like to see it addressed. at the same time we need to make sure we are preserving competition and innovation in the market for set top boxes. i think that the bill has been handled well. it's a bill we can work with. and i'm hopeful that we can reach a full agreement on all the provisions. i want to close by thanking chairman walden for his efforts and for this hearing today. i hope we can work together to develop a truly bipartisan satellite re-authorization bill. i want to yield at this time to my colleague from california, ms. matsui. . >> mr. chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing and i'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. i'm pleased that we're beginning this legislative process to renew satellite television signal and license. however, i am surprised that unlike the past, our legislative starting point is

not a bipartisan narrowly tailored bill. now that the bill has expanded, i do look forward to hearing more about the merits of the provisions relating to retransmission consent and set-top boxes. we know that technology is disrupting the video marketplace with new and innovative ways to watch tv and stream movies and videos. as a result, we are seeing new players enter the marketplace and we are seeing trends towards more consolidation. however, one thing is certain. americans are tired of being caught in the middle of retransmission disputes. that is why since the stela proposal has expanded, i believe we should look at this bill through a filter, and that is, will it put the consumers in a better place? it is my hope that we can definitively answer that question. moving forward, it is my hope that this subcommittee can work in a bipartisan manner to improve the bill and produce a

bipartisan product. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. all time has now expired, and we will get on about hearing from our witnesses. and i want to thank them all for being here and we're going to start with mr. mike hal covich, services and operations of directv. mr. palkovic, thank you for being here today. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. good morning, chairman walden, reable eshoo and members of the subcommittee -- ranking member eshoo and members of the subcommittee. i'm the executive vice president of services and operations at directv. thank you for inviting me back to testify on stela rhode island authorization. stela re-authorization is critical to millions of your constituents who depend upon directv. without congressional action, key provisions expire this december.

the committee and its staff have put many hours to produce the first discussion draft of legislation that would re-authorize these provisions. so my first and most important message is simple -- thank you. directv and our subscribers appreciate your hard work and your willingness to address stela re-authorization. you may have heard from some companies telling you what you should or should not have done with the discussion draft. some may even be telling you to do nothing or simply change the expiration date in a quote, clean re-authorization. something congress has never done before. this, however, is the satellite home viewer act. i am here on behalf of the nation's leading satellite provider to say we agree with the committee's approach. does this discussion draft contain everything directv thinks it should? of course not. but it does two critically important things. first, it preserves service for millions of distant signal subscribers. with all the other issues

before this committee, it's sometimes easy to forget the key distant signal provisions are due to expire this december. your constituents, however, have not forgotten about these provisions. more than a million and a half subscribers, many in the most rural areas of the country, receive at least one distant network signal from directv or dish. were congress fail to re-authorize stela, these subscribers would lose service that many americans take for granted. the draft bill addresses one egregious abuse of the s.e.c.'s rules that is raising prices for consumers. -- f.c.c.'s rules that is raising prices for consumers. it can divide broadcasters and paid tv providers. broadcasters think they don't may them enough for their programming. and we wish they would pay us for signals. whatever one's views, however, most people agree that you

shouldn't be able to avade -- evade f.c.c. rules. yet, this is exactly what broadcasters are doing today, and this is exactly what the discussion draft would stop. broadcasters increasingly negotiate retransmission consent jointly on behalf of two, three or even four network affiliates in the same market. this leads to higher prices. as much as 161% higher, according to one estimate. and it leads to greater harm when blackouts occur. this is why the f.c.c. appears poised to follow the advice of the department of justice by restricting joint retransmission consent negotiations for noncommonly owned stations in the same market. the committee's discussion draft takes the same approach. we think this is sensible and long overdue reform. so on behalf of directv's more than 20 million subscribers, i'd like to thank the committee for its diligence and hard work on stela re-authorization, particularly chairman walden,

congressman sthrees and congresswoman eshoo -- congressman sthrees and congresswoman eshoo. we look forward to working with members of this committee as we move forward. i'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have. thank you. >> mr. palkovic, i thank you for your testimony. we go to marci burdick. ms. burdick, we look forward to your testimony. you need to turn that microphone on. >> you think the broadcaster could get the microphone. >> it's all right. >> good morning, chairman walden, ranking member eshoo and members of the committee. i'm marci burdick, senior vice president of schurz communications. i superadvise radio, cable and television stations in small and medium markets. i'm testifying on behalf of the n.a.b. where i'm the television board chair and pleased to be here with the two michaels and the two matts. the stela legislation is at its core a satellite bill.

passed nf 1988, this law was supposed to be a temporary fix to help satellite carriers better complete with cable by giving them permission to provide distant broadcast channels. 26 years later, satellite is providing local broadcast channels in nearly every market and is a thriving competitive alternative to cable. so while any questions the need for the bill at all, we can support the draft produced by chairman upton and chairman walden. our primary interest in the legislation was to prevent the picking of marketplace winners and losers which is why we've asked for a clean bill. we're happy to see this stela draft steers clear of these kind of provisions. while cable and satellite companies sought to use stela to gain leverage over broadcasters and retransmission consent negotiations, we continue to believe that free market negotiations are the most appropriate place to establish price. as to any other broader changes to broadcasting rules, n.a.b.

firmly believes that those should be debated as part of the comprehensive communications act update recently launched by chairman upton and walden. as you know, broadcasters may only operate with a license granted to us by the f.c.c. and we are by far its most regulated industry. it can be hard to flip a switch without getting permission from your regulator, and while our competitors are often large national companies with no ownership restrictions, we may not own in most cases more than one tv station in markets. while they provide cutting edge content at any time of the day, broadcasters live by decency laws. broadcasters are saddled with enumerable regulations that are far more onerous than our cable and satellite competitors. for all of these regulations, there are benefits that broadcasters receive because we do operate in the public interest. but if congress opts to remove the benefits of being a broadcaster, then it should

also remove the burdens. deregulation should not be limited to one player in an industry. if your goal is regulatory parody between the various video platforms seated at this table, a comprehensive examination in the communications act update is the only way to achieve it. i'd like to spend the remainder of my time addressing joint ales agreements known as j.s.a.'s. all while often mischaracterized, these benefit the public, particularly in small and medium markets where schurz operates. they result in additional local news, improved public service and enhanced transmission facilities. for example, our j.s.a. in wichita, kansas, has the only spanish channel in wichita, kansas. our j.s.a. helped take a struggling station to one that is winning national news.

