tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN July 15, 2016 9:00am-11:01am EDT
captioning performed by vitac the final report was issued in 1951 and concluded organized crime cindy indicates existed and it depended on the support of officials across the country. tammy ingram discussing her upcoming book, "the wickedest city in america." on 8:00, american history professor peter kuz nick argues whether the atomic bomb was needed to end the war in the pacific. >> former prime minister meets with the soviet ambassador in
tokyo to discuss the possibility of ending the war. the soviet ambassador writes back to the soviet union saying the japanese are desperate to end the war. it was becoming clear to them. american leaders knew that too. >> at 10:30, the 50th anniversary of the national organization for women. >> we got the fair credit act which meant women could have credit cards in their own right. until then a woman lost her credit card if she was divorced or her husband died. the fair housing act, a landlord could say, i don't rent to women, that became illegal. the title 9, which finally prohibited sex discrimination and education, it's a lot more than sports. it's women's promotion, women's advancement. >> and sunday at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, the
1964 democratic and republican national conventions with lyndon johnson accepting the democratic nomination and arizona senator barry goldwater accepting the republican nomination. >> going to remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. [ applause ] >> let me remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice it no virtue. [ applause ] >> over the last four years, the world has begun to respond to a simple american belief, the belief that strength and courage and responsibility are the keys to peace. >> for a complete american history tv schedule, go to
c-span.org. >>ed hard fought primary season is over with historic conventions this summer. >> colorado, florida, texas, ohio! >> watch c-span as the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a major political party and first nonpolitician in several decades, watch live on c-span, listen on the c-span radio app or get video on demand. you have a front row seat to every minute of both conventions on c-span, all beginning on monday. >> c-span makes it easy to keep up with the latest convention developments with the c-span radio app. available as a free download from the apple app store or google play.
get audio coverage of every minute of the conventions as well as schedule information about important speeches and events. get c-span on the go with the c-span radio app. >> the five commissioners of the fcc appear together on capitol hill earlier this week to talk about consumer privacy rules that pertain to broadband internet service providers, alleged waste and fraud and abuse in the program to assist low income consumers and proposal to use high frequently air waves for next generation 5g services, this is just over two hours. >> we'll call to order the subcommittee on communications and technology. this is our sixth oversight hearing, probably more to come before the end of the year just
for scheduling purposes for all of you. obviously it's our important responsibility to continue to be an active dialogue with the commission and its chairman and those we oversee as both our responsibility and obligation and a good opportunity -- i was going to say and a joy. to continue this. very important sector of our economy as you know with lots of issues at stake. i want to just talk about several things that are on my mind this mother that i know the commission is actively engaged in. one, mr. chairman, we have for since 2010 or so complained about no meaningful update in the ownership rules. i'm told that the commission majority has now voted on that. and i'm also told that we probably won't see many changes
when it comes to ownership rules and regulations in the nbrm and yet the marketplace has changed dramatically since 2004. further congress has sent very specific views to the commission through the legislative process that i hope have not been ignored when it comes to jsas and other issues. that would be very disappointing. obviously i know several of you are concerned about future of 911 as are we and we're also concerned about states identified in your own reports that levy money for consumers for $911 purpose and turn around and spend it in 911 related areas. i'd like to get your views on that because we're not a blank check and neither are the consumers. so ownership rules, 911, obviously pretty important when we look at things. love to get an update on the incentive auction on the extent you can discuss that. there are lots of issues related
to the number of participating stations and amount of spectrum available and whether that meets up with capital. we want to see a successful auction and i know you do too and i know you and your teams worked hard in a complicated part of the area. merger authority continues to be an issue. it's been brought to my attention by some that continue to be requirements put on either sales or mergers that my opinion get right up on the line not of extortion necessarily but certainly pretty heavy handed. i think of one involving a broadcast sale where apparently there was a pending complaint about indecently andcy and the people involved in the sale had to waive their rights of appeal, and couldn't put money in he esw to get approval. i would like to know whether that's true and why the commission might have gone down that way and the overbill requirements in the charter time
warner merger, why that was necessary going forward. obviously we remain concerned about communication among the commissioners and chairman and vice-versa and would love your update on views of that from each of you and the process reforms we have talked about in in cases in a bipartisan way legs lated here at least through the house and what you're seeing in terms of where the commission is at from each of your perspectives. i know having been both in the minority and majority, it's a lot easier in the majority. but that is also where you have to maintain your responsibility to maintain an open process with the minority to the extent you may have differences but ho hopefully there's a fair opportunity for the minority to have their say. we try to do that here. sometimes we're even successful at it. we pass bipartisan legislation and full committee is our intent to get to that point if we can. obviously a lot of issues before
us, we look forward to your testimony. with that i would yield the balance of my time to the vice chair of the committee. >> thank you for yielding and thanks for commissioners for being with us today lately the federal communications commission proposed substantial rules without effects and proposed requirements for broadband internet providers go beyond protecting data and fragments that framework especially -- established by the federal trade commission. another example and i'm still very concerned with is the commission on set top box proposal. alternatives to pay tv set top boxes but the fcc is not the plan for addressing consumer demands. i'm encouraged the commission has seen more open to making necessary changes to the proposal and urge the commission to continue to work with the industry developmental tern tif plan that fosters innovation while protecting small tv
providers from owners regulations and offer consumers more choice and privacy protection and content and license agreements. considering the integ ral role in the market plags, we must be watchful of policy it places on communications and technology industries. today's hearing is an opportunity to maintain proper oversight at fcc and i look forward to today's hearing and appreciate and yield back. >> gentleman yields back the balance of his time. gentlelady from california, for opening comments. >> thank you for holding this oversight hearing. it's good to see all of you. this is the first oversight hearing since the federal appeals court decision that upheld the fcc's net neutrality rules took place. i think and many think that the ruling was a clear victory for the american people who believe in a free and open internet and
ensures that the internet will remain a platform for innovation well into the future. so congratulations to you, mr. chairman, to the commissioners, to the staff, to all the public advocacy organizations and millions of people that contacted the commission. the court's ruling also makes clear that the fcc is the sole federal agency with authority to protect broadband users' privacy. some still argue that the federal trade commission is the agency that should handle privacy protections for broadband. but the fact is that the ftc lacks the authority to do so. under the law today, only the fcc can protect broadband user privacy. we can have a debate over the details of what the fcc should put into place but i think the authority question is settled. beyond privacy, the fcc has two other key issues it needs to act
on before the end of the year. the first is opening up the set top box market to more competition. the cable industry has put forward an alternative proposal and i'm encouraged by the industry's recognition the competition is needed and it's actually required by law. the second issue is special access reform. in compass and verizon have come together in an unprecedented way to provide the fcc with a framework to promote competition in this market. and we're all grateful to congressman doyle for leading on this issue relentlessly for over a decade. it is over a decade, isn't it, mike? at least that. it feels that way, anyway. so i urge the commission to take advantage of the opportunity that the agreement presents to finally finish special access reform before the end of the year. and finally, i think it's really
a source of shame that the majority continues to attack the lifeline program. now, whether it's an attempt to put an artificial cap on the 23u7bd or legislation to outright strip support for mobile phone service, i think that message is very clear. the majority is willing to rip away life saving communication tools from our most vulnerable citizens, including the ability to dial 911. i don't know which commissioner would be willing to give that up themselves. so my thanks to chairman wheeler for his leadership and each commissioner for your work and for being here today and i yield the remaining time i have to representative doyle. >> i want to thank you for yielding to me and mr. chairman and the commission, i want to add my voice to congratulate you on your victory last month in the u.s. court of appeals. i'm glad to see the court affirm
what i and many of my colleagues argued for years that the fcc has the authority to ensure that the internet remains an open platform for innovation and competition. this is a great victory for consumers and the internet eco system at large. there is one area that i believe merits investigation and it is the anti-competitive zero rating, particularly when it's married with restrictive data caps. these policies i believe have the potential to harm consumers and inhibit innovation. i would like to see the commission take some action to address these harmful policies. finally, i want to also add my voice to urge the commission you've got three big things on the table to get done and i would hope that the commission finds a way to work together and get all three special access -- i don't want to go through another fcc commissioner on special access and i think a
