terms of time to resolution and so forth. that -- that all of the patient advocates now come under an office of patient centered care and cultural transformation. so we have begun working with them a bit from the quality and safety side to try to figure out how could we learn more from what they're hearing because we're noticing that i an number of private sector organizations are taking to heart just how important and useful it can be to learn from the patients themselves. so. >> so is that information looked at at nationally nationwide not just, it doesn't just stay at the local facility? >> yes, there is a national database. >> okay. then my second question is, are you consulting with the vsos on how to engage innovation in the system when it comes to scheduling these appointments? >> we have not been communicating directly with the vsos. i think we certainly have been

looking at ways that the vsos can be help us understand how the veterans are perceiving our care and the timeliness of that care. i think there's a huge opportunity there. >> i agree. and you know, chairman miller, i think it might be good to have a hearing where we hear from the vsos about their suggestions about how to fix this problem. i yield back. thank you so much. >> thank you very much, miss kirk patrick. we do have one hearing that will be coming up in several weeks. it will be specifically geared towards the vsos. and it's at that particular hearing we will invite the secretary to be here to hear their recommendations, as well. " mr. reese. empty custer, mr. o'rourking? mr. waltz. i'm sorry. you're recognized for five minutes. >> again, thank you both for being here and listening to the testimony. i appreciate it. i've sat here almost in this exact same seat for seven and a half years and just like you with the vsos and the va as

partners and advocates to get this right for veterans. but i'm going to come back to -- and i oftentimes in those years said i'm staunchest supporter but i'll be your harshest critic when it needs to be. dr. clancy, i brought it up with several others, you said this is the time to think fundamental change. this is the time to think big. and i found it interesting that you focused, dr. clancy, on thetoriage, which, of course needs to be done with these veterans right now and called what we were talking about a second order question. i would argue had you addressed thattyer, we would have never had phoenix. we would have never had those things. are both of you clinically credentialed? >> i'm not currently, well, not clinically credentialed at this time. i certainly have been for the last. >> can you see patients. >> i cannot see patients, no. >> dr. clancy? >> i haven't. i haven't for a number of years. i've actually looked into what would be required. >> but you're both doctors? >> yes. >> we don't have the enough

doctors. so i'm going to say what vietnam veterans of america made this suggestion to you and you said in the question was asked, you haven't contracted with them. this is what they said you need to do. all vhs staff with clinical credentials and training who are not currently direct service providers need to see patients four days a week. get out of the administrative office and guess see patients. i would think you would be turning over every stone to find a physician who is already in the system. it may not seem like a fair question. but the ability to call fundamental cultural change a second order question and we'll get to it when we get this done, you can be multitask. get that done. that is, of course, a priority. but the not addressing this we're going to come back here again. and that is more of a statement. and believe me, it pains me that we're at this point. it pains me of all the good work we do gets erased about by this it, but it once again confirms to me, this is cultural.

it's leadership. it's structural. and it runs deep. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. waltz. following up with your line of questioning, be how many physicians are there in the system who don't see patients? that are in administrative roles? >> i don't know, mr. chairman. >> would you find that out for us? >> yes, sir. >> thank you very much. in your testimony you mentioned that or in answer to a question that somebody had about how much money was being spent to help solve the backlog problem, i think the number that you used was about $312 million being made available for your access initiative. you mentioned the funds were essentially located. can you give me an idea where the funds were supposed to be spent? >> i will get that information for you. >> is the $312 million part of the plan, $450 million carryover that the department had already budgeted for 2015?

>> i can't answer that, mr. chairman. i will get the information for you. >> i can answer it. >> it is. >> it is. and i guess the big question is, almost half a billion dollars sitting there in the bank and why do we have a backlog the size of the one we've got? how did we get here? i mean, i don't think anybody even to this day knows how the culture became so corrupt that people would falsify record and in some cases i believe criminally, that we would cause veterans to wait months and years, that we would -- look, that's $500 million for carry over this year. we've had a couple of years just recently that about been a billion dollars carried over. and i don't think the public understands, the people are running around saying more money, more people, be more

money, more people. $500 million sitting there that the could have solved this and nobody within the central office or the department was blowing the whistle saying we needed to spend that. it's almost as if they were trying to keep it for a nest egg. for next year. because if you carry it over, then it goes into the base budget. and we've got to fund it again. and that's how the bureaucracy grows. so with that, thank you so much for being here. we appreciate both of you. members, thank you >> white house released a report yesterday looking -- calling for an open all appropriations at the ba department. -- v.a. department. thereport also claimed scheduling standard is unrealistic and determined that the goal was inadequate and measuring patient satisfaction

or quality of care. it said that outdated technology was to blame for complications with scheduling's. jonhmorrow's newsmakers, 'sune discusses the irs targeting of conservative groups. irse are concerned that the may be targeting senators who are critics of the irs. it has a reputation around here in terms of the integrity. it is impeccable. lerneruggestions by lois and others at the irs that they need to audit him or re-examined, another example of an agency with a bunch of people who really have an agenda that has run amok. is there a discussion about it? yes.

it based on the revelations of these e-mails, it's generated a good bit of discussion. the committee. we were trying to get this concluded. . bipartisan investigation we can't get answers from the irs. just like everything else. they are misleading and not providing answers in a timely way. there is no count ability there. theeast the republicans on finance committee are incredibly frustrated. i hope the democrats are, too. at the lack of answers we're getting from the irs. this latest revelation is piling cumulative amount of werence that these guys completely using that agency which has tremendous power on people's lives. the ability to ruin and destroy

peoples lives. they were using it for political purposes. that is wrong. the american people are sick and tired of it. i hope -- if we can't get these investigations concluded, we need a special prosecutor to look into this. >> you can see all of that interview tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. daniel schulman on the koch brothers. it is this massive lawsuit that played out between the four kock brothers. this culminates in a boardroom showdown. a couple ofick and other company shareholders were trying to expand the size of the board. this would have ended up

disposing charles as the chairman. bill is tossed out of the company. by his brothers. dramatica really moment in the book where the board has to sit down and decide bill possibly. -- bill's fate. somext, a discussion with magazine'spolicy's magazine biggest names. filmmakers use light detection technology to discover ruins in honduras. this is about one hour.

welcome back. about say couple of words the university of denver. yesterday, we celebrated our 150th anniversary. [applause] i cannot think of a better way of starting out our next 150 years then this event. it is an array of folks discussing an array of topics people with't find these skills, these credentials, this knowledge base able to talk with people like us about.

but me turn to our speakers. i will reintroduce them. a peace activist working for the empowerment of young women. she is the executive director of a pakistan-based ngo that she cofounded at the age of 15. that works to empower women. the organization includes a pakistani schoolgirl who became a global inspiration after surviving an assassination attempt by the michael.here we have michaee ofis one of her co-authors thatnfluential essay, does

hisinually stifle growth -- co-author is thomas herndon. last, but not least, we have steve. darka filmmaker who, with yellow just coming used a technology to find out what they believe to be the lost city in honduras. of this new technology has transformed the field of archaeology and raised awareness of the importance of digitally preserving cultural heritage. be -- iat for this will

will address questions to each of our speakers and leave half an hour of time for our audience members to ask one question each. first, let's turn to you. you founded your organization when you were 15 years old. i know what i was doing when i was 15 years old. probably was not what you were doing. give us some indication -- what led you to do this at this early age? what was the context of this extraordinary thing you did? whererew up in a culture the women were oppressed. men relationship between and women was master and slave relationship. women and girls are taught to be obedient wives and daughters. servede only taught to be

th served the family. i grew up in such a culture all around me, facing oppression. and i had in a family a father who was a teacher and human rights activist. when i was a child, he used to bring a story books which talked about gender equality. he brought newsletters from other human rights organizations. he brought documentaries about how boys and girls must be treated equal. we shifted from a rural village to the city because of father wanted all of our sisters to get education. i had the support of my father. all of these things urged me to speak up about the issues.

did this come at the beginning, were you speaking with other girls your age? 2002.started it in initially, we were engaged in meeting different women. my father was an activist, so he knew some inspirational women. we met them as well. we were six or seven young girls. non we started, there was women leadership in the society. had no the organizations female representation at the decision-making.

so, we started by gathering ourselves and establishing this group and started working with the young girls. first, we volunteered. we volunteered ourselves with other women. we volunteered with them for a few years and then we started our own work and we started to work on inspiring younger women in the community. >> your organization is expanding from pakistan to afghanistan. different set of issues, different cultures, different challenges. what will this be like? thatwould like to share the situation in afghanistan has a very direct affect on the situation in where i live.

if there is any incident or any issue, it has an effect. cultures have the tribal culture. they share the same culture, same values. same traditions. the situation affects each side. if you want to bring a change, you have to engage people at both sides. we are working on engaging young people in pakistan. in -- i one month as thein the same hotel taliban where they used to hang them. i engaged with more than 300 young people. i would like to share a story from our work. the guy joins our peace group and it was for the first time

that he addressed a group of women. he saw that women and girls can meet and form an organization. he was so inspired that he went .ack to the community they don't have any space in the community because they are only taught religion, but not about science and math. he initiated a human resource center and he enrolled eight students and taught them about the use of computers and e-mail and internet. we are actually expanding into afghanistan. we will be working with more than 200 young people. 50% of the young women. onwill be working with them

nonviolence and conflict resolution skills. identifyng people will other young people in the community were at the risk of mistreatment. they will work with them and how to dissuade violence. they will be trying to resolve the conflict in the communities. we are expanding this network and we've already started the program in march. are there boys you deal with in this organization? programsre separate where we are engaging boys. we think it's very important to educate both genders. in order to have a gender group, we engage

young boys. .e organize debate competitions it's the first time for the boys to have extracurricular activities and speaking for women's rights. changing a situation for them as well. wasy never knew there equality. some of them are like, ok, we now know that we are equal. that, one boy whose sister bys withdrawn from school his parents. you've had some experience monitoring elections

in pakistan. understand. >> there were elections in pakistan in 2013. the first time that one was handed to another. it was a huge victory. capacity of more than 100 female monitors. politicians.emale women like they were crowds at all polling stations and they were there. they were there to bring the effortand there to bring in shaping the demographic history of the country. turnout was very low.