we enjoy the strong regulatory path to make our j.s.a. for the broadcast ownership rules. the f.c.c.'s proposed rule will require broadcasters to unwind existing agreements, something unprecedented and amazingly disruptive. this is yet another example of how broadcasters are forced to play by one set of rules while the rest of the video industry plays by another. and the real issue here is competition for local advertising dollars. television stations fiercely compete, not just with each other, but with cable, internet and mobile. although the f.c.c. and d.o.j. have said broadcasters dominate local advertising, you can see in this chart that we put on the wall that we are seeing and expecting big gains from our competitors. the chart proves that today's local advertising market is by far more than just local tv but unfortunately we're being egulated like its 1960 -- it's

1960. and for all of those entities taking revenue out of the community, local broadcasters are the only ones putting it back in through local news and community service. strangely the f.c.c. apparently doesn't have the same sales concerns as it relates to cable. the same j.s.a.-like agreements, called interconnects, are routine between cable, satellite and tell could hes for the joint -- telcos for the joint sell of advertising. they sell local advertising for their direct competitors yet they'll continue unregulated. in conclusion, we strongly support the bill's language that prevents the f.c.c. from enforcing rules without first collecting empurecal data studying the impact of j.s.a.'s. in reality, these serve the public interest. i hope this committee will take an honest, fact-based look at the importance of these agreements to localism. we appreciate the hard work of this committee and i look forward to your questions.

thank you. >> ms. burdick, thank you for your presentation. we'll now go to mr. michael powell, president and c.e.o. of the national cable and telecommunications association. mr. powell, it's good to have you back before the committee. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, chairman walden and thank you, ranking member eshoo and other members of the subcommittee. it's always a distinct pleasure to have the opportunity to come and testify before you today. i'm pleased on behalf of the national cable telecom association, representing america's cable companies, to support re-authorization of stela, including the very important requirement for companies to negotiate broadcast carriage agreements in good faith. we're also specifically pleased to support the carefully selective video reform that have been included in the discussion draft. all these reforms can be appreciated as both, one, directly benefiting consumers and, two, restoring a modicum of competitive balance among companies. both of these themes should

always be touch stones of communications policies. let me talk about the integration ban. elimb flatting the integration bam, led by congressman latta and green, reversed a -- reverses an ill conceived f.c.c. policy while clearly preserving the statute and its commendable objective of promoting consumer choice and set-top boxes, something long championed by congresswoman eshoo. to implement the law, the f.c.c. had to overcome a simple obstacle. giving third party boxes access to encrypted signals. industry worked together to create a separate security module, the cable card, so boxes could be sold unlocked at retail and worked in any cable market by simply acquiring a card. cable card is now a fully realized solution. the f.c.c. however stepped beyond the statute and imposed something called the integration ban. the ban forced cable companies to pry security functions out of their leased boxes and rely

instead on cable cards despite there being no technical need to do so. the theory of the rules was behavioral, not technical. the belief that cable companies would now have an incentive to create, deploy and support cable cards for third parties. the f.c.c. also, in a bit of industrial engineering, hoped to push consumers toward third party boxes by eliminating a low-cost choice from the cable company. this ill-fated policy should be reversed simply because its costs clearly outweigh its speculative benefits. for one, the integration ban eliminated a low-cost consumer choice, costing consumers nearly $1 billion in unnecessary expenses. according to f.c.c. data, the integration ban adds over $55 of additional costs per box while adding no additional functionality. secondly, the ban is quite wasteful of energy, imposing on consumers the cost of hundreds

of millions of unnecessary kilowatt hours per year. third, the policy unfairly tilts the competitive playing field. as was mentioned by chairman waxman, the integration ban applies only to cable companies, despite them representing only about 50% of the market today, down from over 90% when the provision was passed. directv and dish, able competitors, are the second and third largest providers and are free to innovate lower cost alternatives since they are not subject to the rules. same is true for at&t. this has no defensible rationale and it's impossible to believe a policy applied to barely half of the national market will have much impact on a national market for set-top boxes. and whatever the meritorious intentions of the integration ban were, the benefits are speculative at best. today 44 million cable

customers have chosen leased cable boxes that use cable cards. in stark contrast, only 600,000 cable cards have been requested for third party devices. the explosion of ondemand video devices and content sources from the likes of apple tv, chrome cast and the wrath of apple i.o.s. and android bases are lessening interest in cable set-top box alternatives and points squarely to a market developing solutions to meet consumer preferences. finally, a word about joint negotiations from broadcasters. we support the effort to rein in abuses of local broadcast stations that have intensified the use of so-called side card agreements to jointly negotiate carriage of their signals. whatever the purported efficiencies of these arrangements are, and there may be some, they have no place in validating the anti-competitive practice of competitors acting collectively to negotiate prices. as the department of justice

has found, these practices harm consumers in the form of higher cable prices. thank you, mr. chairman. and i look forward to your question. >> mr. powell, we appreciate your testimony. and we'll now go to the senior vice president, general counsel and chief privacy officer for tivo. it's good to have you before the subcommittee. we look forward to your comments. >> chairman walden, ranking member eshoo, members of the subcommittee, my name is matthew zinn, senior vice president of tivo. we developed the first digital video recorder and we have over four million subscribers worldwide, including a million retail sub-- subscribers in the united states. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. ordinarily, tivo would not be giving its opinion on legislation -- >> mr. zinn -- i wonder if you can pull your microphone up a little closer. >> is this better? >> much. >> ordinarily, tivo would not be giving its opinion on legislation to rewill the

satellite industry. our industry has little to do with stela. i am part of this panel because of the unrelated provision that was astatched to the stela re-authorization pushed by a cable lobbying group to eliminate choice in how consumers watch satellite programming. tivo stands for consumers choice. it's what we do. i am not here to criticize cable, but certain interests within the cable industry, like this guy, are trying to undermine competition and choice. the provision would repeal the pro-except tiff requirement that they use the same security standard in their boxes as they make available for retail. that's what in is about, the same security standard. common reliance is a principle the f.c.c. has repeatedly found is a necessary component for a retail market for set-top boxes to emerge. seeking its reveal is an aberration of cable's generally pro-competitive policy approach.

tivo -- cable has provide ready competition to telephone networks and to data networks d cable did not oppose the original stela legislation. this provision is also an aberration in terms of how how comparable industries are treated. consumers should be able to use whatever device they choose to access video programming, just like they can use whatever computer, telephone, cell phone, whatever they want to use. video is no different. the energy and commerce committee has been the catalyst for this competition no matter which party has been in control. in 1996, this committee had the wisdom to include in the landmark telecommunications act a bipartisan provision to unlock devices through which cable subscribers can get their channels. the concept was simple. consumers should have the ability to purchase a set-top box at retail and not have to rely on renting a box from their cable provider.

