with the rulemaking that we're not though lawmakers anymore. that the clean water exams. >> i said hello earlier and again want to invite you to my district because a couple of reasons to use it here two hours and in here is the issue where i represent we have and largest effect jurying districts in the country in the southern part of the state we have had he agriculture as well so i look at this but indiana is a good role model for the economy and i can show you in the district doing things that are incredibly creative. warda in the family farmer because it depends on taking care of that area. end to do some clean water things but i milanov to remember when the epa was really considered a partner, a partner with industry, a partner with farmers especially in our state. to keep people from getting in trouble that today's epa is set punitive revenue judgment -- generator for big government and that bothers me. i know there is a lot of well intentions i am understand why the frustration is so high hillsides. with americans and farmers and we are

we are asked to do a rulemaking for clarification. whether you disagree or not is fine but -- >> once the cost of this? >> it's actually a net benefit of something in the order of 184 million. >> a benefit, not a cause. i've heard it costs anywhere from 180 million up to 500 million which that would change the way the rulemaking process works, correct? ..if the cost is over hundred million you can't go around congress the way you did. >> the 100 million threshold means would go to the interagency process, which we did. >> do you know howard's landscape and mac do. >> have you worked with him on this? >> yes, i did. >> do you know he won't-- why he won't give the required documents which we have been asking for cents march 15? >> i'm not familiar with what you are asking about. >> we had a hearing and this was a major rule and we have been asking and had to announce a subpoena these documents were over a year. you don't have any idea why they are ignoring our request? >> i don't know >> i don't know. >> conversations with him? >> no, s

this rulemaking is complicated. it describes three information streams for navigation devices, work that needs to be done, admittedly a security system and a trio of parity requirement. the most successful regulatory efforts are simple ones. more work needs to be done to streamline the proposal because in the end for consumers to benefit and enjoy the bounty of what we have proposed while execution is all. so what we have here may or may not be the precise way forward, but something has got to give. i support chairman wheeler suffered to get the proceedings started because it is past time to live up to our statutory obligations and give consumers the competition they deserve. >> thank you, commissioner rosenworcel and your observations are well taken. as you point out, the reason we have this to get the record built. commissioner pai. thank you, mr. chairman. someone with three set-top boxes in my home, share the frustration held by millions of americans across the country. the boxes are clunky, expensive and i feel

so what this notice of proposed rulemaking, and i think some of the headlines have been misleading, this is a notice of proposed rulemaking for us to have a conversation in an fcc way to see what the universe looks like and to see whether or not it is a competitive or if competition is warranted, what type of standards we should use. we would have input from a number of bodies to see what the state of play is in this environment and what, if anything, we should do to change it. >> host: about a month ago on this program we had michael powell, former chairman of the fcc and head of the telecommunication association and here is what he had to say about cable boxes. >> consumers don't want more boxes. if there is anything like hulu and amazon prime is that streaming is an invention that has overtaken what a lot of people have relied on the box to do. take dvr. it is an important service but as streaming is more dominant the need to record and skip through the commercials much of that is less important because i can stream it. i stream it once, i can stream it ten times. i can rewind it. i c

until such time the epa completes a study in a new rulemaking process is undertaken. understanding is the study is complete that recommend a lower threshold, but the rulemaking is not finished, so my question is wise epa taking enforcement action against individuals who are not out of compliance and isn't that a violation of the law? >> sir, i am happy to look into it and get back into it. it just happen yesterday and i'm not familiar with that. >> is that kind of thing a regular practice? >> i think we have actually been doing a very good job on the rules and many of them because there are changes in threshold like 96% of them are no longer impacted by this rule-- a. >> let me-- >> we are doing pretty good. >> to epa agents take compliance action because they know farmers are not willing to fight conformists action because it cost the more legal costs than to go ahead and two sir come to the epa court pressure? >> i don't know why you are suggesting it, sir, but if that is your point of view-- >> it is my point of view and lots of people in my district to farm and ar

