tv American Perspectives CSPAN February 19, 2011 11:00pm-2:00am EST
stanley f. musial. stanley f. musial represents the best of american sports icons. his name is synonymous with the st. louis cardinals, the team on which he played for his entire 22-year career. a perennial all-star and three- time as valuable player, he won accolades as a player and championships as a teammate. nicknamed "stan the man" musical, he played the game with unrivaled passion, and his humility and decency remain a model for all young americans to this day. [applause]
william f. russell. [laughter] basketball was a different sport before william f. russell donned the uniform. with unmatched skill, he led the boston celtics to an unparalleled string of titles and earned the distinction of being named the national basketball association's most the label player five times. he broke down barriers on and off the court, becoming basketball first african american coach and serving as a passionate advocate for civil rights. bill russell can reflect with pride on helping change the culture of the sport and the course of our nation. [applause]
the honorable jean kennedy smith. the eighth of nine children to joseph and rose kennedy, jean kennedy smith joined the family business of helping her fellow americans in improving our world. in 1974, she founded very special arts, a nonprofit organization that promotes the artistic talents of young people living with disabilities. on the international stage, jean kennedy smith played a pivotal role in the peace process in northern ireland while serving as the united states ambassador
to ireland. with intelligence, compassion, creativity, and grace, jean kennedy smith has contributed volumes to her family's outstanding legacy of service to our country. john j. sweeney. as a champion for the american worker, john j. sweeney has strengthened our families, our economy, and our country. the son of irish immigrants, he worked his way up in the labor movement, serving as president
of the service employees international union and president of the american federation of labor and congress of industrial organizations, all the while reaffirming our nation's commitment to rewarding the enduring values of hard work and responsibility. united states proudly honors john sweeney for a lifetime of courageous service on behalf of working people. >> i know that people try to observe decorum when they are here in the white house. [laughter] but i would welcome everybody to stand and acknowledge these extraordinary men and women of the 2011 medal of freedom.
now you can see why i love this day, and i hope everyone has a wonderful time during the reception. thank you so much for your attendance. and again, to our honorees, thanks for setting such an extraordinary example for all of us. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
president obama talks about the need to improve education to complete globally. he gets it from the intel organization facility that he visited yesterday near portland, oregon. he is followed by tom price with the gop address. represented a price talks about the president's 2012 budget request and the need to cut government spending to create a better environment for job creation. his remarks follow a series of amendments passed by house republicans early this morning that would produce 2011 fertile spending by $61 billion. -- federal spending by $61 billion. >> i am speaking to you outside portland, ore. where i am visiting pinto, a company that helped pioneer the digital age. i just toured the assembly line where workers are building microprocessors to run everything from desktops to smartphones. but these workers are not just manufacturing high-tech computer
chips. they are showing us how america will win the future. for decades, intel has led the world in developing new technologies. even as global competition has intensified, this company has invested, build, and hired right here in america. three-quarters of intel products are made by american workers. as the company expands operations in oregon and builds a new plant in arizona, if it plans to hire another 4000 people this year. companies like intel are proving that we can compete, instead of being a nation that buys what is made overseas. we can make things in america and sell them around the globe. winning this competition depends on the continuity and competition of our private sector. but it also will depend of what we do as a nation to make america the best place on earth to do business. over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education beyond high
school. many require proficiency in math and science. and yet today, we have fallen behind in math and in science, and in graduation rates. companies like intel struggle to hire american workers with the skills that fit their needs. if we want to win the global competition for new jobs and industry, we have to win the global competition to educate our people. we have to have the best trained, best skilled work force in the world. dublin sure the next intel, the next google, or the next microsoft is created in america and higher american workers. this is why over the past two years, my administration has made education a top priority. we of want the competition calder race to the top, if of reform lifting academic standards and getting results. not because washington dictated the answers come about because state and local schools pursued innovative solutions. we are making college more
affordable for millions of students and revitalizing our community colleges so that people can get the education they need for the careers that one -- they want. we have launched a nationwide initiative to connect traffic -- graduates to companies that need their skills. intel understands how important these partnerships can become a recognizing that their success depends on a pipeline of skilled people ready to build high-tech job -- phil high-tech jobs. -- fill high-tech jobs. one at every 15 intel's oregon employs has a degree from portland state. intel's commitment begins at a younger age. that provide training to help 100,000 math and science teachers improve their skills in the classroom. i am meeting a few students in oregon who are in engineering competitions that intel's bonds
across america. one young woman conducted a chemistry experiment that investigated ways to protect our water from pollution. another student applied the principles of quantum physics to design of faster computer chips. we're talking about high school students. these have been a tough few years for our country, and in tough times, it is natural to question what the future holds. but when you meet young people like this, it is hard not to be inspired. and it is impossible not to be confident about america. we're poised to lead in this new century, and not because of the good work like large companies like intel are doing. many are trying to start the next intel, or getting a note -- a small business of the run off the ground. i will be meeting with them -- some of these people in cleveland to talk about what we can do to help their companies grow and create jobs. the truth is, we have everything we need to compete.
all but to put your -- bold entrepreneurs, and young people brimming with promise to succeed. that is a lesson on display here at intel. it is how america will win the future. thanks so much. >> i am congressman tom price and i have the privilege for working for the people of georgia's sixth congressional district. in addition to serving as the chairman of the house policy commission, i am a member of the house budget commission. you probably heard a lot of talk coming out of washington about the so-called budget battle. we even have democrats who run washington and threaten to shut down the government instead of listening to the american people and cutting spending. right now our focus should be creating jobs and getting our economy moving again. after all, the president promised that this would be the spirit that he got serious about the deficit and the debt hurting
our economy. instead, he started out by asking congress to raise the debt limit without any commitment to cutting spending at the same time. in his state of the union address, he called for more ineffective stimulus spending. this week he submitted a budget for the next fiscal year that destroys jobs by spending too much and borrowing too much and taxing too much. listen to the folks to create jobs in this country and you'll hear that we need to and washington spending to reduce uncertainty, to boost confidence, and to encourage private investment in our economy. to help create a better environment for job creation in america, the spending binge has got to stop. with the support of republican governors and how reform-minded colleagues in the senate, the new house majority is working hard toward that goal. that is why the house that this past week working on a bill to cut discretionary spending by $100 billion over the last seven months of the current fiscal
year. we are not only living up to our pledge to america, we are exceeding it. and more cuts and more forms are on the way. as part of our focus on job growth, committees in the house coming through job-crushing government regulation and are conducting a rigorous oversight on how the government spends the people's time and your money. we will soon begin work on legislation to cut wasteful mandatory spending. in the spring, under the leadership of our budget chairman paul ryan, we will support a budget for the next fiscal year that confronts the fiscal challenges facing our nation instead of ducking them. it will offer ideas for real into autumn of reform so that we can have a conversation about the challenges that we face and the need to start a new path to prosperity. as a doctor and a parent, i find it astounding that the president has submitted a budget that ignores the recommendations of his own fiscal commission and
put on all the tough choices, including entitlement reform. his expanded entitlements through obamacare, a government takeover they will destroy 800,000 jobs according to the non-partisan congressional budget office, and will accelerate our path of fiscal ruin. this issue demands presidential leadership, something the president so far seems unwilling to offer. if we confined to an upside, it is that the president committed that the budget fails to admit the crisis. some members of congress still will not acknowledge it there is a crisis. one of particular, harry reid, said not too long ago, "social security is fine." you know it is not fine. this year for the first time, it will pay out more money than it takes in. and with the wave of baby boomers started to retard, but there is no way that we can protect programs like social security for the future and get our debt under control unless we begin to honestly address entitlements.