this provision was intended to do for the video device market what the card did for the telephone industry and also those with wireless devices. allowing consumer choice stands in opposition to what this committee has stood for purely because of lobbying group has asked for a provision to be asked for attach of a legislation. i am not here to defend the status quo. far from it. we share the cable industry's desire to move on to a new security standard and we want to work with the industry to find the next generation answer, but passing legislation eliminating cable operators' incentive to support boxes without putting a replacement in place is not a good approach given the heritage of this committee creating choice. my fellow witness, who is representing the industry here today, called tivo's god machine because of the choice and control it gave the consumer. it is ironic that he's now leading the charge to kill this type of consumer choice simply because he's wearing a

different hat. tivo is in no position to talk about the consent. rather, i'm here to say today that a provision that will undermine the retail market for set-top boxes and deprive consumers of choice has no place in a bill originally enacted to give consumers choice in video providers. the committee should be focused on fostering competition rather than undermining competition and choice. this committee has always stood for competition and choice and fostering free market solutions. this committee can play a strong role on this important pro-competition and consumer choice issue by supporting a process that puts in place a more efficient market solution worked out between the industries. there are already companies who have indicated they have a desire to work with us to do just that. but the 629 amendment will kill that process by taking away the incentive for the industry to work out that next generation solution. such an amendment stands the very heritage of this committee

on its head because of the lobbying efforts of the cable industry, an industry that has traditionally stood for competition and choice. an industry that tivo is helping lead the way to the next generation of television and an industry led by a man who was the f.c.c. chairman made very clear how important tivo was to the future of the marketplace. i respectfully urge you to support innovation and consumer choice and remove the amendment to section 629 from the stela re-authorization bill. thank you very much. >> thank you for your testimony, mr. zinn. i assume you're opposed to this amendment. matt wood, policy director of free press. we're delighted you being back for the committee. >> thank you for invoting me to testify today. my name is matt wood and i'm the policy director for free press which is a nonpartisan organization with more than 700,000 members across the country. free press works for policies that promote competing sources of news and journalism. because they're so important for informing our nation's

democracy and empowering our economy. unfortunately, the discussion draft could contribute to the ongoing loss. my testimony focuses on section 4 of the draft which would keep the f.c.c. from aremoving entry barriers for broadcast businesses. i will also talk briefly about section 6 which would keep the agency from following congress' direction to increase the choices that people have for set-top boxes and other video devices. our media should reflect the full range of experiences and ideas that country has to offer. it's essential to see different viewpoints and hear differences on the dial because they disagree or agree because of robust debate and coverage keep our republic strong and free. this applies at the national level and at the local level, too, where broadcasting remains a vital source of information about our government and our culture. television remains the dominant way that americans get news. 7-10 people in the u.s. watch

local tv news, almost double the number that watch cable news or get news online. the question is what kind of news are they getting. the answer for too many americans is they get two or more broadcasts produced by the same company. sometimes this outsourced news come from separate news teams and more often stations have the same reporters, air the same stories and use the same scripts on two or more channels. in either case it's the same owner calling the shots. some broadcasters say this type of sharing keeps multiple newscasts on the air. they claim, oddly enough, that the only way to have competing news is for stations to stop competing. let's be clear. when you hear about cinergies that make news more attractive to produce, there are just two ways to save money -- cutting overhead and cutting jobs. so one person's efficiency can be another's unemployment. and that's the hardship that affects us all when people losing their jobs that we depend on to dig into the

facts. slashing newsroom jobs can happen slowly as a broadcaster like sinclaire reduced their number by 20%, that was 55 per station in 2001 down to just 43 today. or it can be tonight's top story. in late 2010, the anchor at kmsb in tucson took to the air to report the layoffs that hit him and 50 of his colleagues. what makes it worse is this runaway consolidation happened right before the f.c.c. for years. clearly violating its ownership limits. section 4 of the draft refers to the local television multiple ownership rule which permits direct or indirect control of more than one station per market only under certain circumstances. yet, in more than 100 markets, almost half of the tv markets in the whole country broadcasters use these outsourcing arrangements to violate the letter and the spirit of this f.c.c. safeguard. they do this with joint sales agreements or j.s.a.'s, shared service agreements and a litany

of others. combined that these transfer control and the bulk of the affected station's revenues away from the supposed licensee. these outsourcing deals often prop up shell companies that often take away opportunities for competing businesses. as a rule, the f.c.c. shouldn't stand for them. last month the department of justice told the f.c.c. that such covert consolidation can harm competition. last week, f.c.c. chairman tom wheeler called for a vote to treat j.s.a.'s above a certain threshold as to what they are, signs of ownership by broadcasters who -- broadcasters who really run these stations. that would align the f.c.c. with the securities and exchange commission which doesn't fall for the fiction that these are independent owners. investors get the truth and operating stations must treat their so-called sidecar companies as subsidiaries. even that nickname, sidecar company, shows how much they're driven by conglomerate like sinclaire and tribune. section 4 could keep the f.c.c.

from moving ahead with the plans to keep up the practice. just a quick word on section 6 as well, and i won't point to this guy, but i agree with what he said. it could reduce vurets and the integration plan sets competition for set-top boxes which charge up to $20 a month to rent. cable customers of course should be free to take them up on that offer but they should have other options too and they shouldn't believe cable claims blocking inowe -- is a form of innovation. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. >> mr. wood, thank you for your testimony. i'm going to make a couple comments and i have a couple of questions. having no secret in the broadcast business, having a j.s.a., they can also be positive in the market too. when you take over stations, when you try and group. we actually, as a result of one in a purchase, were able to restore news. i'm trying to figure out how j.s.a.'s have gutted newspapers. there's something going on out in the marketplace out there

with newspapers, they're not in a j.s.a. situation and newsroom after newsroom in the printed press is being gutted. i'm really frustrated with the federal communications commission in the fact they don't do their job as required by statute, by the law to do their own irship review, look at cross-ownership so we have a strengthened voice out there of first amendment riders. and so it's just really frustrating because you can cite all these statistics. when you're out on the ground trying to meeting payroll there are a lot of things coming into play. mr. powell, this draft would relieve cable and consumers of the significant cost burden, making leased set-top boxes in compliance with the integration ban. there are opposition to this ban, voiced by your colleague to your left -- i am aware of that. a little understatement there. i want you to explain again and answer your criticisms of what

they raise. they say it will not help consumers and will hurt innovation. how do you answer that? >> sure, thank you. so this guy was a commissioner on the federal communications commission when i said that tivo was god's machine. that same guy in that same year dissented from the f.c.c.'s decision to impose an integration ban for two simple reasons. one, it was clearly not compelled by the statute in any way, shape or form. what was compelled by the statute was to make sure third-party boxes could get access to the signal by descrambling that signal through a separate security requirement. that i wholeheartedly endorsed then. i continue to wholeheartedly endorse now. the second part was problematic because we believed -- my belief then and my belief now was it took away an innovative third option for consumers which is a lower cost box with integrated security that would buy f.c.c. data, cost $50 per

