we have consulted with the rulemaking committee for enabling with the highest societal benefits. these we will result in an additional focus areas that will become the plans for integration. we must ensure resources are directed to areas with the highest safety risk. we will need to expand collaborative data driven processes with the uas industry to improve safety and streamline certification. we are developing a knew -- new advisory circular to inform the industry how to use risk-based decision-making to establish certification criteria which is essential for enabling the potential for larger uas for operation. the faa is safely and steadily integrating uas and we continue to look to the future to make sure the proper framework and standards are in place to facilitate safely integrating. -- safe integration in an increasingly complex airspace. we look forward to continuing to work with partners in government, the aviation community and this committee. this concludes my statement and i look forward to answering your questions. kelly a. ayotte: thank you very much. i would like to

the farm bureau is glad to see the rulemaking for uas. the farm bureau is in the process of submitting comments regarding the proposed rules. it is our hope that farmers and ranchers will be able to use uas as part as precision ag systems. ms. ayotte: thank you. i would like to direct my first question to ms. gilligan. what i wanted to ask you about with this nea -- new area of rulemaking and implementation of the small uas rule and subsequent rules how does the agency plan to fund this effort? i saw in the notice of proposed rulemaking that there is some contemplation of cost recovery, five dollars to register an unmanned aircraft, $150 for knowledge and test of operators and $50 to verify the idea of an applicant. is that going to cover the resources you need going forward in an expanding area? given that we have other resources, including implementing next jan and other things for. ms. gilligan: the faa has absorbed a lot of the cost of beginning the implementation process for bringing uas into the airspace. we do have pending in the f

a unanimously adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking seeks to strike a proper balance between licensed and unlicensed service. we also initiated a proceeding to inform the competitive competitive bidding rules and the option. we proposed comprehensive reforms so small businesses can compete more effectively and thought comment on how to detour the just and richmond. an example of how the markets do not always work in the regulatory backstop is sometimes necessary. while the petition requests for relief from the egregious rates remain pending for nearly a decade, the rates and fees continue to increase. calls made by deaf and hard of hearing inmates have taught it to dollars and 26 cents per minute. add to that in the endless array of the fees $3.90 to initiate the call. there is even a fee charged for their own money. they are the concern of all. there are 2.7 million deal with one parent incarcerated and they are the ones that are likely to do poor in poorly in school again to suffer severe economic and personal hardships all exacerbated by the unreasonable regime. studies consistentl

a unanimously adopted notice of proposed rulemaking seeks to strike a proper balance. we also initiated a proceeding to reform our competitive bidding. we propose comprehensive we propose comprehensive service while businesses can compete more effectively and sought comment on how to determine just. an example of how the markets do not always work in a regulatory backstop is sometimes necessary. well petition requested relief some egregious inmate calling rates remain pending as to the fcc for nearly a decade. calls made by death are hearing inmates have top $2.26 is permitted. add to that an endless array of his $3.95 to initiate a call for a fee to set up an account, another fee to close the account. another fee to close the account. there is zero features to users to get a refund from their own money. these fees are imposing devastating societal impacts. 2.7 million parent to her children with at least one parent incarcerated the most likely to do poorly in school and suffer severe economic and personal hardships exacerbated by a reasonable rate regime. studies cons

the whole rulemaking process is an evolutionary process.he whole concept of title ii is a fluid and evolutionary process. representatives welch: this almost seems to be like a watergate type of deal. what did you know and when did you know it. in public policy when you try to figure out what you can know and get to a good public policy decision, it is a back-and-forth discussion. incidentally the president of the united states is a relevant commentator. is that correct? chairman wheeler: i was constantly learning. representative welch: there was a report in "the new york times" about a previous matter where president reagan had the commissioner in for 45 minutes. did president obama ever summon you to the white house for the purpose of a 45 minute discussion about the way it will be with this order that you are considering? chairman wheeler: no sir president obama has never summoned me to the white house to discuss anything. representative welch: when he made his comment, you observed what was the impact on the market, correct? what was the

