought was important so they saw their functions through the same eyesu can follow. the chairman is also ceo. the statute assigns them responsibility. i don't think we talk enough about the ceo role and the management of that operation, but i think there's plenty of flexibility to respond to that if it's clear what it is what we're trying to execute. >> i don't think there's any magic formula. certainly there have been times

when the stove pipe approach has been too much in presentation. michael tried to work against that and go toward a wholistic view and so did the chairman. that being said though, you need experts in these specific bureaus. there is a specific telecom expertise and wire line and wireless and details of that and special access and everything else we're talking about. so i think you still have to have those bureaus but the chairman establisheded a consumer task force whose job it was to go across those agencies and look at -- look at those bureaus to assess the impact on consumer well-being. that's a good approach. it's a management thing and something that i think is a product of good leadership at the commission and good oversight by the committee.

>> we need to move onto mr. dingell for the next five minutes. mr. chairman. >> i want to commend you for this hearing. i think this has been an important hearing and events of this week tell us that it's time the committee is going to have to starred looking at what we're going to do about bringing the '96 act up to date. i have enjoyed the comments by my dear friend, mr. barton, announcing my position as being strongly regulatory, sometimes i have a hard time recognizing my position when it's set forth by other members. in any event, that's not important. i would like to remind everybody that this business of the '96 act started when we began to try

to get judge greene out of the business of regulating the telecommunications industry. it also started when we started trying to get the amount of spectrum that was held out of use by industry and business and government and get that available to people. and to see to it that we had a fair program for dealing with our legislation and a fair program for dealing with these matters. i would like to welcome our friends, the chairman here, for their appearance and their assistance to us and what it is that they have done with us over the years. if there's an attempt made to update the communications action, i will offer my support.

yesterday's court decisions vacating the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules of the federal communications commission open internet order is proof that congress needs to bring our communication laws into the 21st century. only clear direction from congress will strengthen consumer protections, promote competition and give industry the regulatory certainty it needs to innovate in the future. as we go about this important work, i caution that we do so with great care. on the benefit of a carefully collected and substantial body of evidence. this is going to require rigorous oversight by the committee and considerable work to get the information that we have need of so that we can legislate properly. i hope that the undertaking will be bipartisan in order so that

any final product that we complete here moves through the senate and to the president's desk for signature. we have to resolve a number of very important hard questions to form our work as we move forward. i respectfully suggest that these questions include but are not limited to the following. first, how do we improve and protect americans access to content while also preserving the ability of private companies to monetize their investments for future growth? likewise, how do we best foster the ongoing development of future technologies that will ensure american leadership in the field of technology and communications. and then we have to decide how we are to promote the more

efficient and fair use of value and increasingly scarce commodities like spectrum, which we've not administered too well of late and have administered on the amounts we could get for in money rather than how it would serve the nation to allocate this spectrum. lastly, we're going to have to decide how we will ensure that the federal communications commission, the national telecommunications and information administration, and other related bodies function smoothly. protect consumers and promote growth rather than hindering it. regardless of these answers and answers to these questions and others, i submit that our work should proceed from the

conviction that public interest is still and will always remain the central concern that we have with regard to the communications act. i have had the good fortune to be one of the authors of almost every major piece of telecommunications legislation passed by the congress in the past three decades. the public interest is in the heart of each going back to the 33 and 34 act. i see no reason why that should be any different this time around. the only issue worth exploring is what that standard hats meant in year's past and whether there's any reason to give the commission different gliuidance for the future in interpreting it as we address the other questions that i've just outlined. mr. chairman, i wish you god's speed in this endeavor. i offer you my support and i'm

delighted that the chairman of the commission has been here this morning to assist us in beginning this process which i hope will go forward with reasonable speed, with great care, and again with great attention to the public interest. i thank you all for listening to me. >> chairman dingell, thank you for your kind comments and generous and willingness to improve our communication and other laws. we look forward to working with you. my only disappointment is you did not have a list of yes or no questions for this panel. with that, we'll turn to mr. terry from nebraska and we look forward to your comments and questions, sir. >> yes, you do. thank you. for our esteemed guests here today, i want to follow-up on what my friend from california began and that's with high cost areas. i want to take it from a little bit different angle and get your

input. as kind of mentioned here, we've seen a convergence of technologies and services that are all kind of being wrapped into one anymore. the same as -- we talked about it in my early days on this committee in voice and barton brought that up. now it's in video. and so when we talk about a rural telecom and the internet as a basis of delivering video today, it's kind of making -- well, it's altering the way that rural telecoms used to work. so we have a current legal structure with this qra and a mindset on treating rural

telecoms like old copper wires which a lot of them are still using. i just want to ask your opinions and reform for or within the fcc should rural and high-cost areas and it comes back to inner city where you have low take but my cost. how do we think about this differently in making sure that if you live in rural america or you're setting up a wind farm where you want to continuously oversee but remotely thereby requiring broad broadband for all of that data? do we need to think about things differently than high cost rural high cost inner city.

