other side of the aisle, but i stand in the shoes of president clinton and the shoes of chairman canardraced the bipartisan consensus that has served this country so well when it comes to broadband dating back to the day of 56 k modem and aol discs coming in the mail. i think the broadband success story has been a good one because these issues have not been political until recently. if you look at the reporting, becomes clear this is a politically driven agenda for a couple of months which is unfortunate. digital opportunity is something that does not know political affiliation. >> you talk about litigation -- political issues are going to be political. isn't any rule going to invite litigation? >> and the question is whether these rules are necessary in the first place. i've said net neutrality rules are ace -- are a solution in search of a problem. getting rid of some of the legacy regulations still on the books come making it easier to deploy wireless infrastructure getting more spectrum into the commercial marketplace. i can assure you most people in this country would not find anyt

that is a canard. ms. lynch has answered more qfrs over 800 and any other nominee in history. and her responses have not been substantively different from their predecessors. for example when michael mukasey was nominated for attorney general by president bush, i asked him whether he would investigate the immigration backload and tell us what further authority and resources were needed to solve the problem. in response he said quote, and i'm not familiar with the specifics of the current backlog i cannot give a responsible board informed estimate. i agree that it is critical for the department to have sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities unquote. i also asked not many bouquets ub.net dj needed stronger tools to combat voter intimidation in federal elections and he answered, i have not studied the issue insufficient details to offer comments. these answers are the same as what my colleagues are complaining about ms. lynch is saying. and guess what? i voted for judge mukasey and did so and so did all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are in th

threatened by iran is not a canard.feel threatened is what you're speaking to professor your point on that? >> well -- >> hold on hilary. >> if you really think that iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons, then you should you don't even need a deal. just let them pursue their biological and medical facility. everybody in the world, with any common sense knows that iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. whether they have made the ultimate theological decision or not, is how many angels on the head of a pin. if out there you think iran is not interested in developing nuclear weapons at all, then you should be on the side of my -- >> susan rice -- >> if you believe that iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, they have to be stopped. president obama said that. john kerry has said that. everybody has said that. that iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. except my distinguished opponent. >> the thinking goes back and forth. they are soft on intel about it which makes it more confusing, let's get where the

unfortunately there is a canard going around that there are only eight pages of regulations. number one, eight pages if you could see the regulations, they are quite detailed. some of them, it is not apparent how they operate. you heard it is unclear how they will be applied. they're are number of pages within the document that our paragraph upon paragraph describing how rules we will be enforced. moreover, those are just the codified rules. they're are a host of others that will be on codified but nonetheless binding on private parties which are discussed in the other 309 pages of the document. in addition, you have things like the internet conduct rule where the commission spends paragraph describing the 7th eight factors it is going to apply and then says those factors are nonexhaustive and keys up a number of different service plans that might be on the chopping block. that does not have to be eight pages of rules for it to have nonetheless a significant and impacting effect on the economy. it is the breadth of the decision-making that the fcc derogate stew itself that ma

examples like this, if either is something that exists but essentially means nothing, or it is simply a canard. it 5:00 schumly has to have some sort of economic consequence. i mean as a logical matter it would have to be that the so-called monopoly would logically be some kind of power, it does have to confer some kind of ability to exploit or do something that the rules are content to express. it's really lard to see that actually happening. and, of course, by the way we can't forget that we're also dealing with both sides here right? the commission made very clear that they're regulating not just the retail access. there's more terminating from the perspective of google, for example. >> i have two points. we put evidence into the record that a lot of members face competition. one of the members we went in with had 20-30 pnt annualized turn rate. there are options. the other more important point, aca was not objecteding to the net neutrality behavior rules of no-blocking, no throttling and no paid prioritization. their members do not do these things. what we were rejecting to was the collate

that is a canard. ms. lynch has answered more qfrs, ma over 800, and any other nominee in history. and her responses have not been substantively different from her predecessor. for example, when michael moe casey was nominee for attorney general by president bush, i asked him what he would investigate the immigration backload and tell us what further authority and resources were needed to solve the problem. in response he said quote, as i'm not familiar with the specifics of the current backlog i cannot give a responsible or informed estimate. i agree that it is critical for the department that sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities, unquote. i also asked him if he thought the doj need stronger tools to combat voter intimidation in federal elections. and the answer, i have not studied this issue in sufficient detail to offer comment. these answers are the same as what my colleagues are complaining about ms. lynch is saying. and guess what? i voted for him and did so, and so did all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are in the senate at the time. so