this rulemaking was very clear to say that we do not trigger that. desantis: it is not foreclose it that we are in title roman numeral sloot framework -- title ii framework. i want open, robust internet. when i see 400 pages of red tape, this does not team what openness is going to be. the experience of when the government gets involved the 400 pages, it will never be less than 400. it will be more. government will be up to get involved in other aspects. i wish the public would have more impact. this will be contested here the courts. i yield back. wheeler: can i clarify one thing. there is actually a pages of rules in there. the rest is establishing the background. chairman: we will recognize mr. looper five minutes. >> i want to get on the record the answer to the following question. what is the process followed by the sec and the same process the fcc has followed. wheeler: there was a lot of public comment. >> there is nothing wrong with a commissioner being influenced by public comment. there's nothing wrong with a member of congress being influe

the whole rulemaking process is evolutionary. the whole concept of title ii is a fluid and evolutionary process. representatives welch: this almost seems like a watered gate -- watergate deal. in public policy when you try to figure out what you can know and get to a good public policy decision it is a back-and-forth discussion. listening to the 4 million comments, members of congress. and incidentally, the president of the united states. is that correct? chair wheeler: i was constantly learning. representative the welch: there was a report in the new york times about a previous matter where president reagan had the commissioner in for 45 minutes. did president obama ever summon you to the white house for the purpose of a 45 minute discussion about the way it will be with this order that you are considering? chair wheeler: no sir, president obama has never summoned me to the white house to discuss anything. rep welch quote --: when he made his comment, you observe what was the impact on the market correct? what was the impact? ch

>> at this time the notice of proposed rulemaking does not suggest it funds the entire program. those fees you identified are to offset the cost of those particular elements. in terms of finalizing the rulemaking and providing safety oversight and issuing approvals as we do with manned operations now, we do not charge fees. and we would at this.provide services to the industry as well. >> okay. can i follow up on the issue as i understand the proposed rule that prohibits operation. we allow other types of aircraft to go over people. what was the thinking and is it a perceived dangerousness or is this something that you anticipate looking at and addressing in the next reiteration of rules? >> and the also we are talking about vehicles not designed against standards which is different from what we have for manned vehicles because of that we are looking at how to mitigate that risk. one of the limitations is to mitigate. we have asked for comment and will be looking at whether and how we can best balance. because we're checking about integrating systems that are out designer manufa

justice kagan: it is a rulemaking after the rulemaking that applies to the listing, is that right?

questioner: you used the phrase cadence of rulemaking. i wanted to ask but that in regard to the overtime rules. it's been a year since the president called for those. every time i check with the labor department, they push off the target date. some month into the future. why is it taking so long and in the fourth quarter do you need to pick up the cadence a little bit? jeff: we're a few months away from getting that out the door and that will leave plenty of time to fully implement the rule. questioner: why is it taking so long? jeff: you need the appropriate analysis to set the level and once the proposed rule is ready, it will be announced and that will be within the next few months. questioner: [inaudible] the rulemaking on existing coal fire plants. can you describe what the practical implications might be from the administration's vantage point to his efforts to enlist the help of governors to do that? to tie things up legally? and can you also describe your political analysis of it, is it smart politics for republicans to take a st

would you similarly invalidate every rulemaking by the irs?ing by the irs is not tantamount to executive action. >> of course not. i think no attorneys general suggests that. what we're saying is they got it wrong by virtue of announcing a rulemaking that disregarded the plain language of the act. they exceeded their authority. that is the important point. here when you're talking about the plaintext or context of the statute, it is clear the subsidies were designed to be provided for state-based exchanges. that all started with the obama administrations interpretation. once they put it into effect they said it will be difficult to modify it because people are starting to gain access to the subsidies. the obama administration has put us in a difficult particular -- predicament. we are suggesting there is a pathway forward that we can work with than one of the provisions to get state the flexibility they need to provide coverage to the citizens. >> what is the exact immediate prescription gekko if the lawsuit comes out in favor of what the gop

