meat. i urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, on september 11, 2012, terrorists stormed the american consulate in benghazi. four americans were murdered. 19 months later, the killers are still running loose. one killer was even interviewed on cnn but this country cannot capture him and his fellow outlaws? why? what's been the problem? today there are more questions than answers. americans are still not really sure what happened that night and the days following the attack. several house committees launched investigations were -- but were stonewalled. subpoenas were issued but

ignored. last week a white house email was disclosed that indicated there may have been coordination to purposely deceive congress about what really happened. did the administration deceive america? if so, why? let's find out. we have no choice but to establish this select committee, ensure that the full story is told even if the evidence reveals an inconvenient truth. shine light on what happened when americans overseas were murdered in the darkness of the night. and those that oppose this bill, i ask the question, mr. speaker, why don't they want to know all the facts? let's find the truth. the good, the bad, and the ugly truth. justice demands it and justice is what we do in this country. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady from new york will control the remaining time for the minority. the gentlelady is recognize.

ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, a member of the committee for government and oversight reform, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: 30 years ago, america suffered an incredible tragedy. 241 marines in beirut lost their lives when terrorists bombed the barracks in which they were living. at that time we had a president whose name was ronald reagan, we had a speaker of the house named tip o'neill. different parties. that was an enormous tragedy. an investigation needed to be done and it was dobe of. it was done on a bipartisan basis. one investigation was done. and there was a presumption that no matter how tragic this was and no matter how important it was to hold people accountable and that was done, that everybody involved had the best intentions for america's future strength. and there seems to be a premise, at least to me, that this

president of the united states has any less commitment to protecting the lives and safe i have to the american people than any other president. i'll tell you, i was an opponent of the war in iraq. and i was critical of the policy and the decisions of our then-president george bush. but never once did i question that his motivations were anything less than what he thought was best for america. e're going off the rails here. this is a tragedy, but there's a real question, at least on the part of many us and i think many americans as to whether we're doing this right. how is it that there's such glee that the decision is made to go forward after seven other committees, 25,000 documents, more work could be done but how sit that there was such glee on one side where they turned it into a fundraising opportunity? who would do that? and mr. gowdy won't do it, he's

a good man, but you know what if we're going to proceed it's got to be on the level. we've got a 7-5 committee that's being organized, it's not evenhanded. you can't have these tough decisions that not only have to be made right, they have to be made so that there's credibility with the american people that they're on the level and not political where you don't have a bipartisan approach. you don't have everybody weighing in on subpoenas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. there are lots of questions, the first is why didn't the military come help these men when they were in need over this fire fight for several hours. we'll just start there. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton, a member of the foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two nutes. mr. cotton: couple lessons i learned is you moved at the

sound of gunfire and supervise the execution of the orders. when americans were fighting for their lives in benghazi, barack obama did neither. he sent no quick reaction force and didn't stay in the situation room to see the execution of his orders. we expect more from the lieutenants in the army than our president gave us that night. for two years he has stonewalled. not anymore. we will now get to the truth. what did our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say? hey express great outrage at politicizing this manner. men and women that were being shot up by al qaeda, where was the outrage as they fundraised. where was the outraged as they viciously attacked our commanders and outrage when they said soldiers were war criminals and where is the outrage when

they said only high school dropouts join the army. forgive me if i don't join my democratic colleagues in their fake outrage. ur america cons lost their lives. they deserve justice and the american people deserve the truth. one lesson i learned in the army, we will not leave these four men behind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, let me yield myself 20 seconds. i would be be outraged do any of the things he has accused of us doing and i don't believe a word of it. and i yield to mr. schiff 2 1/2 minutes. mr. schiff: i come to the floor to urge my colleagues to vote against the creation of this select committee because this is not a select committee to investigate what happened in benghazi, which has been done many times already. it is not a select committee to investigate what we can do to

better protect our embassies and consulates and diplomatic corps. it is not even a select committee to hunt for those responsible, which involves classified information and done in close sessions. no, this is a proposal to create a select committee on talking points. i have been involved with the investigation into benghazi from day one as a member of the intelligence committee, because like every other american, i wanted to know what happened, why it happened and keep it from happening again and i want to bring to justice those who perpetrated this horrible attack. after 18 months later and reports from house and senate committees and the questions that this select committee purports to investigate have been asked and answered time and time and time again. there is no question that this select committee on talking points will waste potentially

millions of taxpayer dollars in a purely partisan exercise and serve as little more than a fundraising vehicle for republicans. the speaker of the house resisted the call from his base for yet another wasteful committee. here's what he said a month ago. there are four committees that are investigating benghazi, i see no reason to break up the work that has been done and take months and months and months to create some select committee. i agree with the speaker's previous assessment. democrats made a proposal to structure the committee so that equal numbers of members of each party so it required cooperation on subpoenas and depositions and material collected by the committee. in each case, we were rejected. if this isn't a fair investigation and select committee, there is no reason for democrats to vote for it or participate in it. let's end the political circus and focus on efforts to prevent

another benghazi and accelerating the hunt for the murderers of four americans including ambassador stevens. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i yield three minutes to the gentleman, member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. fortenberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. fortenberry: when pressed last week by a reporter about the tragic events on september 11, 2012 in benghazi, the former spokesperson said, dude this was like two years ago. this juvenile and unprofessional response has only added to the concern that we still do not have a full understanding of what occurred that night. what we do know is that our ambassador, chris stevens and three other americans are dead. several from the congressional committees have looked into this question and concluded different

things and there are many lingering questions still unanswered. they reached different conclusions. but the lingering questions are made worse by the fact that we now know that emails from the administration may have been withheld from congress. this is the reason that we need a select committee. to probe deeply and get clear answers with a singular goal in mind, to restore the public trust. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from virginia, ranking member of the oversight and government committee, subcommittee on government operations, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. we don't need a select committee because a particular chairman who is subpoena happy can't draft a subpoena to capture the emails in question. i rise in strong opposition to

house resolution 567 which represents another unfortunate chapter in the majority's commitment to wasting taxpayer dollars after round after round of benghazi political theater. there is a reason that state slogan is diplomacy in action, to effectively represent our nation, american personnel and families make sacrifices. ambassador stevens' family issued this. chris was not willing to be the kind of diplomat who would strut around in fortified come pounds. he walked the streets with the lightest of escorts, chatting with people. there was a risk to being accessible. he knew it. and he accepted it. what he would never have accepted was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes. there were security shortcomings, no doubt, both

internal and outside investigations have identified and publicly disclosed them. steps are being taken to repair them. chris would not have wanted to be remembered as a victim. he knew and accepted that he was working under dangerous circumstances and did so just as so many of our professionals do every day, because he believed the work was vitally important. that's the statement of chris stevens', deceased murdered ambassador to libya -- his family. i deeply understand the demands we place on our foreign service and i know the stakes are high. as a member of the senate foreign relations committee staff from 1979 to 1989 i advicebly recall shortly after i returned home from a visit to the u.s. bar racks in beirut a truck bomb was detonated killing 241 u.s. members of the marine corps. our embassy was blown up twice in beirut.

the democrats didn't pile on. the democrats didn't call for a select committee to investigate ronald reagan and his administration for incompetence. we didn't darkly hint there was a conspiracy by the reagan administration to hide the facts to deny terrorism had occurred. we were patriots and came together and mourned our losses and worked with a republican president to make it better. that's the spirit in which we should approach this issue. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. this bill is absolutely necessary when we look at the facts as we know them currently and we look at the information that we are uncertain about. number one, we have lost four people in an attack that we now know is a terrorist attack.

