tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 12, 2016 3:40am-5:41am EDT
digital. our proposal provides that networks can use the consumer's information, but they must first get permission from the party whose information it is, the consumer. they can't sell something that isn't theirs, nor should consumers be forced to waive their privacy to get service. the networks need to seek permission of the party whose information it is. and further adhering to well-established principles, our proposal only applies to network providers. in the air france phone call example, what the airline may do with the consumer's information is a transaction separate from the consumer's transaction with the phone company to deliver the call. we do not regulate those with whom the network terminates in the vernacular of today, the edge providers, and this by the way includes network affiliates
acting as edge providers. and we have never asserted jurisdiction over edge providers and do not assert it now. finally, we are in the midst of building a record in this proceeding, as you indicate, mr. chairman. in keeping with good process, with we put forth propose as to focus the debate and the comments. but it is a proposal, not a conclusion. and we have asked multiple questions about the proposal, its assumptions and details. we will of course build my final proposal on the record that is established in that regard. look forward to this hearing to further enrich our consideration. thank you, sir. >> thank you, chairman. commissioner pai. >> chairman flake, ranking member franken, members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing today. it's a privilege to appear alongside you along our distinguished colleagues with the federal trade commission. thank you as well for giving me opportunity to testify about the
fcc's proposal to selectively regulate internet privacy. every day millions of americans enjoy the freedom that the internet provides. one reason is the united states' historic -- regulation when it comes to internet privacy. start-ups haven't had to hire an attorney to navigate complex federal rules and entrepreneurs have been free to invent and discover new ways to monetize their services without fear of government standing in the way of profitability. as the nation's preeminent -- for two decades, it has applied a unified approach to all online actors. the ftc has been quite active carrying out more than 150 privacy and data security enforcement actions, including actions against isps and against some of the biggest companies in the internet echo system. it's been so successful that the u.s. government has touted the ftc's work to the european union
as officially robust to protect online consumers against predatory privacy practices. but, unfortunately, the fcc tore apart the ftc's unified framework 13 months ago when it reclassified broadband as a public utility. there's now a gaping hole in our privacy protection protections,t needs to be refilled. how best to do that? i can't put it any better than chairman wheeler did, testifying before congress in november of 2015, because consumers deserve a uniform expectation of privacy, the fcc will not be regulating the edge providers differently from isps. but ignoring that commitment to congress, the fcc decided in march 2016 to target isps and only isps for stringent regulation. regulation far more invasive and prescriptive than the ftc's case-by-case approach. for several reasons, this approach doesn't make sense or, as president obama's first ftc chairman and most recent ftc
general counsel put it, the ftc's proposed rules would do little to promote the cause of privacy. first, it makes no sense to give some companies greater leeway under the law than others when all may have access to the very same personal data. search engines log every query you enter. social networks track every person you've met. online video distribute rz know every show that you stream. and if the fcc burdens one niche of the marketplace with asymmetric regulation, this approach doesn't benefit consumers or the public interest. it simply favors one set of corporate interests over another. second, the fcc's approach strangely singles out new upstarts in the concentrated market for online advertising. as president clinton's chief counsel for privacy and president obama's special assistant for economic policy has recently explained, the ten leading ad selling companies earned over 70% of online
advertising dollars and none of them has gained this position based on its role as an isp. he continued, that's because isps have neither comprehensive nor unique access to information about users' online activity. or, as former democratic representative rich boucher wrote recently, by the end of this year, 70% of internet traffic will be encrypted and be be beyond the surveillance of sisps -- those who are already winning big in the world of online advertising. that's former ftc chairman lebowitz put it, the big data marketplace will carry on except ironically the fcc will have insulated its largest players from isp competition. third, the fcc's proposal may signal the end for ad-based discounts on online services. the agency prosecutioned crosshairs free services in exchange for information as well as programs that offer consumers discounts on the broadband
service in exchange for consent to use web browsing data to tailor a customer's ads. i don't see how denying consumers such choices is in their interest. finally, everyone in the online ecosystem should recognize that the fcc's decision to target isps is a calculated political choice. the agency relied on section 706 of the telecommunications act. under the majority's reading of that section, the agency has a power to take practically any action it believes necessary to break down barriers to broadband deployment and adoption, including regulating edge providers. and to be clear, i don't support the majority's reading. but regulating the privacy market practices of isps and only isps is like eating half the meal. at some point, the fcc will want to come back to the table. chairman flake, ranking member franken, members, thank you for the hearing. looking forward to answering your questions and work with you
and your staff in the time to come. >> commissioner pai, thank you. commissioner ramirez. >> chairman flake, ranking member franken and members of the subcommittee, i'm pleased to appear before you today with my colleague commissioner maureen olhousen and alongside chairman wheeler and commissioner pai. today we face new challenges in protecting consumer privacy. with every tap of a smartphone, website search or online post, data is being collected about consumers. while uses of data can offer tremendous benefits to consumers, the increasing ubiquitous collection and use of data is largely invisible and becoming ever more difficult for consumers to control. studies show that consumers care about privacy and want mohr control over their personal information. in a recent survey by the pew research center, 91% of those surveyed said91% of those surveyed said they feel they have lost control over how their
personal information is collected and used by companies. i think it's vital that consumers have control over the collection and use of their personal information and that this information is protected appropriately. over the last several decades the ftc has undertaken numerous law enforcement policy and education initiatives to address consumer privacy and ensure that consumer information is adequately protected. the commission has used its primary authority under the ftc act to take enforcement action against companies that have engaged in unfair or deceptive practices involving the privacy and security of consumer information. the ftc also enforces sector-specific statutes that protect health, credit, financial, and children's information. our enforcement actions address a wide range of practices including deceptive claims about how companies collect, share, and use personal information.
the failure to provide reasonable security for consumers' personal information and violations of do not call and other telemarketing rules. our enforcement actions send an important message to companies about the need to protect consumers' privacy and safeguard their data in both the physical and digital worlds. the ftc has also pursued numerous policy initiatives to enhance consumer privacy. for instance, the ftc has hosted workshops to examine the privacy and security implications of emerging technologies and business models, including comprehensive tracking by companies across the internet ecosystem, big data, the internet of things and cross-device tracking. we've also issued a number of reports recommendeding best practices that we encourage companies to adopt. much of our policy work today builds on recommendations from the commission's 2012 privacy report, which sets forth key privacy principles that we believe ought to apply across diverse technologies and
business models. in that report we urged companies to be more transparent about their collection and use of data, to use privacy by design and implement privacy and security protections at the outset of product development. and to provide consumers with simple and clear ways to exercise choice over the collection and use of their data. the ftc has applied these principles to a broad array of emerging technologies and business practices, including the internet of things, facial recognition, and data brokers' practices. given the breadth of issues the ftc address, we frequently cooperate with other federal and state agencies. we have an extensive history of cooperation with the federal communications commission, including in connection with the enforcement of the do not call rule and efforts to stop unauthorized charges on mobile phones. in 2014, for example, working closely with the fcc and state authorities, we entered into two important mobile crowding settlements with at&t and at&t
mobile that resulted in hundreds of million ofs of dollars in consumer redress. last year we form lazed our collaboration with the fcc by formalizing a memorandum of understanding to facilitate coordination. and officials announced coordinated studies of security in the ecosystem. in our study we seek to learn how mobile device manufacturers and operating systems provide security updates to address vulnerabilities. the fcc in turn will examine common carriers' policies regarding mobile device security updates. our goal in working together is to use our complementary expertise and authority to protect consumers as effectively and efficiently as possible, avoid duplication and promote consistency. i commend the fcc for focusing on the important issue of consumer privacy. the ftc is carefully considering the fcc's proposed rules governing the privacy of consumer information collected by broadband internet access service providers, and we do intend to file a comment.
