-- start beging to showing love to each other. that is the only way we can get strong. i just want to introduce our brother, the originator of hands up. >> assalamualaikum. hands up! hands up! i cannot hear you. hands up! i want to thank you first of all, i want to thank minister louis farrakhan for doing 10/10. let's give him a round of applause.

[applause] >> thank you, i am sorry. will you help me celebrate and salute the family of our dear sister sandra bland? make some noise as they come now. [applause] >> good afternoon. i greet you on behalf of the family of sandra bland. my name is sharon cooper, one of the older sisters of sandra bland and i stand in the gap for my mother. i am standing in the gap for my older sister, standing in the gap for my little sister, and standing in the gap for my baby sister. the biggest message i want to leave you with is the world has shown us that we have to control our own narrative. i want to thank you, say thank you to those of you who are here, especially the nation for acknowledging us. if i could ask you to do one thing, can you say her name? >> sandra bland! >> thank you. [applause] >> for our generation, she is

considered the rosa parks of the hip-hop movement, the one who who really kicked this off for this new movement to get us started. i needed to make a thunderous applause all over for the sister -- the district of columbia. help me salute the mother of trayvon martin, miss sabrina fulton, as she comes now. [applause] >> good afternoon. i just want to let you guys know that a lot of times we think this is all about civil rights, but this is about human rights. this is about us knowing that we are not 3/5 of a human, that we have feelings and family, too, and that we will not continue to stand by and not say anything anymore. that we will speak up and speak

out. that god is watching what is going on and i say the families that are standing here before me that do not hold your head down and think your child's life has been lost in vain. hold your head up. your child was not the person that shot and killed someone else. your child was murdered. that person's mother needs to hold their heads down. because they birth a murderer. stand up for who you are. stand up for what has happened and continue to speak out. god bless you all. [applause] >> it is amazing to note that 20 years ago, when it was that we assembled on the same place, a

time that america had to come to a screeching halt because they were not used to seeing the picture of strong, resilient black men standing in allegiance. give an overwhelming applause to every black man around you for their strength and resilience. [applause] my dear friends, we would be longer along if we had brought the sisters with this and i am -- us and i am thankful for sisters are standing with the brothers today. we make noise for the beautiful black women who are here standing? [applause] 20 years ago when we assembled, we were not asking washington for anything.

we were coming for atonement for ourselves, taking personal spots -- responsibility. note signed contract, but there was a covenant for men who had the conscience. immediately, the enemy knew he was in trouble because there was power and unity. there was nothing more dangerous than a formally oppressed man who had come to his own mind. when you show you how to apply, adversarial forces show their hand. in the last 20 years, the enemy was nervous because of but we did 20 years ago. over the last 20 years, they have robbed inner cities of fresh vegetation.

over the last 20 years, they have funded private institutions but have not funded private education. they have been trying to criminalize the young black youth. they try to hide the truth in the textbooks. for 20 years, since we tried to rock the boat, they have been trying to hide the boat. it is important that we come to washington, d.c., because behind me you see the are working on the roof but we came to work on the foundation. something is wrong with america, and we came to fix it. appearing almost as a move of

god as we begin to converge in baltimore and cleveland. on this very week, the department of justice made up in their mind that they did something wrong. they over sentence, and in number sentencing, they made up their minds they will release 6000 prisoners from the department of correction. i want to did an amazing way, for the strength of our brothers and sisters who are the prisoners of the war on drugs, would you give god praise for those who are incarcerated? and i want you to shout for those who are reentering into society. [applause] from october 30 to november 2, the largest number of ex-offenders are walking out of prison. this is the very first time that we will see tricle down work in our favor because when they walk out, they are walking out and we are walking out everywhere. we are walking out of those who do payday loans, we are walking out of banks that will give us car, but will not

give us a loan to start a business. we are walking out of establishments that do not give us the dignity that we deserve. we are walking out the playing politics, of collective people who look like us but do not think like us. we want to get a warning to every person who was running for president -- if you cannot say black lives matter, you are not qualified to run the united states of america. there is an army of one million people and we must be registered to vote. we must have an economic entity, and we must have a principle. we did not come as beggars, we came as partners because if it were not for black people, there would be no america. i came to speak the name of the man that matters. his name is jesus christ and he