box less, cost consumers less be and be substantially more energy efficient. many cable companies have been forced to attempt to seek waivers in order to deploy new and innovative boxes, including new software centric systems. those waivers have often taken up to two years. >> ms. burdick, it's expensive to run a tv station or a newspaper in this day and age. i think it would be difficult to make it work, but successful companies with proven track records continued to do so and do it well. doesn't it make sense to allow good companies with good resources put their expertise to work in failing stations or newspapers? talking about cross-ownership here. we're talking about j.s.a.'s used appropriately or -- not inappropriately but appropriately for the management. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you touched on a key point earlier and you've echoed it again. the ownership regulations have not kept up for broadcast -- the broadcast changing marketplace. to put it in perspective, in

the small and medium markets in which we operate, we're governed basically under ownership regs that were enacted in 1970. i don't know about the members of this committee, but in 1970 i was starting middle school and listening to "bridged over troubled water" on a.m. radio. in 1970, most broadcasters were being paid by their networks to distribute the product. in small and medium markets that was basically their profit. that has gone away. so as that world has changed and the economics have changed, as i mentioned earlier, with people competing with us for advertising dollars, which supports 90% of our costs, 90% of our revenue and local broadcasts comes from local advertising, as that pie is sliced even thinner, the rules have not kept up. and so in fact, broadcasters, like schurz, have entered into some of these agreements. ours approved by the f.c.c., by

the way, to create more news, more jobs and more public service in the communities that e serve. >> in the developing internet world, you have people competing against cable, internet. it seems like these ownership rules are outdated. when you can pick up the "washington post" for $250 million or the owner of the boston red sox can pick up "the boston globe," i don't understand why somebody in the journalism can't engage in the cross-ownership as well. >> because the rules says it can't. >> that's why the f.c.c. should do their job and follow the rules. i turn it over to ms. eshoo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the e hearings, and i love mix that's here and although i wouldn't refer to former

chairman powell as that guy, because i think -- i would say great guy, but here it comes. here it comes. i have two quick questions for you. the first one, mr. powell, is i think it's a yes or no question. on this whole question on the integration ban, you had written to me last year and said that the cost is about -- it costs consumers roughly $1 billion. my question is, would cable companies commit to lowering the monthly cost for consumers that pay to lease the set-top box, particularly those with advanced functionality and print this on your customers' monthly bill if the integration ban is repealed? so much of this is about money. we all know that. and so you don't want this any more. you stated your case. are you willing to reduce the price printed on the bill so

consumers know there's a savings to them? >> i think what we are willing to do is commit that that money gets invested into the network in a manner that benefits the consumers. when you had the roundtable, you remember a.c.a. -- made the very compelling point that those additional expenses are expenses that could not be used by small cable companies attempting to provide faster broadband speeds. an important and i think significant point. no, i'm not the representative of the business judgments to see how the savings would be returned but i -- >> you know what, i really do think some thought needs to be given to that. i do. if in fact your stand on behalf of cable operators in the country is what it is -- and you're entitled. everyone is entitled to their view and what they want and what's going to work well for them. people that are here are

obviously speaking to their interests which is really fair. we have to protect the public interest in all of this. try to anyway. so if it costs consumers, as you said to me in your letter last year, $1 billion, maybe there can be a reduction of $1 billion somehow. now you describe the repeal of the f.c.c.'s integration ban as a narrow fix that will not change cable operators' requirement to provide the cable cards. but last year in your comments before the f.c.c., ncta, and at least one of your member companies argued because of the echostar case, cable operators are no longer required to provide or support cable cards to retail devices. so my question is, which is it? that's a two different distinctly different argument. >> i would argue our position is consistent. one of the -- >> i knew you'd say that.

they're not though. you said something else if the f.c.c. and -- >> it's important to note what the court found offensive about the f.c.c. rules is it didn't believe they had the authority to apply them to satellite companies. cable companies had actually through an m.o.u. developed the rules. we were the only industry segment, including this guy -- >> there you go. >> intervened to defend the rules in court. when the court -- when the rules were overturned because the court said the commission didn't have the ability to apply them fairly to both satellite and cable. tivo and other companies filed asking them to be applied. >> now, i want to go -- thank you very much. to mr. zinn and to mr. wood. thank you for being here and for your testimony. last month, most members of this subcommittee voted for legislation that permits consumers to unlock their wireless phones so they can be used on any carrier's network.

my question to both of you is, isn't this what section 629 and the integration ban is trying to do? obviously it's a softball question, but i think members need to do some integrating here in terms of how they have voted on the floor. it's -- doesn't this unlock the cable set-top box? is there a reason to treat video devices differently from wireless devices? >> no. i mean, that's a very astute point. i'd first like to thank you for your unwavering support for consumer support and set-top boxes and your leadership on this issue since 1996. it's very important to consumers and there are a lot of consumers who thank you every day because they love the choice that they have by having access to tivo. what congress is trying to do in terms of unlocking cell phones is to give consumers a

choice of who to use with their phone. section 629 is giving consumers the same choice of equipment and networks rather than taking the lowest common denominator set-top box that your provider is trying to lease to you. there is no different. >> i'd say they're very much the same principles and creating choices for people rather than restricting them to what their provider offers. i think the important thing to note is about the cost. i would say that was a no. obviously mr. mowl is not in position to -- powell is not in position to promise that his companies would lower their prices. i think that that estimate of $1 billion a year, too, or the cost of the cable card is based on 2008 data, if i am not mistaken on that. i think the costs are also in dispute here. let alone whether those savings will be passed onto actual cable customers. >> and keep in mind that if the cable industry has spent $1 billion on cable card, which as matt said, is based on 2008

data before the integration ban really went into effect and there was mass production, i mean, it's hard to believe that this card, this little hunk of metal, unless it's made of gold, cost $56, but the bigger point is, over the past seven years, cable operators have billed consumers $50 billion to lease set-top box equipment. ok. $7 billion a year for seven years. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, i just want to say that i will submit my vlovi ons to both mr. pa and ms. burdick. >> thank you. i recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, the vice chair of the full committee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you to all the witnesses. ms. burdick, i want to come to you.