for the president, leadership includes telling friends like every read the truth even if it is politically difficult. our reforms will focus on saving these programs for future incuring generations of americans and then getting our debt under control and our economy growing. but taking critical steps forward now, we can fulfill the mission for all americans without making changes for those in or near retirement. the new republican majority will leave even as the democrats to run washington ignored their responsibility. senator reid in president obama, as they change their minds, we will be willing to work with them. in the meantime, republicans are focused on listening to the people, confronting our nation's challenges, and helping our economy get back to creating jobs. thank you for listening. to get here is what ahead. next, former president jimmy carter talks about his presidency and the history -- in the situation in the middle east.
a house commerce subcommittee holds a hearing on broadband plan and net neutrality. we will follow that with house debate on an amendment dealing with net neutrality offered by oregon congressman greg walden. sunday on "washington journal," michael tanner of the cato institute discusses his recent analysis of president obama's 2012 budget request. and then how the government e- verify system works in new crackdown on employers who hire undocumented workers. after that, let's talk about the continuing anti-government protest in the middle east and how the u.s. should respond. plus your e-mails and phone calls. "washington journal," live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> you know i ask you to come here this evening so that we could immediately hear
firsthand regarding the negotiations going on in europe. >> you can look at this as a historical to the recipe or you can -- we look at this as a forerunner of today's managed news. >> find something about -- you didn't know about the 43 men who served as president of united states at the c-span video library. watch what you want, when you want. >> it is all presidents during this three-day presidential weekend. historians and associates of jfk talk about his place in history, lessons learned, and applications today. we will visit the smithsonian's national portrait gallery, talk with jimmy carter and george h.w. bush, and commemorate reagan's centennial birthday. c-span3, and for a complete
schedule, go to c-span.org. >> jimmy carter sat down at the lyndon johnson presidential library in austin, texas to talk about his presidency in the situation in the middle east. he also commented on his work with the carter center in promoting democracy in fighting diseases. this presentation is one hour and 10 minutes. >> my name is tom johnson. i am a friend of the lbj family. 16 years ago, the first harry middleton lecture took place in this auditorium. the next day, ladybird johnson, who had established the lectureship to honor the man who was then the library director, wrote to him to express her pride in gratification that the event had been, and these were
her words, "it watershed day in the light of the lbj library." she was moved by what she felt was the chemistry that the speaker had created between himself and his audience. it was heavily composed that day by students. country to the thought of cynicism and gloom we have seen as a country to have been wrapped in for some time, she wrote, the atmosphere, the chemistry of that day was so upbeat and so hopeful. the speaker that day, the creator of the chemistry, was president jimmy carter. president carter returned to this library a few years later in another unforgettable parents. he and president gerald ford,
once those in a political war that they had waged, met on the stage and exchanged of very common discourse -- a very uncommon discourse with the disposition to seek common ground on the issues that we -- they were confronting this nation. it was a display of the american political system at its very finest. no one who is here that day will ever forget it. and how we so need that civility in that respect for each other in the politics of today. so is a great honor for us to welcome this splendid man back here once again. i say it from the memory of the
very rich distinctions that he has already conferred on this library and the school by his visits. 39th president of united states, winner of the nobel prize for peace, a tireless global traveler for the cause of justice, the provider of homes for the homeless, a man who made lady bird johnson proud of the ledger should she created, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome president jimmy carter.
>> thank you very much, thank you. >> interviewing him is the outstanding new executive director of the lbj library, not quite so new any more, but the person we are delighted to have in that position, all worthy successor to harry middleton. welcome, mark up growth -- updegrove. >> welcome. thank you so much for being here. we are delighted at the back. you come at a very fortuitous time in the sense that, i think, all of our minds are on what is going on in the middle east
right now. there is no one u.s. president more associated than the middle east venue. you've brokered the historic 1978 peace accord between israel and egypt. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you view the situation in the middle east currently. >> thank you, mark. good to be here again and the library of a man for whom i have the greatest admiration and appreciation. when i was governor, and after lyndon johnson left office, i wrote him a personal hand written letter. i do not know if you still have not. you might want to look it up. but if you find it, how like a copy of it because i have eroded on the airplane. -- i hand wrote it on the airplane. i recognize that there are other
places that are threatening to erupt. i encourage the middle east in its totality, including lebanon, but also pakistan. what you refer to primarily was between israel and its neighbors. when i became president, in 18 days, there was no effort for me to begin trying to negotiate for peace. no one put pressure on me. there was nothing going on. there have been four major force in the previous 25 years. all of them lead on the arab side by egypt who was then in bed with the soviet union. and all they military capabilities including advisers was russia. and of course we were supporting israel. i wanted to bring peace to the holy land something i had taught
in my sunday school class since i was 18 urals, so i met with leaders. will not go into details about that. but the finest person that i ever met who was a foreign leader was anwar sadat. because of his courage and intelligence and generosity, if we were able as you said to get an agreement between israel and egypt in 1978. they gave the palestinians full autonomy and let them run their own affairs. six months later, we had a peace treaty between israel and egypt. april of 1979. not all word of way in 32 years has ever been violated. after i left office in january, involuntary retired by the election results of 1980 -- [laughter] sadat and they were still close
friends. we visited him in egypt, and his wife and my wife or friends, and even our grandchildren were friends. in october, the eighth of that year, sadat was assassinated. hosni mubarak was the vice president and he immediately took office. he was anointed successor. since then, for 30 years or so, mubarak chose not to have a vice president. and though he started out as a very enlightened letter, following in sadat's footsteps, mubarak became infatuated with powers and his family became more powerful in addition to him, his son and others, and they became very rich and invested heavily in the future egypt that he decided not to let anyone challenge him for president. for 30 years, you might say, there was no element of democracy or freedom and became
increasingly abusive. and then of course in the demonstrations in the tunisai that were successful, and then yesterday in egypt. not organized by any particular group, not the muslim brotherhood or anyone else. all the political parties had been kept under wraps come out of existence by mubarak. but then he was forced to leave. i do not know what is going happen now. the carter center has been deeply involved in interim affairs, in israel, in the west bank, in gossip, and the vote -- also syria as well as egypt, for a number of years. we have full-time offices in those places. i've been negotiating primarily with the man named omar suleiman, who was chosen by
mubarak to be his vice president, something he had never had before. when i went to the middle east, i always try to make events with mr. suleiman, because he has intelligence capabilities and almost every country. what is going happen now, i do not know. but the effort by the united states to bring peace between israel and its neighbors is completely at a standstill. nothing is happening. that is not an exaggeration. it is completely dead in the water. because what of present -- president obama demanded in egypt and cairo shortly after being inaugurated about ending the settlements, completely ignored by the israelis, and nothing is happening. so i think that in the future, we will see may be more
flexibility in dealing with the primary issues that i have, and that is bringing peace to israel and its neighbors. the carter center will be involved as much as possible in helping to orchestrate another successful election in egypt. it would be their first one since sadat's death. we will be sending a delegation within the next week to meet with opposition to help formulate a new constitution and also to have successful elections probably next september. that may be more than you wanted to know about it. [laughter] >> we need to know. the egyptian military currently holds power in egypt. they said that they would fuel to the democratic process. can we trust that they will in fact make good on their promises? they have deep economic interest in egypt. in the ostensibly, they protect the status quo.
