populations, for example, there were population as a result of a functional, this is so functionally on the ground when you have significantly harsher congressional penalties against the historical backdrop that was laid out for us is suggests that initial transgression, what we might think of is that transgression really is the ending.of the discussion. the discussion is how we should think about that population and direct enforcement efforts. and how does it make sense to enforce law against that population, and that is a very different orientation toward the rights of those sorts of groups. i think one important lesson climb back to the question charles asked was that the 1965 immigration act occurred against this

backdrop of significant civil rights advancement in the united states including the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965, ten years on the heels of brown versus board of education. so, what is the lesson we can draw? one is that the immigration law for the future in our current push for comprehensive immigration reform should also take that frame of a civil rights legislation which is the civil rights project of our time and will continue to be as long as we do not -- as long as we avoid addressing this problem of illicit mess and reality. >> just a word or two to build on that. he has nicely framed this question of again. but, and i think it really

is the key, but in terms of if it's fair to call immigration law a civil rights issue, ii would argue absolutely, in light of the types of mechanisms that have been deployed by the state against foreign-born persons and there are clear parallels between the experience of african-americans, latinos, and other disadvantaged groups in the experience of foreign-born persons. i am not equating the experiences, norma say no legal frameworks are equivalent, but if you look at practices like racial profiling mass incarceration the same experience african-americans and others having been in some respects on foreign-born persons, especially latinos which is more than just a rhetorical connection.

there is a deeper connection in some ways that i think is worth exploring. it is the next civil rights movement. [inaudible question] >> wait for the mic please. >> i think we are changing the idea. racial profiling. and they are so mixed now. i mean,, the huge diversity of latinos command i love the millennial's. they are everything, you know, peruvian chinese mormon, my best friend. how do you racially profile in this incredibly -- this is a question affirmative action people are talking about. i am not sure the dynamic of the 60s, in some60s, in

some ways we are more like the 1920s than the 1960s the future income inequality , a fear of foreign invasion, tremendous difference in working conditions, and that was what drove a law,law, people wanted more border control, not us. that is what trump does -- that is what trump is touching on. there is not a big civil rights movement, like in the 60s. >> question. >> i am ross eisenberg, and i have a question because i am confused about 365 the ability or the status of people who came without authorization. reported, i no command for all kinds of reasons, and it seems being here without

authorization would have been one of those reasons, reasons, and i want to make a comment about family and one of the new civil rights which is how we treat lg bt people, this law, i think, allow require the exclusion of homosexuals , that was certainly what happened. and going forward one would hope that would not be the case and a new way of looking at family for immigration purposes take into account lg bt families. >> let me comment on that last point about the exclusions okay and lesbian from immigration law. 1965 that in place. classified people were lg bt qs having some type of medical condition that that

led to the bar from immigration law. so still fairly recent in our memory. as a result of the supreme court cases that invalidated delma, and both provisions. now they are able to bring in family members, so it is catching up. that part of the population is able to have that benefit immigration law. it is unclear to me right now the purposes of family what might be in terms of civil rights how we might be able to redefine family, civil rights perspective other than to think about the family structures we currently have in place today who are with respect to the 11 million undocumented immigrants, i think it is important for us to examine how the families

on the ground, the experience families, reformatting of the family -based immigration. >> if you want to take the unauthorized, the status of unauthorized people prior -- >> i will take a shot at it. it is a great question and then important thing to point out. certainly even in the late 1800s soon after the 1st provisions of the chinese exclusion act came provisions that were intended as a default proposition, the presence of people of asian descent in the united states immediately deportable. we get to the early 1900s,19 hundreds, as you suggest, significant, mass deportation, so it was not

uncommon in the late 1920s, early 1930s los angeles to see roundups of mexicans put on trains back into mexico. that is certainly true and did exist. the enforcement at that time , my understanding, one, it was haphazard and if you look at the early 2,000 workplace enforcement by the bush administration, high profile, intended to cause a lot of publicity, but in terms of actual effect on the broader population, obviously creates fear, but it was not a system of the highest form of enforcement. and similarly, i would argue, the 1930 roundups and messed up rotations operated in that way. but also, the scale of who we are talking about as the unauthorized population that could be targeted and

removed was simply not the scale we have today. right? we do not think about it in that way, and therefore is still fairly relatively open movement across the border. asas an example, when the program was operating and post- 1942, texas was initially excluded as a state thata state that could take bus service mostly because of a significant discriminatory actions that were happening in the state of texas against mexican workers,workers, and the mexican government simply refused to allow texas to initially participate. taxes than simply asked the border agents at the texas mexico border to allow free migration of people outside the program into taxes so that they could then use them as laborers, and that system continued for a significant amount of time.

certainly they were in the lower unauthorized anointment think of them today, but not necessarily subject to messed up rotations where the idea of enforcement that we would understand today. it is an excellent point, 1965 really changes the scope, volume, quality, and nature of illegality. i will end with, up until 1990 there were literally three crimes that could get you deported, that made one deportable united states. murder, rape, and i forget the other one,one, but 1990 is when the united states code starts to exponentially expand the number of crimes that can get you deported. by 1996, the love we have today, if you look at the part of the code that defines aggravated felonies, 101843, and now goes on for several pages. embezzlement, fraud, it just

continues, drug offenses. he fundamentally change the group against which said enforcement can be directed. >> let me ask one other thing. i think that it goes to roses initial.-- roses initial point, the history, your perspective is shaped the history. so from a latino civil rights perspective when asked what about the unauthorized prior to 1965, one might answer, 1st, it was not a large-scale problem in part because we did not enforce the law against europeans. so the vast majority of european immigrants who came legally, the old phrase was, you came with attack on. someone pay for your passage usually an employer from tucson.

given the majority of people came technically illegal. i believe it was not until the 1952 act as an automatic statute of limitations. anybody who came unauthorized domain the europeans automatically able to legalize without any action is line is they evaded detection from the law which was not significant. third, to the extent that there was major enforcement through these repatriation campaigns, which i would argue for highly racialized and they were not one. there were four.

millions were reported. largely without due process. >> next question. >> practicing immigration lawyer for the last four years or so to remember that

i think historically both european immigration and also mexican immigration, people came and went freely and therefore the concept of being here illegally was not as salient because you came here, worked for a while, and he worked for a while, you worked for a year, two years, six months, went back to your family, and it is with the 1965 act the start of that, especially now 1986 or 87 law that imposes draconian consequences on people who were here with the -- for a year without authorization which freezes everybody in place making the pool of unauthorized people greater and meaning you have to bring your family with you because you may never see them again. it seems to me that is in

the round of unintended consequences, and i wonder how lawmakers and policymakers can avoid this type of unintended consequence. >> i think she started to take a shot at that earlier. >> sure. you are raising an important point about the narrative they raise around immigration. the people are coming to the us want to remain your permanently which is simply not the case. before i began teaching i worked for a number of years working with a laborers. the common narrative is i'm not trying to live your permanently. as to be here for a couple of years, make a lot of ofmoney, and go back and make a nice house with my family. i think that to a large extent the immigration laws of fail, the, the

dichotomies approach, you are not here at all or are here forever failed to capture the ground. and i think there was a comment made earlier on globalization.globalization. we are seeing is by national existence, dual national identities which is another feature that we need to contemplate, people increasingly may want to have a binational existence, homes or connections in more than one country. dual citizenship is becoming increasingly common and flexible. so i absolutely do agree in terms of policy it is structured in this very black-and-white type of way. when you think creatively or kind expanding.

>> other questions? >> and one of the things that we need to bring dignity and respect to these people. fairness is in they're, too. but i was being fair to the american taxpayer we are placing a $10 billion demand a central services like health care education, the penal system, fire and police the taxpayer right now is being treated unfairly, and they should be in the equation.