now know that some things could have been done, but for some reason, to save these people, but they weren't done. now beirut has been raised a couple of times showing the ooperation between speaker tip o'neill and ronald reagan when we lost those soldiers. i remember it vividly. the difference is how the leadership between then and now reacted. so the leadership at the white house responded to this attack by developing a false narrative, probably we don't know why they came up with this fake story ad gone imprompt tue

bad. we talked about in beirut, as my friends from the other side of the aisle had mentioned about all of the documents that were received in the beirut investigation. well, that's because they were cooperative. the documents we received, despite from the gentleman from virginia just said that they were subpoenaed incorrectly. the documents we received were heavily redacted and purposely not providing that information. it was redacted. now, why was that redacted? why was it we had to find out some of the truth about the cover-up that occurred on that narrative about a protest gone bad by an outside group that provided the unredacted. so now what we have before us is an email that was redacted from

the white house and another one that was obtained through an outside source, provided us the same but unredacted that says now that the white house was telling us something different. when you have a white house that has gone out of their way to over up the truth, it is incumbent on both sides of the aisle to fight for the truth, so that the four people that lost their lives, one of which an ambassador for god's sake, they are the ones that deserve justice by this select committee. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: for rebuttal, i'm going to yield two minutes to the the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: it's amazing that he claims the white house is covering up when the white house gave an unredacted version to

the judicial watch. i'm rebutting what i just heard. mr. terry: you are proving -- mr. connolly: mr. speaker. the gentleman says this is about getting at the truth. really? because there have been so many falsehoods propounded on this subject by the other side of the aisle. there was a standdown order. there was no such thing. we could have mobilized the military to intervene and the military did what it could but not enough time frame to intervene in the tragedy unfolding in benghazi. the secretary of state knew and deliberately covered up. there were talking points that avoided the word terrorism even though the president of the united states did use terrorism. the islamic video had nothing to do with happened in benghazi.

mr. terry: would the gentleman yield, because that's absolutely wrong, and you know it. mr. connolly: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. let me remind the other side, the gentleman controls the time. he has been unwilling to yield. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker for returning us to regular order. these are falsehoods used to justify a needless taxpayer's dollars to beat to death for political purposes the tragedy that occurred in benghazi. and the invocation of the name of the deceased ambassador, chris stevens, even though his own family pleaded that he not be used as a political pawn in a political partisan game is something that is beneath contempt. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, the eason why judicial watch received the information they

did in an unredacted basis is because there are criminal penalties associated with that act. those criminal penalties do not exist in the congressional inquiry. the administration is simply taking advantage of that and they know that. and so do all members of congress. this administration was playing games. they're taking advantage of the structure which has been established in the relationship of trying to have the three co-exist.f government . that's where the speaker said enough is enough. when we recognize that the documents we're getting which are heavily redacted did not could he inside or agree --

incide or agree with because they asked for it under foia, which has criminal penalties associated with it which meant that those lawyers knew exactly what they were doing and could be held to that criminal penalty point. but in providing them to congress, they would just redact it and then claim might security and we not ever know the difference. we're not stupid. 've been deliberate, we've been cautious, we've stayed after it, but redax after redax -- redaction after redaction and trying to lead us down a path is exactly where this administration has been and they deserve what they're getting. they are the ones that brought this to congress.

we are simply properly carefully responding. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from the foreign affairs committee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman for bringing this important legislation forward. and also to congressman frank wolf which has been tenacious in insisting there is a select committee. there are serious gaps, we all know it and the people who lost their lives, who died unnecessarily, their loved ones and the american people deserve to know the truth about benghazi. you know, when secretary clinton came before the foreign affairs committee, i asked her point blank, you have said, madam secretary, that you take full responsibility, so i asked her, how do you define full responsibility? she defines it from the day of d all that preceded benghazi is precluded in that definition. despite the fact there was one cable after another suggesting there was serious gaps in

security, all of that seemed to have not made its way to either her or her senior staff, that is a very, very much of a lack of attention to detail and that needs to be -- light needs to be brought to that. i asked the two -- two of the people who headed up the a.r.b., the accountability review board, why they did not interview secretary clinton. they had no good answer. i asked them twice, no good answer. back in 1998 when we got hit in nairobi, i chaired the hearings of the accountability review board and we looked painstakingly at all the gaps that existed and i wrote the secure embassy construction of 1999. there was lessons learned. those lessons were not applied the way they should have been to benghazi. again, requests were made for help. we still don't know the truth. the new select committee will leave no stone unturned. it will get answered. again, those who died, their loved ones and the american

people deserve to know the truth. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, may i inquire if my colleague has nor requests for time? mr. sessions: in fact i do. ms. slaughter: you do. then i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. if i could inquire back to the gentlewoman, are you through with your speakers? you expect to close? ms. slaughter: i am. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to one of the newest members of congress, the tampa bay, om florida, the gentleman, congressman jolly, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this resolution, a resolution necessitated today by a crisis and trust, a crisis in trust between this congress and this administration. this body has the article 1 constitutional authority to provide oversight over the administration, an authority that has been repeatedly ignored by this administration. and ignored with an audacity rarely seen in modern politics.

today with this resolution, we confront that audacity. here are the facts, mr. speaker. we have a president that rules by pen and a phone. we have an attorney general that selectively enforces laws when he wishes to and which states he wishes to. we have a veterans affairs administration who is withholding documents about the death of veterans. we have agencies that legislate by regulation and we have an i.r.s. that has targeted organizations and refuses to testify about it. so is it any surprise that last week additional information comes to light about benghazi? no, it is not. this administration has kept information from this congress, and they have refused to recognize the gravity of this obstructionism. they've done so in the context of a loss of american lives and a loss of life that is personal for a family in my district. that family deserves answers. so, yes, we have a crisis in trust between this congress and this administration, but this is not political theater. this has not been brought upon

this house by this side of the aisle. this has been brought upon this house by the stone walling of the administration. it is a rightful execution and proper execution of the article 1 oversight authority of this congress. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the government and oversight committee, the gentleman from florida, chairman mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. mica: mr. speaker and my colleagues, i'm going to ask a couple questions. first of all, i have to give a disclaimer that i was one of the members on this side of the aisle that did not favor a select committee. i actually took my name off of the request from mr. wolf and i thought we could handle this manner in regular order. four committees proceeded to investigate the matter.

i'm the senior member of the -- chief investigative panel of congress. i've been through many investigations. i've never in my life seen the stone walling -- stonewalling, i've never seen the contempt for congress displayed by this administration and then last week to make a mockery of the entire system we saw from an outside party getting information that four committees of congress had never received and requested. i have never seen anything like this. why are we doing this? the other side has brought this. the administration has brought this upon themselves. let me ask a fundamental question. what difference does it make? what difference does it make? i want you to tell that to the state department employees who every day go to work, sometimes

put their life at risk. four american officials were killed, murdered and no one's been held accountable. no one's been brought to justice, and to have an official come before committee of congress and say, what difference does it make, ask that to the families of the state department, people who work for the american people. what difference does it make? ask the military. oh, there's no evidence of order to stand down, but we know our military had the ability to save those americans . we know that the state department had the ability to keep those americans safe, and no one acted. what difference does it make? what difference does it make to those four families? what difference does it make? we don't have to investigate

anything. we don't have to hold anyone accountable. no one died in watergate. four american officials lost their lives, and under our systems, individuals, whether it's the secretary of the state or the president of the united states or any official at any level needs to be and must be held accountable and responsible under our system. otherwise, we make a mockery of this whole business of a government of and for and by the people. mr. sessions: i give the gentleman one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. mica: what difference does it make? people were asleep at the switch. they need to be held accountable, again, regardless of rank. this is the united states of america. this is the congress. people sent us here.