>> when mubarak decided to step down, he said that suleiman would take over. he was in bed with mubarak. that was not satisfactory to the freedom demonstrators. so they refused, and the military has been very congenial and helpful to the demonstrators in tahrir square and other places. they protected them against a very abusive police and others. i think that many of the young people have confidence in the military in generic terms to protect them. there is a going to -- junta, a conference that the military has now. now i think they have met four or five times since mubarak left office. they are meeting together after mubarak said he would stay in --
stay in office, and they passed words to him that he had to step down. the military has been in power for more than 50 years. sadat was a product of the military as well as nassar before him. the military will be in charge of security and a lot of other factors in egypt in the future. my guest is that the military does not want to give up their political influence or power. but they have seen what the demonstrators have done, and i think the demands of the demonstrators would not permit the military to cede charge of the political situation. they will still have a lot of financial investments in various aspects of egyptian life, but i do not think that the demonstrators would not accept anything except honest and fair and open elections with the political party is allowed for the first time. voting for the parliament of
egypt and also for the president. yesterday i believe, the military to solve the parliament, which was elected under mubarak's leadership without any real opposition except within his own political party. i think there is a good chance now that the military, despite the fact that they would rather stay in power, will give a political power with honest elections and freedom for the people of egypt. >> how should we view the muslim brotherhood? >> i have known members of the muslim brotherhood. when i go to egypt and other places, i try to meet with all the political people. they have played a small role, they are well-organized, they have ties to hezbollah in lebanon and also hamas in syria and damascus they also
controlled gaza. i do not think that there anything to be afraid of in the upcoming political situation -- the evolution that i see that is most likely. they will be subsumed in the overwhelming demonstrating -- demonstration of true democracy. allen says secular, non- religious government would resolve the demonstrations in the last three weeks. although the muslim brotherhood might put together a party, a public opinion poll that same shows that only 15% of egyptians would support the muslim brotherhood. so they will be one of many parties to run. i do not think there is any likelihood at all of them prevailing and effecting sure real law -- sharia law. >> there is clearly been a
domino effect in the middle east. what should the u.s. possible be now? how we balance our security and financial interest with our role in fostering democracy in that part of the world? >> we have come a long way in recent years. although we have been a very -- very close to mubarak and other dictators in the middle east, they do not permit any freedoms. we used to have the same arrangement in south america. when i became president, the previous judges -- presidents have been very close to the dictators in south america. most of the countries in south america were military dictators. we form partnerships to make sure that they got pushed --
anything that might be attractive coming out of south america. what our business community wanted what our political leaders wanted, and they could political leaders on both sides in the congress and the white house, was stability. stability is quite often incompatible with freedom. so whenever any demonstrators like the one we saw in tunisia and egypt began to rise up in south america, we would say they are communists, they are all communists, and we have to stamp them out. they might be a threat to us. we were even sending in marines and the armies to back of the dictators in holding up any sort of freedom fighters. and all of them for indigent and for people looking for better life. that changed and now was part of the change when i became president. five years after i left the white house, every country in
south america had become a democracy and they still are, by the way. although some are not quite friendly with us, like for instance, venezuela. but they are democracies. i think this will be a signal to the united states that like in south america, we should start doing the same thing in the middle east, particularly the arab countries. increasing freedom of elections. some countries like jordan, which we visit regularly, have something of an election for parliament remembers. and the three elections we have mustered in palestine, in the west bank and gaza, had been completely open, free, democratic. it is a pure democracy although they are not in existence right at this moment. and we had a good presence in lebanon. this past april, we sent a monitor to that election as
well. there is breaking ground work, even some of the arab countries where control from the center is opening up, and united states will be much more cautious in the future of taking sides overtly or openly with the military dictatorships, including arab leaders who are our friends, if there is an honest exhibition of desire for more democracy. even in saudi arabia, there have been 10 leaders, most of them have formed a political party, and that is as far as they have gone. i am sure that they could be disbanded immediately. but they are addressing what freedom means now. in yemen, it might be the next crucial area, bahrain has had large demonstrations. syria is fairly stable.
they have a young, fairly progressive president who inherited the office from his locker. but the united states in the future will be much more amenable to democracy taking over, even in the arab countries where their leaders are our close friends. >> we have seen that there has been severe reaction against the opposition among the leadership, significantly different than egypt. what do you think will transpire there in the coming days? >> we had a very honest and fair election in iran and a very moderate it president was elected. and he served until netanyahu became president. probably he was elected fairly the first time when he took office. but then in this last election, there's great doubts about whether it was an honest election. the ultimate power in iran is
obviously religious. the ayatollah khamenei makes the all the men -- the ultimate decisions. i do not see any prospect at this time as much as you would like to see it of the president being elected who is not approved directly by the religious leaders. as a matter of fact, even in previous elections that i just described in a fairly complementary way, the ayatollah and his religious leaders, they can decide if a candidate can run or not run for the parliament and for president. they have veto power over any candidate. they make good careful screening process to make sure radicals would be elected who might be a danger to the president sharia
law, and the leadership of the ayatollahs. >> how has obama done in handling the middle east situation? >> i think he has done quite well the last three weeks in handling the egyptian situation. the first coming key in the secretary of state and the fis president were saying that mubarak was our friend, we did have stability, and that someday there might be a change there, and we trusted mubarak to make the changes. that was the first series of statements made by the president and his subordinates. but as the times changed from one week to another, they became more and more supportive of the descendants -- the dissidents who were protesting. finally he said that he wanted to see the changes now. and that is when mubarak
responded very angrily that he would not respond to outside pressure. i would say in general, obama has handled egypt very well. about the same way i would handle it if i have been in office. [laughter] i would probably have been loyal to mubarak in the beginning. united states does not want to send signals to all of our other friends in the middle east that we will abandon you the first time demonstrators go public. so we had to show our friends and allies in saudi arabia and other places that we would back you as long as you meet minimal standards on freedom and democracy. but once it became clear that mubarak would not do so, then we did the right thing in giving our support completely to the revolutionaries. and i would say that they did not want americans support, because they did not want to be
branded by the allegation that they were being controlled from washington. that one of the world to know the that it was originating from them, and they did not depend on washington to be successful. > how do you think obama has done since stepping into office in january 2009? >> i think he has done the best he could in domestic affairs, dealing with problems that president johnson and i and none of the predecessors of obama ever had to face. that is a completely polarized nation and a completely polarized congress. you have to remember that the major things that obama advocated when he came into office after promising them in his campaign, sometimes on most major issues that the republicans had supported earlier, he could not get a single vote among republicans in the house or senate.