>> there have been a series of national academy of sciences studies similar to the ones the people may have mentioned that suggested that in some end in total immigrants more than pay for themselves over the term. now, with specific groups and services and particularly at the state and local level, much of the tax revenue goes to the federal government or locality bears the burden of services. especially when taking demographics into account, younger immigrants, younger, poor immigrants tend to consume more and services than they pay in taxes, but the same is true of any younger, poorer population regardless of whether they are immigrants are not.

so ii do not deny your point that there are larger ramifications from immigration and that, you know, everyone affected, which is everyone ought to have a seat at the table and discussing how to resolve it, but i would resist the notion that immigrants are a net negative economically or with respect to specific government group. >> if i could add to what charles is saying, charles had pointed out that it is possible that there might be some effects at the state and local level which goes to a significant part of the empirical work, empirical research i conducted with my co-author from a book which is to ask a question when

you look at the restriction laws that were emerging at the state and local level thinking about as 1070, other places that were attempting to deny social services on the basis that immigrants are consuming a significant amount, whether or not it is true that any given locality did consume a significant amount of social services and tax money cannot let our empirical investigation revealed is that jurisdictions that tend to pass these restrictionist loss actually were not suffering from the social ills that they were arguing about an law. while the right the purpose statement, they suffered significant social service the thickets and that immigrants are changing the way in which they were providing the services and as an empirical matter, and the jurisdictions proposing, that is an unsupportable factual statement. they may have been jurisdictions, but that was

not the same jurisdictions that were passing restrictions of legislation. california house close to 3 million unlawfully present persons, one 3rd are roughly a quarter to a 3rd of the total unlawfully present population. california was passing the last immigration best social services laws including more currently laws directed at the healthcare of undocumented immigrants. i think there is -- there very well might be these fundamental effects. it does not show up in the policy proposals at those jurisdictions. >> a quick follow-up. you have referenced the program a few times, and it seems that is the model that has worked best. we could go back to something like that, and a

lot of the discussions of the civil rights and 7 percent from this country and 7 percent from that country, ii have talked to people on the hill but immigration reform commend you on the left he went full citizenship and if your on the right you want to support existing laws and support people, and there are bugs in the middle as well. we will be the left and the right in the middle to come together around something, and it should be practical and not something that is so burdensome that i would be interested in your thoughts on that. >> sure. no. please. i think your general point is very well taken. there has to be a political compromise. we need to contemplate the reality that there are mixed

status families. immigrants contribute expert take away ask really clear evidence around significant exportation. i won't get into the particulars. the idea of some type of temporary kind of keep beating the same come here. temporary visa program that this enables employers to take advantage of foreign-born workers to avail themselves, not take advantage of, to not -- in a non- exploitative way is really something we need to be thinking carefully about because in the existing program.

significant incentives multiple studies have been done. unfettered free employers coming in and with ellen tensioned but it lends itself to that. the bill had a proposal. the program is okay. we can criticize it and pick it apart, but as we move forward that was the result of a lot of compromise, afl, organized labor, the business, the business community, chamber of commerce, act secretary, we are all at the table. can be done again. >> we have come to the end of the session. think the panel of their extraordinary contributions not just here through their

book. thank you all for coming. [applause] >> in 1917, the u.s. entered high war i, patriotism was and some criticism of the government. andles shank ended out mailed leaflets against the draft. >> this was the flyer produced

by charles shank. 2000 copies were produced and the point was to encourage men not to register. the language is particularly fiery. he equates the description of slavery and calls all citizens reject the descriptions. >> the case want directly to the supreme court. find out how the case ruled. lude attorneyinc beverlyoldstein and gage. that was coming up on the next .andmark cases for background on each case, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book available

for $8.95 plus shipping. c-span, the best access to congress with live coverage of the house and senate. tweeted -- en from mitt romney -- amy job boat tweeted -- rb tweeted -- liam ross harold tweeted --

and shawna thomas tweeted -- the best access to congress is on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. go behind the hills by following our capital producer. on wednesday, the senate commerce, science, and transportation committee held a a nomination. this is about one hour 45 minutes. >> renomination hearing will

come to order. jessica asommission we consider her for a second term. this is the third time she has tested for the -- testified for the committee this year. serving as a 2012.sioner since may of before that, she was a senior staffer on this committee. she is well-known to many of us. on someerican relies part of the nations of that communication system. congress has charge of the fcc with regulating national communications. moreover, the mandate under the committee gave that is to make available all americans a rapid, efficient, nationwide and

worldwide our communication system is vital to the economy, so it's important that the fcc do so by promote economic growth, trust technological innovation, and work within the print work provided by congress to make world-class communication's available to all americans, both in rural and urban areas. significantly, the fcc voted along party lines to burden the internet with regulation in february this year. one of the most polarizing and partisan decisions in the agency's history. as a set of the time, the telecom industries agree on a few regulatory matters. one idea unified them for two decades, that the internet is not a telephone network, and one cannot apply the old rules of telecom to the new world of the internet. i believe there should be clear rules for the digital role and

clear authority for the fcc to enforce them. that's why i salt and am still seeking to work with colleagues on a bipartisan basis to find consensus to preserve the open internet. i will ask commissioner rosenworcel about this path forward. i want to bring up an anomaly in the fund rule that commissioner rosenworcel made commitment to me in march to fix by the end of this year. this anomaly includes a rural consumer to buy from a rural telecom company to be available for u.s. support. called --nal centers senators called on the fec to make this next. kofi commissioner -- i hope the commissioner rosenworcel can satisfy the commitment she and her colleagues made back in march. having said all this, i want to thank commissioner rosenworcel for her regular engagement with the community and your willingness to serve another term at the fcc. i look forward to her testimony

today. without, i will turn to our distinguished member today for senatoring remarks, schatz. an. schatz: this is outstanding fcc commissioner, commissioner rosenworcel. i want to congratulate you on your reappointment and thank you for your commitment to public service. since joining the commission in 2012, you have taken a thoughtful approach to issues, helping the commission take a light regulatory approach that encourages innovation, protects consumers, and promotes investment and competition. you have also been a leading advocate for kids. your focus on the homework gap has allowed us to think everything about connectivity and to ensure that the children have access to the tools that they need to succeed in the digital age.

finally, when he testified a few months ago in front of this committee, you proposed many innovative spectrum policy ideas to address the growing demand for wireless broadband. your ideas of help to shape the upcoming incentive auction, and will help frame the fcc's future work promote wireless service and enabled the internet of things. with the pace of technological change, and the growth in demand for a variety of new communications tools and services, the fcc must be agile within the policy framework established by the congress. commissioner rosenworcel, you have demonstrated that agility, and we are grateful for your service on the commission. thank you for appearing before us here today and i look forward to your testimony. mr. chairman, i hope we can act quickly to confirm the commissioners nomination for another term. >> thank you senator schatz. i want to turn to our colleague on the committee, senator blumenthal. sen. blumenthal: thank you for

this opportunity to introduce a friend, and i count her as a colleague, but most important, a fellow connecticut native. mr. rosenworcel hails from connecticut, and it's a great honor and privilege to welcome here today. i want to thank her particularly for her very diligent and dedicated work on behalf of a wide variety of issues with people who are important to this committee, this congress, and the american people. emergency responders, our schools, everyday consumers have been heard. i want to thank her for joining me in connecticut to highlight the importance of avoiding cramming charges. and seven months later, joining me to urge that telephone companies offer consumers the tools to block robo calls. those are just 2 examples of how

she has helped consumers and the people of connecticut and our country. as a tireless advocate for public safety officials, helping update the fcc's 9/11 rules to keep communities safe and protected. for children, as my colleague, senator schatz mentioned, you have been a steadfast advocate and in fact, the leading thinker at the fcc on creative ways to update the spectrum policy for both licensed and unlicensed youth. i join in urging your swift confirmation. i will be working hard on your behalf. i am honored to introduce you to the committee today. thank you. >> thank you senator blumenthal. we turn now to commissioner rosenworcel. welcome back to the committee. i look forward to hearing what you have to say today. comm. rosenworcel: thank you. good morning, chairman thune,

members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today for my renomination at the commissioner at the federal communications commission. i joined the commission a little over three years ago, and for 5 years before that, i had the honor of serving this committee as senior communications counsel. as a senator thune noted, i worked for senator rockefeller and have the privilege of assisting many of you who continue to serve on the committee today. as a result, i am well acquainted with this room and the deliberations of this body. but i can assure you that sitting at the table is humbling. i want to start

frances, age eight, and ended joseph, age five. --and it -- emmitt joseph, age five. they are our sweetest joy. even though they are not here today, i would like to thank my parents who are in connecticut. also my brother, ryan rosenworcel who is touring the country as a drummer. my parents have the unique ability to claim they have children as a rocker and a regulator. we are in the early days of the communications revolution. network technologies are reaching further and faster in all aspects of our civic and commercial life. they are transforming the ways we connect, create, employee, educate, entertain, and govern ourselves. for the commission, all of this change means civility is required. it also means we must recognize what is time-tested and enduring. that is why i believe the work of the commission must be guided

by 4 essential values that have informed our communications laws for decades. first, public safety. our networks must be available when it the unthinkable occurs, and we need the most. second, universal access. no matter who you are or where you live in this country, for a fair shot in 21st century prosperity, you need access to first-rate modern communications. third, competition. competition increases innovation and lowers prices. fourth, consumer protections. communications services are multiplying, but the marketplace is also belittling to navigate. -- bewildering to navigate. we must be on guard to help consumers make good choices.

