address concerns of american trademark holders like >> let me start in terms of the impact by the transition itself. what you are describing is the process established the community as to how they would expand the list of top level domains that are available. as a result of this, hundreds of new domains have gone into the root file. it has nothing to do with the functions. the contract we have with icann that they perform, they say the -- reach files to not this policymaking activity. it will still be up to the community of businesses and everyone to set the policies. the example you are talking about comes right out of the

guidebook that the community developed over years in terms of what to do when multiple parties seek the same domain name. it is not like the trademark world where people can use apple as a trademark in one context and a different company can use apple in a totally different industry. unfortunately on the internet only one person can have .apple. the community faced with how to deal with the competing claims on these names. and what the community decided, and i mean all the businesses that are now seeking domain names along with the technical experts and civil society members that participate in this policy make process, decided you have two people making equal claims for a name, they need to work it out. at the end of the day the process they put in place to resolve that the end is an auction that can be conducted privately or conducted under the auspices of icann.

that is been used. has it been a great outcome? it's a great question to ask. if they feel the experience of dealing with these contention sets where people asked for the same domain name has worked out the way they expected it to with a set that policy several years ago. as they look forward to establishing a second round of expansion of domain names, they may choose a different way to handle that. the point to keep in mind is that as part of icann policymaking, part of what the multi-stakeholder community does. it does not anyway in the scope of the functions contract we have with icann. sen. flake: i will cement additional questions for the record. >> thank you, senator flake. this will be the final round of questions for the first panel. , the focus on compliance with federal law. if congress passes an appropriation writer -- rider

this month mandating that ntia renew the contract with icann, will you commit that ntia will comply with that mandate? mr. strickling: we will follow your directions. senator cruz: that means you will follow the mandate? we have the preparatory steps to allow us to do that as late as the night of september 30 if it comes to that. senator cruz: you are aware of section 539-a already makes clear that "none of the funds made available by this act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the national telecommunications administration three fiscal year 2016 with respect to internet domain name functions, including

responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the internet assigned numbers authority functions. that is existing federal law, passed by congress and signed by the president? >> that is correct. i have followed that as well as all members of my staff. senator cruz: your testimony follows this? you have it you are aware that when the appropriation rider says none of the funds may be spent carrying out a function, that means not only dollars, that meets time of government employees? >> right. i have done nothing to really push the responsibility for prospective the internet domain name system during this fiscal year. a awardeduz: the nti a contract to the berkman center at harvard university to study the transition plan? >> we asked for corporate governance and expertise. senator cruz: my understanding

professor $9,000 to conduct a review of the transition plan. >> that sounds correct, yes. we retain her. juncker defenses of $1658 for two meetings in new york with experts related solely to the transition? >> we had two meetings in new york. i don't never the precise dollar amount that sounds right. senator cruz: interviews government salaried staff time to reductive review of the transition and prepare a draft, the iana report? >> just as congress directed us to, yes or. --sir. senator cruz: you are aware of -- alsos of the federal federal law which provides it is a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison and a

$5,000 fine if an officer of the government knowingly and willfully makes or authorizes an expenditure exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure of the obligation? are you aware of that? >> i'm aware of the anti-deficiency act. yes, sir. cruz: having to explain to this committee that your , your expenditures, all working to really kreuz the control of the internet? >> you just added a word that is not in the rider. u.s. it "working" to increase responsibility. i have not really christian responsibility. to provision does not reach preparatory activities and congress expected us to engage in preparatory activities because of the time of the first

rider in 2014 we were directed to conduct a thorough review of any transition plans we received. so congress understood that during the dependency of the ride we would be engage in activities preparingr for the transition, but those themselves do not really wish any responsibility. senator cruz: did you have an office legal counsel? preparatory functions are not included in this rider? >> we were so advised. senator cruz: you have a written opinion to that effect? >> i have it for my office of general counsel of the department of commerce. senator cruz: i would advise you submit that to this committee. you do not have that opinion from the department justice? mr. strickling: i am not aware of one. senator cruz: under your