so they made a determination at the beginning, the republicans did, that they would not support obama on anything. after the election in november, during the so-called lame-duck session, they moderated their position a little bit, but he was faced with opposition in the congress that i never experienced. in fact, my main challenge in the congress when i was president was the liberal democrats. after the first year i was in office, ted kennedy decided to run for president against me, and he garnered a lot of support from the more liberal democrats, so i had to turn to the conservative democrats and moderate republicans to help me, and that is why we were very successful. no one in the last 50 years has been more successful in congress except lyndon johnson. on domestic affairs, he has done the best he could and has prevailed on a number of issues
for which he has not gotten much credit. as far as the middle east is concerned, i was pleased when president obama made the speech in cairo calling for an end -- i and almost all of his predecessors have said that every settlement building in palestine was both illegal and an obstacle to peace. when he made his speech in cairo, he said that all the settlements have to seize, but under great pressure, which i experienced myself before i was president and after i left, i know how that pressure can be. he has completely backed down, and more recently has been full accommodating to the demands of netanyahu and the israelis, it even more than george w. bush was. as a matter of fact, a few months ago, the obama administration's spoke person,
you'll recall and, made an offer to the israelis of things that no previous president had ever offered them, just if they would stop building settlements for three months. netanyahu turn them down. as a result of that, i think president obama has basically given up on peace in the middle east. so we don't have anything going on now as far as bringing peace between israel and the palestinians. his concern in israel and the syrians on the golan heights, israel and lebanon. nothing is going on. in the past number of months when omar suleiman was negotiating between one group of palestinians and hamas to bring
them together with the reconciliation so they could have another election, the u.s. basically vetoed that whole process because israel preferred that they not be reunited. ofi don't have any feeling success in what president obama has done in the middle east. i am not here to criticize him but you ask me, and i have told you the truth. i hope is that the shake-up in egypt and the potential shake up in other countries will cause some new flexibility in addressing the issues on which the entire international community agrees, that israel should withdraw from the west bank and east jerusalem, except to modify the borders were the main settlements are and that the palestinians should be given the right to have their own elections and choose their own people, and they should live in
peace and harmony with the two- state solution. the impending threat now is a one-state solution, which means just one israel all the way between the jordan river and the mediterranean sea. at this moment, jews are in a minority. there is a majority of non-jews living in that one state right now. the israelis still have more number of votes because many of the arabs and a lot of christians and muslims are not yet old enough to vote. it is obvious that in the future there will be a majority living in that one state who are not jews. so israel have to make a choice then of persecuting the palestinians so they cannot
vote, or permitting a vote where the jews might be in the minority. they would no longer have control of the whole government. that is something that nobody wants. what we want is a two-state solution with israel living in its present country with modification of the borders and the palestinians living in their country alongside, living in peace with each other. >> you mentioned something that bears repeating. you have the best legislating that of -- legislative batting average with the exception of lyndon johnson. you also talked about the divisions in washington. can they be repaired, and if so, how? >> i think one encouraging factor is the taking over of the house of representatives by the republicans.
i am speaking as a completely objective democrat. [laughter] in the last two years, in my opinion, the republicans have been completely irresponsible, because they did not have any responsibility. in the white house, the senate, or the house. and now they do have part of the political responsibility, that is how they run the house representatives. i see in the future when there are serious disagreements that obama will make this proposal, it will go to the house of representatives, they will vote it down or amend it, then it will go to the senate for a stalemate because of the very frequent filibuster. then obama can take his position
to the public of the united states and say this is specifically what i advocate in the field of welfare, budget, military, or whatever, and this is what i think is right and this is what the majority of senators say is right, and this is a specific position that the republicans in the house take, so let the public make a choice. do you approve -- agree with meat or agree with them? it will present to opposing views were both sides have some responsibility. i don't know if you follow me or not. it is kind of complicated, but i think that is what is likely to happen in the future. i think you'll see more cooperation in the next two years on key issues then we have seen the first two years, except for the lame-duck session. >> the photo behind us as men of
the year. about half of the audience are students here, all of whom are likely not born until after you step down from office. >> much later. >> you talk in your most recent book about the improbability of you becoming president in 1976. can you talk a little bit about that race and how you eventually got the nomination and ultimately the presidency itself? >> i was just the governor of georgia. there had not been any president from the deep south since the 1840's. because of the race issue, primarily, because we were looked upon as the primary preservers of separate but equal, or racial segregation. our leaders in the congress and so forth were all determined to
preserve racial segregation. there was a stigma of the deep south that was very deep. because lyndon johnson became president, and because he passed the voting rights act and the civil rights act of 1964, it liberated me to overcome that stigma, potentially. i saw that as an opening, a very small opening, that i might fill. i began to campaign when i left the governor's mansion, and i did not have any money. almost all of the democratic party leaders worked for some of the nine write-in candidates
running against me, including lloyd bentsen from texas, as you remember. i did not have much of a chance. i campaigned by myself with just one assistant, jody powell, who later became my press secretary. we never stayed in a hotel or motel. we cannot afford it. none of the people who work for me on the campaign were permitted to stay in a motel unless they pay their own way. when we went into town, we would try to find somebody to let us in the night with them. i would have to stay all night listening to their stories are questions, but we met impact, and so when we left they supported us. i hate to say this in a way, but i was kind of like the tea party the last year. the people that supported me were so fed up with washington that they were looking for somebody to represent non
washington politics. we were in the aftermath of the vietnam war and the aftermath of watergate, and the aftermath of the assassination of robert kennedy and john candy and also more luther king jr.. we were in the aftermath of the church investigating -- robert kennedy and john kennedy. the cia had committed serious crimes, even of assassination. there was disillusionment on the part of the american people with washington, and that was the main thing that i emphasize. i told them i would never lie to them and so forth and emphasize the fact that i was from the deep south, that i was a peanut farmer and that sort of thing. it was because of those
volunteers in texas and other places that had never been involved in politics before that i was finally elected. amazingly, still to be, i ran against one of the best man i have ever known in texas, and that was lloyd bentsen. i beat lloyd bentsen to to one in texas, which was amazing, even now, to me. i had a kind of groundswell of support among people who had not been involved in politics before, and that is really how i was able to prevail. >> but you knew that you would be the first president from the deep south to be elected since zachary taylor. you were a one-term governor from the state of georgia. what made you think you could win? [laughter] but i tell my wife that if i only got two votes, i was going to stay in
until the end. my tenacity was one thing, i was not about to back down, even when i had disappointments. i had several disciplines and embarrassment's where i made mistakes, but i stuck with it. at first my only potential opponents that was well known -- one was ted kennedy, who was running for president, and the other was george wallace, a segregationist from the deep south. my idea when i first began to think about running was that i was between kennedy and wallace as a moderate, and that would be my avenue to the white house. when ted kennedy withdrew from the campaign after chappaquiddick and so forth, i saw a lot of very wonderful people, most of them out of the u.s. senate and from the house of representatives enter the
race against me. so i was disappointed, but i kept going. the reason i first got in it was i thought it was between me and george wallace and ted kennedy. >> what is your proudest accomplishment as president? >> i think the product accomplishments in general terms is maintaining peace. we never dropped a bomb, we never fired a bullet, we never launched a missile when i was president. the main thing is that we try to bring that sort of relationship to other countries. i have spent a lot of time negotiating between israel and egypt to prevent another war and to normalize diplomatic relations with the people's republic of china, and working in africa with the zimbabwe and south africa to try to bring democracy.
those kind of things. the number one thing of which i am most proud i guess would be the treaty between israel and egypt, which is precious even today. >> it still remains in effect after all these years. >> not a single word has ever been violated. back we talked at great length about your post presidency, which talked-about as being the most satisfying chapter in your life. talk a little bit about the work you have done at the carter center and its impetus upon leaving the white house. >> when i left the white house, i was fairly young, just 56 years old. my life expectancy was 25 years, so my first question was, what am i going to do the next 25 years?
