indicate they have been working closely with republicans on and off capitol hill to affect fcc's work and we should review their actions with the same level of scrutiny. i look forward to your testimony and i yield back. >> i held that record open for five legislative days. i will now recognize their written. the honorable thomas wheeler, we welcome you here and i'm glad you could join us. pursuant to committee rules, if you will please rise and raise your right hand. d solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you.

we normally ask for your testimony, but we are very forgiving on this and we would appreciate your verbal comments. your entire written statement will be part of the written record. mr. wheeler. chair wheeler: thank you very much mr. chairman. members of the committee, i will take that hand as well as your forgiveness and try and skip through early paragraphs. i'm proud of the process that the commission ran to develop the open internet order. it was one of the most open and transparent in commission history. and the public participation was unprecedented trade last april i circulated a draft, that included a set of open internet protections, and also asked questions about the best way to achieve an open internet. the open internet npr and adopted in may proposed a

solution based on section 706 do the calculations act of 1996. -- telecommunications act of seven and -- 1996. whether title ii of the act of 1934 would be a better solution. a quick point on procedures. while historically some npr ends just ask questions, during my chairmanship, i made it a policy to present draft nprm's to my colleagues at the means to fight for attention. i believe this is an important part of an open and transparent rule. the proposal is tentative. not a final conclusion. the purpose of the comment. is --period is to fully task that concept. it worked in the desired way to focus the debate. the process was one of the most open and expensive processes in

the ssc -- fcc has ever run. we heard from startups, isps, a series of public roundtables. we heard from 750 different asked partes. over 140 members of congress. monday administration -- from the administration and the performance formal submission. but here i would like to be clear. there were no secret instructions from the white house did--. i did not, as ceo of an independent agency, feel obligated to follow the president's recommendation. but i did feel obligated to treated with the respect that it deserves just as i have treated with similar respect, the input both pro and con from 140 senators and representatives. most significantly, we have

heard from 4 million americans. we listened and learned throughout this entire process. we made our decision based on a tremendous public record. my initial proposal was to reinstate the 2010 rules. the tentative conclusion put forth suggested that the fcc could usher internet openness by applying a commercial reasonableness test. under section seven of six, to determine appropriate behavior of isps. if discontinued, i listened to countless consumers and innovators around the country. i also reviewed submissions and became concerned that the relatively untested commercially reasonable standard might be interpreted to mean that what was reasonable for isps

commercial arrangements, not what was reasonable for consumers. that would be the wrong conclusion. it was an outcome that was unacceptable. that is why over the summer i began exploring how to utilize title ii and established just and reasonable standards. as previously indicated, this was an approach in which we have sought comment in the nprn. i have specifically spoken saying all approaches entitled to wear able for consideration. you were asked whether there was the instruction from the white house. again, the answer is no. the question becomes, whether the president's announcement on november 10 had an impact on the open internet debate, including at the fcc. of course it did. the push for title ii had been hard and continuous from democratic members of congress. the president weighing into support the position gave the

whole title to issue new prominence. of course, we had been working on a approaches to title ii including combined title ii section 706 solution for some time. the president's focus on title to put wind in the sales of everyone looking for strong open internet protection. it also encouraged those who had been opposing any government involvement do for the first time, support legislation with rules. as i considered title ii, it became apparent that rather than being a monolith, it was a very fluid concept. the record contained multiple approaches to the use of title ii. one of those was the title ii section 706 hybrid approach that bifurcated some would artificially internet service, another the approach we ultimately chose -- used title ii and section 706 but without bifurcation. another, the one the president supported, was only title ii

without section 706. all of these were on the table prior to the president's statement. let me be specific. we were exploring the viability of a bifurcated approach. i was also considering using title ii in a matter pattern at. application in the wireless voice industry. i have from the outset indicated a straight title ii was being considered. a key consideration throughout this deliberation was the potential impact of any regulation on the capital formation necessary for the construction of broadband infrastructure. an interesting result of the president's statement, was the absence of a reaction from the capital markets. when you talk about the impact of the president's statement, this was an important data point. resulting from the president position against regulations.

best rate regulations. it was the same goal that i had been looking to achieve from the outset. as we move to a conclusion, i was reminded how it was not necessary to invoke all 48 sections of title ii. in this regard i have been considering the substantial success of the wireless voice industry after it was deemed a title ii carrier pursuant to section 332 of the communications act. limiting its applicable provisions, the congress and commission in that act enabled a wireless voice business with hundreds of billions of dollars of investment and a record of innovation that makes it the best in the world. this is the model for the ultimate recommendations i put forward to my colleagues. the render industry data points that informed my thinking. one was the recognition of interconnection as an important issue. a topic not addressed by the president.

there was my letter to verizon wireless about it tonight -- announcement to limit unlimited data customers if a subscriber went over a certain amount of data. particularly with the active bidding and ultimately overwhelming success of the u.s. three spectrum auction at the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015, which showed that investment in networks, even in the face of the potential classification of mobile internet access undertone of two -- under title ii continued to floaters. other works included wall street analysts and isps themselves. sprint, t-mobile, frontier, and hundreds of small carriers said they would continue to invest under this title to framework we were developing. ultimately the collective findings of the public record influenced the evolution of my thinking. the final conclusion that modern, light touch title ii

reclassification accompanied by section 706, provides the strongest foundation for open internet rules. using its authority we adopt its strong and balanced protection -- surrey the rights of internet users to go in they want, when they want, protect the open internet at a level playing field and entrepreneur is, and preserve economic incentives for -- isps to invest in competitive broadband networks. i'm ready to answer questions. thank you. rep. chaffetz: did you are the fcc ever provide the white house the rule prior to the final vote? chair wheeler: no sir. rep. chaffetz: the comment was open to may 15. how many times did you meet at the white house? chair wheeler: in total?

i think we have shown you my calendar that has something like 10. rep. chaffetz: june 11 with jason furman? june 18 with jeffrey? caroline atkinson, july 17, september 11, september 30. november 9 at the fcc. does that sound accurate? rep. chaffetz:--chair wheeler: if that is the list we provided. rep. chaffetz: you only provided the extra tape or one of those meetings. why was that? chair wheeler: the rules are quite clear on what constitutes an ex parte. that is an attempt to file specifically in a specific docket and to influence the

outcome of that. rep. chaffetz: did you discuss this? did you discuss this matter is during that -- those meetings? chair wheeler: and there are provisions long-established going back to the bush administration. rep. chaffetz: sir, i have five minutes. chair wheeler: you are asking about ex parte. there is no requirement or need for nx partake to be filed. rep. chaffetz: i don't understand. you met with them. are you telling me this proposed rule did not come up in any of those meetings but one? chair wheeler: i can't recall the details of those meetings. i can't assure you that there were no -- nothing that would trigger the next partake. -- ex partake. rep. chaffetz: you meet with the white house multiple times after the comment. closes, and we are supposed to

believe the most important thing that fcc has ever done, that this did not come up? that they did not comments back to you? chair wheeler: the administration was very scrupulous in making it clear that i was an independent agency and -- rep. chaffetz: the point is, you met with them multiple times. but we invite you to come in and open -- and he refused. you did not send us a single document. that double standard is very troubling. chair wheeler: mr. chairman, one thing that i didn't agree to come, i'm here. rep. chaffetz: before the role you met with the white house but not here. chair wheeler: you gave me one weeks notice. rep. chaffetz: that is easily what we give people. chair wheeler: there are other committees i try to respond to. i said i would look forward to coming to you. rep. chaffetz: i did not believe you then and i don't believe you