interpretation, which i consider to be tortured interpretation of this statutory language and unfaithful to the text, and let's go to the other one, the actual rider.your interpretation is preparatory conduct is not encompassed in this. the commerce department can do absolutely everything required to relinquish the internet, the responsibility. right up until the moment of pushing the button. mr. strickling: i'm sorry. senator cruz: your position is every single active preparation can be done. as long as it actually has nothing culminated with the relinquishment, that is perfectly ok. number one, i will ask you if that interpretation is right, wider foot congress passed this? this is a meaningless rider. what the heck is congress prohibiting? mr. strickling: they prohibited

us from a legacy responsibility. let me ask you this, senator. what is the responsibility you referred to? the only responsibility we have is not based on any statutory obligations. let me finish, senator. if i may finish -- senator cruz: you may answer my question. mr. strickling: i am telling you the responsibility we have to privatize the domain name system. senator cruz: i understand you have a political mandate to do that. let me be very clear. disagree with the policy judgment of the congress of the united states as reflected by federal law, you are entitled to disagree. here is what you are not entitled to do, sir. i want to speak for a moment to the employees that work for you. to the government employees at the ntia and apartment of commerce. these legal prohibitions haven't

passed by congress and signed by the president. if your political superiors instructed to proceed with this transition, to spend your time, to spend one penny of government money, you have an obligation as an employee of the federal government to declined to follow that instruction, to violate federal law. and let me know for you, if you don't, your superiors direct you to do it and you carry out those orders, you are risking personal criminal liability about the two years in prison. i would note this administration that has politically mandated handing over oversight of the internet, this administration is not going to prosecute anyone. in january of 2017 a new administration will be in washington. we don't know who that will be but i am advising the employees of the department of commerce, your political superiors do not

have the authority to instruct you to violate federal law, to violate what congress has passed. disagrees with congress. he is not entitled to instruct federal employees to violate federal law. each of you should be unnoticed who have long distinguished careers of political appointees of this administration cannot instruct you to violate federal law. mr. strickling: senator, we have followed the law. we have not relinquished our responsibility. i am outraged you are accusing us of doing that, especially when the very conduct you raise -- if i may redo you, congress directs -- the committee directs ntia to conduct a thorough review and analysis of any proposed transition of the contract. we were directed to do that is part of the spending bill that was passed for fiscal year 2015.

to carry forward in 2016. it's clear that congress never intended relinquish the all thebility to mean preparatory activities we are engaged in because we were directed specifically to conduct a review of the plan. ,enator cruz: mr. strickling a review cannot change statutory text. under your interpretation, which i consider not a reasonable interpretation of federal law, because it renders federal law absurd and meaningless, under your interpretation this rider had no effect whatsoever. and for those federal employees working for you, they need to make a determination. are they willing to risk their own careers based on what i believe to be a political interpretation. i hope the answer to that is no. congress has the authority to make this determination.

you are welcome to disagree with it. but you are not welcome to disobey federal law passed by congress. mr. strickling: i have not disobey any federal law with respect to this. the chairman began this hearing today by intoning have a something to fear. sure i'm giving you an opportunity mr. assistant secretary given the exchange to put on the record your understanding of whether your employees have something to fear, or in fact you are complying with the congressional direction? that make sure i understand. the proposition was just put forward that your interpretation would render congressional action over statute absurd and meaningless. what i have understood your view to be is that congress at the same time directed you -- let's give a metaphor. the equivalent of saying we are going to urge the department of

home insecurity or the fbi to prepare and plan for a future acquisition of a headquarters. while at the same time saying, you shall not build the new headquarters this year. that is not absurd, is it? mr. strickling: not at all and i think this -- that is what has happened here. senator coons: there is no absurdity or profound tension between the told continue to engage in responsible professional review of this transition plan, but do not execute on that transition plan in one fiscal year? mr. strickling: absolutely. senator coons: and you got titans from the council of the department that supports that you? mr. strickling: guess. -- yes. senator coons: did you have any fears for yourself or your employees you are in violation of the statute of congress? mr. strickling: i do not, can our responsibility, which stems

solely from executive memorandum of 1997, has been to privatize the domain name system. there is no federal statute, no federal regulation directing ntia or any other agency of the federal government to run the domain name system. you, mr.oons: thank assistant secretary. i will defer to my colleague. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your service. i'm sure it's been a long hearing but i want to thank you for the work you do in a very complicated area. i worked on this issue some as a member of the commerce committee. i have been familiar with it for a while. know it sounds like why kanter on government's control all of this? we understand this is an and istional internet based on the open free flow of information and not run or control that anyone government.