i had already been accomplished peanut farmer and a good fertilizer salesman, did not want to go back to that. i made a foolish statement that i would not serve on corporate boards or spin my life making public speeches for money, which is not a wise thing to say. [laughter] so i did not know what i was going to do. i had the responsibility of raising money in building a presidential library, and that was not good for a defeated democrat who has no plans to run for future office. i had the same problem that gerald ford face. as we approached the planning stage of the core presidential library, -- carter presidential library, i wanted to former carter center separately. my first thought was that i would just have a place like camp david where people that had a conflict on their hands, say
from a foreign country, could come to the carter center and i could negotiate between them. i would be glad to go to their country. that was the whole idea. later we adopted a policy -- we decided not to ever duplicate what the united states was doing or the united nations or the world bank or harvard university, but just to do things that nobody else wanted to do. that got us more and more involved in health care in africa. senate by% of our total budget and personnel -- 75% are budget is devoted to health care in africa and to some degree in latin america. we have addressed diseases that are not any longer known anywhere in the rich world.
to some degree, malaria. that is what we do in countries all over africa. we also had a major agriculture program for about 15 years where we would go into small farmers operations with an average of only 2 acres of land, and we would teach them how to increase their production of basic food grains, corn, wheat, grain, rice, and we educated 8 million farm families on how to double or triple their production. we looked on that as part of health care, like it would increase nutrition, because everything they grew they could eat or sell the surplus. that is how we got started in the outside world. as we win in those countries and became involved deeply on the village level, of eradicating diseases and giving people madison, teaching them how to do
better in agriculture, if they had a conflict like a civil war, they would ask the carter center to help them resolve it, and i was eager to do it. if they had made the first election for a democratic election, the last thing they want is for the united nations to come in, but since we were already there, they asked us to do it. we just finished telling our 82nd election in southern sudann egypt. that is how the carter center has a vault. we still negotiate for peace agreements. we still hold elections and promote democracy and freedom. the most important aspect is the commitment to a mental health.
she is now the world leader in trying to remove the stigma from mental illness and to promote mental health in this country and around the world. >> you talked about tenacity. anyone who knows about your career knows that that is true, but no more so than when you took aim at two particularly insidious and pervasive third- world diseases, guinea worm disease and river blindness. you talk about how this -- how pervasive those were and why you decided to take aim at them. >> guinea worm, you may remember reading about it. the symbol for a doctor is a staff with most people think a staff -- snake. it is actually a guinea worm. it is a horrendous disease brought on by drinking impure water route to the stagnant
pond. in most places in africa, they have a pond that fills up during the rainy season. they drink the water during the dry season. they don't have wells or running water. breeding in those stagnant waters is the guinea worm ag. if people drink the water, and it has eggs in it, they will have one growing in their body. it gets to be about 30 inches long. when they get ready to be merged, rejectem -- emerge, they make a horrible sore that destroys muscle tissue. it emerges from the cuban body and takes about 30 days to come out -- from the human body and takes about 30 days to come out.
they are female, so they lay more eggs. we find out about this in 1985. nobody wanted to deal with it. it is an isolated villages. they are scattered all over africa and india. i adopted the total eradication of this disease as our first major health project. we started a general survey in every country that had guinea worm, starting in pakistan, by the way. we found guinea worm in 23,600 villages. the carter center has been in every village. we had 3.6 million cases of guinea worm. we began to treat the problem by giving people a very fine net or
filter cloth that they could strain the water through. we have reduced now from 3.6 million, last year, we have less than 1/10 of 1%. 1600 cases in the whole world. [applause] >> i don't want to take too much time, but river blindness is a prevalent disease in arab countries. when you have a rapid stream that bubbles, tiny flies breed in the water. they sting people. an average young child gets stung 30,000 times a year.
the stings are ugly and painful. they lay eggs inside the body that becomes small worms. those worms come over 12 years, travel through the bloodstream and wind up in the eye. they attack the eye and cause blindness. what has happened over the centuries is that people move away from the streams to get away from the flies, and they moved up on the hillside. they move out of the bottom lands. it is productive. that has happened all over africa. we decided we would address that. the ceo of merck and co. developed in medicine called heartguard for dogs. a scientist found this heartguard will also do away
with guinea worm. he came to the carter center and said they would give us the madison free of charge if we would deliver it to the people and control the disease. i went to africa with the ceo of merck, and we got on television. i said, you have given us medicine. would you give it to us all over the world? he was on television. [laughter] he finally said yes. [laughter] last year, the carter center treated 11,300,000 people with free medicine from merck and co., and none of those people will have river blindness. the worms that live in sores on
your back still breed that tiny little microscopic worms. if you get rid of those, nobody goes blind. restarted in south america giving the medicine twice or four times a year. now we are in the process of doing away with river blindness in south america. we are trying this also in africa. it is a major thing for us. the problem is that you cannot send the pills to villages and ask them to give it to each other. if you have river blindness, you would rather have the medicine than a diamond the same size. it does very voluble. somebody steals them and sells them. we have to go in and deliver the pills direct in amounts -- the mouths of people.
we train people to do this. it is a challenge we undertake. >> we ask that the questions be brought to me at the convenience of my staff. let me go back to -- thank you very much. let me go back to -- leaving office. your post presidency is considered the most remarkable of any president in american history. can you tell us about those first days after office and the questions that you and mrs. carter were asking yourself about your future? >> we really did not know what to do. i was in debt. i did not make any money in the white house. we spent what we have. after i was defeated in 1980, a
representative came and told me i was $1 million in debt. the previous business i had that my brother had been running, we have four i years of drought in georgia. -- we had four years of drought in georgia. i was $1 million in debt. i had to build the presidential library. i did not know what i was going to do. luckily, arthur daniel midland co. decided to buy my warehouse for enough to pay off the debt. i started off from scratch. you know about the history of the carter center. this was a challenging time for me and rose. i was invited -- i had to coiffures to the presidents of universities, but i wanted to
get out of politics. [laughter] [applause] i did not want to spend the rest of my life raising money, so i have to do that now. i was also invited to be a professor in the university system of georgia. they have 33 universities and colleges. i was supposed to go around to different ones and make speeches. i did not want to be controlled by the georgia legislature, either. the university president at the time invite me to teach at emory. they promised me complete freedom of speech. i decided to go. i have been published professor. every month, i teach in a different part of the university. the whole year, i teach in every major department. law, history, political science,
theology, religion, english, medicine, and so forth. i have done that now for 30 years. i enjoyed that very much. we have had a very full life in relationships. we had a difficult time the first two years in getting the carter center started because the reagan administration was determined not to give us any support. sometimes we would arrange to go to a foreign country, and not, with the ambassador leave the country, but the ambassador with sabotaging our whole trip. we have that problem until george became secretary of state. then it changed. we had a hard time at first. we prevailed. we have had wonderful relationships, particularly with the center for disease control, which was next door to us.
we deal with presidents and kings, and also with ministers of health and agriculture, and so forth. one of the things that has made it possible for the carter center to be successful is when i go in, i can meet with the president. if i come to eradicate guinea worm, he may not know what i want. i will say, why don't you bring your cabinet in so i can tell you. that has been the source of our strength. i never have been overseas without getting permission from the white house. sometimes reluctant, but i have always been able to get permission. i always make a written report to the president and secretary
of state. usually the secretary of the united nations, when i come back from a trip. when i go to a sensitive area, like to meet with hamas or syrians or the north koreans, i always give a report to the white house. >> what is the funniest thing that happened to you in the white house? >> it was not funny to me, but it was funny to everybody else. [laughter] one time when i was on vacation from the white house, i went fishing in one of our fish ponds. we have four fish ponds now. we are avid fishers. while i was fishing, my press secretary was there. he was fishing on the bank. i was on the boat. a bunch of dogs were chasing a rabbit.