, among the 21t polling stations, the turnout was as low as 24%. district, among the 20 polling stations, it was as low as 20%. zero votes from women. of theshut down because elders from the community. there were 25 polling stations in one district and the voter turnout was as low 6.8%. there was another polling station which was completely shut down because of the aggressiveness of the community. they were not allowing women to express themselves. observers cast a

vote for the first time. it was their first time to be involved in the community and the whole process. it was very empowering for them because they were there to contravene in the process. process.ute in the they were observers who families -- whose families were not o earedg them to g there were many attacks on the female polling stations in these communities. they were not sure whether they would be meeting each other or not. these young women were very much -- it was time to bring a change in pakistan. there was a positive side as well. there were a few problems.

votes were taken from the females. there were certain challenges. they were unique challenges. still, the women wanted to bring a change to the new. >> i wonder if you'd be willing to talk a little bit about reproductive rights of women in pakistan. this is obviously a competent at issue. >> it is a very consultative issue. -- complicated issue. girls under 18 years old should have access to information on reproductive rights. women are more vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies.

that is why we thought it's very important to work on this issue. 890,000ar in pakistan, abortions are performed. we are working to improve health. the hiv program, we are engaging with young girls in school. we are building capacity and organizing them into groups and establishing clubs in the schools. these young girls replicated this information. the abortion program to my we female friended a network.

a girl can use it and we give this information according to the guidelines. all of this information has been given in local languages. we expanded this hotline to another region in pakistan. ,e also expanded this hotline giving information about this safe medical abortion. we're are not arguing about whether abortion should be given or not. the most important thing is to save the lives of the women were dying each year because of these issues. >> you have recently done some research on the role of young women in emerging democracies.

can you share some of the issues you are researching> some conclusion? >> i conducted this research in washington. engagement of young women in democracy and politics is very important. women constitute more than half of the population of the world. if women are excluded in these processes, it's not a true democracy. it's not authenticated. it's really poor and to engage women at the decision-making level. there have been the engagement -- the engagement of women has been insignificant around the world. with are only 32 countries 30% or more representation of

women in politics. that needs to be changed. it needs to be enhanced. whenever there are women in politics, there are women friendly laws. carein issues like child or other development will issues. women's participation in politics is a requirement. women have to be there to bring a change and to raise their voice and make their voices heard at a bigger level. >> thank you. i would like to turn to steve. a completely different topic. light detection and ranging technology. i would like to -- if you can summarize them a what is this? how does this work? >> i'm not an engineer. i will do the best i can.

>> we are not, either. [laughter] >> it's a machine that sends out dutchns of also is of millions of pulses of laser light per second. you can scan the room, the ground, the clouds, whatever you want. like radar does. the beams go out and they reflect off something and come back. back has point we get an x, y and z coordinate. we get three dimensions. and we gets moving signals from gps transceivers that we planned on the ground at certain distances away from our target that allows the computer to know exactly what position in come the device returns back. by sending out these millions of pulses of laser light every

second, flying over the jungle, musket reflected by the leaves in the tree canopy or whatever. enough of them fortunately mated to the ground. they make it back to the plane. looking for archaeological ruins, we are interested in the returns that come back from the ground. it gives us some sort of imagery of what those services look like. it gives us an elevation model. it shows us, is the ground smooth or bumpy? when you see bombs in geometric shapes, there is a certain layout pattern and you can conclude that it must be a village or a city where pyramid or something else. it is not ground penetrating. that is radar technology. the resolution of radar technology is much larger than that of lightar. we have tried radar. it did not work so well.

>> you are looking for patterns. >> we are looking for patterns. when we find patterns, the engineers can measure the height of the mountains or the length of the mountains. ated on previous experience archaeological sites, the archaeologist can go, yes, it looks like this, it probably is this. method, thatm that does this help us preserve cultural heritage? you're not just flying around doing this looking for odd patterns. how is this linked up to archaeological research? >> in a couple of different ways. first, with the advent of lighta in newan scan anywhere

york very quickly. previous times, it might have taken decades. for teams of archaeologists to walk back and forth in whatever terrain they are in hoping they will stumble on something. in you can fly the plane and a day or two you have 100 years worth of tracking over the train. we are able to catalogue these cultural heritage sites very quickly and discover new ones. pretty soon, lost cities will be a dime a dozen. areas whereng that we thought there were no people actually were quite well populated in ancient times. scientists have thought that, but they had no proof. htar does notlig have to be done from an airplane. these can go out with handheld units and have a

complete digital archive of everything in this room in three dimensions. every person, every feature on their face, every arc archaeological detail. you can store that on a hard drive and it's there forever. how does this affect archaeology and cultural heritage? it's a great way to preserve cultural heritage. >> your linkages to the theaeologist -- you find places where cities may have existed before. do you then turn it over to the archaeologist? what is the language between usa filmmaker and the archaeologist? >> i can't -- i'm not in archaeologist. nobody will believe me if i say those patterns are a city. we have to have scientist on the

team to that everything we do. that's what happens. we did not have archaeologists at first. we did not have the money. once we found patterns, we hired the archaeologists to come on and say we found something or not. >> can you tell us about the blanca.f ciudad cortez heard these legends of the aztecs and the mayans that there was this fabled city with gold. it was out there in the jungles. rugged terrain. considered by most people who are familiar with jungles to be one of the toughest jungles in the world.

the lastted over several hundred years. a lot of people turn to go prove or disprove this legend. mainly treasure hunters hoping to find all the gold. including the conquistadors. even academics have been going to try to find it. legend -- it has become part of the cultural after money of honduras -- aspects of honduras. it's like george washington and the cherry tree. it became a legend. nobody could prove or disprove it. the academics argue back and forth. i wanted to prove it one way or another. it exists or not? walking through the jungle does not work.

you can walk all your life and not see between here and the end of this auditorium. there could be a giant pyramid and you would never know it because it's covered with third countries. -- with dirt and trees. , you can see it very quickly. we are hoping to go there on the ground with a team of scientists will find out exactly what culture these roads belong to. -- ruins belong to. in trying to organize the ground expedition, it has become much more than just my documentary. has become a political football of sorts. government declared the area that we found these in as a cultural heritage preserve and you need a special permit to go in there. they are adjoining a municipal i reserve. serve.re

during the last couple of years, we have been looking at satellite imagery and received it the areas protected are shrinking due to illegal logging. the government of honduras may have good intentions or some of the people may have good intentions, but they don't have the money or the resources to protect it. from the publicity we have gotten, we went to washington in december and i was approached by the world bank. the world bank says it's a worthwhile project. they are under a bit of heat from some of their investments. they think this could be something that could make a mess. we are hoping to get international directive.

get funding from the world bank. and put this area on the world spotlight. is a real jewel of a place. the reserve is wonderful. there is a lot of to be gained from this. i'm hoping that eventually all of this works and we can develop a research center deep in the jungle. the only way in will be by helicopter. went to build a road, forget it. you've lost all control. scientists are on the road and .ill study the flora this, this area will become protected. it it will need people all over the world coming there. it will be difficult to deforestation without getting a bunch of global attention.

>> do have another project? >> this is it. >> think you, steve. let's turn to michael. we've had this conversation about this article already. i think there are some other things we would like to express. with the broader questions, i would like to ask about the usage which i found interesting in your piece. stylized and correct, fact. -- incorrect, stylized fact. >> thank you for having us. a stylized fact is supposed to be a theory. a fact that is true in a lot of cases. the piece, we are

supposed to come away with that believing that high levels of public debt cause a record collapse andapid economic growth. this in can see developing economies after 1970 and yes you can see it in the 200 year history of public debt and growth for the advanced economy. that is a stylized fact. is it isrrect means not so. [laughter] >> thank you. what has been the fallout of this piece? has had an extraordinary impact. can you lead us through the responses that you've gotten from all of the different sides? not want to definitively

take credit for setting up the firestorm. i don't think the piece created austerity. i don't think our piece reopened -- pointed out that there were problems. they had an audience and they ere workarounds in great britain -- were crowds in great britain -- there was already audience for austerity. intellectual some structure for it. around,ime 2013 rolls the failures of austerity were manifested. children going to school hungry. a breakdown of social contract that has been in place for roughly 60 years.

, why did wed to ask get austerity and why has this gone so badly? there was a ready audience for our paper. said, our paper was very effective in reopening the debate. what could look more convincing then there is a clip out there of gdp -- you walk over trouble.you're in that opened up ground to talk about, what's really the relationship here? is public debt affecting growth or a much more natural direction where you have recession and tax collection falls and public spending rises and you get a bit more debt? we were able to have that conversation again. one of the things that we as academics struggle with is being

hurt. economists can do extraordinarily good work and it is sometimes very difficult to translate that into public policy language, public policy debate for organized citizens. not that you should speak for your discipline. would there be some percentage if economists were able to participate in these debates? as public intellectuals. , one of the things i found very powerful about the piece is it uses very simple and straight forward methods. highces countries into debt and low debt and asks what grows in those. it moved away from the very

complicated mathematical formulations and had a very straightforward argument. if i give it a lot of credit -- i give it a lot of credit for having that very upfront way of doin discussing it. full are papers that are of pictures that i think are easy to interpret. tables that divide countries and very natural ways. read't know if many of you the new york times. economists have really improved a lot in terms of directing their arguments to a listening public. it's a very robust debate. >> it's probably relative. what we need -- what we saw in

our last panel, the first group accessussions, we need to good information. we need access to good analysis. as citizens. it's incumbent on all of us to recognize and try to translate that. i agree very strongly. -- i'ms been disappointed in my global students. it's been a disappointing six years for an educator. we go through and look at the forgotten lessons of the past century. it is really quite remarkable, that deficitsons spending can reduce unemployment and hard money, insistence that -- private debt be

paid and that inflation be checked at all times. these are poisonous ideas that were learned very quickly during the great depression and guided economic policy for the next 40 years. they were rapidly forgotten. it has been discouraging, those forgotten lessons of the 20th century. >> maybe broaden the conversation a bit from austerity to economic inequality. just gotten a lot of attention. pundits. by can you talk a little bit about that issue as an economist? unrestect on political and economic hardship. >> thank you for asking.

there has been an enormous increase in inequality. that we spentays the better part of the middle of the 20th century with inequality. they dropped rapidly after 1980. there were policy reasons for that. the university of california at berkeley, and economist there done a colleague have beautiful job documenting the u-shaped trajectory of inequality over the 20th century. inequality dropped radically because of the new deal and the labor movement and similar movements in other developed countries. stay low until about 1980 and then it started a very aggressive upward climb. i won't say relentless because i think it can relent. things can be done about inequality. it is not natural.