these values derived from the law, and have informed my work at the commission to date. in light of them, i am especially proud of agency efforts to strengthen 911 service, and i am proud of our work to increase access to broadband and enhance opportunities for digital age education. i also believe our spectrum policies for licensed and unlicensed airwaves have made our wireless markets competitive, innovative, and strong. moreover, our spectrum options have raised billions for the united states treasury. i'm also aware there is more work to be done to bring indications policy into the future. that includes supporting the worlds first spectrum incentive option, managing the impact of this transition on our nation's local broadcasters, and building on our wireless success as the next generation of mobile service, known as 5g. it requires new ideas to spur competition, spark

entrepreneurship, incentivize the deployment of new networks, and help bring the benefit of the communications evolution to everyone everywhere across the country. if we confirmed, i look forward to working on these tasks with my skilled staff in the agency. if to be confirmed, i will be guided by these fundamental values and law. and if we can from, i will respect the priorities of this committee. i pledge to continue to listen to you, those with business before the commission, and above all, the american people. in closing, let me thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear here and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you commissioner. we will go with five-minute rounds. i will start by asking a question as you might expect, about universal service fund rules, which currently require a rural consumer to buy a voice service from a small rural telephone company to be eligible for u.s. and support.same

rural consumer decides to buy broadband only without a telephone subsection, the carrier is no longer eligible to receive support for the subscriber's line. this outcome stands in direct contradiction to a broadband focused universal service fund. you and all of your colleagues on the commission made it manages the committee to solve this growing threat to rural indications by the end of this year. since then, it's my understanding that each are in wheeler has chosen to broaden his scope to include updates to legacy usm models and support systems. while i'm not opposed to this action, i do want -- i should say, i do not want a solution to be subsumed by the weight of a larger effort that may not come together. my question is, do you believe the commission will be able to keep its commitment to the committee that it will fix the standalone rubbing the problem reaffirm, and will you your commitment to working towards that goal? comm. rosenworcel: yes, senator.

we need to fix the problem with standalone broadband for some of our rural carriers. through our techno-illegal work, we only offer universal service support its customers order both voice and broadband service. that does not reflect communications and it is time for us to fix it. if reconfirmed, i will press my colleagues to get this done. like you, i would like is done by the end of the year. >> i hope you will make that goal and deadline. it's important to a lot of us here on the committee and across the country. you serve as chair of the joint aboard on universal service. last year, the commission asked the joint aboard to provide recommendations by april 2015 to assess universal service programs. for nearly seven months, now passed that deadline, the joint board has yet to act. why has the joint board failed to make a recommendation? you are rightcel:

that i served as chair of the joint board. in the february open internet decision, the commission extended the referrals to the joint board. as you probably know, under section 254 of the law, assessment for universal service is on the basis of interstate telecommunication services. we are charged with making sure that that fund has specific predictable and sufficient support. the joint board is tasked with trying to figure out how to update. pork mechanism -- not support mechanism, but the underlying terminology is now the subject of litigation in the court of appeals. the commission decided that it would defer decision-making until the legal environment is more stable. sen. thune: are you concerned

that litigation will not stay fully intact? comm. rosenworcel: i have no crystal ball when it comes to the decisions of the d.c. circuit. given that we are resource constrained, it would not be smart or prudent for the agency for our state colleagues to work on this matter until we have greater legal certainty. sen. thune: if you are comfortable that the order is lawful, it's ironic that you would be concerned that it won't be upheld in court. lawful that the order is in your opinion. it does not seem like the litigation ought to be used as an excuse to delay an important service education reform. -- contribution reform. i would ask why the litigation should, if in your judgment the commission acted in a lawful way consistently, the statutes -- why you would not want to proceed with this process. comm. rosenworcel: i think we could continue to have conversations about it. but i would like us to produce a

decision that we have confidence, something that the agency can take up and vote on at some point in the future. we want to be certain that the statutory terminology is not evolving, but it's sufficiently stable to support decision-making. sen. thune: have you given your views about the title 2 order delaying this process? considering asking congress for guidance on offering recommendations? congress might point to a way of resolving potential questions of commission authority regarding universal service contributions. comm. rosenworcel: thank you senator. that is a good point. the universal service program we have is in large part of creation of this committee back in the 1996 television occasions act. -- 1996 telecommunications act. any guidance in respect to both conservations and distribution would be absolutely welcome. sen. thune: we would welcome

your looking to us for that direction as well. and perhaps giving us your thoughts about that. i want to ask one final question. something a lot of consumer groups and rural customers continue to report with problems, receiving long-distance calls on the home telephones. to address a lot of these problems, as you know, the fcc adopted new rules in november that were designed to improve the fcc's ability to monitor delivery of long-term called to rural areas in aid of prosecutions of the communications act. we are well into that, and i'm wondering with these call completion rules that have been in place for some time, what is the fcc discovered in monitoring the monitoring -- monitoring these calls? comm. rosenworcel: rural call completion has unfortunately been a big problem. it's distressing to know that people will reject her friends and family in rural areas to

make a business connection, or worse, reach out for a safety call and find out that the call does not go through. the agency has issued a declaratory ruling to make sure that failed to complete these calls is a violation of the law. it's also gone after bad actors. as you knowledge, the most important thing is that we updated our data collection so that carriers have a responsibility to report to us on these matters. our hope is that with more data and more reports, we will be able to track failures to complete calls and go after bad actors more aggressively. the first filing with that new data collection were just made. we are reviewing them right now. i hope that we can identify some patterns over time, figure out where the problem is, and that we will have the record to bring this to stop. sen. thune: senator schatz. hatz: thank you, 50 megahertz of federal spectrum to be made available for commercial

use. by some accounts, that is 1/10th of what the private sector will need. this is a good start, but i'm wondering about what more the commission can do, what more the congress can do to free up more spectrum and possibly generate more revenue for the treasury. the wirelessrcel: economy is growing fast. we all know that intuitively. given how often we reach for our phones and mobile devices. we have so much more activity on our airwaves. if we want that growth can continue, we need more spectrum for it to do so. the 30 megahertz in the most recent budget deal is a start. what really need is a steady spectrum pipeline that provides us with airwaves for licensed and unlicensed services to make sure that the wireless economy continues to grow. sen. schatz: thank you. i want to talk about the homework cap. i know you are passionate about it. describe it in simple terms as

you possibly can on a human level, if you would not mind. then talk about what the fcc is doing, can be doing, and what the committee could be doing to address this. --ind it, frankly, chuckling shocking that in the private and public school system, assigning homework that depends on the internet and not providing internet access to enable kids to do their homework. comm. rosenworcel: thank you. when i was growing up, when i wanted to do my homework, it required paper, a pencil, and my brother leaving me alone. not,, more often than requires the internet. there are studies that suggest seven in 10 teachers assign homework that now requires access. data from the fcc suggests that 1 in 3 households do not have that access. the pew internet and american life survey found there are 5 million households of

school-aged children in this country that do not have internet access. just imagine what it is like to be a kid one of those households. there are programs that support low income less any. we can clear more of our skies for wi-fi services, which is an easy way to get more people online. we should support public and private sector private partnerships to get power into student's hands at home. schatz: what is happening between the fcc and the fsdoe to make sure that these are connected? comm. rosenworcel: there is a connect ed and connect home initiative. connect ed is an effort to

design and support connectivity in schools, connect home is an effort that is designed to support them at home, particularly in low income housing developments. that is a start. it doesn't cover everything. there is no one single silver bullet that will solve this problem. it is a new element of the digital platform we should all be on guard for for ways to solve and fix. sen. schatz: you should be relentless on this. thank you. >> when your brother got out of the way when you told him to, i hope he is doing well also. let's talk about universal service fund. it's wireless component, the mobility fund, as those relate to rural america and specifically, precision agriculture. representative from a john deere testified before the committee