how many of you know about this story? ok. the rabbit jump in the water. rabbits can swim very well. the rabbit swam toward my boat. i splashed water on the rabbit and it turned and went to the bank. two years later, jody was one drinking -- was with some other people -- [laughter] in one of the taverns in washington. he embellished the story enormously to get a local appreciation or maybe free beer or something. it was a wild rabbit that attacked me in my boat, and i was saved by the skin of my teeth from being bitten. he thought the rabbit probably
had rabies. this became the number one story in the whole world. president carter is already beleaguered. he is even afraid of rabbits. i was not laughing, and i am not laughing still. i still get about 3000 letters a week. i get letters about rabbits. people want to know, if i throw a rabbit in the pond or the swimming pool, will it go wrong? i have had to describe rabbits for a long time. >> infamously, of the killer rabbit story might be a cautionary tale about the effects of alcohol. who's your favorite president?
>> i have always said my favorite was harry truman. i can explain that. i was a submarine officer. i was in the naval academy when roosevelt died and harry truman became president. almost completely unknown. roosevelt never did confide in harry truman. he was on the outside looking in. when roosevelt died, i cried. i had the prospect of harry truman being my commanding officer. my commanding chief. later when i was in submarines, i began to appreciate what harry truman stood for and what he
did. i think he was honest. i doubt if he ever used a three- cent stamp if he did not pay for it. he was on -- under tremendous pressure to try to prevent president johnson putting in place the civil rights act. he was under the pressure of my senator, dick russell, and strom thurmond, and others. truman, already unpopular, he went out of office the most unpopular president in history, said all racial discrimination in the military forces was over. that day. he was convinced by his generals and admirals, and overwhelmingly in the congress, and by many other people in america. he did it.
my life on the submarine was changed by that decision. it affected my whole future. after truman left office, there is not much made on civil rights. it was eight years later before rosa parks sat in the front of a school bus or martin luther king became active. he was eight years ahead of them. president johnson was the ultimate hero in successfully ending legal civil discrimination. truman was my favorite because of that. i would say that the most successful president in my memory was lyndon johnson, who had his great society program. the civil rights act was only one part of it. it was medicaid and medicare,
and a massive program for poverty. i was governor when he put into effect the elementary school lacked. i went up and testified in favor of that act. all of those things transformed the life of america. he was courageous enough to control budget deficits even when he was faced with terrible problems with the budget during the vietnam war. he enforced taxes and other things to make possible. he has been the most successful president by far, and one of the main reasons i am here. >> this question comes from one of our students. how can young people be a positive force in the political process today? >> well, i will say some things
that some of you may not like. this is the that first thing i have said that you -- i would like for the young people, coming generations, to strive for transcendence in political affairs, for superlative accomplishments, not just in your own profession, but in the political life of america. i would like for our country to become a real superpower, and i
realize that now, our military is larger than the budgets of the next 20 nations in the world, almost equal to all of the defense budgets honor. i know that we are still the most powerful economic system honor -- on earth. culturally, we are still number one, with facebook, twitter, google, our music, and so forth. we are still the most powerful and influential country. "superpower," in my opinion for the young people, ought to be a characteristic of a nation that emulates the highest ideals of a human being. i happen to be a christian. i talk quite often of the
standards of jesus christ. we know him as the prince of thieves. we know that he espoused justice, and he reached out to people in need, was forgiving, and so forth. i don't see why the gun people of this nation cannot set as your goals that our country will be a superpower in that respect. what does this mean? one thing is, whenever people in a foreign country are faced with a civil war, i would like for the first thought that came carmines, why don't we go to the united states? the united states is a world champion of peace.
the united states resorts to conflict in extremely rare occasions, and tries to resolve disputes peacefully. i would like for people who want democracy and freedom to say, the united states has the best democratic electoral system on earth. it is not affected by how wealthy candidate is or how much special-interest money can be guarded it -- garnered into an expensive campaign, but anyone can be qualified to serve as president. i would like for the world to say the united states is a
champion of environment. in the forefront of the move to prevent global warming, for instance. i would like to see the united states be the most generous nation on earth, sharing our wealth and resources with other people who are in need, like norway, sweden, denmark, or the netherlands. so, i am not criticizing my country, which i love. it is still the greatest nation in the world. but, the aspects of basic morality, based on the principles of christianity and other religions as well, the
united states is not the leader. we are not the leader in preserving peace. the carter center has programs in 73 countries. i would say most of those countries, if you say which is the country on earth most likely to go to war, most of them would say the united states. we are not in the forefront of environmental issues, but lyndon johnson once. the elections we had in the year 2000, in 2004, showed increasingly the outcome of elections depends on money. it would be impossible now for anybody to be a candidate for either party that did not raise $100 million in advance, or $200 million. so, we have not stigma on
ourselves, but we have opportunities to improve in the future. it requires some thoughts that are independent and innovative. i would say, idealistic. and it is going to be the next generation that will have to bring this about. >> [inaudible] >> i think a lot of people would say, he only served one term. he got defeated the first time. that is not my preference. [laughter] i would like for people to remember that i kept the peace and that i promoted human rights. almost without hesitation, and without too much equivocation.
we had some leaders on earth that are not true democrats, but what i explained as south america was one. i would say peace and human rights. that would be my preference. >> before we came onstage, tom johnson said, jimmy carter is one of my heroes. i would say without equivocation that you are truly an american hero, mr. president. this has been our great honor, having you here tonight. we appreciate your being with
>> coming up, in committee it on net neutrality. after that, secretariat state hillary clinton called for global internet access standards. >> the young americans, to save medicare, social search 30, to make the systems work better, to keep our promise -- social security, to make the systems work better, to keep our promise, we have to make them better. >> that is sunday on "newsmakers." >> what we face today is that the american dream is under attack because america is on the wrong track. but we are fighting back and we will get it back. >> sunday, on c-span road to the
white house, columnist, rear talk-show host, and former chairman and ceo of godfather's pizza is now a potential 2012 republican presidential candidate. watch his appearance from a lincoln day dinner in plymouth, new hampshire. c-span is road to the white house, sunday. >> c-span possible "abraham lincoln" is a unique in contemporary perspective on mr. lincoln from a 56 scholars, journalists, and writers. from his early years to his presidency. and his relevance today. and now, for presidents' day and while supplies last, the publishers are offering the hardcover edition for the special price of $5, plus shipping and handling. go to c-span.org/books.