>> i'm not an expert in the rural telephone area, but i still think there's a concern that's different than in the big cities. i think therefore high-cost funds are something that have to be part of the whole equation in my opinion and you know that better than anybody in nebraska. so i don't have any huge input to you today as far as how to change the system. >> i guess to clarify since video and internet are becoming the same and your telecom is maybe your sole provider of that, it's all meshed together. does that change anything? mr. hunt? >> i think that many people have said we really want broadband to

be the network for everyone in the country. in rural areas as i'm sure you know, congressman, there are many places where the cable broadband penetration is as low as 15% and 20%. not anything nearly as high as it is in washington, d.c. or in the suburbs. now, that's a problem that the fcc really does need to think about in conjunction with the industry that michael represents so ably and in particular, not to touch too many other buttons, the recent increases in the prices of the content have a disproportional impact in rural america. they are taking a lot of money out of the wallets of the people in those areas and those are same areas where broadband is

expensive so as people pay more for broadcast content and cable channel content, they have less available to purchase broadband. this is a problem that's real. and existing right now. it gives me a chance to pass the solution over to chairman powell. >> congressman, i think you make a couple of important points that we should put top of mind which is the challenge of reaching that last 5% to 7% is because under traditional market fundamentals they're uneconomic and if they're uneconomic the only way to cure something is change the economic equation. this is why i had no problem understanding and respecting the government has a meaningful and significant role in terms of our objectives in universal service and affordability to play a role through the universal service program or any other properly

constructed program to try to change economic equation that attracts the infrastructure that those communities deserve. i think it's a more optimistic scenario in the modern world than it was before. in the old world we had single technology we tried to string, twisted copper wires between two farms 200 miles apart and that was expensive. one of the things i think really opens up an opportunity today is because of a common ip platform we can deliver almost any kind of service almost any kind of network. that means that wireless and probably its companion of satellite available services have real hope and promise for rural america. that is they have very dynamically different costs. a satellite sees rural nebraska no different than it sees manhattan. wireless has a lower cost infrastructure for some of those areas. i think than isn't a complete

answer but putting a lot of energy and investment into how those services will solve this problem is useful. i think as the chairman of the s.e.c. is moving toward a common ip network, the conversion that you're talking about can get harmonized and universal service program get harmonized along with it. >> thank you. agree. >> i have a little different answer. reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable prices is the injunction on the charge of the telecommunications act reforming usf which the commission is in the process of doing with lots of wrinkles and problems to work out, no question about that. certainly an important part of the equation. but anybody who thinks that universal service fund alone is going to bring this country the kind of high-speed low cost broadband we need to have

competitive in the 21st century is not looking at the situation as it is. this has to be an infrastructure mission. our country has had infrastructure missions before when we came together to build highways and railroads and rural electricity and so on and so forth. that's what we need now. we won't be competitive and get out of the holes that we're in unless every citizen in this country has that access and it's reaching that last 5% to 7%. that's extremely important. way more than half of our homes don't have high-speed low cost broadband that we need to be competitive. we need to look at that not just as an fcc problem but a problem confronting our government or society and act upon it and figure out whether we are really serious of being competitive in the global sweepstakes.

>> the gentleman yields back. look to the gentleman from new mexico. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i must say i was concerned with some of the approach that was being taken in the line of questioning leading up to those last responses to my colleague where for the first time i heard the importance of rural america. coming from a western state, from a congressional district that represents 17 of new mexico's 22 tribes and the sprawling nature associated with what the west brings us, many parts of rural america where our food is grown. where energy is generated critically important to be able to get coverage to these areas. and as i joked with chairman wheeler when we had him in front of us a couple weeks ago, i explained to him that these last flights home, it's been great to see tsa debating whether we can make phone calls at 30,000 feet. i know that i have streaming video content at 30,000 feet.

i can communicate with my office and anyone else that i so choose to. so if i can communicate with constituents and get the video content that i want at 30,000 feet, why can't i do it on the ground in rural america. the technology is here. there's no reason that we can't push it out. three responses i can't say thanks enough for that. chairman, with the response associated with aggressive push to infrastructure investment in america is absolutely needed. we shouldn't forget as we talk about different ideals and philosophies that we have on this committee and even in this congress and across the country. it was in many conservative and rural parts of america that benefited from government investment with major water projects that provide us power now that could be in question because of water flows. another topic of conversation. nonetheless, we need to make sure that we're addressing.

chairman powell, you talked about twisted pears and what that brought us. decisions made as a result of the '96 agent act and section 7068, i'm not sure what we're arguing about with concerns in that particular area. it's encouraging deployment of reasonable and timely basis and advance telecom especially for educational purposes. there may be some concerns with some of my colleagues on price cap regulation but regulatory and measures for competition in local members, this could be read by any member on this committee encouraging ideals that we all share. one thing that hasn't been talked about very much and even given the fact that there was a huge data breach with target, 70 million customers that were impacted, is the security of this network. i would hope that and i would like to get your opinion in 706a provides us the necessary standards to be able to bring safeguards or if you think