the occupy movement is very effective at bringing the 1% to the forefront. ,he dimensions of inequality the distance to the top, the amount of room at the top and the amount of room near the top and the pathways from the bottom to the middle are things that are very malleable to policy. decades of exactly the response you would expect in a widelyest shared infrastructure and human capital. we saw a quality drop -- a quality drop rapidly -- e quality drop rapidly. it will take a lot of organizing and a lot policy to reverse it. >> what are those policies?

it is difficult to picture doing something about inequality without reworking the institutions of the capital and the labor balance in this country. the de-unionization of the country. the next setwhat of institutions will look like. thee they will be based on labor movement or other movements that have yet to be envisioned. another policy is the role of finance in our economy. finance desperately needs taming. a good first start would be to ank.rce dodd fr it's a good bill. the era of finance -- i don't

mean just the mortgage backed -- the increase in financial is asian of --financial corporations ization ofi nonfinancial corporations. we should be looking at increased social wage. the united states has finally cracked open the universal health insurance question. we're not quite there. it's quite clear that our pensions need another look and education will need serious help over time. the minimum wage and wage subsidies can play an important

role. middle, were in the will need some sort of renegotiation of how most people work for pay. >> you did not same thing about taxation. -- say anything about taxation. effective redistribution will happen if the institutions of the labor market are redesigned. so that people are being paid a wage at the point of contact. you do good work and you should le to have a career without two people working for $50 a week. i'm not opposed to highly redistributive taxation. wheredon't think that is the main engine needs to come from. are at a university and

you just said something about higher education and we need to reform that as one way of tackling inequality. could you expand on that a bit? >> i come from a large public university. there are some similarities and some differences. i will speak from the large mindset.y there has been a buried substantial reduction of the state subsidy for public higher education in this country over the last generation. that has shifted the burden on the family's who do this either through savings or through debt. it makes taking the risk of going to college very unattractive. first-time college tenders. wereiddle-class people the ideas quite daunting.

free higher public education is one direction we might talk about. >> i wish we could pictures that here. it is an the community had come together in the spring of 1967 to demonstrate about this medical proposed. there is a lawsuit based on the incompletion of testimony at the hearings to determine whether the land should be taken. they lost that. had knocked the books out of the hand of the clerks. everyone was coming to see what was going to happen next.

he became a cause of that. the medical site was one of the reasons for the rebellion. i had nothing to do with any of that. down and saw it from new haven. i was not anywhere near the leadership of that. rebellion, we put together this organization called the newer planning organization. i have been to new haven and talk to some of my friends in architectural school. i said that medical school is too large. we started talking about an alternative plan.

i asked the planners of yellow what was the smallest footprint you can give us? standards the ama's can give you a 19 acre footprint. how? by going up. that became the rallying cry for the new opposition. cornerle office on the of bruce street which was an old candy store that had no heat or had a presse conference. in addition to that, i had gotten in touch with the legal defense fund. the legal defense fund said they would handle the case. jack greenberg sent over a young man who was our lawyer. the complaint was going to be w based ondd and ac

the inefficiency of housing. the research that had been done beforemer the four -- and into 1967. based on that research, we knew there was a 1% vacancy rate in new work. on a given day, only 1% of the houses were available. a were chatting people out of the homes they were already in. so much so there is no way they could accommodate all the. -- all the people. i became a leader. in december of 1967 before we even begin the negotiations, which ended up in success for the community, cast me to become a part of the united or others. it was a group formed for the purposes of pulling together the community to elect the first black man. this is how we got started.

you swing and practice? how did you swing the successful the 60 acreshrough for public housing and job creation? >> it was not just napa. it was also the committee. she had other people who were from the ordinary regular political persuasion, folks involved in that with her. i had the new breed with me in napa. coalition going into this. we said you got to sit down and talk to us. inhad us down to that place all of us. he was doing more than ok. we set up negotiations. negotiations were based on the belief that they were going to let people come in and "have their say" and then they were probably going to throw us a bone.

the band would play on. we said no. we have in negotiating team. we have a nine person negotiating team. three from napa, the from the committee against puerto rico and three from other organizations. they said what about everybody else get had an audience of about 200 people. don't upe, people just and said i want to be a part of the negotiation. we shut them up. we would not let them talk. with the support of the 200 people, harry wheeler and i just wolfed th em down.i cannot expln them any other way. we shut them up. they had no other way to go. -- people

there were the values. be in perfect boxes. it is about hatred. it says so many negative things. actually, i worked with so many young people. more open ton other ideas. end are not being direct to a certain direction. they are open to many ideas. on people are college or university students, they have are the grown up with this mentality. aboutave this perception the society. it is very difficult for us to unlearn all the things that have been taught for years and years. i do have this as a gift for

quality education. suggesting that the institution is the issue? once people start purchase a painting in the institutions as currently structured? the structures of the institutions in pakistan are formed. there is a lot of work that needs to be done on the curriculum. gois the responsibility to to and screen all these things. they are not good. students.ot good to i think there are the teachers that are the product of the society. so many incidents here and there should be some capacity building program for the teachers as well. what is how they can teach better. humana'sthe basis of and and not just religion.

i think cetaceans have tactically a very important role in this. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for all the information and thinking you have shared with us. the friend i am sitting with have certainly enjoyed it. this is a question that is going to seem like it is an aggressive question but is not meant to be. i am involved in a group that is dedicated to electing women. that thingsidea will be better if more women are involved in running the country. this may be a stylized, and correct factor. thinking when he said that is one of your olds and you think that will lead to better conditions, i was thinking is there any empirical evidence to support that?

t thatcher.ing about yo i do not think this has made the better. i would like to know if you have any in." evidence coming out of pakistan that it might be helpful as this happens? i will just give to this question. when government are in power and decision-making, what do we do? nobody asks us what we did. what they did for the betterment. we havecomes to women, this question. what change will you bring? the result might be the same of any discussions of any new

position. it is also our expectation. it is a burden on women when we expect this. there are certain restrictions. if women are there at the decision-making level, they have to show some progress otherwise they do not deserve it. less of a presentation. we may not have the spirit that is why women may not the in that position to bring something. with the communities and with the young women in my country, recently organized the training program. among the 35, only one new about it. a poor woman in the country. of them are running for election.

they look at elections. they have not yet been announced. ot okay to have these expectations for women that if you are a leader you have to show something. thoseuld question it from who are in the majority already. yes. >> i have a question for you as well. all, what does it looked like originally when you were founding the organization? what kind of setting were you working out of? where and how were you able to find training of female empowerment and to influence you to get involved? we started this.

with other women's rights activist to deal with this. they are well known. she is a woman from one and pakistan. the tribalually people. the elders. -- ganggain great raped. --n they were in gain engaged in that process. initially we were not a very well organized group. we were all students. we wanted to bring a change. that was the only thing. most of us were not doing this.

as we were doing our studies in engaging innd different ones, then almost in 2009 they were very much organized. they started working as a more organized structure. the inspiration, i shared my story as well. what were the things that led me to stop this process? the good point was that my father and i finally supported us very well. we cofounded the organization. our father was there. when we were young and children,

we moved to bring the stores. he taught us not only about human rights but about geography and english. he taught as english as well. was always there to support. it is very common in pakistan. school,y come back for they performed the duties with their mothers. they moved through the household work. our mother never allowed us to do that. she said you really want you to change in the mpower. we want to see you different

from the rest of the world. both of them supported and mentored us at every stage. we brought inspiration. >> i had to quit questions. -- two quick questions. i was worried about the potential effects and water. he said there are some concerns i would not work in the jungle area. i was wondering if it would be effective in bodies of water and any implications that it might have. when you were describing on how they could have, the bobblehead of one's could document the entire room, has there been any mention of privacy or security issues about that? water, ourabout engineers are trying to get it to work and water. it does not work together leave well. yet he do it in the rain.

the rain drops will scatter. there is a certain wavelength. i do not know what it is offhand. it works well and water. they have been able to trade -- penetrate about 80 feet in clearwater. it is under development. the other question is about privacy issues. i've not heard anything about that but it is a good question. ramsey does not exist in today's world. his gut to get over the way it is. secondly, the only things i have heard about is where some people planesncerned whether if were shooting these around, will it cause damage to people or animals? these.igners used it is not an issue. nothing is failsafe.

they can always be an accident. >> can you say a couple of words about funding for preservation of the sites? little -- it was a was a little tongue-in-cheek about the world bank. how do we preserve these things that you're discovering? good question. there are a lot of people around that are raising money and trying to raise more money to do it. there is no question that with the advent of using this we're going to discover so many site. not all of them are going to be preserved. some will get preserved. some won't receive funding. from individuals, and our case, our project to date has been privately funded by wealthy individuals. they believe in the cause.

it was not so tongue-in-cheek about world bank. he actually, i've been talking to them for a month and a half year they are very interested in the idea funding this project. suggesting that they were talking about the motives. >> emotions are interesting. if you go on the website, and mandate, it isir clear they want to fund projects that enhance the country not just economically but indigenous rights and cultural cash or money and so on. they have taken some flak in honduras. they funded a project a couple of years ago. they gave the money. i do not know hundred percent.

.and was stolen it is not an unusual situation in some parts of the world. an world bank had to make apology. it was on the internet. they have rescinded the financing to this particular corporation. question when they learned of my projects all of this was blowing up. has a loth world bank of money invested. they believe it is a diamond in the rough. i agree with them.