now. you said you would not come to visit with us. you did not send us a single document we ask for. that's not right. my complaint is that before hand, you didn't. i'm moving on. hold on. our time is short. this is the way it works. on september 23, multiple people met at the white house. i will enter to the record asking them a consensus of the elite collar article of february 23, 2015. white house logs showing a number of people who met in the white house that are activists on this topic. i want to play video clip. this is 6:55 in the morning of the day the president is going to issue his statement. this is the right at your home? chair wheeler: yes there. rep. chaffetz: you woke up that

morning to protesters outside of your house? they were there trying to make a statement. there is a long five-minute video of this. at 7:35 that evening you send out an e-mail to your commissioners calling it an interesting development. later that afternoon, i want to put out a slide. you rejected this. this was all redacted. hard to see up on the screen but we don't understand why this is rejected. this is what you wrote. please read it, go ahead. this is the same day. all of a sudden the president's statement comes out in a very coordinated fashion. he has the right to lean on this. that's fine. later that afternoon you sent out the thief -- e-mail, saying is an interesting, the day of

the demonstration just happens to be the day folks take action at the white house? the video opponents just happened to be the same. the white house and analysts saying please pass this on to anyone who cares about the state of the internet. why did you read that -- right at? chair wheeler: does this suggest a secret plan? rep. chaffetz: i'm asking you why you wrote it. chair wheeler: this clearly showing that there was no kind of coordination. rep. chaffetz: there was no coronation? that protesters have been to show up the morning before the announcement comes, nobody knows the president will make this except the protesters. and you saying that -- you are the one who wrote you thought hmm, isn't it interesting?

chair wheeler: not talking about the coordination with us, i was talking about i don't know who else they were coordinating with. maybe others. rep. chaffetz: you had multiple meetings with the white house, the visited you and we are supposed to believe there was only one discussion about this? chair wheeler: they came once to meet with me and filed an ex parte. at which time i was told, it says this is the president will make an announcement a couple days later. he will endorse title ii. that is all i knew. the other meetings at the white house -- i was there on trade, i was there on national security issues, i was there on spectrum, i was there on auctions, i was there on e-rate. there are numerous issues.

caroline atkinson was one of the names that you named. i can ensure you i did not talk to her about open internet because she she knows nothing about it. entire conversation, and several with her, has been about trade issues. and the process for reviewing agreements that relate to national security. rep. chaffetz: but you only spoke one time with jeffrey about this? the only time jeffrey sachs said to me -- chair wheeler: the only time jeffrey sachs to me, this is what that president issue is, was when he came and filed and at partake. i have been repeatedly saying i know the president has a strong position in favor of the open internet, as do i. and keeping them informed that i was fighting for a strong open

internet position. rep. chaffetz: say you informed of them, and they had no reaction? no comments? chair wheeler: i informed them that i had a strong position in favor of -- as a matter of fact you have e-mails that show that i have e-mails with them saying, these press reports i am wondering this down our true. rep. chaffetz: i have lots more questions that might time is exceeded. i will now recognize mr. wells. representative welch: mr. wheeler, this is probably one of the most contentious problems we had faced. 4 million comments about this. that you think i understood were of concern to you and your fellow commissioners, republican and democrat, were how would whatever you decision you made affect innovation, is that

correct? over time, you all debated to figure out what would be the impact of whatever direction you took. chair wheeler: yes there. the whole rulemaking process is evolutionary. the whole concept of title ii is a fluid and evolutionary process. representatives welch: this almost seems like a watered gate -- watergate deal. in public policy when you try to figure out what you can know and get to a good public policy decision it is a back-and-forth discussion. listening to the 4 million comments, members of congress. and incidentally, the president of the united states. is that correct? chair wheeler: i was constantly learning. representative the welch: there was a report in the new york times about a previous matter where president reagan had the commissioner in for 45 minutes.

did president obama ever summon you to the white house for the purpose of a 45 minute discussion about the way it will be with this order that you are considering? chair wheeler: no sir, president obama has never summoned me to the white house to discuss anything. rep welch quote --: when he made his comment, you observe what was the impact on the market correct? what was the impact? chair wheeler: there was zero impact on the market. one of the concerns that isps had been making was understand what the consequences of an action entitled -- entitled to maybe on the markets. lo and behold, there wasn't. representatives welch: in denmark, where this is done, have they continued to have open

and information? chair wheeler: you are better informed than i am on denmark. welch: did that exceed revenues? chair wheeler: significantly $41 billion, which was triple what the estimates were. >> with respect to the market since then has there been any major disruption that can be attributed to the decision you made? chair wheeler: the market has continued to advance northward in the evaluations of these stocks. represented welch: my understanding is one of your enormous concerns when you initially proposed possibly using section 706, was the weariness of two heavy-handed regulation. --too heavy-handed of a regulation regime. where there factors you took into consideration in the decision untitled to -- in title

ii about what type of regulatory framework would be applicable? chair wheeler: yes, sir. the model built for the wireless industry which the wireless industry sought, by the way, was to use title ii and have them declare a common carrier but then to forbear, to not enforce those parts of title ii that are no longer relevant. >> is the your intention to work with by the commissioners to achieve that light touch approach? chair wheeler: yes sir, i believe this has. there are 40 sections two title ii. we had four born from 27 of those. that compares with the 19 that were born from the wireless environment. rep welch: i want to go back to the money question. somehow president obama, who has the right to express an opinion, muscle you into doing some the you did not want to do.

and suggestions that was the case. the chairmen had indicated a number of meetings you had. i want to give you an opportunity to say whether the president gave you directions explicit or implicit, as to how you should do your job or elected to you to exercise your judgment. chair wheeler: no, the president did not. i interpreted what the residence statement was was that he was joining with the 64 democratic members of congress and the millions of people and he was identifying with them. rhett welch: thank you. i yield back. rep. chaffetz: i will now recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> he said the notice from proposed rulemaking in may was a solution in section 706. that seems to be our position throughout most of 2014. a 706 based.

you testified last year that section 706 approaches open internet. as late as october 30, the wall street journal wrote, chairman wheeler will move forward with a 706-based approach. back to where the chairman was, all of that seems to change -- all that seems to change on november 10. where you state publicly that now title ii is definitely in the mix. that is ultimately the demand -- direction the commission took. my question is simple, what changed between october 30 and november 10? chair wheeler: i think that is an incorrect assumption. representative jordan: i'm using what they gave me. chair wheeler: in february i said we keep title ii of the table. rep jordan: hang on.

by your testimony, you just read the proposed rule was a 706 east approach. and in wall street journal, it said the 706 approach was what you would move forward with. changes on the 10th. what happened between those two events? one, the president made his youtube video. and he issued a statement. two, you had an important meeting i know every six -- on november 6. chair wheeler: let me quote from the new york times the day after -- rep jordan: you can respond when asked you a question. that is the way it works. your interactions with the white house, march 6, tom wheeler meets with jeff zients. chair wheeler: he is the head of

the national economic council. representative jordan: so you meet with him march 6. march 7, wheeler meets with jeff zients. may 7, meeting with jeff zients at the white house. may 21, tom wheeler meets with jeff zients at the white house. june 11, meets with economic council's advisers at the white house. june 18, same. september 11, same meeting. october 15, tom wheeler meets again with white house economic advisers. october 20, tom wheeler meets with cap at the white house. leading up to october 30, you met with the white house nine different times all at the white house, with mr. sites--mr. jeff zients.

and through october, the position of the commission according to wall street journal, is a 706 based approach. that changes a few days later. i would argue changes on november 6. when you met with jeff zients. but the difference, nine times you went to the white house on november 6 jeff zients comes to you. this is the only time he came to you. in my contention, it is, and where a lot of americans are jeff zients came to you and said things have changed, we want the title to approach to this rule. --title ii approach to this rule. am i wrong? chair wheeler: yes. first of all, there may have been nine meetings-- dealing with trade.