justice kagan: it is a rulemaking after the rulemaking that applies to the listing, is that right? mr. smith: it is totally after that. if the second phase. justice breyer: you confirm it was not made up in my chambers. [laughter] mr. smith: they did a wonderful job. this -- justice breyer: the congress -- the brief said unambiguously required epa to consider costs at the second stage of the process. that is what it said. i read the statutes. reading that leads me to think it works along the lines you just said. if he did at the most expensive set of generators in the world you would ask epa to create a separate category in which case the top 12% would no longer be in your category and you wouldn't have to do it. when asking is, if you think it is the system, that is what i read in the statute. is there a treatise? an explanation that the epa has put out so it is clear it was not made up and it is clear the system is following that? mr. smith: the only thing i can supply you with is the notice proposed rulemaking in the final rule. the process is laid out in detail. justice sotomay

so we are not having a rulemaking that says we know best. this is the way you're supposed to operate. what we are saying is that there needs to be a judgment capability that says is there harm and there needs to be the ability of harm is done to do something about it. but never to prejudge, knows to be in a situation where you are weighing all of the interests. >> okay. commissioner rosenworcel, does the fcc has the power to regulate broadband providers consumer privacy practices that are unregulated that are unrelated to their phone service? >> no. >> no? >> i mean unrelated to their telecommunications, no. >> is that something that would be of value speak with obviously privacy is an important issue to all americans, and privacy in the digital age is an evolving thing. our statute which dates back to 1996 involved customer proprietary network information under section 222 and that is where the bulk of our privacy authority comes from with respect to telecommunications services. >> are there enough engineers at the fcc to help you do your j

and if you look at those rulemaking comments you will see that they address a number of issues, and they say nothing nothing about the issue that's , before the court now. so if they really understood the statute as denying subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges, that would have front and center in their rulemaking comments, but they said nothing about it and i think that tells you a good deal about where -- what everybody understood that this statute was -- >> well, there's another point on notice on this pennhurst argument that seems curious to me. usually when this argument comes up, a state has signed up for a federal program and then they say, oh, my gosh, we didn't realize what we had gotten ourselves into. but here, it's not too late for a state to establish an exchange if we were to adopt petitioners' interpretation of the statute. so going forward, there would be no harm. >> well, let me address that directly, and then i'd like to make a broader point about statutory context in response. now directly, of course, i don't think it's possible to say there would

and if you look at those rulemaking comments you will see that they address a number of issues, and they say nothing nothing about the issue that's before the court now. so if they really understood the statute as denying subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges, that would have front and center in their rulemaking comments, but they said nothing about it and i think that tells you a good deal about where -- what everybody understood that this statute was -- >> well, there's another point on notice on this pennhurst argument that seems curious to me. usually when this argument comes up, a state has signed up for a federal program and then they say, oh, my gosh, we didn't realize what we had gotten ourselves into. but here, it's not too late for a state to establish an exchange if we were to adopt petitioners' interpretation of the statute. so going forward, there would be no harm. >> well, let me address that directly, and then i'd like to make a broader point about statutory context in response. now directly, of course, i don't i don't think it's possible to say there

questioner: you used the phrase cadence of rulemaking. i wanted to ask but that in regard to the overtime rules. it's been a year since the president called for those. every time i check with the labor department, they push off the target date. some month into the future. why is it taking so long and in the fourth quarter do you need to pick up the cadence a little bit? jeff: we're a few months away from getting that out the door and that will lead plenty of time to -- leave plenty of time to fully implement the rule. questioner: why is it taking so long? jeff: you need the appropriate analysis to set the level and once the proposed rule is ready, it will be announced and that will be within the next few months. questioner: [inaudible] the rulemaking on existing coal fire plants. can you describe what the practical implications might be from the administration's vantage point to his efforts to enlist the help of governors to do that? to tie things up legally? and can you also describe your political analysis of it, is it smart politics fo

the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking be conducted through case-by-case adjudication.there are three rules -- no blocking, no throttling, and no pirate legislation. many practices will be reviewed under the general conduct standard that will be quite literally a catchall. moreover, rates and charges will be reviewed under the amorphous just and reasonable standard in sections 201 and 202. parties will have no way of knowing whether the commission much less the courts, will act on a rule in a particular matter. one public interest group called the catchall a recipe for overreach and confusion. the item notes that parties may seek an advisory opinion which appears utterly useless. they are only available in certain circumstances and are nonbinding. i am not sure why any party would want to refer itself to the enforcement bureau when it its request to be used later. the commission claims this item does not require broadband providers to could trigger to the federal universal service fund at this time. that is because it defers that decision to a pending proceeding which i