>> i want to thank you for a wonderful second session. this is an extraordinary thing for the university to host you toare opening our doors -- host. we're opening our doors were more to the public. i cannot think of a better means of doing that than to bring these influential thinkers to campus. thank you very much. thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> the communist party recently had their annual convention. it included a keynote adjust on the parties chair he talked about a number of topics including the upcoming midterm elections. the media challenge for anybody who cares about the is theof democracy

elections this fall. they will probably not ship the political terrain. that does not take away from their importance. and a leg up in the 2016 presidential race. if the republicans kept control retainingate by control of the house, they will claim that the american will have unambiguously rejected the president. it is the politics of redistributed economics and a supersized nanny state. will pushound they this to the max. -- atock the president as every turn as well as ramp up efforts to betray him as

incompetent and a weakling in the global food and you can see more of that tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i believe that all men are created each. equality.enied we believe all men have certain on a notable -- unalienable rights. many americans do not enjoy those rights. we believe all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty. many are denied not because of their own failures because of the color of their skin. embeddedns are deeply

in the nature of man. how this alltand happened. it cannot continue. our constitution, the foundation republic, the principles of our freedom forbids it. morality forbids it. tonight orill sign bids it. thehe 50th anniversary of civil rights act. that had theorters debate. tribune's.ald sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history television. >> neck, a house judiciary subcommittee hearing on the

broadcast of music over the radio and internet. providersf service and news of industry organizations. this is just under three hours. subcommittee will come to order. without objection they will declare this at any time. we welcome all of our witnesses today. money get my chair adjusted here. let's do it. thank you. >> good morning. welcome to the second of to hearing. two weeks ago the subcommittee heard from your representatives about their concerns with the state of music live.

i think we can conclude that you all have more than a passing casual interest in this issue. we welcome all of you here today. at the early meeting i mentioned my fondness for old time bluegrass. the witnesses may not agree on everything. i believe they all agree that music enriches the world in which they live. since this is part two of the hearing, i will not repeat all of the issues that congress needs to address. i simply hope in the efforts to improve the system we do not lose sight of the fact that creatures need to be paid for their work just like everyone else in this room. sure that the system is

. they will be tied for a change. that will be exposed today as we go through this arduous journey. i yield back the balance of my time in recognizing gentleman from new york. >> thank you for hosting the second hearing. the first hearing two weeks ago we heard from a panel of witnesses representing publishers, songwriters, and television delivery services. although there are varying points of view, there is wise red agreement that this is in need of comprehensive reform. as i stated, the current right forsystem is inequities that make no rational sense. we started from scratch, no one

would write the laws the way it stands today. they compete against each other under different rules. several of the service providers play an important role and are here today. local broadcast provide critical programming and coding emergency alerts and form strong public service with the committees they deserve. we represent the digital radio systems. in newing this available and innovative ways. i look forward to a productive discussion about how to come together to improve the music licensing system. as i noted, the team is so haphazard because in large part pieces of the development at different times in response to different innovations. rather than continuing to we mustthis, i believe take a comprehensive approach.

i am not alone in my belief that a comprehensive approach is needed. they will coalesce behind the single bill. this was later at code by kevin mccarthy and nancy pelosi. they agreed that the time has come for congress to address these issues in one package. that is why i pledge this into developing a bill which is some during the music copyright law. congress should get out of the business of dictating winners and losers. receive creators should conversation for their work here . it is in need of reform. in addition to the review, they are conducting the studies. just this week there are a series of roundtables held around the country.

the commerce department issued aded copywriting for the musical age. there is a much-needed review of the governing stripes responsible for collecting the royalties. i hope the doj review will be quick as today's hearing is another important step to review and update the music licensing system. i'm interested in hearing from today's witnesses about the specific issues they believe should be addressed and about how we can best enact meaningful comprehensive reform. i have no doubt that today's escutcheon will be just as informative and useful as a discussion at our first hearing. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time.

you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you for your diligence in the number of hearings and the impressive array of hearings we have health on copyright issues. full see we have another house. good morning to you all, and welcome to the subcommittee's second music licensing hearing. i see the size of the witness panel has grown with interest in the issue. two weeks ago, a number of problems in the music licensing system that currently exist were highlighted. in reviewing the testimony submitted in advance of this hearing, there does seem to be a agreement that a more robust copyright ownership database is needed. there also seems to be an interest by many in simplifying the diverse licensing and rate-making systems, but disagreement remains on whether all those who use music should pay for it and what specific standards should be used, among other issues. as i mentioned, as we consider challenges and potential solutions to the copyright laws relating to music, we should

keep in mind ideas that incorporate more free-market principles. we should also be mindful of the tremendous role that digital music delivery services play in the music ecosystem for consumers and creators alike. i have long said that the content community and the technology community need each other. it is my hope that we can identify improvements to our copyright laws that can benefit both groups as well as consumers by maintaining strong protections for copyrighted works and strong incentives for further innovation. thank you. i appreciate you all making time to be here this morning. i yelled back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the chairman. the distinguished omen -- gentleman from michigan is recognized for his opening statement. >> thank you. good morning to our distinguished panel. i see faces i have worked with before, and we welcome all the supporters of the subject matter

that are here in the judiciary hearing room this morning. since i agree with everything by myas been said predecessors, the gentleman from and the chairman himself, i will just put my statement in the record. it would be largely repetitive. many of you know where i stand. i have supported music as an important and vital source in our national interest, and it is in that spirit that i welcome you all to the judiciary committee this morning. i ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the record and yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the general men, and statements from other members will be made a part of the record without objection.

introduce our panel of witnesses as we proceed with the business at hand. witness, ms. rosanne cash, singer, songwriter, .uthor, and performer ms. cash has released 15 our bones and has earned a grammy award in nominations for 12 more including 11 number one singles -- ms. cass has released 15 albums. she was given the lifetime soundement award for recording in 2012. ms. cash is testifying today on behalf of the american music association. your late dad also appeared before this subcommittee, and we enjoyed having him as well. good to have you here. our second witness -- i cannot see you, either, because of the impediment, but i will hold you harmless for that. chairman and chief executive officer of the recording industry association of america.

his position represents the interests of the seven billion dollar -- 7 billion dollar u.s. recording industry. he received his degree from cornell university and his jd degree at harvard school of law. our third witness is mr. charles offield, a 31-year veteran the broadcasting industry, and he is here today on behalf of the national association of broadcasters. he received his bs in accounting from hampton university. good to have you with us, mr. warfield. our fourth witness is mr. darius .an arman he is testifying today on behalf of the american association of .ndependent music he attended the university of virginia.

our fifth witness is mr. ed christian, chairman of the radio music license committee. he teaches courses in media management, broadcast programming, and radio at university of michigan -- central michigan university. he received his ba in mass stateication from weight university and his ma in management from central michigan university. our six witnesses mr. paul williams, president and chairman of the board of american society imposes, office, and publishers, which represents hundreds of thousands of music creators worldwide. mr. williams is an oscar, grammy, and golden globe winning hall of fame composer and songwriter. mr. williams, you will be left -- the glad to know that your friend from texas admonished me to be easy on you today. we will be careful to adhere to that request.

our seventh witness, mr. chris harrison, vice president of business affairs of pandora media. he is also a professor teaching music law at the university of texas school of law. mr. harrison received his jd from the university of north ,arolina, i am pleased to say his phd in political science also from the university of north carolina chapel hill. our eighth witness is mr. who is huppe, responsible for establishing long term strategic plan and .ision for the organization he received his ba from the university of virginia and his jd from the harvard school of law. our ninth and final witness is , chiefid frear financial officer a serious xm. -- at sirius xm.

gentlemen, before we begin hearing from the witnesses, i would like for each of you to stand, if you will, and we will swear you in. do you hereby testify that the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? that all ofrd show them responded in the affirmative. we will start with ms. cash. i will remind you if you can to try to comply with the .ive-minute rule when the timing light on your table goes from green to amber, that is your warning that you go to reach the five-minute tentacle. you will not be severely punished if you do not comply, but if you could stay with that, we try to comply with the five-minute rule as well. the good news is i do not think there is going to be a vote

until afternoon so we will not be interrupted by floor votes. ms. cash, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. chairman goodlatte, chairman coble, ranking members conyers and nadler, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. on behalf of the americana music association. i want to interest a few obstacles to making a living as a songwriter and recording artist today. everything i say is guided by one principle -- all creative evil are entitled to fair market compensation when their work is used by others regardless of the platform. a professionalh musician and songwriter for 35 years. i grew up in the music industry in the age of major record labels and brick-and-mortar record stores. i have been signed to major

labels since 1978, and am currently on the esteemed blue nile label. the climate among musicians at the moment is dispirited. we feel marginalized and devalued, although our passion for our work remains unchanged. every artist i know says, regarding their work vomit that they have no choice. we do not create out of whimsy, narcissism, or lack of ambition for more financially dependable professions. we are fueled by an artistic sensibility that can be ruthless in its demand for discipline and in some ways, we are in the service industry. ,e are here to help people feel to inspire, to reveal the torets of the heart, entertain, and provide soul.ance for the sole -- creating music is a collaborative effort.

co-writers, producers, fellow musicians, recording engineers, background singers, and various support people come together with the single purpose to .reate one work i am a fan of new technology, and i am excited about the the new waysee in of distributing music that are being offered to music lovers. my enthusiasm is tempered, however, by the realization that these new services are all cast against the backdrop of crushing and licensedy under outdated and byzantine in the way ofand creators being paid fairly for their work. among the problems faced today one, the lack of a public performance right for terrestrial radio play for recording artists. the united states is one of a few countries including china,

north korea, and iran that lacks a radio performance right for artists. the failure to recognize this right means that performers cannot collect royalties for if it isk even broadcast in a country where the right exists because the treaty the u.s. has signed our reciprocal. two, issues concerning how rates are set for licenses the songwriter's offer for their currently, the law prevents courts from considering all the evidence that might be useful in setting the fairest performingcenses the rights organizations offer, and royalty rates are not set on a fair market basis. this makes no sense. the songwriter equity act introduced by congressman collins and jeffries, would address these issues, and i thank them for that. three, the lack of federal copyright protection for

pre-1972 sound recordings. there is a gap in copyright protection for sound recordings created before 1972, which digital services use as an excuse to refuse to pay legacy artists. ranking member conyers and congressman holding for introducing the respect act to treat the work of legacy .usicians fairly for example, if my father were alive today, he would receive no payment for digital performances of his song "i walk the line," written and recorded in 1956, but anyone who read recorded that song today would receive a royalty. the injustice defies description. of the manyfew challenges we face as performers and songwriters, and i understand ranking member nadler is considering legislation to comprehensively address these and additional concerns.

thank you, congressman nadler. bottom line -- copyright law should not discriminate among individual music creators. each should be fairly compensated for their role in the creation and delivery of music to audiences. i see young musicians give up their dreams every single day because they cannot make a living doing that thing they most love, the thing they just might be on the planet to do. they deserve our encouragement and respect. musicians and artists of all kinds should be valued members of american society, compensated fairly for honest, hard work. i believe we can find solutions so that artists and musicians can succeed together with both new and existing music services, and i thank you for this time. >> i thank you, ms. cash. mr. sherman, let's start with .ou