dealing with auctions, and as i said, before there was any input, there were multiple issues on the table including a title ii and 706 approach. it is a mistake to say the only thing that was on the table was section 706. representative jordan: i didn't say that. i said nine times you met and you testified that is what you do and then it changes days later. 11 seconds. in your text the money -- testimony, he say i want to be clear, there were no instructions from the white house. i did not feel obligated to follow the president's recommendations. one must question if i could. mr. wheeler, who is philip revered? chair wheeler: special counsel in my office.

representative jordan: your top advisor. this is an e-mail our staff got. with mr. revere and the lobbyist from at&t, on the 10th, or days after jeff zients came to you everything changes. this is what the at&t representatives said to your senior counselor. this is awful. and bad for any semblance of agency independence. too many people saw jeff zients going into meet with tom last week. i'm not the only one who thinks everything changed november 6. this individual talked to your senior counselor and said he was changed. when again, the white house came to you and said, mr. wheeler new sheriff in town. things are different and it is title ii. that is what you ultimately adopted. even though you had a seven us explain all this time. chair wheeler: we did not adopt

the title ii approach. we adopted a title ii and section 706. which i believe is referenced in the first line of that e-mail. rep. chaffetz: the gentleman's time has expired. now recognized-- >> with all due respect, the gentleman just went over a minute and a half. i would ask key be allowed to answer. -- he be allowed to answer. chair wheeler: thank you. there were, as i was pointing out, than yours -- new york times wrote after this wall street journal article that this is one of the four possibilities the fcc is considering as it seeks to draw a net neutrality frameworks that will hold up in court. the title ii and 706 usage, as i said was on the table along

with a title ii and 706 nonhybrid, along with 706, along with title ii by itself. rep. chaffetz: i now recognize the gentlewoman from new york. >> thank you. chairman wheeler, it has been reported that the proposed open net neutrality rule received 4 million comments. i'm curious, compared to other rules, did any other rule get near these -- this number of comments? chair wheeler: no man, and it broke our id system. representative maloney: do you have a percentage in favor of net neutrality? thousands came into my office and all of them were in favor of an open internet era what about your comments? chair wheeler: i think they ran

about 3-1 in favor. representative maloney: there will also several online petitions. were you aware of these? and there were demonstrations. even at your house and open meetings, and forearms, and all kinds of comment periods you participated in. i assume your perfect -- familiar with the popularly night host john oliver. he had a piece about net neutrality that went viral, and he was highly critical of you and your time as a lobbyist. are you aware of his program? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. i have new research. representative maloney: he encouraged his viewers to go to the fcc site and register their vision. i understand after his peace erred, you had to extend the comment period, and there were

so many comments coming in in favor of net neutrality, is that true? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. representative maloney: do you have any idea how many came in after john oliver showed? would you get that for the committee? all of the attention on you, and the efforts, and grassroots alert -- movements, is it fair to say they had some impact on your decision-making? chair wheeler: well, they all went into the record. the decision was made on the record. obviously there was a high level of concern. i also met around the country. representative maloney: i know you went all around the country hosting forums. i would like to ask you, i'm

curious, in your opinion, who had that greater impact on the fcc rules -- president obama's or john oliver's show? chair wheeler: [laughter] i tend to view what was going on was the president was signing on to the 64 members of congress and the millions of people who had told them they want title ii. representative maloney: i sincerely want to thank you. it is clear the voice of the american people, you listened to, and you made that proper choice. i commend you for keeping an open mind and doing what is right or the american people. i believe the economy as well. in all due respect, i believe that my republican colleagues are looking at this issue in the wrong way. they should be thinking president obama --thanking president obama for coming out

in favor of an open internet rule, clearly where the public and economists are. they should not be criticizing him. what i am hearing today is seared similar to the hearings on the auto industry where the restructuring president obama did with the support of congress, to the auto industry it was highly critical. but now it saved 500 jobs, we are now exporting automobiles we had the biggest sales in the history of our country. it was the right decision. i believe this is the right decision for the american people, and i want to thank you. chair wheeler: thank you. rep. chaffetz: does the lady yield? representative maloney: i certainly do. rep. cummings: some of these e-mails the 20 fcc staff, up until that presidents announcement, where the majority of the comments in favor of open net policy? chair wheeler: yes, sir. rep. cummings: in light of all

of these comments, with title ii on the forefront? chair wheeler: yes. >> may i reclaim my time? i want to say that president obama saved the auto industry. he saved it and he saved the internet. i believe very strongly that republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. for the economy and the american people. rep. chaffetz: i think the gentlewoman will now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome. i think this boils down to people trying to figure out why you were against the president's policy before you became for the president's policy, and a very

abrupt turn. some of it revolves around circumstances. the jets nice meeting -- jeff zients meeting appears to be very influential. it appears as well, from communications i have seen, may 15 -- is that when you are releasing the nprm? chair wheeler: yes, sir. representative: i have an e-mail from senate chief of staff. david krohn, do you know him? chair wheeler: yes, sir. representative: it appears as if there was enlistment to try to keep the previous position intact. he said, good luck to that. he is not sure how things have

landed trust to make it work, please shout out if you need anything. back -- spoke last night was the white house and told them to back off title ii. once again, the problems it creates for us. do you remember this e-mail? chair wheeler: yes, sir. representative: it appears in defense of your trying to come up with a certain position, that people were trying to back -- it looks like senator reed was backing you at that time. or at least, this is the indication. and he was trying to get the white house to back off pressuring you. is that correct? chair wheeler: i'm grateful for this question, mr. micha. there are a couple of things to respond. one is that the president was clear he was for a strong open internet.

as was i. representative mica: but before, you had ilife trying to help you -- read was the big tease at this time. chair wheeler: what i was saying the answer is no. representative mica: every public document, and some cited here, you are taking a different course. you draft a proposal, is that correct? chair wheeler: i testify this was very evolutionary -- representative: i mentioned title ii. chair wheeler: it was very rich in mentioning title ii. the that as it may-- the job of

a regulator is to put forth a proposal to see what it attracts in terms and learn from that experience and to evolve. that is what i did. representative mica: everything we had indicated you are in a different direction trying to stem the tide of the white house. you are in an awkward position. even commissioner -- he said in his statement, president obama's endorsement of title ii forced a change in the fcc's approach. maybe everyone else observing this, your comments up today, and one of the commissioner's, is in conflict with what you believe. chair wheeler: before the president made his comment, we were working on a hybrid religion. after, we delivered. representative mica: i think mr.

jeff sites -- jeff zients strong-armed you. thank you. rep. chaffetz: i want to know why you felt compelled to communicate with the white house of what -- about what the new york times is writing. this is backing april. -- back in april. that the fcc is getting an open internet rule here it is flat out wrong. you go through and explain it. then you send that to jeffrey signs. then you sent to podesta. he writes that someone would push back. you went back, yes. you are supposed to be an independent agency. and you are interacted regularly

with the white house on how to communicate on the pr of a new york times story? chair wheeler: mr. chairman, i had said that we were going to reinstate the 2010 rules, which the president had endorsed. the report in the new york times was saying he is not doing that. i was there for responding and saying, you should know that that report is not true. at the same point time, i have furnished also e-mails to members of congress. saying the same pohint. that is what this was. the 2010 rules, i stand behind, and i am not out in a campaign to get them,--gut them which is what was being reported in the press.