in closing i want to reiterate the fcc's commitment to protecting the privacy of consumers ts data. we continue to look forward to working with the fcc and the subcommittee on this important issue. thank you. >> thank you, chairman ramirez. commissioner ol'hausen. >> chairman flake, ranking member franken, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today with my ftc and fcc colleagues. we're here because of a side effect of the fcc's open internet order which reclassified broadband as a common carrier service. the ftc act has a common carrier exception, and the fcc's order thus halted my agency's decades-long bipartisan efforts to protect internet service. stepping into the gap the order created the fcc now proposes to regulate broadband isp privacy practices in a manner different from and more restrictive than the privacy framework the ftc
has long applied to the entire internet ecosystem, which includes social networks, search engines, ad networks, online retailers, mobile apps, mobile handsets and isps. as our written testimony details, the ftc is the primary u.s. privacy and data protection agency and probably the most active enforcer of privacy laws in the world. we've property hundreds of privacy data security related cases in all segments of the internet ecosystem, including against isps and large internet companies. in my brief time i want to highlight two qualities of the ftc's privacy approach that make it particularly effective. first the ftc seeks to protect consumers' particular privacy preferences. in our experience we show that consumers differ in how they weigh privacy concerns about their sensitive and nonsensitive information and other important values such as variety, convenience, and cost.
thus it is vital to calibrate opt-in, opt-out requirements to reflect general consumer preferences about particular types of information. so for example, requiring opt-in consent for nonsensitive information when most consumers would prefer a p simple notice or optout choice adds cost and inconvenience without benefits for the majority of consumers. to match consumers' privacy preferences the ftc takes a two-tiered approach. in some areas consumer preferences are nearly uniform. for example, consumers generally want to be asked for permission to use their sensitive personally identifiable information such as medical information or real-time location data and information about children. without consent uses of such sensitive personal information are likely to cause a substantial unavoidable consumer harm that isn't outweighed by benefits to competition or consumers. and thus be unfair under section
5 of the ftc act. therefore the f kaechlt tc's unfairness authority establishes a privacy baseline for most practices -- for plaz that most consumers agree require consent. and accordingly, we've brought cases when companies failed to obtain consent for using consumer sensitive information. for many other data practices such as targeted advertising based on less sensitive information consumer preferences are not uniform. in fact, they vary widely. in these situations companies can and do offer a variety of choices to satisfy these varying precedences. using our deception authority we bring a case when a company makes and then breaks a privacy promise to a consumer that materially affects that consumer's decisions. this approach promotes an honest marketplace with a wide range of consumer privacy practices. the second quality of the ftc's privacy work that i'd like to highlight is our case by case
enforcement. some criticize this approach because we've not established pri prescriptive rules. but i believe the ftc's leadership is a result and not in spite of our case by case privacy approach. investigating and pursuing hundreds of cases has given the ftc an unparalleled hands-on understanding of privacy problems. our cases test our principles against real facts. our approach allows us to adapt to evolving technologies and changing business models. in our cases we've studied how consumers react to specific privacy promises and practices and in each of our investigations we've evaluated the actual or potential harm to consumers of a company's practices and the benefits if any. so our case-by-case approach far from being a weakness is one of our great strengths. to conclude, the ftc's privacy framework has served consumers well for decades. our case-by-case
technology-neutral approach respects consumers ' preference, allowing consumers to balance the use of their sensitive and nonsensitive information against other benefits as they see fit. thus i bleeb our approach provides an excellent model for protecting privacy in the least restrictive or burdensome way. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you all for your testimony. i'll start the questions. chairman wheeler, a couple of questions about the scope of fcc's regulatory authority. if you could answer yes or no if possible on this. does the fcc have the authority to enact these proposed privacy rules under section 706 of the 1996 act? >> we're asserting these rules under title 2. section 706 is something we asked questions about in the proceeding itself. but this is a title 2 proceeding. >> not asserted under 706 at all. >> we're asking questions about
it. 706 clearly has a bearing on this. but we're doing this under section 222 of title 2. >> does section 706 of the '96 act provide the fcc with authority to impose these privacy rules on edge providers? >> we have said repeatedly that we do not believe or intend to assert jurisdiction over edge providers. >> commissioner pai, what based on your understanding of the position as relates to 706 do you agree? >> senator, i do not. i think that while the intention of the agency might be not to apply the regulations at this time to edge providers, the virtual cycle theory that the fcc relied upon both in february 2015 and in the current notice of proposed rule making is certainly elastic enough to encompass edge providers within the scope of any privacy regulations. >> thank you. chairman wheeler, commissioner pai in his testimony stated that
you testified before congress that because consumers deserve a, queet, uniform expectation of privacy that the fcc would not be regulating edge providers differently than isps. is this new rule, is this proposed rule consistent with that statement? >> so as commissioner pai reported, i said that we will not be regulating edge providers. the expression different from the network is an issue that what is sought to be done today is to change the nature of the role of the network to be one that is similar to an edge provider. and that's where we draw the line. that american consumers have for
decades expected that because of an fcc rule that the information that they give to the network is their information, not the network's information. and that ought to continue in this environment as well. and no, we do not intend to regulate the edge. and i find myself in a fascinating position with my colleague here that he's now the expansive interpreter of the statute and i'm the conservative interpreter of the statute. we do not intend to regulate the edge. >> commissioner pai, do you have any thoughts on that? >> certainly by the characterization, which i don't share, but more seriously to the question i think the chairman's exchange last november was very telling because the question was will consumers have a uniform expectation of privacy no matter what they're doing or no matter are who they're dealing with in the only ecosystem? the answer there, and i agreed with the chairman at the time, was yes. that's why fcc would not adopt a different approach but the fcc's
approach for marchar of this year was dramatically different singling out isps for a unique and intrusive privacy regulations i think is both obviously a betrayal of that commitment but more fundamentally it doesn't recognize what the white house recognized in the 2012 privacy report when it said that it was critical for privacy regulation to be technologically neutral and to reflect a consistent set of consumer expectations. >> if i take my phone into my home, say, i've flown home to arizona, which i do frequently, and i turn it on airplane mode or turn the wireless off and i get home and forget it turn wireless back on, or an hour later i turn the wireless on, so i'm covered by broadband part of the time and an edge provider or cellular service the other, am i regulated different ly dependin
on when i turn my wireless on or off? commissioner pai. >> senator, certainly the access to information that both isps and edge providers would have would vary dramatically. for example, if you took your smartphone home and lolgd on to your wi-fi network, if you then took it on the road and were connected to a cell tower on the way to the senate, if you're in the senate you connected to the snaet's wi-fi network and if you decided to go to a coffee sxhop log on to their wi-fi network you might have the same device but using multiple different isps across multiple different platforms. the one entity that would have consistent access to all your information would be your edge provider. for example, for an android smartphone, i can't see from here but it would be goog until that case. that's part of the reason why i've argued and why president obama's counsel, peter sweyer in his privacy report argued that isps have a small and diminishing access to information consumers have when they go online. >> let me answer your question specifically because you deserve an answer.