under this current rulemaking? >> yes, i think that there are significant legal thoughts and with respect to this alone, i think that they crafted a completely unprecedented competition analysis and the fact that the order repeatedly at this time was unprecedented. >> there is going to be a great deal of uncertainty in terms of investment and how they view the internet over the next two years because of this ruling two. >> yes, if i could elaborate on this. they have told us that title ii the smallest providers have told us the same thing. it will hinder our ability to further talk about broadband. you could ask what corporate titan wrote that statement. and it was 43 municipal broadband providers including the very bodhran provider that we visited who told us that title ii was a roadmap among the monopoly. and this has been the made repeatedly to this diluted title ii, and it is a recipe of success. that is completely not the case. the reason that we refrain from rate regulations on this is because the fcc express

so that's moving ahead, you know, like a gazelle on the savannah through the rulemaking process. [laughter] and in the larger scheme of federal rule making, that's been trucking along. [laughter] so that's going to be a very important part once, you know that will make it out in terms of the planning foundation for the types of discussions we're going to have to be having. >> yes, sir. >> yeah. [inaudible] pedestrians.org again. it's a major -- if a major rail passenger project receiving federal funds and political changes delay it for four years, and the next administration -- >> i have no idea what you're talking about. [laughter] >> what happens to those federal funds? are they still available? does it start back from square zero? what are the rules? >> so don't be so pessimistic. [laughter] unless -- you're probably trying to get the money though so you interested. so we're doing our best to make sure that everything that can possibly be obligated can is obligated which is our job to do. there's a deadline on that. we're not sort of scooting things under -- across the border.

we have rulemaking under way we will issue a new public notice to make sure this specific issue is tito and we're going to make sure that this designated entity have the opportunity to participate and not have designated entities as beards for people who should not. >> i want you to know that i have been pushing for a change and mrs. 2010. it has been a constant refrain for me to ensure. as you know as was said we are reviewing those applications no -- nothing no -- nothing final has been said. people have an opportunity to weigh in. >> thank you. important issue. i can't leave without addressing the commission recently ordered. it is only in washington that something as innovative has driven so much growth and new ideas as the internet where we end up with an order that essentially applies 1930s style utility regulation and think that that may be the best way going forward to ensure there is future innovation. i want i want to just share the concerns of so many of my colleagues have been raised about the commission's order. i want to ask you briefly. not known for its laissez-faire han

some of that is in rulemaking and the regulatory space but some of it is in partnership, finding neways to partnership and also new ways to use, you know, the terms bully pulpit is often thrown around but part of it is also thinking very concretely and being hard-headed about how to use the platforms that the president and also the first lady have to drive progress and so this is a wide-ranging effort and one that frankly the energy and enthusiasm around it is largely coming from the president himself. david: let me add a little something to that. i agree with everything that brian said. there's a clear message from the president to his whole team and his whole cabinet that in this fourth quarter we want to get as much done as we can. -- jeff: getting stuff done falls into two broad categories when we think about executive action. one is what we have already announced and executing against those initiatives. so on monday and tuesday, we're holding sweat u.s.a. over at the national harbor. the president will be addressing a crowd of about 2,500, including 1,200 overseas investors. thi

that title ii order was not the result of a transparent rulemaking process.uarter as glaring legal flaws that are guaranteed to my the agency in litigation for a long time. -- meyer. turning to the designated entity program, the fcc must take immediate action to end its abuse. what was once a well-intentioned program designed to help small businesses has become a playpen for corporate just to the recent aws three auction is a shocking case in point. dish, which has annual revenues of $14 billion, and a market cap of over $34 billion holds 85% equity stake into companies that are now claiming $3.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies. that makes a mockery of the small business program. the $3.3 billion at stake israel money that could be used to underwrite over 580,000 pell grants, fund a school lunches for over 6 million schoolchildren, or incentivize the hiring of over 138,000 veterans for a decade. the abuse had a nose impact on small and disadvantaged businesses from nebraska to vermont. it denied and spectrum licenses they would've used to provide consumers a co

the farm bureau is glad to see the rulemaking for uas. the farm bureau is in the process of submitting comments regarding the proposed rules. it is our hope that farmers and ranchers will be able to use uas as part as precision ag systems. ms. ayotte: thank you. i would like to direct my first question to ms. gilligan. what i wanted to ask you about with this nea -- new area of rulemaking and implementation of the small uas rule and subsequent rules how does the agency plan to fund this effort?