was wounded transgressions, rise up, black people, accomplish what you will. it is our time now. this is not an event, it is a movement. we have got to do it. come on, black people, make some noise. black empowered time. [applause] >> give it up again. one last time, when we talk about justice or else, the people that i am bringing makeup the courthouse. -- make up the or else. they come from groups like lack nyc, blackleague lives matter, hands up united in ferguson, missouri, the activists that handle the business on the street every day. let me have you hear from dr. abdullah, carmen perez, the executive director of the gathering for justice, and tori russell of hands up united in

ferguson, missouri. >> black lives they matter here. >> black lives, they matter here. >> black lives, they matter here. assalamu alaikum. my name is selena abdullah, i am an organizer for black lives matter. i want to thank the honorable minister louis farrakhan for having us and all the struggle he has done for the liberation of black people. i am honored to be among those of you who have struggled for a decade. i am honored to be among those of you who were here 20 years for the million man march. black lives matter is a growing movement, not a moment.

we were born just over two years ago. the night that george zimmerman was acquitted in the murder of our son, our brother trayvon martin. i say our son, our brother recognizing that it is sabrina fulton and tracy martin who birthed him, just as mike brown junior is the son of -- and andrew joseph junior is the son of andrew joseph senior and my cousin deanna hardy joseph. they are all ours. they are ours. know itan people, we is not biology that dictates relationship, it is spirit. sandra bland, radel jones, is yvette henderson, brother africa, megan, and so many others are not individual assaults but collective ones.

black people are killed at least every 28 hours. we are under siege, all of us, pulling our pants up won't save us. our college degrees will not save us. middle-class status will not save us. they declared war on us, and the worst thing we can do is to act as if we were at peace when we are really at war. black lives matter is a rallying cry. it is not for us, for them, for them, but it is for us. black lives matter is a recognition that we have all we need within us to win. it is an acceptance of our duty to fight, to refuse to be victims, and except as that we are rebels, we are warriors, we are the daughters of god, harriet tubman, and the sons of nat turner.

today is a watershed movement. today is the day we step out deliberately, consciously, and confidently onto the battlefield, and we have two charges. one, to radically and fiercely love ourselves. and two, to commit ourselves to the war that will dismantle the system of white supremacist patriarchal capitalism. that is what or else means. or else means we will no longer accept the murder of our folks as unintentional, it is by design. things are going to radically change and they will change now. it is our duty to fight for freedom. >> it is our duty to fight for freedom. >> it is our duty to win. >> it is our duty to win. -- [indiscernible]

>> good afternoon, brothers and sisters. i am humbled to stand before you today. i wish all of you could be appeared to witness a sea of beautiful faces, represent people from all walks of life and nations. all here for one mission and one purpose, to demand justice or our people. 10 years ago, my mentor henri -- harry bellefonte, was watching the news when he saw the video of a five year old black girl in florida, handcuffed and sent to jail for throwing a tantrum in her classroom. five years old, imagine that

being your child. but this is happening in communities all over our country. the river of blood that flows through the streets of our nation flows mostly from the bodies of our black men and children. as we stand here today, we can commit to stopping that river. two years ago, i cofounded justice league n.y.c. i called my black brothers and sisters, i called my latino allies, i called my muslim sisters and brothers to the table and we created a multi-national movement. i come here today as a mexican-american woman, proud chicana, to join with you and raise our voices loud and clear and say -- we have had enough. 50 years since selma, we are still fighting. this has to and. this will end. 20 years from now, we will stand here again and we will stand in victory.