about precision agriculture technology. he said deere supports retention and even expansion of fcc's mobility fund. in your judgment, is the existing rural wireless coverage at risk of being stalled or even reduced without continued usf support? comm. rosenworcel: yes. sen. wicker: what needs to be done in respect to that? comm. rosenworcel: the fcc has proceed with the first element of its mobility fund. made available roughly $300 million in that font to support deployment in rule areas. but we need to move on to the second phase of the fund. when i like that second phase to do is focus with laserlike accuracy on areas of the country, rural areas, that did not have service. we know that areas and have

better broadband and wireless service are better equipped to compete. that is true for urban and rural america alike. sen. wicker: i think you used that very term laserlike focus earlier this year when he appeared before this panel to talk about spectrum and wireless broadband. nowis that issue proceeding among the five members of the commission? what concrete steps should look commission take in mobility fund to preserve existing levels of wireless coverage? what concrete steps should the commission take in areas such as remote patient monitoring, which is a huge concern of mine, precision agriculture, and public safety. and what should congress do? what can congress do? comm. rosenworcel: the examples

you just gave or how it useful wireless is in every aspect of our lives. from the patient monitoring, he can help with health care, particularly elderly or those in rural areas where traveling to a clinic takes a long time. monitoring at home is cost-effective. sen. wicker: we can even monitor in ambulances now, do we not? comm. rosenworcel: agriculture too. underappreciated how much wireless technology is to support our nations farms. and of course public safety. when you contemplate the breadth of what wireless services can do, we need to make sure the second phase of the mobility fund moves ahead and focuses on the elements we can provide rural america. we should find -- make sure we put the remainder of our universal service work on a timeline that we can commit to you we will have a second phase of the mobility fund in place in short order. sen. wicker: how that debate

preceding among the five members, in your judgment? comm. rosenworcel: in my candidate judgment, we have some differences of opinion on that. i would like, however, for us to be committed in 2011 coming a second phase of the mobility fund. i like to see us put it in place as soon as we can. when theer: i wonder commission might be moving toward a consensus on that question. comm. rosenworcel: i can tell you senator, i will press my colleagues to work to consensus on that. i think it's important to do so. sen. wicker: and regulations as to what congress can do to encourage more rural broadband? comm. rosenworcel: there is legislation before this committee from senator klobuchar and senator fisher. the rural wireless accessibility act. in fact, it recommends that in areas of the country where large carriers might own licenses to

the point that are not deploying -- to deploy, that are not deploying, that they released to rural communities. to make them more inclined to do that, it gives license extension. i think that incentive-based system is a way to push secondary markets to work well and better serve rural america. sen. wicker: you are endorsing the fisher klobuchar bill? comm. rosenworcel: i think they will want me to say yes. the fundamental idea is spot on and can be particularly helpful for rural communities. >> senator markey. sen. markey: thank you very much. big decision earlier this year at the fcc. i appreciate the fact that your decision on it net neutrality title 2 is in the courts. i also believe that the construct that we have today, under your new regulation is the

correct one. it's a good balance between the broadband companies on the one hand, and on the other hand, you have all these startups. software internet specific companies all across the country. all of these smart, smart young people who are listening to dust or right now, who make the difference and the change in our society. they are drawing 65% of all venture capital in america, it's going to software. it's a good balance. that's the change in our society. i wanted to conflict you on that. there is a hypermobility of that decision being upheld. -- i wanted to complement you on that. i would like to turn, if i could, to a decision a year ago, which was to increase the contribution that is inside of

the e-rate, the education rate, to make sure that we are wiring schools, the libraries, that we give young people in our country the access to the technology which they need in order to compete. we've got wifi in starbucks, and people go in there, and it's a constitutional right to go to starbucks and use their wi-fi. but not so much in schools were classrooms. a kid is not automatically guaranteed that that is the case. you talked about the kids that don't have the internet even at home. i guess that is what i would like you to elaborate more on. when i was a kid, but if i took my book some, i could compete with the school superintendent's son. era, the school

superintendent's son has access to all these incredible technologies, the poor are not likely to have it in a way that would let you compete in a way that businesses and schools are going to be looking. that is a big divide that continues to be out there. you really lead the charge to increase it to $3.4 billion a year. wi-fi is a big part of that. can you elaborate on how that is unfolding and what the fcc is doing to monitor it? comm. rosenworcel: thank you senator. you rated the nations largest education technology program. when i got to the fcc, what i found was it was frozen in the era of dial-up. when you think about that, that makes no sense. we know that half the jobs today require some level of digital go. by the end of the decade, it's going to be 77%.

every student in every school has the ability to participate in the economy. sen. markey: this is put in place just as the 1996 act was passed. not one home had broadband internet era. senator rockefeller and i created that program back then. 38 billion 36, dollars. but the modernization has to continue. if you could elaborate a little bit more how you see wi-fi, specifically as a technology, unfolding. and it's role to give the kids the tools that they need. comm. rosenworcel: it's so important. it used to be that students would march down a hall once a week to a computer lab, where

people can you couldn't was that came and showed up in shrink-wrapped packages. that's no longer the way it is today. we need schools that are capable of one to one device learning. that requires wi-fi. one of the best things about what we did was we updated what is known as category 2 in the e rate program to make sure that wi-fi support is available for schools. many more schools will get more support from this program to not only get broadband to the front door, but to move it around the school and to every classroom. sen. markey: in december we celebrate the first anniversary of that change in the law. you were a real driving force. i want to congratulate you on what you have done for the children of our country. it's a great accompaniment. point--ne: senator blunt: thank you for your work on the spectrum auction that comes up next year. it looks like many as 1000 local

broadcast stations will have to move where they are to somewhere new. and that's going to cost twice as much as the estimate of what it would cost -- i think it comes out of the proceeds of the auction. you can correct me if i'm wrong on that. what kind of preparations are you making at the fcc for 1000 stations to have to find a new place to be and for that cost to be twice as high as you initially thought? comm. rosenworcel: thank you senator. we have a big auction coming up next year. the first spectrum incentive auction. that will put more mobile broadband into commercial carrier's hands. we will make more unlicensed opportunities available. it will give broadcasters the opportunity to be paid by getting out of the business of broadcasting, or continue to stay in inside segment. someone needs to relocate their stations. i can't tell you if the number you have is correct. until we are in the middle of the auction, i don't think we

will know how many stations to relocate. of the middle class tax relief and job creation act, covers set billion from the auction proceeds to assist those stations with relocation. it's important that we make sure that those funds are ample. every station being relocated should have the ability to access those funds. , the money that we have is adequate. but we should stay on guard. if we find out that it is not, we will have to come back to congress and ask for your assistance. blunt: on that 1000 number, do you have an estimate? surely there is an estimate on to how many stations will take relocation as opposed to the go out of business option. comm. rosenworcel: we don't have a specific estimate. i think that is because we won't have one until closer to the date of the auction. we are certainly socializing these opportunities with broadcasters all across the country.

we are fighting some are interested in some are not. we won't ultimately know until we start he forward auction. when we have-- sen. blunt: at some point, if you don't believe you have enough money to make those relocations work, what will you do? comm. rosenworcel: if we determine that we do not have enough funds, the first thing we should do is come to this committee and congress. i think broadcasters should not be unduly charged for having to manage this spectrum of relocation. sen. blunt: on one other topic. nobody has ever been on the commission who understands this committee better than you do, who went to the commission with a better relationships than you do. then, and again today, you promised to work with the committee to get back to the committee promptly. i know there are at least two occasions where i was part of a

group that contacted the commission. you, as a number of the commission, not just you individually -- many, including senator wicker, by my side, the ranking republican of the communications subcommittee, expressing strong concerns about the fcc's upcoming vote on retroactively changing their mind on joint sales agreements. another, senator thune and i and others have contacted the commission on our concern that thehould not tyr try to apply 2ti-monopoly title regulations to the broadband marketplace. neither of those letters had a response. not even a response. not even a, we got your letter and we are going to respond.

