after other agencies so we are not stand alone. we're looking at the best practices in the industry. rep. roybal-allard: can i stop you right there? obviously whatever has been done a year ago is not working. things are not working. the question is, what is it that you are planning to do to make whatever the systems that are in place? to reevaluate them to make sure they are working so we don't have incidents like this so the message is loud and clear? the secret service agents drinks or whatever the violation is that there will be immediate and quick disciplinary action. something like you are dismissed. period.

whatever has been put in place it is not working. i guess my question if you're not able to answer it now, for the record what are the plans that you are considering or putting into place that will make the system work and send the right message to the secret service so they know there will be a harsh penalty if they violate whatever the rules are? that is my question. you can cement it -- summit it if you don't have all the information now. whatever was done in the past obviously is not working. director clancy: i agree. it is not working. i prefer to put together a document spelling out what we are legally able to do and what we cannot do and where we would move forward and try to -- rep. roybal-allard: legally can

or can't do are you saying when someone violates rules, is d runk, whatever, they have -- you don't have the authority to dismiss them? director clancy: i don't have the authority to dismiss them on the spot. rep. roybal-allard: on the spot. there are rules in place. director clancy: there are. there is a process in place we you can make a proposal. the individual has a chance to appeal that proposal. it is a somewhat drawn out process. rep. roybal-allard: you need to look at that as well. >> thank you for coming here.

i will cut you that i recognize that you and most of the agents that have served under you are driven by love for country and they're trying to do the right thing. leadership is taking care of the problems. and you have enormous problems ahead of you in my opinion. as a former military guy, i am stunned by this environment and this colder -- culture. i think there are two problems. one is, we have is behavior of drinking and driving and there's a lot of examples of it. i have three pages i could go through. i get that. i understand that little bit. it happens. that is troubling but it happens. we have to deal with it. but i think a greater problem is the fact that there is an officer who was aware -- or many officers, at least one -- aware

of this and took steps to protect their friends rather than hold them accountable. if anyone is aware of this and they did not tell you, they have lost their -- your trust. how can you trust them again? he may not be able to fire them but they have lost your trust and the trust of the american people. they have shown loyalty to their friends and coworkers rather than loyalty to their sensibilities. i don't know how you say any differently than that. i was a military man for many years. i hear you say, people are coping with stress. i have to say, i go "oh please." military members experience

acute stress and they would never do behavior such as this. i can give you many examples from young airmen to senior colonels and some cases generals who were caught and eli on base and they were gone. -- who were caught dui on base and they were gone. and the military was better because we knew that was the role and we knew we would be held accountable for that and the american people are better and our nation was better protected because we had a culture that we simply don't entertain this. for someone to have done it and do have one of their peers or a supervisor protect them is hard for me to imagine. in our cases, we are dealing with top-secret information as are you and your agents. the most highly classified information this nation has, they have access to. they can't ability just simply

is not measuring up to the responsibility they have. i guess i would ask you to respond to that that i don't know what else you could say other than what you have already said. except for this idea of changing the culture. he said, mr. director, and i understand what you're trying to do. but when you say, you have to set an example, you don't have to earn their trust. you are their boss. they have not earned your trust. the way you earn their trust is you hold them accountable and then the others who are not out there driving through barricades and laying drunk and core doors of hotels overseas, -- corridors overseas, they know they will be held accountable. that is trusted my opinion. i am not berating you, i am berating the culture.

if you would like to respond please do. director clancy: thank you, sir. we have had incidents in the past and previous directors after due process have moved these people off the job. they are gone. i believe we lost 10 people. they were terminated. there is an indication that -- a history where we will discipline people but again, i cannot do this on day one. i am frustrated that the agency is taking this and rightly so, but i have to allow this due process to take place and that will be our first indication of are we serious upholding people accountable. maybe it is good that it happened early in my tenure so we can set a town as -- tone as

we move forward. i cannot say any more than that. rep. stewart: you have the opportunity to lead and show what your expectations are of these agents. t say, i recognize that. most of these agents are good people were trying to do a a difficult job. the willingness for some of them to protect each other rather than being loyal to the old they have taken, it is hard for me to respond to that. it is foreign to my experience. director clancy: i honor that. again, the workforce is listening to this testimony today and i think the message is being broadcast loud and clear that is not acceptable. rep. stewart: thank you director.