we will stand here celebrating with our heads up high and are airnd our fists in the saying and celebrating our liberation. if we do not get it, we must shut it down. if we do not get it, -- >> shut it down. >> if we do not get it -- justice. justice. si se puede. thank you. >> yo, can you all hear me? yo, i come from a place that is forgotten about. nothing but an afterthought. i come from a place that people struggle every day. we talk about justice, you are looking for economic justice, social justice, environmental justice, international justice. i am a young black boy with lost voices and all these young people that are in the streets

of ferguson for a long time. it is a year later. all these young people that are running in the streets for a long time, just a year later, and nobody comes to save us. i am not waiting for nothing to fall out of the sky. i'm not waiting for your national hashtags to come save me. i'm going to do the same thing did.ny, percy green if you don't know their names, it is because they are local names. the local names with a national impact. so when i tell you we are talking about justice, i only have one thing to say. ferguson is the or else. >> [applause] >> you can see more of the rally tonight including louis farrakhan, he was an organizer of the million man march 20 years ago.

that airs tonight here on c-span. >> this sunday night, former senator and presidential candidate gary hart on his new book the republic of conscious the parent our current government to the republican he said our founders intended. >> the founder's use the language of greece and rome and warned against corruption. and their definition of corruption was not bribery or quid pro quo money under the table. it was putting special interests ahead of the common good and by that definition washington today is a massively corrupt place. announcer: sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> our road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continue from new hampshire.

10:00, liveng at coverage from the no labels problem solvers committee. speakers included eight republicans and democratic presidential candidate talking about uniting the country, jobs creation, balancing the budget, securing social security, and making america energy secure. on tuesday afternoon at 12:30 p.m. i'm a we are alive with the john kasich as easily send the town hall -- we are live with a john kasich as he speaks to us town hall meeting. former florida governor jeb bush will speak at a town hall meeting. 116 -- takingign you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. announcer: in his weekly rest of the president speaks about why he supports the -- mike conaway of taxes gives the republican response and he talks about lifting the ban on crude oil

exports. president obama: hi, everybody. this week, after five years of effort with 11 other nations, we reached agreement on a new trade deal that promotes american values and protects american workers. there's a reason this trans-pacific partnership took five years to negotiate. i wanted to get the best possible deal for american workers. and that is what we've done. here's why it matters. 95% of the world's consumers live outside our borders -- 95% they want to buy american products. they want our cars, our music, our food. and if american businesses can sell more of their products in those markets, they can expand and support good jobs here at home. so it's no wonder that exports played a huge role in helping america recover from the great recession. in fact, last year, we set a new record for american exports for the fifth year in a row, selling more than $2 trillion in goods and services.

our exports support roughly 12 million american jobs -- and they're jobs that typically pay better than other jobs. but here's the thing -- outdated trade rules put our workers at a disadvantage. and tpp will change that. right now, other countries can cut their costs by setting lower standards to pay lower wages. this trade agreement, tpp, will change that, holding partner countries to higher standards and raising wages across a region that makes up nearly 40% of the global economy. right now, other countries charge foreign taxes on goods that are made in america. japan, for example, puts a 38% tax on american beef before it even reaches the market. malaysia puts a 30% tax on american auto parts. vietnam puts taxes as high as 70% on every car american automakers sell there. those taxes and other trade barriers put our workers at a

disadvantage. it makes it more expensive to make goods here and sell them over there. well, tpp is going to change that. it eliminates more than 18,000 of these taxes on american goods and services. and that way, we're boosting america's farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and small business owners -- make it easier for them to sell their products abroad. that's what it means to level the playing field for american workers and businesses. and when the playing field is level, and the rules are fair, americans can out-compete anybody in the world. now, i'm the first person who will say that past trade agreements haven't always lived up to their promise. sometimes they've been tilted too much in the direction of other countries and we haven't gotten a fair deal. and that makes folks suspicious of any new trade initiatives. but let's be clear. our future depends not on what past trade deals did wrong, but

on doing new trade deals right. and that's what the tpp does. it includes the strongest labor standards in history, from requiring fair hours to prohibiting child labor and forced labor. it includes the strongest environmental standards in history. all these things level the playing field for us, because if they have to follow these rules, then they can't undercut us and sell their products cheaper because they're violating these rules. and unlike past trade agreements, these standards are actually enforceable. without this agreement, competitors that don't share our values, like china, will write the rules of the global economy. they'll keep selling into our markets and try to lure companies over there. meanwhile they're going to keep their markets closed to us. that's what's been going on for the last 20 years. that's what's contributed so much to outsourcing. that's what has made it easier for them to compete against us. and it needs to change. with this trans-pacific