>> i serve as chairman and ceo of the recording industry association of america, representing such iconic labels as columbia, motown, capital, atlantic, to name a few. our members have worked hard over the past two decades to build a viable, diverse, and consumer-friendly digital marketplace. millions of music lovers can find whatever they want, whenever and wherever they want it. digital models already account for more than 2/3 of our revenue, and that number is growing, but before the music market place can realize its full potential, there remain serious systemic issues to address. records are the economic engine that drives the entire music industry. it is the recording invested in, marketed and promoted by record levels -- labels that produces real capital for the artists and producers. record labels produced -- invest

not just financial capital but human capital. years of experience and expertise from the likes of clive davis who work with artists to bring out their very best, resulting in music that not only captivates fans but also drives revenues for the benefit of everyone in the music value chain. yesterday, we released a report on the investments in music made by major record companies. in embracing digital distribution, record labels have revolutionized the business and streamlined their operations all while revenues have limited. even in tough times, however, as a percentage of u.s. net sales revenue over the last decade, major-label payments for artist royalties have increased by 36%. mechanical royalties for 44gwriting have increased by percent. impediments to licensing impact the ability of record labels to sustain the investment that benefits the entire music ecosystem.

today's antiquated, complex, and time-consuming licensing regime undermines the system, and that is why we believe music licensing must be fixed. behind the seamless experience provided to consumers lurks an inefficient and broken system. we have got to rethink it. ,ere's what we suggest -- first grant the broadcast right for sound recording. it is frankly an excuse above that the u.s. still provides a special interest inception for am/fm radioof broadcasters, a subsidy which is taken out of the pockets of artists and their record labels. it is time for that to end. second, make sure artists who are recorded before 1972 are paid. because sound recordings are covered by other law after february 1970 two and state law before that date, some of our most cherished artists are not being paid by businesses to take advantage of the compulsory license. toare extremely grateful

cosponsors who have proposed the respect act to fix this anomaly. third, allow rights to be bundled and administered together. of every other type of copyrighted work are able to license all the copyrights necessary for all uses. a movie streaming service does not have to go to one entity to license the reform -- the performance and a different entity to license the making of a physical copy. so it should be with music works. fourth, create an across-the-board market rate standard. it goes across the board that every rights holder deserves fair market value for their work . we should have won fair market value rate standard for uses of all music that remained under a compulsory license. one-stopconsider a shop for musical work licenses. we have filed with the copyright office an ideal weighing out one to layout musical works in this manner, a potential path toward simplifying the complicated way music awards must be licensed today, but we also understand, as we stated repeatedly in our

submission, that no revisions of music licensing regime move ,orward unless publishers songwriters, and relevant stakeholders in the community come to a solution on which they agree. the goals of any solution should be to align the economic interests and incentives of music creators, ensure that songwriters and publishers receive a fair portion of revenue from the licensing of the sound recording, avoid competition between record labels and music publishers for the same dollars from licensees, speed the licensing process, making it quicker and easier for consumers to enjoy new music services, and make royalty payments to songwriters and publishers more efficient and more transparent. we welcome the opportunity to engage with our music industry partners on our idea as well as on any other ideas they may have to improve the status quo. the music business has reinvented itself, but our work is not done. we hope by working together that music it is -- with our music industry colleagues that we can find the consensus necessary to

simplify using licensing and ensure all creators are paid fairly. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. warfield. .> good morning >> pull your microphone closer to you, if you will. >> good morning, members of the subcommittee. my name is charles warfield, and i'm the joint board chair of the national association of broadcasters. over my 37-year career in and around broadcasting, i served as president of one of the country's first holy minor authorities -- holy minority-owned radio station groups. as an executive at a record label. i learned that broadcasters serve our listeners in many beneficial in significant ways. radio broadcasters inform, educate, and alert listeners to important events, topics, and emergencies. we introduced into new and old music, entertainment with sports, talk, and interviews. we are local, involved in our communities, and serve the public interest. for those reasons, i am proud to

testify today on behalf of the thousands of free, local, over the air radio stations across the united states. the supreme court has repeatedly held that the core objective of copyright law is the public good . not the creator plus interest, nothing user's interest, but the interest of the public at large. unfortunately, in testimony before this committee, some are arguing for fixes to copyright differenterve a very goal -- ensuring that their individual constituencies receive greater compensation at the expense of music licensees and listeners. nowhere in their arguments do they emphasize the need for balance, the interest of consumers or enhancements to competition. any of which would promote the cob -- the public good. in contrast, stepping back, it is clear that taken as a whole, the time-tested laws that govern the relationship between the music and broadcast industries promote the public good in three important ways. first, the existing law has enabled a locally-focus brought that isio industry

completely free to listeners. anyone with an antenna can access our programming completely free of charge, especially in times of emergency when other forms of communication fail. radio is unique among entertainment media in that there is no subscription, no broadcast package, or expensive wireless data connection needed for access. second, the resulting popularity of radio has significantly contributed to a u.s. recording industry that is the envy of the world, both in terms of size and scope. law mays. copyright contain some critical differences from its international counterparts, those differences have fostered the largest recording industry in the world, one that dwarfs that of the u.k., germany, france, and italy combined. our unique system of free airplay for free promotion has served both the broadcasting and recording industries well for decades to the benefit of listeners. in all 37 years of my career, i have never had a record executive come to my station and say, "why are you playing all of my music?" a promotion had

department refused to provide us with their newest record on the day it comes out. they show up at radio where they see the value and realize that we are the greatest promotional tool for their artists, and we are happy to provide them with you. third and most importantly, the community-based nature of local broadcasting has driven our industry to extraordinary levels of public service. in the wake of hurricane sandy, put its city's wqht music on hold and broadcast steadily throughout multiple power outages, providing a much-needed connection to life-saving news and information. in the days following, they ran continuous informational announcements providing critical information about disaster relief locations and assistance. has heart's hip-hop foundation provided blankets, clothing, hd radios, and essentials to residents of the afflicted areas throughout the crisis. this is done -- just one example of our industry's commitment to service, and it is the norm, not the exception. each of you knows this as you see the value of local

broadcasters in your district. but make no mistake -- the unique community focus of broadcast radio is only enabled by the current legal framework. i urge this committee to tread carefully and resist piecemeal changes to law that might disrupt the delicate balance that has enabled our industry to serve the public good for decades. turning briefly to streaming, i agree with others on the panel that they currently go framework governing webcasting imposes obstacles on every corner of the -- the current legal ly governingrrent webcasting imposes obstacle on every corner of the music ecosystem. i urge the subcommittee to focus its music licensing review on changes to law that would promote a sustainable webcasting industry to the benefit of artists, songwriters, and consumers. in conclusion, we stand ready to work with you to ensure a vibrant and competitive broadcast industry, now and in the future, that serves the public good. i am pleased to answer any

yourions and welcome invitation this morning. >> thank you. mr. van arman. >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of of the small and medium-sized businesses that make up the american association of independent music. . am an entrepreneur i am the cofounder and co-owner of a group of independent labels headquartered in the midwest of the united states. we currently employ 70 u.s. employees. we have multiple gold albums and singles, and one of our inording artists, bon iver, the state of wisconsin has won multiple grammys. also on the board of a not-for-profit trade organization representing over 330 record labels of all shapes

and sizes from all over the u.s. from hawaii to florida. our sector now comprises 34.6% of the u.s. recorded music sales .arket first and foremost, the american independent sector wants nothing more than a free market with a level playing field. however, there is one thing standing in our way -- big andanies using their power resources to take what is not due to them. because of the safe harbors current copyright law provides to them, artists create is an independent labels are not being fairly or adequately compensated. broadcasters are not paying anything at all to broadcast sound recordings on am/fm radio. this is not only unfair to us on the creator side, but it is also unfair to those digital services who do pay creators. within our music industry, there is one in balance as the primary threat to musical creative

enterprise -- market concentration. major labelthree groups exist, comprising of a 65% of the u.s. recorded music sales market based upon copyright ownership, the largest two of which are subsidiaries of foreign corporations. congress intended that copyright would simulate new creative work -- stimulate new creative work for the public interest, for consumers. it did not intend for it to enable a handful of private interests the ability to make huge profits unfairly on the back of creators. while we like the idea of a , thishensive approach music bus must be driven by all members of the music creator community, not by just a few major private interests. so what do we need? we need stronger copyright protection. the shape of copyright law now currently subsidizes large technology companies. we need a broad cast performance right. broadcasters must fairly for thete all creators

creation process to continue. the broadcast performance right will also give us international ofiprocity and receipt overseas radio royalties, which will improve america's balance of trade. we need more transparency and our musiciency in licensing system. our industry cannot afford to unfairly take value away from artists, creators, and those who invest in these creators. finally, we need a stronger compulsive statutory license for noninteractive performances, as it is the best friend of a level playing field. creator pay must be based on actual music usage. the current music licensing system is broken. it provides incentives for the wrong behavior. large companies take advantage of whatever inefficiencies exist in the marketplace to make an extra buck, so we need copyright law provisions that do the following -- increase the value of music. make copyright more equitable. reduce inefficiencies, and enable creators to create what

consumers desire. my sincere hope is that we can come to these revisions in partnership with all industry participants. the vast majority of small and medium enterprises that comprise the independent sector are american companies employ being american citizens and american offices and directly supporting american creators. almost every dollar that is earned by an independently owned copyright has a much greater impact on the u.s. economy than every dollar earned by a foreign-controlled major-label copyright. congress and the copyright office should keep this in mind when a copper -- contemplates copyright law revision. american copyright law should primarily benefit american consumers, american creators, and american enterprises. in the end, all the independent sector wants is a free market with a level playing field. we want to compete to provide the economic growth and job creation at our american economy >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, ranking

member, and members of the subcommittee, my name is ed christian and i'm chairman of the radio music license committee. we have been in existence for well over 50 years and is a nonprofit that represents some 10,000 local radio stations in the united states with respect to music licensing matters. over the years we have been involved in extensive music license negotiations with the two largest performing rights organizations. the mission has always been to provide a competitive market for music licensing in which operators pay a fair price. the rmlc has historicically achieved fair licenses through a combination of industry wide negotiations and as necessary federal rate court litigation. while recently we have found ourselves involved in ant trust

litigation in order to curb this company's ant competitive licensing practices. i will start by saying unequivocally that licensing redistribution concept that is rely upon the radio industry for funding are misguided but particular reference to the recurring demand for a sound recording performance right to be imposed upon radio please understand that the radio industry is not some vast pot of riches that can be tapped as a bailout for a corporation that has failed to decline in its own brick and mortar income. >> congress unambiguously intended that an exchange for unique promotional support afforded record labels and artists trestral radio should be treated differently from other transmission platforms. that premise has not changed. local radio station operators are responsible for obtaining linesances for the public