one, when you turn your phone on to be a phone, it is under the telephone aspects of section 222 of the communications act. and you have privacy rights and expectations. the question is why is it that the same device in your hand when you then say okay, i'm going to go to the internet, sorry, all that information doesn't belong to you anymore, it belongs to the network. that's the point that we're getting at here. you were spot on. you have a device. one function you have privacy protection. the other function you do not. and all we're saying is there needs to be equivalence between those two. >> thank you. i'll follow up on this. my questions later. i'm out of time. >> yeah. i just want to clarify this
because it seems like there may be a different interpretation of your answer. my understanding is that the question you answered in which commissioner pai quoted you was you were asked that in an ideal world would consumers have a uniform expectation of privacy, in which you said yes but immediately said you don't have jurisdiction over edge providers, that they are different from isps. >> thank you, sir. you are correct. you put it in the full context. >> senator, i have the transcript i'd like to enter into the record if you'd like. there's no mention of lack of jurisdiction in response to congressman long's question. >> it's not up to me. >> we're stipulating here that we don't have -- we are not exercising this jurisdiction. >> well, let me ask about that,
then. this is about the jurisdiction. under title 2. >> correct. >> so that's the issue here. so let me ask about sort of the distinction here. so basically, the argument that you're making, commissioner pai and i'm inferring commissioner o ohlhausen, that you don't want these privacy safeguards for isps or you want lesser safeguards for isps or you want more for edge providers. i'm a little confused about what your goal is here. i think the consumers have some basic privacy rights. which are you -- which direction
are you going here? >> senator, you point out some very interesting points that i think raise two issues. >> thank you. i always like compliments from the witnesses. >> first of all, is there a consistent approach across the internet? will a consumer who's engaged in something of a seamless transaction, who isn't seeing these different parts, understand what the privacy protections are for this part of their message or that part? if they opt out of targeted advertising. will they still get targeted advertising from -- through their browser or through the site? things like that. so there's a value to consistency, having a consistent approach between the ftc and the fcc. because the fcc now is overseeing isps. then the second question is is that line being drawn in the right place? and based on the ftc's long
approach in this area, what we've determined is that opt-in consent is appropriate and a good idea for sensitive information. but then for nonsensitive information when used for things like targeted advertising, that an opt-out approach is more consistent with consumers -- >> i understood that from your testimony. >> yes. >> my question is are you saying that you want -- the question here is because of the way the rule is written now, and it's out for comment, obviously, is that isps because they're common carriers under title 2, are regulated the same way phones are. that's what was -- chairman wheeler's testimony.
and you're saying and commissioner pai seems to be saying that you want this to be consistent. so my question is do you want the isps to have less regulation in terms of privacy or do you want the others, the edge providers, to have more? >> what i would say is based on the research that we've done and the approaches that we've taken in this area that it would be a slightly different standard based on the type of information, whether it's sensitive information or not -- >> i'll hear from commissioner pai and then i'm sure we'll continue. >> thanks for the question, senator. my position is pretty simple. i would associate myself with commissioner ohlhausen in full and i would also say my goal is to return to the light touch regulatory framework that the ftc applied across the entire internet ecosystem.
and i would associate myself as well with the white house when it said in 2012 that the key heroic the twofold key is to provide, and i quote, a level playing field for companies and a consistent set of expectation for consumers. i would argue the internet economy we have is due in part to the fact we relied heavily on exclusively on the privacy expertise the ftc had developed which was tailored to consumer preferences. that's a better way to go i think than the pre-emptive and prescriptive and selective approach the fcc is proposing to do. >> so i didn't quite get an answer to my question but i think that was closer, if i interpret it right. but i'm over my time and we'll come back for another round, i'm sure. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to all of you here today. commissioner ohlhausen i'd like to start with you. the fcc's privacy proposal would of course leave the regulation of edge providers like google and like yahoo! and facebook to your agency. but of course the ftc's approach
to privacy monitoring has been in place for years and was applied to isps before the fcc declared they were common carriers. do you think the ftc's regime has worked to compel providers to protect privacy interests? do you think they've done an adequate job of that? >> i do think the ftc has been very effective. we've had a long history of bipartisan support. we've brought, you know, well over 100 cases in this area. we've put some of the biggest players, you know, under order to the agency. so i think we have, you know, been effective in this space. >> do you see any reason that isps in particular need to be or should be held to a higher regulatory standard? as compared to other internet companies that participate in
the consumer data market. >> well, going back to our 2012 report which others have mentioned, what we said in that report is to the extent that large platforms such as isps, but we also included operating systems, browsers, and social media, seek to comprehensively track consumers' online activities, that might raise privacy concerns. we did have a workshop on that issue. so i would say it's not unique to isps. >> okay. you see some distinction there but not necessarily one that should make a difference? >> right. in my view, it goes back to what type of information do they have about consumers. is it sensitive information or is it nonsensitive information? and then how are they using it? >> right. commissioner wheeler, it's. brought to my attention that a letter that was sent to you recently regarding potentially
thousands of comments that have been filed with respect to your agency's privacy proposal, that those have been submitted and yet they appear to be missing from the public document. now, this letter contends that more than 2,200 comments have been submitted since april 26th through your online commenting platform. and yet as of tuesday evening this docket showed only 26 filings. 26 filings as compared to 2,200 comments submitted. now, i'd like to submit that letter for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> so mr. wheeler, can you explain why these comments have not appeared on the public document in a timely manner? >> yes, sir. my understanding is that there's some software glitch with the group that was downloading these documents en masse and that there was something in the
software that they were using to download that did something strange to our system but that we are in the process of remedying this so that in fact they will be all online. >> okay. so just a glitch. it's a glitch that you're working on? >> yes, sir. >> a glitch that you're willing to commit to ensuring -- to fixing to ensuring they get posted? >> yes, sir. >> and commissioner wheeler, you have a parallel regulatory action pending as it relates to set-top boxes. there google has submit the comments saying the fcc privacy regulations are adequate to police the regulation of set-top boxes. do you agree with that and if not why not? >> well, obviously -- thank you, senator. obviously, these are two separate proceedings. but what we want to make sure happens is that the requirements in section 631 and 338 which are
applied to cable and satellite providers to protect privacy also apply to anyone who is providing a competitive set-top box and that we work together with our colleagues at the ftc on an enforcement mechanism for that. and to the extent that google believes they should be exempt from that, at least one commissioner disagrees with that. >> okay. and how do you see that playing out? how do you see that -- >> we have the same kind of a notice and comment proceeding on that under way right now. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> chairwoman ramirez, had these regulations the fcc has proposed been in effect during the past couple of decades that the ftc has been regulating's privacy, would we see the innovation that we've seen in the internet if
these more stringent prescriptive rules had been in place? >> chairman flake, i'm afraid it's difficult to answer that question. i know we are in the process of evaluating the proposed rules that the fcc is considering. what i can tell you is the way that we have sought to balance innovation and consumer protection and while there are still questions that we're looking at as to whether isps ought to be treated differently in this particular instance than other companies in the ecosystem, the framework that we have applied is one that focuses on the nature of the information that's being collected and used and in particular the sensitivity of that information and also looking at consumer expectations. >> commissioner pai. >> senator -- >> if you're working out, i just
want to -- >> you bet. after commissioner pai. >> senator, we can't say for sure, but i think it's a fair statement to argue that the internet economy that we have that's the envy of the world is due in part to the fact that the ftc applied a uniform framework, a very flexible case-by-case approach that allowed entrepreneurs across the ecosystem to experiment, consistent with consumer preferences. and i think that's part of the reason why, as chairwoman ramirez pointed out in a very perceptive speech last november, that there are things like cross-device tracking that can supply some benefits to consumers if you're looking for shoes on your home computer and then you get a discount on your smartphone or if you were watching a show on your tv and then you transition to your mobile device. those are the kinds of things that i think have been very healthy for the internet economy. and there's no telling how much poorer we'd be if we'd artificially restricted the use of that kind of cross-information. >> chairman wheel we are. >> the internet began on a
common carrier basis. the internet began the first darpa trials as well as the early internet itself. was all on telephone networks using dial-up modems. and those activities were subject to the fcc's privacy protection rules at the very same time the internet went like this. >> commissioner pai. >> if i could just point out the early dawn of the commercial internet was not exactly the time we they've as the most robust in terms of entrepreneurship and innovation. that explosion has come with two decades of experience with the ftc at the helm. secondly it's important to remember that some of the people who really pioneered internet access, broadband adonation and the like were not regulated as common carriers. aol, for example. i know now it seems hard to remember the days of the cd-roms being sent to our homes but that was the gateway to the internet
for millions of people and that was unregulated under -- >> on. but it was over. aol was delivering over the dial-up internet. and if the question -- i think i understood the question to say would the kind of regulation that we are proposing, if it had been proposed -- imposed in the early days of the internet would we have had the growth. and i'm saying to you aol and all of these other services, that as commissioner pai has just said were the beginning of the internet, the takeoff of the internet, all happened on a common carrier network that had privacy expectations. >> my concern would be that we certainly -- i assume that aol, the sort of service i used to have, that we could very well see the growth, the slow growth under this kind of regime. i'm just wondering if we'd see the growth we've seen in the last couple of years and expect to see over the next several
years p more innovation possible. commissioner ohlhausen, the ftc as you mentioned has a long history of dealing with privacy issues. you went through a lot of process to build these regulations to determine how you'd regulate. a series of workshops. privacy experts were called in. advocates. industry stakeholders. then issued a draft staff report, took comments before adopting a final report. this was all in the report in 2012. the fcc on the other hand held one workshop a year ago and then a year later issued this complex prm with 500 questions, tentative conclusions and proposed rules. has the fcc gone through the deliberative process in your view that the ftc did in terms of determining how to regulate.