partnership, we are writing the rules for the global economy. america is leading in the 21st century. our workers will be the ones who get ahead. our businesses will get a fair deal. and those who oppose passing this new trade deal are really just accepting a status quo that everyone knows puts us at a disadvantage. look, you don't have to take my word for it. in the coming weeks and months, you'll be able to read every word of this agreement online well before i sign it. you'll be able to see for yourself how this agreement is better than past trade deals -- and how it's better for america's working families. you can learn more at whitehouse.gov. and i look forward to working with both parties in congress to approve this deal -- and grow our economy for decades to come. thanks, everybody. and have a great weekend. rep. conaway: these days, you're hearing a lot about america's energy boom, about how it's creating jobs and revitalizing industries. much of this is thanks to the genius, gumption, and hard work of the men and women of our energy industry -- many of whom

hail from district 11 in west texas that i get to represent. it's great to talk about this. but time and again, we've seen washington stifle successes. in fact, this boom has happened in spite of the obama administration's efforts to block production anywhere and everywhere it can. so we can't take anything for granted. that's why we're working hard right now to lift the federal government's ban on crude oil exports. you may not even have realized that we have this ban in place, but we do, and it's costing american jobs. it's outdated, also. many of us remember what happened back in the 1970's, when gas prices quadrupled almost overnight. the government responded by putting a cap on gas prices. but instead of protecting consumers, it just caused long lines at the gas station and rationing. so the government's next step was to put in place a ban on oil exports. the idea was to prevent that price-controlled oil from flowing overseas, and to try and control our own energy destiny. but as we all know, the export ban did not protect us from

world oil prices and it did not allow us to control our own supply. but times have changed. far from being addicted to foreign oil, we are in the midst of a crude oil renaissance right here at home. all the ban is doing now is holding back economic development in every state of our union. lift that ban and we could see close to a million jobs created in just a few years' time. not only that, but according to the government accountability office, if we lift the ban, consumer gasoline prices will drop. lower fuel costs don't just make road trips more affordable -- they also help nearly every industry that uses energy from agriculture to shipping. and that means good jobs get created right here in america, not overseas. and there is this. right now, we see vladimir putin using russia's energy supply as leverage to control europe. the president's deal with iran actually opens the floodgates for iranian crude oil to come flowing back into the market.

the idea that it is okay for iran to export oil while our own domestic producers can't is just flat out wrong. lift the ban now and we help our friends and our allies around the world. having stronger allies makes us stronger in a world getting more dangerous by the day. so -- more jobs. lower prices at the pump. a more secure country. those three things that should be high up on any list of the american people's priorities. lifting the ban will advance all three goals at once. it's a proverbial win-win-win. now, here's where we are. the house has just passed h.r. 702, a bill that will lift the ban on crude oil exports. we've gotten great support from farmers, manufacturers, unions, and state leaders around the country. but instead of listening to the american people, this president is threatening to veto the bill, saying it's not needed. well, let me tell you, if you talk to the workers in district 11, where i get to represent, and you talk to the people who

have been laid off in this tough economy, they'll tell you that this bill is absolutely necessary. the president should and must listen to the american people, and help us lift this export ban today. because again, the energy boom is great to talk about. and it's a great story. but now we have a chance to actually do something big to keep this great american success story going. the outdated policies of the 1970's should not and must not limit the possibilities of the 21st century. thank you for listening. god bless each one of you, god bless texas, and god bless the united states of america. announcer: on the next "washington journal," a roundtable on the campaigns in iowa and new hampshire. with the jennifer jacobs and dan tuohy. the brookings institution is the latest on the war against the taliban and the situation in syria. lawyer talksorts

about congressional and state level inquiries into the fantasy sports websites. always, we will take your calls and you could join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. announcer: the communicators is next with republican covers men john shimkus discussing the oversight of internet domain names and other technology issues. at 7:00, our new series "landmark cases," which explores the stories behind the supreme court's most significant decisions. our froze program is marbury versus madison which is the basis for judicial review. and a later today's rally all the national mall commemorating the 20th anniversary of the million man march.