they are out there trying to make a living, provide for their families, pay their taxes . they sent us here to keep this government responsible, accountable. what difference does it make? it makes a great deal of difference, not only to the men and women of the state department, our united states military, the families of those slain, but it makes a big difference to the people of the united states who sent us here to keep this a responsible government and accountable no matter who must be held responsible or accountable. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady from new york continue to reserve? ms. slaughter: i do as long as my colleague has speakers. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. we are now through with our speakers. i'll close so the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. slaughter: i'll close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for the balance of the time which is 9 1/2 minutes. ms. slaughter: how much? the speaker pro tempore: 9 1/2 minutes. ms. slaughter: i think probably the best way for me to close is another vote from a man who is fast becoming my favorite member of the house of representatives, congressman buck mckeon, republican chair of the armed services committee. he said to the associated press on april 10 last month, quote, i think i've pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were how quickly the thing all happened and how we kly it dissipated, probably could not have done more than we did. at some point we think we'll have as much of the story we're going to get and move on. mr. mckeon, it is long past time for us to move on. i really appreciate so much

hearing from mr. connolly, the statement from ambassador stevens' family, and i've heard it before. and the eloquence which they talked about him. remember, he had been there in benghazi, basically been there for the day. and everybody said and all the things i read, he was the kind of man, he spoke the language, he wanted to be out with the people. he would not want to be behind the walls of compound. and he knew what he was doing and he made his choices. but the thing that rang so strongly with me was the one thing they said he would not have wanted was to become a political pawn. and that's exactly what we're making of ambassador stevens and the other three americans who died in that tragic event. without any question we are also causing once again to those four families, people who oved them most, grievous

hardship to try to deal with all this again and it's being done for politics, it's being done to raise money. and so i want to close to paraphrase another great american at another time and ask the majority, have you no shame? at long last, have you no shame? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized for the balance of his time, seven minutes. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much, and i do want to thank the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member of the rules committee, my dear friend, who presided over a very long hearing yesterday where we went through in a meticulous fashion the understanding of why this committee, who this committee might comprise itself of and what their mission would be.

we intervened into this process as a result of a real problem, mr. speaker. we've intervened in this process because the administration and these standing committees here in the house of representatives were unable to quickly and thoroughly accomplish their goal of providing not only proper oversight but getting a fair and transparent answer back. hiding the ball is one thing. deception is another. and this administration has gone out of their way. they've lawyered up to make sure that they could, i think, mislead congress to where they would make sure we really couldn't ever get involved in anything but a goo ball and then they would try to explain them self in such a way that they would blame our insistence upon getting the truth as a

political witch-hunt. mr. speaker, that must mean there's a witch somewhere, and i don't have any clue what that answer is but what i will tell you is this, is we must get to the bottom of this without it being a political witch-hunt. . . so yesterday i went through with the committee an understanding and i stated three important parts of what this resolution is about. the select committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study and to issue a final report and its findings to the house regarding all policies, decisions and activities that contributed to the attack on the united states facilities in benghazi, libya, on september 11, 2012. as well as those that affected

the ability of the united states and to prepare for these attacks. and number three, in particular, that information related to lessons learned from the attack and executive branch activities and efforts to protect the united states facilities and personnel must be understood. mr. speaker, john boehner, the speaker of the house, has announced that the gentleman from south carolina, a distinguished federal prosecutor , a reliable person who serves in this body is not the least bit interested in the political outcome. in fact, he's interested, because i know him and know him well in doing the things which are under the charge that we at the rules committee and that

this house today, i believe, will give him. that he will well and faithfully discharge those duties that have been given to him as the chairman of the select committee. and i believe that the speaker of the house has met with former speaker pelosi, now the minority leader, to ask the minority leader to please offer him the ames of those five personnel members of congress who might represent the democrats or the minority in this case an opportunity to be a full and forthwith member of this committee. it is our intent that these 12 people will work together, not apart, that they will work with a mandate that is clear and that provides them the necessary information and the discretion to the full extent of the law.

but it is also understood by this that these members of this select committee need to be met forthwith by the administration of the united states of america and that is the office and the executive branch of the presidency. and it is a full request that i would make at this time for the american people to understand that we are asking this administration to lay down their sword, to lay down those things to have been have been things that have been transparent and information that would allow us to get to the bottom of this. we have heard over and over how people accepted that the buck stopped there and they took full responsibility. but in accepting full responsibility, we have not

learned enough about what those mistakes were if they're willing to accept the responsibility. this is not going to be wished away, mr. speaker. our young chairman gowdy will not whitewash this investigation. our committee is not empowered just to go off and twitter away the time. there will be serious members of this body. i look forward to finding out -- former speaker pelosi and appoints to the committee i will be intensely interested to see who speaker boehner apoints and i think they will represent the very best from this body, that they will be young men and young men -- women who have been part of an understanding of how to

carefully look for the facts of the case and not an inch beyond, how to ask questions that are fair and those that represent the very best of only learning the truth and not an inch more. and i have confidence that this house of representatives, through the leadership of mr. gowdy, will bring not only excellence, but will stand as a model of how the house of representatives should conduct itself when they have a problem with an administration, whether it be republican or democrat. and i i will predict today that those people that former speaker pelosi brings to the people and we bring to the table will be prepared to do exactly that. with that, mr. s

about theelosi talked benghazi investigation during her weekly briefing. she gave no indication as to whether members of her caucus would or would not participate in the special committee. this is 20 minutes here and -- minutes. >> thank you very much. good morning. sorry to be behind schedule. we have votes on the floor, so this will not last long. some of the subjects i wanted to we usually hadut but theeekly yesterday, vote on the r&d tax credit postpone some changes -- necessitated a change of this. i want to talk about what happened on the floor today. republicans brought forth a bill that takes us $156 billion in

debt. it goes under the guise of making permanent r&d tax cuts. --have all been making r&d we have all been for making r&d tax cuts permanent. every district in the country has the entrepreneurial spirit of r&d and is no longer just silicon valley, massachusetts and that. it's the whole country. it is very appealing. but it's very wrong the way the republicans brought it to the floor. i'm so proud the president issued a subpoena, that there would be a recommendation of -- sorry, another subject trade veto a threat. threat.ct, veto a the president possibly go should come back to the floor.

there is an opportunity and the senate is handling it so much better in terms of a two-year bill. our members have already voted on r&d tax credit made permanent, offset by closing special-interest loopholes in the law, not increasing the deficit, but including not only but wind and solar for renewables, low income tax taxit, child tax credit, credits that inject demand into the economy, creating jobs. a political move to bring that to the floor. the hypocrisy of it all, to talk about deficit reduction and bring the bill to the floor, that takes us $156 billion in debt, unpaid for, while they say we have to pay for unemployment, insurance benefits, extension, and unemployment insurance.

as many of you know but none of about, theyt, -- threw us out of the room the other day. people whoisten to had been unemployed through no fault of their own, and telling their stories about how this extension has hurt their families and their prospects. we had the room for to stay, but we got here to do it and they said, you no longer have the room because we did not know the subject of your meeting. we don't allow you to have a room to talk about the unemployed. we took to the steps of the capitol, and thought that might invoke some interest. can you just imagine if i had done that to them? can you just imagine what they would be doing if we said, you cannot have a room because they don't like the subject matter you are talking about, a matter before the congress that has

passed the senate? that's what that is. obviously, you are in the newly committee that the speaker up until last friday was rejecting and in his own words saying that there are four committees that are investigating benghazi. i see no reason to break up all the work that has been done and take months to create some select committee. something happened in the caucus. lo and behold, the rumor was starting to spread last friday. we did not get any information about it until the rule was filed on tuesday night. another question is, what are the terms under which democrats could participate? we made it clear that our caucus is clearly among those who don't have anything to do with it right -- it. i don't dignify what they are doing.