debate going on at the fcc with regards to net neutrality roles and have been kicking this new rulemaking down line for the past several months perhaps in anticipation of a court ruling on a case they argued back in december. a lot of issues related to what you are talking about cory with regards to notifying consumers when a data breach has occurred and also they want the fcc to require the fcc to obtain affirmative consent before they gather and share that data later on. so that's going to be one of the next things in the oversight hearing. >> guest: it's interesting you mention the movement of the fcc because i'm a data breach bill doesn't seem like we are going to see a lot of movement. there are so many options out there. it humbles the senate side in the house side and it doesn't seem to be much of a unifying support behind any one of the offerings. they had trouble trying to move on last year and predict when we have only seen more bills come out on this topic since then. ostensibly they want companies to be required to tell the government within a certain period of time the mail d

proposal will make and i think some of the headlines have been misleading, it is a proposal of rulemaking for us to have a conversation in an fcc way to see what the universe looks like to see if it is a competitive -- to see if competition is warranted. we will have input from a number of bodies to see exact what the this of play is in environment, and what, if anything, we should do to change it. peter: a month ago we had the former chair of the fcc and head of the national cable and telecommunications association. consumers don't want more boxes. hulu and amazon prime are proving that streaming has been invention that is overtaking what people relied on the box to do. dvr is important, but as dominant,become more it becomes less significant to a lot of consumers. because i can just stream it. once, 10 times, rewind, and move it forward. a of content is being provided advertisement free in binge consumption. that is the direction consumers have been responding to. saying, the fcc wants to create another video service around boxes and they cable guy to inventory and deploy another box to

we publish advanced notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of proposed rulemaking, take comments, lookorward and discussed alternative ways that we might approach promulgating a rule to reduce the burden and take comments into account. so it's not as though there is not a wink the benefits and costs that are involved. >> how long it typically is that process? >> the process can take years, and especially when there are multi-agency rules that have to be put in place. i mean, we are coming close to completing the dodd-frank agenda of rulemaking, but that has taken a very long time and we've been very actively engaged in trying to do this as rapidly as we possibly can. >> if it's taken have a decade or the regulators to you and the fdic at occ and others, it's taken have a decade plus the dodd-frank rulemaking, can you guess what it would have taken it had been a cost-benefit analysis like this? >> well clearly it would've been much more burdensome and take much longer. there's no doubt about it. i can't get it i guess, but as you indicated, attempting to quantify the benefits of safety

>> the set-top box. >> what it is is notice of proposed rulemaking. we have proposed rules that we have a comment. i'm not in the next step in a rulemaking proceeding would likely be development of an order based on the record that will develop. >> in the comment. in 60 days? is that which you referred to earlier? >> yeah, 30 days and then another 30 days, yes. >> thank you very much. are there any questions on the governmental conservative affairs item? on the enforcement or items? all right. i think we are -- i'm sorry? [inaudible] >> i don't know. is anybody here from the worsening euro? i would get back to you. i think commissioner pai and o'reilly are here. >> hello, cleveland. >> yeah, the chairman told me that the mvpd and ott thing are not related at all and you are wrong about two sides of the same plan. do you have any reaction? why do you think they are connected? >> i outlined in my statement where they are connected. two and half pages tie the two together very nicely. you're attacking to build lake about the licensing piece the licensing

the purpose of the proposed rulemaking is to say that spilled and make a decision on that record. is a no, i made up my mind. i don't want to build a record, i guess i didn't know i was shaking my head, but it's cause you shaking your head. >> hi, karen. brien barber with the national barber journal. you invoke section 629 today the communications act of the project or screen. before your comments come after mr. rather was talking about that section and how it refers to equipment and he drew a very clear distinction between the intent of the law applied to equipment and not the software or the app you're talking about. how much of a concern is not for you as we enter the rulemaking stage in this very thing that tripped up the commission of any kind of proposal? >> the statute talks about the equipment systems and services. it covers maps and everything else. [inaudible] >> john brockman. i want to ask about the issue of advertising and third-party set-top boxes. he said nothing would change that. what exactly prevents a third-party set-top box taker from putting advertising and is