performance of music works. for the vast majority of operators this occurs to a blanket license that permits stations to air music without having to account for actual usage. traditionally, the mi benefits of a blanket license has outweighed ant trust aspects associated with the structure that permits pros to aggregate musical works in a way that is the hallmarks of a monopoly. given the large scale, the rmlc believes that a licensing in some form is efficient and adviseable. in this regard the independent and experienced federal judges associated with the courts have been able to deliver appropriate rate setting oversight. a purely free market approach to music licensing coupled with the absence of consent decrees monitored by the department of justice would invite market abuse and represent a step backward from a system that has

served parties well for decades. indeed, the fact that there are two ant trust cases in federal court is a testament to what has happened in the absence of government super vision of entities that wield the leverage of works combined with the club of statutory penalties for copyright infringement. now, congress has dedicated to bold reform that could lead to progress efficiencies and enhanced royalty payments to creators it might want to explore the prospect of a super licensing collective along the lines of what has already been proposed by other stakeholders. outside of brazil it is hard to identify another country in the world that supports multiple licensing enaltties that administer a single rights such as the public performance right in the competition. the fact that the u.s. continues to maintain three organizations for this purpose, sets up an enormously

complicated and redundant licensing system and likely guarantees that pressures royalty payments do creators are being diminished in their journey. indeed, this example doesn't even account for the roll of their licensing agencies. that furtscler tribute to the music licensing more rass. before we simply attribute to the economic injustices, to the level of fees paid by music users, the radio industry, we really need to carefully scrutinize the royalty distribution process. that dictates how and what creators are paid relative to incoming license fees. rmlc brings longstanding and expertise to the table and stand ready to work with other stakeholders in fashioning a pragmatic licensing regime that

is fair to all and preferential to none. thank you. >> thank you. mr. williams. pull that mike closer to you if you will. >> there we go. good morning, chairman and ranking members and members of the ski and visiting members of the larger organization. my name is paul williams and i am a song writer an american song writer. i also have the great pleasure and honor of being president and chairman of the board of the american society of composers, authors, and publishers. we are ascap. in 1914 a small but visionary group had an idea they believed they could protect their rights as music creators more effectively if they joined together. thank god they formed ascap. today more than 500,000 trust and depend on us to negotiate licenses monitor public

performance and distribute royalties all on a not for profit basis. i will repeat that on a not for profit basis. i'm honored to appear before you today to speak on their behalf. we're here today because technology is changing in the world in wonderful ways. we're moving into a world where people no longer own the music they love. they stream it. whenever and wherever they want. at the same time, the federal regulations that govern how music is license and thus how songwriters like myself are compensated for our work do not reflect the way people listen to the music today. in fact, they're stuck in the distant past and threatening the very future of american music. ascap is governed by a decree from 19 41, before the ipod ever hit a store. we know the marketplace has changed dramatically since then and sadly new music services are finding ways to take advantage of this outdated

regulatory system. consider the fact that it takes 1 million streams on pandora for a song writer to earn $90. for some perspective one of the most popular songs in 2011 was need you now. for 72 million streams on pandora the song writers earned less than 1500 apiece. meanwhile record labe else and artists earn 12 to 14 times more for the exact same stream. such an imbalance would not happen in a free market where real competition exists and song writers have more of a say over how our music is licensed. but under the current consent decree, song writer compensation reflects the true value of our work less and less even as it's performed more and

more. there is now a very real list that will withdraw entirely as a result of that voluntary collective licensing could soon collapse. it would make the system more complex, more inefficient and more expensive for everyone including music fans, the people that love our music. unless we do something to fix it. now, i sit here surrounded by representatives of multibillion dollar corporations that profit from our songs and i find it beyond perplexing that american song writers are the ones subject to the heaviest government regulation. be that as it may i believe that all of us working together to modernizing the system will allow song writers and composers to thrive alongside businesses that revolve around our music. we want you to be a giant success. you are delivering our songs to the world. to that end we are proposing several updates to our consent

decreek with the department of justice. we believe these updates can save voluntary collective licensing from the serious risks facing it to the benefit of music users consumers and creators alike. first, we need a faster less expensive process for settling rate disputes with businesses that use music one that considers agreements in the free market. song writers need flexibility to manage our own rights. while maintaining the right to license some directly ourselves. doing so would foster greater competition in the marketplace. finally, we can streamline the process for thousands by giving ascap the ability to regulate all in one transaction. passage of the song writers equity act introduced by representatives collins and

jeffries for which we are most grateful is a most crucial people of this. it is a reasonable fix which will enable the court to consider sound recording royalty rates as evidence when establishing song writer royalty rates. working together to make these changes i am con >> we appreciate the opportunity to testify.

without question pandora's delivering tremendous value to listeners, artists, song writers and the music industry. 77 million lisseners tuned in last month and listened for an average of 22 hours. every month pandora performs more than 1.5 million songs by more than 100,000 recording artists, 80% of whom were not played on trestral radio. we contribute to a new royalty stream that did not exist 20 years ago. just nine years after launching, pandora will celebrate a major milestone later this summer. $1 billion in total royalties paid. as this committee considers opportunities to improve music licensing, pandora hopes the committee will appreciate the essential aspects of our current system of statutory blanket licenses, including the consent decrees which encourage innovation through simplified licensing procedures, protect music users from the ant competitive behavior of big

copy right owners and ensure artists receive their fair share of royalties that services pandora each year. in today's highly concentrated industry with fragmented and it's the most ip and most necessary to offer a compelling service to consumers. as the future of music coalition recently stated the incredible growth of internet radio would have been inconceiveable had fledgeling web casters been compelled to negotiate with them individually without permission to play songs it might never have happened. that being said pandora's recent experience reflect the behavior of major music

behavior reflecting a continued need for government protection. as concluded by the federal judge who oversaw pandora's rate proceeding, "the evidence at trial revealed troubling coordination between sony, universal music publishing and ascap which i cates a core concern. statutory blampingeet licenses provide important transparency into how royalty payments are calculated and enable direct payment to recording artists and song writers. without them the royalty payment process would be controlled by record labels or music publishers where unre cupetted are passed through to the artist. while pandora believes the licensing should remain a central feature of copyright law congress can improve the efficiency of determining the reasonable fees for such

licenses. for example, several respondents to the copy right office's recent notice of inquiry, noted the expense and burden of the current board rate setting process. highlighting number one the need for the application of the federal rules of civil procedure and evidence, two, the establishment of the unitary proceeding with ample time for discovery and presentation of evidence and three the application of the so-called 801 b standard. we would also recommend in order to foster greater transparency the creation of a single data base and housing all relevant copy right information. participation need not be mandatory but congress could in a sense robust participation. for example, just as chapter 4 prevents a copy right owner from seeking, congress could include a requirement that entitlement to statutory

damages would be contingent on registering and keeping accurate ownership information in this data base. this would help prevent copyright owners from holding pandora hostage something we experienced directly in 2013 when a handful of major publishers threatened our business with penalties while refusing to disclose their rep tri. in addition to enabling services to ascertain who owns which work would also identify the owners of the songs which would encourage real competition among copyright owners for distribution across all platforms. it is important to know that while transparency would help mitigate ant competitive behavior it would not alleviate such abusive practices entirely. that's why the consent de crees must be preserved. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman and members of

the subcommittee i would like to start by telling the committee something you probably don't hear very often. congratulations to congress on getting it right. for over 10 years now song exchange has administered the statutory license for recordings on digital radio that this committee created in 1995 and that shines as a true legislative success story. it provides transparency and efficiency enjoyed today by over 100 million americans. it has led to a critical and growing revenue stream 100,000 accounts which represent fee tred artists background musicians, labels and rights owners larges and small. and the statutory license has provide add huge commercial benefits who have used it to build their businesses some of america's best known and fastest growing companies like pandora and sirius ex-im providing easy access.

congress greased the tracks removed the barriers to entry and a burgeoning multibillion dollar industry grew. and while you've heard many parties discuss problems elsewhere, everyone connected with the sound exchange world which includes the entire recorded music side of the business artists labels unions even the digital services themselves, everyone uniformly supports the fuppedmentals of the system. but as we move forward there is one core principle that should guide everything we discuss and that is this all creators should receive fair pay on all platforms when ever their music is used, period. everyone who has a hand in the creation of music deserves fair market value for their work and i mean everyone. song writers, publishers, studio producers and engineers, the artists who give comp positions life and record companies who help fulfill their vision. fair pay would ensure justice

for creators, level the playing field for radio services and would ensure a healthy vibrant eco system for listeners and fans. with that guiding principle i would like to propose a few modifications to make this good system work even better. first, congress must address the current royalty crisis facing legacy artists with recordings made before 1972. the refusal of some to pay royalty force this era of music makes no sense as a matter of policy and is surely not what this committee intended when it created the license. it is just wrong to pay nothing to artists who created the most iconic era of music in american history. on behalf of sound exchange and the artists we represent i thank the members on this committee who have joined them in supporting the respect act. i urge the committee to act now on this critical piece. pre1972 artists simply can not

afford to wait. second, congress must ensure that all radio platforms pay all creators. this means eliminating the ancient and unfair loophole hat allows the $17 billion a.m.-fm radio industry to pay nothing for the source of its life blood. fm radio uses music to draw the crowd and make its profits, yet ignores the performers at the center of its stage. fm's tired and steal jussfissications for taking advantage of artists rings hollow and are unfair to other services seated with me here today. and third, once all platforms start paying creators, they should pay according to the same fair market standards. it makes no sense that similar radio platforms played by different rules especially in today's world where those platforms may compete against one another in the same places over the same speakers to the same lisseners. to quote the opening statement,

the government must get out of the business of picking winners and losers in this industry. if we want innovation the law shouldn't give favorable rates to some companies or breaks to older formats. stated another way, these businesses should compete based on their legal appeal and economic value, not on the strength of their legal loopholes. so what would success look like for music licensing going forward? it would be a system where many of the challenges we're talking about here today would fade into the background where the back office would work seemlessly and visibly. where we were focused on business models and consumer offerings rather than rate standards and inequities. success would mean a system where the entire community worked cooperatively and most importantly success would mean a system based on the guiding principles that i set forth earlierors receive fair pay on all platforms whfer their music is used.