your company is called schurz, right? >> yes. >> ok. great. and you own broadcast tv stations? >> yes. >> and radio stations? >> yes. >> ok. do you require compensation for the retrans of your broadcast tv stations? >> yes. >> and compensation for the copyright of original content that you produce? >> we -- yes. >> yes. ok. does schurz compensate the copyright holders of content it uses for its broadcast tv stations? >> i think you're asking, as you did last time i was here about radio and the compensation of radio -- >> i'm asking for a yes or no? >> ask the question again if you wouldn't mind? >> do you compensate the copyright holders of content it uses for broadcast on your tv stations? >> yes. >> do you pay a performance right for the music you broadcast over your radio stations? >> we pay as cap and b.m.i. -- >> not the question i asked

you. the answer is no. >> correct. >> that's correct. >> the answer is no. you're right. >> and if you can provide a constitutional justification for that inconsistency, god bless your heart. because i have to tell you, there is not one. and it is intellectually inconsistent. and i think that you are fully aware of that. ok. in your testimony you state that retransconsent negotiations are -- retrans consent negotiations are from market negotiations and this is the most sought after invaluable content today. you advocate for our nation's 22-year-old regulatory structure dictating the terms of these negotiations. so how is it possible that in fact free market negotiations, as you say, if we live under a

regulatory structure that dictates to one party details like where your stations must appear on the cable lineup? >> thank you for the questions. i appreciate your passion on some of these issues. i guess i would look back in researching this -- and i went back into history. the first report in order for the f.c.c. that said one important thing that has carried through and congress has supported in everitt ration of its action and that is is that catv should carry local stations because it supplements, not replaces, local stations and noncarriage is inherently for public interest. we talk about the floods in your district this year, internet didn't make up for the service that local broadcasters provide. we provide an inherent and important public service that is not replicated anywhere. >> well, no one is arguing

about the public service. what i'm asking you is about free market negotiations. and you say you own the most valuable and sought after content. then, why do you need this archaic regulatory structure? wouldn't a paid tv provider negotiate to place your content on their basic tier? if it is indeed the most sought after programming? >> yeah. i guess i didn't make my point clearly. but the point is that when the basic tier requirement was enacted, it was because congress thought it important to preserve the values of localism and to require that local televisions be seen by all consumers and placed on that basic tier. we believe that today. >> well, i admire that you are siring to move to parity and deregulation and work toward that. i know you're going to continue along that vein.

let me ask you this, in your opinion, would true regulatory parity in the video marketplace allow you the freedom to negotiate like nonbroadcast owners? >> you know, we have said in the context of this bill that we would embrace a wholesale view of the ownership and the deregulatory -- regulatory versus deregulatory issues that affect the video marketplace. unfortunately, most of the things that we have been discussing only benefit one side of the table, not the other. and so that's why we support a holistic review of the ownership rules and the rules we operate today. >> can you envision a world in which you are treated like a cable company? >> you know, i guess i'd go to jay carney's lines, i'm always hesitant to predict the future. >> ok. fair enough. i yield back. >> thank you very much. the gentlelady yields back. and the chair now recognizes for five minutes the gentleman

from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. i'm glad to see that provisions included in this draft bill that address joint negotiations of the retransmission consent, i believe these negotiations can cause anti-competitive behavior and can lead to increased prices paid by consumers so i'm glad to see that the issue is at least being addressed in the draft bill and is being addressed by chairman wheeler at the f.c.c. mr. powell, let me ask you. do you think the exemptions in section 3 of the draft bill that allows for joint retransmission consent are necessary, or do you think they detract from the goal of this provision? >> i think our view is the practice of joint negotiations is of great concern. the exception attempts to exempt companies that are genuinely owned. the practical challenge there

is somebody literally owns both stations hard to imagine they are not privy to all the same information. as a joint negotiator, we would be happy for those not to be permitted either. i do think the companion efforts by chairman wheeler in e context of good faith to address undue power is a valuable complement to the statute. >> mr. wood, how about you? >> i think that's right. i think as mr. powell said that you can have a situation where even if you prohibit explicit joint negotiations at the table, if you have a single entity that has the books and has the power to control the activities of both stations it will have much more leverage and much more view into what the two agreements say. so we certainly think there is some competitive harms that aren't necessarily addressed completely by section 3 and that's why we are looking also to the f.c.c. to look further into the practice. >> mr. wood, let me ask you. you and others point out in your testimony that the f.c.c. will consider changing the way it acontributes ownership of broadcast stations based on

joint operation and service agreement. section 4 of the draft bill would force the f.c.c. to have the quadrennial review in advance of modifying these rules. what do you think the effect of this provision will be on the f.c.c.'s ability to make rules in this area? >> well, we think it will be harmful. i don't agree with chairman walden's statement that they shouldn't complete its quadrennial rule. we have called on that in a data driven statement many times. the harm ofs of media consolidation -- the harms of immediate yoon sol dation. however, we see the section 4 of enforcing the rules today and going after violations of the multiple ownership rules. chairman walden talked about the appropriate use of these agreements. there can be some cinergies. what we're most concerned about are operation hahl control, de facto transfer of control where you have one station that's not only calling all the shots but

producing the news, has every right to buy the station. really has full control of its partner and its sidecar company, as they're sometimes called. >> thank you. i want to give ms. burdick a chance to comment on that. i fake it you might not agree. >> thank you, mr. doyle. two points. first of all in the joint negotiation, you're talking about one side of the negotiation equation and not the other. cable companies link it through consultants or the a.c.a. basically advises its members to go through the same law firm. so let's be fair in our approach when we talk about the negotiations, number one. number two, on the j.s.a., a.s.a. issue, free press, particularly, will often repeat fiction as fact. it doesn't make it so. in fact, many of these operations extend local news and public service that would not exist. very quickly, in 2009, schurz had a station, the only one we own that is not number one in its market that lost money for

12 years after launching a full complement of news. we could no longer in the recession year support it through our other operations. we had two choices, go out of business in news and just become an entertainment provider or enter into an agreement that preserved and added news with another entity which is what we did. >> thank you very much. and my last question, mr. zinn, tivo provides a competitive set-top box product that competes with set-top boxes provided by the mpvd's. om your per sective, what -- perspective, how has cable card failed to deliver that deliverance? what reforms do you think need to be made fought program? >> there's a lot in those three questions. the value of competition in set-top box marketplace is a very good question. of course you can't quantify what the value would be. if you look at other markets in the united states, you see --

you look at phone, wireless, personal computing, you can get a sense of what competition brings and that is innovation, choice, jobs and lower costs for consumers. in the set-top box market, you can look at what tivo, one little company has been able to accomplish. we invented the d.v.r. we were the first to bring amazon to the television. we were the first to integrate internet services with cable services in one user interface. we were the first to allow to you move content from your television to your computer and mobile devices. and we're on the cusp of an i.p. transition in video and all the innovation that can have. really what we're looking for, if cable wants to move on from cable card and it's not energy efficient and it's too expensive, we say great. just give us another solution that we can use to provide competition to consumers. obviously if the cable industry wants to get away from cable card they got something in mind so just share it.