to start a whole new rulemaking process about something that's very simple. people want to see how many calories are in what they eat. very simple concept. very simple. people like it. people don't want us wasting time on it. let's not waste time on it. let's discuss things people care about. but, no, we're forced to under this rule, spend even more time . and time is money. time is money. not just the opportunity costs that we could be talking about ending our budget deficit, restoring order to our border, we could be doing that. but actual costses. costs money to keep this body -- costs. sts our money up and running -- costses money to keep our body -- costses money to keep our body -- costs money to keep ur body running. frank pallone said there's ongoing discussions with f.d.a. and they're well aware of some of these issues that can be improved. and congress is best setting these broad directions. like the broad direction which i support, which congress actually did, this was part of the affordable care act, and if it was a separate vote, i would have bee

we publish advanced notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of proposed rulemaking, take comments, look for and discuss alternative ways that we might approach promulgating a rule to reduce burden and take comments into account. so, it's not as though there is not a weighing of benefits in cost -- and cost that are involved. mr. brown: how long typically is that process? ms. yellen: the processes can take years. and especially when there are multiagency rules that have to be put in place. i mean, we we are coming close to completing the dodd-frank agenda of rule making but it's taking a very long time and we have been very actively engaged in trying to do this as rapidly as we possibly can. mr. brown: it's taken half a decade for the regulator, you o.e.c. and the others it's take an decade plus to do dodd frank, can you guess what it would have taken if there'd been a cost-benefit analysis like this? ms. yellen: clearly it would be much more burdensome and take much longer. there's no doubt about it. i

there we are paying attention, but this is something they'll vote on, i think it is likely to go to rulemaking at some point and we are going to be participant because we want to protect our content, it has a a value. and we are determined to protect that. >> speaking of negotiations, how worried are broadcasters that there's going to be a lot of changes to the negotiation rule. >> again, this is a solution looking for a problem. i understand as good business people and pay-tv colleagues are, they are looking to reduce any cost that they can. but again, we are paid far less for our content than they pay themselves for their own content. our content has has a lot more viewership than theirs. we think there is a disparity between compensation and viewership but it is also true that her friends on the other side of that negotiation, some of them i think dish in particular really relish that whenever they can get an impasse with some small broadcaster and blow that up into some big deal and they always time it around the super bowl, the oscars, as night follows day that is going to happen. then th

withepartment's role, as all rulemaking, is to provide legal assistant and clarity. they will craft to the rule. it will go out for public comment. those comments are received back. the relevant agency, in this case ssa, will provide a response before any will will be promulgated. it is designed to make sure that the individuals who fall into that category are those that are clearly connected to the legal prohibition against being able to buy, or maintain, if iran. -- a firearm. >> thank you come mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. i think you could figure out a i am the chairman of homeland security appropriations committee by the combination of the chairman is to be canted investigate criminals and illegal aliens. as the chief law enforcement officer, you must do your part. the past few years you requested and received funding for immigration justice. you, these are courts use 99% of the time by foreigners seeking immigration benefits, yet still we fund them to taxpayer dollars. why are we not placing these immigration judges on the border? wait -- wait times

department of education and what it is they're going to do with regulations and negotiated rulemaking. the secretary does have the right to regulate, but what he can regulate on is very constrained. and so it's now up to states to push back. if states don't want to have common core state standards, totally up to them. it hasn't been the case, and now it's up to them. if they want to have a teacher evaluation system, that's up to them. and they can choose to implement it or not. and as we look at what the department does, states have much more freedom and flexibility to say no and to push back on the secretary. waivers are no longer the condition. no child left behind is gone. so states now have the secretary over the barrel as opposed to the secretary having them over the barrel. there's no more highly qualified teacher, no more annually measurable objectives. the whole apparatus in the waivers is ended. and so now states can develop their own accountability systems, now states can develop their own measurements for trying to figure out whether schools are succeeding or failing, which