others have said, just send one person so we can see what they're doing to the witnesses and have access to the testimony. seethird option is, let's what they come back with in terms of engagement. is the have asked for divided committee -- we would've liked to have that. we must have standards for democrats. a democrat needs to concur on decisions to depose witnesses, and the decision to interview witnesses, and the decision to release any report, document, or information by the committee or the staff of the committee. these are places where in the regular order of the standing had been led so magnificently by elijah cummings

, that these are places where we really did not get the proper respect of the minority. i'm hoping that where we are on that is the speaker told me, i'm very serious about this. i want there to be no circus, all that. down andwe should sit come to terms on it. minute.ll be there in a he said, why doesn't the staff go back and forth on this first? when we sit down, we will see what that is. and then we will make a decision as to how we proceed with that. it's very sad. , tyrone woods. two of their families have called us and said, please don't take us down this path again. hard for them. it's very sad. here we come up with on mother's day.

when women succeed, america succeeds. rubber on valentine's day when we -- remember on valentine's day when we said, remember what women want? childcare. quality that's what we want for moms. we want flowers and roses and brunch or whatever, and mom not weing to do the dishes, but also want to unleash the power of women, whether they want to be entrepreneurial and create jobs, whether they want to have a job and be treated fairly, to be able to do so in a way that has the proper balance between family and work. hard to go into mother's day without thinking about the little girls in nigeria.

can you just imagine how it must be for those moms? wonderful it is that the whole world is taken up the cause of these little girls, bring back our girls? we will do something on the floor in a bipartisan way, i'm pleased to say. that will come to the floor, a resolution. what a horrible thing. it's diabolical. we all have to do whatever we can to make sure that those little girls are returned home. the idea that these terrorists can say, we are going to sell them into marriage or whatever thing.s a stunning challenging the conscience of the world.

happening at mother's day intensifies the concern we all have. yes? >> [inaudible] you have to know that i favor our regulars. you walk through this debate internally in the caucus? just what it looks like? expectations of how the members will comport themselves tom and if they don't participate, that means they will call hillary clinton and susan rice? can you walk through these machinations? >> i thought i just did. stunt. a political issa is damaged goods. they had to move from him to another venue with another

chairman. we have been there and done this over and over again. question is, is there at least a level of decency in terms of respect, even in the regular order of the standing committee, where the minority has a right to call witnesses? the majority said, we do not have to call your witness when we're having this discussion on the subject with our witnesses. we can call yours anytime we want, if we ever do. they try to use the climate and energy select committee, which is a completely different thing. it's a four-year committee. it was only established so we could get a couple of bills done. the energy bill, which we did, and the climate bill, which we passed that the senate did not. subpoena inly one four years issued, and it was unanimous. one subpoena.

this is a completely different set up. i think the chairman has already called an investigation. i don't think it was posted be an investigation. i think he called it a trial. does that tell you everything you need to know? chairman objective says, i don't want this to be a circus. is sayingur chairman some things that are looking circus like. i have evidence, he says, that not only are they hiding it, there is an intent to hide it read -- it. ahave evidence there was systemic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from congress. is that the statement of a fair trial by the chairman of the committee, if he's calling it trial?

we will just see. i have a great respect for the speaker. to the extent he is able, i think he will have -- frankly, it serves them better than to let them be themselves. that's why a lot of people say, just let them show who they are with all of this. any of our witnesses can hold their own in that venue. they do not need us there to protect them. then there's another school of thought that says, we see how they operate. we think we should be there. any of our regulars here? >> if republicans stick with what the resolution was that was passed in the house yesterday, the democrats not participate in the committee? >> when i speak with the speaker, i will give you an answer as to what that will be. if they stick to the guidelines as they are now

[inaudible] >> when i spoke to the speaker, they already had those rules out there. the inference to be drawn from our conversation is that we would go to a different place with more clarity about what the rights might be, or more specificity. our members are on a spectrum of, don't go in there, send one , it doesn't matter what they do. there is a full range. this is all interesting. we have our history. we understand what we're dealing with. we really don't know yet what the speaker is going to say. let's find that out. you are somebody who has

rather good judgment, politically and otherwise. what do you think should be done? >> it depends on what the speaker tells us back. confidence that we have extraordinary talent to go into the room, to get the job done. let me read you another quote from buck mckeon. i think i've pretty well been satisfied that given how quickly howthing happened and quickly it dissipated, we probably could not have done more than we did. we had been working on this for a long time. we issued a preliminary report. when we run out of people to some point we think we will have as much of the story as we are going to get and move on. what is the purpose of this? what is the manner in which they will proceed? how is that manifested in respecting the rights of the

minority? then we will make a decision about where we should go. this is brand-new. this is one week old. >> [inaudible] >> no. if they cared about the presidential, they would be passing an immigration bill. this is all about them. i think it's pretty clear. their focus on the affordable care act has run its course. now they have to find something else to talk about that is not about how we create jobs, how we build the infrastructure. simple as abc. let's create jobs. american made. stop having tax cuts that send overseas. jobs build the infrastructure of america. see a sense of community and how we educate our children, protect our neighborhoods, secure our nation.

of how we honor our responsibilities to the american people. they do not want to talk about that. they don't believe in government. they don't believe in science. they want to stop or barack obama at every step. i think this is about the republicans, 2014. we have the votes to pass immigration bill. gunave the votes to pass safety, the brady background check legislation. bipartisan vote for the voting rights act. what are we doing instead? spending a week getting attention on this subject, which

-- the american people care about jobs. they care about their families and the education of their children and health of their families. as somebody said to me yesterday, either people have gotten tired of benghazi or they never knew about it in the first place. let's not be accomplices to this diversionary tactic. it's all subterfuge. they do not want to talk about what our responsibilities are here. we have to make a judgment as to how dangerous we think they can misrepresentation of the facts of the committee. the speaker says he does not want to go that place. i hope that's how it will go. when i speak with him, we will see. we have been there and done that. why are we doing this again? i'm going to have to go to the floor and vote. >> [inaudible] >> no.

>> [inaudible] >> no. that's it. we have the next vote coming up. >> some more on that special committee on benghazi. be the chair of the benghazi committee. he is a second term congressman on the oversight committee. he will be joined by six other republicans. sas. pompeo of cases -- kan martha roby of alabama. the five democrats who will serve on the committee have not yet been named. democrats are requesting that certain conditions be met first, including the ability to sign off on subpoenas and participate fully in witness testimony. they're also requesting republicans are not selected when releasing -- selective when

releasing statements. gowdy on fox news -- in all thecipated other seven investigations. if it is a fair and balanced process, absolutely. we do not want to see reckless and irresponsible handling of an affair that took the lives of four brave americans. >> if you are satisfied with the ground rules, you're declaring that the democrats will appoint members to this committee? >> i believe so. we have always said we are ready to participate. what we do not want to see is reckless and irresponsible use of congress and taxpayer money to do these witchhunts. >> is it unreasonable for democrats to demand some say in how the committee is run? >> no, sir. if you talk to the ranking members of the two committees i presided, they will tell you that i don't run my committees

the way that the democrats are fearful of. i want a process. at the end of it, you're welcome to draw different conclusions from the facts. i want everyone to say it was fair and exhaustive and we know more than we did when it started trade -- started. points, i think reasonable minds can agree. youhe first point, imagine and i starting an investigation, and the first thing you ask for is the ability to deny or veto subpoenas going to witnesses. how can it be a pursuit of the truth? years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite divider.