>> thank you for taking this job in the first place. we offered other directors say we will take care of it. -- have heard other directors say we will take care of it. what will you do that is different? we have heard this before and with all due respect, how do you convince us that what you will do will be different? director clancy: i cannot compare myself to the previous directors but i will tell you that my focus is first accountability. this will be our first task. also, listening and communicating with the workforce. i know that sounds like101 101 leadership but our people want

to be heard. that is why there is some of his frustration out there that we have not done a good job of listening to our people and showing them the respect. we have to see what the facts are for this case. in general if a young agent sees something that is wrong, he has got to feel that when he moves up the chain, that will be respected. that information will be respected. as we move forward, i have to ensure that those mid-managers listen to those younger agents and officers and act upon them. too often information is passed up and nothing is done about it. the younger agents and officers assume nothing is going to be done. if i relate something to mid-level management, nothing will be done.

we have to correct that. there have been circumstances, just yesterday and sat, i'd take an action where an individual was not adding her. i walk by the white house every day and the young opposite was not being heard on some recommendations he wanted to make. i brought in upper management, we immediately responded to that officer in writing and sat down and went through each concern. we have to do more of that. i don't know if it has been done that way in the past or not. >> got to look at the morale of employees but at the same time you have to provide discipline what you have to provide discipline. i yelled be confined the balance quickly. i want to be supportive of that.

the committee wants to be supportive. i do have other concerns the other concern is the pope's visit will coincide with the 70th anniversary of the united nations general assembly, a busy time. how would the pope's visit impact the number of foreign heads attending the u.n. general assembly this year and my second question is, you want to build an $8 million white house replica for training. i have concerns about that. not that i don't want to be supportive but i have concerns about $8 million for a replica. talk to me about the pope first. director clancy: with the pope's visit, he is confirmed to come to philadelphia for the world meeting of families. we are planning for new york and washington. in philadelphia, we expect

upwards of 2.1 million people to attend those events. at the same time, in september of 2015, we anticipate we will have the u.n. general assembly. we expect 170 heads of state to come to that event because it is the 70th anniversary of the u.n.. it would not surprise us at some of those heads of state travel to philadelphia to be of those events. it is going to be very taxing to our agency. we have already started a meeting. the local field office and washington have been working with our local partners as well as the vatican and other federal agencies to start to put together a good plan. philadelphia has been designated. there is funding for that.

we use some of the money left over tomorrow -- left over to help us with the visit. we will be prepared. a lot of those 12 hour days for agents and officers. we reach out tour department department of homeland security partners, tsa, coast guard for support. we are well on our way to a good plan for the pope's visit. rep. cuellar: the other question we will do in the second round because my time is up. thank you very much. >> thank you for being here today. he talked about a thorough review needing to be done and a process needs to be done to determine how people will go. how long does this take? if you don't have slipped

action, and even builds more to this low morale, this morale of complacency we hear about. if it is not swift what is the point? you don't hear about it in the end but what is the last time the secret service did fire someone because of their actions? director clancy: in the netherlands, there was an individual drinking on the trip and he has been removed as well. >> how long to that process take? >> [inaudible] >> i am surprised these officers who drove drunk through a barricade had not stood up and say we are resigning. what do you do with them if you don't let them go? do you trust them? where would you put them? director clancy: as it is now

they are in nonsupervisory positions outside of their original offices. both have desk jobs at this time. once the process goes through, we will have options towards removing their security clearance. if we do that, termination would be a factor. >> it seems like a long and drawn out process. if we have problems with a staffer here on the hill, we have the ability to immediately let them go. i am wondering where all of this comes from. we will find out i am sure through the committee what the process is but it is amazing to me. below morale issue we care about him i understand it is a stressful job. you talk about -- maybe you are

not hearing her officers but it has got to go deeper than that. there has to be a culture you have to uncover that is interpreting. how is the low morale affecting staffing needs and people wanting to come work for the secret service? director clancy: with the morale, you are right, sir. staffing is our primary concern. we don't have a proper staffing although we are working diligently to get but up to speed. thank you for the funding. we are building up our staffing pretty quickly. we have added additional personnel in our hr department brought in contractors so we can build up this staffing. we are anticipating over reaching our goals in terms of hiring a fiscal year rep. carter:0 director clancy: rep. roybal-allard: -- fiscal year 2015. the travel will be set back

because there are more people we can use. the most important thing with the staffing is the training. when we get more staffing, we can get more people out to our training facility. since september, we have taken a big step in that regard. with additional step in, better quality of life, more training. that will help morale. as well as accountability. when these accounts occur accountability is critical. this is not unique to the secret service. the way that we are handling this particular incident. don't believe other agencies under title v -- they cannot terminate people at will either. that is my understanding. >> thank you very much. i want to see you succeed. i really do.