do these go to the commission and collectively you and the chairman decided were not going to answer? how does that work and how do you think it should work? comm. rosenworcel: senator, i apologize if you did not get an official response to those letters. most of them do effect to determine's office. -- to the most of them go to the chairman's office. it's important to work this committee. you were folks that created the law and the agency.i want to make sure our relationships are improved and that we are more responsive. blunt: maybe in the future i will make sure that you are copied in. if he goes to the chairman's office and he is not responding, i will talk to chairman wheeler about that the next time i see him. i personally talked to him about both of these letters. he was not particularly responsive, even in person, with the views that the congress had on these issues. thank you. thune: thank you senator,

senator young. sen. young: i wanted to ask about the e rate program. in states like new hampshire, we have many rural areas. we have been left behind on this program i think. looking at a history in new hampshire, we have been 50 out of for many years. in 2014, we moved up a little bit, but unfortunately we are still at the bottom. we are a net donor state. my constituents are paying into this, but not getting back in the full value of their dollar, but he diminished value. we have talked about increasing the cap to $1.5 billion on e rates. what are we going to do to address adequate distribution of e rates?

your role at the fcc, we cannot leave rural students behind in all of this. i would like to get your impressions on that. in turn with it, one of the issues that i see is prioritizing instructional facilities like schools and libraries. administrative offices are eligible. priorities,he direct student services, while i don't diminish the role of administrators, let's get it directly to those interactions with the students. can you give me some impressions on what we will do on distribution, what do you more efficiently with this program? i will ask the second question that is related. one of the big complaint i get from mike -- from my constituents why more are not replying for e rate dollars.

there are six forms. we don't have an army of new people in new hampshire to be able to -- we cannot hire all of these people to put this application in. maybe larger school districts can do that. we needed to signify this application. -- simplify this application. i reached out to schools and libraries, how can we get more access to our students, get more of these dollars to you? i want to hear more about distribution. how do we directed better? and how can we get this down to a simple fight application so that we don't disadvantage smaller states and rural areas based on bureaucracy? comm. rosenworcel: thank you senator. those are good points. you might be surprised i agree with all that you said. as a new englander, i realize there are parts of the answer that are very rural and have not been the beneficiary of many of our programs. that is why the reform of the e rate program is so substantial. by reforming the category 2

services, we are making wi-fi more available in more schools. new hampshire is among them. for the first time, new hampshire as estate has been eligible for that support. we're going to find that more funds are going to float to rural communities for wi-fi support, which i think is terrific and helpful. i take your point that schools and libraries and student centered activities should be the focus. i would happy to follow up on the concern about ministry to offices. -- administrative offices. sen. ayotte: we should prioritize that to be the last priority. we should look to students first. comm. rosenworcel: that is it a point. i don't know enough today to get back to you on that. -- that is a fair point. about streamlining applications. i have spoken to lots of schools and groups across the country, state technology directors. they all say the same thing. we streamlined the application in our reforms last year, but i will be the first to tell you it

is not enough. it is a continuous process. we need to have our your to the ground and listen to the schools that apply for these services and find out what kind of bureaucratic impediments make this harder for them to do so. we have made improvements. but i think we can do more. sen. ayotte: i'm glad to hear you say will make this a priority.for my state , it is so critical. briefly on follow up the issue of the open internet order. one of things that in my view is lacking in it was this idea of an independent cost-benefit analysis. the minority members had called for an independent cost analysis. ssion's directive to act in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, this

is important for the commission to include an independent cost-benefit analysis to ensure that it meets the public interest, which is your broader purpose? comm. rosenworcel: the president had the mexican border in 2001 -- had an executive order in to include these cost-benefit analyses. i support that. i take your point that that should be a point of our analysis going forward. i can commit to doing that for you. thank you. sen. thune: thank you senator ayotte, senator fisher. sen. fisher: you talked about more unlicensed spectrum for wi-fi, highlighting your concerns with how the cbo has highlighted this licensed over

the unlicensed. what are the applications of releasing more spectrum for the unlicensed use? comm. rosenworcel: unlicensed spectrum is incredibly important for our economy. think of it like wi-fi, but the market ties internet access. -- a democratized internet access. even our license carriers reliant when they offload service onto what. we need more licensed spectrum committed to commercial use. the challenges that the congressional budget office takes spectrum policy and rains it through an analysis -- and grinds it through an analysis that produces results that are at odds with the interception goals of the committee and the congress. one challenges is that cbo prefers licensed to unlicensed, because license raise resonate -- raises revenue.

unlicensed revenue is the source of so many activity. $40 billion every year. it is my hope that going forward, spectrum legislation would follow the pattern that congress created in the middle class tax relief and job creation act when it's inside the guard bans and at 600 megahertz band on unlicensed service. every time that there is a instruction to unlicensed airwaves, there is a cut for a wi-fi dividend. if we get the right makes of license and unlicensed -- right mix of licensed and unlicensed services, our economy is really going to grow. sen. fisher: legislatively, you propose that we be clear moving forward? comm. rosenworcel: yes. sen. fisher: thank you. i march, the senate passed bipartisan bill on the internet of things. it stressed the importance of developing a national strategy

so that we can encourage the internet of things. as the resolution states, innovation is the key to the united states remaining a world leader in technology. however, to move forward with these creative ideas, i think we have to have some clear rules and some clear expectations. i am concerned that the proposed net neutrality rules moves in less than market driven direction. what can the fcc do to foster innovation so that the u.s. continues to be a world leader in technology and also in telecommunications? comm. rosenworcel: thank you. the internet of things is exciting. by the end of the decade, we could have as many as 60 billion devices with wireless sensors, making us more efficient and effective in everything that we do. we will have people talking to people, talking to machines, machines talking to machines.

the possibilities are big. i think there are four fundamental policy areas in the internet of things. not all of which fall under the fcc's jurisdiction. but we have to be concerned about security. we should be concerned about privacy. we should be concerned about the adequacy of ip addresses for all of those devices. and concerned about spectrum. back to your prior question, making more unlicensed spectrum can help the internet of things flourish. sen. fisher: do you think that will be the main thing that the fcc can do, to maybe step back and offer more encouragement in many of those areas? comm. rosenworcel: yes. i don't think we should be overly aggressive at this point. we should allow experimentation with the internet of things. i think that is how we will see possibilities grow. sen. fisher: thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. good to see you here today

commissioner. good to see your family here as well. caroline frances, one of my favorite girls name. joseph, that is a sharp looking type you are wearing as well. [laughter] thanks for coming to montana last month to dissipate in the telehealth workshop, where i'm sure you saw firsthand the opportunities that technology truly can bring to rural america. in your statement to the committee, you mentioned one of your top priorities is securing access to medication services -- to communication services for all people, no matter where they live. i cannot agree more. access to technology is allowing us to remove geography as a constraint, and allows montanans to start and grow world-class companies. we still have a lot of work to do, a lot of issues to overcome's to connect our unserved communities. the ffc plays a big role in

that. the medications act tasks the fcc with providing services to rural consumers that are comparable to services in urban areas. some areas of the country are about to get 5g service. in many areas in montana, they don't know what "g" is. we never see "g" anything. can we really say that this is comparable service? comm. rosenworcel: thank you, senator, for the question. thank you for acknowledging my family. i think we got homework to do. you can travel in rural montana and know that connectivity is not everywhere. we are continually adjusting, tweaking, and evolving our universal service policies to make sure that we reach those areas with more precision. that's not something we can do at one time. we have to be constantly working to identify those areas that do not have service and making sure we direct to those areas. -- direct funds to those areas. >> what is the fcc doing to

incentivize rural states to go to comparable levels? it comes down to incentives. comm. rosenworcel: its importance that we use license terms as an incentive. license terms should be longer if you meet intermediate buildout requirements. they should consider buildout requirements that are specific to rural areas. we should also about how, during our options, we auction off licenses that small carriers can compete. finally, in redoing our rules recently, we created new bidding credits. i think the mix of policies like that and incentives built into them, we have a chance of providing better service. >> you brought up the issue of spectrum. we have plenty of spectrum in montana. the problem is deployment. we have companies in montana who wants to build out infrastructure, but the spectrum they need is owned by companies that are not using it.

i like to get your thoughts on ways on companies that have spectrum in rural areas to build ?ut, or at least lease comm. rosenworcel: i think large companies that have spectrum licenses in rural areas should be given an incentive to lease to companies that are willing to do so. that incentive could be extension of their underlying license. determine how the fcc finds the buildout requirements. montana, astate like company could beat its buildout requirement by only serving 2-3 small communities but still leave some you percent of the state's population -- still leave 70% of the state's population unserved. comm. rosenworcel: traditionally

i believe most of the buildout requirements of in a population, which means in a vast state like montana, you could service a handful of towns and succeed in reaching that milestone. i think the question is, to me, with the system -- can we come up with a system that is more geographic-based to put service in more places. people travel through those places to get to work. sen. daines: we had a bow hunter attacked by a grizzly bear. i met him last week. an amazing story of survival. it was the cell phone that probably saved his life. he was in a pretty remote area. he could get a signal and get help. it probably saved the young man's life. last question, universal service. many countries in canada rely on universal service funds. -- many current -- many communities in montana rely on it universal service funds. was the fcc doing to make sure

tot usf funds are made unserved amenities rather than those that are have access? -- unserved communities rather than at those that already have access? would beenworcel: we wasteful if we choose to continue to allow those funds where the private sector has already supplied broadband services. we are making efforts with our new connect america fund to make sure that if there is a private sector supplier, we no longer provide funding to those areas. we have to continue to work on that. so, because our funds are not infinite. sen. daines: i could not agree more. thank you. sen. thune: thank you senator daines. and a reminder to check your cell service before you move into their territory. -- bear territory.