there was an article that said this was mischaracterize. that is what that exchange was about. rep. chaffetz: then why are you redirecting all of this? -- redirecting--redac all of thisting? chair wheeler: how the response are are in the career staff, not my supervision based on long-standing positions. i can't answer why certain things are blacked out. rep. chaffetz: i'm tired of having heads of agencies saying i don't know anything about it. the public's right to know. this is how the public understands what is happening. your organization is redacting the information. it is wrong. i need to further explanation. when can you give a further at the nation. what is a reasonable time to respond? chair wheeler: i will be happy

to. rep. chaffetz: can you give me a date? by the end of the month? chair wheeler: sure. rep. chaffetz: from the district of columbia, ms. norton. representative norton: it is very hard to make a case against net neutrality. these numbers don't want to go home and make that case. they are trying to make a case for example, against hearing the opinion of the president of the united states. on net neutrality. this is a very important policy issue. it is inconceivable in our republic that the president would be silenced on it. i ran an independent agency and looked to see what the rules were in this case. the fact of administration weighing in on such a notion is

not new. chair wheeler: no, ma'am. representative norton: in fact i was able to discover that president reagan, h w bush, clinton, george w bush, have all weighed in specifically on fcc policies in the past. chair wheeler: yes, ma'am. representative norton: i can understand in such a case where there might be some appearance after all you are an independent agency, that you would go to your office of legal counsel. as it turns out, there is an out -- office of legal counsel's opinion, advising that then president, george h.w. bush, on whether it was indeed permissible for that president to contact the fcc to advocate for a specific position on

rulemaking. is that not correct? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. representative norton: because this is the president of the united date, and not one of our constituents, it is interesting to know there are rules about how this should be done. that needs to be laid out here, since the president is being criticized and you are being criticized. that has to do with disclosure. the legal opinion stated whether or not these matters must be disclosed in rulemaking on the record, if they are of the potential significance, is that not the case? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. representative norton: the opinion also addressed whether it is permissible for the fcc to solicit the views of the white house officials.

and whether these would be subject to public disclosure. that not correct? chair wheeler: yes, ma'am. representative norton: so here we have rules, saying we are not going to silence this, but we are going to make here that you will use -- your views are absolutely transparent. there is no law prohibiting the fcc from soliciting the opinion of the white house. there are no rules. it is in the discussion of whether the right house would have to -- white house -- the fcc would have to disclose that. is that correct? chair wheeler: yes, ma'am. representative norton: the white house would have to be required to submit an ex partake, only if it was upset that substantial significance and clearly going

to affect ultimate decisions. chair wheeler: yes, ma'am. representative norton: it did not the white house submit and asked partake piling on november the 10th 2014? chair wheeler: yes, ma'am. representative norton: i submit, mr. chairman, the rules that followed to the letter. this has been an openly transparent matter. the president was not and should not have been silenced. if there were more americans wanting to submit their opinions, you can imagine that those americans would also want to know where the president of the united states stood on this matter. thank you very much and i yield back my time. rep. cummings: mr. wheeler where you sworn in? chair wheeler: yes sir. rep. cummings: and you have an

oath you had to adhere to. and during this entire process tell us whether you believe that you have upheld your oath. chair wheeler: yes, sir. rep. cummings: thank you very much. >> could i enter into the record of civil rights and other organizations to the record, mr. chairman? rep. chaffetz: we now recognize the chair from michigan. representative: let me also make a statement. the president was involved, it was not the president was saved the auto industry. it was the american auto worker and is doing that to this day. the president has his right to make statements. many people have the right. congress has a right to make statements. the question is, who's internet

is it--whose internet is it? is wide open and brought, i contend it is the american peoples. --people's. the wall street journal reported that the fcc was likely to delay net neutrality rules until next year. was there ever a point in time when the open internet issue was intended to be on the agenda for december 11 public meeting? chair wheeler: yes, sir, i was trying to push her that. representative: what happened? chair wheeler: it was a bridge too far. you can with the horse but you can't make it to faster. representative: in whose mind? chair wheeler: the staff, we couldn't get the work done. representative: in your statement announcing the new

rules, you called the new rules historic and also a shining example of american democracy at work. if so, why did you not let americans see the rules before voting on it? chair wheeler: oh, golly sir. we followed the process that had been in place in the commission for both republican and democratic chairman from recent memory. it was a matter of,-- representative: but the people never saw the rules. chair wheeler: we were specific in saying this is what we are looking at. then we went into an editing process, which is not unlike a judicial situation. representative: you went through that in your opening statement. the process, giving drafts. that is great. an idea of where you are going.

that developed over time. but ultimately, the language of the rule was not submitted to the americans -- american eyesight to view and ultimately comment on it. why? chair wheeler: that is the typical process at the agency as it has been forever. i draft rule is put out by the chairman's office. then the commissioners go in to editorial negotiation, if you will. over what the white house -- final rule would say. that is normally a three-week process. that does not involve putting out the rule. representative: but in light of the monumental process this was -- this is the most monumental change to the rules of internet in the history of the internet. wouldn't you say? chair wheeler: it is, yes. representative: it's huge.

in light of that, i feel in my district, and i'm sure everyone in their districts, people commented on it. 140 members of congress. 4 million comments from people concerned with this. i just don't understand why when you will have the rule as written, that it wasn't released to the public for comment. if you did it over again, would you have done it differently? chair wheeler: no sir. first of all, it wasn't the final rule. there were changes. it was against the commission's procedures to do that, secondly. thirdly is -- representative: i don't know that to be true. in fact, i would regard that as not true. the commissioner called and said, a monumental shift for

government control of the internet. in light of this monumental shift what harm would, from letting the american public see the text of the draft rule before the fcc? chair wheeler: sir, we put out specifics, this is what it does. we've been engaged as we always do, in private editorial negotiations, amongst the commissioners. we never put out a draft before those edits. that is -- representative: that is not true. and the american public deserves the opportunity, at this level, to have comments an opportunity to push back. this was a shift, a monumental shift, that should have had that oversight. rep. chaffetz: the gentleman will yield.

>> you have the discretion to make it public correct? the answer is yes. chairman market, at the request of members of congress including senator obama, who insisted on the open is when he was the senator, and they did it. they came and testified to congress. they may need to rule open. and you chose not to. chair wheeler: i'm glad you raised that because i think that is more urban legend that fact. my understanding of the chairman martin situation is as follows. one, he wrote an op-ed in the new york times in which he released two paragraphs of in order. he followed that with a press release in which she released one and a half pages of a 41 page section, of 124 page item.

that is a difference between releasing an entire item. rep. chaffetz: he made himself available to congress, they went through it second, and what is startling to me -- what is telling to me, is that senator obama's position is totally different than president obama's position. time is expired. we now recognize the gentleman from virginia. representative connelly: thank you, mr. chairman. chairman wheeler is it unusual for an independent agency such as yours to communicate with the executive branch? chair wheeler: no, sir. representative: is it routine? chair wheeler: yes, sir. representative: the chairman

began his question by reading off a list of meetings that apparently were supposed to see as sinister, you are your colleagues meeting with areas white house officials with happy be unique to your chance -- tenure as chairman? the previous chairman never did that? chair wheeler: i've never seen the love, by believe every chairman has these meetings. representative: is there something sinister in the timing of these meetings? i think the insinuation from my friends on the other side, it is meant to just that there is something really deliberately sinister here. your meeting with them either to tailor the rule or get your instructions, or have some kind of subversive conversation that obviously the public is not aware of. is that what occurred? chair wheeler: no, sir.