going to be looking at all of those aspects and eventually coming out with a notice of proposed rulemaking that people will get to really get their teeth into later on. >> host: and the larger issue of the net neutrality potential ruling, when would you expect a ruling by the court? >> guest: most of the people i've spoken with are butting -- putting it at the end of april or around april, i believe. it could be earlier, it could be a little later, but most people think the court wants to be expeditious where the ruling. >> host: kate, what could change? >> guest: depending on how they rule a lot, i think, you know, the timeline is really interesting because you've seen a lot of activity in congress again on net neutrality. this is something that we've seen as long as this has been an issue, congress has been interested. but recently the house energy and commerce committee started moving piecemeal net neutrality bills, so they moved a bill from chairman walden that makes permanent an exemption from certain parts of the rules for small businesses, and they moved a bill that would prohibit t

we are coming close to completing the dodd-frank agenda of rulemaking but it has taken a long time and has been very actively engaged in trying to do this as rapidly as we can. >> it has taken half a decade , second half a decade plus, to do dodd-frank rulemaking. you guess what it would have taken? ms. yellen: clearly would be much more burdensome. there is no doubt about it. i cannot give you a guess, but as you indicated, a safety and is very difficult. >> who would have wanted this to take longer? don't say what i indicated, but who in the country would have wanted the regulations to take longer? regulations.with >> let me shift to another question. i want to talk on -- about interest on excess reserves. to pay interest on excess reserves. i am concerned this is an attempt by those opposed during defense turn let those monetary policy rules. what are the implications of repealing and limiting interest on reserves? ms. yellen: it is the most critical tool we have for monetary policy to adjust the level of short-term interest rates in the stance of monetary policy. if we were denied

yellen: we will put out notice of proposed rulemaking and consider comments on it, including those that pertain to costs. rounds: so the answer is i would rather not answer the question of whether they cost-benefit analysis included? not going to'm commit to a cost-benefit analysis. senator rounds: one of the major concerns about one of the current designation process is designation no real to determine systemic risk because i would suspect we are in rather uncharted waters adding insurance into the banks. we may not have the reliable data to compare banks in this regard. what has the federal reserve done to compare systemic risks of banks and non-bank companies against each other? has there been an analysis? case of eachn the of those designations, a very detailed analysis was done asking what would be the of thec consequences failure of that organization. in the case of the insurance companies that were designated, aig,fe, credential, and they did judge with careful work done that the failure of those organizations potentially had systemic consequences that needed to be addressed. sen

again, not through any formal rulemaking process. the ocr for four years proclaimed this was the standard and two different senators ask where are you getting the legal authority? there is no notice, there is nothing. and they knowledge there is no legal authority. this is just general guidance. this didn't actually make any new law. so still trying to enforce it. whether we like his policies were like most people i cato severely dislike to mccain from the tradition of legal liberalism, separation of powers. i spent a lot of time thinking about this. and researching it in the big part of the problem is that obama and many of his top lawyers come from an intellectual tradition that is unlikely -- legal liberalism of the past very skeptical. considering the liberals and progressives are taken to arguing that the constitution has no objective meaning from a series, series of interpretations focusing on the original objectives are nonsense and that the constitution is a living document the must evolve with the times. there is a long stan