so i encourage the faa to look at that as particular in this rulemaking. as the chairwoman said, today the faa just advanced and in trouble policy. that interim policy, a blanket certification of the section 333 would streamline the process so that 200 below 200 feet would be easier process for people to proceed with these technology. i applaud the faa in that move. while we wait a final unmanned system rule which i'm not sure exactly when how long that will take him i'm sure we'll have questions about that, i want to make sure that we are keeping that timeframe in mind. because i do think american compass a face with competitive disadvantage because of the slow pace of regulation that several governments across the world are working hand-in-hand with commercial unmanned systems operators to find solutions where businesses can thrive with existing new technology and also maintain the safety of airspace while they operate. so i want to make sure the u.s. stays mindful of that to being a home for this great technology. another subject that i look forward to

>> we have at least a three year rulemaking process on a controversial rule which i would submit this would be one. we would also have to change -- we don't have authority over building blocks three and four if we were to increase our rps or change our efficiency standards that requires legislative action as well which adds to the timeline. >> senator boxer? >> thank you. what i'm stunned by is some of the states attitude of gloom and doom when we have states that are doing this, prospering far more than your states and that's what kind of stuns me. but it's okay. i respect your view. i want to ask mary nichols this question. when you listen to mr. easterly respond to my chairman and they said actually these rules could mean that we would be increasing carbon worldwide because some companies will leave the states because they will be so upset at these rules. have we found companies running away from california? last i checked silicon valley was booming everybody was -- we have increases in manufacturing. am i wrong on the point? >> you're not wrong senator boxer. we have experienced g

i'm going to tell you i think that's a flaw in your rulemaking and is something you folks ought to look closely at. i apologize mr. chairman but i have exhausted my time is will and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. at this time i recognize the gentleman from indiana mr. bucshon for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. we appreciate it. climate is changing and it's been changing for centuries. i think reasonable people can continue to have a debate about the human impact on that. that said i think we can agree that we should eyes be working towards improving our emissions -- emissions as we generate power. my position is that we should be doing this through innovation and technology development and not through overreaching federal regulations. would you agree that the general rule that is imposed on any subject should be based on the availability of the technology to comply with the role or if the technology isn't available would you agree that maybe that rule needs to be revisited? >> we certainly know when we rely on the technology is part of our standard setting proce

do you have any comments about the rulemaking about the digital divide? will it help eliminate that? or have sort of an opposite, how it would affect the poorest of americans? chair wheeler: if you do not have access, free, fair open access, then you per se have a divide. and so when we come out and talk about how there needs to be, no matter where you are, no matter what legal content it is, that there should be open access to it. that is the predicate to not having a divide. not to say that there are challenges that we will continue to face. but that the baseline is there has to be open this. -- openness. mr. desaulnier: thank you. mr. chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from iowa. iowa. representative blum: thank you chairman wheeler, for being here today and sharing your insight. i admire your tie. i did not get the memo. it is that day. i have a general question. chair wheeler: i grew up with an iowa woman who is big into irish. you make sure you well a green tie. [laughter] mr. blum: in your opening statement, you mentioned that one of the fcc's goa

plus import and the there was not forged within the building with the rulemaking process. instead the "wall street journal" reports it is through secretive effort inside the white house. white house officials has a parallel version of the fcc the announcement led it november of the plan for internet regulation that the report says blindsided the sec to testify months of work. of course, if you insiders were clued in and here is what a leader had to save. we have been hearing four weeks field anything that could stop them from moving ahead with the shechem proposal if we can get the president to step in. we did everything in our power to make that happen we took the gloves off and played hard now we get to celebrate the victory. congratulations. put the press is called a parallel sec at the white house with the plethora of actions with progress in public knowledge today review. even before activists flocked said driveway some were met with officials in what about the rest? peyser they could not get a white house meeting and were shut out of the process altogether and replac