solution is at hand and i would urge you to follow through on that. i also believe like anna there's a path forward onset top boxes and there has been an alternative solution that merits consideration and we should look at and with regards to privacy, i know it's tough, i know there's issues between fcc and ftc, but i do believe that if you all work together and that there's a solution to be found and i urge you to try to do that before you finish up your work this year. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. chairman recognizes the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, again for joining us over the many times we've convened. our message has been -- my message has been consistent. the fcc has jurisdiction over
one of the most important sectors of our economy. decisions are critical to innovation and jobs and nation's leerdship in global technology. what you do and how you do it has tremendous impact on all of us today and tomorrow and lots of years to come and it matters here in washington and at home in michigan and matters across the country. we ask you to follow the lead of this committee and pursuit to improve the fcc process for the betterment of all stake holders, dating back to the 112th congress we worked in a bipartisan way to usher hr 2583, the process reform act through the house and urge the agency to engage in a fair process in execution of its mission. we stress that your loyalty to these things provides the certainty that nurtures innovation and investment and job creation. when we last met the chairman had recently presented his colleagues with a proposal to impose new requirements on the video subscription market and
new privacy regime for internet service providers. these proposals have the potential to harm the very sectors that are attempting to preserve and stimulate and concerns continue to grow on both sides of the aisle. american consumers across the country and job creators are concerned with continued innovation and job creation that the communications and technology industries have delivered in the past. as you approach these significant matters in all others in the last couple of months, do so with an eye towards the successful policies that fostered the video market and internet that are the cornerstones of american society. it's not time to throw in the towel. the remaining opportunities to work across the aisle to get things done that impact consumers resolving concerns about rural call completions and successfully completing the waste abuse in the universal service funds should be bipartisan issues we can agree on. let's continue to work to do better putting more of a premium
on cooperation. there's a lot at stake and we need to get that done. i yield the balance of my time to plz blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i join in welcoming each of you, you've heard a myriad of issues that we are continuing to work on and appreciate that you would take the time to come and update and engage in conversation with us. today i'm going to focus much of my attention on the set top box issue. this is something we're hearing a good bit about and i'm pleased that independent programmers have come to you with what could be an alternative approach that would still protect content. it -- i should say it would protect content. for my content creators in tennessee and individuals that i'm hearing from, they are very concerned about this. not only in the domestic market
but what it would do to licensing agreements, et cetera in their ability to work through this process. my content creators believe that if you create something, it is yours. and you deserve to be compensated on it. so i'm pleased that you're here to enter into this discussion. we appreciate so much your time and your preparation and mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today's hearings comes weeks after the fcc's sweeping net neutrality victory before the d.c. circuit. it was a major victory for internet consumers and small businesses and a momentous step towards legal certainty that the internet remains an open platform for everyone and strong recognition of pro consumer and pro innovation policies that democrats have championed for years. the court's decision helps
create a stronger foundation for future policies that put consumers in the driver's seat. now as we look ahead we have a number of issues before us, including how to deal with internet privacy. a recent study by the national telecommunications and information administration found 84% of americans are worried about their privacy and security online. we must take these concerns seriously and i appreciate the federal trade commission who oversees privacy on websites providing input into the proceedings. we should give consumers more protection online, not less. during the oversight hearing we're likely to hear more from republican colleagues about the lifeline program that keeps our nation's low income families keked. for months republicans have use the charges for waste for abuse to justify wrong headed bills designed to rip phones from those who need the most. i'm releasing a staff report that investigated the ongoing republican charges, the report found that republican allegations of more than $500 million in fraud are baseless,
relying on unfounded assumptions and bad data. in order to get to the $500 million claim, republicans first assume that nearly every lifeline recipient in the homeless shelter and veterans group home and nursing home are just living with roommates to get by but nearly every one of these people got their phone as a result of fraud. there's no way to justify these assumptions and it's counter productive to serious discussions on how to improve and strengthen this program. most of the waste and fraud and abuse related from policies adopted during the bush administration. while some waste and fraud and abuse does take place, the fcc worked hard to track it down and wipe it out. nearly $1 billion of unnecessary spending has been eliminated from the program as a result of fcc's actions over the last six years. i'll repeat what i've been saying for months, lifeline is a successful program that helps more than 10 million americans and we need to protect it.
if my colleagues are serious about eliminating waste and fraud and abuse in the program. stop these over the top accusations. our report has a number of recommendations on productive ways to move forward and so i encourage our republican colleagues to work with us to make this critical program stronger. i like to yield -- i want to thank the commissioners for testifying here today and i'll yield the remainder of my time to congress woman clark. >> i thank the ranking member for yielding me time and our chairman for this morning's oversight hearing. mr. chairman, fcc commissioners, good morning. according to the u.s. sencensus bureau, america will be a majority/minority nation meaning that the majority of americans will be noneuropean descent people of color. it is critical that this population has access to news and information and
entertainment that is reflective of their experiences and perspective. without this representation, there is no voice reflective of their stories and without a voice our cultural content suffers. thus decreasing cross cultural communication and understanding. my core concerns focus on equity and ininclusion in the media and telecommunications industry. i particularly concerned that we're not doing enough to create parity for all stake holders. i recently formed the house congressional multicultural caucus where caucus members will offer suggestions and recommendations to the fcc to ensure that these tenants are considered when public policy decisions are being made. the goal is simple, to create economic sustainability and viability of multicultural media in any eco system. the owners of our nation's media are shaping the public's narrative and it's important
that it's inclusive in both representation on the air waves as well as ownership of its assets. thank you very much mr. ranking member and i yield back the balance of my time. his time to him. >> he yields it back to the committee. thank you for your opening comments. we'll go to the chairman and commissioners for their testimony. mr. chairman, we welcome you back before our subcommittee. and i think you've heard from members of both sides of the aisle about issues deeply concerned about and we appreciate you're being here to respond to those and any other comments you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman ranking member and all members of the committee. we -- today is a special day with this committee coming together. we also have to recognize it's a special day for another reason, its commissioner rosen worthle's birthday today. >> happy birthday. >> we can find u.animty on that
resolution. was there a hint of sarcasm. >> i've got three quick topics to address. some of which you also raised and i look forward to questions from you and rest of the committee. the incentive auction, the national priority of 5g and 911, next generation 911. the incentive auction has sure put the lie to the claim that broadcasters wouldn't show up and participate. and the credit goes to this committee, your leadership, ranking member' leadership for your foresight and vision in creating this first in the world auction. the broadcasters have made available 126 megahurtz, what's really significant, 99% of all the licenses that would be
created are unimpaired licenses. we spent a lot of time together worrying about impairment issues. it's the world's first reverse auction it worked flawlessly and kudos are owed to gary epstein and howard simon and the teamworking literally for years to follow through on your instructions. now it's time to move onto the forward auction. for as long as i can remember and i'm sure you too, that the wireless industry has been pleading for more spectrum. well they got it and it's beach front spectrum at 600 megahurtz, our job is to decree acreate a that makes that available. we now know the ask in that market and we'll soon nknow the bid. we have received the upfront
payments from the wireless carriers qualifying them to bid and we'll shortly be issuing a public notice indicating who those bidders are. if there is no bid ask alignment, we'll start over with a reduced supply and keep working that until the market is made. because of how licenses are assigned, the steps would be 126 megahertz, 114 megahertz, 84 megahertz, the average of the fcc auctions over the years has been about 45 megahertz, so this is a big deal no matter what the number is. the bottom line, your mandate is under way. the decisions made in the design of the auction are working. the systems are functioning and a market has been created for the first time ever.
on thursday, we'll vote on another important spectrum issue, to open up high band spectrum for fifth generation wireless licensed and unlicensed spectrum. it's another world first, the first nation we will be the first nation to identify high band 5g spectrum. which means in the last two years, we have -- we have made available low band spectrum, mid band spectrum and high band spectrum. europe by comparison is talking about how maybe by 2020 they'll have low band and mid band and they -- what their plans are for high band are still very much up in the air. our leadership in this is a national priority. the 21st century belongs to high speed, high capacity, low lat t latently wireless networks.