representative: did the white house ever direct you in the wording, framing or context of the rule, ever? chair wheeler: no, sir. even when they filed, it was not a direction. it was, here is our opinion. the same as the members of congress. and millions of americans. representative: and as we just saw with a letter to the iso in iran, one does not put too much credence in members of -- letters from members of congress. i thought i would just that in. ok is there -- the chairman was suggesting that you could have waived the rule, and should

have, to bring the public and at an earlier date worried in the drafting -- earlier date in the drafting of the rules. your answer was a little bit -- yes, i have that power but it is not the practice. going beyond that, why in looking at that ability to ways, did you not? chair wheeler: there are many reasons why negotiations amongst commissioners are to be in camera. for instance, you put out the draft. what do you do two days later one paragraph 345 gets changed. you put out again?

how do you deal with ongoing research? is it right to have this kind of activity that can be very much affecting of capital markets out there, people misinterpreting what this is, this and that, markets crashing, or inflation -- whatever that may be prevent it is for that reason, and those kinds of reasons that we save these kinds of editorial negotiations are specifically not doable because they are works in progress, and that is what i made that decision, sir and that is why the president exist. rep. connolly: do you regret that that exists? chair wheeler: no server. -- no, sir. rep. connolly: did you feel when president obama issued his statement with respect to net

neutrality -- there were press reports at the time that you and your colleagues were surprised or taken a little bit offguard. you may want to comment on that. did you view his issuance of such statements as interference of your process, which was still underway? chair wheeler: no, as we discussed, all presidents had input in the process, and in multiple administrations and multiple proceedings it is not undue at all. not any different if congress is weighing in. thank you -- rep. connolly: thank you, i have no further questions.

rep. chaffetz: ok, i want to continue, who is sharon? we don't want to wrinkle certainly they are e-mailing back-and-forth. i just thought it would bring that up. i appreciate. are presented of: -- representative: i just want to

remind the chairman, that there are statements contradicting sworn testimony, so if you are going to cite a media person as cooperating -- corroborating your point, i would be happy to do so. representative: do you have a comment of what was just said chair wheeler: i am not sure this qa rankles me. rep. chaffetz: i now recognize the gentleman from texas. mr. ference all -- mr. far

enthold, go ahead. rep. farenthold: there was classified information service and it was not seen as a telecommunication service, and the marketing job that completely flipped that is just staggering for me to be at that i also want to address something my friend from across the aisle just brought up, and is -- oh wait, i completely lost my train of thought there. i will get back to that. i think you were -- rep. connolly: i think you were agreeing that i had a brilliant point and you wanted to loudly on that -- laud me on that and it is ok because it is a peptic. [laughter] rep. farenthold: we don't know what we are seeking comments on.

i am really troubled and i think this is not just the fcc, this is the executive ranch agencies creating laws by regulation behind closed doors. you are defending doing it behind closed doors and i just have to say that i personally have a problem with that permit the more light of day we have on that the better off that we are. let me go back to that question i have a hierarchy comment that comes into my office. something that is rich in -- something that is written in a thoughtful piece. , and then one of these things that you clip. is there a breakdown that you be willing to share with us regarding public comments in how

they fall with some kind of hierarchy. you are nodding your head. chair wheeler: i know exactly what you mean, congressman, and i get all kinds of notes that are -- rep. farenthold: i'm just running out of time, can you -- chair wheeler: sure, when i -- rep. farenthold: i mean, what is done is done, but what this gentleman has done, and i think we will cover more of this in the judiciary committee, but i have a couple of questions kind of earning on me, and one of the questions is that you moved the internet service to a telecommunication service under title ii, are we opening the door to universal taxes to internet services to your broadband services? is this opening the door to the? -- to that? chair wheeler: as you know,

there is an ongoing joint federal state board addressing that question even if it were to happen in a hypothetical, that does not mean that the total number it's changed, it is just an advisor. rep. farenthold: do you think that these would submit more government regulation or encourage regulation in the field? chair wheeler: one of the reasons why we were really focused on making sure that there was no impact on investment capital is because we want to incentivize investment. rep. farenthold: it seems like going through a heavily regulated industry instead of streaming wires or putting up a radio transmitter to fix broadband. chair wheeler: there are four

regulatory issues in this hill in this rule. no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, and you have to be clear to consumers. they are in the republican bill that has been proposed. rep. farenthold: i guess my issue is, my mom before she passed away, only used internet, but i was her tech support, so i wanted her to use broadband, so anytime it did not connect, i would get a phone call. under this scenario, there would be no ability to get anything but broadband service. chair wheeler: absolutely, there is nothing that we do within retail regulation -- rep. farenthold: i could never stream a netflix video, why shouldn't i have that alternative to buy that. -- to buy that? chair wheeler: there is nothing

preventing a service provider for having that option. you can have e-mail only coming can say i have the need for five megabits i want 10 megabits, and you can charge it all at different prices. rep. farenthold: speed only -- chair wheeler: there is nothing in this bill that regulates consumer rates. in this bill, i mean, this order. to go to your court question of investment, consumer revenues the day after this order goes into effect, should be exactly the same as consumer revenues the day before because we do nothing to regulate -- rep. farenthold: i disagree the you are going to see a limited offering, i don't like the fact that at&t shut down my unlimited access and throttled my unlimited access after a limited number of gigabytes i can buy

more gigabytes for more money and do that, so i want that choice to it -- choice. rep. chaffetz: now recognize the ranking member for five minutes, mr. cummings. . representative cummings: you have a representation for high integrity and excellence and when i asked you a little earlier about having taken a note and whether you believe in you adhere to that both -- having takingen an oath and whether you believe in the fact that you adhere to that oath, i believe you. let's go to commissioner

o'reilly, michael o'rielly, he is a former republican senate staffer who has been an active proponent of the open internet rule. is that a fair s statement, do you not be the case? chair wheeler: yes or. rep. cummings: when we requested documents from you, we also requested documents from mr. o'reilly, and we receive them. we received information between republican and commissioner and three e-mails from outside the sec, they were robert mcdonald of april large firm that represents a variety of communication clients and economic consultant to the communication sector, and the

president of tech freedom a libertarian think tank on policy issues. in this exchange, commissioner o'reilly saw edits -- sought edits on a draft of an op-ed proposing an internet rule. german wheeler, were you prepared that commissioner o'reilly was having private queue indications with these individuals? chair wheeler: no sir. rep. cummings: all three of these individuals will be affected by the passage of these bills, is that right? chair wheeler: yes sir. rep. cummings: several provide substantive edits, and infect one response had so many edits, that he apologized writing, "i

know it looks like our lot of red ink, but i really described the finesse to clarify, etc." according to this e-mail change commissioner o'reilly therefore used these edits on his staff, writing "ok, took a bunch, and left out some stuff." german wheeler, commissioner o'reilly's op-ed was published in may of 24 dean -- putting 14, -- published in may of 2014. is that correct? chair wheeler: yes. rep. cummings: this seems to clearly direct the cummings ago it of the fcc. are you aware of any experts a filing -- ex partate filings of

these? chair wheeler: no sir. rep. cummings: are you aware? chair wheeler: no sir. rep. cummings: my staff with through the rules, all 750 of them, and they could not find one, not one, followed by any of these three individuals for these communications. do you know why that might be? chair wheeler: no sir. rep. cummings: and you just set here and testified about how you have to go about rules and file it under certain circumstances would you tell us how you feel about what you just learn, assuming it is to be accurate, what i just told you question mark -- you?