my point here is, share. you know, will you share the solution? will you do that? you know, in terms of the current regime, there have been multiple failures. there was the failure of the f.c.c. not to ensure that retail boxes out of the gate had access to all cable content. so right -- you know, right out of the gate, retail boxes were put at a competitive disadvantage. then there was the failure by the f.c.c. that the cable card standard was not competently supported by cable operators. and the integration ban, which is really a light regulatory touch, designed to just make sure if the cable industry is using the same security standard as retail, they're going to support it. right? otherwise they have no reason to support it -- incentive to support it and we have 10 years of evidence on that. mr. powell can dispute that but the evidence is in the record. >> sorry. the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, thanks for your indulgence. >> thanks very much. the chairman yields back.

at this time the chairman recognizes himself for five minutes. interestingly enough, mr. powell, i think i'll start with you. again, thank you very much for testifying today. one of the things that's been out there, if the integration ban is eliminated for leased top boxes, is the cable industry still going to support cable card? >> absolutely. couple quick things to say. it's important to remember even if congress passed this provision eliminating the integration ban we would have absolute legal obligation to continue to provide separate security in cable cards. unless you believe we just completely flaunt the law with no consequences at the commission, that will continue to be the case. secondly, we have 44 million subscribers of our own who use cable cards. failure to support them and failure to support those consumers will have dire competitive consequences. particularly since our principle compet force are industries that have none of those requirements and are able

to offer competitive alternatives if we fail to deliver an adequate experience. second -- the third thing i think is important for the community to understand. the majority of revenue today that tivo derives and the majority -- as their c.e.o.'s noted, they have deals of 10 of the top 20 cable companies. the majority of what they're doing is providing cable boxes through cable companies. those deals are small companies like sudden link and others mean they have to continue to support that as their principle cable equipment. so we think the incentive remains strong to comply with the law that we have a duty to abide by. >> the language in the draft right now is section 629 repealed with the language from my section dealing with the integration ban? >> absolutely not. i think as i mentioned earlier, i had the privilege of vitting on the commission during implementation of section 629. i think the thing that troubled us at the time that troubles us

today is this was not in any way a requirement of the statutory provision. an elimination of an f.c.c. rule in this context does not in any way affect the other provisions in the statute. >> thank you. going on, how is the cell phone unlocking different from section 629? >> i giggle a little bit because the analogy is completely inept. the third-party box -- >> thanks. >> it was from this guy. with all respect here's the difference. it's not an accurate analogy because the third party set-top box in essence comes unlocked. there's nothing locked about it. the cable card is what allows you to put it into the box and have it work. it's important to remember, cable boxes and cable systems have no reason they can't work on any other system. a comcast box cannot work in a time warner cable system.

unlike the portability of cell phones or the portability of other devices that are trying to change networks, leased boxes never change networks. the boxes that do change networks, third party boxes, and they are unlocked and that's what the cable card provides. >> let me continue on. some have raised concerns that the elimination of the integration ban would harm consumer choice, thwart competition and seriously damage the retail market for set-top boxes, remove incentives for cable to develop a new generation solution or compatible d that's for devices, how would you address those concerns? >> i think there has been an explosion of video devices and new content sources that were hardly imagined in 1996 or 1998 when these provisions were implemented. the list is legioned.

apple tv, xbox, voodoo services, netflix. all the android devices, all of which are platforms today for distributing video content, including cable content. that market is being developed by the marketplace at extraordinary fast clip. our view is that market is moving to meet demand, moving to meet consumer preferences and doesn't need intervention in order to make it succeed. >> if you go back just 10 years to where we are today, what would you say on the innovation side has really transpired in that period of time and where do you think in next maybe five to 10 years we're going to be? >> i think it's completely unimaginable. when you -- my opinion is we're only in the third or fourth inning of the transform agsal power of the internet. i think the ability to reduce benefit content to bits to

zeros and 1's, moving them to any data capable devices means our old-fashioned ways of looking in stovepipe ways will be eliminated and consumers i think will be the great winner, even if it's a stress for many of our company. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. and i yield back. and the chair now recognizes mr. welch for five minutes. >> thank you very much. appreciate the hearing and appreciate all the witnesses. you know, there's a lot of good things that are happening. the programming's never been better. that's what most people say and a lot of my constituents say. the choices have never been wider. but the cost has never been higher. that's the real challenge. and that's what i'm hearing about from a lot of folks in vermont. i know that's true for all of us here. the consumer just doesn't have much control other than to just pull the plug which is not what we want them to face.

i'm wondering just quickly, is there anything in the satellite re-authorization bill that's going to start addressing the cost which, according to the f.c.c. statistics, is going up about twice the rate of inflation every year? just quickly, is there anything? >> the u.s. house gavels in momentarily for its legislative session but you can continue to watch our live coverage of this house energy subcommittee earing online at c-span.org. >> while this invasion continues, we and the other nations of the world cannot conduct business as usual with the soviet union. that's why the united states has imposed stiff economic penalties on the soviet union. i will not issue any permits for soviet ships to fish in the coastal waters of the united states. soviet access to high-tech equipment and to agricultural

products. i've limited other commerce for the soviet union and i've asked our allies and friends to join with us in restraining their own trade for the soviets and not to replace our own embargoed items. and i have note advise the olympic committee that with soviet invading forces in afghanistan, neither the american people nor i will support sending an olympic team to moscow. >> more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago. and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> and the u.s. house is coming back into legislative session. two bills this afternoon, including one aimed at limiting the administration's enforcement of federal laws. one of those bills would allow congress to bring a lawsuit against the executive branch for not executing existing

laws. and just a short while ago, the administration issued a statement of policy strongly opposing that bill because, quote, it violates the separation of powers by purporting to permit the congress to challenge in court the exercise by the president of one of his core constitutional functions, taking care of federal laws are faithfully executed. that's from the white house. now live to the house floor here on c-span. e speaker: the h in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend jason parks, refuge church, huntsville, alabama. the chaplain: let us pray. father god, thank you for the rich blessings you have lavished on the united states of america. we are so unworthy of your grace and your mercy. today we prayner men and women of the united states house of representatives. give them great wisdom, protection, and steadfast resolve. in their personal lives, we ask that you replace turmoil with peace, bitterness with joy and

doubt with encouragement. for our country, we ask that you give us a renewed sense of gratitude, an unquenchable zeal for serving those in need and unity toward the common purpose of liberty. above all else, father, we honor you today and humbly intercede on -- behalf of our -- behalf of our leaders. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge will be led by the gentlelady from kansas, ms. jenkins. ms. jenkins: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, is recognized for one

minute. mr. brooks: i welcome pastor jason parks to the house of representatives and thank him for serving as today's guest chaplain. jason is the leading pastor of refuge church in huntsville, alabama. he received an undergraduate degree in communications art from the university of north alabama, an mba from liberty church and master of divinity from rock ridge seminary. he currently serves for the a.l.s. patient care committee, e.m.s. advisory board and faculty at huntsville bible college. he's also a former crestwood medical center associate chaplain and credentialed as a board certified pastorial counselor. pastor jason resides in hazel green, alabama, with his wife and three children. i appreciate the work he's done for our community and his passion for serving the people of north alabama. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for