like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the 2014 cable show was held in los angeles recently. next, we will look at the third and final day of the event, with discussions about the latest innovations in technology. speakers include rob lloyd of cisco systems. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> let's talk about cable. to start off, let us talk about the merger of media, speculation about what the potential comcast-time warner tie up could mean for cox. up moreu have come strongly against this, gotten half a million subscribers out of it? more a believer that the

the industry works in a cooperative fashion, the more we work on creating standardized platforms, the more we look for universal solutions, all boats rise and we are in a better place. warner chartere agreement i think helps us move along that continuum, the industry working together. it simplifies some things. the more we create standardized industry platforms, the better off our customers will be. >> if the others get bigger, do they drive down the cost of content for everybody, or can they afford to pay more, driving up the cost of content? >> i think it is a platform discussion. roger is going to come here and talk -- robert is going to come here and talk about the need to industryandardized platforms. innovation shows up on top of it. we have example after example. if we can do that in parts of

our business that are fast-growing, this business can continue to grow for a long time. has talked about the internet of things. i am not sure we have the right name for it, but lots of different objects we are not used to connecting to the internet, connected. light bulbs, even outside the home. when are we going to see that vision start to accelerate even more? we are seeing home automation stuff. businesses are getting involved. what is it going to take? >> we have done a lot of work in understanding where we are going to see the market move most quickly. we have not connected, like televisions and mobile phones, get connected. there is a huge opportunity here. one that is going to move quite quickly is cities. we have seen barcelona.

we have seen cities like homburg . what they provide is a platform , which attracts companies to locate there. most importantly, creating an opportunity for small companies to start up. >> here is the point. if you look at the experience in barcelona, most of what has happened so far is someone has the room service and said, let us create a wireless mesh. the financials do not work. if you can take a platform for the smart city, it is wireless and a new methodology. you can actually build those apps and get them out to citizens, and get them to people attending arenas. the connectedness of things that have not been connected on a broadband platform, with a lot of outdoor wi-fi, is creating real

benefits. job creation -- in barcelona, they have created hundreds of thousands of new opportunities, a thousand and-a-half new jobs. they have saved money. in a european city, if you are looking for a parking spot, you will drive forever. smart meters. fedex would what look like if they drove to every business every day and knocked on the door and said, the you have a package? imagine what could happen in trash collection in large cities, if you only went when the bin was full and transform that process. it is happening. states, we are seeing a huge opportunity for cable operators to focus on their platform as a way to enable that and create an ecosystem of private and business interests that make that happen. >> you talked about neighborhood

wi-fi, using in-home hotspots to create a sort of mesh that then gets filled in, mostly driven by , so they could become big layers in this. do you see that same strategy, take a different tack? >> we are participating with comcast, time warner, and cablevision. we have more nationwide hotspots today than anybody else, 250,000 of them. our customers can roam from cox comcast ander to have metro wi-fi services available. i can look out and see how exciting this is. as you roam, but in your neighborhood, in your home, your business, giving you the ability to immediately be authenticated and connected.

>> but it is going to take a lot more than the place we are right now for that experience to compete with the wide area of the cellular networks, moving to lte and beyond. are we pushing that far? >> i would challenge you, the next time you are with at&t wireless folks -- ask them what percent of the data streamed on their devices is going over their network versus their wi-fi connection. i will let them answer that question. it is eye-opening. >> i know that, but when i am traveling and i'm on my phone, looking for reliability -- i know i will be able to get to my e-mail. i know i will be able to trust the network i am on. i tend to go to cellular, not i caner wi-fi hot system connect to. at what point are the cable players going to be able to really compete. to him with what cellular offers?

>> never full-spectrum, because there is parts of that business model that would not be theactive to us will stop wireless carriers have a very advantageous position. for the majority of the usage you do on your daily basis, you would be surprised at the availability of wi-fi that is probably very close to you, or you are standing in it and do not even know it. the 250,000 is only going to continue to grow. >> i think the point is, we are thinking of wi-fi today as availability in a shop, store, restaurant, or our home. as we start to see the platform get deployed to pull tops -- pole tops and every other part of the network, it becomes pervasive. get into awhen you high-density venue like staples center in los angeles, it is wi-fi.

if you will be there with 18,000 people attending a lakers game, or mla game now that my sharks have lost, you will see wi-fi as a platform that enables that capability. the video consumption that is happening there is going to require that. are big technology challenges to making that a great experience. to connect myble phone to that network and feel it is secure. not necessarily have to type in a password every time. i am on the safe network. i know what i am doing is not being monitored by the guy in the t-shirt. >> i want you to be able to access it once and exploited several times in your life. is the kind of things that keep things seamless in your customers lives, very simple, but in a way, elegant. the thing with companies like cisco is, how do we take a world

that is very single threaded, wi-fi devices in your home, engineered to work by themselves and think about it -- how can we put platforms , so people can start plugging into those platforms? i gave my brother-in-law, five years ago as a joke, a wi-fi connected alarm clock. it was called a chumby. they went out of business. , all it washy is was a single threaded device. off, itmy alarm went started my water heater or set the temperature in certain rooms, or turned on the heating coils in the floor, or got my coffee maker going -- it is

scary what that could have become. the problem is, we were very single-minded. >> let us talk about over-the-top. how do you look at amazon fire ku, apple tv, rocha, -- ro others that are moving under the tv set. they are another option for people to access content. moreat more opportunity, threat? how do you decide how friendly to be to the streams that these content providers want to censor these boxes? >> it is both competition and a friend. it is the most interesting discussion to have. i have not looked in the last 90 days, but 40% of our broadband customers streamed at least one netflix movie a month. we think about that. we want that to be a good experience. clearly, my broadband connection

has a lot of services. you named amazon and apple. i want that to be positive. >> what percent of your broadband customers use on demand? >> broadband video, 70% or 80% use on demand. that based one broadband households. i have done that based on video households. netflix stacks up well against other over-the-top providers. netflix keeps it on my toes. it makes me think about a world where my customers want on demand content anywhere they go. how do i get those rights for them? we launched a product called that responded to five things our customers told us. they wanted more vod content. it wanted more tuners at home. they wanted more storage.

they wanted access to this content on second screens. last but not least, they wanted a powerful recommendation engine that knew them and recommended other shows to them. in the month of february, 600,000 households in cox have contour now. learning activities were gathered by the recommendation engine. almost a million times, our customers consumed that recommendation. the average household was andhing 22 channels a month went to 29 channels a month. customers will respond if you innovate. thatke a step back from conversation about over-the-top. here is what we are saying. we are seeing a whole industry moving to the construct of a new waythe crowd as to achieve scale, speed, and application innovation. the whole show floor was about a lot of cloud apps.

to a new model, a new kind of thinking. that movement is underway right now, amongst the people that are here. you develop. you operate in one mode. you do not have an operations team. you bring us together. you drop code every week or every day. you do a market trial by putting the operation out there. those are different thoughts, but they speed up the innovation process. >> i am confused about what cloud means in this content. that means applications can be managed and delivered in a central environment, that tie to the network, that leverage the network and its capabilities, that still connect to the value of the set top box. >> from the consumer set top box and the experience i have on my tv -- will it get upgraded and improved more seamlessly?