we here at the committee want to do what we can to be helpful. we can only do so much by making sure we provide the necessary funds and exercises you need and training and all that. it has to come from within and you have to dig down and find the root of this problem. i hope you succeed. the secret service has an immensely important job. one of the most important jobs. good luck to you. we are here for you as well. we do demand some accountability. thank you. >> mr. gone, our employees -- mr. young, our employees are at will. their employees are not at will. that is one of the differences. >> mr. director, thank you for your distinguished career in the secret service and for stepping

up and taking over this agency at such a difficult time. when i was young, i always looked up to the secret service. i would just think about protecting the president, the important mission you all have. i shared the sentiments with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we want you to succeed. this is something that is important for our country. it is a difficult time. we have heard about the different problems that the individual agents have had. i just -- after listening to some of the comments, want to ask you this. at the fundamental base of any profession once someone is going through training, we are from one of our colleagues in the military, i was trained in the profession of law. there are certain fundamentals that are in the recruitment and

training process. you have inherited this. i guess my question for you is how do we impart the good inherent values of the secret service to the recruits and bring that to the training process so when an agent comes to the point of becoming an agent, these issues are something that he or she would stand up and say no to. i think that seems to be one of the fundamental problems we have inherited. i would like your thoughts on that. director clancy: you are exactly right. in terms of our hiring and recruiting process, it is a 7-9-month process. everyone gets a polygraph, background check. then, when we get them into training, they are given classes on ethics come, professionals and. some are after that training is where we lose them. somewhere, we lose them where

they forget those lessons learned. i think the only way we get that back is by again the accountability we drive home so people realize there are consequences to individual behavior. >> i hearken back to the different professions. there is continue training for those professionals to go through annual or semiannual updates as to what is expected of them. is that going to be part of the process? director clancy: we do five your updates to go back into neighborhoods and make sure they are good citizens. we do continuously do training throughout their careers. in many ways, it comes to individual accountability. each of us come if you see someone in your presence not performing properly, we have to step up individually and corrected. as well as his supervisors have to do it. as an agency, we have to work

together to try to get through this. >> one can be committee expect your report on the reviews of professional standards as required by the conference report in fiscal year 2015. as a follow-up, do you intend in that report served to address concerns raised on both sides today? director clancy: i am sure that will be addressed in the report. i don't have a date. in the near future but we will give you a more definitive date when we conclude the hearing. >> thank you. director clancy, i wish you success in every endeavor. >> i have been looking at some numbers over here while we were talking. you have about 4600 people in your agency who is carrying a weapon or are eligible to carry

a weapon. director clancy: yes, sir. rep. carter: you are not in the army, the military, but you have an armed force under your command. 4600 armed men and women. director clancy: yes, sir. rep. carter: that is a huge responsibility. the kind of responsibility cheese of police in major cities have. the chain of command has to be rigid to maintain the kind of discipline necessary to handle an armed force. just how simple it is dangerous by definition. whether it be the houston police department or your force. the concern we hear is that -- let me say something. i know why you did that. you want to make sure this is a

clean investigation from the start. but, having dealt -- and i'm not criticizing. it can be a place to put something to go away for a w hile. they can take an awful long time with an ig investigation. a lot can calm things down. in our veterans are messaging, some ig investigations and the results, they can be disappointing. i don't want this to be a policy of wealth. we have a problem. i will not forget about the problem. i don't think anybody up will forget about the problem. the ig i hope has been telling them they better burn a fire under themselves and give us a response probably. -- promptly.

in reality, you have people above you but you are in charge of these armed people. director clancy: yes, sir. rep. carter: there has to be a straight chain of command. the managers of those people should be all over them today. if these people were senior management, you should be all over them today. i realize you have union contracts. civil service issues and all of those issues to protect the worker sometimes to the detriment of the agency. it is a weakness i find appalling. one of the thanks if i could wave a magic wand to fix in washington, i would think the ability not to terminate someone for dangerous for bad behavior immediately is quite honestly i think unacceptable. but it is not your fault.