if we're the first in the world to move as we're hopefully going to do on thursday, we'll create a home field advantage for those american companies and american workers who are involved in infrastructu infrastructure, software and services. our plan is to make the spectrum available and get out of the way of the technology. the reality of our networks that we live in today is a reality that was created years ago, a decade ago by decisions that were made or weren't made. the decision that we're going to make on thursday will affect where this country is going to be for decades to come. lastly, every time that i've been before you, i've urged congress to legislate and protect public safety over the next generation 911
capabilities. thank you for raising it today. the commission has gone about as far as our authority can take us. i know the commissioner has been touring 911 facilities and wrote a spot-on op-ed on the topic and i know she has thoughts in her testimony and i have recommendations in my prepared text as well. but here's the reality. absent congressional action, there is no national program to improve public safety by applying the technology of next generation 911. we're in the second decade of the 21st century and still relying on mid-20th century technology. i appreciate the opportunity to be here mr. chairman and look forward to engaging in discussion on any topics you may want to discuss. >> thank you, chairman. obviously we're willing to have that discussion on 911 and also i would remind him did a lot on first net and enhancing that and
some 911 enhancements there. we know there's more to be done. we now recognize the former chairwoman of the commission, gentlelady, plz clyburn. thank you for being here. >> thank you very much. distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to once again appear before you this morning to share my priorities and vision for a more connected america. building on my mantra community community community, in april i launched a connecting communities tour as a way to hear firsthand about the opportunities and challenges of bringing affordable diverse and competitive communication services to all americans. last month, i traveled to the ranking member's district and met several key innovators using technology to drive advancements and health care, broadband infrastructure, connectivity and viewpoint diversity. next month, i will travel to
congressman lieu han's district to learn more about the unique communications needs of tribal communities. as i travel the country, people voice a common refrain, robust competition, affordably priced communications services and policies that will enable innovation to flourish. broadband is the way that a 21st century america connects with communities. it is with this in mind that i continue to prioritize affordable broadband opportunities. modernizing our lifeline program was a momentous step in bringing affordable broad band to more americans. but we can and must do more to make sure that those economically disadvantaged are not priced out of the digital opportunity and the digital economy. broadband is not truly available unless it's affordable. so how can we make this happen?
it starts with better data and a thorough analysis of consumer broadband costs. it also means making sure that affordability is a factor in how the commission evaluates technology transitions. and it also means moving forward on a permanent mobility fund to bring the benefits of affordable mobile broadband to those currently without. our great nation is on the cusp of ushering in the next generation of wireless broadband with the commissions action this week to free up high band spek rum for innovative 5g services. with an ever-increasing percentage of low income americans reliant on broadband for mobile access, it's imperative we ensure they can reap the benefits of 5g and they are not left in the digital darkness. my quest to connect all communities is not limited to broadband. it is also about examining how
best to promote the availability of diverse and independent sources of video programming. the commission heard repeated concerns of independent and diverse programmers from every conceivable idealogical spectrum and followed through with the adoption of a notice of inquiry this past february. i'm now working with chairman wheeler to determine next stems but no matter the outcome, i believe the commission has come out of this fact finding exercise better positioned to identify solutions that can enhance our access to independent and diverse voices. finally, i continue to believe that transparency should be a driving principle in the commission's work to promote consumer choice, competition and innovation. it should come as no surprise that billing issues rank among the top consumer complaints at the fcc. knowing this, i partnered with congressman doyle on an op-ed,
calling for the communications providers to lead the way by voluntarily improving transparency and disclosure of below the line fees. enhanced transparency will ensure that when consumers sign up for service, either online or in a store, that they will not have to wait for first bill to learn what their total monthly cost will be. thank you once again for allowing me to share my priorities with you this morning and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. ms. clyburn, we appreciate your testimony and work at the commission. now go to mrs. rosenworsle and happy birthday to you and we're glad to celebrate with you. please go ahead. >> good morning, chairman walden and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. this week the commission has the future on its agenda, our monthly meeting on thursday, we will adopt a framework for high
band spectrum to help generate the next services known as 5g. this is exciting because the future longs to the connected. and the united states should lead. however, i want to spend my time today not talking about the future but instead talking a little about about the hear and now and what can be done right now to help improve our nation's emergency number system. last month i was in dallas. a city that is still realing from the events of the last week, when a peaceful protest collapsed into unthinkable violence. while in dallas, i spent time with betty waver, the kind of person who knows the big "d" inside and out and born and raised in the city and over the course of 33 years has risen to the top of its public safety ranks. she now wears the uniform and is in charge of 911 communications
for the dallas police department. there is not a lot she hasn't seen. like most people who work the 911 front lines, she has a steely calm. after all, these are people who listen to us at our most troubled and then help ensure that help is on the way. as we walked through the dallas 911 center, she spoke about how technology has changed during her more than three decades on the job and how it is altered the ways we reach out in times of emergency. and the numbers back her up. nationwide we call 911, 240 million times a year and more than 70% of those calls are made from wireless phones rather than traditional landline phones. in other words, the bulk of our emergency calls come over a different technology than the 911 system was designed to use.
this is a problem. because while technology has changed so much in our lives, the communication systems used for our nation's 911 call centers have not fully kept pace. i know because i have seen this firsthand not just in dallas but in the nearly two dozen 911 call centers i have visited all across the country from alaska to arkansas, california to colorado, nevada to new jersey, vermont and virginia and many more places in between. it's not that work is not being done. in the last two years alone with my colleagues we've been able to put in place policies to advance texting to 911. we have deviced a framework to improve the 911 call centers to identify the location of emergency calls made from wireless phones. this is progress. but what can come next is even bigger. next generation 911 services can
support a whole new range of video and data communications. for those who call in an emergency, it will mean an opportunity to offer real time video from an accident. it will mean the ability to provide first responders with instantous pictures of a fleeing suspect or emergency incident. those are the kind of capabilities that make public safety both more effective and more responsive. but to remake the nation's 911 systems to fully reflect the digital age, it takes funding and his r torically -- the 911 call centers has been strictly a local affair. there's no national program or annual federal revenue source but still, there's one thing this committee can do right now to kick start local 911 modernization. it's this. as you know, the middle class tax relief and job creation act
of 2012 authorized a series of spectrum auctions at the commission. these auctions have already raised billions. and the proceeds from these auctions are dedicated to some initiatives that get a lot of attention like first net, like assisting broadcasters with relocation in the 600 megahertz band and deficit reduction. but there is one program these spectrum auctions fund that has not yet gotten the glory it deserves and that's a program for next generation 911. section 6503 reinstates the joint 911 implementation office and authorizes a $115 million grant program for next generation 911. you might be familiar with it because this committee developed the program. but it is stalled and it has yet to begin more than four years after this committee created it
and after congress authorized its creation. so i think if you help us, you can put on the pressure because it is time to get it up and running. it is the best near term resource we have to put next generation 911 in place. while the funds limited, they can make a broad impact if we use them wisely and fund next generation projects in dallas and nationwide. thank you. >> we appreciate you bringing that to our attention. obviously we get frustrated with agencies and commissions don't do what they are mandated to do by statute on a timely manner. and so we're happy to follow up with that. now go to commissioner pi, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, sir, members of the subcommittee, thank you
forgiving me the opportunity to testify this morning. since 2012 this has been an honor to work with you on a bipartisan basis on many issues. carry's law is a great example. dialing 911 should always work and it sometimes doesn't. many phone systems require callers to dial an access code like 9 before the call is placed. carrie's law would help fix this by making it the default on those systems. next to your work and along with courageous efforts of carrie's father the house of representatives recently passed this legislation. i hope the senate does so and this bipartisan measure soon becomes law. i'd like to focus the rest of my testimony on two important topics the fcc set top box proposal and lifeline program. first set top box. the breadth of opposition to the set top box proposal signals how badly its scheme misses the mark.