verify their facts, to understand the process they're going through in order that ultimately that rulemaking process is something that is scientifically based on sound science and is something that is appropriate. now in the bill we simply say that in the effect that anyone with knowledge and expertise should be able to participate. we ask for full disclosure. if you have an economic interest, whether it is doing scientific research or in any related business fully disclose your background. that presently is not going on, so that's an improvement. that's an enhancement. we explicitly ask that public input be allowed, that it be encouraged. there's nothing wrong with that. there are a lot of really bright people around this country who have great understandings of the issues that affect their day-to-day lives and should be able to share that. account board stop the environmental protection agency from doing something? it's an advisory board. their power is not in being able to stop an action of the peaverplet, but their power is making -- e.p.a., but their power is making them justify the act

we have an 18 month rulemaking process. ask any further comment? >> we have at least a three-year rulemaking process on a controversial rule. we don't have authority over building blocks three and for if we were to increase or change energy efficiency standards which adds to the timeline. >> thank you. senator boxer? >> i am stuck with some of the states attitude. we have states during this prospering far more than your states. that is what stuns me. it's ok. i respect your view. i want to ask this question. when you listen to mr. easterly respond to my chairman, actually these rules could mean we would be increasing carbon worldwide because some companies will leave the state. they will be so upset. have we found companies leaving california? last i checked silicon valley was booming. we have increases in manufacturing. am i wrong? >> you are not wrong. we have experienced growth across the board. particularly in the clean energy sector or her in california because of our policies. we are the leading state in terms of technology and renewable ener

peter: you are confident that the rulemaking adapted today will in fact ensure an open and free internet? steve: i think it will be a positive step. i think the other side is also for open and free internet. the decision today goes a lot further than net neutrality. title ii regulation means oversight of bad behavior, not meddling, not controlling things, but looking for bad behavior. or could be a lot of things that are illegal, unconstitutional behind the scene of the big isp's. i do not think we can trust them that much. this is for the people, the consumers, the average joe against the suppliers, that have all the power and the wealth. they feel hopeless and helpless. here 4 million of us signed petitions, and it is an indication that the people can sometimes win. we have had a lot of defeats over the years, but sometimes we have a win. peter: some say this will stifle investments. that is going to dry up. steve: tom wheeler himself pointed out in an article in the "wall street journal" that said, we really do not think it will matter. no, i do not think this is running their busines

if i have to pass rules we have , an 18-month rulemaking process. senator inhofe: any further comment? ms. nowak: we have at least a three-year rulemaking process on a controversial rule. which i would submit this would be one. you would also have to change -- we don't have authority over building blocks three and four if we were to increase or change energy efficiency standards, those all required legislative action, which adds to the timeline. senator inhofe: thank you. senator boxer? senator boxer: what i am stunned by his some of the states' attitude. we have states during this prospering far more than your states. that is what stuns me. but it's ok. i respect your view. i want to ask mary nichols this question. when you listen to mr. easterly respond to my chairman, and where they said actually these rules could mean we would be increasing carbon worldwide because some companies will leave the states. they will be so upset at these rules. have we found companies running away from california? last i checked silicon valley was booming. we have in

the commissioners wrote 4 million americans exercised their right to comment on proposed rulemaking. it's a good thing. the commission has listened and it has learned. shares in intel are sinking again a day after intel said it would make far less money than expected because of slowing chip sales. intel says fewer businesses are upgrading their work computers that could mean a billion dollars less in sales. intel is a dow component and the dow is having a rough day, too. it's down better than 200 points. it's been kind of a wild roller coaster week. >> good thing we'll get two days off, then. forget the selfie stick. a chinese company is taking self-documentation to new heights. take a look at these selfie drones. apparently sponsored by starbucks there. they launched an indy go go campaign and launched this nano copter that is small enough to fit in your pocket and take high definition photos. the company is halfway to its $20,000 goal. speaking, though to the faa issue, if they try to sell the pictures to make money off them -- >> you can enjoy a drone at a park, you can take a pic