that is the way it is. i recognize that. but in turn, you are in command. you are the star. you have division under your command. you have to make sure that everyone in your command control structure is meeting that obligation. if everybody is just sitting around and watching television to figure out what it is, --that is not my job. that is your job. it eats to be done -- needs to be done. i think it is a barrel bump. the question is, you are both holding badges. why don't you get out of your car, walk through the crime scene and say, what is going on instead of being arrogant as to think you can intrude on a crime scene? that is another issue if they were stone sober. that is an issue you have to ask

them. you are such a big shot you think you can drive through one of my taped off crime scenes? director clancy: yes, sir. rep. carter: if they were sober, they were arrogant. you can have an agency like you have, people don't think they put their pants on one leg at a time at everybody else. they are supermen so they can act like it. but, they cannot. that is what we really are all talking about. your job right now, and you know some of these outside reports told the president not to hire inside the agency. you have a big responsibility because you have 30 years of friends. when i met you, i believe you were the guy who could do it.

i still believe that. recognize what your authority is an exercise that. that is not a question. i just wanted to say that because i think sometimes, we get off acting might bureaucrats -- acting like bureaucrats. as dangerous people, you have to be within a set of chain of commands, regulated from top to bottom. or something dangerous will happen. director clancy: yes, sir. rep. carter: that is what we are worried about. we don't want anyone to get word or -- hurt or allow someone they are rejecting -- protecting to get hurt. those are big responsibilities and i think your chain of command is haywire. work on that. director clancy: yes, sir.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. let me associate with my comments made by the chairman. i do believe that you are up to the task and can do it. last december, the protective mission panel made a number of recommendations for staffing training leadership, protective enhancements at the white house complex. i have a few russians related to that. what can you tell us about -- questions related to that. what can you tell us about fulfilling recommendations? is the budget request sufficient to allow you to fulfill all of the panel's recommendations as expeditiously as possible? director clancy: the budget request is definitely a good step forward. the recommendations from the blue-ribbon panel the ones we can do short have been completed such as adding additional --

we are in the process of the new structure to protect the complex. with national park service, we make a decision on where to go with that. even after we pick and choose that option, we go into a design stage. then, a procurement stage, then the construction phase. it will take 1.5 years to complete the project. we have been testing at our facility some interim measure for the offensi -- for the fence. we recognize that is a long time to wait. we are looking at an interim measure to go and place this summer if we can get the proper

approvals. rep. roybal-allard: the mission panel also recommended that the next director, which will be you, conduct an honest top to bottom reassessment of the agency and that he move the service afford into an era and drive change in the organization. what are you putting into place to help you look more broadly at the agencies practices processes, activities to identify places where improvements are needed so that the initial training of new agents isn't lost and senior members help to reinforce the ethics and training that young agents get rather than whatever is happening today? director clancy: we have begun a restructuring of the executive staff. with bringing in new staff members, with new ideas and reinvigorating some things we want to do, but additionally, we

are empowering and elevating our civilian professional subject matter experts. just as an example additionally, the secret service has had a director and a deputy director. we now have a vacancy announcement for a chief operating officer who would be on the same level of the deputy director. that officer would ensure the business is run correctly, efficiently. we have put under this chief operating officer of visions that traditionally have been agent help of visions -- agent held positions. traditionally, the chief financial officer has as a to an agent. yet elevated that position so we do a better job in the budget world. same with our technology. typically, that director was run by an agent. we have moved our engineer to

run that directory. same with a nationwide search for a civilian private sector cio. we want to leverage their experiences, their professionalism, their subject matter expertise in our agency. additionally on the operation said, you mentioned the training piece. previous to me being named director, hr and training director was one director. i have split them to provide focus on training and the hiring process. specifically, the training now we are spending a lot of time in sharing --ensuring people get the training they need. training has been increased 110%. agent training has increased 78%. we have to sustain that and that is why we have this new director for training to sustain that level of training that our

people -- that they need. in general, we are restructuring the management of the agency. rep. roybal-allard: i see my time is up. mr. chairman. rep. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. the department of homeland inspector general and i think the professional reinforcement working group have come up with different recommendations. i know you up lamented some of them but have you unlimited all of them or are there still some missing? what still needs to be done on those recommendations? director clancy: the longer-term projects for example, you mentioned earlier the training facility. the mock white house, we feel that is important.