my friend and colleague commissioner rosen worcel proposed it has real flaws and we need to find another way forward. what should that way forward look like? in my view first it must protect the intellectual property of content creators and safeguard minority programmers. as jesse jackson put it the fcc proposed rules would allow third party set top box manufacturers ignore copyright protections and dismantle the local and advertising streams that have traditionally supported high quality, multicultural content. that's why congresswoman i can't vet clark and others have called on the fcc to analyze the impact of these proposed rules on the diversity of programming and independent and minority television programming before pushing ahead. we should heed those voices. second, we must address the challenges faced by small video
providers. the record makes clear the fcc's proposed rules would have a disproportionate impact on small companies, the cable association has stated that the fcc proposal would force over 200 small operators to go out of business or stop offering video service. separately, bipartisan groups of 61 representatives led by congressman kevin cramer and ten senators have expressed serious concern along these lines. third, we must protect american' privacy. patrick leahy has stressed the same protections and enforcement mechanisms should apply to third party navigation systems as well. in other words, all consumers should have the same privacy protections. unfortunately, the fcc's proposal fails this basic test. and fourth, we must embrace the
technology of the future instead of clinging to the hardware of the past. americans are increasingly accessing video programming through apps with an app, there's no need to have a set top box or rental fee that goes along with it. with an app or smartphone or tablet or smart television can be your navigation device. recently as has been mentioned by members of the panel, stake holders have proposed an app based approach. my office is currently reviewing this proposal and i look forward to hearing what the members think about it. the next topic it lifeline. the fcc must be vigilant in stopping abuse of the universal service fund. hard working americans deserve to know the money they contribute each and every month to the isn't wasted or put to fraudulent use. unfortunately the investigation of total call mobile suggests that american taxpayers should be worried although my own
investigation is still ongoing, the waste and fraud and abuse in the lifeline program appears greater than i imagined. consider this. the national lifeline accountability database is supposed to check whether a subscriber already receives lifeline service. but an unxrup you house reselling can override that determination by checking a box. so wireless resellers enrolled 4.2 million subscribers using this override process since october of 2014. that's more than 35% of all subscribers enrolled in participating states. that's more than the population of the state of oregon. the annual price to the taxpayer for these overrides alone is steep, about $476 million. that's not my only concern. wireless reseller have overridden over federal safeguards and enrolled duplicates and claimed support
for phantom customers and loopholes in the program that resulted in hundreds and millions of dollars going to wireless resellers instead of deserving low income consumers. that is outrageous. i plan to work with this committee and my colleagues to stopping this spending spree. i particularly appreciate the decision of committee chairman fred upton to investigation this kind of waste, fraud and abuse. chairman walden, ranking member eshoo, thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to testify. >> thank you commissioner pai, we appreciate your diligence and comments this morning. commissioner o'reilly, thanks for being with us and enlightening us on your views at the commission and issues before the country. please go ahead with your testimony. >> thank you, honor to appear before you today. let me start my testimony on an issue raised by my colleague, the lifeline program.
i continue to be troubled by the waste, fraud and abuse in the program and worry that it is not on a sufficiently sound footing. in retrospect, i urged the commission to address these concerns before expanding lifeline to include broadband. when it became clear that the commission was on a different track, i recommended reforms be paired with adequate measures to save diagno savegrard the program and including establishing p proprocedures to stop new payments to a provider if certain metrics were exceeded. a concept i refer to as creating circuit breakers. these ideas were ultimately rejected in part because the lifeline took the position that the performance put in place in 2012, including the creation of a national lifeline accountability data base. that is not the case. turning to the debate over selt top boxes, i share the concerns
that many members of this committee expressed about the commission's proposed technology mandate as contained. my dissent i argue that the proposal could significantly impede innovation and video delivery and put at risk valuable content as well as consumer privacy without assurances that anyone would save one thin dime. i've taken the position it would make more sense to get rid of set top boxes all together. a common sense friendly replacement for set top boxes already exist in the form of downloadable apps which can serve as the basis for a consensus approach to the set top box quan dri. various strengthened this on approach by firm commitments on content and price. the commission's long awaited attempt at the required review of media ownership rules, while american consumers over the top video players and websites and streaming music circumstance e
services and satellite radio as part of daily lives. broadcasters and newspapers alone are saddled with rules from a by gone era. i believe they can create diversity localism, diversity, and be consistent with the public interest by thoughtfully removing outdated restrictions. it's been argued that now is a bad time to introduce any disruption with the existing media ownership regime. however, nothing excuses the retention of all of the stale rules regarding radio and newspaper industries which will see little to no impact from the auction. moreover, congress was well aware of this when they authorized the auction. no special pending auction results or during the auction exemption was enacted. so the incentive auction cannot and does not let the commission off the hook regarding its responsibility to modify the rules in response to the marketplace conditions that actually exist today. on another matter, the commission seems intent on adopting broad band privacy
rules this year. but if the current proposal is adopted, it will affect the consumer internet experience and reverberate throughout the technology industry for years to come. in addition to the legal problems, i have previously articulated, the commission has not justified imposing dramatically higher burdens on one segment of the internet economy. current privacy structures including the ftc's framework have provided ample protections for the consumers. the fcc's proposal goes further. instead of creating privacy rules based on consumer expectations and the sensitivity of the data, it requires heightened consent for many consumer activities and could prohibit certain practices that many consumers find beneficial. the record is full of thoughtful comments from a wide range of participants and i can only hope that the commission will take them into account. lastly let me written that my written testimony raises the
need to consider legislation to enact fees in a spectrum sharing environment with mutual exclusivity is not obtained. i'll be pleased to follow up on this topic if interest warrants. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i stand ready to answer any of your questions. >> thank you, mr. o'rielly. we'll look guard to further discussions on the last topic you raised. first of all, i do have a letter from the record signed by 14 law professors, economists that details the economic and constitution concerns with regard to fcc's new proposed rules for broadband privacy, some of which you raised. without objection we will put that in the record. now, some questions. i met recently with folks from the oregon club, the manhattan theater club about this issue of licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone.
the fcc set a limit of 50 or more you can get licenses, under 50 you can't. i don't know why 50 was chosen. but i do know representing one of the best theater companies in the world, the shakespearean festival, they're very concerned because they don't use 50 mikes, that now they can't get licensing and they're going to have a real mess. it's going to be expensive. it's a problem. not the sort of thing that normally rises to a hearing level. i will follow up in writing to you. from what they indicated it's a serious issue that will affect them and every other -- there are only a couple of theater companies maybe on broadway that are big enough to get licensed and get all of the regional ones that will be adversely affected. i want to go to lifeline since that's been brought up here. i'm looking forward to getting a copy of the democratic committee report. i have not read it. i look forward to the information. and digesting it. but i am concerned commissioner
pai about what you said about 4.2 million consumers somehow get signed up and override one of the safeguards against fraud and abuse. i also know the commission attempted to find common ground in a bipartisan way on this issue to try to get to a cap. frankly, we were thinking the commission was moving in a good solid direction and i don't know what happened there. i understand there's an ig investigation. so i won't pursue it. but something went off the rails there, disappointed by that. because we thought we were going to get the professional agency doing its professional job. in that area and getting it capped, seemed to be reasonable and responsible. very disappointed. talk to me about the 4.2 million. talk to me about the level of waste fraud and abuse. from what i've read in the press reports, they say there's no
fraud, waste or abuse after '08. is that the case? >> thank you for the question, mr. chairman. any investigation is ongoing so the results are preliminary. thus far i've uncovered five species of fraud. the fraud you asked about is an ieh. essentially enforcing the fcc's rule that not more than one person in a particular household can get a lifeline subsidy. based on the figures i received, since october of 2013, they've enrolled 4.2 million subscribers in the lifeline program. that's over one third of the total enrollment in the program. the annual price to the taxpayer for one year is $476 million. that's just one type of fraud. the type of fraud that the staff report talks about. the other four kinds are essentially dupe dates, one person getting the same lifeline subsidy. just for those overrides as well, there are hundreds of
thousands of them between october and may of 2015 -- october 2014 and may of 2015, those duplicates cost $23 million. essentially there's a third, when it comes to be paid they file a different form suggesting they have a higher number of subscribers and get paid on the higher amount. the phantom subscribers cost the taxpayers millions more. there's what's known as the tpiv, those cost $122 million because of the override identity vectors. and fifth and finally, address overrides cost $50 million. >> why do we have an address override capability by a vendor? >> i think it's a serious problem and that's one of the reasons why i started this investigation to figure out if there was a problem with the loophole and if there is we need to fix it on a bipartisan basis. >> chairman wheeler, moving to a
topic high on your mind on 911, is there anything that prevents the states from moving forward with these enhancements in their 911 facilities? is there any federal prohibition on that? and second, do you think states that take money from consumers under the auspices of 911 and then spend it on non-911 related services should continue to get federal support or is that something we should look at saying, if you're going to divert this money, you're not going to get the federal money? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, almost 20 years ago i worked with mr. shimkus on the first national 911 bill. and one of the things that was in that bill was that the fcc should try and work with states to do exactly what you've talked about and how can you have a statewide program.