announcer: c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought use a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. pedro: joining us on "the communicators" this week, representative john shimkus, republican of illinois, a member of energy and commerce committee and also a member of the communications and technology subcommittee. representative shimkus, thank you for joining us. and also joining us for the conversation, david mccabe of "the hill." he is their technology reporter. thank you for joining us. to start, representative shimkus , there is a conversation in congress about who controls the internet. and you have a piece of legislation that deal specifically with this. could you set up our audience and let us know what the issue is and what your bill addresses? rep. shimkus: well, it is called the bill. we have had 2 bills. one last congress, one this congress. it was originally called the dot com act and was about the

icann transition of the functions. to make a long story short, who is the keeper of the addresses? how the internet operates. and there is kind of an international struggle in the u.n. and some people saying the united states should not be the keeper of the final vestiges of a contract and we should have a multi-stakeholder approach. the tech community has gathered support for that and we got involved when the congress, especially the house has gone on record saying we support a multistakeholder approach. i got involved when i said who is this multi-stakeholder, who is this group? let's define it. at first, i was kind of made fun of, i think. what is this guy on the subcommittee dealing with these big tech issues? but as we started talking about this transition, these questions

about who is the multi-stakeholder group and what are they going to decide. then i think the tech community started saying there are good questions in here. we moved a bill this congress that said we already knew we would have a gao report. the internet community and high tech community said we want these other things reviewed. when the transition, keep the contract, the u.s. contract viable, so we can do an evaluation and then hopefully, verify a position and we will move for comfortable that they last vestiges of u.s. control has -- in good hands in a multi-stakeholder approach and does not bring in other parties we might be concerned with. pedro: representative shimkus, when is this transition supposed to take place and what is the status of your legislation?

rep. shimkus: what the ntia has done has decided to extend the contract with icann and that is an important aspect. we think our legislation helped move the administration and make sure the extent and some these questions could be passed. our bill has been passed. a lot of positive things said on the senate about our bill. a hold placed on it right now on what we think is a misunderstanding of constitutional and a property's debate on thets dot mill naming and the like that has raised some flags over there. it is our hope that will eventually get resolved and we move the bill. the big benefit was we slowed down the process and we had really the high-tech community

also get involved to look at it -- at this process and with his -- with a delay we think will get a better project. david: are you saying it will still be a success even though a bill does not pass because slows down the process? rep. shimkus: not really slowing down the process of but really got the high-tech community to ask additional questions. if you look at the language of our bill instead of just extending, for other provisions that came from the high-tech community saying we need these things we also need to be addressed. of course, we would like to see the bill passed. it does give us a last chance to have a say and what is going on in the senate now is really delaying our opportunity to have the final say in the final product. it would be better if they pass it and the president signed it and we would have a good

chance to have final oversight of that product. david: is there anything you can offer? some senators are concerned. what can you offer? rep. shimkus: [laughter] a great question. i do not know. i am not in the process of offering senators whatever you might offer. i think we have a bill that is passed. they have a bill they want to move. sometimes offering is done by the leadership on the senate side to get floor time to do this or that or except -- accept amendments or the like. that is outside of my bailiwick. pedro: give us a for instance, what would alarm the congress so much they need to step in and alter the process of transferring the internet domain? rep. shimkus: if the multi-stakeholder approach labeled and had totalitarian regimes who we know are enemies

of the united states who would then use that ability to either disrupt the abilities of their citizens to get access and the world wide web or use that position to hurt or harm the united states and our interests. pedro: if there is multiple players in this, who ultimately makes the call as far south -- as far as dominance issues? rep. shimkus: that is part of the questions that are continued to be asked and why we would like to see more resolution. we need to have answers on. the gao report will come out and -- with some analysis but multi-stakeholder high-tech community is asking these questions in meetings, sometimes smaller groups monthly but as they are hashing through it. pedro: representative, a couple of weeks ago on this program we