right now, we use, we train on a parking lot. we put up a makeshift fence and walkoff the distance between the fence of the white house and the house itself. we don't have enough parking lot, the bushes, the fountains we don't get a realistic look at the white house. even our canines are responding on hard surfaces rather than grass. we feel it is important to have a true replica of what the white house is so we can do a better job of integrated training. one image and tactical teams, i think special forces before they go out to do an operation. typically, they have a model first and that is where we would like to be. we would like a mock up where we can train efficiently. rep. cuellar: when you look at

the secret service, you look at the employees there and the employees that will be there. that is hopefully a diverse hiring process. how are you focused on the folks there and on the new hires that will be coming in? to make sure you don't compound the problem? director clancy: there is continual training. we have continuous training. we had it hard and our first seven months of training when they are first hired as well as the background check. we look for any deficiencies in their background and the polygraph. we lose a considerable number of candidates because of the polygraph. we are looking for those people with the best character. then we go through the background check is that we

think we are hiring very good people. then we go through the seven-month training with ethics and professionalism stressed as well as the operational piece of our job. although we continue to train and give classes on ethics and professionalism throughout their career, i think as much as anything, it is how we react to these mishaps -- misconduct. how do we hold people accountable? that is the piece that may be missing. that is my responsibility to ensure we help people accountable. we lose a lot of people by attrition. more recently, i would say because of their quality of life. when you are working 12 hours a day and you think you have the next day off and it is canceled, the amount of travel they do. the stress we are under. people don't want to hear us talk about --

rep. cuellar: do you lose them to other agencies or to the private sector? director clancy: we lose them to other agencies but what i have done society come here is i have encouraged and assisted that these uniformed division officers who want to roll over to special agent positions, we have to make that happen. we cannot do it all at once but we have to make more of an effort to let them become agents because they want to experience that side of her agency. if we don't, we have invested a lot of money in them. they will go to other federal agencies or the private sector. we don't want to lose them after all of the investment you have supported. rep. cuellar: in the hiring process, do you work with historically black universities or hex annex -- or hispanic institutions to expand the pool? if you expand the pool do you

work with those universities to help expand to look for potential recruits? director clancy: part of this will have to go on memory. i know we did. over the last two years, our hiring process has been limited. now, we are back on track and we will go out to those colleges. this fiscal year we have asked for additional money so we can have these hiring fairs at these universities and in the military as well to get a good, diverse group of people. rep. cuellar: quickly, the secret service has a tradition. lately it has taken a black eye . how do you expect to turn this around quickly? we have heard other people exactly where you are at. how do we take this initiative to say this will be different this time? director clancy: it has to start

with building the trust. part of that is how we will people accountable. people's views matter. we are listening to whether you are a brand-new agent officer professional, we are listening to your concerns and we have to act on them. if we don't, they are going to lose interest and we will have these problems. we have to do a better job of communicating, mentoring teaching, and each of us, whether you are a supervisor or not have to take the sensibility to ensure these types of events don't happen. rep. cuellar: i wish you the best. director clancy: thank you. you mentioned zero based budgeting.

there is a need for new budget dr. that is mission-based as subject matter. how is this different from the budget from fiscal year 2016? what type of budget form is being considered and how would it be implement it? how might a new type of budget drive future funding needs? have you are the identified gaps in funding based on initial reviews of the budget? i can go back over those again. director clancy: thank you, mr. chairman. this budget is one that i inherited. i think it is a good budget. it is definitely a step forward in a positive direction. we are in the process now of identifying from top to bottom where our deficiencies are. that budgeting, which are cfo has experience and, we are going

director by director to see what those needs are so we can best have our people trained, staffed and give them the proper equipment. we are compiling a list of those priorities, things we really need. rep. carter: mr. cuellar has told me how they do things in the great state of texas. when you are defining what it will cost to do a certain mission, we can see where the failures are in each mission and we can budget and make changes accordingly. isn't that what you have been pushing me with? that is what you seem to be proposing, which i quite honestly, gives us a clear picture of how the agency's functioning. i like the idea.