there is resistance to statewide programs. there are exceptions to it obviously. there are 50 states. but there is a resistance to that in many instances. >> but don't you think -- i'm going to run out of time, as i have now. do you think we ought to go down a path considering cutting off support of states raising money from -- under the auspices of -- if i'm a consumer in oregon. >> that's where i was about to go. >> i'm paying a 911 fee, i'm thinking that's going to 911 services. and i'll tell you it really irritates you to find outer as a consumer, no, that's just a scam. if this was a private entity, a private phone company, how long would you put up with that on the below the line billing practice? >> and unfortunately it's not new news. it goes back to 20 years it's been happening. and i agree with you. if this were commercial, this would be --
>> a fraud. >> deceptive advertising. >> deceptive advertising. and in terms of nhtsa, that's who has jurisdiction on the act we mandated, happy to work with them, bring them in as well. as i said, you all know this firsthand, because you all have missed a few deadlines that are in statute in terms of reports back to us, we will push on nhtsa to find out why they have not followed the statutory guidance of this congress in their activities and appreciate the work you're doing. unfortunately it it may be your birthday but i'm over time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd be glad to work with you on the issue of microphones and theaters. and i think that -- i think we should really seriously examine this issue of 911, the dollars
that are collected by states and then god knows what they do with the money. they use it for everything but what the dollars are collected for. there should be a nexus between the federal dollars that are expended and sent to states in order to set up what we know we need to serve the public well. and if they want to take money from people, blow it elsewhere, i don't think they should qualify for federal funds. i'd be glad to work with you on that. on the issue of set top boxes, i just want to make this comment. and i think that it's a very important one. because it's a huge allegation which i don't think sticks. and that is, the issue of minorities and what all of that represents relative to cable. 20 years ago the telecom act was passed in the ensuing 20 years,
out of 500 channels, there are four african american programmers that have programs and two hispanic. so to say that the fcc's proposal that wants to unlock all of this to give opportunity and ignore what has happened under what cable, the cable industry has done really is a head scratcher to me. i don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that the cable industry has really made progress. i just want to set that down. mr. chairman, some of the critics of your proposed broad band privacy rules argue that any rules you adopt should apply to hedge providers as well as broad band providers. i have two questions. does the fcc in your view have authority to extend privacy rules to edge provider. and also critics argue that the
fcc lacks the necessary expertise to develop and enforce privacy rules. you want to comment on both of those? >> thank you very much. >> and just briefly. i have some more questions. >> okay. first, no, we do not intend to extend our reach to edge providers. and second -- and i've forgotten your second. what was your second one? >> well, does the fcc have the necessary expertise -- >> yes thank you. >> your critics are saying we love the ftc. expect there's other legislation to take just about every jurisdiction away from the ftc. we've got some hypocrisy here really. >> congresswoman, the reality is that for decades we have been regulating the use of network information in the telephone
network saying a phone company cannot make it available to a third party without the consumer's permission. it's exactly the same kind of concept we're talking about in broad band. >> good. thank you. to commissioner pai, you assert that all duplicate household subscribers have been enrolled fraudulently. at least that's what i heard you say, including those living in multihousehold addresses, like nursing homes, homeless shelters, veteran group homes. and what you've undertaken to examine all of this, have you examined what i just mentioned, these multihousehold addresses? have you included them? excluded them? tell me that first. >> thanks for the question, congresswoman.
based on the information that i've collected, 4.2 million representing 35% of all -- >> i know that. you've testified to that. i'm asking you specifically in this investigation that you've taken on, have you examined multihouse hold addresses? because they exist. they christ in any congressional district, in everyone's congressional district. and if you're using those multihousehold addresses to allege that there's fraud, then you know what? you've got to be really careful with this. >> and that's why -- >> you really have to be careful with this. >> i agree completely. that's why i said we don't know it's potentially fraudulent. we need to investigate given the magnitude of that number. >> you don't know, you're saying it might be. >> that's why we did the investigation. >> it might be. do you have any evidence of fraud yet? >> in some of the other areas
we've uncovered potential fraud. >> no area that you've discovered fraud yet is that correct?? >> if you look at all of the vendors -- >> answer me yes or no. have you uncovered any fraud so far. that's fair. >> to date i have not reached that conclusion. >> congresswoman we do know the facts. i'd be happy to give them for the record. there are 2.2 million lifeline subscribers today who live in 890,000 multiple resident addresses. i've got a list here. for instance, the kalamazoo mission, the associated ministries of tacoma, rescue mission christian ministry in roanoke. et cetera, et cetera. the total representing -- >> conveniently located in the members of the subcommittee's district. >> i'm sorry, what?
zbluft by -- >> just by happen chance -- >> the point being that it's about 16% of our total. the census bureau tells us that somewhere between 20 and 50%, depending upon your economic situation, 20% to 50% of american households are doubled up households. just like these ones that i read. we're at 16%. the low end. so the answer to the question, yes we do know what the number is, we do know the households. >> so you're going the say there is no fraud there, yes or no? >> i'm going to say we're vigilantly working. >> just like commissioner pai is. >> the reason we know this is because we have been out making the case for the investigation. >> we do know there was a case of fairly substantial fraud that you all have gone after, right? >> and the reality on that case, as is commissioner pai's so called statistics is he's reading from yesterday's newspaper. >> i don't care if it's
yesterday's or a month ago. >> these were shut down in 2015. >> what's the dollar amount? >> that was the fine. there were 37,000 -- >> and that was the private sector ripping off the public sector of the fcc went after them. >> that's what we're all talking about doing more of. >> i think pai's thing is -- >> the root of the problem goes back to the fact that the program was designed at the outset to be one where the fox was guard, the hen house. what the original fcc proposal plan was that we had been playing whac-a-mole with for the last eight years -- >> mr. chairman i would ask for regular order in getting back to the schedule. >> -- how do we deal with this reality. and the design was bad. it's an important program poorly designed and we've been playing catch up. and in a recent -- we put an actual verifier in place which
changes the game entirely. >> you all have been cleaning it up. the notion that all of the out of system i think would be hard to defend. we'll now go to -- >> i yield back. [ laughter ] >> we'll now go to the vice chair of the full committee, ms. blackburn. >> and i will promptly change the topic. chairman wheeler, i've talked to about the sweet water consortium, a group of 46 schools in tennessee, they serve hundreds of thousands -- a third of the school children in our state and they've been denied $60 million in funding for four years. and in your response you submitted after the last hearing you state the consortium's appeal was filed on may 9th, currently pending with the wireline bureau. what is the status update? >> it's not unrelated to the
discussion we just had because it is how do you follow the rules to make sure that waste, fraud and abuse is mitigated. one of the rules in the e rate program is there should be competitive bidding. in the sweetwater example there was no competitive bidding. zblr we're going to leave this hearing to go live to capitol hill. you can watch this online at c-span.org. live to a briefing with nancy pelosi. >> here we are again, grieving with our friends in france after yesterday's terror attack. france is our oldest ally and we are so saddened by once again france being the target of this kind of action. we mourn every loss, but especially mention two americans identified among the dead, shawn copeland of austin, texas and
his 11-year-old son. they were there on vacation and they were caught in that attack. an attack that came on bastille day as you know, as they were watching fireworks and celebrating. and i thought one of the statements of the one of the officials of france was particularly moving. he said, in response to all of this, we will honor the values of july 14th. we, too, in responding to it should honor the values of july 4th. they're celebrating, liberty, equality, fraternity and became a target. it is so sad. we began our vigil on the steps of the capital last night to call attention to the fact that congress was leaving without passing a gun safety
legislation. we began that vigil with a moment of silence for the people of france. those who lost their loved ones, those who were lost. we then went on to hear from so many families who had lost their loved ones by gun violence in our country, making the point that 91 people die every day from gun violence in our country. hard to find an answer why. why we can't pass a bill that expands background checks. just to incde -- to include internet sales at gun shows. on the debate on the floor yesterday, i talked about lyndon johnson after the assassination of kennedy. he tried to pass a bill, but then after martin luther king was assassinated and then robert kennedy, he then doubled down on his attempt and he said at that time, we have to act fast.