in closing the american music industry represents some of our best talents and cherished assets. all i'm looking for is something pretty simple for bringing these treasures to life be treated fairly when someone profits off of their work. thank you. >> thank you. of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my name is david freer i am the executive vice president and chief financial officer. sirius xm is one of the biggest providers we have 25 million subscribers in every congressional district in the continental u.s. and employ 21 00 in the nation. in 2013 we paid approximately $325 million in royalties to record companies publishers

song writers and artists. we have paid over $1.8 billion launched. s since we first, parity. radio is radio whether it is am, fm, satellite or internet. all should pay for the music they use on the same basis no exceptions. continuing to exempt the trestral radio companies that dominate radio listening with over 90% of the market and generate over 15 billion in revenue is bad policy. copyright law does not distinguish and it should not distinguish between a.m., fm, satellite or internet radio either based on technology. second, today's copyright act creates an unfair digital disadvantage. drawing any distinction based on the claim that some radio services are digital while others are not are based upon a false premise and produces a

distorted result. trestral radio began broadcasting digital sillnals over a decade ago and they have routinely made digital companies in the ordinary course of their broadcast operations since the 1980s. similar services regardless of the mechanism or medium through which they are delivered should be treated similarly. with each rate setting proceeding the disadvantage between trestral radio and other services just gets wider. the two peppeding bills song writer equity act and respect act would only further widen this digital disadvantage. third protection from market power. the music business has never been more concentrated than it is today. three companies control nearly 90% of the market for distribution of music. the same three companies control nearly 70% of the music publishing market. two pro's control over 90% and one collective controls the sound recording performance rights. the consent decrees are crucial

to protecting against nonsexettoif rate demands. the consent decrees do not interfere with competition they prevent activities that would therwise constitute of the antitrust laws. >> in an attempt to cherry pick entities who are relying on their linesances for access to those works are troubling. the specially in light of the publishers refusele to provide the catalog data that would allow the services to remove the catalog from the air in the event they couldn't reach agreement on the fees. fourth and finally fair rates. the willing buyer-willing seller standard have can meaning only where it reflects the workings of an actual free market. there is no functioning free market in music licensing because of the unprecedented concentration in the music industry and the aggregation of power and the pro's. congress should instead adopt

the rate setting standard for a broad array of licensing purposes. that presents wide latitude to ensure that both owners and users are treated fairly including potential new users like trestral radio. the standard also matter of simple fairness. congress adopted that standard and recognition that services subject to those standards founded their services at a time when there was no right at all. to change the standard now would fundamentally undercut the reliance interest of those services. in summary while the 15 billion a.m. and fm pays the approximately 300 million a year they do not pay a penny for sound recording performances. some are less than one third the size of the am and fm in terms of revenue but will pay more than 2-1/2 times nearly

$800 million in royalties this year. it is simply bad public policy to reward the biggest entities in the radio field with the competitive cost advantage while penalizing innovation and emerging services that increase economic activity and create jobs. as you consider new legislation it is may hope that you will recognize the unbalanced playing field and craft an eek tabble and duryagssluble. i thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i want to thank the panelists. no one abused the five minute rule and i appreciate that. we try to comply with the five-minute rule. so if you could keep your responses as possible we would appreciate it. i have a simple question. do you believe that the music licensing system should be set up in such a way that makes it easy or at least more simple for artists to understand how they're being paid and who is paying them?

>> i do. i think that transparency is essential and that's the lack of transparency is a huge part of the problem. for instance, there was a petition going around not long ago from pandora asking musicians to sign it and it was very enthusiastic about how that would benefit us. we found that to be somewhat man iplative not trans

transparencey is a word this subcommittee has heard repeatedly quite a bit including transparency i know you have transparency in who pays what and how royalties are divided. how should the congress in your opinion consider the issue of transparency as we consider potential changes to our music licenses laws? is transparency just as important and vitele as other issues? starting with you mr. williams and then ms. harris. >> my

when pandora requested information on licenses, for example, two days before the end of their trial, we immediately gathered that information and after two days of when we had it altogether we reached out to pandora and said would you like this information? we never heard back from them. i understand the communication in a multibillion dollar orgsization sometimes is not the best perhaps that didn't reach the head office but we had the information they wanted and we have it today. and i believe that any business that we do -- any licensee that

we do business with has the right to know what they're getting for their money. so we have that information. it's open and available. we are proud of our transparencey on all levels and incidently there was never any finding of any improper coordination between ascap and any of the publishers. if it had been i'm sure that the very capable judge would have brought it to our attention and would have filed on it. there was never any such filing. >> thank you. mr. harrison. >> yes. transparencey is key part as was indicated to any free and competitive market. the ability for users to understand who owns the content that is supposedly being licensed and our ability to access that information with due respect to mr. williams i don't want to get into a debate about what happened in a trial. there's 136 page opinion that's very detailed by the judge and if the chairman would like it

i'm happy to provide it for you. >> let me try one more question before the red light appears. mr. sherman with the world going digital and the need to update our laws is the time to finally resolve music licenses issues once and for all before us? >> definitely. the opportunity has never been greater. it's when the system is in crisis that there's an actual opportunity to bring people together to actually try and make a difference. that time seems to be now. >> anyone else want to add very briefly to that? i'll open the door if you want to because my red light is about to illuminate. i recognize the distinguished jament from new york. >> u thank you very much. let me just say first before i begin some questions that we've heard a lot of testimony today. we heard testimony about the air play f the free

for free promotion has served everybody well and it's a good thing. let me say i find that argument incredible. in a capitalist system, it may be somebody's judgment that not paying people for their performances because they get compensated through promotions, that may be a judgment may be correct. it may be equitable. but it should be the decision of the person whose services is being broadcast. you won't go into a store and say i decide that the price of that is fairly such and such therefore i'm going to take you for that price. someone who performs cannot be told i don't see how in any rational or fairness system can be told we have decided that

for all these reasons you should be happy with just promotion. i don't see how eektably or morally anybody has the right to make such a decision and certainly not congress. let me -- and so all the arguments based on that simply nonstarters as far as i'm concerned. lots of debate on everything else and balancing conversations but there's no balance. just saying we're going to take your work and not pay for it. it's not a balance. it's not a conversation. many have said that it's time for unified comprehensive approach to address the licensing problems of the music industry. do you agree and if so what stepped should congress take? >> first off, thank you for your comments on promotion. i could not agree more with your thoughts. the concept that the broadcasters believe they can take that right and not pay for it is as ludicrous as suggesting that a book could be made of a movie and yet the author of the book does not have to be compensated or that the n.f.l. can broadcast games

on national tv but yet the n.f.l. doesn't have to be compensated. in terms of unification, i agree with you. we do need to stream line the system of licensing. one of the benefits is that it is a system that is transparent and efficient. we are the most efficient at what we do. 90% of the royalties that come into our shop are out the door within 75 days and we have the lowest add min rate. so having a coordinated stream line licensing system is absolutely urgent. >> thank you. and briefly how is the lack of a public performance right for trestral radio impacted artists and the overall music place? >> artists are losing hundreds of millions of dollars over the past several years not only in the united states where radio makes $17 billion but sexensates artists 0 but also lose royalties overseas. >> lack of reciprocity. >> and if they got that money what would they have? >> the overseas money or the

>> here. >> depends on what the rate is mr. naddler but if they got that money it would go a long way towards compensating the artists. >> thank you. would you comment on that question? >> i agree. the idea that i'm patted on the head and say well it's promotional it's good for you is -- i would rather have control of my copy rights. and rather be paid for that. i'm a song writer as well. so i live in both worlds. but the fact that they can use my songs on the radio, my sound recordings to make billions of dollars for themselves and basically use my work to sell ads is not only ludicrous. it's insulting. an artist should have control of their copyrights. >> thank you. you said there's no reason that satellite radio and internet

radio should pay sound recording performance royalties while trestral radio continues to enjoy an exemption from that obligation. should i take it from that that you would agree that everyone should get paid or that no one should get paid? >> i actually do feel everyone should get paid. >> thank you. let me ask there are different rates setting standards applicable to different uses of music. some established under the 801 standard which produced below market while others are willing buyer willing seller. satellite is subject to 801 b while web casting are set according to willing buyer willing standard. how are these justified? >> they really shouldn't be justified. everybody should be paying on the same rates standards regardless of the platform on which the music is appearing. it doesn't make sense to have different standards for different platforms. it's having congress pick

winners and losers which is not what congress ought to be doing. >> would anyone disagree with that? >> if i may the fact is there are so many different -- it's paul williams. down here. you know, ascap licenses many different platforms. radio, television, cable, satellite and happily now pandora. we operate, we're one of the most efficient performing rights organizations in the world. we don't operate at the percentage that you do, sir in a sound exchange because we have a much wider group of people that we're servicing with our music. the fact is that trying to operate under the consent decree that existings right now is crippling to us. we operate at 12%. 12% which is -- would come down considerably if we could be relieved of some of the millions and millions of dollars we spend in -- >> what do you mean you operate

at 12% of what? >> let me ask if pandora will be kind and help me on this. >> 12%. 88 cents of every dollar we collect goes to our writers. >> i'm a song writer so that 1% takes care of a large group of people trying to keep track of everything that is going on. we do it more efficiently than anybody probably in the world. we're one of the most efficient. this is rigorous honesty part of my recovery and part of my oath today. but i'm proud of the way we operate. but when you look at a system where the recording labels and the artists receive 12 to 14 times more for the exact same thing we get something is broken. you can do two things for us. first you can support our efforts with the department of justice and you can pass the song writers equity act to allow us to go into court and present both sides, both copy riggetse and information around what they're being paid. the huge, what congressman

collins and jeffries have offered is not a comprehensive -- it's not going to fix everything but it's a beautiful end road to putting some balance into the way we operate. we're so grateful for that and i think that what we all want is just to see -- i mean, i want pandora to not survive, i want pandora to thrive. i mean, i made albums that even my family didn't buy. i love the idea theas going to make it available for anybody if they might want it. >> thank you. my time is expired. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i would first like to ask unanimous consent to insert house current resolution 16 which is the local radio freedom act which states in part that congress should not impose any new performance fee tax royalty or other charge related to public performance or sound recordings for broadcasting sound recordings over the air. local radio stations provide

promotion of the music they play at no cost to the listener. this concurrent resolution has 225 bipartisan cosponsors including myself which is more than a majority in the house. and i think it's important to at least mention i know we've had some kind of disparaging remarks about the recording ibbedtri from some of our panel members and i understand that but i thought that should be at least part of the record. i would also just a couple of comments before i get to a question. >> without objection those documents will be entered into the record. >> thank you. thank you.anted to i think we're at something like 7% approval now and to say congress actually did something right we don't hear that much around here. >> happy to oblige.