one-minute speeches from each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i rise to recognize k-9 for warriors, a remarkable florida ganization that has provided therapeutic dogs from veterans ptsd. -- suffering from one in five of our heroes returning home from iraq and afghanistan have ptsd, a tragic epidemic that can disrupt the transition to civilian life and often causes the loss of hope, damage to family relationships or harm to themselves and others. since its inception, k-9 for warriors has provided over 100 therapy dogs to veterans at no cost to the veterans, teaching,

certifying, housing and feeding each warrior as they learn to train the dog to address their specific disabilities and assist in mitigating posttraumatic stress. k-9's for warriors is not only healing invisible disorders and putting veterans on the path to recovery, but it's also giving new hope to the heroes and their families who put their lives on the line to defend ours. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the niagara falls reserve station is one of western new york's most critical resources. mr. higgins: it is not only an asset to our region's economy but also to our nation's security. it employs over 3,500 western

new yorkers and has an economic impact of more than $200 million annually. i'm proud to be part of a large group of community stakeholders who are deeply invested in the successful future of the niagara falls air river station. last year they selected the base as the top choice for sfrux of a new border patrol station. mr. speaker, i am committed to see -- to help see this proposal through. in addition to others that will ensure that the niagara falls remains a fixture for our community for years to come and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas seek recognition? ms. jenkins: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: i thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to commend this chamber for passing three pieces of legislation this week na will offer americans relief from the president's health care law. these bills, which passed with bipartisan support, reaffirm

america's commitment to the ideals of religious freedom, volunteerism and military service. unfortunately, the president's health care law has put all three of these in jeopardy. as written, the law would force americans with the conscientious religious objection to buy health insurance and count volunteer firefighters, other emergency responders, actively military members and our nation's veterans toward the employer mandate tax thresholds. i am a proud co-sponsor of three of these bills because they all will ensure the affordable care act is not discriminate -- does not discriminate on americans on the basis of religion or sacrifice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last week the number of those cut off from

emergency unemployment insurance surpassed two million americans. mr. cartwright: men and women who worked hard but lost their jobs through no fault of their own. now, i represent northern pennsylvania, and my district has been particularly hard hit. in one county, the unemployment rate is 7.5%. the scranton area it's 7.7%. congress could and simply should reinstate the expired federal program. these americans lost their jobs due to no fault of their own. they don't deserve to lose their homes as well. i will be shortly be introducing legislation to have a six-month moratorium on foreclosures for those that lost their unemployment insurance benefits. i ask my cligse to support this legs and vote to extend --

colleagues to support this legislation and vote to extend long-term unemployment benefits. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. as the house takes up the topic of executive overreach this week, we should take a minute to note that this issue is institutional, not partisan. in a recent "l.a. times" column, jonathan turley, after acknowledging that he agreed with many of the policies of the current administration, went on to say, quote, in our system it is often more important how we do something than what we do. priorities and policies in president's change, democrats will rule the day when a future president negates an environmental law or an anti-discrimination law or tax laws. the separation of political power between three equal branches was designed to guard

against too much power accumulating in the hands of any one person or branch. this system is one of the main reasons our government has endured for nearly a quarter of a millennia. we should not cast it asidelightly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to master sergeant david pourier of rhode island who served in the new hampshire national guard. on february 28, master sergeant pourier died in a noncombat related incident while serving in the united states air force in qatar in support of operation enduring freedom. he was laid to rest on march 10 with military honors. master sergeant pourier was from north smithfield, rhode island. after serving in the united states air force, he joined the rhode island national guard where he was trained as a life support journeyman. in 1999 he transferred to the new hampshire air national guard and continued his service

as a member of the 157th operation support squadron for over 19 years. our nation calls upon our brave men and women in uniform to protect our great democracy. there are no greater heroes than the men and women who answer this call and make the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe. it is because of their service that we're able to enjoy the great freedoms, privileges and rights we have here at home. master sergeant pourier will be remembered for his friendly personality, warmth and enduring selflessness and i extend my thoughts and prayers to his family, his wife, kim, his four children and two grandchildren. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. stewart: thank you, madam speaker. every day when i'm talking to constituents, their top concern is always the economy and jobs. they are frustrated, as i am,

that we have something like 3.8 million americans who have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks now. and i'm consistently asked by people, what can be done, how can we make this better? addition to urging the senate to pass jobs legislation that moved through the house, the president needs to approve the keystone pipeline. it's been more than 2,000 days since theline permit has been submitted for approval. 2,000 days the administration has delayed something like 20,000 direct jobs and 120,000 indirect jobs. it took less time to fight and win world war ii. it took much less time to build the empire state building and it's taken us much longer to do this than build the first computer. if we can win world wars and create an entire industry built by computers, sure we can do something about the keystone pipeline.

mr. president, do the right thing, approve the pipeline. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? mr. horsford: i ask for one minute to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. horsford: thank you, madam speaker. i come to the floor today to commemorate my home state of nevada's upcoming birthday on march 21 which will mark 150 years since nevada was admitted to the union in 1864. on that historic day, president abraham lincoln signed legislation allowing the nevada territory to draft its own constitution and form a state government, making us a true battle-born state. throughout its history, nevada has embodied the rugged and adventurous spirit of the west. people from all walks of life have journeyed to our state to seek new opportunities, eventually settling down and contributing to nevada's rich

diversity. on march 21, nevada will come together to celebrate our state's history and achievements but we'll also be looking toward the future. nevada's best days are yet ahead, and i look forward to seeing what comes next. happy birthday, nevada. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i hear from seniors in my district every day that they are very pleased with their medicare advantage plans but are greatly concerned about the recently announced program cuts caused by obamacare. mr. marchant: these will results in higher out-of-pocket costs and these cuts will be especially hard hitting on the 40% of medicare advantage

enrollees who earn $20,000 a year or less. some plans are already cutting doctors that were previously available to medicare advantage beneficiaries. this is only the tip of the iceberg. many seniors are only now hearing about these cuts. the larger problem is that most of the cuts to medicare advantage are all back loaded in obamacare. the worst is yet to come. i call on the administration to give immediate relief to our seniors and allow them to keep the medicare advantage plan that they depend on every day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to encourage my colleagues to bring real comprehensive immigration reform to this house floor. this week the house will