it is formalizing a process we have been doing informally over the past year in terms of rulemaking. we will be happy to make. this is an issue of interest and we would like to work with the congress in making sure we are considering the right things as we ask questions about the impact on rural america. >> senator caldwell. >> thank you for your work on the budget. always good to see you. i want to go over the implementation of the basic health care plan which some states have taken up and want to get your commitment to implement those plans. my understanding is new york is targeting lower premiums and plans that are better drivers of driving down cost in the marketplace. so definitely want to get your commitment on that. >> yes, i think you know in the time i have been here, we have engaged in a number of these. now with new york and minnesota in terms of the two places but we look forward to other states coming forward with proposals that do a number of things. it has to meet the basics of making sure the number of people that need access have access. it needs to meet the requirem

an exact timetable, but we are expecting to go out with for each of the firms notice of proposed rulemaking so the public can react to these rules. the staff is fairly far along in developing these, so my hope is that it won't be too much longer. we have worked hard to have the appropriate interactions with the firms and other regulators to do this right. >> well, i appreciate your work on that. from illinois insurance is important. we've got some wonderful companies there, but i know they've got questions and hopefully the resolution relatively quickly. one last question, will the federal reserve propose capital rule for all insurers it supervises and explain why or why not? >> i'm not positive. i think for the particular cifis that have been designated designated prudentially and metlife, they're likely to be firm-specific rules, but i'm not positive. let me get back to you on that. >> that'd be great. thank you. thanks, chair yellen. mr. chairman, i have an additional minute. i'd yield that back if the chairman would want that, otherwise yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair no

proipt in negotiating rulemaking and just say no when you don't like it. and other actions. watch for the mandates. they slip out of here in the dead of night. all over the place. tendency. somehow people get the idea if you fly up here from nashville or knoxville like i do some of you are smarter on the way up and write the rules and go home. even republicans do this. then they go home and make a speech at the lincoln day dinner about federal mandates. some of which they have just imposed so watch for them. they're waivers. there will be a peer review process. a plan approval. so that's really all i have to say. i hope you will -- i want to thank you for what you've done. ask for your help. in 1985 and '86 the governor spent a whole year. i was the chairman of the governors then. bill clinton was the vice chairman. we spent a year on education. we called it time for results. only time in our history we had done that. in 1989, governor branstad was chairman of the nation's governors and president h.w. bush was there and the governors met i think in charlottesville, terry. cr

acond, you will consider notice of proposed rulemaking it that seeks comment on a framework for providing innovators divisions manufacturers -- innovators, device manufacturers to access video content. third, you will consider a second report and order that allocates responsibilities for the deliveries of closed captions on video programming and the handling of captioning complaints. a consentlso consider agenda as listed in the commission february 2016 sunshine notice. this is your agenda for today. and titledtem promoting the availability of diverse and independent sources of video programming will be presented. you, madam secretary. you can now catch her breath. mr. like. mr. lake: good morning. today, we present a notice of inquiry that presents comment on challenges independent video theirmmers face with content. inquiry furthers the commission's ongoing efforts to enhance the diversity of programming available to consumers. independent video programmers have repeatedly expressed concern that certain practices of cable operators and other stifleayy -- m distribution. we want to foste

an exact timetable, but we are expecting to go out with for each of the firms notice of proposed rulemaking so the public can react to these rules. the staff is fairly far along in developing these, so my hope is that it won't be too much longer. we have worked hard to have the appropriate interactions with the firms and other regulators to do this right. >> well, i appreciate your work on that. from illinois insurance is important. we've got some wonderful companies there, but i know they've got questions and appreciate the interaction and hopefully resolution relatively quickly. one last question, will the federal reserve propose capital rule for all insurers it supervises and if you could explain why or why not? >> i'm not positive. i think for the particular cifis that have been designated prudential, ig, and metlife, they're likely to be firm-specific rules, but i'm not positive. let me get back to you on that. >> that'd be great. thank you. thanks, chair yellen. mr. chairman, i have an additional minute. i'd yield that back to the chairman if the chairman would want that. otherwise i