>> you've mentioned the process that the ftc has undertaken. and it really has been a long-time iterative process. our first online privacy workshop was held in 1996. so i think that our approach, which has been incremental and technology neutral and as chairwoman ramirez said looked at the type of information and consumer expectations has allowed us to develop our approach in a way that gives us the benefit of flexibility and the understanding as consumer expectations and technology has changed. the fcc approach, obviously, this is a follow-on to the reclassification that was undertaken, the open internet order. so it has been a much more abbreviated process in my understanding. >> right. senator franken?
>> okay. so we brought up again and i know that commissioner pai in his opening statement said -- talked about his own opposition to the open internet, the reclassification. and chairman flake asked about the innovation on the internet and whether this will slow it down or something. it seems to me that the whole point of what reclassification was was to preserve net neutral. and that's because every time the fcc had tried to preserve net neutrality, the circuit court rejected them. so that this seemed to be something, as i said in my opening statement, the d.c. circuit court is going to be
ruling on this. you know, could be -- well, it could be now. or now. or now. or maybe they don't do it on wednesdays. >> tuesdays and fridays. >> okay. well, not now. thank you for that. i should have known that. because i went to harvard. are you happy? are you happy? you didn i didn't know it. and i went to harvard. okay. but the point is is that -- because we talked about 706. and that's like pre, you know, open internet. i mean, net neutrality -- this order. so i just want to clarify what we're talking about here. because it seems that now that this is reclassified as a common carrier this is this proposed
rule, which is a proposed rule. we're getting comments to the rule. the proposed rule on lots of things have changed dramatically. this is a proposed rule. but it seems to me that i don't think that this endangers the growth of the innovation on the internet. what would have endangered innovation on the internet would have been to lose net neutrality. that's what millions and millions of americans wrote in to the ftc about. so if you're talking about what consumers want, commissioner ohlhausen, which is the proper
pronunciation, then it just seems to me that we need to be talking about what we're talking about here, which is we're -- this is reclassified as a common carrier like the phone company. and that means the fcc has -- i want to talk about the ftc and the fcc working together because i believe they have worked together in the past. and i believe the ftc, am i right, chairman -- chairwoman ramirez, that you've worked with lots of different agencies on ftc and you've worked with the fda, right? >> absolutely, senator franken. we have a long history of working very well with a number of different agencies beginning with the fact that we share jurisdiction over competition
with the antitrust division of the department of justice. we work together with the consumer financial protection bureau. we've worked -- i already mentioned in my opening remarks that we also have an extensivi history of work together with the fcc in many areas including telemarketing, mobile cramming. these are just a few examples. >> so this isn't new. i'm kind of hearing suggestions that the ftc is the prime privacy protection agency and that for this reason we must not take away their authority to regulate broadband providers. and i'm not suggesting the ftc doesn't play a critical role, the critical role in protecting consumer privacy. but i guess, chairman wheeler, before my time's up, can you talk about the fcc's history, the fcc's history of protecting consumers' privacy and why in your view the fcc is the appropriate agency to regulate
the privacy practices of broadband providers on top of of course the obvious thing, our common carrier. >> couple of things, senator. number one, as i said in my statement, i mean, we've been in this business for decades. because the rule has existed on nekds for decades and decades. secondly, the ftc and the fcc as recently as 24 hours ago worked together on a privacy issue that bifurcates exactly the same way that we're discussing here. and that's the issue of mobile security. because one of the problems with mobile devices is that there have not been -- there apairs to be -- i don't want to judge this. we're inquiring. there has been some difficulty in speedily getting to mobile devices, the kinds of patches necessary to protect the privacy of consumers' information on
those devices. >> we have jurisdiction over the networks that deliver to the devices. the ftc has jurisdiction over the devices. so we worked in tandem. and as recently as yesterday we put out a series of inquiries to those who we have responsibility for. they put out a series of inquiries to those they have responsibility for. they asked the same question. they were done on a coordinated basis with us working together like this. and that's not an isolated situation. and i think that that is the kind of reality that we will see going forward. that we are responsible for networks and they are responsible for edge providers. >> sounds like a model way for regulatory agencies to work together in tandem. >> just a couple more questions if it's okay. chairwoman ramirez, in your view
has the ftc's privacy protection regime over the years been sufficient to effectively protect consumers' rights as it relates to isps? >> chairman, i think the federal trade commission has done a very effective job in addressing consumer privacy and ensuring that consumer information is appropriately safeguarded. and i have mentioned at length a number of initiatives and the enforcement work we've done in this area as has commissioner ohlhausen. at the same time i do think there are certain areas where we could use additional authority. one caexam example is that the commission has on a unanimous basis called for congress to enact data security legislation because we believe that more needs to be doon done in that area and that we could use additional tools to protect
consumer information. that's just one example. but i do believe we have been an effective agency when it comes to privacy. >> okay. commissioner ol'hahlhausen, do have anything there -- >> no, i agree completely with the chairwoman. >> commissioner pai, what kind of information do isps see and how does this change? >> that's a good question, mr. chairman. it's changed over time. currently, for example, 70% and going up of all internet traffic is encrypted. so for example, if you go on your laptop and you access your gmail account you'll see https. the s part is critical. that means the isp can only see that you were accessing google -- accessing gmail if you do a google search the isp can only see if it's encrypted you that you're accessing google and the domain of the site you link on. they can't see what search you put in, what site, what account p. particular product you were looking at and so foshlth. that's part of the reason why peter swyer, the president's former economic policy -- president clinton's former
privacy counsel has said that isps have a very limited amount of information from consumers and that assumes of course we're talking about just one device. currently the median number of internet-connected devices in the home is something like six. it's going to go up to 11 by 2019. so when we're talking about multiple device as cross multiple networks and multiple locations, isps have just a smidgen by comparison to some of the other players in the online ecosystem. that's part of the reason why the online advertising market sees isps as a relatively new and minor competitor xhapd to some of the dominant players who have the lion's share of the revenue. >> thank you. >> that's quite a smidgen. if you go back to what i said in my statement, let me just read what one company says. a combination of information from wireless and wi-fi, we can tell where you're sitting in a room from your wi-fi connection. wi-fi locations, tv viewing, calling and texting records.
website browsing and mobile application use. every mobile application you use, every website you go to. and i respectfully disagree with commissioner pai on the assertion that somehow encryption's going to solve everything. first of all, there are about 85% of the top 50 websites that are not encrypted. but even if they were encrypted you go to the example that senator franken gave in his opening statement, going to web md. then you go down to the next level down in web md, which is information about this cancer or that cancer. you may not be able to see what is coming out about this cancer but you know you have gone to web md slash prostate cancer or whatever, and then you know you have gone to all the other urls, www.prostatecancer.net, dot whatever the case may be.