is that the way it is supposed to operate? chair wheeler: i think it is fair to say, congressman, that there is often a free and fluid back and forth between practitioners in the bar and members of the commission. rep. cummings: to think one should have been filed? chair wheeler: i don't want to sit here and hip shoot on that i want to leave that to the experts. rep. cummings: if the republicans want to accuse the president of undue influence in this process, even when he submitted, he did it in the right way they just can't conveniently ignore similar actions on the part of the republican side. there is something wrong with that picture. fairness, almonds, and i'm concerned about that.

and without that i will you -- fairness balance, i am concerned about that. and with that, i will yield back. rep. chaffetz: and now we go back to the "wall street journal " report from 2015, and we go to representative desantis. rep. desantis: were you not at that time leaning toward a 706 hybrid type approach? chair wheeler: we have gone through an evolutionary process and at that point in time, we were focusing on the hybrid a crow -- hybrid approach, so that is a correct statement of -- statement. rep. desantis: obviously something changed, and i think it has been pointed out how the president was very forceful in making his ideas known, did you

know that when the commission adopted the rule here on 400 pages, on february 26, 2015, that the democratic national committee tweeted "congratulations for adopting president obama's plan?" chair wheeler: i found it out afterwards. rep. desantis: it's ok and you know that this is being reported is something that is the president's plan adopted by the commission and this is something that the commission did not come up with on its own? you talked about the release of the report, and the report was released in early february, and it happened a couple of weeks after that, why not just release the proposed rule to the public given that it has a lot of public interest, but number two, all of the comments all of the influence it was done really before you had the movement to create a framework, so why not just let people see it?

chair wheeler: there are couple of things are, so first off, let me just clear -- let me just be clear about your content on hybrid projects is correct, and we followed that the new york times -- "the new york times reported that -- rep. desantis: we does want transparency. chair wheeler: i did not release the draft order because it was the draft underlined order. i did take pains to have fact sheets and other outreach so that people understood what was in it. rep. desantis: let me clarify this comment you are saying that it was a draft order and that is what you did not release it chair wheeler: -- release it?

chair wheeler: yes, that's correct. rep. desantis: in this town we are trying to find out what is in things, and i don't think that that works. let me ask you this. can you guarantee to the american taxpayer people that use service that if this goes into effect, they will not be getting taxes that show up in contributions to the universal service fund? chair wheeler: we have carefully crafted this with two specific things inside -- specific things in mind. that -- rep. desantis: [indiscernible] chair wheeler: we have discussed not having a universal -- rep. desantis: that is universal -- chair wheeler: we are talking past each other, and let me just be clear, because this is a

specific point. the provision that we have borne it the provisions would authorize us today in this room to do that, to have universal service. there is a joint federal state board of that very question today. how they resolve things in the future i do not know. but this was very clear to say that we do not trigger that. rep. desantis: but it does not foreclose it and the fact that it was within a framework opens the door for this to happen depending on what was decided with that commission. i just -- look -- i want open, robust internet. when i see 400 pages of red tape this to me does not seem what openness is going to be, and the experience when the government gets involved in these things, 400 pages, it is

never going to be less than 400, it is going to be more, it is going to metastasize, and the government is great to have more hold on this, and i wish the public had more input, i know this is going to be contested here in the core, i am out of time and i yield back to -- back. chair wheeler: can i clarify one thing, sir? there is eight pages of rules and the rest is establishing adequate for this. -- etiquette for this. rep. chaffetz: thank you so much and now we recognize mr. liu from california. rep. liu: i just want to get on the record of what is essentially the process followed by the sec and this case an essentially the same process that the fcc followed in other

prior rulemakings? chair wheeler: yes sir. rep. lieu: there is nothing wrong with a commissioner being influenced by public comic-con correct? -- by public comment, correct? chair wheeler: yes sir. and i hope that we learn from the whole process by the record being built. rep. lieu: and provided that that contact is part of an expert tape -- ex partae filing correct? and members of the public can go on the website and look at every filing, correct? the president of the united states cannot fire you as commissioner, correct? chair wheeler: correct.

rep. lieu: would not we want everyone to weigh in to see how precisely this works? chair wheeler: i think that is how democracy works to make sure that it was an open opportunity for notice and comment and to make a decision aced on what that record was. rep. lieu: thank you, i yield back my time. rep. chaffetz: i do think there is room for everybody to weigh in, whether it be the president or a member of congress, but it is about open transparency, and i think that is what this gentleman is saying. i would hope that we could find other people on both sides of the aisle -- i really do believe, certainly at the sec, and other agencies -- that we

should require by law that there be a 30 day notice. take the final rule, give it the light of day, and let it be out there for 30 days. what harm would there be? i would appreciate if the gentlemen would appreciate -- we consider that. rep. cummings: you have heard all of this muster chairman, and i am just curious when you hear the complaints akin fourth and i know you're sitting here in what i consider to be a hot seat other things that you would like to see us do, either of the congress, to bring more clarity or du feel like the process is fine just the way it is? because we want to be effective and efficient.

we cannot keep going on these merry-go-round's over and over again, there will be controversial decisions in the future, and i point to mr. lieu 's comments if there is guidance that we can provide that will get rid of any kind of ambiguity with regards to people wondering whether folks have crossed this line or that line, i mean i am sure you have thought about this a lot, and i do you want to act in the best interest of the united states and our citizens and certainly our -- your agency, but is there anything that you can think of? chair wheeler: i appreciate that question, mr. cummings, my goal has been to make sure that i follow the rules. i don't make the rules or the regulations that interpret the statute, i just try to follow

them. the administrative conference of united states is kind of the expert when it comes to these processes, and they and you have a significant challenge in that the rules have to apply across all agencies, not just the fcc. so far be it from me to get someone to change section 2b-3. but i see my job as trying to adhere to the statute and the rules that have been put in place to deliver on those concepts. rep. chaffetz: i think the gentlemen and i recognize mr. walker here, i want to respond to what you just said, and highlight again that under the rules, you did have the discretion to make it public and you elected not to, so i think

what congress should consider is compelling you to make that open and transparent rather than just simply making it discretionary. now i recognize mr. walker for five minutes. rep. walker: thank you mr. chair, today i found out that al gore had invented the internet and the president has save the internet it just really quickly, do you think his involvement has saved the internet for the future? chair wheeler: i think this is a much bigger issue, congressman i think the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform in the face of the planet, and it has an impact on every aspect of our economy and every aspect on how we act as individuals and for that to exist without rules and without a referee is unthinkable. rep. walker: let me go back to

what you said earlier, you said that earlier today you did not feel compelled to follow the president's suggestion. what was the president's suggestion? chair wheeler: the president suggested that we file an ex parte in regards to that, and we did not, he did not suggest that we should have the scope or the forbearance that we had -- rep. walker: i am trying to get to the places insifaofar as your interaction with him, and there were about nine or 10 trip to the white house, where there was times of disagreement? chair wheeler: my comment about suggestion was specifically about the ex parte that was filed. rep. walker: did you have any

idea, let go back to the pictures, obviously, of the protesters that were there that morning, did you have any idea that those protesters would be showing up that morning, or were you surprised as the look on your face? chair wheeler: i was surprised and if i had spent less time brushing my teeth they would have missed me, because they just rarely caught me. rep. walker: so you had no idea -- you are not tipped off that they were going to show up that morning? chair wheeler: no. [laughter] rep. walker: your posture is apologetic, whitey think that assumption has been made? chair wheeler: apologetic? rep. walker: it seems that you are not as firm on the decision. chair wheeler: oh my goodness, congressman, i hope that this is not apologetic. this is my proudest day being involved in public policy for the last four years, there is no

way that i am apologetic. i am fiercely proud of this decision. i believe it is the right decision and i believe it is an important decision. not only for today but for tomorrow. rep. walker: let's talk about earlier, and i think the former congressman mention this earlier, we talked about the "wall street" article was wrong so you can you tell me specifically, that was your comic, that "the wall street journal" had it wrong? chair wheeler: "the new york times" article had printed it the following day, but it said that there was one solution on the table, and "the new york times" the following day said that there were four options on the table. rep. walker: which one is accurate? announcer:?