i hope you do well. director clancy: thank you. we are constantly looking at emerging trends. as we talked before about what we need to address. that is all part of this. rep. roybal-allard: can you tell me what the time line is for completing this type of analysis? director clancy: initially, we hoped we would get -- my cfo just gave me an answer. in 2017 coming can expect a mission driven program identified budget. by 2017, we will be well on our way to a zero-based budgeting. rep. roybal-allard: great. what are the central recommendations the in a was to hire an additional 200

officers and increase the number of protection agents by 85. the panel described this new hiring as an entrance step while the agency does the necessary analysis to match personnel requirements with needs. i'm aware the secret service has struggled in recent years to keep attrition from outpacing hiring and every silly taken steps to address that. my question is -- and you have recently taken steps to address that. are you satisfied that you have overcome the shortcomings in the hiring process and you anticipate you will be able to meet the hiring goals for fiscal year 2016? director clancy: in short, yes. we recommend 85 agents come to be presidents detail. we have 30 that have been reassigned to the president's. thanks to your good work, we can transfer more people to washington so we can fulfill that 85 number requirement.

in uniformed division, we are working with your staff to look for retention measures that may allow us to keep some of these people that are closer to retirement or maybe looking at other opportunities. the retention piece is important because we will surpass our goals in hiring. initially, we planned to have six classes of agents. now, we anticipate nine agent classes. rep. roybal-allard: ok. my time is up. rep. cuellar: no further questions. we want to work with the director. thank you.

rep. roybal-allard: the budget proposes to eliminate $8.4 million for exploited children investigations, including funding that has supported activities at the national center for missing annex waited children. the justification -- for missing and exploited children. the secret service has a long-standing partnership with the national center for missing and exploited children going back decades. while we understand there may be a need to prioritize funding for activities within the agency, it seems we should be wary of weakening that partnership. what would be the specific impacts on the national center if we were to appropriate no funding for the support program in fy 16 and what are the

benefits from the secret service for the existing partnership? director clancy: we understand this is a pass-through grant through the department of justice. this is a very important mission to us. it has so many good things. it is such an important job. we offer a lot to our local law enforcement partners with the forensics we can do, the polygraphs we can do for them. we can bring a lot to the table to try to help with this very important mission and we are very thankful to be able to do this. rep. roybal-allard: ok. rep. carter: if no one else has any questions, i guess we end this hearing. i want to say this has been a tough way for you. it is all a learning process. once again, we are part of that chain and where willing to help.

director clancy: we will have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. later in the day, the commissioners of the fcc along with a chairman tom wheeler will take questions about the newly approved net neutrality rule. we will have live coverage from the senate commerce committee. that is also on c-span 3. >> now isis rears their ugly head and this army is very shaky. you shouldn't be surprised by that. you can't undo decades of soviet

stuff and saddam hussein stuff in eight years. in afghanistan, we can only have 10,000 troops there but we will draw down to 5000 next year and down to almost zero the year after that. i would warn that we will probably see a similar result in iraq. >> this sunday retired daniel bolger on the failed u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan and what we should have done different way sunday night at it :00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q and a pure quote >> the -- "q&a." >> tom wheeler testified before the house oversight committee. the chair is jason chaffetz of

utah. chairman chaffetz: we are here to rule on the rulemaking process and the commitment to privacy. chairman wheeler said the draft ran contrasted decades of precedent at the committee.

in 2007, then-senator obama strongly requested the fcc "put out any changes that they intend to vote on in a new notice of proposed rulemaking." senator obama believed to do otherwise would be "irresponsible." then chairman kevin martin responded by releasing the draft text of the rule changes and inviting a four-week public comment period. chairman explain "because of the controversial nature of the proceedings and my desire for an open and transparent process, i want to ensure the members of congress and the public have the opportunity to review my proposal prior to any commission action. that didn't happen in this case. to suggest a there is no precedent for this, that is just not true. chairman martin went even further and testified before congress more than once about the rule changes. yet we invited commissioner

wheeler to come before us and he refused. didn't have any problem meeting at the white house but did have problem coming before congress. in this case, chairman wheeler did the opposite. chairman wheeler did not make the rules public, did not make the comments public. we find it fully unacceptable. the sec has been concealing certain to medication from the public without legal basis. i want to put up the slide. we will refer to this later. but there are reactions to comments that were made to the request for information freedom act. we have that slide. i guess not. i'm going to keep going. organizations that hold our government accountable depend on the foya process.