and you are able from that to put together a collection of knowledge about the individual which should not be sold by the network. the network is just taking you to get that information. they don't have the right to turn around and say hey, i've got information on who's got cancer. that's wrong. they can't do it today with a phone call. they shouldn't be able to do it on the internet. >> senator, if i could just briefly respond. i'm pleased the chairman has not disputed my assertion that there's upward of 70% of all internet traffic which is encrypted. obviously, that reflects the bulk of consumers' use of the internet. secondly, it's important to remember that the multiple context and multiple devices i gave matter significantly. your isp only has insight into your connection at home in that example. google has knowledge about all
of that information across all of the different platforms. indeed, given the fact that google encrypts the majority of its traffic from gmail to regular google searches, google knows exactly what kind of cancer you're looking at, what providers you might have looked at, what how worried you are based on your search queries. all your isp knows it you accessed google and the particular domain name. not the entire url. just the domain host. prostatecancer.net in this example. whereas the edge provider knows all the different pages you looked at and can tailor its advertising accordingly. significantly as well i'm pleased the chairman has not disputed the fact the edge providers are the dominant players in marketing which is the advertising. that's why former chairman liebowitz has said it's-odd to single out isps when they're the new competitors in this space. >> here's the interesting thing. that when i go to google to find prostate cancer.net that is a
decision that i am making. it is my choice. i don't have that kind of choice on the information that i give my network. it's going to take that information regardless. and the network has the right to look at every piece of information. i go to web md and web md collects information on me. i go to weather.com and weather.com collects information on me. i go to facebook and facebook collects information on me. but only one entity connects -- collects all of that information that i'm going to all of those different sites and can turn around and monetize it. and like i say, we're in favor of them being able to monetize it. they just need to be asked the permission of the people whose information it is. the fact that i hire the network to take me to prostatecancer.net does not give them the right to
my information. >> one last question, if you'd indulge me before i turn back to you, senator franken. various stakeholders have requested that the fcc extend the comment period here, that on april 29th the chief of the fcc wireline bureau denied these requests in large part because "granting an extension is not the norm." given it took the fcc over a year to notice the proposed rules and the total prm is close to 150 pages long and it asked more than 500 questions of the stakeholders, you think that extending the notice and comment period would be appropriate and a fair thing to do, chairman wheeler? >> golly. you know, we've been discussing this issue for half a dozen years. commissioner pai in his objection to the open internet order kept talking about let's talk about privacy, let's talk about the impact on privacy.
everybody's been talking about privacy. when the isps appealed our decision and went to the court and asked for a stay, they specifically said in their stay we need you to stay this because we need there to be certainty on privacy where the court said you don't get the stay. we're now providing certainty on privacy like they've asked for. so i mean, i think this has been an ongoing process. it is a filling up record. and there will be a voluminous record on this. >> commissioner pai. >> thank you for the promotion. mr. chairman, i think there are a couple of different responses. first here as you pointed out in your question the fcc opened up this can of worms in 2015, then took over a year to finally issue the nrm. i don't think it's too much to ask for a couple extra weeks to allow the numerous stakeholders some of which are trade associations with hundreds of
members who have to be canvassed to weigh in on these many, many questions. i think commissioner rosenwurs'll, our colleague, got it exactly right, that there are some contradictions that make it complicated and this rule making asks questions. it's extremely important for the fcc to act on the basis of a fully developed record and we can't do that if we don't give people enough time to comment. the second point i would argue is in addition when the chairman is saying isps -- everybody knew this was coming, yes, we knew the door had been opened but we didn't know how the fcc was going to walk through it. i think a lot of people, isps were misled. assuming they had gone ahead with that assumption that it's going to be an ftc-like framework they would have been shocked when they saw the fcc's 500 questions proposing very prescriptive, very pervasive and very selective regulation.
>> thank you. senator franken. >> that last comment begs my question again that i asked either one round ago or two rounds ago. i can't remember. because i am -- and this is to both of you again and anyone who wants to jump in. i'm still not sure if you want more privacy regulation on edge providers or less on isps. because that was kind of my question and i didn't feel that i got an answer. so help me understand the optout policy that you mentioned. if the optout option that the ftc would apply to broadband providers would mean consumers don't actually get access to the internet, i mean, is it that fair? in other words, you know, either
you've got to opt out of -- if you opt out you don't get intern internet. >> no. not quite. >> not quite? >> not quite. this is your -- this is your right to opt out of the network using information that you contribute to it. >> i got you. okay. >> can i try something on that, though, senator? with your permission. >> sorry about that. >> you know, what we're dealing with here is a reframing, an artful reframing of a historical responsibility through a massive redefinition of what a network does. and the debate that's going on
here is saying, you know, throughout history a network has delivered to and has not used the information of that delivery process but now because suddenly we've gone to internet protocol the internet ought to be the same as the edge. that is a massive redefinition of what a network does. a network delivers to a third party. a network is not that third party. now, if a network wants to buy that third party, they can operate that unit as a third party. but there has always been this relationship between networks and their consumers that we respect the information you put in because it's your information and we're only getting it because we have to have it to deliver to the end point.
so this whole thing about equity and oh, my goodness, somebody's going to be advantaged over another, it has always been that way. when i made a phone call to call and order something back in the days when you ordered from 800 numbers, and i then got on the mailing list of hemecker schlemmer or whoever it was that was between me and hemecker schlemmer. my network delivered me there without taking my information. that's the change that is trying to be perpetrated at this point in time. and it's crucial that we understand that this is a retreat from privacy. this is a retreat from what americans have always expected from their networks. that's what wear trying to say. >> it would be a retreat. >> yes, sir. if we didn't have this rule. >> what i'm hearing from these two commissioners.
that's -- >> senator. >> because that's -- you know, i -- you know, as chairman, when i was chairman of this committee, looked a lot at things like location privacy. so i think edge providers too should -- should be regulated on privacy. and i think it's very, very important, location privacy. and we had hearings here on, you know, women who had their partners slip in tracking of their partners and lead to very tragic circumstances. and what i would like to see, what i doan understan't understu
guys, whether you want do see -- and it sounded like you said yes. you'd like less privacy regulation from the edge providers and less for the isps. is that what i'm hearing? >> senator, my position's very simple. i want to return to the pre-2015 ftc framework which applied to everybody a light touch, case by case, flexible approach. under both democrat and republican administrations. >> but when the isps were saying, certain isps were saying we want to charge more to deliver at a higher speed, that was a threat to what the internet had been from the very beginning. and that's why after the two court rulings from the circuit court the fcc after trying to preserve net neutrality went to what it seemed like the courts
were pointing to. and so i think you're wrong. i just think you're wrong. because i want to preserve net neutrality. because that's how we got all this innovation and growth. y tooub, before youtube there was google tv or google video. and it was not good. so three guys over a pizza shop created google -- youtube, and a few years later google bought youtube for a couple billion dollars. but no one would have been able to sample youtube if there was a slow lane and a fast lane. that's what all this innovation came from. we had net neutrality from the
very beginning of the internet. we had net neutrality from the very beginning of the internet. you're saying no, we didn't? >> senator, we had no net neutrality regulations until 2015. youtube was created in the absence of any net neutrality regulations. >> there wasn't net neutrality regulations. but there was net neutrality. >> if by that you mean that isps respected the principle of a free and open internet, i think everybody agrees that we should have one. that's part of the reason why if you look at the fcc's net neutrality order you'd look in vain for examples of the comprehensive market failure where isps were acting as gatekeepers against -- >> because they were threatening to do it. >> i never heard of any threats and there's -- >> you never heard of any threats? you never heard of any -- wait a minute. let me hear -- let me get the answer to this. you never heard any isp executive say they were considering doing fast lanes and slow lanes? >> senator, you why point was
were they -- >> wait a minute. one chance for my question. >> sorry. could you -- i never personally heard any -- >> you never read of anything like that? >> there's been discussion about paid prioritization and the like and that's something the chairman himself has said under title 2 you can't prohibit. i mean, that's -- and that's part of the reason why we've seen all this innovation-s that in the absence of net neutrality -- >> wait a minute. wait a minute. wait a minute. wait a minute. the chairman is saying that you can't prohibit paid prioritization under title 2? >> in march of 2014 before the senate commerce committee, i can give you the transcript if you'd like. >> mr. chairman? >> we did prohibit paid prioritization under title 2. >> okay. well, there seems to be a really basic difference of understanding here. but i find it very, very, very hard to believe that you never heard about any discussion, and
i'm not talking about an isp corporate officer talking directly to you. that's not what i'm saying. try it one more time. had you ever heard of isp corporate executives talking about paid prioritization? >> i've heard about -- there have been press reports. i've read that there's been a concern about isps acting in terms of fast lanes and slow lanes. of course. that's part of what motivated the president to make a pronouncement about title 2 regulation at the fcc. >> of course. you said of course. but two minutes ago you said you'd never heard of such a thing. >> your specific question, senator, with respect, was have you heard an isp executive threaten -- >> no, that wasn't my -- >> i'm simply -- >> have you ever heard of an isp executive -- so that's how you were
answering that so literally, i don't know whether i said of or directly. i'm thinking of doing this so we can really stuff our pockets. that's not my question. that wasn't my question. there was a reason that we went to an open internet order and that is to preserve net neutrality. and that's why there are 4 million comments. and to pretend that wasn't the case before there committee seems to me to be very disingenuous. mr. chairman, would you like to ask more questions? >> no, i think they've been through enough. i appreciate the testimony.
i appreciate what we've heard today. this has been very helpful to us. >> can i put a couple things into the records, mr. chairman? >> you bet. >> i have a letter from a number of consumer advocacy organization. i'd ask con isnsent to be enter into the record? >> without objection. >> and a statement from senator leahy. >> and i'd like to put in proposed rules from fcc groups, including two letters asking them to follow the ftc approach to privacy. >> i object. [ laughter ] >> will the record note that commissioner pie left.