the customer service experience that i am able to access through the tv, instead of having to call -- is that what you are talking about? >> it means the channel guide does not change with a hardware upgrade. you change it with a new drop in code. before that drop happens, somebody tested it and the feedback came back positive or negative. that is happening all day long on your phone today. piece ofis dropping a code or an image that has a new feature. it completely changes the innovation speed that cable is going to bring to the consumer. theut some platforms in phone world are better at it than others. take a look at android. you cannot update them to the latest version. ios, it is a little easier, but you have trade-offs. what is good to happen in cable? is it going to be comcast, time warner, that consortium that end

up making sure the platform gets driven forward? >> yes, we are. >> how is that playing out? plant,s a manufacturing a delivery vehicle. we announced we are going to build a collaboration with providers at the world's largest connected cloud. you may not have a data center in texas, and you may need one. you may not have a data center in germany, and the customer may insist on one. inter-cloud would be a connection of those clouds, because the network matters more than anything in high intensity workloads. video is a great example of an application that the network really matters. ask everyone here is the network really matters when you deliver your experience. >> what about the platform, living in the set-top boxes? you have an idea how

standardize those need to be for the vision? >> sometimes, the customer is going to want to bring their own. other times, we would deliver an experience that would be differentiated when the application is being delivered, innovating in real time, as every other app from the cloud does. haveet-top box would capabilities, rendering that application on the television, my ipad, or my phone. i will be experiencing that desire, which would see my content in linear fashion, where i want to see it. that is where this whole room is going. we will be part of that, along with many of the players. give you ao transformative example of part of the business we do not talk about, business services. the cloud has arrived in the business space. the set-top box -- there was in the small media business, boxes that had to sit inside the shops.

wanted your phone to work, you had to use this system. webex replaces a lot of those. small businesses now. you do not have to have technology in your shop. it is in the cloud, your phone system. you go to a location on the web and put your account and, you can control your whole phone system. now, every time we go through improvements, it happens virtually. you do not have to reconnect wires and download software. it is going to arrive in the residential space just as quickly. >> we talked about this the other day. the company we bought for $1.2 billion -- it is cloud networking. you can put a switch in your location. it is a box. but the control and the management is in the crowd. that business is exploding for us. combine that with broadband, telephony -- i think the commercial market is ripe with

opportunity to deliver cloud services from the cable industry that bundle cloud applications together with broadband and voice, and create the six play instead of the triple play for small business. it is happening right now. it is exploding in that market. years from now, who has gotten the margin out of all these changes? you know what i am saying? that may so many areas be the operators, may be a big equipment provider, is to have pretty much a lock on, that are now more up for grabs. >> what does it look like? >> five years from now -- i see the benefit. but somebody always gets the money. >> let us walk through it. -- linear video business video consumption is growing at a record rate. americans are consuming more video today than any time in the history of the country. >> and the content makers are getting paid.

>> our margins in the video business are getting tighter. that is a fact. our broadband business -- we are still adding broadband customers, investing heavily in our network to have the best broadband in the marketplace. i think we continue to grow in that. broadband enabled all the things we just talked about. ip -- that business will remain. the pie is shrinking, but we will probably get a bigger slice of the shrinking pie. services -- our footprint is a $6.6 billion opportunity. falls somewhere between $75 billion and $90 billion. we have been at it for a long time. in our market, over $1.7 billion to it this year. i think the injury captures over 30% over the next five years. -- the industry captures over 30% over the next five years. i did not even get into new

business. >> we have to wrap up. ,ast question -- net neutrality fast lane. how do you convince people you can have it both ways, that you can have a fast lane and the main lane improves at the same time? >> we just all need to focus on innovation. consumers just want to see service innovation. i want to see things solving their problem, new experiences. i would leave it alone and say, let's just focus on those that an the network actually have chance right now, as these trends emerge, to make the .etwork matter >> but consumers want to pay less for faster speeds. >> the mistake people are making is -- we do commercial arrangements in all of our industries every day. somehow, i am taking something from you if i have a special arrangement. his is not taking anything away

from the 400 million broadband customers i have today. i have to take care of them. i am increasing broadband speeds this year. i have for seven years in a row. >> could you have made it faster and done it for less if you were not so focused on giving that deal -- >> it is a business arrangement. >> if netflix is praying for a faster lane, and start up x wishes they had that faster lane as well, the consumer wonders, does netflix is getting all this with quite i do not think it works that way. -- getting all this -- >> do not think it works that way. our customers will have access to all the content on the internet. that is our promise. we are not blocking anything. it is the worst thing i possibly could ever do. >> lots of people worried. >> should not be. is a fast-moving area.

you guys are operating in it. >> thank you for coming today. >> thank you for the conversation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] next, a conversation with the creator of the amc tv series "mad men." he is joined by the ceo of amc. i talk about the series and the shift to more original programming in cable. this is also from the 2014 cable show. it is 20 minutes. it out. >> sure. >> good morning. in a couplenow weeks you are getting ready to write and direct the final episode of "mad men." but really the burning question i have for you this morning is, what was your favorite long-term job with broadcasting and cable? at thed a one day job

calling subscribers to broadcasting and cable, trying to get them to come to the luncheon. weight $100. closed all what. " lott i was the leader for the day. -- closed a lot. lot, leader for the day. you never have any idea who is sitting in your office. >> this is a big moment. this is a landmark show. you have been working on it for years. it is your baby. how are you feeling right now, as you wrap this up? of -- there isot a lot of feelings, you know? there are waves of feelings. i am not really at the real feeling yet of what it is going to be like, which i know will be lost. -- loss. i am focusing on savoring what is left, and the idea of completing something.

it is not really part of my job, normally. series television, in itself, is not something that works itself to completion all the time. your job is to keep the story going every week. we have completion to the season, but the idea that we are getting to the end of this -- i feel good about that. emotionally, it is confusing. i am looking forward to seeing my family again. other than that -- it is trying to integrate these two families, and take on the idea that i wrote the pilot 14 years ago. i -- and it was five years before i even met amc, and seven years after i wrote it, i was on the air. it is -- i am not good at math. but it is close to a third of my life. >> what has it meant to your life and your career?

tried to put most of it in the show. i really have. absolutely life altering in every way. completely satisfying artistically. me.ionally deep for i have met some of the most amazing people i will ever meet. most of myen to meet heroes. writenot know i could this much, you know? i am a fundamentally very lazy person. having a gun pointed at your head for seven years, you actually get used to it. having a train come at you. you are much braver than you think you are. thing,hat the biggest you would say, is the take away, knowing what you are capable of? creatively, professionally. >> i would include in that as the most important thing knowing

that i could work with so many people. and knowing how to be a manager on some level, and how to harness some other people's genius. i know it all gets reflected on me, but i had no idea that i out, that wethat could bring in, start all these careers. i am not talking about the actors even. i am talking about the people i deal with every day. network, studio -- things i do not seem to be -- to have a temperament for at some level. i am very proud i learned how to do that. people who have my job do not always rise to that part of it. i kind of get rid of it. i am surrounded by incredible people. absolutely everything you see on the show is generated and executed by a group of people. it is confusing. i do not know if it is commercially acceptable to do

that, but that is how it works. it has been amazing. i have gotten to grow up as don has grown up, and all the characters. i get to express all those things. >> part of growing up is making mistakes and learning from them. you have a favorite one from the course of the experience? >> mistakes? you want something from today? >> sure. >> make mistakes constantly. things go on the air -- this is a whole point of view. when you work with perfectionists, 99% means, what did we mess up? the goal is to not focus on that. there are mistakes made to make thewe try best of them. often, they are really lucky. -- it ist is always usually something, honestly -- the mistakes i personally make i will chalk up

to fatigue, sleep deprivation. they are always emotional and always interpersonal. those are the mistakes i make in life. like roger sterling, i am apologizing a lot. in -- i would like to start one day without coming in and apologizing for my behavior last night. [laughter] with him thefy most? >> i do not identify. there is a little bit of that in me. i cannot drink. i probably would not be so content for us. , this has been obviously a huge show for amc and for the industry, the landscape. what has been the impact? ask a big impact, i think. i think matt obviously worked on the sopranos and madmen. "the sopranos" and "mad men."