-- chair wheeler: "the new york times." i said in my test andimony, we were looking at 706 and a hybrid, 706 by itself, a hybrid, and other options. rep. walker: can you understand why people would have some questions when theyre are meetings after meetings at the white house, as opposed to one just particular partisan perspective? chair wheeler: i believe that i met more than three times as often with members of congress and the president. my job is to take input. my job is to provide expertise on issues that are being considered.

that kind of an ongoing relationship with all aspects of government is an important role, i believe. rep. walker: my time is expired and i will yield back to the chairman. rep. chaffetz: i think the gentleman, i now recognize watson colman from new jersey. rep. watson coleman: thank you for your forbearance and thank you for your concern with net neutrality. i know that i am a newbie also, and i became aware of net neutrality on social media, so thank you so much for that. i wanted to just clarify a couple of things. first of all with respect to the comment that we are going to have a 60 day comment. , that would make that final rule possible, and i don't know

how would -- how we would make that final rule possible, but you have been, it has been stated that you have gone to the white house for several occasions, for what is supposedly a controversial. of time. -- can't of her seal -- controversy allial period of time. were you meeting with members of the white house at the white house, and if so, just for the record, might you just want to share some of those? chair wheeler: thank you congresswoman, yes, so i met on national security issues. we met on trade related issues. cyber security.

the e-rate and what was happening there. spectrum policy, the white house was obviously very, very involved in implementing the instructions of the congress to repurpose spectrum and we had to work very closely with all of the agencies and the white house on that. and the spectrum options obviously as well. excuse me, i forgot to turn off my phone. rep. watson coleman: thank you mr. wheeler, that gives me an illustration of the variety of issues that you are facing. we would love to have the opportunity to work on one thing at a time. we know that the president doesn't and we know that we can't. i don't want to suggest that that is the only thing that you were doing. it is certainly misleading. i believe it is a

mischaracterization of your character and of your continued statement that you were not meeting on these issues and i have no reason not to believe you, and given that this is such a huge issue, it just seems to me that you were quite willing to listen to more than 4 million people, what they had to say and all of the motions that were filed, and the considerations and including the president of the united states permit i listened to him and i think he is quite brilliant and has great ideas for this country. why does want to thank you for the opportunity to hear your testimony and to be able to give you an opportunity to ask you questions of the kind of things that are on your plate you might have been discussing with the white house. chair wheeler:. thank you chair wheeler: --

thank you. rep. chaffetz: i yield your time and now we go to representative hice. rep. hice: even though you did report to various lobbyists and activists, it is well-established here today, but this does not seem at all as though transparency has taken place. when there is a specific area that is not reported, the appearance is that it is secretive and that there is something to hide. and you are denying that today is that true? chair wheeler: yes sir, there is no c cook, and i am, reporting to lobbyist -- there is no

secret, i am reporting to lobbyist? rep. hice: there is no filing at the white house that is one, and it gives every appearance of secrecy rather than transparency, would you agree to that? chair wheeler: i think it has to do with the fact that the language of ex parte is what it is intended to affect a decision and provide information of substantial significance. rep. hice: and you don't believe this is of substantial significance? chair wheeler: there was, and this is what the president said, and this is what the president was going to do, that was substantial significance. rep. hice: as a general rule, if someone is offering you an opinion, you would not object to an opinion the and offered to you i am assuming? does a general rule? -- just a general rule? chair wheeler: yes.

rep. hice: you would feel free to let someone have an opinion. on the other hand, if someone were trying to give directives to you or the sec or whatever you would probably be outspoken against that action? -- the fcc or whatever, you would probably be outspoken against that action? chair wheeler: and i think, boy, did we get opinions on this. rep. hice: you mentioned a while ago that the white house offered their opinion on this whole thing. and i would like to put up a slide that we had a little bit earlier, e-mails from the chief of staff to the senate majority leader to you and the top line up there that is in red, you said the comment is spoken again last night at the white

house and you told him to back off, so that sounds like a whole lot more than an opinion. typically, you would not tell someone offering an opinion to back off, would you agree with that? chair wheeler: i don't understand the parsing of the words, sir. rep. hice: you say you have a problem with someone giving there an opinion, but -- giving an opinion, but there is more than just an opinion coming from the white house, it would appear. chair wheeler: the other part about that is at the same point in time, there was 90 letters from republican members of congress saying that i should not do title ii. rep. hice: i am talking about this statement right here at the white house -- chair wheeler: the point of title ii is that it is very much in the mix. rep. hice: it says, spoke again

last night with folks at the white house and said to back off at title ii and once again the problems it creates, this is more than an opinion. chair wheeler: this is may, and as i indicated in may, i was proposing that section 706 was the solution, and i learned through the process of this long before the white house ever had their filing that section 706 was not the answer. rep. hice: but the white house was not providing an opinion they were putting some sort of directive to do something otherwise, they would have been saying comments, and you would've told the white house to back off. he was more than an opinion coming from the white house. chair wheeler: i think you are reading into this -- rep. hice: why would the comment to be to back off if it is just an opinion? if the white house is offering an opinion, no one would be saying that gough, there is more than an opinion being presented

-- saying back off, there is more than opinion the presented. chair wheeler: no offense, but that is your opinion. rep. hice: it is your e-mail, it is your e-mail, and -- chair wheeler: there is more than what is clearly stated there -- rep. hice: it says back off, and that is creating problems for us and -- rep. chaffetz: thank you gentlemen, we will now here from the representative from the virgin islands ms. pl askett. rep. plaskett: i think that the interest is generally about the process as a closed -- as opposed to being concerned and

whether or not you have used discretionary abilities as opposed to a rule is something that i think is also very interesting, and i think it was very important for us to understand the steps that the sec takes in that rulemaking process. the official sec blog contains a post from the general counsel entitled "process of governance, the sec, and the internet order" and i asked to enter that post into this hearing record at this time. rep. chaffetz: without objections, thank you. rep. plaskett: thank you and they seek to create "to create an enforceable rule that opens public input and is able to withstand judicial review."

is that an accurate statement that that is the goal of the fcc in its rulemaking? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. rep. plaskett: and the sec reviewed rules in light of the public record, and -- the fcc reviewed rules in light of the public record. when was that done? the review beginning in light of the public records? chair wheeler: the traditional way that we do it is the comment. closes and you have an opportunity to review those comments, and then you can look at those comments and review those. rep. plaskett: can you remember what time that was closed, the review process? chair wheeler: i don't, but i can get that for you. rep. plaskett: and then there was the internal review and investigation again, is that correct? chair wheeler: yes, ma'am. rep. plaskett: and how long is

that timeframe? chair wheeler: three weeks before the vote, and that is our own internal -- rep. plaskett: and that is the commissioner's rules? chair wheeler: yes, ma'am. rep. plaskett: and then before february 6, there were calls to disclose that order. right? is a policy to disclose rules before the commission votes on it? chair wheeler: no ma'am. rep. plaskett: what could possibly be that? what would be the reasoning behind that, the rationale? chair wheeler: the rationale is first of all, there has been this extended. of comment and public debate and then you get to a point in time where the rubber meets the road and you are drafted and you are going back and forth and editing a document that changes frequently as a result. and that is something that is