fisher to use the promo code " lincoln" at checkout. >> earlier this week, a commerce subcommittee held a hearing on the sec's national broadband policy. network neutrality allows users to pay one price for getting anything off the internet instead of being charged based on broadband use. we will measure your opening statements from the hearing which runs 50 minutes. >> we look for to your testimony and response to our questions. internet exists today --
consumers can access anything they want with a click of the mouse. changing directions will harm innovation and the economy. before we get into the harm that the net neutral and rules will cause, it is important that we look at the sec underlying authority. in essence, the fcc argues that it can regulate in a thing if, in its opinion, doing so would encourage broadband deployment. i am relieved, however, that the fcc declined to regulate coffeeshops, bookstores, airlines, and other entities. this means that the fcc believes it has the authority it has so far declined. if left unchallenged, the scum of authority would allow the fcc
to regulate any matter if discussed in the national broadband plan. does that mean that the fcc can regulate internet privacy? the national broadband plan also addresses health i.t., smart dress, smart homes, smart and transportation. can the sec regulate these matters, too, in the effort of regulatinpromoting broadband? former sec chairman kevin martin tried to go down a very similar path. in the wake of hurricane katrina, he claimed that he could require backup power at some sites. during oral arguments, it was asked whether it would give them and the supporting over things like electric utilities and employees of wireless providers. it backed down. the overreach was not supported
with a disaster like katrina. i do not see how it would be appropriate here. it did not become the exclusive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until we turned it over to free enterprise. dating as far back as 1971, the sec has consistently treated data services as an unregulated information services and not as regulated telecommunications services. congress codify this distinction in the 1996 communications act. william canard reaffirmed this approach. he explained in a 1999 speech, "the the fertile field of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are booming because, from the get go, we have taken a deregulatory competitive approach to art cretaceous structure, especially the internet."
there is no crisis warranting departure from this approach. comcast and the peer-to-peer community resolved their issue to everyone's benefit. no network neutrally rules were in place and the d.c. circuit turned over the attempts to regulate comcast network management because the federal communications commission failed to demonstrate it had the authority to do so. most everything else the order discusses is either an unsubstantiated allegation or speculation of future harm. the fcc even confesses that it has done no market analysis. it selectively apply rules. live internet this commission is
a concerned and the fcc has not done and it -- has not done any analysis, why would companies like google or skybus be -- or kype be more susceptible? section 230 of the communications act makes it the policy of the united states to "preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet and other interactive computer services unfettered by federal or state regulation." in light of congress's statutory predominance that regulation is disfavored, the fcc stretches too far.
i now turn to the ranking member for her opening statement. >> is very good to see you. i want to thank commissioner walden for calling the commissioners. is vitally important that we hear from the full commission to help members make informed decisions on the key health communications issues that will be before us in this congress. today's hearing is intended to examine the fcc's action to preserve an open internet and a proposed mechanism to unravel these rules. since being elected to the house in 1992, i have witnessed -- i have witnessed my district first
in the technology revolution and the nation has prospered, as has the world. the internet is an open four more companies compete online and consumers have a choice in the contest -- in the content they consume. in a few years, innovative companies like netflix, skype, and ebay have floors. -- have flourished. the open internet eco system has resulted in more than 3 million new jobs in the u.s. over the past 15 years. to promote the next google or facebook, we must preserve the essential qualities and ensure that the internet remains open and free. while the fcc open internet rules are not perfect, they are an important step forward.
without some clear rules of the road, large corporations can carve up the internet into fast and slow lanes, charging a toll for content and blocking innovators from entering the information superhighway. i believe that consumers, not corporations, should be in the driver's seat to pick the content they view, listen, and watch over the internet. we are now faced with at least two legal challenges and the use of legislative maneuvers like the congressional review act to overturn the fcc's work. these actions will inevitably create market uncertainty. i want to repeat that. these actions will inevitably create market uncertainty and delay future innovation in broadband technology. each member of this subcommittee has made it clear where they stand on the issue. i do not expect this hearing to change those views. what is important to remember is
what the fcc agreed to is compromised. that is a word that a lot of americans celebrate. they understand that compromises have to be made, reflecting the views of both sides of the issue with more than 100,000 comments from more than 2 million people across the country. 90% of whom were in favor of open internet rules. so the american people have really way been with the fcc. there is a broad agreement for the adoption of these rules. comcast, the nation's largest broadband provider, voluntarily agreed to abide by open internet conditions for the next seven years as part of its joint venture with nbc universal. at&t has said it will not engage in efforts to overturn the fcc's orders. if these common-sense rules are good enough for the nation's two
largest broad and providers, then i think it is time we refocus on efforts on the next steps needed to promote jobs, broadband deployment, and new investments. iwhat we can work on together in a bipartisan way. we are faced with important issues like universal service reform, spectrum of form, and ensuring that our country's first responders have a nation- wide, interoperable network. we will be coming up to the 10th anniversary on the attack of our country and we still do not have interoperability with our public safety community. that is what this congress, this committee, and full committee should be tackling. when we tackle these issues, will 11 opportunity to create jobs and our economy, and a platform we can all agree on. i look forward to hearing from the distinguished chairman of
the commission, all the distinguished commissioners, and the thoughts on how we can ensure that the internet remains of vital resources, and american resources to improve the lives of every citizen and everyone around world for generations to come. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> this is the most trucking example of a troubling trend that we have seen that this -- troubling -- striking example of a troubling trend. they seem to be advancing a policy agenda of their own, often by twisting the arms of those who come before. the activist agenda is embodied in the network neutrality regulation the subject of today's hearing. we're pleased to see chairman genachowski alongside his fellow
commissioners who announced plans in september 2009 to codify network neutrality principles as enforceable rules. but the history is clear. first put forward in 2000 or, they were intended for all facets of the industry in lieu of regulation. even when adopted in 2005, the fcc made clear that they would not established as rules, nor were they enforceable. the decision came only three months after taking the helm of the fcc, despite the fact that he made no mention of those plans four days earlier during his first appearance before this committee. i have made it clear that the energy and commerce committee would be focused on jobs. in the first couple of weeks of the 112th congress, one of the latest threats of job creation is runaway regulation. regulations are not the problem in and of themselves. in fact it is regulations which implement all laws passed by congress.
the federalt bureaucracy using the regulations to impose their own agendas and when they do so without congressional authority or thoughtful consideration of the economic considerations -- consequences. net neutrality is a case in point, and the fcc has done nothing to specifically quantify any form requiring intervention or potential harm to consumers, innovation, or the economy from the proposed rules. where is the cost benefit analysis that president obama called for this reason executive order? this hearing will look into that. i looked for to the presence of those here. -- i look forward to the presence of those here. >> and now, i think we go to mr. barton for a minute. >> we have a high-tech problem getting the button on over here.