>> thank you very much. and mr. williams, we've had an opportunity to meet a number of times over the years. you've been here and you're a national treasure. thank you for everything that you've done to make life better. you've got some amazing songs. thank you. >> thank you. >> being kind of an old cominger i enjoy some that we've i guess sirius was in our car when we got it and we kept the service and we enjoy it especially when you're traveling around the country. >> thank you. and my daughters thank you as well. cousin brucey in particular and herman herments. we can kind of relate to that. and now to i guess one question i have it's a very large panel. >> we usually have four or something like that. we've got nine. and a lot of interest or recognize, is there any particular interest that

probably should have been add ord that we could have add that had didn't either got overlooked? anybody have any comment on that? on the panel? is there anybody else that perhaps we could have thought of that didn't get in or was either overlooked or whatever? >> one thing congressman we have obviously a large panel here and we have great performing artist representatives obviously with two artists to our right. one very important constituency of sound exchange or actually the two leading unions in our industry. the unions represent in addition to featured artists another important group of nonfeatured artists background musicians, vocalist whose also have a very important voice in this debate. >> thank you. and during the copyright hearings that we've had we heard the term free market obviously used a lot.

from every different side of the debate. i kind of like to hear how recording artists view free market system working do artists believe a free market model to be a better alternative than the livesancing system that we have today? with so much consolidation in the industry, do you believe it's even possible for music to truly become a free market? mr. williams. >> it's exactly what we're seeking. we are seeking a free market because a free market will dictate what something is worth. and the last thing that we need is less control of our music. you know, the one area where you could get a sense of what the free market is in one of licenses.in synch everything else is controlled with a consent decree with the department of justice. but if you look at synch

licenses which are straight ahead free market it's about a 50/50 split. in a sense this is the united states of america we can trust business to work things out and incidently i want to thank pandora right now you're getting a classic example of the two of us working together when i can't hear what you're asking me and he tells me and i'm trusting that he is telling me the actual question. so the fact is that the -- >> the question is what's the performance right. >> i'm a little david and guy yatsdz moment here sitting between the giants of the industry. i left my sling at home and what i brought is the truth and i represent 500,000 song writers composers and publishers. what an honor to share this time with roseanna. what we do is reach into the center of our chest and try to write something that will affect people's lives, that will comfort them in sad times. all i wanted was to write something that would make a young lady say yes when i ask her to marry her and three

times that happened. >> so we can all work together. i can turn to pandora for help. i thank you so much for examining this system. the system is broken. most of our money has always come from traditional, from bars and grills radio wonderful radio amazing relationships we've had with radio through the years. they give us a piece of their advertising money in a fair and a system that we've always been able to work out you sit down roll up your sleeves and you strike a deal. it's a great way to work and all. but the fact is that the world is changing and people don't want to own their music any more they want to stream it. and thanks to people like pandora i can hear my music anywhere in the world. in my car whatever and the like. it's a wonderful time. it should be the golden age of music. for the music listener who is the person we care most about this is the time they should

celebrate. the stream is a dream it should not be the nightmare for the men and women who create music. >> thank you. you should have brought the infamous stack of phone books that we talked about. >> yeah. exactly. that's right i did i conducted an orchestra for dick clark standing on a bunch of phone books. in this room i would stand on the bible. >> thank you. >> as cochair of the creative rights caucus i firmly believe that artists should be fairly compensated across all platforms but we know this is not the case in the u.s. in fact, let me tell you about the story ofian ita who provides a crastcl trast between finland and the u.s. she is a recording artist originally from finland who lived there for her first 1 years became a professional singer at a young age in her home country, she was paid for her performances on the radio in finland which was about a third of her income. then she moved to new york when

she was 17 to take the next steps in her career. she achieved success with having two billboard mag sin top 40 radio hits but was shocked to find out that the u.s. didn't pay artists for radio air play. she thought perhaps finland was an exception in paying artists and that the rest of the world didn't pay artists their radio royalties. but it turns out that it was the other way around. the u.s. was the exception and not paying radio royalties. well there are two other countries iran and north korea. well, last summer she proudly became a u.s. citizen but in doing so she is now a citizen of a democratic country that pay 't honor am-fm radio for its artists and she suffer as loss of significant income. this is not the american dream that she envisioned. her story shows that we need to fix the disparities in the current music licensing system

to make sure that artists are fairly compensated. if we don't we risk losing the innovation from creators like her because they will no longer have the incentive to create for the public. and so i would like to ask a question to paul williams. one area of agreement between you and the music licensees on the panel appears to be the importance of preserving the voluntary collective licensing model that you pioneered. you have made a compelling case that this is at risk of crumbling. clearly that would be a bad result for music licensees. so what would that mean for ascap song writers and composers particularly your smaller independent and up and coming members? >> it would be devastating. first, thank you for your advocacy. you've been a great friend to music creators and we appreciate that. if things don't change if the consent de cree isn't mot fist our major publishers are looking to withdraw their rights. and if they do that it fragment

as system it becomes more expensive less efficient. i think what we have to do is we have to look at the very, very quick adjustment to the system. but essentially it needs -- the entire consent decree at this point is not like going into battle with one hand tied behind your back that you're going to fight with. it's one hand tied behirnede your back that you're going to feed your family with. i absolutely believe that everybody should -- it's a sad sad story to hear of somebody losing their loss of income when they become an american citizen. you know, we absolutely believe that everybody that contributes to the performance of music, the creation of music should be honored. it is not an excuse to pay less to the people who create the music though. we need to find a balance. and i think the trick is to let the fair market decide that for us. >> thank you for that. my next question is for both chris of pandora and rose an

cash. last year pandora exbarked on a campaign to rally artists to petition congress but it was during the time when the radio freedom act was being debated in congress which would have actually resulted in a cut to artist royalties. pandora's letter to artists stated that they simply wanted to have the artists' voice heard. yet from what some discovered this was not the actual intent. the implication for the artist signing the petition of that particular time was that they were supporting cuts to themselves. so cut us why pandora enlisted the help and can you tell us what you and the creative community felt when this was happening? >> part of my opening remarks i noted that pandora plays 100,000 recording artists every month and 0% don't get played

on trestral radio. there's actually a large group of independent primarily recording artists and singer song writers who do value pandora because it is the only outlet, the only distribution platform available for them to find an audience that loves their music. >> ms. cash. >> that is what a lot of us are calling the exposure argument. that we are seduced into thinking if we allow these performances without pay that we will get exposure. therefore drive consumers to buy our records. that may or may not be true. but the point still remains that we don't have control over those copyrights and we are not paid fair compensation. we are not paid fair market rates. and as i said before, there's o transparency about this. it's somewhat man iplative. and i feel that we end up subsidizing these multibillion

dollar companies. they use our music as somewhat of a loss leader to draw people in and then they make the money. and to confirm what mr. williams said, the place that artists have the most control are synch licenses. i've given my songs for free. my choice. to college students making their first film who want to use my song. that's great. i want to support them. and then i've negotiated a fair rate with popular television show that wanted to use my song. i have control over those things. and that is the bottom line. that and fair compensation. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i'm going to ask some questions now or more so make some statements and then hopefully respond. first of all i would like to give each member of the distinguished panel an opportunity to respond to my --

this question the following question in righting. if you care to do it because there are too many and we're not going to get through in my couple of minutes. if you would be so kind as to tell me in your opinion what a free market is and what a fair market is comparing the two. because i hear that those terms thrown around. free market, fair market. i asked the last panel to do this and i'm asking you to do the same and get that to me in writing if you care to do so. i've been having meetings my staff and i have been meeting with people that have a dog in this fight continually. we've been doing it for months. if someone has not been invited to a meeting please contact my office. and let us know. because i think we've covered all the bases but there are many, many people involved in this. i'm trying to get a consensus. i don't want congress to sit

down and have to sort this out and i'll show you why in a minute. this is very complex. i've been studying this for months and talking to many people and here's the reason why i do not want congress to sit down. if we can get a sclenssuss among everyone who has skin in the game. i'm going to read you a list of those individuals and i probably missed one or two. these are the parties that we've come to the conclusion that are involved in this. excludes fcluding the public. song writers, movie score composers, performance rights, royalty ons pro's, collectors for digital music sound exchange artists/performers, trestral radio. broadcasters, satellite radio, cable tv radio, digital radio, streaming, digital download, provisers like i tunes, record lablesd, copyright owners music

promoters consumers listeners, music publishers, collective music organizations, music academy, grammys, recording engineers, copyright officers, libraries, universities churches and i'm sure i missed someone. so you see the litany of names and individuals and groups and entities that we have involved here. now what i'm going to do show you for the record and without objection i would like this that i have in front of me it's a skem schematic of the music licensing marketplace and the publisher/song writers and anyone else involved in the litany of names i just read off. i have a beautiful color display here on my ipad you're not going to see it but i'm just going to hold it up you may be able to understand some of it. this is an example of the breakdown, and these are on both sides so i have three

documents here of the breakdown of the schematic just like a corporation we set up president, ceo, vice president, et cetera. this is the complication of the legislation that we have and those involved. look at the subcatgris under neath the subcategories underneath the subcategories and the third one that i hold up here as well. we can enter issues such as payment. who is going to be paid, how are they going to be paid? what are the courts going to do about this? and i do not even have the court schematic here showing the process that one would go through if there are appeals. so i think i got my point across here about how complicated this is, how complex this is. but we're also talking about fairness and unjust to song writers and writers and individualings who are not being compensated particularly those because of the

legislation from 1972 prior to 1972 and that has something to do with state law which is an issue that i think can be dealt with today. so as trying to be an individual that is learning as much as possible about this hearing from everyone some of you are a little disappointed because i haven't said which way i'm leaning on this. as a prosecutor i want all the information at my fingertips before i make a decision but also i am asking everyone that i mentioned here today to please please think about sitting down with us in a group , face to face. it's real difficult. it's more difficult to sit face to face and look at each other eye ball and say no instead of over the phone or an email. so maybe we can get together and you help us get a