have to opportunity to speak with the head of icann fadi chehade and ask about the process not only from the perspective of him being the head of the organization but what he sees going on. i want to play a little bit of the response he gave. fadi chehade: but there was never a question whether this is the right model. so the u.s. government served, i think, as a very, very important backstop during the years of the formation and the strengthening of the multi-stakeholder model. and now that the model is strong and involves many of our key businesses, cisco, at&t, microsoft, every major u.s. company and every major global company that works very closely with our internet is at the table. we have government as well. we have civil society. we have many of the groups, the

technical groups. we have all of the players, the multi-stakeholder players at the table. and the u.s. government came to the conclusion that the model is now ready for it to show the world our belief and our commitment to this model. and the best way to do that is to let it go. ,edro: representative shimkus your response? rep. shimkus: i agree with most of that. again, the concern was he laid out who he said the multistate -- multi-stakeholder are. but in the decision-making process, you know who is going to have the leverage to have in essence the final say? and they are developing policies and processes where you have a majority or super majority of votes and overriding.

that is all we want to see is a process. what we do not want, if this not successful, there is a fear of balkanization of the internet. some of the stakeholders who we -- may question their intent try to break away and create their own little world of internet communication which is not what the entire worldwide munication system wants. we do want a good cop on the block to make sure we are playing by the same rules, hence multi-stakeholder model. we want to know who the policeman is. mentioned, fadi chehade mentioned the origins and new criticism from some of the opponents of your bill. it holds essentially because of the way the system was set up originally that the government may not have the authority to transfer control of the system.

i wonder what your response would be and i'm talking about the letter that came from senator cruz joined by senator grassley and representative goodlatte. rep. shimkus: i do not agree with that analysis of -- we are not giving up that route address. that is the basis of their argument is a route address would be given up and we would still maintain the root a dress. -- rule address. i do not agree with her analysis of in essence the ownership rights of the government. we are keeping what we have. david: they asked for a gao report essentially looking at the issues. do you think a gao report is a good idea or would it be a disadvantage? rep. shimkus: by the time the gao report comes out, it could already be resolved. i mean a gao result will take a

-- at least a year in my guess. and this process based upon the contract. our goal was to make sure we kept the contract in place so we could review the system. the importance of the bill is we have a last opportunity to look at the final decision on the stakeholder -- multi-stakeholder approach. pedro: you are watching "the communicators" with representative shimkus. when it comes to the internet, the fcc has plans with a net neutrality. mr. shimkus, where are we with the fcc's plan going forward and does congress have a role? rep. shimkus: i think the ship has left the port on their net neutrality. i have never been a big supporter of it for the primary reason i want more pipes not less. the assumption is the holder of the pipes would restrict

transmission of data and there are other reports but internet service providers might be doing that, too. i would like to encourage more fiber optic layouts. to net neutrality tries force itself on the existing system to make sure that all traffic can flow. how does it incentivize the bill? david: it does not stop your colleagues for meeting on a compromise a bill. i am wondering if you think there is a legitimate compromise bill and what it looks like? no, i do not know what they are meeting with or on it. so, i do not know what they are trying to propose. david: is there anything in their that would get your support?

rep. shimkus: i want to be up to see how do we incentivize delaying a new fiber optic cable? because when you make a governmental demand on what a private entity can carry then is thealmost assuming -- government eventually going to have to get involved in funding so you can upkeep because you're demanding carriage? if you let a free market system incentivize the rights away to carry large packages may that incentivizes someone. where is the incentive to build? another thing that has to be considered a net year is spectrum. as we sit on capitol hill on this topic, could you give us what is happening legislatively on the house of the wireless spectrum and how the fcc handles it? rep. shimkus: it is a very exciting time.