that's something that needs to be addressed and i would like to invite comments from each of you. mr. hundt? >> as chairman powell said, section 1706 is very broad, and i think that it is an opportunity and duty for the fcc to dig into it and to create an appropriate framework with the help of this committee and its counterpart in the senate. if i might continue your theme of rural america, there are a number of other provisions as well in the '96 act that the fcc can use to try to achieve the goal of completely widespread broadband even in rural and high-cost areas and one that i would identify is the current proceeding to reimagine the erate. the erate -- i just recently met with the chief librarian in puma

county, arizona, which isn't very far away from you and you know the geography is not dissimilar. they have a fantastic system of broadband for not just the central library in tucson but all of the branch libraries. all over this sparsely populated geography. the library is the number one public internet access point in southern arizona. therefore, it's the proper focus of extra erate support and the proper focus of the combination of network architectures that might resemble what chairman powell is talking about. we shouldn't decide that part. we should decide that's a very flexible tool also that can be used to deliver the right participation in the american community to rural america. >> chairman powell?

>> i would really like to put punctuation on what you raised. i think it goes to the committee's desire, i hope, to kind of harmonize and see communication landscape as a single ecosystem. all of the wonderful benefits we're bragging and celebrating are continuously and daily at risk. i think cyberthreat, data retention, breach, are all issues that are the achilles' heel of all of the promise of the network that we're celebrating. but they require very complex solutions that look through an entire ecosystem. 706 is not particularly up to that job. why? even for no other reason that you can't have a discussion without software involved. the cybersecurity question on a global ecosystem basis means a conversation with every element of that massive connective chain and that's the web companies, the infrastructure companies, wireless companies, content companies, there's just no way in my opinion even with its

breath that one could look hopefully to that as single point of authority to make the most meaningful impact on this issue mostly because 50% of that ecosystem aren't even implicated by that provision. >> i hope 706 is up to the job. i think it does confer a lot of authority. i don't want this to become just a solution dejor and we talk about 706 for another two years and then another court strikes that down or whatever. i want to highlight one thing you mentioned in terms of getting broadband out and i commend you for your interest and work with native americans and one area where i think a rewrite would help would be to more formally institutionalize and put some flesh on the bones of the trust relationship and the consultive mechanisms that

we have between the commission and native americans. it's not -- it's working better than it has. i think there has been more emphasis in recent years obviously back in the chairman's time there was an interest in moving us forward and getting us into a new trust relationship. but that's 13 or 14 years ago. the situation as you point out is so dire when one member of a tribe can't call somebody else but you can make the call from 30,000 feet. that's something wrong there. that may be a concrete area where the congress with actually lend a hand. >> appreciate that. gentleman's time is expired. we'll now go to the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to the distinguished panel, this is among the most interesting hearings in which i have ever participated. it's my honor to be able to meet all of you. i gather there is a consensus

from the distinguished panel that the 1996 legislation needs to some extent statutory update and revision, is that accurate, from the panel? >> i would agree. >> i don't agree. >> and chairman hundt, if you would indicate you do not agree there needs to be statutory update? >> i think the d.c. circuit has made it clear that the '96 act has given the authority to the fcc to address all of the economic and social problems that this committee in recent years and in past years has asked the fcc to address. >> other than distinguished h e members? >> i agree with what chairman hundt has said. it's nice to have additional clarity but time is of the essence here. we have a statute that i think can deliver on a lot of the

things that need to be delivered and we should be about that. it is so difficult to see the correlation of forces coming together to give birth to an act after what we went through in 1996, and i don't think it will be any easier in 2014 to do that than it was 18 years ago. >> chairman powell? >> i think by any measure a deliberate process would take a number of meaningful years which is recognized in setting out a multiyear process. i think there are sufficient conditions to justify institution of that kind of examination over that period of time because i think the market is radically different and the relevancy of law applied to reality should be a core principle of governance. >> i think the very fact that you didn't have the internet really developed. you didn't have broadband. you didn't have all of the technological changes that have occurred since 1996, really

gives substance to taking another look and i think that gives congress an opportunity, i think, to perhaps make some suggestions to the regulatory body that i think would be very helpful. >> thank you, chairman. >> i have not read it and i certainly will read yesterday's decision. am i accurate that the fcc decided in 2004 that internet access services would not be classified as telecommunications services? is that true, chairman powell? >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> and if that decision were to be revisited, that could be revisited by the administrative agency? is that accurate as to how it

could proceed? >> it is accurate. it could. >> if there were to be a revisiting of the 2004 decision that this is not classified as telecommunications services, then there would have to be an extensive period of review and there would have to be some sort of high level determination as to why a different decision were to be made, is that the way it would work? >> yeah. under administrative law even with deference, the agency has to provide a reasoned explanation for its change in policy. it would require a notice and comment proceeding which is open. i wouldn't -- the suggestion has been made that somehow it would lead to instant clarity. it would lead to another three to four-year period of conflict and litigation.