[laughter] senator mccaskill. caskill: later there was talk about finds against those who have abused the program. as you know, this is an area of great interest for me for many years, trying to get out the waste and abuse and fraud inherently embedded in that program because the lack of planning. when it began, i might note, during the bush administration. so i thought it was great when more than $94 million in fines was announced. i thought we were making progress. i am beyond confused as to why not one dime of that has been collected. i look at the list of the people that own money on these finds. one of them is tack ph -- track phone. they are getting a big check from us every month.

i believe all these people that out millions of dollars are still part of the program. -- that owe millions of dollars. i think it's important, and i mean like now, that i get some kind of important answer from the commission why not one dime -- we might as well have a big sign that says "doesn't matter, do whatever you want in a lifeline program because we won't bother to collect money." do you have any exclusion as to why none of these fines have been collected? comm. rosenworcel: senator, i agree with you that sounds problem medic. $100 million in fines for bad ac tors who hadvve played fast and loose with this program. we have to make sure they are paying up, and if they are defrauding the program, they should have no reason to participate. i agree with you. on the specifics of the payment schedule, i would have to get back to you on. caskill: there is no

payment schedule because there has been no payment. or fines levied in 2014. do you have the tools to come off as a the program until they pay the fines? i see no reason why they should be allowed to participate until they pay. comm. rosenworcel: we do have a debarment program and apply that. the challenge is that we don't want to cut off underlying consumers. me, mccaskill: believe there are plenty to pick them up.they are soliciting on folks for every street corner. it is not hard to get a lifeline phone. it is not a difficult challenge. believe me, everybody who has them knows how to get them. i am not as worried about that, about them getting getting cut off. but we should give them notice or direct them to a different carrier, which should not be that hard if we're keeping the records. comm. rosenworcel: that's executive talking about. we just need to get them noticed. -- that is exactly what i'm talking about. so that they are not caught up from basic service.

sen. mccaskill: i will be close attention to see if money comes in on that. i was confused when i look at the budget deal. i know how this permission got in there. -- how this provision got in there. i think it's a bad idea that we put something in this deal that will allow the government to participate in robo calls to collect debt. when i look at the backup for this, for the changes in direct spending and outweighs, cbo doesn't even say we are going to be getting money from it. i am against that provision. i will probably vote for the deal because i can't see jettisoning this important compromise is about. but you will have the power to issue regulations within nine months dictating the pregnancy and duration of such calls. i have a hard time imagining if someone has debt collectors coming after them, i have a hard

time imagining that robo calls are very effective. i don't think robo calls are effective for anything, including politics. but i am pretty sure if you owe money to people, including the federal government, you are not paying much attention to robo calls. i would like to see aggressive regulations about this if it does become law about how frequent these calls can be in the duration of these calls. i think this is a stupid idea. robo calls, -- we should be getting rid of them, not empowering the federal government to make them. i would like feedback on the regulations you could put in place if we go down this, i think, nutty path. comm. rosenworcel: like you, i detest robo calls, and i know i am not alone. sen. mccaskill: america detests robo calls. comm. rosenworcel: it is the largest category of complaints every year that the fcc gets. i am proud of the work the aims

he has done to try and improve the possibilities of do not disturb technology, giving consumers the right to revoke consent. when and if we have to proceed with legislation you just described, we would be perfect health to work with their offices to make sure american consumers get those. mcaskill: i would like a rule that you can only make one robo call per year. thune: that provision has been proposed in the previous years.that has been on the table in current discussions as well. thank you senator mccaskill. next up is senator blumenthal. sen. blumenthal: i strongly agree with senator mccaskill. she and i have discussed hers

and mine at length. i know that you agree that consumer complaints about these intrusive invasive practices are very well justified. consumers union conservatively estimates the hundred $50 million are lost annually --$350 million our last annually to phone scams, generally the result of them of robo calls. the good news is that advanced technology is available and affordable to stop these very intrusive and invasive machine driven calls. telephone companies ought to make blocking options available right away. even in advance of the rule, cell phone committees have the ability to offer that service. i agree with senator mccaskill inadvisability about the suggestion made in the budget agreement. more broadly, i would like to

ask what the next steps are that you would view as most likely and most achievable to address this s hon. rosenworcel: thank you senator. like most people, i'm not a fan, and i want to make sure that most -- more people do not hear her voice. i know that one of the things that we did this past summer was we made very clear that it is permissible for telecommunications providers to offer do not disturb technology. technology that helps block robo calls. we recognize that the do not call list itself is far from foolproof, so we are looking for technological solutions area --. the fcc will be issuing information about the complaints under the telephone consumer protection act.

it is our hope that by putting more data out there, we will get more innovators to create more technologies that could be easily adopted by telecom providers, and also ultimately available to them at no cost. senator: i want to use my time and talk a little bit about cramming. that is the and scrupulous practice by phone companies and wireless carriers to allow to placementeople monday charges without authorization or knowledge of the consumer. often, without consumers receiving anything in return for those charges. our report, and the committee, down to that wireline and wireless cramming was a serious issue which caused as much as $2 billion a year in fraud. i will not belabor all of the details. clearrriers must provide and conspicuous disclosures of

any third party charges and must give consumers the option of blocking all third-party charges and other commitments. my question to you is, what can we do to guarantee the future fairness of wireless market for consumers and prevent harm to consumers in the future, not just after-the-fact? hon. rosenworcel: i'm familiar with support you described. 15-20,000,000 consumers a year find that they get saddled with these on their wi-lan bills that get to around two been dollars. in the aftermath of that, the fcc put rules in place. that fraud my graded to wireless bills. what we saw during the last year, was settlements with the four major wireless providers between $400 million. that sent money back to the attorney general and the states. it also sends money to the treasury for a penalty.

the bulk of those funds are for refunds for consumers. and that is a good thing. but if you really think about it, we should not be fixing this problem after-the-fact. we should be making sure does not occur in the first place. i think it would be smart to have rulemaking, take what we know from the settlement, and make sure that those kinds of scams and fees do not show up on your wireless bills from the very start. senator: i agree. one must question. have all the refunds been completed and are there additional settlements that you anticipate? hon. rosenworcel: i don't know the answer to that right now senator, but i would be happy to get back to you. senator: thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator heller. new jersey, nevada, -- first of all, it is great to see you. incredible to see her family. this is probably the most born

experience for your kids, and their the most well behaved kids possible. my parents have a saying that behind every successful child is an astonished parent, but they already astonish me, so it is incredible to see them. weust want to real quick -- were introduced to the committee broadband act, having been a former mayor, seeing things going on in my city now, the innovations and such, i was happy that the fcc granted petitions to north carolina and tennessee, and i'm just wondering, for your opinion, do you agree that the community act is necessary, and how do you see visible broadband playing into a larger effort into helping communities who are struggling to find affordable and accessible and reliable broadband? hon. rosenworcel: thank you for knowledge you my kids like that. now that we have, they may start to misbehave. comeorebears used to together in communities and build barns together and bridges. this is how we brought

electricity to our nation's farms. when communities found that the market size is not delivering for them, they got together and did it themselves and that is fundamentally american. our democratically elected communities should have this opportunity. i believe your legislation reflects that. i don't think it is always easy to deploy, but i think that they should have that opportunity. senator: thank you very much. senator rubio and i and some others introduced the wi-fi invasion act. spectrum have really increased considerably. 1990's,did back in the really has tied up a considerable amount of spectrum. i believe that we should be focused on safety first, and security, but, i do believe that there should be a more of an effort done. i was happy to read your blog. which i'm sure your children back equally boring. but, it was exciting to me.