we would argue we had a successful spectrum auction a year ago. technology is a phenomenal thing and as why i'm serving on the committee. technology moves so fast we cannot regulate it. ,e know we need more spectrum abilities of the space to continue to innovate. we had a hearing on it today. there was discussions about 3g 5 and and moving to sharing technology at how do you do that. wi-fi applications. from a simple boy from illinois, it makes your head spin. i am fortunate to be on the committee. the sky is the limit and the applications of what can occur to make our lives better even through health care apps and telecommunication and the likes. i a very excited. pedro: when it comes to those

who can purchase, who has first shot? rep. shimkus: the fcc have to do a bidding process. we had issues and the last auction which questioned there are subsidies for smaller entities. i represent 33 counties in illinois, a lot a small, rural, poor areas their providers know they do not get blocked out by the large, major entities. in reality, you have the major providers and major companies bidding. and hopefully then through the allocation system more people will have clear and better access. but the government also looking fillig bidders to coffers. david: how comfortable are you providesprogram that

discounts to small businesses, minority owned? how comfortable are you with reforms going to next year's auction? rep. shimkus: they are based upon it the last auction. , i amg at it carefully cautiously optimistic that we are making the changes that are needed to make sure those who receive are those who are entitled to that. again, a lot of smart people in lot of smartt a people in the language of law will use their strength of knowledge to try and get entry into areas where it was not either the legislative intent or the intent of the regulators to allow that. so the proof will be in the pudding. david: is there anything you will be looking at to gauge success? hopeshimkus: well, i would

, we want to make sure there is competitive carrier out there so not one person have control. and so when you are accessing you have choices. and that the services rendered -- i think in rural america, we know we are not the top area to get the first modern technology. but people in major metropolitan areas, we at least better have 3g. pedro: what does it mean the sprint corporation announced they will sit out this auction? what does it say about the process is anything? rep. shimkus: we would rather have more than less. i would say that if you have then itple sitting out could be a concern. also theto understand financial position of a company and where they sit in the

competitive field. how they are capitalizing and the risks? a lot of reasons you would decide not to bid and maybe at the time with mergers, they feel they have what they need. david: shifting to a different topic, a lot made about how to free up spectrum controlled by the federal government. i am curious, we heard ideas today and before, what approaches seem the most appealing to you as your committee and the committee in the senate looks to incentivize the federal government to free up some spectrum? rep. shimkus: sometimes i am a little biased because of my military bar graph -- background. the last thing we want to do is harm. but -- the federal government has large swaths of spreadsheet

-- spectrum and maybe owning small need at a certain time in certain areas. one, the government has to be fully compensated for the movement from one area of the spectrum to another. and if that is a big price take, retrofitting or purchasing new equipment and requiring that. there is also part of the debate and a hearing today maybe some of these are not areas where we community or national defense community. these areas could be shared which is also a very interesting proposal which should receive more attention than it has in the past. david: you are saying the reallocation fund, are you in favor of the government incentivize auction? rep. shimkus: i may not to be

opposed to that. maybe on certain slices, maybe not all of them because some may have more important applications based on the space. david: in terms of the time of spectrum reform bill and federal said --, somebody working the legislation and the time and has been up in the air. when do you think it needs to get done by? rep. shimkus: i wish we would have got it done in the last congress. the fact we're talking about legislation and federal agencies now understanding and more open, with made great strides and a briefing. inwe have made great strides briefings. i have set a meetings where they said do not touch it. that is not the case. as far senator waldron, i do not know.

but i do think we are now in a better place to have these discussions. pedro: what kind of financial haul would you like to see? rep. shimkus: as you know, not all spectrum is equal. there are particular slices that are more advantageous for people to have predicting a return on that, a return on that in auction. i would not have any idea what it would be. theyou do want to have financial resources on costs. david: and the broadcasters? do think the current amount available is sufficient? uh, icing with technology it is amazing how you can continue to use at have more applications and more spaces. idea of whatave no the future holds and what can be

used in the big slice of the spectrum available. pedro: we celebrated and anniversary of 9/11, a question to you about emergency communications and what is available for first responders to communicate during times of emergency. where are we? has it improved? rep. shimkus: i am pretty disappointed. i think and this whole process the financialhem resources through the auction and a slice and setting up commission -- we should be a lot further. i have always debated in this fight saying you do not ask tell -- putcators to put up out fires and we should not as firefighters to be telecommunication or's.