there is a lot of talk about the golden age of television. if dickens were alive today, he would be a show runner. ,att probably embodies that which is probably the most interesting subject of the moment, because it has had such a profound effect on what is on television. i think, just to connect it to a broader framework -- i think it really has had a significant in that, in inviting much other tv, mtv that is treated as a different form of communication. it is not what tv meant before, which is a slightly derogatory -- derogatory term. tv was bad. my parents said, do not watch it. you will get dumb. been that impact. >> you mention the golden age of

tv. i think i hear that phrase every day now, the last year or so. there are more original programming hours and episodes on than ever in history, and arguably more great tv on today. and yet the drivers for that branding,ok at, the distribution, advertising, and overall branding for viewers -- that has been around. those have been around for years and years. why do you think we are having this moment now? more, better television than ever. >> i have -- >> i have a theory. completely from the sidelines. -- the golden age of tv is a little bit, to me, like the creative revolution in advertising.

it is a term that is being coined by the tv business. that is ok. but i feel like what really happened is that it was in specialfor talent deals made by the wga and dgi to encourage this part of the business. and i think it exploded into a cost structure that allowed people to fight their way into -- hbo does not have advertising, but i always felt like it was a -- an economic opportunity to brand your to make a splash, to attract advertisers. sometimes at network rights. netherworldsort of of basic cable. i think it has been a big part of it. model, butifferent

hbo showed everyone you could make billions of dollars off of a seven rating. like independent film, once people were like, we do not have to appeal to this mass audience, we pressures of network, can attract it? critic people saw this incredible opportunity. cable in particular. the competition becomes, how do you get the eyeballs? is it that people are responding to quality, noise, difference? all these things that do not really work and a network model traditionally, because it has to be so broad. amc told me they were interested in what i wanted to do with the show. and i was like, i will work for less. if you let merder -- if you trust my creative vision on this.

it is not like i had no supervision. and a lot of people like me were like, this is what we always wanted. is massic thing is, it communication, but it became very specific. and i think that that was an opportunity for the first year. "damages," everybody is in this business. i think it was the critical mass of it. also, the movie business change, which drove a lot of people toward it, at that has happened since. in terms of prestige, it is "the sopranos." that is an anti-network tv show. about humanlying behavior. it is subtle. it has action. it has unfortunate characters, unlikable characters. there is not one thing that would test in focus group in that show. it was a multibillion-dollar industry, forgetting about critical success.

it was a 40 year business. >> he worked on that show. ?id that inspire your view >> i think it is why amc was interested in working with me. -- theely, they weren't word "sopranos" was bigger on our first poster than anything else, bigger than "mad men." i went first because he knows the real answer. quick speaking to this real point of going to amc and what you could do with this show, tell me a little bit about your relationship and how it has evolved with amc. of course there have been tough negotiations. >> there is ups and downs. , i am an a point where individual, and it is a corporation.

it is hard to win that in the press. our relationship is, it has kind of been amazing. a show that weird, that specific -- no genre, no stars -- this is a risk-taking environment. that was the most spectacular thing i felt when i got there. these people are nuts. these shows, breaking bad and madmen -- you can say whatever you want. they have nothing to do with each other. they are not a brand. why are they doing this? because they are both good. that is an interesting strategy. of, weas this attitude have expanded as far as we can go in selling cable. what product can we offer? what is our unique vision? can we be hbo with commercials and it, without nudity, btb -- be tv for teens?

is a lot of restrictions. this is not fx. i cannot draw people in with bo obs. i can't. >> you think fx draws people in with boobs? >> look -- i like entertainment also. i watch a lot of tv. i know the value of titillation and violence and things like that. i could not do it. the language -- all those other things are very exciting, especially on your television screen, comparing it to network tv. shock value may be wearing off, but there is a time when it is like, where do i go for the most visceral entertainment experience of watching a bonfire or whatever? i am not being critical. i watch it too. it is hard to imagine. in "breaking bad" is genteel its restrictions. someone like vince, who can turn

tension out of someone opening a drawer that can last for 20 minutes -- that was a unique puzzle to solve. but they were so unconnected to the rules -- josh, i know you have worked at showtime and so forth. josh, ron sort your -- josh, rod --that is who i dealt with early in the show. charlie came in very early. no conversation about "this is how it is done." once that happens, everyone is in it together. >> what is next? >> i do not have an answer. i have no answer for that. like you do not have a first look or anything like that, right? >> they know i do one thing at a time. >> do you have a next thing on your mind? >> i have a movie coming out august 22 that i made during the show, with owen winston -- with

owen wilson and amy poehler. that will be in between the seasons. i have written a play. i am probably going to take a on myigh and see what is mind. i need a sabbatical or something. it has been very time-consuming. sorry. >> it is just a pleasure to talk to a person who is writing tv shows, who is writing delmar schwartz and alan ginsburg into his tv shows. i am just watching matt with a little rhapsody. you think of do matthew's answer about why we are at this point? differente bit of a one. probably just a different perspective i come from. -- i think we actually -- i actually do believe that when you write us -- and matt redeemed when you write something because

you are interested in it and you do not write it for the market, you probably write differently. and you write something that is different. and it is not from the intention of, i am going to bring it to market. in the business environment, that sounds like a bad thing, but it is a good thing. and it is unique and has not been done much on television. it sounds trite to call it a singular vision. there is resonance in that. there is a lot of stuff behind that, to get very pragmatic, including, i think, technology has something to do with the uplift. meaning it is a show you have to pay more attention to. if you cannot ever watch on a of on-demandtter and it is only on a linear basis on sunday at 9:00 or 10:00, and you are busy, it may pass you by. inhink all these changes technology, which are part of the cable business, actually facilitated people paying more

attention and having a little bit more focus, the way they do in a darkened movie theater. when they are more focused, that have more appreciation for subtle stuff happening that takes longer to reveal, characters who are more surprising and ambiguous, as opposed to predictable. all this technology actually is behind in some way toing a little facilitation a different creative expression. , and it isy marry what is behind that stuff, and why tv is so much better. gave the content answer and i gave the money answer. >> isn't that funny? >> this is what our relationship is really about. it is fascinating to me. >> on that note, since you covered each other spaces -- other's bases --

>> i will take some of his talent, if you do not mind. >> i think you have got some of your own. very muchboth so for sharing. >> thank you, everybody. [applause] quickly 2014 cable show expo took place recently in los angeles. you can watch all the segments covered by c-span online. househington, d.c., the is out for the next two weeks. only brief pro forma sessions will be held until members return may 19. no legislative business will be considered during that time. the senate will be in monday at 2:00 eastern, live coverage on c-span 2. for more, we talk to a reporter who covers capitol hill. >> the house is out next week for another week long break. what the senate will be in. monday evening, they have scheduled a procedural vote on energy legislation.

what is the status of that measure? >> scheduled to vote on monday for that bill. what is mainly holding things up holdsnow, and really what up the bill as a whole is, republicans want to get some amendments into that that are energy-related amendments. democrats, including senate majority leader harry blockedve essentially those amendments, and they do not want to allow those in there. one of the amendments, of course, would be to force the approval of the keystone xl pipeline. harry reid is open to having a vote on a separate bill just for the keystone xl pipeline. but he does not want these other five related amendments to be

considered for this bill. this week, he used a procedure toled filling the tree prevent any amendments from being considered. of thetors on both sides isle, calling for a vote on the pipeline. what seems to be the mood of the country on building the keystone xl pipeline? >> a lot of polls have shown the country does support this pipeline. for the most part, the polls the possible jobs that are going to come from the construction and from the operation of the pipeline really are out weighing some of the environmental concerns that environmentalists have brought up about the pipeline. it is something the american people support. sides of then both aisle -- do they support separate votes on that? >> all of the republicans do in the senate.