>> chairman copps? >> i would say it wouldn't take forever to compile that record. i, and a lot of other people i know, would be happy to contribute to the rationale for that sort of action. it's not really starting. a lot of that information is out there with just a route not taken and now we need to go back and look at it. >> and the fcc's reclassification would be considered arbitrary and cap rishs unless there was a period of comment and refreshing the record and some sort of heightened standard, is that accurate legally? >> yes, sir. they have to follow administrative procedure act obligations. >> i'm certain they would. >> i would presume that would be the case. fin finally, the decision could be appealed to the supreme court but it's not clear whether either side is likely to do that? >> correct.

>> thank you very much. my time is expired. >> thank you. now turn to mr. long from missouri. i think our last member to ask questions. please go ahead. >> thank you, chairman. and chairman hundt, last night you said that you spent quite a bit of time trying to go through the court ruling of yesterday. and most of the congressmen were home trying to read through 1,562-page bill that we're going to vote on this afternoon. i ordered my staff to bring a copy of that to you. if you could peruse that over your lunch hour and kind of decipher it for me, i would appreciate it. earlier in your testimony, chairman hundt, you said that -- i didn't understand your point concerning the auction. you said if i remember right that we need a cap so people know what they're buying. can you tell me what -- in full disclosu disclosure, i come from a

30-year auctioneer career. >> i remember very well that in our first auction we had senator byrnes -- >> conrad byrnes, you bet. he's from missouri. now he served for montana but he's originally from missouri. that's two of us. >> he did claim that particular heritage. he did great job. i would recommend chairman wheeler, that he should come and ask you to conduct the auction. >> i'm not worried about conducting as much as i am how it's put together. what was your comment? i didn't understand you said we need a cap to people know what they're buying. what did you mean? >> in any auction when folks come in, you want high bidder to walk away with whatever was auctioned. the way to do that, i believe, is to make sure that everybody bidding in that auction knows the following. what are the rules about how

much you can buy? it doesn't have to be a cap. it could be -- some people think it should being agrigation leve. as they are about to put in the high bid, they ought to know they can walk away with whatever they can buy instead of having to have another proceeding where they ask the fcc or the department of justice later am i permitted to walk away with this because i don't know whether i violated any of your aggregation rules. this congress did say that the fcc should create a generally applicable aggregation rule so everyone going into the auction can estimate in advance whether or not what they buy is -- what they bid on and win on is what they walk away with. >> talking to interested parties

interested in buying this spectrum and they have told me, probably a topic for another day, if they can buy a, b and c spectrum, maybe they want to buy l, m, n, o, p later. if they can't buy a, b, and c, then if they can't buy that too then the first three things they bought -- it's a very confusing situation. any of you have any staff or anybody that want to get with my staff we can talk about and sort that out, i would appreciate that. i want to move to the chairman for a minute. if you turn on the tv at night, the only reason it's not 100% phone company ads and cellular companies and things because it's interspersed with auto insurance ads. seems like there's quite a bit of competition out there now. as far as the auction that i was talking about with chairman hundt, the wireless market appears to be extremely competitive. you do have larger companies, at&t, verizon, t-mobile, sprint

and given that it doesn't make sense that the fcc -- why will they -- they shouldn't handicap bidders to get the most money for the taxpayers and have the best auction they can. some people want to limit who can buy what. can you kind of walk me through that? >> my view is that the auction ought to be available, open to all. i think if congress really wants to see the maximum amount of revenue derived in order to support the public safety network we're going to have to pay broadcasters, it's a very complex process. i am concerned about the fact that we start to begin to limit people in this that you're going to find you're going to have less revenue than might be otherwise anticipated. i think a free auction ought to be open to all. >> people would attend my auction i was interested in

having the most people there and having spend the most money that they could and if they didn't want to bid, i would bid for them and tell them to hold their hand up in the air and when they paid enough, i told them to take it down. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> quite an auction. >> i want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for your prior government service and your interest in public policy to assist us in our mission and goals in updating the communications act. i draw attention to those who are observing our hearing. they can go to our hash tag at comsactupdate. it's in front here. give us your information. a lot of people have been doing that during the hearing. we appreciate that. another reflection of how technology is changing the world. we need to keep up with it. thank you for your participation. our subcommittee stands adjourned. >> at 7:45 the state of the

state address and then i house hearing on regulations.

journal,xt washington we will be discussing the 2014 spending bill with two members of congress. kaptur plus calls from viewers. five at 7 a.m. eastern on c- span. -- live at 7 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> is the president re- emphasized tuesday night the goal of the united states and afghanistan and pakistan is to disrupt al qaeda and its itsemist allies to prevent return to both countries. the international military effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to achieve this overarching goal. >> robert gates served two presidents from 2006 until 2011 and cia director in the early 1990's. friday alive the tv of vent, --

gates talksary about his experience. connie morris will take your questions and comments february 2 at noon eastern. tv discussion on the liberty amendment. to enter thev.org chat. >> we bring public affairs of vent from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and offer gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house. by thec-span, created cable industry 35 years ago and funded i your local cable or satellite provider.