ntia's role was meant to be temporary when icann was established. is now been over a decade and ntia is simply working to transition its role. we do know there are other governments across the world who want to control the internet, or want to stop the spread of information on the internet to their citizens and limit the democratic values it provides by allowing people to freely share information across the world. can you expand on stepping back a little from the minutia on why this transition is important to sending a clear message that the internet should be run by the stakeholder process, by people from various governments and not by one individual government? mr. strickling: that has been the long policy of congress. both houses of

congress passed resolutions supporting the multi-stakeholder model. mr. strickling: what year is that -- senator klobuchar: what year is that? mr. strickling: 2012. in the senate reaffirm the motion in 2015. senator klobuchar: in 2012 for the republicans in control the house? mr. strickling:. i think they were senator klobuchar: continue on. mr. strickling: multistate support support has been bipartisan in congress. these resolutions basically passed without objection. servedeen important we as a beacon to the rest of the world of the importance that civil society, businesses, technical experts play in charting the course of the internet. particularly the technical aspects reflected in the discussion we are having today about the iana functions. there has been a long struggle between those authoritarian governments that are threatened

by their citizens being more actively engaged in managing internet resources who have sought to bring internet governance under the authority of the united nations or the international telekinesis -- telecommunications union. senator klobuchar: what we have tried to do this set of a theess so that it is internet govern five multi-stakeholders instead of going over to the u.n.? mr. strickling: that has been the battle we have been fighting for more than 10 years. senator klobuchar: who wanted to go over to the u.n.? mr. strickling: authoritarian governments led by russia, china and other countries that are threatened by a free and open internet. they feel it again be brought into a framework where only governments can make decisions, they will be able to preserve their ability to censor within their own borders as well is perhaps affect how it is -- senator klobuchar: will the

united states be an important stakeholder under the icann establishment when i get completed? mr. strickling: we will continue to participate actively. that will be done through the government advisory committee. we in the state department will also be advocates for internet freedom and internet governance issues in all international venues. not just icann. senator klobuchar: at the commerce committee hearing i asked about the accountability working group. he testified the accountability is critically important. according to your testimony, ntia has thoroughly review the report that icann will complete all necessary tasks called for by the transition proposal. what aspect of the accountability proposal give you confidence that icann will remain accountable after the transition? mr. strickling: what the proposal has done is first preserved largely the existing structure of icann, which is important for maintaining the stability of the internet domain

name system. what it has done is created a set of powers for the community to vehicle to exercise if the icann board take action the community disagrees with. these powers include being able to reject the budget. they go to the point of being able to actually remove board members, the entire board if the board should totally go against the wishes of the community. while we hope and expect those will never, ever be exercised, the fact they are there serves as an important accountability control over how icann conduct itself going forward. senator klobuchar: as the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee focusing on those issues i know they were discussed earlier, my staff told me and i understand that icann has and will be treated as a private party. like any private party when it is compelled to act by the u.s. government it is not liable

under the antitrust law for those compelled actions. i can that argument, claim no community under antitrust law. is that your understanding as well? mr. strickling: they never had antitrust immunity and they will not have a going forward. senator klobuchar: how does the transition effect icann's ability to claim anti-emitted -- claim immunity? mr. strickling: it will not affected one bit. >> i think both witnesses for your testimony. the first panel will not be excused and we will welcome the second panel to come and testify. >> for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. we all want to make america strong and great again. mrs. clinton: i am running for everyone working hard to support their families. everyone who has been knocked down but gets back up. [cheers]

>> live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debate on the span. the c-span radio app and c-span.org. monday, september 26 is the first presidential debate live from hofstra university. then on tuesday, october 4, vice presidential candidate governor mike pence and senator tim kaine debate at longwood university in virginia. on sunday, october 9, washington university in st. louis posts the second presidential debate. leading a to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump. taking place at the university of nevada las vegas on october 19. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debate on c-span. listen live on the freeseas band radio app or -- c-span radio app or on-demand at c-span.org. president obama makes remarks critical of the republican-controlled congress. then representative huge roster