we have maybe ten days, two weeks, before the nra gets into the offices of the members of congress. well, they live in the offices of congress. i can't imagine what sway they have that is more important than the lives of children, young people, people in church, the list goes on and on. so sad. not passing gun violence protection legislation is only one thing that the republicans hightailed it out of town without doing. imagine, i don't read too much about this in the press. but it is absolutely appalling that once again they cut off a day and a half of legislative time when we're supposed to be doing the people's business. supposed to be passing legislation to our appropriations bills. we're supposed to be passing the
zika legislation. we have offered compromise to the speaker on that subject. in terms of the funding and the rest and his response is, just know we're not doing anything that has contraception in it. just think of this, a sexually transmitted disease, which would cause serious malformation in children, and republicans are saying in the house and in the senate, we're not putting anything for contraception in the bill. it is just another example of not depending on evidence, data, science, as to what we should do. over four months ago, president obama asked for the $1.9 billion to address zika.
over four months ago. and the republicans still will not take action. they leave town without doing it, for seven weeks. it will be almost six months by the time we come back. and lord knows what excuse they'll have now then. but no funding for opioids, just stunning, recognizing the problem, passing good legislation, in a bipartisan way, but no money. so no effectiveness. and, again, the president made that request. flint. flint. whatever it is, how could it be that we would ignore the needs of america's children in flint, michigan, who are affected by the decision made by the governor to have them be drinking poison water? supreme court justice, constitution says there is a
vacancy, the president shall nominate and the senate should confirm. but not even the courtesy of a hearing. such disrespect for the constitution of the united states. so it is stunning, but seem to be getting away with it because they just -- you all just say congress is leaving for seven weeks. no, the republicans are leaving, they have shut down government and any action on issues of concern to the public safety of our country, the public health challenges that we have, zika, opioids, what is happening in flint, which is not to even have a complete supreme court. it is -- american people are saying do your job. do your job. i think we try to, the president more than anyone, tries to act in a nonpartisan and bipartisan way. but because that is his strength, they try to undermine
it by obstructing. i read in your journals that we have dysfunction in washington. it is not dysfunction. it is pure and simply obstruction. obstruction. we have always been able to negotiate our appropriations bills in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way on the bills. and then from on high come the poison pills. policy that shouldn't be in an appropriation bill in which they be the first to say, if we try to put policy in a bill, you can't appropriate on a -- you can't legislate on an appropriations bill. but that's what they have been doing. placing in doubt whether we'll even have an appropriations process, whether we'll even have a bill by the end of the fiscal year, much less the calendar year. zika, opioids, gun violence, supreme court, garland.
on a positive side, i'm really very, very proud of the house democrats coming out with our agenda yesterday, some of you were there, thank you. hard working families look to this congress and see a reckless special interest republican majority that refuses to address their needs. i'm proud of our stronger america agenda, securing our nation, our first responsibility to protect the american people, whether it is global security, national security, homeland security, neighborhood security, personal safety. all of it related from our national -- from funding our military and veterans to passing gun safety legislation. securing our future, innovative platforms, to create good paying jobs, to keep america number one. innovation. bigger paychecks for the families that can buy a home, pay for college, tuition, and save for retirement. and securing our democracy, overturning citizens united, and
poisonous influence of secret money to ensure our goal, to ensure all american voices are heard in the country. i'm very pleased with the overwhelming response we have received from those who care about the -- the threshold issue of money in politics. never going to succeed on so many things that money has an impact on climate change, has an impact on gun safety, has an impact on the minimum wage. you name the subject, money, as in politics, there is a problem. so in order for us to achieve the other initiatives we have, we have to take down the role of money in politics and i'm very pleased with the response we have received to that. members will be taking this home, listening to their constituents, on the subject. and we are very proud of what we have come together for a stronger america for everyone. any questions?
yes, sir. >> on the campaign message of tax fairness -- >> yes. >> what would you say to the argument that that might not have enough appeal or traction with voters who might prefer middle class tax cuts? >> well, the -- thank you for your question because this is the heart of the matter. this is the heart of the matter. what we're talking about here is trickle down economics versus middle class economics. and as you have seen, we had been the victim of the tax cuts, the high end, the tax cuts for the wealthy, that president bush had, which took us deeply into debt. on a path of reducing the deficit under president clinton, president bush took us deeply into debt, reversing the trend that we were on, president obama has taken us in the opposite direction, when he became
president, the deficit was $1.4 trillion and now -- then it is down to $500 billion. it isn't -- it isn't -- we want it lower, but nonetheless, it is 70% lower than what the republicans left us. so the very same people who want tax cuts for the wealthy say we want to introduce tro reduce th. you have to do that on the back of food stamps, pell grants, investments in education, investments in science and technology because science is the four letter word around here, in case you didn't know. this issue of -- i think we should have, and i'm hopeful that we will, but they're making it harder to do a whole initiative on tax fairness. on tax fairness. subject everything to scrutiny, what really helped grow our economy, helps us reduce the deficit, and to do so in a way that honors the middle class
because we are a consumer economy. 70% of our economy is consumer oriented. and middle income people cannot have stronger paychecks, they can't consume, spend and help turn around our economy. until we do, it will not be fully recovered, even though the president made giant strides that cannot be fully recovered until we strengthen the paychecks of american workers. so i think the issue of the budget, tax fairness, and investments in the future, and for the republicans to say, give me a tax break and cut investments in education, that's our value system, i say nothing brings more money to the treasury than investing in education, early childhood, lifetime learning, for our workers. so that's a false economy on their part. but that whole issue has to be
taken in terms of the budget and the battle of the budget is what the difference is between democrats and republicans. right now we can't even have that discussion within the appropriations and the rest because they insist on bringing the poison pills. it is unfortunate. but the fact is we're having this divide in our country, the gap that we have in income equality and it is the very same people that want the tax cuts for the rich are talking about not raising the minimum wage, not raising the minimum wage, not giving people the opportunity for education. education reduces the deficit, education keeps america number one. innovation begins in the classroom. so this is not the argument. the argument is that we gave middle class tax cuts in the recovery package. but that's not what the fight is here. the fight is about tax cuts for
the rich, and special interest breaks within the tax code. and we have over a trillion dollars, well over a trillion dollars in tax expenditures in the tax code. they are expenditures, they cost money to give a rich person another tax break costs money to the taxpayer. we should subject all of that to scrutiny. what really grows our economy, what is about growth, what is about reducing the deficit, what is about keeping america number one? not what's about making the rich richer at the expense of investments in our future. so this is -- this is what elections are about. chad, you're always here. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> you're very involved with the intelligence committee after 9/11, 15 years ago. we're told that sometime imminently there may be a lease of the special committee put together here on capitol hill.