and you are sort of outlining the importance of freeing up bactrim -- spectrum and five gigahertz bands. what can we do, given we do not meet this demand every day? do specifically to move this process forward, potentially making this band available for wi-fi use, and how can congress help? hon. rosenworcel: thank you. i, too, think that the upper portion of the ban is very exciting. back in the late 1990's, we set aside some of that spectrum for auto manufacturers to develop safety systems, but a lot has changed since then. we're not talking about driverless cars or automated vehicles. work is continuing on auto safety, and that is good and important, but we also have seen technology of all, and it is possible now to engage in more sharing in our spectrum than, sleep like this is a prime place to consider sharing for unlicensed with the auto manufacturers. as you know, senator rubio and

others wrote a letter to us recommending the framework for texting with the department of transportation and the department of commerce on the upper portion of the band, and i think that is a terrific start. i hope that you check in with us regularly, because i think pressure from the congress keeps us on guards and keeps us on course. senator: we well. in the remaining time, unlicensed spectrum is really important. lots of changes since 1990's. i used to have hair. with a bipartisan budget agreement, including provisions to help free up additional government spectrum for commercial purposes, i agree that there is a serious need, but i really want to see more focused unlicensed spectrum, i'm not going to waste -- licensed spectrum. i do know that you agree with me about how important lifeline is. there are some things that we can do to make the program better, but i have heard to say that it is a central program. my last question -- is there a

need for congress to reinstate the minority immediate tax credit? hon. rosenworcel: i think the answer is yes. who we see on the screen says a lot about what we are as individuals and as a community and as a nation. media ownership says a lot about that. we know that the ownership of major media properties is not as diverse as the country as a whole. but we also know that to fix that requires access to capital. the most effective tool that we had with the minority media tax certificate, which was in place from 1978-1995, it helped increase the number of minority owned media properties from roughly 40 two over 300. i believe we should back to that tool and consider how we could use it in the future. senator: thank you much. i see my brother is back, so i will yield my remaining time. >> all right. he yields back and we will recognize the senator from nevada. senator: mr. chairman, thank you. for purpose as usual, as

friends, my job is to clean up after stanford grads, so i just wanted to hear what he had to say first, but thank you for the hearing. thank you commissioner for coming back and spending some time with us. i appreciate your family being here, also. also, the rest of your family that is on tour. i have a son and daughter on tour right now. i don't know if you have any jurisdiction over tour buses, but i still to this day do not know how 16 people can live in a tour bus for 30 days. no hotels, this tour bus, 16 people, 30 days. hon. rosenworcel: i'm with you on that. senator: i think you have to be under the age of 25 to enjoy and appreciate something like that. anyway, thank you for being here and things for taking time. i want to talk a little bit about fcc reform.

i think you're familiar with this. i'm concerned that there has been a lack of transparency and some openness and certain regards, not all, but certain regards with the commission. several years ago you can before the committee for your first nomination hearing, i think i laid out at that time some of those concerns. i think many of them still remain today. you are probably aware of the fcc reform process act. it is my push for greater transparency in the commission. it does five things. we've actually spoken on some of them. one, the appropriate common reply. items pending for review. three, specific linkages of roles before voting on them. four, commissioners ability to collaborate. the cost-benefit analysis. we have put this together i think it has passed the house,

it has not yet pastor in the senate. i will urge my chairman to continue to work on that. this particular piece of legislation. is there anything else, any other common sense measures, that can be addressed by this commission and yourself, personally, that you believe would be bring greater transparent sea to the commission? hon. rosenworcel: thank you, senator, obviously transparency is important. i'm not sure that these things require congressional acts, but i think it would be valuable for the public to have a list of the decisions that are presently before the commissioners, along with a brief description. so that it surprises no one in a boat emerges. i think would also be viable to be systematic way for those who petitioned the agency for relief to find out exactly where the petitions stand in the process. senator: i think there is some concern for that. actually, a priority that you identified. that was certainty. it is essential to promoting

investment, fostering innovation, creating jobs. do you believe that it would provide more certainties to these companies if the shot clock was available, specifically what are your feelings on that? hon. rosenworcel: occasionally it could be a statement against interest for where i work, but i think shot clock and deadlines are really important and they have a way of motivating us toward action. any legislation that emerges from this committee or oversight of the fcc, i would certainly encourage you to pressure us to have more deadlines in the work that we do. senator: if i can bring up for just one minute, a piece of legislation, the sec consolidated report act. i think it is something that you are familiar with, especially with the time that you are working for chairman rockefeller. looking at this piece of legislation, as i see here, this report -- i think the chairman did a great job in trying to meet them of the values on both

sides of the isles here. it has passed the house, and we are at a standstill right now. i think that is kind of unfortunate. i think both sides, and i'm not talking republicans and democrats, i'm talking to houses, we need to really come together and try to work this out. can you speak to the importance of having a single report like this? hon. rosenworcel: sure. senator, i think the greatest value in that legislation is that we have some reports that we have to produce annually that are a waste of commission resources. senator: is this one of them? all of these reports, is that a raised? hon. rosenworcel: all are not. there are also ways in which longitudinal data -- senator: some of us do read them. hon. rosenworcel: i do. senator: having seen the reports, i think it be very advantageous for all of us -- hon. rosenworcel: i think it was a report every other year. the only point that i would make is that the internet age was really fast. want to make sure that our

decisions are informed by data and doing this is more frequency or having an intermediate effort would give us the kind of data that would support better decision-making. so, that would be the only pause that i would have. i don't think the legislation would preclude us from doing those kinds of things. senator: if i could encourage you to work with us as a move forward and continue to grapple with this particular issue, you make a good point on how often the reports should be available. having consolidated reports, i think, for all of us here and tried to do our jobs, could be very very helpful. thank you. german thank you. >> thank you senator. let me add to your good work on fcc authorization as a good foundation for us to build on. i hope that the commission will work with us on that. i think of a get out some of the issues that have been raised today, earlier, you heard senator byron talk about responsiveness, and i think that having a more regular reauthorization process would perhaps bring the commission

give usnd get them to feedback and respond to us on a more regular basis. it would create a kind of transparency for the public that they deserve and expect. i hope we can continue to move forward with that. and that the commission will be a cooperative partner in that. senator klobuchar has returned. so the senator from viking country. >> very good. -- rosenworcel: senator: thank you so much for being here. issues havemy major been discussed, and your certain a knowledgeable about them. call completion bill, i know you talked about that. that continues to be a problem. i just did a forum with colin peterson about that a few months ago. with a dropped calls. i will that you answers on that stand. the spectrum bill that you

mentioned all times, which i appreciate. with senator fischer. the work that senator and i are doing on trying to get a more funding from the universal services fund for a broadband, which i think is the number one thing that i have been hearing. it feels like a complete resurgence of issues. interest in this issue. i attributed her a few things, one the economy is better. people are working in any broadband. it's not about having broadband, it is about having high-speed broadband. the number ofyou businesses and managers that go to the mcdonald's parking lot in rural areas to view all of their bookkeeping and there were, because they do not have highs the or enough broadband. or the kids on the reservation that goes to one house and you have 20 kids standing in a backyard, because that is where they have wi-fi. i think you understand the enormous need here, and also the great opportunities. one thing that i do not think we been focused on as much,

introduce the streamlining and investing and broadband infrastructure act. it implements the policies on federal highway construction projects, and streamlined gsa policies. what else did and the fcc and congress can do to promote more efficient, permitting procedures at the federal level, to reduce construction costs and speed up everything? hon. rosenworcel: thank you. i think the policies are terrific and they should be put in place all across the country. when crews are repairing or building roads, adding broadband adds plus 21% to the price of the project, but we get lots of rewards down the road so we do so. plus, it minimizes disruption for communities and they like that. there are other things we can do. particularhave problems on federal lands in this country. one third of our lands are federal. we should come up with deployment practices -- or practices that make deployment

on those life easier. we should have a shot clock for the federal government to respond, just like we do for municipalities. we should have a regular gsa schedule to make sure that everybody knows how to deploy and get the standard contract, and we shove a list of federal assets that could be used to help with deployment on federal lands. if we combine the things, i think we would wind up having much greater state of deployment on the ground. senator: very good. can you talk a little bit about investing in broadband adoption? there are places that have broadband, but you are not educated yet i had to use it. hon. rosenworcel: historically, we have focused on broadband deployment at the agency. that is an info structure challenge. broadband adoption is just as important if you want people to take full advantage of the commercial opportunities it provides. i've spoken extensively on what i call the homework gaps, because we're finding that there are five main households in this country -- that don't have broadband at home. their kids have to go to the