dynamic and not public. one reason you want to make sure you have the full precipitation -- full participation of the commission is the opportunity to cause mischief in financial markets by misinterpretations of changing glad to happy, and that is an issue, and so these have always and in camera kind of editorial activities. rep. plaskett: so even after the foe, there has been an additional steps before the order is final and ready for release, correct? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. rep. plaskett: and you follow those? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. rep. plaskett: i was a clarification of any specific arguments made by the statements and then the final cleanup edits? correct? chair wheeler: yes, and when those final cleanup edits were

made by the dissenters, that was about midday and on the following morning at 9:30, we released the item. rep. plaskett: and the final order was released on march 12 correct? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. rep. plaskett: so it appears to be that you did not a part in any way from the rulemaking process in this respect in regards to the open internet, and it really has been a question too many people's mind and are good chairman and the other individuals, whether you used your discretionary role outside of the rulemaking, correct? chair wheeler: that is correct yes. rep. plaskett: and then there is a question of whether that discretion was appropriate or not appropriate, like the president weighing in on the importance of the people for the united states. chair wheeler: i can't comment on that hypothetical, but my statement is that we followed the protocols. rep. plaskett: thank you very

much yield the balance of my time. rep. chaffetz: sure, sure, and now we recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, for five minutes. rep. russell: thank you mr. chairman, and thank you mr. wheeler for your long and dedicated role, and i know it is thankless. chair wheeler: sir, i recognize your badge, and thank you. rep. russell: thank you. you said earlier today that it was reasonable for isp's, but not reasonable for in the public, so can it be reasonable where it was once prohibited. -- limited?

chair wheeler: specifically, the freedom of information act habits of that and whether that has changed is outside -- rep. russell: but from an informational service to a communication service, should consumers be taxed? chair wheeler: again, that is going to be your decision and not mine. rep. russell: was it possible when it was just an information service outside of title ii? chair wheeler: information service, some are taxed at state levels, i believe, and some -- some could be taxed at state level, i don't want to say that because we have a tax freedom information act, and -- well, it goes both ways. rep. russell: the constitution states that it is congress that has the power to regulate commerce. do you believe this? chair wheeler: yes sir. rep. russell: do you believe

that the public would have been better served for the public to review the rules prior to their release, especially in light of your testimony today, where you said that rules have to apply across all agencies to be considered? chair wheeler: this has been, as you know, congressman, a tenure process, -- 810 yeara ten year process -- a tenure process, and i think what our job is is to take the instructions of congress as stipulated in the statute and interpret them in terms of the realities of the day. and that is what we did. rep. russell: the quote that i would like to read to you by a senior vice president of

committee quiche and company says "the fcc -- senior vice president of communication company says "the fcc should only be changed after full transparency and the congress which is constitutionally charged with determining policy." you and your agency have established a clear believe that adopting these title ii rules would stop these problems, as we would see in some of the e-mail traffic that we reviewed today, and you also stated in other e-mails that you produce to the committee that you did not intend to be a wallflower in your tenure at the commission. but given the coordinated efforts, and the pressure of the white house coincidentally timed protests and other white house statements, would it be unreasonable then, for americans to somehow feel betrayed that this decision was

a cave against your earlier judgment, and damage the reputation of the fcc as an organization? chair wheeler: no, and i think it is also important to go to your key assumption there in quoting that senior vice president, and there are four bright line rules, there are only four rules, no blocking, no paid prioritization, etc. you have been subject to this, and we would never think of not doing that, so when this person says it is going to change the basic operation of the internet, there is some kind of a discord there, as they are saying, oh we are not going to do that, but

when they say we require that, it is changing the operation of the internet, and i think that is an underlying tension that has been going through this whole thing. rep. plaskett: i would hope as we move forward in the future, that there is clearly going to be lawsuits in this process that there is going to be continued discussion about it, and that we would make sure the congress regulates commerce. i personally believe that what we will see follow will be a taxation of consumers. i think had they known that, they would not have been so quick to click the internet light to get these 4 million comments, and i think we have set back free information and access to all americans. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. rep. chaffetz: thank you, we will recognize the gentlewoman. rep. lawrence: thank you first

begin today, and my friend, my colleague, stated you did not want to be a wallflower, and i find that refreshing. to be part of a regulatory process, you should not be a wallflower, you should be actively engaged, and i appreciate the passion that you have shown today. i wanted you to know that when i came to congress, i have heard a lot about this neutrality, and had done my homework and i came to congress with an open mind and willingness to see both sides of this issue. i also am aware that over 4 million people filed public comments with the fcc. 4 million. most of them average people voting yes. i also saw the president's comments on this issue. one of the things that i want to ask of you today, mr. wheeler is to release a vilified -- is

to really solidify this position . german wheeler, you were supported by telcom companies when president obama selected you to this position, is that correct? chair wheeler: i believe so, yes. rep. lawrence: and you were confirmed by the senate and the house as well? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. rep.p. lawrence: so it was not just one side, it was many sides. you eventually became the president and ceo of a cable network, is that correct? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. rep. lawrence: from 1992-1994 you served as the president of the internet organization, is

that correct? chair wheeler: yes ma'am. rep. lawrence: clearly you would not be a wallflower. if there was ever such thing as an internet or an isp, you would know of it correct? chair wheeler: i have spent my professional life in this space, ma'am. rep. lawrence: knowing this, would you push for regulation that you knowingly would be aware that would damage the industry that you represented for so many years? so the decision and the regulation that you advocated for, your position was, this will not damage, but enhance? chair wheeler: thank you, miss lawrence, that is a very good question and i think there are two answers to that. number one, i think that yes, i was the chief advocate and the chief lobbyist for those two

industries, when they were growing industries, nothing he miss that they are now -- not the behemoths that they are now but when they were growing. my client today is the american consumer. and that is who i want to make sure i representing -- i am representing. to be that, you do not help the american consumer by cutting off the nose of those who provide better broadband service to spite your face, and so what we were doing in this was balancing the consumer protection with the investment necessary to provide competitive broadband services. i went back to my roots as the president of ctia, and when i was sent to congress, and they said we need to be regulated with title ii barriers, congress

agreed with that and that is the rule under which the wireless voice industry has since then had $300 billion of investment and became the most powerful organization in the world. so the answer is yes on both fronts, you can't help consumers if you are not stimulating broadband growth, but my job today is representing american consumers. rep. lawrence: just for the record, because the question today is inferring that, and you eloquently stated that there is a balancing of information in your experience, and bringing to this point, would you support regulations that would hurt isp's just because the white house thought it would be a good idea? chair wheeler: throughout this process, i have been trying to be very independent and very thoughtful.

rep. lawrence: lastly, do you honestly believe that netted neutrality will stifle innovation, hurt access, or hinder the growth and development of the telecom industry given your 40 years of experience? chair wheeler: no, ma'am, and is not just my opinion, that when major internet service providers like sprint, like t-mobile, like frontier communications, like google fiber, like hundreds of rural providers say that they, too, will be investing and continuing to grow competitive broadband, i believe that is a reinforcement of this point. rep. lawrence: thank you for your service and i now yield back the rest of my time. rep. chaffetz: thank you very much and now we recognize representative palmer. rep. palmer: thank you so much

you recognized earlier that this was the most transparent lawmaking in the fcc, is that correct? chair wheeler: that is correct. rep. palmer: you also said he followed with the ex parte filings, is that correct? chair wheeler: yes sir. representative palmer: i have here a copy of your ex parte filing on the president's statement on net neutrality, and mr. wheeler, it is two paragraphs long. three sentences total. are we left to believe that the entirety of the white house's involvement in this process can be captured in just three sentences? chair wheeler: i am now been passed. thank you.