such regulatory authority and the rulemakings issued as a result of it raise significant questions. recently, the federal reserve has issued a number of new regulations stemming from the rules such as a total loss of capital, the liquidity coverage ratio and high quality liquid asset ratings. these rule makings are based on the -- rulemakings are based on the requirements set by the bank of international settlements and the committee on banking supervision. instead of allowing international bodies to serve as de facto u.s. regulators, the fed should appropriately vet these rules and answer important questions. for example, are these -- are those international requirements appropriately tailored for our domestic financial institutions? are they even necessary, given existing rules? are they harming our economy or placing u.s. firms at a disadvantage? i continue to encourage the federal reserve to further exercise its regulatory discretion, to tailor enhanced provincial standards according to the system at risk profile of each institution, not arbitrary factors. and where it does not

an exact timetable but we are expecting to go out with reach of the firm's notice for proposed rulemaking so the public can react to these rules. the staff is fairly far along in developing these. my hope is that it won't be too much longer. we have worked hard to have the appropriate interactions with the firm's and other regulators to do this right. mr. hultgren: i appreciate your work on that. fromance is important illinois. i know they have questions and i appreciate the answers. one proposed capital role for all insurance supervisors and you could explain why or why not? ms. yellen: i am not positive. particular the cities that have been designated , they are likely to be firm specific rules. i'm not positive. mr. hultgren: thank you chair yellen. i yield the additional minute back to the chair. >> general and yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. ellison: i: -- mr. want to thank some of the folks who have joined us for the hearing today. ron harris is here from minneapolis. i want to let you know this active citizenship, coming to these hearing

have to keep a very careful on on the department of , what they are going to do with regulations, rulemaking. the secretary has the right to regulate, but what he can't regulate is constrained. it is up to states to push back. if states do not want to have common core state standards, it is up to them. that has not been the case. if they want to have a teacher violation system, that is up to them. they can choose to implement it or not. as we look at what the department does, states have much more freedom and flexibility to say no and push back on the secretary. waivers are no longer the condition. gone.ld left behind is there is no more adequate progress. there's no more qualified teacher. there are no more objectives. no child left behind the whole idea of and the waivers is ended. now states can develop their own measurements were trying to figure out whether schools are succeeding or failing, which schools you identify. we have guardrails or parameters that were insisted on to get to 60 and get a presidential signature. states have to identify the schools,rforming bomb -- bottom schools,

absent some fcc rulemaking what would be the motivation for them to step away from that? you could argue some of these trials that have just been rolled out might just be motivated by the fact the fcc is considering rules in this area. what would their motivation be to move away from a highly lucrative rental situation right now? >> part of the motivation isn't technically difficult and expensive to maintain these boxes. it's not a growth industry for most companies. they would much rather move that functionality to an app-based platform especially in an ip world where you can accomplish for a fraction of the cost with the set-top boxes do. their efforts predates any suggestion that the fcc might have made in this notice by a number of years. it's been a couple of years since we've seen that. will i think they're doing it because they simply prefer the business and serendipitously good for a number of consumers. i think about how i consume the overtime. i go to mine and watch different short clips. there are so many different ways to get content now that this conversation

that epa is looking for exemptions to exemptions in your rulemaking who is making the law here?that is what people are concerned about. direct your agency to cs regulated activities of the clean water act? >> we should not be doing anything other than exempting activities. >> my time is expired, have some follow. appreciate your answers today. >> mr walorski for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks so much. i am over here. i said hello earlier and wanted to invite you to northern indiana to my district because a couple reasons. i sat here and you have for two hours and here is the issue in my district in northern indiana, we have one of the largest manufacturing district in the country, not just the midwest. in the southern part of the state we have coal mines and we are strewn throughout with heavy agriculture as well so i look at this, since the day i came to congress and even before indiana is a good role model for the environment being good stewards of the economy and i could show you in my district places where we are out of the box, and things that are incredib

we are expecting to go out to each of the firm's notice of proposed rulemaking so the public can react to these rules. the staff is fairly far along in developing these. my hope is that it will not be too much longer. we have worked hard to have the appropriate interactions with the firms and the regulators to do this right. >> i appreciate your work on that. from illinois insurance is important we have wonderful companies there i know they have questions i appreciate appreciate the interaction. hopefully relatives solution quickly. will the federal issue propose capital rule? >> i'm not positive. i think for the particular cities that has been designated and metlife they are likely to be firm specific rules but i'm not positive. let me get back. >> there'd be great. thank you. >> i have an additional minute i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. we now recognize the gentleman from minnesota. thank you mr. chair and ranking member. as as we start off i also want to thank some of the folks have joined us for the hearing today. a good friend ron harris is here from minneapolis. i w

plans where you can have multiple accounts, you can't have them in this case and there is a lot of rulemaking going on on what happens for instance i have a niece with down syndrome in new york. if i set up an able account and they set up an able account and they are working on how to combine these together. they have contributions for matching location for 529 accounts. for instance in california, a 529 plan can only go up to $530,000. it would take five years to go to that amount. i don't think we will see that able account that will go over $350,000 for reasons i will get close to it. there are two tiers with this. one on ssi, you can have an able account up to $100,000 and still have an eligiblity. if you go over that, $1,000 into your $2,000 resource up here. after that your ssi goes into suspension, but you still keep your medi-cal or medicaid and ihhs as well. for many folks especially persons with disabilities that work off times since the ihhs that is the most important. if the beneficiaries receiving, i pretty much covered that. people with california beneficiaries will not lose med

plans where you can have multiple accounts, you can't have them in this case and there is a lot of rulemaking going on on what happens for instance i have a niece with down syndrome in new york. if i set up an able account and they set up an able account and they are working on how to combine these together. they have contributions for matching location for 529 accounts. for instance in california, a 529 plan can only go up to $530,000. it would take five years to go to that amount. i don't think we will see that able account that will go over $350,000 for reasons i will get close to it. there are two tiers with this. one on ssi, you can have an able account up to $100,000 and still have an eligiblity. if you go over that, $1,000 into your $2,000 resource up here. after that your ssi goes into suspension, but you still keep your medi-cal or medicaid and ihhs as well. for many folks especially persons with disabilities that work off times since the ihhs that is the most important. if the beneficiaries receiving, i pretty much covered that. people with california beneficiaries will not lose med

it is likely to go to rulemaking at some point and we will be participants and we want to protect our content. it has a value and we are determined to protect that. >> how worried are broadcasters that there will be a lot of changes to negotiation rules? gordon: again, this is a solution looking for a problem. good people and the pay-tv collies are, there -- that they can. far less, we are paid for our content than they pay themselves for their own content. and our content has a lot more viewership than theirs. we think there is a disparity between compensation and viewership. our friends on the other side of the negotiation, some of them, dish in particular, really relish it whatever they can get a contrast and blow it up into some big deal, they always tired around the super bowl or the oscars. that is going to happen. the fcc and the hill and say there is a huge problem. willng up this proceeding probably result in more standoffs, more blackouts, and the best thing that could happen for them to close the proceeding quickly, and it sends the message basis -- should spend less time f

the epa's looking for exceptions to exemptions in your rulemaking, then who is making the law here?that's what a lot of people are concerned about is that we are not the lawmakers anymore. will you director agency to cease-- [inaudible] >> we should not be doing anything other than exempting those activities. >> okay. thank you. i appreciate again your answers today. >> five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman an administrator, thank you so much. i am over here. i want to you-- invite you to northern indiana to my district. i have sat here for two hours and here's the issue in my district. in northern indiana we have one of the largest manufacturing districts in the country, not just the midwest. in the southern part of the state we have cold minds and we are strewn throughout with heavy agriculture as well and so i look at this and i have said since the day i came to congress and prior to indiana is a good role model for being good stewards of the environment and the economy and i can show you in my district places where we are out-of-the-box and doing things that are incredibly cre