>> i never knew you had to have a record of people applauding. >> laughing. there's a difference between people laughing and applauding. believe me, i know. >> and senator grassley has a statement as well. let the record show i have both laughed and applauded at the senator's jokes over the years. the hearing will remain open for one week and with the thanks of the committee, this hearing is adjourned.
now an update on the road to the white house with julie pace of the associated press. >> a list of potential running mates down to five or six for donald trump and a fall campaign strategy that will focus more on his own personal appeal and less on a get out of vote data operation, just some of the thanksgiving that -- things tha julie pace learned in her interview with donald trump. thanks for being with us. >> thanks for having me, steve. >> tell us how this interview came about and what your takeaway was. >> well, we really wanted to sit down with donald trump at this point in the campaign because he's now the presumptive republican nominee and he's really diving into planning for
the general election, it's something that has come upon him a little bit faster than even the confident trump would have thought. there's a lot of conversations happening behind the scenes between ttakeaways from this is that trump really feels like a lot of the things that he did during the primaries will carry over into the general election, that he doesn't need to make major changes in terms of the way that he campaigns, in terms of the way that his campaign operates. obviousl he'll build out his staff a bit because you have so many more states you're playing in at a time in a general election but the idea that there's going to be a major overall or totally different strategy in a general seems unlikely according to him at this point. >> yet it's interesting, one of the things the gop wanted to focus on was doing a better job with the analytics, making sure they had the data, they could target their voters.
that was a mistake for mitt romney's campaign in 2012 and it appears based on your conversation with donald trump that, won't be a folk news 2016. >> this was a fascinating nugget in interview. he said he will only spend limited amount of money on data operations he thinks obama got vote because he was obama not because of what he calls the obama data processing machines. yes, he'll have access to data operations that the rnc will be runni running, the difference is you don't have the kind of buy-in from the candidate, the person running in front of the show. he may get data put in front of him but if he hasn't bought in to what the data means and is not committed to following the data in terms of changing his message or where he's spending his time, then it really isn't
effective. so this is a major shift for not only what has worked for presidential campaigns for obama and for george w. bush but what his own party has decided to prioritize. >> how much do you think donald trump will raise, how much will he spend and why will he not accept federal matching dollars? >> he had left open the possibility of accepting public financing, which is something that went out of favor in obama's campaign when he showed how much money he could raise. trump told us he decided against that, which means he'll have to raise money, which means go out to donors and get big checks or fund his own campaign. he said he will put in an unspecified amount of his own money. if he taxes about campaigns at
that run heavily on rallies or heavy data operations with big staffs, he may not need as much money as past campaigns but that's a risk in and of itself, to run a slimmer campaign and to forego some of these things that have proved successful for previous candidates. >> already the speculation under way on who his running mate will be. any sense of who those individuals are and the timing of the announcement? >> we were a bit surprised to find out his list is very small at this point, five to six people, he says. they're all people, he told us, with political experience. he says we don't need another business person on the republican ticket since he'll be at the top of the ticket. we did ask him specifically if he had ruled chris christie out, f if that was the takeaway that chris christie would be running his team. he said no, not at all.
but again, deep political resumés seems to be the takeaway. he told us he's going to hold off on announcing his running mate until the convention. he said he wants to do that piece in a bit of a traditional way. >> it's clear this convention will have some theatrical buzz about it. >> absolutely. i think you should expect to see trump putting a bit of his showman's touch on the convention, talked about bringing in entertainers, maybe a great singer or great musical group to break up the speeches. he said you're going to hear enough of the political speeches so you have to draw in an audience with other ways. i think can you expect that you're going to see trump's touches, his reality show and pageant background showing up on the rnc stages in july. >> as you sat down with him, julie pace, in trump to yous we tuesday, what was his demeanor? >> he was in a really good mood.
i think he was feeling confident in his chances. he was pointing out recent polls that had come out in the past few days, showing his head-to-head matchup with hillary clinton if she's the nominee in the general election. he was talking about looking forward to going to washington later this week to meet with paul ryan and various other republican committee members and also a bit of surprise that this has all happened as quickly as it has, that there are no other rivals in the race. a bit of surprise but also confidence and excitement about heading to the general. >> and for you, what was your own takeaway? >> well, i think that i was most struck by this idea, as i said, that this is a man who is confident that he can do a general election differently than the past winners, that what worked for him in primaries, big rallies, getting a lot of free media attention is going to work exactly the same for him in the general. and we don't have a recent
example to prove him right or wrong frankly but i think this will be a big test of his campaign and his strategy, whether he can do things different and pull this off. >> and is his team unified? a lot of talk about the rift between corey lewandowski and paul manafort. have they patched things up? >> it's a little unclear. you do hear different things from different people. there's a sense anyone coming into the trump campaign to overhaul the operation and totally change what trump is going to be doing is not going to come out on the winning end of that effort. one of the things that corey lewandowski has said repeatedly is you have to let trump by trump and one of my takeaways from the interview is trump is going to be trump. when you're bringing in new people into a very small
campaign like the one trump has run, you're going to have some hurt feelings and have people angling for power. he's the one who runs the operation. it's not a staffer. it's the candidate himself. this is a chance for him to show his management experience. >> julie pace, who is on the white house and politics beat for the associated press, her interview is available online. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. following a meeting with republican presidential candidate donald trump, speaker of the house paul ryan will talk to members of the press at his weekly press conference in the capitol. we'll take you there live at 11:30 a.m. eastern tomorrow on c-span. >> british prime minister david cameron congratulated sadi
sadiq khaun on his election as mayor of london. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i had meetings with my colleagues and i have further search meetings later today. >> even fantastically corrupt nigeria is asking britain to clean up its act and introduce ownership in the overseas territory i territories. will the prime minister achieve this tomorrow at the anti-corruption summit? >> first of all, i better check the microphone is on before speaking. i thank the honorable general for his question. the answer to his question is yes. we have asked three things of the overseas territories, we
asked for automatic exchange of tax information, and we ask for central beneficial ownership. they've delivered on the first two on they will be following and delivering on the third. that's what he asked for, that's exactly what he's getting. >> mr. speaker, we have unprecedented housing growth. does the prime minister agree that we must build sufficient starter homes so that the dream of homeownership becomes something that everybody really can aspire to? >> i want to thank my constituency neighbor and honorable friend for asking that question. the fact is we are building more houses across england, building more affordable homes and the legislation going through this
place will make sure we deliver our manifesto pledge of 200,000 starter homes, affordable for people to buy. i hope even at this late stage the labor party and house of lords will stop blocking this bill. >> would the prime minister minister join me in wishing sir david a very happy 90th birthday and for all the ways he awakened people to the fragility of our ecosystem and educated a whole generation. mr. speaker, on this side of the house, we are fully aware -- i