us and follow us on twitter. >> today the house passed a fiscal 2014 spending bill. it spends just over $1 trillion 525 .5 billion dollars for defense. it keeps the federal government funded until october 1 and includes a provision to prevent the transfer of guantánamo detainees. this is an hour and 20 minutes. senate amendment on h.r. 3547. this is the consolidated appropriations package that will fund the government for the remainder of the 2014 fiscal year. this omnibus contains all 12 regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2014, funding every aspect of the federal government , from our national defense to

critical transportation infrastructure, to the education of our kids. in total, it provides $1.012 trillion in discretionary funding, the same level delineated in the ryan-murray budget agreement. i'm pleased that senator mikulski and i were able to come to this fair, bipartisan agreement on funding the government. although our differences were many, and our deadlines short, we were able to come together to draft a solid piece of legislation that meets the guidelines of the ryan-murray agreement and keeps the government open. i understand that not everyone will like everything in this bill. that's the nature of compromise. but i believe this legislation reflects the best possible outcome. we made responsible choices to realign the nation's funding

priorities, targeting precious tax dollars to where they are needed the most. we have continued the four-year trend of reducing federal discretionary spending. making a total of $165 billion in cuts since fiscal year 2010. in fact, this is the fourth straight year that we have cut discretionary spending. that's not happened since the korean war. and we have remained committed on our side to our republican principles. reducing regulatory burdens, fortifying our national security, and enforcing stringent oversight on the executive branch. throughout the bill we have maintained pro-life policies and protected senate amendment rights. we have made sure that this bill provides no new funding for

obamacare, and have even cut existing obamacare funds to the tune of over $1 billion. the appropriation's committee in the house and senate working side by side went line by line through thousands of agencies and the like, through the 12 regular appropriations bills to ake sure that each program was waived individually and received a funding level that supports their most current needs. we prioritized funding for the most important and effective programs. and reduced lower priority programs at the same time. for example, we did not include ny funding for high speed rail or three new department of homeland security buildings, but we targeting -- targeted funding to he essential defense

activities, critical law enforcement programs, and lifesaving efforts such as medical research. this bill also includes an important provision fixing the bipartisan budget act to ensure that those who have given the most in military service, the approximately 630,000 medically retired personnel and survivor benefit plan recipients, our disabled veterans. that they will receive their full yearly cost of living increase. before i close, madam speaker, i'd like to take a moment to thank the many, many people who were integral in getting this bill to the floor today. first, the ranking member of the appropriations committee, mrs. lowey. thanks to her partnership, her dedication, we were able to wrap up this omnibus by the deadline,

and i know her drive extends to our next challenge, the 2015 bills that we'll start next month. in fact, the pass ang of this bill -- passage of this bill will allow the appropriations committee to get back to regular order, as they say. get the train back on track so that next year, this coming year, we can do 12 individual bills, brought to the floor separately, as is the practice and is required. i want to thank her for her leadership in helping us get to that point. secondly, our counterparts in the senate, whose open minded approach to negotiations, led to many honest and reasonable discussions throughout the many stages of that process. i don't know of any appropriations bills that has gone through as much reasonable tests, and i think wise decision

processes as went into this bill. so i appreciated the work of the gentlelady and -- on the senate side, the chairman of the committee there, ms. mikulski, and senator shelby of alabama. we had wonderful times at christmas and new year's. listen, next time, as much as i love these people, i'd rather be with my family. lastly, i want to thank the members and staffs of the committee. they gave up countless hours of family time at christmas, during the holidays, new year's, in order to complete this bill. they really are an a-team and i'm lucky to have all of them working for this committee. without their hard work, their expertise on the issues, and their commitment to this legislation, we would not be here today.

and we should all be grateful for their service, and i hope that you will say something to them as you pass. i'd particularly like to recognize the clerk of the agriculture subcommittee, martin delgado. after 16 years, this is his last bill with the committee. and how fortunate we have about to have had him until the end. no one knows the ins and outs of agriculture appropriations like he he does. he's a true expert in every sense of the word. we'll miss him dearly and wish him godspeed. let me also mention the clerk of the committee, the chief clerk, will smith, who sits beside me. he has led the effort from day one. he's put in untold numbers of hours, day and night, weekends, all nights, and the like to bring us to this point.

he has been a great staff leader and he has done a fantastic job, and i want you to say something to him. on the other side of the aisle his counterpart, david pomerantz, has been just a terrific asset to the committee and to the piecing together of this very difficult complex bill. we want to say thank you to david for his great work. and jim, who also sits beside me, the number two clerk in the committee, has been valuable, invaluable, if you will, in getting us to this point. madam speaker, in closing i'd like to once again remind our colleagues that providing funding for our federal government is one of our chief duties as members of congress. in fact, i think it's the chief duty. one that we can't shirk. the people elected us to fulfill

this duty and govern. and to govern you've got to pass these funding bills for the government. and as we pass these funding bills, the imprint of members of congress on these funding bills directs agencies of the executive branch to follow the will of the people represented here in this body. and so this bill is a reflection of the need for members of congress under the constitution decide how and when and why money is spent by the executive branch. the people elected us to fulfill that duty and this bill does just that. and 3 1/2 months into the fiscal year, i would say it's just about past time that we pass this legislation. so i urge an aye vote on the omnibus. we can send it to the senate today for their approval and get