at the outset, the sec denies 40% of the requests. the ones they do produce contain a number of redaction's, including the back out -- the blackout of entire pages of text. today, we will compare these communications to understand what legal justification mr. wheeler used to prevent this information from becoming public. in addition, we will examine the series of events resulting in the highly controversial vote to use title 2 to regulate internet like a public utility. in may 2014, the fcc issued rulemaking considering internet regulation.

this was chairman's intent during this time period. in october 2014 and after the fcc's public comment period ended, chairman wheeler attempted a hybrid approach that continue to classify broadband and mobile internet services under title 1. days later, president obama appeared in a youtube video with a radically different proposal. e-mails provided the committee by the fcc suggests that this came as a major surprise, including to mr. wheeler. i generate seven, chairman wheeler announced the fcc would dramatically alter course. i'm sure much will be made about the 4 million comments that were made but they were not made in the context of fully changing this to title 2. the fcc adopted the rule change

in february 26 in a three-to rule -- a three-to rule -- a 3-2 vote. this committee remains committed to finding full transparency across government and i look forward to hearing more from chairman wheeler today. representative cummings: we are here to talk about the ruling by the fcc. there are strong opinions on all sides of this issue, no doubt about it. on the one hand, internet service providers, including comcast, at&t, verizon and time warner, oppose the rule and lobbied against it. they argued that additional regulation would increase fees, reduce investment, slow network

upgrades, and reduce competition and innovation. on the other hand, supporters of this new rule contend that isps should not be allowed to discriminate based on content. they believe isps should be required to act like phone companies, controlling the pipes that make up the internet, but not what flows through them. consumers, social media entities, and companies like facebook, netflix and google would favor open internet policy because they do not want to be charged higher prices to provide their services. the question before the committee is not which policy we may prefer. but whether the process used by the fcc to adopt the rule was appropriate. republicans who oppose the new rule alledge that president

obama exerted undue influence on the process. but we have seen no evidence to support -- this allegation. instead, the evidence before the committee indicates that the process was thorough, followed the appropriate guidelines, and benefited from a record number of oblique comments. i welcome chairman wheeler here today to discuss the process used by the fcc. i would like to make several points for the record. first, the fcc received more comments on this rule than any other rule in its history. that is indeed very significant. as i understand it the fcc received about 4 million comments. this grassroots moment -- movement was highlighted when

john oliver, a popular late-night talkshow host, encouraged his viewers to go on the fcc website and comment on the proposed rule. the number of comments was also extremely high because the f cc established a 60-day, period twice -- comment period twice. in addition, the president has a right to express his position on proposed rules. and he did so in this case. in november, he made remarks as part of an open internet rule, arguing "it is essential to the american economy." he said the fcc "should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper

restricting what you can do or see online." when he gave this speech, the president also ensured that his office submitted the appropriate x partake filing. -- ex parte presidents routinely make their positions known to independent agencies regarding spending rules. president reagan george h bush, clinton and george w. bush, all expressed opinions on sec regulations during their presidencies. with the neutrality rule, there were more than 750 public interest roots -- groups,

lobbyist, corporations, and elected officials. all of whom had an opportunity to make their views known. finally, if the committee is going to examine chairman wheeler, we must also examine commissioner paik, o'reilly, and others who opposed the rules. the little accounts indicate they have been working closely with republicans on and off capitol hill to affect the fcc's work, and we should review their actions with the same scrutiny. chairman, i want to thank you again. i look for to testimony. with that, i yield that. >> any member who would like to submit a statement, the honorable chairman wheeler, we

welcome you here today. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn before they testify. if you please arrive and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. in order to allow time for discussion we normally asked for your testimony to be limited to five minutes. we would appreciate your entire written statement. 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 him prm adopted in may proposed a solution based on section 706. it asked extensive questions as to whether title ii of the act of 1934 would be a better solution. a quick point on procedures. while historically some npr ends just asked 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 rulemaking process. the proposal is tentative. not a final conclusion. the purpose of the comment. -- comment. is to fully test 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 ex parte hayes. 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.