haven't asked a question yet. it's okay. we are fully aware that the european union has strengthened workers rights in many ways. in march while the prime was trying to undermine workers rights with his trade union bill, the european commission put forward proposals to close loopholes in the posting of workers directive, which would stop employers exporting foreign workers and undercutting national rates of pay. will the prime minister confirm that his governor will protect workers and will back these reforms to stop this undercutting and grotesque exploitation of many workers across in continent? >> first of all, i certainly join the honorable gentleman wishing a happy birthday to david. many of us feel we grew up with him as our teacher about the
natural environment. he's a remarkable man. the arctic ship is going to be named after david. there was strong support for boaty mcboat face but i think the life raft on the boat is going to be -- the submarine on the boat will be boaty mcboat face. we are looking at this closely, working with our partners. we do see merit in what's being proposed. i can tell him the yellow card procedure has been invoked by national parliament over this, demonstrate being the importance of these sorts of safeguards, even more that we achieved in my renegotiation. but the best we can do is celebrate the national living wage introduced by our tory government. >> mr. speaker, the national minimum wage was a labor
introduction, the living wage is a corruption of the very idea of it. it is not in reality a proper living wage. but, mr. speaker, my question -- my question was about the posting of workers directive, which would prevent the grotesque exploitation by unscrupulous employers of workers being moved from one nation to another in order to undercut the wages of a second nation. will the british government support this very, very important reform to stop this exploitation? >> as i said, we're working with the dutch presidency, there's merit in a lot of proposals but we want to make sure we get the details light. he's just described the national living wage as a corruption. the national living wage, 7.20 an hour, a 20 pound a week pay rise to some of the poorest
people in our country. i think he ought to get up and say he supports the national living wage and thank the governor for introducing it. >> mr. speaker, i support a wage rise obviously. the point i'm making is that it is not a living wage. it is not a living wage, as is generally understood. mr. speaker, saying yes seems to be one of the hardest words for the prime minister. for a third time could he just say whether he does or does not support the workers directive? he might be aware patrick minuteford, a former economic adviser to margaret thatcher said the european union has a negative effect on the city of london and he would want the shackles of european regulation removed. does the prime minister believe that membership hurts the city of london or does he believe
that european union regulation of the finance sector in britain and british administered tax havens would help the sorted bad practice exposed by the panama papers or underlined by my friend in his earlier question today? >> well, this is an area where we basically agree with each other about the european union so i'll try and identify a question in that lot and answer as positively as i can. first of all, on patrick minuteford, i completely disagree with the economy patrick minford. he wants to see manufacturing industry in our country obliterated. it would be a disastrous step if we follow the advice he gives. in terms of the city of london, we need the right regulation for the city of london to continue its massive rate of job creation and wealth creation in our country, but we also need to remain members of the single market. it's absolutely vital for this
important sector of our economy. i hope on that as on the issue of the national living wage, we can find some agreement of each other. >> mr. speaker, the question i also put to prime minister, which perhaps he wasn't listening to it was what he was going to do -- what i asked was what he's going to do about the u.k. administered tax havens which receive large sums of money from dodgy sources, which should and must be closed down, as should any tax evasion in the city of london. we need a british government that's prepared to chase down this level of corruption. >> this government has done more than any previous government to deal with this issue of making sure that our overseas territories and crown dependencies are not tax havens but behave in a responsible way.
as i said earlier, they're now taking part in the automatic exchange of tax information, that didn't happen before. they've signed up to common reporting standard for multi-national companies, that didn't happen before, and they're getting central registries so we can find out who owns the companies in each territory. now, i think all of these things are real progress. of course we would like them to go further and have public registries of beneficial ownership like we are introducing in this country, not because of anything a labor government did but because of a decision by a conservative prime minister. but where i would urge him to be fair on these territories and crown dependencies is many of them have gone much further, even than many developed countries. indeed you get more information now out of some of our crown dependencies and overseas territories than you would get out of the united states in terms of delaware. so let's be fair where we have a responsibility, we're making
them improve their record and he should recognize that. >> a month ago the prime minister informed the house he welcomed the european union proposals on country by country tax transparency reporting. we all agreed. yet on the 26th of april, conservative meps voted against these proposals. did they not receive a memo from him or what? people expect that people pay their tax in this country. tomorrow the european parliament will be voting again on country by country reporting. can he assure the house that conservative members of the european parliament will support these measures, as he told us they would a month ago? >> well, the most important thing that we support these measures. indeed these measures have only come forward because it's been a conservative government here in the united kingdom proposing
them. the only area of disagreement i would suspect between himself and myself have i don't think we should set a minimum tax rate for these countries. that's always been a position of labor governments and previous conservative governments that while we want to make sure all these territories behave properly, we don't actually make them set a minimum tax rate. that is the difference between us. if he wants to swap voting records of labor meps and tory meps, let's have a hole session on it because i've got plenty of material here. >> mr. speaker, that was a very long answer when when he could have -- when he could have quite simply said -- mr. speaker, he could have quite simply said whether or not he supports these proposals and if his conservative meps are going to vote for them.
mr. speaker, the prime minister will be very well aware of the concern across the whole country about the question of unaccompanied child refugees across europe. they are in a desperate plight, in a very dangerous situation. everyone's heart reaches out to them but we have to be more than that and we have to be practical in our help for them. i got a letter from a volunteer for child refugees. can the prime minister confirm that in respect to response to lord dub's amendment there will be no delay whatsoever in accepting 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees into this country to give them the support they need and allow them to enjoy the childhood they and all our children deserve? >> hear, hear. >> what i can say to the right
on gentleman is we will followed the dub's amendment. that is now the law of the land and the amendment says we have to consult very carefully with local authorities to make sure as we take tse children in, we're able to house them, clothe them, feed them, make sure they're properly looked after. we need to look kpe capacity of our care system. if you look at some cancels, they're already struggling because of the lashlg large number of unaccompanied children who have come here. last year 3,000 unaccompanied children arrived and claimed asylum in the u.k. even before the scheme that's being introduced. the second figure is of course under dublin children with a connection to the u.k. can already claim asylum in france or then come to the u.k. we've accepted 30 such transfers since february. there won't be any delay. we'll get on with this as fast as we can but in order to follow
the law we have to talk to our loaf authorities first. >> dr. president obama's recent visit, was the prime minister able to talk to him about the issue of chinese steel, including introducing tariffs of 288%? if so, what's his advice? keep backing british steel, increase the tariffs and tell the chinese to go to the back of the line? >> well, i did discuss this issue with president obama and both the u.s. and european union have taken zens against chinese dumping. the actual the anti-dumping tariffs have been very effective and in some categories reduced chinese exports by as much as 98%. so he shouldn't believe that the e.u. action doesn't work. it does work.
if we were outside the e.u., we might be subject to those tariffs ourselves. >> and the prime's government was elected with 37% of the vote. so i'm sure he would acknowledge the success of nicholas with 46%, the highest of any political party in national elections anywhere currently in western europe. mr. speaker, on the anty corruption summit, has the prime minister read the appeals from nigerian campaigners who say our efforts are sadly undermined if countries such as your own are private schools or anywhere else that will accept their cash with no questions asked.