it to the president for his signature as soon as possible. certainly before saturday. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3527, an act to amend the public health service act to re-authorize the poison center national toll free number, national media campaign, and grant program, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for 30 minutes. mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: congress' misguided rush towards austerity has hurt our economy, slashing critical investments that create jobs and make us more competitive. discretionary spending, which represents only 1/3 of the

budget, has borne a disproportionate share of cuts. the december budget agreement and this bill set us on a path to fulfilling our basic responsibility of annual spending bills. chairman rogers, i commend your leadership. it has been a delight working with you and i, too, look forward to a holiday season where we won't be in constant contact. thank you, it's been a pleasure. this bill makes key investments that will bolster job creation and economic growth. . we should not have federal furloughs again this year. education, head start, new pre-k initiatives will help working families and restore teaching slots. and infrastructure investments will support construction jobs and safety upgrades.

other vital priorities fell short. it's incredibly disappointing this package doesn't restore unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed. in addition, i was very pleased that we received $1 billion more than last year for biomedical research at the national institutes of health, but it is still funded below the 2012 level, forcing scientists to shelf promising research. by not authorizing a change to the quota for i.m.f., the international monetary fund, we neglect the united states' vital role in the global economy. it is an important tool to promote international financial stability and support u.s. jobs, exports and markets. this is not the bill that i would have written, but it is

the result of the negotiation that required significant compromise and protected the appropriations process from political warfare by dropping most of the new contentious riders. finally, i would like to praise the tireless work of david pomerand and all of the appropriations staff on both sides of the aisle. this bill was a huge undertaking, possible only with the hard work of such dedicated staff, including one of our longtime professionals who will soon be leaving the committee. and on behalf of the entire appropriations committee, i thank david reisch for his 30 years of service to the house and 17 years of exceptional contributions to the full ppropriations committee, the

labor-h and other subcommittees. thank you and we wish you luck. now, at this time before we close, i also want to recognize judy terry, the chief clerk of debate. as i understand it, unfortunately, she will be retiring and go on to other things and we thank you for your service to the house. now, in conclusion, i wish we had completed this process last october when this fiscal year actually started, but better late than never. the president's budget will likely arrive late, giving congress' tardyness in completing our work -- tardiness in completing our work for fiscal year 2014, but i hope that the bipartisan

spirit within which the omnibus has been reached has been preserved in the cycle to come. i will support this omnibus and work in the coming year to address the shortcomings. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the very hardworking and longtime classmate of mine, frank wolf, chairman of the commerce, justice, science subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wolf: i want to thank mr. rogers. we came here together in 1981. i think what mr. rogers and mrs. lowey have done, along with senator mikulski and senator shelby, have been amazing. i want to thank mr. fattah for his partnership and help and, you know, just thank you. you've done a great job. i want to acknowledge the staff

diane, as lie, jeff, well as bob and matt. they have done an incredible job. if the american people could have seen the hours, and i want to thank them. this bill totals $51.6 billion which is $1.4 billion below the enacted 2013 level. we have reduced spending by more than $12 billion for agencies funded in the c.j.s. there's no reason why anyone would vote against this bill. we're even $200 million below f.y. 2008, and so it's done an incredible job. the bill includes $8.3 billion for the f.b.i. to fight crime and protect the nation from further terrorist attacks and expand the f.b.i.'s capabilities. also, in addition is $1 million for an independent review to report to congress, to be conducted by an outside commission to look at the progress made over the last decade on the implementation of

the 9/11 commission. i lost several hundred people from my district who died and we lost 3,000 americans. we want to find out what recommendations were made, how well the f.b.i.'s doing and so that is very, very important. i expect the f.b.i. to cooperate, and i know they will. we also establish, and i appreciate mr. fattah and mr. mull has, who is not here -- mr. mullihan, who is not here, a task force on federal corrections. we cannot put men and women in prison for years and do nothing. i think this provides an opportunity to reform the prison commission system. then, mr. goodlatte and the judiciary committee can do amazing things. the bill brings about repatriation, programs that brings jobs back to america, not to have companies go abroad, and i appreciate the secretary of commerce really cooperating and working. lastly, it funds the science at

a very, very high level. and with regard to nasa, the bill includes $17.65 billion for nasa, including funding for america's next generation space launch system. the owe ryon vehicle as well as full -- orion vehicle to keep america competitive. i want to close by congratulating and thanking mr. rogers. we came here in 1981. we were considered reagan robots. i wasn't supposed to be here. chris smith is still here. mr. rogers. they will be the leaders of the class that's left. we have 54. i just want to thank him for what he's done and the staff on both sides and the members for bringing this bill and the returning to regular order. again, mr. fattah, my fellow from native philadelphia, thank you for everything you have done. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. and the gentlewoman from new york is recognized.

mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, the ranking member of the energy and water committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the ranking member from new york for yielding me time. madam speaker, i rise today in support of the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations measure. critical, critical step in the direction of regular order. and my hat is off to chairman rogers and to ranking member lowey for their diligent efforts to bring this important agreement to the floor. i also want to thank chairman simpson, our subcommittee members, our senate counterparts as well as our exceptional staff, rob blair and tonya berklam, for their dedication and hard work over the holidays in crafting this legislation. the energy and water bill makes america work. for example, it keeps the west alive, funding critical water projects across 17 states. we support science activities

necessary to americans' manufacturing and future competitive and contributes to our national defense, importantly. over the last 10 years, our country has spent $2.3 trillion importing foreign petroleum rather than being energy independent here at home. in fact, those imports are a key strategic vulnerability. we must have the wisdom, the will and the fortitude to invest as the solution for our people. this agreement restores an all-of-the-above energy strategy, including renewable energy programs and help on sustainible energy programs for the next generation. the bill increases funding for the corps of engineers, one of the most important jobs programs we could support in our nation, to improve our nation's waterways that provides foundation for economic growth. in terms of job creation, this bill makes critical investments in this country from coast to coast. you can't really move cargo unless you have open harbors.

the compromised bill that we will vote on today is an important step in that direction, and even more importantly a step toward regular order which this member certainly welcomes. again, i rise in support of this legislation and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the entire measure but certainly on the energy and water portion of this bill, so vital to america's future, and i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, most of the provisions in this bill was written by the subcommittees on the house and senate side and worked out between them. and one of the chief writers of the bill is rodney frelinghuysen, the new chairman of the defense subcommittee of the appropriations committee. his part of the bill was by far the biggest of anybody else's. it was only $572 billion, so the gentleman is recognized for two minutes to explain it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes.

mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the chairman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. frelinghuysen: first of all, it's a pleasure to rise to support this bill, and let me say specifically address the defense portion, which is indeed our primary constitutional responsibility, a strong national defense. first, i want to thank my ranking member, mr. visclosky, for helping craft this bill. it was a hard task given the short deadline. i think this meets our national defense needs. thank all of the committee members and our professional staff for their hard work. a few words about our allocation, which is the direct result of the decision we made in mid december, the base allocation is $486.9 billion, which is $29 billion below the president's budget request. $25.7 billion below the bill we passed -- defense bill we passed in july. the overseas contingency allocation was $85.2 billion

which is $4.5 billion above the request. even with the small increase in the overseas contingency allocation, which we essentially used for buyback readiness, the subcommittee's task was formedible. we cut $24.5 billion from the administration's budget request. i want to assure my colleagues that not many programs were left untouched. we did our best to protect critical major weapon systems to avoid significant disruption to vital programs. importantly, we gave our military leaders much badly needed predictability about future expenditures and preserve jobs in our defense industrial base. and most importantly, too, we protected residents, our constitution's first priority is to provide for a strong national defense. if the commander in chief needs to call our troops, they'll be ready and prepared. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky

reserves, and the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, he is the ranking member of the defense subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. visclosky: i thank the ranking member for yielding time, and i want to begin my remarks by expressing my great appreciation to chairman rogers and ranking member lowey. the fact that we're standing here today on the verge of passing a 12-bill omnibus measure is a testament to their acumen as legislators. further, i would be remiss if i did not thank every staff member of the appropriations committee for their dedication, hard work and sound judgment in helping develop this package. with regard to the defense portion of the bill, it was a pleasure to work with chairman frelinghuysen in crafting a bipartisan and collaborative piece of legislation.

he and his staff have ensured that the defense subcommittee continues its long-standing tradition of collegiality. the agreement that we're here for today implements the bipartisan budget act. as a result, substantial reductions were made to the department of defense programs. in total, overall spending in the defense portion of the bill, including base funding and the overseas contingency operation account is $572.6 llion which is $61.1 billion below fiscal year 2012 level. while the agreement makes substantial reductions, it does protect the readiness of u.s. forces, provides for personnel and their families and supports national programs that reflect bipartisan congressional priorities. overseas contingency operations of funding total $85.2 billion, an increase of $4.5 billion.

the increase is essential to ensure the readiness of u.s. forces. it provides for orderly retrograde and reset of equipment from theater and supports deployed forces still serving in afghanistan. the agreement also includes $25 billion above the request to implement a sexual assault special victims program. the agreement also includes language that prevents the use of funds in controvention of more severe language and penalties in the fiscal year 2014 national defense authorization act. finally, the bill protects technological edge for u.s. forces. it includes $175 million above the request for the defense rapid innovation program, to incorporate small business development. i ask my colleagues to please support this bill and i'd yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves, and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations for transportation and housing and urban development, the

gentleman from iowa, mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is ecognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. latham: i thank the speaker and thank the chairman for the time and thank him and chairman oyd for -- and thank him and representativelow wie for their work on this madam speaker, representatives a return to regular order, an example of fair negotiation between the house and senate. we strive to maintain important infrastructure and transportation investments and maintain housing programs for low income citizens and veterans. we authorize the map 21 authorized levels for highways and transit. for the f. ample a. we provide funding to fully support operations of air traffic