what is the -- from your perspective in having been involved in it, what is the concern about those pages and the impact that the release of those pages may have? >> well, i don't -- i'm not going to talk about the substance of the pages because that will be released. but right now the administration has taken it to the next step as they said they would, to release the documents. the documents are coming to congress today. when i was the ranking member, during the investigation, the joint investigation, house and senate, reporter goss and i wrote a letter at the end of it saying that at some point the classified information -- as it addressed the next congress, the classified information would be released. the parliamentarian, this may be a subject you want to know, the parliamentarian says the information coming over cannot be released just because of our
letter. that it will take some act of congress to do. >> so the intelligence committee has to review it and then there has to be action on the floor? >> maybe not. maybe not that much, but the committees of jurisdiction have to act upon it in some way. we're finding out because you would think that if it has been declassified by the president of the united states, that's what -- he's the ultimate declassifier. the declassifier in chief. that's come over to us from the dni, from the director of national intelligence. so we -- we thought that our letter directing that, for the next congress, could hold for now. i don't think the parliamentarian would have thought it held for them, you need something more than just a letter from us to say it should be -- when it is declassified it should be released. >> and thank you for the clarification on the process. without getting into state secrets here and things, but what was -- what is the concern about, you know, there is a reason why that was redacted,
people speculated about saudi arabia and administration has expressed concern about messing up our relations with states in the middle east. >> the -- on any declassification like that, the main concern is sources and methods in terms of how the declassification takes place. but in terms of the substance of it, why don't we just wait and see when it comes out and we can talk. okay. yes, ma'am. >> i wanted to ask something else, but just to clarify on this, so is it not clear at this point whether those pages will be released to the public? >> there will be. they will be. >> today? >> hopefully today. but imminently. >> but the committees have to act before -- in some way for that to happen or no? >> well, we're at the mercy of the parliamentarian. it could be just that a bipartisan agreement within the committees could -- see, we should be here right now. there is a reason why we should
be in congress to pass legislation, but also to act upon other issues that congress needs to act upon. if we were here, this wouldn't be so much of an issue. but it is. it could be that the senate could do it and then release it on their website. and it would be out there. but obviously we want to release it as well in the house side. it is not -- it is a parliamentary issue. it is not anything holding it up, except to do it according to what the parliamentarians think is the appropriate approach. it will be imminent. and that's what we're trying to do is to move it quickly. what is your objection? what do you need? how do we get that done? it would be easier if we were in session. >> on a different topic, may i ask how you would compare speaker ryan, how you would evaluate his tenure. has he made good on his promises of a more open house, et cetera,
and would anything different have happened if speaker boehner were still here? >> i think you can make your own judgment on that, i'm not here to talk about that. in terms of guns, we can't bring a bill. in terms of zika, they won't give us a vote. in terms of -- the list goes on. the list goes on. i would say that -- i have great respect for the speaker, he has a difficult job. i know it well. he doesn't have kind of a unity within his caucus that we had. i had it easier in that respect. didn't mean we had consensus all the time or unanimity, but we were not obstructing. so when members disagreed, they weren't obstructing. here is the thing, i would distinguish the republicans in congress, not necessarily the speaker, as a congress of obstruction and a congress of
investigation. but not a congress of any constructive action on behalf of the american people. they got two more investigations coming up. i called this the nesting -- first we do benghazi, then we do e-mails, then we do comey. now we do investigation of whether congress was dealt with honestly, now we're talking about other things and other things. and it is, like, do your job. what is it? subpoena, subpoena, subpoena. and nothing in terms of getting the job done for the american people. they left with daereliction of duty in terms of public health issues, zika, opioids, flint. they left without addressing these concerns and helping us have just a vote, which we think we would win, on background checks on guns and no fly, no
buy. this is -- they do nothing. what are the accomplishments? they have a bill signing on opioids that doesn't have one red cent, but it is who they are. i'm not addressing his leadership. i'm just saying what this congress has not done. and for us to leave here at this time, two times, last time in the dead of night. they ran out the door. they ran out the door on a wednesday night, when we're supposed to be in more -- to end that session, so they can go out and have another break. and now leaving for seven weeks without unfinished business, it is stunning. it is -- i don't know what they have to be proud of. i really don't. and i feel sad for the country. as i said, we said, okay, you don't want to do this, let's just take what the senate passed in a bipartisan way on zika. i don't like it. it is not enough money. but let's get that done.
let's just -- why don't you do what the senate did in a bipartisan way. i can't do that. we got to -- i can't do that. besides we're not going to have anything that has contraception in it. and now the senate is on to the contraception thing too. so they're both a mess. both republican majorities are a mess. but donald trump is an abject reflection of them and that's why i keep saying, there is not one dime's worth of difference between donald trump and the republicans in the house of representatives, i can speak to this body, on a daily firsthand basis, whether it is anti-anti-anti-anti-everything and now considering a vice presidential candidate who the whole country rejected his attitudes toward gays in indiana that he had to modify his
position there. he's -- he was in the congress, he was supportive of privatizing social security. i can't wait until we have a debate. i don't know who he will choose. i don't know if he was ready or not ready to make that announcement. but whatever it is, it is very clear that what donald trump has said, the republicans in congress have beaten him to that punch over and over again, over a long period of time, and with power. and with power. any other questions, because i have to go. yes. >> when you spoke to speaker ryan last week after the dallas shootings, did you raise with him the idea of establishing a select committee on gun violence and if so, what was his response? >> i -- yes, i did bring it up with him. i said our members are interested, mike thompson in particular, who is the chair of
our gun violence -- who worked in a bipartisan way, the king/thompson bill, a bipartisan bill on background checks and supporting the king bill on no fly, no buy, that kind of thing. so there is some basis for doing something in a nonpartisan way or bipartisan way. so i suggested to him that our members would be interested in participating in that bill. i think he thought that the timing was not good. just on the heels of -- it was a question i was going to ask him anyway and along came dallas and he said, well, you know, we have -- we have -- right now i'm not sure this is a good idea. and i said -- i don't know what the timing would be right now. >> on a different topic, can you tell us what your views are about the democratic veepstakes. >> i have no idea. i think we have -- contrary to the other side, that has sort of
a contest without a winner, on our side, we have fabulous candidates. and, you know, it is completely up to the secretary as we all know, whoever she chooses we will fully embrace because all the names she has put out there are values-based, popular choices. and we'll see. i have absolutely no idea. absolutely no idea. yes, sir. >> thank you very much. what did you make of newt gingrich calling for the deportation of muslims who believe in sharia and what do you think congress should do in response to france? >> the bracelet again. >> don't forget it. i won't be here to back you up. >> i just -- the statement that was made about sharia and the rest, i don't even want to dignify his comments. as i said earlier, in response
to events like this, we have to honor the values of our fourth of july as they honor the values of their 14th of july. so i just think that it is -- it is really sad. it is just not what our country needs in terms of healing and bringing people together. and what was it? we were going to -- interview every muslim in the country and then if we didn't like their views on sharia law, they would be deported? not a good idea. not a good idea. but in keeping with the trump attitude as well. this is, look, i still am an intelligence person after all these years, i have the benefit of knowing some things, and i observe and make judgments and i do think that isis is losing on the battlefield.
they're losing on the battlefield in iraq and syria. and they perhaps have encouraged people to do these kinds of things, pathetic souls, you know, pathetic souls, lone wolves, mostly, as far as we know, we don't have all the facts on france right now. but to show some acts of cowardice where they attack noncombatant people in a vulnerable situation, then make it look like they have some strength when in fact they're losing on the battlefield. so we have to think in a very careful way. we have to share our intelligence and our resources with countries so that we are protecting our people. france is a valued ally. our first ally as a matter of fact. those of you who follow the congress know there are only two paintings in the chamber, one of george washington, the patriarch
of our country, and we all love, and the other of the marquis delafayette, i'm not even sure some of our republican colleagues know that the picture is staring at them on their side of the aisle when they start calling french fries freedom fries and the rest of that. but nonetheless, the country that helped us win the revolution. so we had a long relationship with france, shared values, in their case, liberty, equality and fraternity. in our case, liberty and justice for all. and, again, shared values. so in the interest of global security, we really need to work together, share intelligence, and some planning and, of course, call upon our -- the muslim nations, the two -- to work with us on this subject as well. but i don't think it serves any purpose to put forth an idea,
don't let me say idea, it does not rise to the level of an idea. a silly notion. i think that's it -- you had a question. >> yeah, just real quickly. in 2010, when democrats were in control, you didn't do a bundge resolution and now the republicans have not done a budget resolution. they say mitigating factors, the last two year agreement, the ryan/murray 2.0. >> do you buy that? >> that's what i was going to ask you. do you think -- >> usually do buy what they're saying, but i didn't -- you always have their case in your question each time. >> but also -- >> no budget, no pay. no budget, no pay. i subscribe to that. that's what they said. now they who play such a high value on it, this was their idea, no budget, no pay, since it is their idea, and they don't have a budget, no budget, no pay. thank you, all. >> thank you. >> see you in a few weeks, i guess. >> bracelet. >> i put it on.
the speaker is not coming in next. >> that's what i said. there is no backup. >> let me just say this about bracelets, we had last night a whole -- i had on the ribbons from dallas, blue and yellow, that i had when i went to dallas with the president. we had these -- everybody wore these. we had these from orlando. we had the orange shirts that we had on the steps and there last night two of the 91 people who die every night. we have -- we wear red for girls kidnapped by boko haram. we wear all these colors and now we have the one for france. so much violence. so many colors. it is just stunning that we really just have to elevate our conversations in a way that are worthy of the american people and worthy of our responsibilities to the world and the very least we can do, the very least we can do is to say that we will have these
background checks for guns and no fly, no buy in our own country to keep -- to honor our oath of office, to keep the american people safe. hopefully, i mean, even this rainbow is taking on different colors, the rainbow for our lgbt community but has the orange, it has the colors of all of the pain that people are feeling and all of the recognition that we want to do. so, you know, i -- i almost was ready to sing blowing in the wind last night. how many more people must die. how many more people must die. but we already had scheduled to sing another song at the end. we'll save that for another day. anyway, thank you, all. >> thank you. >> have a good break. >> and finishing up with
here this evening. we have been observing the critical mass of people who are being off loaded here over to my left, your right, and we'll give them just a few more moments to get here. but before we start this evening's program, i think it is fitting and proper as i bring forward for an invocation and hopefully an observance of the people of france who once again are experiencing the wrath of demented beings who are inflicting their notions upon
unsuspecting people in such a way that it brings great sorrow to all of us. and so before i ask our pastor howard john wesley to return the invocation, let us all please just pause for a moment of silence for the people of nice, france, who are experiencing a lot of trauma as we begin this program. thank you very much. now, i would like to call to the podium for an involuntacation p howard john wesley.
>> let us pray. creator and omnipotent god, we gather under the sovereignty and protection of thy hand, believing thou has called us to this place to shine our lights in the midst of these dark times. times when we have seen too many acts of gun violence in our land to remain comfortable or quiet. times when our calling to live as the light of the world is crystal clear. we gather in this place with the laws and legislature of liberty and life are written and crafted to protect your people by those whom you've called to their elected office and we beseech thee o god to show us a more excellent way. as we petition your throne, so do we redress our government with the grievance of gun violence, and the demand there must be a change, that necessary gun reform laws be brought to
this congress floor and be passed. we seek your soul with all of those who mourn as a result of gun violence in orlando, baton rouge, dallas, minneapolis, charleston, chicago, and virtually every other city in these united states. we ask that thy wisdom would guide us on our path forward, that thy spirit would lead us as we raise our voices against the violence and death that pervades our land, and that thou would continue to unite us as a people, regardless of color or creed, and religion or race, sexuality or salary, politics or preference, with peaceful respect given to all faiths gathered here, honoring the different names by which you were called, i pray to you, in the name of my savior and my christ, amen. >> amen. >> thank you, pastor wesley.
and now to lead us in the pledge of allegiance, to our flag, which all of us can see over in the distance, i call upon the vice chair of the house democratic caucus, joseph crowley of new york. >> i pledge aleens alegiance to flag for the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you, mr. crowley. and now, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to introduce to some, present to most of you, the leader of the house democratic caucus, the former and it is my prayer future leader, speaker of the house of representatives,
nancy pelosi of california. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for being here to light the way to disarm hate. it is an honor to be here with each and every one of you, to be comforted by the words of the invocation, and to be led by mr. clyburn, sharing the grief of his state with the nation, leading us in this beautiful ceremony this evening, inspired by our colleague, a national icon, a global hero, john lewis. we are here outside on a day when we're supposed to be in the session of congress and in session tomorrow. but the majority in congress has decided they had more important
things to do than to save lives. they decided that they would not pass, give us a vote on preventing gun violence. instead, they would go home. we have a message to them, we will never stop until we have a successful vote to say no fly, no buy, and to say -- and to amend -- to enhance our gun violence prevention laws in a number of ways. two in particular, no fly, no buy and background checks. i say to you that we are here, really, my colleagues and i, and it is an honor to be with all of them, they have had events in washington, in the capitol, across the country, in their districts, they're all committed to the pledge, we will not stop
until we succeed in passing the legislation. so i thank my colleagues for their leadership. you'll be hearing from more of them. so often we hear the quote about reverend martin luther king saying he dreamed of a nation where his children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. if we apply that test to the american people, they come up very strong. because we are a nation of people based on values, compassion, and courage. but that same measure does not apply to the leadership in the congress of the united states when it comes to respecting the dignity and worth and lives of every person in our country. there is no compassion. their judgments are not value based, and they do not have courage. they think their political survival is more important than the survival of little children or people gathered in church or young people gathered on a
saturday night. or people in a movie theater across the country. again, we must -- we must all of us be judged by that. beautiful mr. lewis always tells us and reminds us that we all have a spark of divinity in us. all the people we care about are made in the image and likeness of god. and i say to my colleagues in the congress, the leadership, you, too, have a spark of divinity. act upon it. act upon it in respect for the dignity and worth of every person in our country. so tonight, we're going to hear a little bit from members of congress, a whole lot more from people whose families have suffered through this. we make a pledge to them, as we not only listen to what they have to say, we hear what they have to say. and we will act upon it.
they have acted upon their grief to turn their grief into action so that other people will not suffer. we join them tonight, not just to listen, but to hear, to listen, and learn as we listen so that we can make sure that we use their voices to make change in the congress of the united states. so that congress will have the courage, to compassion, and the values to pass the legislation that will save lives. and with that, i am pleased to thank all of you for coming and yield and thank our distinguished assistant leader for calling us all here together. he is a champion on this issue, a champion on saying to these people, why aren't you funding zika so we can protect lives of people subjected to that? why aren't you doing money for opioids so we can address that concern in a meaningful way? why aren't you thinking of the children of flint, michigan, who
also need our attention? what do you have to do that is more important than that? that you had to go home. a person who is keeping us here until the job is done, our distinguished assistant leader, mr. clyburn of south carolina, he's proud to say. mr. clyburn. >> thank you very much, leader pelosi. and now, we are going to hear from members of congress and the people that they have invited here to speak out on behalf of disarming hate and hopefully lighting the way to commonsense gun reform legislation. so we're going to thank all the members who have come out here this evening. only a few of them who will be
presenting speakers. i want to begin by inviting to the mike now representative katherine clark, who will present on behalf of the people of charleston, south carolina. >> thank you, congressman clyburn, our leader nancy pelosi, and congressman john lewis, who has led us in this effort. my name is katherine clark. i represent the fifth congressional district of massachusetts. on june 17th, 2015, nine prayerful souls gathered for bible study at emanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina. the lives of reverend clementa pinckney, cynthia herd, shu
ronde coleman singleton, ethen lance, suzy jackson, depain middleton doctor, the reverend daniel simmons, and myra thompson, were snuffed out by a hateful murderer who was allowed to purchase a gun because of a loophole in our background check laws. i support commonsense gun violence solutions, including closing the charleston loophole, because we can no longer remain silent. speak out on behalf of the emanuel nine. and disarming hate. i am honored to introduce tuwaunza sanders' mother, felic felicia.
>> hi. on the evening of june 17th, 2015, i survived the most horrific experience of my entire life. i did so by hiding under a table, pretending to be dead while protecting my grandchild from gunshots. domestic terrorist who should not have had a gun was able to get it because of loopholes in our background check laws. i am pleading with congress to close the so-called loopholes. charleston loophole. this loophole led to the murder of my son, my aunt, and a cousin. three of the nine faithful
worshiper who lost their lives while participating and the furtherance of their religious journey. my son's life was snuffed out as he confronted the killer with a simple question and a statement. why are you doing this? why are you doing this? we mean you no harm. we mean you no harm. but it did not matter to the shooter because we were all targeted, because of racial hatred. and the color of our skin. the perpetrator of this heinous act should not have been in possession of a gun. i am here today to ask members of congress to help disarm hate and to pass some commonsense gun
laws. thank you. [ applause ] >> our next congressperson, i would like for all of you to meet and greet the widow of reverend clementa pinckney, jennifer, and her two daughters. thank you all so much for leaving the ame conference in philadelphia and coming down here today. >> because of what happened on that evening, a father, a husband, a loved one is not by
our side. clementa was a family man, and he loved the lord. and because of his love, he invited someone into the church that didn't look like him. because he loved the lord. something has got to be done. you never think about crimes such as what happened to our family and all of our families until it happens to you. never on that day when we left our home that day did i think that my husband would not be
returning back with us. for he had promised melana, she asked her father, when we leave church, can you take me to mcdonald's? we never made it to mcdonald's. too many lives are lost. it's got to stop. think about the love that clementa had. a peaceful person. and because he shared that love and because he was a people pers person, when this horrific crime happened, charleston could only embrace each other. did we fight? no. because clementa wouldn't have wanted that. because that wasn't what clementa was about.