the role of market has been exposed in court documents, report, documentaries and more. what is the prime minister going to do about this? >> well, first of all, i'm happy to congratulate her in her victories, as i'm sure he'd want to great ruth davis on her stunning -- >> [ cheers and applause ] >> we have something in common. of course the smp have gone from minority to majority while the considerates have gone from coalition to majority. so next wk he can get me how i'm so the question he asks about the construction summit is absolutely right. the whole point to have it in london is to say it's necessary
for developed countries, as well as developing. now it's important that it be publicly available and not just for the police. seeing as how the prime minister -- can he explain why seven police forces have launched criminal investigations into conservatives mps for possible election fraud? mr. speaker, how is it that a conservative crime and policing commissioner can serve in such a role when being under police investigation? >> well, first of all, let's be clear about this anti-corruption summit. nobody is lecturing anybody. one of the reasons this issue doesn't get addressed is because countries and politicians are
too worried about addressing it, knowing that no country is perfect, nor indeed is any poll tisch. >> i think we are entitled to raise this incredibly important issue. the whole point in this country, the electoral commission is independent and when it comes to operational decisions by a police force, they are independent, too. that's the hallmark of an uncorrupt country. >> mr. speaker, i know my friend will want to join with me in congratulating katie borne who was reelected as the police and. >> in that respect, we'll the prime minister commit to introducing a british bill of
rights as soon as possible? >> i'm happy to make that commitment. i congratulate all the candidates who are success approximately. hold on, in a minute. what we've seen from the police and crime commissioner elections was a very large increase in turn out, sometimes as much as 25 percentage points green out. and i think -- i'm very much happy to congratulate carwin jones who i spoke to over the weekend, she will be for the. >> whole businesses got together and produced a privately finance scheme to do the work for city
culture 2017. it's been with the department of transfor for two years. does the prime think that the department of transport's attitude shows inkpe difference or inch passengers will benefit from 500 brand new carriages and the removable and outdated popular tracer trains, 1.4 million pounds is going into hull station before it becomes the c we make these investments because we have a strong kpli and we're investing in our future. >> i recently visited high lent night, whose award winning scheme has created 40 full-time
jobs. we recently awarded all employees with an additional 250 pound bonus. >> i remember silent night, we graduated 800 people. they now employ 11 thune people. that is a good example of a business expanding under this government. and of course our target is already in 2016 at least 46 women have been murdered in the u.k. this number would be much higher if not for specialist refuges. i'm standing here to beg the prime minister for housing benefit.
this will certainly close. >> will he exempt refugees? will he choose to save lives? please. >> the honorable lady raises an important point. that's why we delayed the introduction of this so we can look at all possible consequences to make sure we got it right so we can help vietnam ubt. ineffect shun rates in the u.k. are offer the rise. nhs england has me. >> i think it's right. my understanding is england are considering the responsibility. i want them to each a decision
on kwoukly, in this mourd if we are planning trial sites. we're investing 2 million pounds to support these over the next two years. i'll make sure he gets the meetings he needs to make progress with it. >> in my first year as an mp, every has been an anxious council tenant. in two they cannot afford to buy their counsel i can read to them from wh i go on friday. why this housing bill will not make their intolerable situation worse? >> yeah.
there's a series of things that i believe will help them. first of all, making sure the right to buy is therefore added to that because i've got help to by which means that people need a smaller amount of equity to held the two. further at that. start at homes. we'll make a different because you're it means where you previously need a deposit of 30 pounds buys a house for just a few we backing the general ration that never happened under a labor government. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud this government has delivered unemployment records a record low 1.6%.
i am doubly proud that this government delivered the cardi city deal. does the prime agree and share my eagerness now, to throw the emthe money is there and now frankly with a new welsh government in place, we need the action, particularly on the m4. we've given the fill being and frankly it's high time the glft got won it. >> roger mallin. >> there are five young cities claim it was money rather than the religious fare for day esh. the soviet army pays around $100
per late, die esh can play $300 per month on for. >> i agree with what he says about the importance of economic development and aid and that is why we have a very generous aids budget. right now it's very difficult to get aid support and development through. i think if we pure live see this has die esh recruiting people because we were paying the po t point. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we'll create around 300,000 new jobs.
will the prime minister enjoy me in new i think it's fallen by a staggering since 2010 and we need to keep on this with to make sure she's getting the -- >> the leader of the opposition said you k. are fast becoming an israel state. >> why is the change ministered climbed to championing an effective mass -- >> i discompletely disagree with the honorable gentleman.
i hope he'll follow and listen to the debates that take place on this vital ball. the fact is if you want to make sure we can keep our country safe, just as we have been able to see the communications data when two people talk to each other on the final for plots to be hatched, terrorism to to be planned, murders to be arranged because people are using an internet safe rather than a telephone. we have to keep our country s e safe. >> in 2015 we said access to the internet should not be a right
but we're going to be setting out the next steps of howe we make sure access to this vital highway is there for all our citizens. >> chris law. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the play minister give a personal commitment to deliver funding for a case that they deal in i would obviously make the point that city deals between the scottish government and u.k. government can only work if we're all party unwf happy united congress dom. >> thank you, mr. increasingly
this is a tool used by people in public life by those who have taken an owe poning view. and will my freedom to speak freely without intip dags or hey. >> we must be able to speak freely and we must have a robust and lively democracy. but some of the thingstwitter, they are anonymous, they should be aframed. >> last week, london elected a new mayor. >> the housing bill -- launch april the primester promised to
wear the same clothes which effectively implements last year's manifesto commitment. >> let's see how much that matter to. so why isn't it that the labor our party and the labor our party in the other place, are opposing what would mean more houses, no hope ownership. but at the end of the day we are
we have those who constantly put themselves in harm's way to help our people. i saw just how grave these interpreters were. it's a stain on our country's honor, some have been murdered, others have had to free in what i say to my honorable friend is we debated and discussed around the national coalition team and announced in this house of commons a scheme to make sure that those who had helped our forces and terms of translation and other services were given the opportunity to come to the uk. we set up two schemes, another gener
general. he build that country. let's back afghans to rebuild their own country. >> speaker, the crimes has confirmed to me that should we. >> the point would i make to the honorable gentleman, as i would to anyone asking a question about what happens were we to leave is that i don't think you can give a guarantee. i'm a profound believer in our united kingdom. i want to go on making sure that poorer regions and parts of our country are properly supported. but if, as i think is the case, we would find our economy would be hit by leaving and our tax receipts would be hit by leaving, that is going to impact the amount of funding we can put intoary or resome is to vote to
remain in a. >> can i support the prime minister in missment comments about nigeria and afghanistan and ask if he'll stop pouring money into the funding until they clean up their act? and he as always, i thank my honorable friend for his helps and supportnd aato them is this is it. i guess they were in both their cases they made some remarkable steps forward. where i part company with my honorable friend is i don't think it would be right to
withdraw the aid that we give because, frankly, the problems in those countries, they come back and haunt us here, whether it is problems of migration or problems or terrorism and all the rest of it, we are involved in a dangerous global world. and our budget, 2% of our gdp has ways to keep us prosperous, as well as fulfilling our responsibilities. >> the amount of noise regularly in the chamber makes it necessary to outdo the barclays premier league matches in terms of provision of injury time. it is a pleasure to call jill furniss. >> 27 years ago in my constituency we saw the country's biggest sporting disaster. it is clear we won't have the full truth about hillsborough. will the prime minister accept
the call about the all-grieve truth in just this campaign and initiate an inquiry? >> i would say to the honorable lady and my secretary has met with the group and considering the points they have put forward and come to her conclusions in the right time. >> mr. speaker, business leaders up and down the country are waiting news of progress of airport expansion in the southeast, following announcements that they are accepting all the recommendations, can the prime minister update the house when we can expect a decision and does he agree a third runway at heathrow offer the best chance for growth and prosperity? >> with my many unforced errors in the last 24 hours, apologize to the house lady and welcome
her to the house of commons and she's lost no time in speaking up to her constituents in a very honorable way. there are issues of air quality that need to be resolved. we're on our way to working out how to resolve them. when we do weeks can come back to the house and announce what happens next. >> my constituent's mother was killed in 1981. at the time it was covered up as a suicide act. 18 years later it was uncovered that she had been murdered by a constituent's father and his mistress. i don't think anyone in this house can imagines pain and suffering that her and her family have had to endure but they are now having to relive this pain because itv are dramatizing their whole ordeal completely without her wishes using not only the name of her family and her own. as far as i can see no rules have been broken. does the prime minister not
degree that victims avenue voices should have a father far greater role and will he meet with me and my constituency to protect victims? >> i remember my time working in the television industry that there are occasions when these decisions are made that can cause a huge amount of hurt and upset of families. i will discuss this case with the culture secretary and bring it to his attention and see if there's anything else other than the conversation she's already had with itv whether there's anything more that can be done. >> why are we bringing in -- >> i'm happy to look at this issue closely. i think that it's necessary to