i am a big believer in the private sector. we thought there was a quick way to ramp up the communication sector in that model versus the model which is more of a government controlled model. we havethe frustration now is we are reaping what we tryingch is a government to develop a communication system and we should be a lot further. david: what can you a your colleagues do to make sure it gets done? rep. shimkus: now we have to kick of them and our rear end. theyconcerned that continue to move methodically. they will come back and say we need more money. i would like to go back to the drawing toward and that's probably not possible. they needed to find a way to reach out to the private sector and maybe bring them in and bid

on a more rapid ability to get toards where they need to be have our first line responders being able to communicate with each other. the story of september 11, tragedy, great articles written. i am afraid we are not a lot closer which is kind of the story of when government gets involved in trying to do things we do not have a love experience in. david: at what point do you go back to the drawing board? you say it is hard. in terms of money spent or time, when do you go back? rep. shimkus: when first responders said we are not getting close. they pushed us in the direction. if they feel they have ownership they are not willing to say, we need to go back to the drawing board. they would be the best ones to

help get it finished sooner rather then later. if not, there will be a time frame we will be so frustrated that maybe we will look at it as an the telecommunications subcommittee. david: do have a sense of what the timeframe would be? rep. shimkus: no. pedro: when chairman upton steps down, are you interested in that position and are you actively campaign? rep. shimkus: i am very much interested. actively campaigning? no, i have not talked to anyone or shown brochures or whatever. we have enough issues and the republican conference. everybody loves german often. we want to help him move his agenda. -- everybody loves chairman of 10. this environment is not the time to be moving in that direction. you all who follow us a you know the key players are and we will

try to keep doing our job. pedro: assuming you were chair, what would you actively campaign for and will you be covered -- passionate about under your leadership? a great and: exciting opportunity to try to bring competitive market forces and solving our nation's problems. whether in the energy field, how to continue to our baseline power and reliability while meeting these environmental standards that keep hurting? everyone should have some health care coverage. the problem with what we have now is it is expensive and we are paying more for less coverage. how do you free it up? funelecommunications, the is it moves so fast we can not regulated. all other new gadgets and equipment and really, i would like to save the fcc work with

us to try to deal with the communications act very the bureau system there no longer meets the modern technological age. if they joined us in trying to rewrite the telecommunications act, it would be a blast. david: why are you the man for this job? why should you be chair? rep. shimkus: i have been serving on a 4 of the subcommittees. i see people know i work hard. i am somewhat converse on the issues. i can be tell when i'd need to be tall. i can be bipartisan when we need. and the institution, as tough as it looks, it is tough to work in -- we can get things done. we passed the task of modernization act with one no vote with on a bill that had not been touched since 1976. pedro: representative john

shimkus, republican from illinois and serves on the energy and commerce committee. thank you for your time. rep. shimkus: thank you. pedro: they joined by david mccabe of "the heel." thank you. announcer: c-span, created by cable companies and brought as a public service by your >> this sunday night on q&a. gary hart. comparing our current government to the republic our founders can intended. >> they use the language of the ancient republics of greek and wrote -- greece and rome and warned against corruption. their definition was not bribery, it was putting special

interests ahead of the common good. by that definition, washington today is a massively corrupt place. >> sunday night at a eastern and specific on q&a. next on c-span, our new series landmark cases andores the human stories constitutional dramas behind some of the supreme court's most significant decisions. our first program focuses on marbury versus madison to establish the basis for judicial review. that is followed by today's rally on the national mall commemorating the 20th anniversary of the million man march area

>> landmark cases explores the human story and constitutional drop was behind historic decisions -- constitutional drama behind historic decisions. >> we are hearing roe against wade. >> the significant decisions are once that the court took unpopular positions. >> we will go through cases that illustrates what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who stick together because they believe in the rule of law. host: good evening and welcome to landmark cases.