do you have any comments about this rulemaking and the digital divide? will it help eliminate that? or by not doing this rulemaking and having sort of an opposite rule-making how it will affect the poorest of americans. >> if you do not have access free fair, open access then you per se have a divide. and so when we come out and talk about how there needs to be no matter where you are, no matter what legal content "uss that there should be open access to it, that's the predicate to not having a divide. not to say that there aren't challenges that we will continue to face. but that the baseline is there has to be openness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. now i recognize the gentleman from iowa mr. bloom for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman wheeler for being here today and sharing your insights with us. and i must admire your green tie. obviously, i did not get the memo. >> it is that day. >> yes. >> i have a general question. >> i grew up with an iowa woman who is big into irish. you make sure that you wear a green tie,

the fdic considers the size, complexity and risk profile of institutions during rulemaking and supervisoryguidance development processes and ongoing basis through the feedback we receive from community bankers and stakeholders. where possible we scale policies according to these factors. as we strive to minimize the burden we look for changes that can be made without affecting safety and soundness and believe the current $500 million threshhold for the expanded 18-month examination period could be raised. in addition we would support congress' efforts to reduce the privacy notice reporting burden and also think it would be worthwhile to review longstand statutory regulatory thresholds to see if they should be changed. the fdic will continue to pursue reduction which achieves the fundamental goals of safety and soundness and consumer protection in ways appropriately tailored for community banks. we look forward to working with the committee in pursuing these efforts. >> i appreciate the opportunity to testify on the important topic of community banks and reducing regulatory burden. having b

not a a concept that is easy to put on paper in working very hard to get the elements through the rulemakingrocess. and it continues to be a top priority today. >> when faced with old problems and to bring new thinking and a fresh perspective where we have made a ton of progress and i think there is an inclination it is mostly driver air what we do about somebody trying to beat a trade or if they are disoriented? we try to bring new thinking to battle problem and also comprehensive thinking so the accrued by real issue is a brand new problem that we have because we're becoming and energy independent country which is wonderful but federal think anyone is thinking of the challenges that comes with that some of those are issues we're tackling in terms of the fall a tidal project moving throughout the country so we're thinking comprehensively had to incentivize industry to make it safer before transport or how do incentivize the railroad to put expectations in place for is zero tolerance policy? and new thinking for old problems. >> it takes all of us to do that. >> but i would like to reiterate

we are still working through the later stages of rulemaking, this is an area of great focus for me. >> swinging kickback to the question of cybersecurity, there's a mixed ownership depending on the mode. the president's executive order signed out last month brought forward the idea of stronger information sharing and advisory organizations. i wonder what the department might be able to do to build a stronger information sharing organization among the various modes of transportation for which their responsibility because i think the industry is crying out for better coordination informational sharing, information sharing about best practices and best results. >> we are very open to trying to play a stronger role in assist these conversations across different modes of transportation. to get the most within modes to have the discretion. and aviation that are distinct. to your point. to play an active role on the cost cutting side of the conversation as well. >> i would like to thank you for very interesting informative session. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversation

you have the irs shutting these loopholes, regulatory powers, the irs makes a lot of rulemaking and alreadye up when u.s. companies wanted to move their headquarters overseas. that debate came up at all white house, yes they could force the irs to shut that down. stuart: you think they might do it. judge andrew napolitano is with us fresh from his lunch with me yesterday. in all seriousness, what they are thinking of doing is tweeting the irs rule not raising tax rates. judge napolitano: to increase the tax burden on corporations forgetting that those taxes will be paid by shareholders. stuart: will it be constitutionally legitimate again judge napolitano: absolutely not. people who are paying those taxes elect of congress they expect will be writing tax laws and not a precedent. this is the lone wolf president who has no regard for the limitations on his office. he is in the death throes of his term in office it is desperate about being irrelevant and frustrated against the conservative republican congress. "imus in the morning" when you think he will do it? judge napolitano: yes. stuart: