first, the f.c.c.'s proposed rules are extreme and go well beyond anything they should be oing in the says and it is a bipartisan space. there are several republicans sent a letter to all, all of the f.c.c. commissionerses the privacy rulemaking and i'm quoting, intends to go beyond the framework from data practices from the internet services and consistency on how the personal data is protect thed. has been our sole sbrnt privacy regulator. it will recrate confusion within system, the f.c.c. erm tore and he testified before the house uniquery ki that has the expertise and providing the obligations to provide the security of security data. . . an economist recently said there has been no economic analysis on the rules' -- rule's impact. he said, that's a bad thing to be clear. let me tell you something. the fact that we have an agency that is not studying and working on the economic impact and reviewing what this is going to do to the economy is absolutely unbelievable. especially when you look at the f

the f.c.c. currently relies on an outdated, 1979 staff interpretation of this law that does not account for the dramatic changes in our campaign system that have taken place other the last six years. this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interests and wealthy donors can anonymously spend limitless sums of money to influence the outcomes of our elections. and to be honest, when an ad disclaimer says paid for americans for kittens and puppies or paid for by americans for a brighter tomorrow that really doesn't help the american voter understand who may be behind these ads. this is not what congress intended. and despite having the authority to do so, the f.c.c. has yet to take action to close this loophole. in january, 168 members joined ms. eshoo and me in sending a letter to the f.c.c. to unmask secret sponsors of political ads. they have yet to act. and it is my hope that our amendment, which simply states that none of the funds may be used in contravention of section 317, will

the f.c.c.'s own rules prohibit its employees from disclosing nonpublic information to anyone outside the commission unless expressly authorized by the commission or its rules. nonpublic information includes details of upcoming rule makings or other actions the commissioners are still negotiating. these rules are intended to foster the commission's ability to have honest and fulsome negotiations among the commissioners and staff and to prevent any special interests from gaining a particular advantage over other stakeholders. earlier this year, however, commissioner michael o'reilly wrote a blog post expressing his concerns that chairman wheeler was instead using these rules to muzzle other commissioners. commissioner o'reilly respected the commission's rules against disclosing details about upcoming rule makings, he pointed out that chairman wheeler was freely disclosing nonpublic information whenever he wanted. commissioner o'reilly was concerned that this allowed chairman wheeler to frame and i

so the court made very, very clear that the way the f.c.c. drew up its rules and the protection of the consumer, which is at the heart of this, i think that june 14 was the day of great history made in our country and for the betterment of it, for consumers, for competition, and for you are national economy. so it is with all of that in it is with all of that in mind that i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i think it makes sense. what was in the bill was drawn up before the court spoke and the court has spoken very clearly. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, we're not here to debate the merits of the net neutrality rule. everybody knows how . ntroversial it was as has pointed out, there were four million objections or supporting -- i don't now how they were split, but there were millions for, millions against. just tells you how controversial it is. all this provision says is, let's

the f.c.c. seems to be prolonging their pattern of regulatory overreach with its recent set top box proposal so if we also include language that requires the f.c.c. to stop and study this controversial rule before they can proceed any further. the telecommunications industry is more competitive than ever, more innovative than ever and yet the commission has been more active than ever in trying to exert regulatory control other market innovation. so in return the f.c.c.'s focus toward mission critical work and away from politically charged rule makings, this bill requires the f.c.c. to do less, with less. now to give low income families the option of selecting a school that best meets their educational needs, the bill includes the text of the scholarships for opportunity and results act, the so-called soars act that passed the house last month. we also include two other bill this is a passed the house, one extends the bankruptcy code to large financial institutions and the other one establishes a

it found that the f.c.c. -- f.t.c. acted within its authority, acted consistent with supreme court precedent, consistent with the administrative procedure act and consistent with the constitution. every issue raised by opponents in court was rejected. whether it was procedural or substantive. following this clear and decisive ruling, there's simply no reason for congress to be blocking the rules. the courts have spoken and legal scholars agree. i think the american people also spoke very clearly. over four million offered their comments by filing them at the f.c.c. during the rule making process and the vast majority of them were in support of strong rules. so this level of public input broke records at the f.c.c. he late justice an that -- antonin scalia's dissent in the 2005 brand x case reflects the same commonsense view the american people expressed in public comments. justice scalia said, quote, after all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated and the smoke of agency expertise blown awa

the f.c.c. the rules so that the american public actually has access to the airwaves that we own. that means for issues of great public importance like a presidential election and other elections for that matter, that candidates who are qualified to be on the ballot have a right to be heard by the public. and that air time should be provided for free without discrimination, without buys ass to any ballot qualified candidate at the time of an election. this is simple. this is a no-brainer. and it should be done. and this is the kind of lutions that i will bring to our very difficult situation. it's not rocket science how to fix it. it's about asserting our right to real democratcy. host: next we have larry. larry is calling in on our green party line from charleston, south carolina. good morning, larry. caller: good morning. dr. jill stein, it is a pleasure to see another party candidate. it is unfortunate that we did not get to see you during the debate. i think being a veteran, that's very appal

. >> earlier this year, the f.c.c. proposed new rules that would limit the kind of data that broadband providers can collect on consumers. i wanted to know what is the f.t.c.'s stance on that proposal? ms. ramirez: generally speaking, i will say that we're pleased to see that the f.c.c. is ensuring that companies under their jurisdiction provide appropriate privacy. the f.t.c. did submit comments. we made suggestions about how we thought they could make their proposed rules changed in our minds would make their proposed rules even better and in certain respects we felt the rules were not as privacy protective as they should have been and in others we suggested that perhaps more flexibility would be appropriate and might have been more than we would under the framework that we use, they could change their rule. so ultimately, the general approach that we feel should apply particularly this relates to choice mechanisms, we feel that information that is sensitive, health, financial information, or the content of communicat

secondly, the f.c.c. on its form that you have to send in basically said all you need to do is provide a check in the box that says we're only asking for one phone, but multiple applications came in from the same people, and no one asked, as the law requires, applicants to provide any supporting documentation. the i.g. found that this override option is also enabling subscribers to use fake names and fake social security numbers to avoid detection. how many times have i been down here talking about fake names, stolen i.d.'s -- stolen social security numbers used to object taken federal benefits with no oversight. the i.g. noted that between october, 2014, and april, 2016, get this -- nearly 4.3 million people enrolled in the lifeline program, by overriding the internal eligibility controls. let me repeat that. the i.g. noted that in the period between october, 2014, and april, 2016, nearly 4.3 million people enrolled in the lifeline program by overriding, overriding the internal eligibility controls. that'

the f.c.c. the rules so that the american public actually has access to the airwaves that we own. that means for issues of great public importance like a presidential election and other elections for that matter, that candidates who are qualified to be on the ballot have a right to be heard by the public. and that air time should be provided for free without discrimination, without buys ass to any ballot qualified candidate at the time of an election. this is simple. this is a no-brainer. and it should be done. and this is the kind of >> yeah, this is -- this is simple, this is a no-brainer and it should be done. and this is the kind of solutions that i will bring to this -- you know, to our very difficult situation. it's not rocket science how to fix this. it's about asserting our right to real democracy. >> up next we have larry. larry is calling in on our green party line from charleston, south carolina. good morning, larry. >> good morning. dr. jill stein, it is a pleasure to see another part

speeds starting around five megabytes per second-- far slower than the 25 megabytes per second that the f.c.c. has set as a minimum standard for high speed internet. customers can pay up to $90 a month for satellite service, almost double the average amount charged by large internet providers. crawford says big diversified media companies that provide internet and cable service avoid building high speed online networks in rural communities because the expense of doing so in a sparsely populated area doesn't offer them enough bang for their buck. >> they are responding rationally to wall street, and wall street wants them to keep their profits up very high. and for them, it's not as profitable to run a wire to a remote, isolated area with a few houses in it. >> reporter: i mean, can you blame them if it doesn't make financial sense to service a less-populated area? >> for many utility companies in the united states, it does make sense. if you're looking for modest, steady returns until the sun explodes, this is actually a great investment. if instead you're a diversified media company, it does

the f.c.c. e rules so that the american public actually has access to the airwaves that we own. that means for issues of great public importance like a presidential election and other elections for that matter, that candidates who are qualified to be on the ballot have a right to be heard by the public. and that air time should be provided for free without discrimination, without buys ass to any ballot qualified candidate at the time of an election. this is simple. this is a no-brainer. and it should be done. and this is the kind of lutions that i will bring to our very difficult situation. it's not rocket science how to fix it. it's about asserting our right to real democratcy. host: next we have larry. larry is calling in on our green party line from charleston, south carolina. good morning, larry. caller: good morning. dr. jill stein, it is a pleasure to see another party candidate. it is unfortunate that we did not get to see you during the debate. i think being a veteran, that's very appalli

so the agreement was that we would confirm michael o'reilly to the f.c.c. but in exchange, as soon as the new year came, they would go with rosenworcel. that would be the next congress. reilly was a longtime staffer for senator kyl, who had -- also worked for senator cornyn. jessica is a very talented lawyer who worked for jay rockefeller. it's very unusual to do what i agreed to do, but i, in good faith, accepted the word of two republican united states senators. we traditionally confirm members on bipartisan boards by pairing nominees, one democrat, one republican. i agreed to do this, out of the goodness, frankly, mr. president, o of my heart. i have never, ever had the experience where someone just simply didn't keep their word. that's what's happened. and i wasn't alone. somebody who works here on the senate floor and has for years was there when that conversation took place. the republican leader asked me to make an exception, and i did. i agreed with his personal commitment that when the next congress convenes, the republicans would reconfirm jessica

so the agreement was that we would confirm michael o'reilly to the f.c.c. but in exchange, as soon as the new year came, they would go with rosenworcel. that would be the next congress. reilly was a longtime staffer for senator kyl, who had -- also worked for senator cornyn. jessica is a very talented lawyer who worked for jay rockefeller. it's very unusual to do what i agreed to do, but i, in good faith, accepted the word of two republican united states senators. we traditionally confirm members on bipartisan boards by pairing nominees, one democrat, one republican. i agreed to do this, out of the goodness, frankly, mr. president, o of my heart. i have never, ever had the experience where someone just simply didn't keep their word. that's what's happened. and i wasn't alone. somebody who works here on the senate floor and has for years was there when that conversation took place. the republican leader asked me to make an exception, and i did. i agreed with his personal commitment that when the next congress convenes, the republicans would reconfirm jessica

. >> could 5-g mobile kecktift around the corner? f.c.c. commissioner tom wheeler says so. onight on "the communicators," kathleen abernathy talks about 5-g and what it means for the u.s. and discuss why 5-g is needed for the internet of things, cars. and she is joined by senior editor howard buskirk. >> the goal is to say we have the spectrum. we have the vision thing going where we want to go with wireless and we will push ahead to make sure that u.s. maintains its global leadership in the wireless arena and i think that's terrific for our country. in fact, i would argue it's essential because this is one of those areas where u.s. global leadership has yielded tremendous benefits economically from a technological perspective and from a jobs perspective. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern tonight n c-span2. >> our guest on c-span's "newsmakers" this week is texas congressman kevin brady, chairman of the ways and means committee in the house of representatives, the tax writing committee. thanks for coming back. mr. brady: thanks for having me. host: represe

writing for the majority in city of arlington vs. f.c.c., justice scalia argued that requiring a de novo review of every agency rule without any standards to guide this review would result in an open-ended hunt for congressional intent. rendering the bipeding effect of agency rules unpredictable and eviscerating the whole stabilizing purpose of chevron. the excessive agency power that the dissent fears would be replaced by chaos. in recognition of these concerns, my amendment would exempt from the bill agency rules promulgated in response to a clear and unequivocal mandate from congress. without my amendment and notwithstanding the endeering title of the bill, h.r. 4768 would create countervailing separation of powers concerns by casting aside congress' role in shaping agency rules in favor of judicial activism. as a group of our nation's leading administrative law experts have observed, h.r. 4768 is disruptive to the careful equilibrium that the full body of administrative law doctrine seeks to achieve. administrative law is not perfect,

decisions and have a group of people not licensed by the government or anybody else to make those decision. and pri while you're a nonprofit and have f.c.c. regulations, you're also doing editorial and cure ating. and there's other organizations not basically doing any of that kind of thing, or potentially as you mentioned pormely started pushing one side of the agenda. so talk about maybe you first, talk about the response -- what do you feel the responsibility is that you have to make sure your job is being done the right way as you see it. and how does that tie into the organization? a well, we're relatively small organization with a fairly large footprint. so pri itself is 1500 people and we reach about -- 100 people and we reach across with our content and digital platform. so in addition to covering the news cycle itself, which is something we do across all of our programming. we do look at places where there is unmet content needs or where there's a problem and trying to figure out why is that happening and what systemic is happening and how can we be a solution. so i can use one example. so it was an observation. there's a really