consider the enforce act which would effectively force the deportation of our nation's dreamers and our dreamers are the young people in this country, children of immigrants, who were brought to this country when they were very young and have grown up loving this country just like you and i. and forcing the president's hand in this way is yet another example of placing politics ahead of people. the president has granted deferred action status for so many of these depreemers because of the inaction of this -- dreamers because of the inaction of this house. now my republican colleagues are trying to take away the president's ability to help these young americans. such as laura nunez, a dreamer whom i met last month where my office helped her obtain the deferred action status. her family came to the united states from mexico when she was just 7 years old, and today laura lives in wilmington, california, and continues her education in lausd. america is laura's home and is one of 1.4 million dreamers who

need action from this house, not more politics. mr. speaker, i call on my colleagues, please, let's do real comprehensive immigration reform now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to ask a simple question. are we willing to accept america's economy as a new normal? is north korea spep a growth rate of only 2.4% every year? are we to accept 3.8 million americans stuck without jobs for 27 weeks or more? mr. brooks: house republicans have a plan to grow our economy and get more americans back to work. we want to increase opportunity and help america keep more of the money they earn. and step number one is getting

washington out of the way. if washington will end its job-killing policies, everyday americans will do what they have always done, strive and work to success and prosperity. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: i, too, would like to address the issue of separation of powers. i do think that the administration is entirely in the right when it implements through the environmental protection agency the authority given to it by the clean water act and the clean air act. i do have some concern, though, that the legislative branch continually seems to cede the power of the purse granted to it by the constitution. in other words, the appropriations process, to the executive branch. who obviously would like to fund

its spending priorities, which many -- many of which i don't disagree with. what i'm most concerned with, with regard to this issue of separation of powers, was cited in a "new york times" editorial today that is the fact that two successive presidents have now absolved the central intelligence agency for its conduct with regard to illegal detention, rendition, torture and fruitless harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects. i don't care about khalid sheik mohammed's pain, frankly but that's not the point. the point is we have a responsibility in the legislative branch to oversee the conduct of our intelligence committees. when the chairman of the select committee on intelligence in the senate says that the c.i.a. improperly searched computers on the -- that were her committee staff members' computers, that's wrong and the entire legislative branch should stand behind her in upholding our

responsibilities as the legislative branch, an equal branch under the constitution. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, far too many of our fellow americans, and my fellow texans, continue to struggle in this economy. 3.8 million americans have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. americans and texans have had enough of this sluggish economy. mr. olson: and massive government overreach is only making things worse. we need to rein in washington so

that our economy can grow, that we can create more jobs, and so more people can take home more f their hard-earned money. house republicans have never lost our laser focus on creating the jobs america needs. we're committed to real solutions to get our country back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to speak against the misguided anti-immigration bills being considered in the house today. the enforce act would challenge the executived orer that halts the deportation of young people who are studying and working to become contributing members of

our society. this is another attack on immigrant communities by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. it's proof that their actions don't match their rhetoric. they want the latino community's support but refuse to allow a vote on comprehensive immigration reform. ms. sanchez: instead of working to keep american familiesing to, they are punishing communities by pushing misguided legislation. to my republican colleagues, you can't have it both ways. the facts are simple. passing comprehensive immigration reform would grow our economy by $1.4 trillion and reduce our deficit by $le 50 -- by $850 billion. you can't just say you support latinos and other immigrant communities, you have to do something about it. you have to walk the walk. if you don't want an empty conference room when you're attempting minority outreach, pass comprehensive immigration reform.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i've already found an area of agreement with my colleague from california. just talk the talk, you have to get in here and make things happen. we have an opportunity today as we talk about jobs as we talk about the ukraine, we have an opportunity to move forward on the keystone pipeline that languished for more than 2,000 days. mr. woodall texas he the president cannot -- mr. woodall: the president cannot say he's interested in energy security and thwart the effort this is a would provide it. we are blessed in this country, blessed by the lord god almighty with more energy resources than

any other nation on the planet. yet the president is standing between the american people and those resources. it's about national security, mr. speaker and yes, it is about jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 511 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 90, house resolution 511, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 44 -- h.r. 4138, to protect the separation of powers in the constitution of the united states by ensuring that the president takes care that the laws be faithfully executed and for other purposes.

first read of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rule committees print 113-43. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waive nosmed amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those prinned in part a of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be

debatable for the time specified, equally controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall in the be subject to command for division of the question in the house or the committee of the whole. all points ofed offer against such amendments are waived. at the con delifings debate on the bill for amendment, the committee will rise and report the bill back to the house with amendments as adopted. any member may demand a separate vote on any amendment to the bill or any amendment as a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill except one motion to recommit with or without instruction. section two. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3973, to amend section 530-d of 538 united states code.

all points of order against consideration of the bill are waved. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-42 shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and only any other further amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on the judiciary, and two, further amendment in the report on the committee on rules accompanying this resolution if offered by mr. ellison of minnesota or his dez egg nigh which shall be in order without any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable by the proponent and opponent and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question and

three, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. >> for purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule house resolution 511, house resolution 511 provides for structured rule as it relates to h.r. 4138, enforce the law act, and h.r. 3973rk the faithful execution of the law act. mr. nugent: the bill gives the house the opportunity to debate a variety of this amendments all

offered by member on the other side of the aisle. both the enforce the law act and faithful execution of the law act, aim to halt an imperial presidency. of the hful execution law act requires transparency when the executive branch enforces nonenforcement of federal laws. it must be submitted to congress when it is not enforced on the fwrounds it is not constitutional. this would include any instance in which not enforcing federal law is established regardless of the reason. for the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history this shouldn't be a problem. the other piece of the legislation, the enforce the law act, puts procedures in place to allow authorizations of lawsuits

against the president for failure to faithfully execute the laws. it would also expedite the judicial review, which is badly needed given the length of time it takes for these types of cases to be heard, mostly they're never heard. the fact of the matter is we desperately need a way to ensure the executive branch is upholding responsibility to enforce the law faithfully. every day it seems the president is using more and more unilateral actions to achieve his agenda i understand that congress and the administration is going to have differences over time. there's going to be -- our constitution basically guarantees there will be differences between the administration and the house and the senate. but i'd like to think the president wouldn't just abandon our constitutional principles of government bauds it's difficult to get what he wants. i'm sure some will argue the legislative fix to the president's unilateral actions

are aren't needed. they'll say the president has prosecutorial discretion and so entitles him to make these changes in enforcement or delay certain provisions of the law. but we're really not talking about individual cases, mr. speaker. we're not here today because we're concerned with the administration using discretion on a case by case basis, we're concerned with a president employing blanket policies of nonenforcement. in some cases the president isn't just ignoring enforcement of the laws he's effectively rewriting them. i understand the president isn't the first to expand executive power under his watch. he's not the first president to do that. in fact, congress has failed to protect article 1 powers for decades. this house, the senate has been in dereliction because they haven't actually protected article 1 powers. . this should alm