of pennsylvania gives the gop weekly address, talking about constitution day. president obama: hi everybody. i have delivered a few hundreds of these weekly addresses over the years. you may have noticed a theme pops up often. the republicans who run this congress are not doing their jobs. guess what? congress recently returned from a seven-week vacation. they have only got two weeks left until the next one. that is a lot of business you need to get done first. even as we are seeing more and more zika cases in the united states they have refused to fund our efforts to protect women and children by fighting the zika in a serious way. need tothey still

provide resources to help the people of louisiana recover from last month's terrible floods and health communities like flint recover from their own challenges. -- lik they had made merrick garland, a supreme court nominee with more federal judicial experience than any other in history wait longer than any other in history for the simple courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote. all because they want their nominee for president to fill that seat. there are plenty of other bipartisan priorities for this year as well. attacking the opioid epidemic, funding joe biden's cancer moonshot, finishing the transpacific trade agreement that will support american jobs and boost american wages, and passing a budget that will make sure all of america's priorities are funded that resorting to shut down threats and last-minute gimmicks. none of this list even includes some other big priorities that should get done. it has been also decade since

congress voted to raise the minimum wage. none of these things should be controversial. all of it is within our reach. this is america. we can do anything, we just need a congress that works as hard as you do. at the very least we should expect they should do their jobs and protect us from disease, help us recover from disaster, keep the supreme court of the politics and how our businesses grow and hire. if any of these prairies matter to you, under congress person know. if they still refuse to do their jobs, well, you know what to do in november. our government only works as follows the people we elect. that is entirely up to you. thanks everybody have a great weekend. ♪

>> by listening to the american people, republicans have developed a positive agenda to get our country back on track. we are calling it a better way. a better way would not only restore american leadership in the world, it would generate a healthy expansion of our economy that would increase job opportunities, lift wages, can help us keep the commitments we make to our seniors in veterans. you can learn more about these ideas are going to better.gop. today is constitution day. 229 years ago today a group of visionaries, including alexander hamilton, benjamin franklin, james madison and george washington emerged from independence hall having signed the final draft of the blueprint for our federal government. there is a vision for a new kind of government, one based on freedom, not force.

our founders recognized in our country the government would operate by the consent of the governed. so to guard against arbitrary power they would be a separation of powers among three branches of government. this all sounds so simple, but in recent years we have seen in erosion of these principles. a regulatory superstate has replaced the sovereignty of the people. so-called experts in washington churn out all kinds of rules and red tape without accountability, hurting millions of americans. for example, the misguided regulation of community bank center dot frank, washington's financial control role, hurt consumers and families. that 70% of banks offer free checking. today it is down to 39%. $10 a month may not seem like much to washington bureaucrats with six-figure salaries, but this is 75% of american people living paycheck to paycheck. similar harm has been done in health care.

millions have been harmed by skyrocketing premiums and deductibles. in the energy industry tens of thousands of lost jobs since president obama's 2008 to bankrupt the coal industry. that is why people want their representative making the laws, not the unaccountable bureaucrats who live in a far-off capital. we also need to get back to basics regarding the fundamental freedoms are constitution protects. we have seen threats the first and second minute rights in recent years. indeed, my own diocese in pittsburgh and the little sisters of the poor had a go all the way to the supreme court to protect the right to exercise their religion against an overbearing regulatory agency. our better way plan seeks to restore the separation of powers an in a few important ways. we propose congress writes the laws in clear language. no gray areas that allow unelected bureaucrats to run amok. we propose new limits on spending so that congress and the people at the ultimate say

over how your tax dollars are being spent. we want to increase transparency across the board, make government publish more information about what is doing. especially what is regulating. after all, this is the people's business. these better way reforms are a good start, for the work of defending the constitution is a job of every generation. it's how we live up to the legacy of our founders. is how we keep america exceptional. >> president obama will get his seventh and final keynote address at the congressional black caucus foundation dinner today. hillary clinton will also receive the inaugural trailblazer award as the first woman presidential nominee of a major party in the u.s. live coverage at 7:30 p.m. eastern here on the span. -- c-span. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought you by local cable and

satellite providers. this is the communicators on c-span. this week a discussion of the issue of the radicalization of cyberspace. former careerez, member of the foreign service. he is now with the middle east media research institute. hughes is now with george washington university. is the deputy director there. when you hear the phrase "radicalization of cyberspace," what does that mean to you? an explosioneing of the use of social media of individuals to isis. which was atter, platform choice for a number of years. you see