i did not, as ceo of an independent agency, feel obligated to follow the president's recommendation. but i did feel obligated to treat it 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 in the in prm suggested that the fcc could usher internet openness by applying a commercial reasonableness test. under section to determine 706, 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 -- including title ii were 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 ii 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 ii 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 bright line 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 say 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 patterns of the industry. 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 's 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. in applying title ii, but 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. there were other industry data points that informed my thinking. one was the recognition of interconnection as an important issue. a topic not addressed by the president. another was my letter to verizon wireless about is announcement to 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 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 -- under this title ii 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 that ensure the rights of internet users to go in they want, when they want, protect the open internet at a level playing field and entrepreneur s 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 an ex parte a one of those four 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 -- did you discuss this matter during 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 an ex parte a file. 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. -- expertise. 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. they came to visit you, you went to visit them. 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.

i need to move on. chair wheeler: mr. chairman, one thing that i didn't agree to come, i'm here. rep. chaffetz: before the role -- rule. 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 a daily caller 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 you, right, at your home? protesters were in front of your house. they were there trying to make a statement. 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. when this was provided to "vice".com, you rejected this. 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 weigh in on this. that's fine. later that afternoon you sent this 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 write that? chair wheeler: does this suggest a secret plan? rep. chaffetz: i'm asking you why you wrote it. chair wheeler: this clearly is showing that there was no kind of coordination.

rep. chaffetz: there was no coordination? protesters have been to show up the morning before the announcement comes, nobody knows the president will make this except the protesters. who show up at your home. 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 assure you i did not talk to her about open internet, because she she knows nothing about it. that 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 -- and asked partake saying that. 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 watering this down are not 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. the two things that 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 a relevant commentator. 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 the fcc is doing. welch: 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. you mention the spectrum auction welch: did that exceed revenues? , chair wheeler: significantly $41 billion, which was triple what the estimates were. welch: 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. were there factors you took into consideration in the decision 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. welch: 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 48 sections to title we had four born from 27 of ii. 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, muscled you and the commission 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 left it to you to exercise your judgment. chair wheeler: no, the president did not. i interpreted what the residence -- president's 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.

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 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 your statements. did the wall street journal get it right? 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. -- 706 based 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? seems to me, one, the president made his youtube video. and he issued a statement. two, you had an important with mr.'s -- you had an

important meeting with mr.'s line on chair wheeler: let me november 6. 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. who is he? 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 tom wheeler meets with science -- zients.september 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 it 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 -- 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 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 revere? 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 -- 706 plan 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-- sen: 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. sen. maloney: 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 you're 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. into what a dingo was. representative maloney: he encouraged his viewers to go to the fcc site and register their position. i understand after his peace aired, 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? did you break that down? would you get that for the committee? all of the attention on you, and the efforts, and grassroots

organizations, and the john oliver piece, 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. chair wheeler: those had great impact. i would like to ask you, i'm -- representative maloney: 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 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 similar to the hearings on the auto industry where the restructuring that 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: much has been made of 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. we were deep into a title ii-706 combination. >> 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.

rep. micah: 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 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. not sure how things have landed trust to make it work, please shout out if you need anything. 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. during his campaign. as was i. representative mica: but before, you had allies trying to help you -- reed 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 took a different course in rolling this out. 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. it specifically said, is it better? 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 solution. after, we delivered. representative mica: i think mr. zients strong-armed you. thank you. rep. chaffetz: i want to know why you felt compelled to communicate with the white house 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 zeints. then you sent to podesta. should have had you on the first email. he writes that someone would push back. you write 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 therefor 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 point. that is what this was. the 2010 rules, i stand behind and i am not out in a campaign to 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 redacting all of thising? chair wheeler: how the response

is done by 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 explanation? 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 the 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 presidents 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 states, 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 -- clear that 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 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: 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 -- have been 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 when you come into office, you are 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. rep. norton: 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. the president was involved, it many people have the right. congress has a right to make statements. the question is, 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 for 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 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. 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 then engaged as we always do, in private, editorial negotiations, amongst the commissioners. we never put out a draft before those edits.

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 martin, 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 -- would that be unique to your chance -- tenure as chairman? the previous chairman never did that? chair wheeler: i've never seen

the logs, 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 or to have some kind of quiet conversation that obviously be public is not aware of. did that occur? wheeler: no sir. donnelly: diddonnelly: did the white house ever directs you in the framing of the rule? wheeler: no sir. even when they filed, it was not a direction. it was here is our of opinion. millions of americans had been writing to express. donnelly: as we saw in a letter to the ayatollah, one