controllers. we also include the next round of investments and the so-called next gen air traffic control system. we do not fund high speed rail as we have yet to see any plan that outlays how such a system would work and how it would be paid for. for rail we added policy reforms and oversight mechanisms for amtrak to ensure that resources provided to amtrak are put to best use. for housing we provided assistance for 2.2 million families serviced by the housing choice voucher program. e also provide $75 million for 10,000 new veterans' housing vouchers. finally we provide a little over $3 million for the community development block grant program. this program has many flexable -- flexible uses and helps strengthen communities across the country. i urge members to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves, the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano, the ranking member of the financial services subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. without objection. mr. serrano: i thank ranking memberlow wie for yielding me timism rise in support of this legislation. as ranking member of the financial services subcommittee i wanted to discuss many of the improvements we made to that section of the bill. before i begin, i want to thank chairman rogers and crenshaw and ranking memberlow wie for their hard work and diligence throughout this process. i also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who spent time away from their families during the holiday season to work out a compromise thing both sides can support. my colleagues know that the sequester put the appropriations process under an unworkable financial strain and

this legislation helps fix that problem. the financial services section of this bill is funded at $21. billion, more than $1.5 billion above last year's sequester level and almost $5 billion higher than what was approved by the committee last summer. with this increased funding, this subcommittee was able to resolve nofe most urgent funding problems created by the sequester. we kept postal service six-day delivery, restored funding for the election assistance commission and included additional funding for numerous priorities of the district of columbia this bill also removes many harmful riders, riders that would have impacted the implementation of the affordable care act and riders that would have affected thee theable of the s.e.c. and i.r. stomplet do their jobs properly. this is not a perfect bill but on balance it is a good bill and i intend to vote in favor of it and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i want to take a second in

bidding a certain early farewell to my colleague, mr. wolfe, to thank chairman wolfe and to thank ranking member fattah for allowing language in their bill which was asked for by the president which was at times a little hanging on the ropes, language that would allow for the first time in 115 years the neesm commonwealth of puerto rico to vote on their political future. i thank personally for that and i stand ready to vote for this bill as soon as it comes up for a vote. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the agriculture subcommittee on appropriations. the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. aderholt: thank you, madam speaker. for the time. mr. chairman, thank you for the time. and also madam speaker, i want to just personally thank the

chairman for his work and his staff because shepherding all 12 of these propings bills is no easy task. as it comes down to the issues that are the toughest issues to discuss and come to a conclusion to at that time, so mr. chairman, thank you for your work and your staff and how you conduct your staff in these negotiations. i'd also like to echo something that mr. rogers said in his opening comments about one of our subcommittee chair, or clerks, martin delgado. he's retiring from the subcommittee after 16 years as was mentioned, he is someone who knows the subject matter of agriculture very well he gos beyond and has gone beyond the call of duty in his job as clerk of the appropriations subcommittee on agriculture and so he is someone that's going to be missed and from this body, but we wish him the best and wish him well in his new

endeavors. and of course i do want to rise in support of f.y. 2014 consolidated appropriation act this agreement encompasses the work of, as i mentioned, all of 12 appropriations subcommittees and is the culmination of work that began last spring when we first started hearing after the president's hearing -- president's budget was submitted. i would like to assure my colleagues that contrary to what they may have heard, the bill has not only been read but every word and every number has been scrutinized and there are no surprises in this bill. as has been said, this legislation, while funding the federal government for the remaining part of the fiscal year, it continues to reduce spending and that the overall spending level in this agreement is lower than the f.y. 2009 enacted spending level. most important it's $191 billion less than president opa ma submitted in his f.y. 2014

budget request. the agricultural division of this agreement, which i worked most closely with other the last year, has critical funding for the department of agriculture, the food and drug administration, the commodities future trading commission and the farm credit administration. funding in this agreement will ensure that american producers can continue to produce the most abundant and safest food supply in the world. agricultural research is funded at $2.6 billion, which will keep america at the forefront of the cutting edge of reserge and competitive around the globe. i would encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this bill and again, i thank the chairman for the him. -- for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro, ranking member of the labor, health, and human service subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes.

ms. delauro: while i will vote for this budget despite having major reservations, i'd like to say a few words about how labor, health and human services and education programs are handled here, keeping in mind that of the 12 subcommittees of appropriation, the labor-hhs subcommittee never even had a subcommittee markup of the bill. after defense, the labor-hhs subcommittee has the largest portfolio of programs that deal with people's everyday lives, the lives of ordinary americans. the allocation for labor-hhs was only $217 million above the 201 presequester levels. only 12% of the nondefense funding increase even though labor-hhs makes up 32 noveget nondefense budget. and this also despite the fact that we had over $1.4 billion

in funding holes that had to be filled. the holes existed primarily because of some critical problems living off money appropriated a number of years ago and that money is now all gone. unlike all of the other appropriations bills, we were prevented from using all options at our disposal to ensure reasonable funding levels for our important priorities. as a resultmark critical programs here are still seeing deep sequester cuts. national institutes of health, the key driver of biomedical research in america, spurring innovation, economic growth and hope for millions of merps. yet only 58% of the cuts are restored in this budget, it's $700 million short. job training services part of the core essential role of government, help responsible people succeed because of their hard work. businesses secure the employees they need to grow. job training programs only restored by 81%. e