democrats. about 11 louisiana,rew from sort of meeting the fight for the democrats, said most recently that she had 58 votes to approve the pipeline, which of course, you need 60 votes to get a filibuster proof majority. she believes that she will have within the next week, essentially, to pass that. she only has 58 now. we will see if that actually happens. istax extenders legislation also on the agenda. what is in that bill, and what senators are leading this effort? bill, wex extenders are expecting to see a floor vote next week. really, what that would do is extend basically around 50 tax breaks, almost all for two

years. , for energy, there are a number of very popular tax credits that encourage alternative fuels, encourage energy efficiency, and things of that nature. as i said, they are pretty popular. those expired at the end of last year. this would extend those for two years. the senate finance committee approved that bill in the beginning of april, i believe it was. there is a lot of bipartisan support for a lot of the use tax extenders. we will see where that goes. >> how does the senate bill on extending tax credits compare with the house's current efforts. side, they are

taking a different approach, where they are doing sort of a few tax breaks at a time. the most recent, i believe, was at the end of april. -- it wasround largely -- it was six tax breaks, excuse me, including some research and development ones that the business community really >>, and then have bipartisan support. the house republicans have not really shown to be receptive to the senate's strategy of this big tax extenders thing. senate passesthe it, it will go to the house for their consideration. really, at this point, the house's tactic has been smaller bills at any particular given time. quick you can tweet tim cama at

timothy_cama, and read his work at thehill.com. ofsome tweets from members congress this mother's day. and a childhood photo posted by house minority leader nancy pelosi on instagram. this is of her and her mother, with the tag "mom is helping me with homework will stop when mother was always thrilled to see women succeed. what mothers need is affordable childcare, so they can achieve their goals at work, knowing they have support at home." house speaker john boehner hosted a picture of himself and

his mother from 1990. he writes, happy mother's day to the greatest mom that a son and his 11 brothers and sisters could hope for. >> on this mother's day, some clips from our video library. the day after christmas, he came in the kitchen, where i was, and said, mother, would you mind if i invited a girl to visit for two or three days? heaid, i would be delighted. said, will you call her mother? i said, i would be glad to. give me your telephone number. wendy want her to come? he said, today. and we have had tipper ever since. boston towent to school, and they married the day after she was graduated. out, aser has turned you could gather from albert, to be the very best campaigner of all of us.

>> the phone rang. i picked the phone up, and a friend of ours called frank miller, an aviator, said, planes were shot down and we did not see any injections. we went and decided we were not going to say one word at this dinner. we did go to dinner. when we came home, tom were, chief of naval operations, called. he said, we were sure that johnny is gone. i was taking care of my daughter's three children. i went out to a country house that we had, and a steward came flying out of the house. he said, ms. mccain, he is a prisoner of war. can you believe that is the best news of my life? it is amazing how where you are standing changes the way things effective. he was 17not until that i realize that government in some form would be his career.

he had gone from hot springs as inelegate to boys nation washington. had his picture made with john kennedy, shaking hands. i will never forget the expression on his face when he came back and showed me the picture. i said right then, in my minds , it will be government. that will be his career in some form. had no idea it would be running for the presidency or anything like that -- like that. >> all this baloney about george competing with his father -- it is ridiculous. they are devoted to each other, and there was never any competition. my george is putty in their hands, i must confess. i think they feel loved. and i hope, if i have a legacy other than being the enforcer,

that it will be that i raised, along with george, a great family. >> next, a look at the proposed timer of comcast and warner cable. executive vice president david cohen was during my the time warner cable ceo on capitol hill this past week, to talk about this proposed merger between the house judiciary subcommittee on regulatory reform. this is about 2.5 hours. >> good morning. the committee on regulatory reform of commercial and antitrust law hearing will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time.

i now recognize myself for an opening statement. today's hearing is on the proposed merger between comcast corporation and time warner cable. the purpose of the hearing is not to determine ultimately whether the merger should proceed as proposed, be modified or denied. that responsibility lies with the other branches of the federal government. and most particularly involves the department of justice and the federal communications commission. rather, we are here to provide a which to discuss potential benefits and harms to the american consumer, and to competition that could result from a merger between the country's two largest cable companies. in doing so, the committee will perform an important option for the public that is historically provided pursuant to its antitrust jurisdiction.

the transparency that accompanies an open hearing serves as a vital role in any evaluation of a proposed merger 's potential impact on consumers. publicthe issues in the examination of the proposed merger is how the size of the combined companies will impact competition and choice in the voice, video, and broadband markets. as separate entities, comcast and time warner cable now respectively reach most of the country. they do not really compete directly against each other in individual markets. if the companies were to combine, the joint venture would be the largest a television provider in 37 of the top 40 viewing markets, server nearly a third of all tv audiences, and provide internet service to nearly 40% of all broadband customers.

size alone does not necessarily do harm to competition. in fact, large companies use their resources everyday to invest in emerging technologies and achieve efficiencies of scale. comcast stated it would deploy capital to enhance broadband speed, expand the diversity of its programming content, and increase the avenues over which consumers can access content. size, however, can in some cases result in the ability to influence markets in an anticompetitive manner. there have been cases in our economic history of countries -- companies which have used their dominance to exercise monopolistic powers. various parties have raised about competitive

implications of this merger. we will hear from some of them today. not to lay out all the pros and cons of this proposed merger. that is what the hearing is for -- to allow our witnesses to advocate. remember those who when you can count the number of television channels you can choose on your fingers. and the number dependent on the strength of your antenna. withight recall struggling the rabbit ears to try to improve the picture quality. we are long past that. if there is any industry in america that has had a revolution in the past 20 years, it is the cable and video business, the telecommunications business in a broader sense. we have gone from only over the air broadcast television to

cable and satellite, and now to mobile and internet streaming. consumers have multiple choices. in fact, there are some people who are only getting their content from the internet, and there are some services and channels only available online. the structure and economics of the industry continue to rapidly change. so the challenge for policymakers and antitrust regulators is to determine how the consumer's interest is best served in this evolving and exciting environment. today's hearing will give witnesses on opportunity to share their perspectives and experiences, to face each other and answer the question of members of the committee. record aid to the public that american consumers will be able to review and help the committee as we continue on our ongoing oversight of the antitrust laws and their application by the antitrust enforcement agencies. with that, i look forward to the

testimony of our panel, esteemed witnesses, and turned to my ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to take a moment to thank both you and chairman the bipartisan approach to today's hearing. this discussion today on the proposed comcast time warner cable merger is a fresh opportunity for this committee to continue its long history of competitivenamic marketplace, and protecting the public interest through strong antitrust oversight. the twin objectives of antitrust law are to promote competition in markets and to protect the public interest. the twin objectives are very important. competedoes not directly with time warner cable for broadband or video subscribers. there is scant evidence that this merger will substantially increase comcast concentration

in any single market will stop due to the extremely costly process of building out networks in a competitor's territory, there is little to suggest that either company had planned to compete directly in any local market. however, it is plainly clear that the proposed merger comes at a time of immense disruption in the broadband and video marketplace, through explosive growth of edge providers like netflix and amazon. consumers have more video options, more than ever. successmpanies' recent in original programming also suggest that competition between online video distribution and linear television will continue to grow and benefit consumers. increased choice and quality in video programming is implicated,

but i though still in its infancy, the broadband marketplaces undergoing staggering disruption. in 2013 alone the broadband marketplace grew 29% to 126.6 million subscribers globally according to research. and according to findings earlier this week by bernstein, and equities research firm, google -- early success in the kansas city market demonstrates their service could make it to 30 million homes over the next several years. i am encouraged by the prospect of this expansion, especially considering google's announcement earlier this year it plans to roll out service in atlanta and parts of georgia's fourth congressional district as