mcdonald's parking lot or line-up where there is a wi-fi signal, and that is just an especially cruel part of the digital divide, and i think it is something that we should ask. senator: very good. i have done work on this. we have installed kill switches. you have any updates? i know the sec has been helpful in this area. hon. rosenworcel: more than one in three in this country involve the theft of a smartphone device. carriers are now working with us to help with remote lock and white kid abilities, make -- capabilities. thelso have to improve databases for still in france, not just nationally, but internationally, silly reduce the possibility of thieves making money off of those devices when they are stolen. senator: speaking of internationally, a different issue -- when it comes to wireless service abroad -- along the northern border, as you know i can see canada for my porch -- we need to make sure that there

are no problems with interference. this is an issue i've discussed with the sec many times in the past. -- the fcc. are you committed to continuing to work with canada throughout the auction process and the aunt to ensure that there is no interference problems? hon. rosenworcel: yes, senator. senator: very good, thank you. unlocking, the wireless consumer choice act. we asked the fcc to take action and i introduce that, and i know they took action, and is committing wireless carriers to unlock consumer phones and that they had met this commitment. do think there is a further role for the sec and advancing -- the fcc and advancing unlocking? hon. rosenworcel: i think we have made tremendous progress. yesterday, the library congress released their exemptions under the millennium copyright act, and make clear that those tablets and cell phones are eligible for unlocking.

it is my great hope that this problem has passed. senator: thank you. lastly, i want to thank you for your extreme amount of preparation for this hearing. that you have statistics without looking at one no. -- at one note. we are all impressed by that, and also having a woman in your role is great. i know you been working on getting more women in technology. techd at the diversifying meetings. perhaps you can come and speak. >> certain advantages to know what members of this committee are going to ask. having been up to all those years. good preparation. now, the gentleman who is wearing his kansas city royals blue today. >> thank you for noticing. senator: i am pleased to represent the kansas city royals. commissioner, thank you very much. chairman, and raking numbers,

thank you for this opportunity to have the commissioner with us . let me express my gratitude to you and other members of the commission who i been at 10 issues that i have raised on behalf of kansans and americans, and i appreciate the relationship that we have and are responsiveness. thank you very much. it is valued. let me ask just a few questions. first of all, while the senator indicated that you had addressed the issue of call completion, i am not certain of that. i did not hear what you said. maybe that is a better way of saying it. it seems to me that you have taken steps, but i'm not sure that i have seen the evidence that call completion rates have improved, is my impression wrong? hon. rosenworcel: you are right senator. i'm not yet satisfied with a situation that we find ourselves in. we know that this they will problem for rural carriers and residents of rural america. this is not acceptable when calls do not go through. what we have done is we have issued a declaratory ruling to

make clear that this is a violation under the law, do not transmit and complete those calls. we have had some enforcement actions, but we realized during the course of the enforcement actions, was we lacked the data to really go after bad actors. so we put in place new reporting obligations for originating long-distance providers, and those obligations just kicked in, we have our first set of reports from them, and we're going to come through them, not just for bad actors, but look for patterns, so that we can make sure that we get rid of this problem once and for all. senator: so there is a way to develop the evidence necessary to determine where the problem lies? hon. rosenworcel: that is exactly right. senator: that is very encouraging. you indicated that you understand its importance and i would only reiterate that one of my focuses as a member of congress has been trying to keep rural america alive and well, and it is so discouraging to go into a business owner who knows of failures of call completion.

is no completion. but, they do not know how many others they are missing. and my lost opportunity, guess is, that if you make that call to a rural business, the call is not completed, you are unlikely to try a second or third or fourth time to become a customer. as he tried to keep businesses located in rural amenities across our state and nation. please keep your attended by to this topic. eye. ttended by -- one of my world telephone company's have told me that although they have been designated as one of the commissions 100% overlap areas, they have been measuring the competitions signal, and they find it almost nonexistent. steps question is, what has the commission taken to confirm that there determine it -- their determination is accurate and maintained? an. rosenworcel: yes, we have defined to process for price cap carriers at present.

which allows carriers to believe that they are deploying, and the incumbent should not be supported, and also incumbent who believe that we are wrong about information about private sectors. we also have a process -- senator: there is a process by which the phone companies can make this fact none to the commission. hon. rosenworcel: absolutely. it is a challenge. we are interested in the information. we have taken some and -- we are doing more work. we do have a defined challenge process where they can voice that concern before us and we will investigate. senator: is that something that is affordable to a small, rural telephone company? hon. rosenworcel: the goal of that process is that they can come before us and played out before us and we go investigate. senator: they don't have to develop the case to present to you, they present the their statements, and then the commission investigates. hon. rosenworcel: obviously more evidence is usually helpful, because it allows us to get our investigation underway. senator: on a broader issue

about spectrum, senator udall and i and a number of members of this committee had solicited information from the administration, particularly from omb, about the spectrum relocation fund. to their credit, they were very specific with policy recommendations, legislative changes. that legislation has been introduced. i think it has been included in the budget agreement. and so, it is potentially on the path to becoming law. i'm happy to have any general comments you might want to make about their recommendations, but i wanted to specifically raise the question with you about unlicensed spectrum -- there isn't really any effort that i can see underway to increase the chances that unlicensed spectrum, as we relocate federal spectrum to someone else, that

it seems to me there is no emphasis on unlicensed spectrum, and i would welcome your input or policy suggestions that you would have on how we enhance the chances of that occurring? hon. rosenworcel: first, i think that this committee's correspondence with the office of management and budget is terrific. and we are already seeing benefits and that we are rethinking the possibilities of adding incentives to the spectrum relocation fund. i think that is exciting and it is going to yield more spectrum for commercial markets down the road. unlicensed is well taken, and i think the congressional budget office traditionally values licensed spectrum over unlicensed. by virtue of the fact that by auctioning spectrum, that raises funds. but what they miss and that accounting is that unlicensed spectrum is tremendously beneficial for our economy at large. we have over 140 billion dollars of economic activity every year that relies on unlicensed spectrum. it would be my hope that if you did have an opportunity to produce more spectrum legislation down the road, you will consider doing what you have done in the past -- what is

making sure that in every piece of legislation that has commercial auctions, there is also a cut for unlicensed or a wi-fi dividend. senator: i appreciate you reminding us of that. i assume one of the challenges, perhaps the congressional nature -- administration nature is that when we are looking for an offset, you are looking for some raises revenue, and it would be a very shortsighted decision to focus solely -- a very shortsighted economic decision, to focus solely on spectrum that is license. hon. rosenworcel: i agree with you completely. senator: thank you much. think you chairman. >> thank you senator. it will turn out to senator peters. senator: thank you mr. chairman, and to ensure -- and they get to the commissioner for being here and answering all of our questions. i decide to pick up on comments made by this or moran -- senator moran, on the unlicensed wi-fi use, and we went to meijer that we are expanding not. i want to

thank you for your work that you have done related to the 5.9 gigahertz area that you have been committed and said you are committed to opening up a process to make sure that we are doing the kind of interference testing to know that the auto industry, which has a portion of the spectrum, can continue to operate effectively and safely. particular, given the technological breakthroughs that are occurring right now in that space. i know you were at the location just recently in my state of michigan. before i talk about that, just want to mention, i had the opportunity this last week to see the vehicle technology in real-time, driving on a road. in the community. and we were able to have automatic braking, even if you are blinded by a car in front of you, veterans were out of the way, because of the vehicle technology, you know the car ahead of you is slowing, and you are able to stop, and that is a major cause of accidents right

now, at york hauling a car that's worse out of the way -- if you are following a car that swerves out of the way. you are able to know when cars are around blind spots and stop. it is incredible stuff that is happening. i know you saw some of that in michigan. i just wanted to remind everybody that these technologies are expected to eliminate up to 80% of all crashes, of unimpaired accidents in this country at a time when 30,000 people die on our highways. this a big deal. this is about safety. we are on the verge of seeing these incredible departments now being deployed commercially. m city that you listed at the university of michigan is a 32 acre test track that allows us to fully test and put together the systems in order to deploy this on a wide basis. you're also going to see thousands of vehicles throughout southeast michigan, that will be tested