it just went off again. welcome, harmful commissioners and chairman of the fcc. you are all great individuals, you are all very bright. i disagree with the majority of you and your net neutrality regulation you have put in place. but i'm impressed by your intellect. mr. chairman, i'll put my statement into the record, but suffice it to say that i do not see how this commission with the intelligence that they have could have adopted the rule that they did on a 3-2 partisan vote, knowing that there is probably going to be -- knowing that there has been a change in the congress and that every candidate ran on the net neutrality principle that they tried to establish was defeated, and knowing that the majority of this committee and the majority of the congress on both sides of the aisle oppose the rule that they now have put into place. we have two hearings going on simultaneously, so mr. of deny
and others will be up and down and back. i hope to come back in time the question the commission and try to delve into why they did what they did when they did it, knowing that it was not going to be well received. thank you, mr. chairman. in high-yield a year -- i yield a minute to the vice chairman of the committee. >> everyone in this room today wants an open and driving internet. it is therefore important to point out that such an internet exists today. it is no coincidence users can access anything they want quickly and easily. this is possible due to our historical hands-off approach to the internet. as users demand more sophisticated content, servers and applications, we must maintain a similar force or face an inevitable decline in investment, service, and an overall blue to our economy. the more that the fcc's adoption
of this network neutrality rules, but regulating the internet, will do just that and i am further concern that they are adopted strictly on the speculation of a future harm. on october 5, to a dozen time, my colleague and i sent and a letter asking the commission undertake a full market analysis prior to any consideration of network neutrality rules. it is made clear in the order that no such analysis took place. instead, the order selectively applied rules to broadband providers web-based commission. i'm interesting and learning why your commission, instead of promoting competition, decided it was more appropriate to pick the winners and losers. the mere threat of discrimination is a concern in the fcc has done no analysis to demonstrate why one market -- one company has more market power than another, and
hopefully these questions will be answered today. i plan to seek the answers to these questions and about the impact on the market. and i yield back. >> i would now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, 4 minute. for a minute. >> all the way down, the record is clear that we are here as we have been. i also want to point out that at&t was off for the contract to build the internet in 1966 and they turned it down because they said they had a monopoly already in landlines. so they had to go to a small camera -- company up in
cambridge, massachusetts. massive -- at&t did not want it. after we pass the telekom ag, the rise and said we do not want to open up our network to competitors. and the story goes on and on. but broadband barrier -- any time they have control of something, they did not want competition. but this internet revolution that created google and ebay and amazon and youtube and hulu, it is all a result not of the policies of the large companies. it is the government acting. here's the interesting thing. the paradox of competition is that it takes regulation in order to create a marketplace for small companies getting into the marketplace. that is what has happened over the last 30 years. the government has acted in number to make sure that a company that had already infected broadband, already
invented digital -- at&t -- but not had supported it, so we were still using black, rotary dial phones 100 years after alexander graham bell in our living -- you do not go from black rotary dial phones unless the government finally intervenes and says we want these on to the norris -- entrepreneurs. that is what this debate is all about. i wish the fcc had gone further so that we have hundreds, thousands of new companies coming in and not just relying upon for rise and to innovate. that will be a long day before you hear about the first new product that comes from bryson -- verizon. that is unlikely. i yield back, mr. chairman.
>> there is mr. waxman. we're waiting for the chairman emeritus. mr. waxman, you of the remaining two minutes and 35 seconds ones who are comfortably seated and are ready to go. -- once you are comfortably seated and are ready to go. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the regret that this committee has another subcommittee meeting at the same time. and please we have this hearing today. this was the first fcc-related hearing of the subcommittee. it is a permit the darpa is our witnesses are the five members of the commission. last december the sec took landmark action to preserve the open internet. this is a bill of rights for internet users. they contain four key provisions -- restore authority to prevent blocking of content, applications, and services struck down by the comcast
decision. prevent companies from unreasonably discriminating against any lawful internet traffic. provide -- prevent broadband providers from blocking application while preserving the ability to enforce safeguards under existing authority. and having a transparency. we're going to hear about these regulations to protect the open internet. i think we have to recognize that some of the claims being made in our repeated over and over again or just not accurate. the both -- the most vibrant sector of our economy is the internet economy. google, a spot, -- facebook, and the bay, they all asked the fcc to protect an open internet. common sense, baseline rules are critical to ensure that the internet remains a key engine of
economic growth and innovation, and global competitiveness. we need to make sure that the internet is free and open and not regulated by a anyone who is to simply delivering the service. even at&t and comcast, two of the nation's largest operators, support the rule. the at&t ceo stated, we didn't get everything that we wanted. we wanted no regulation but now we had a line of sight and we know we can commit to investment. earlier today, we receive letters from a broad coalition of more than 100 organizations that oppose efforts to use legislation to block the open internet regulations. the american people want us to be focusing on creating jobs and building our economy. we have important opportunities in the subcommittee to contribute to that effort by making more sectors available, ensuring universal access to broadband, we have a lot of
things that we need to work on together. and i look forward to that. this issue has been resolved by the sec -- fcc, and i look for to the implementation of it. i like to ask unanimous consent to insert my full statement. >> without objection. all members are love the opportunity to insert their full statement into the record. i think the folks who of offered up their opening statements and i would now like to turn to our panel of witnesses, the distinguished members of the federal communications commission. all-star with the commission chairman, mr. genachowski. thank you for being here today. we look forward to your statement. >> are we on now? high-tech problems. >> we can hear you now. >> chairman walden, members of the subcommittee, this committee has jurisdiction over an area of increasing importance. communications and technology, including the internet.
i look forward to working with this committee on a variety of ways to strengthen our economy, promote our global competitiveness, and extend opportunity to all americans. i've submitted a written statement on her actions to preserve internet freedom and openness. i will be brief here. as we considered a framework for internet freedom, i had three priorities. first, consumers. promoting consumer choice. making sure that people who use the internet have the freedom to say what they want, go with it one, and access any legal content or services on the internet. second, innovators. making sure that the internet will continue to be a vibrant platform for american country and your -- american entrepreneurs. that the next mark zuckerberg,
that they can start can build the next great business on the internet, creating jobs, growing our economy, and helping us lead the world in innovation. it is essential that we incentivize billions of dollars of private investment in internet content, applications, and services. my third priority is the network. promoting wired and wireless internet networks in the u.s. has the best in the world, fast, reverse, and universally available. we have to incentivize billions of dollars of private investment to the core of the network, the network infrastructure. throughout the history of the internet, innovative on-line applications and services have spurred broadband deployment and adoption, which in turn have encourage new applications and services. this virtuous cycle of innovation and investment throughout the broadband economy, that is what we want to
maintain an advance. why? because the free and open internet has led to the creation of tens of thousands of small businesses, millions of jobs, and billions of dollars of investment. since 2005, the fcc on a bipartisan basis has made clear it would act to enforce open internet protections. it did so several times, but it did so without an appropriately adopted framework. that is why we acted to bring some resolution and certainty to this area. and after an open in participatory process, public workshops, extensive engagement, feedback from over 2000 commoners, we establish a sensible, high level framework to preserve internet freedom and openness. their rules fit on one page and boil down to four things. first, transparency.
consumers and innovators can have instant information to make smart choices about broadband networks or how to develop the next killer app. in powering them with information will reduce the need for government involvement. second, no blockages. consumers can be free to access local content or services and so that startups and other internet companies can feel free to reach internet consumers. third, a level playing field. hey there, nondiscrimination principle so that winners and losers are picked by those who pick them, consumers and the market. fourth, flexibility for internet service providers. flexibility to manage networks, to deal with congestion or harmful traffic, flexibility to pursue innovation and business models and get a real return on investment. i understand some people think this framework does not go far enough. others think he goes too far.
i believe it gives it about right. a light touch approach consistent with the fcc history of bipartisan action on this issue, informed by earlier fcc and congressional initiatives, supported by the broadest consensus ever assembled on this challenging topic, the framework we adopted to preserve internet freedom, preserve the internet job creation engine, protect consumer choice, and promote private investment throughout the broadband economy. all the commission was divided on this particular issue, but we resolve over 95% of our votes and a bipartisan basis. i think we are united to promote broadband access. it is important work in it -- 21st century economy and our global economist -- competitiveness. i look for to working with our colleagues on a series of initiatives like reforming
universal system, removing barriers to broadband buildup, the hon is information technologies for all americans. thank you and i look forward to your question. >> chairman, thank you for your testimony. we look forward to your answers. i now recognize the distinguished just -- gentleman on the commission, mr. copps. >> thank-you. i appreciate your invitation to the debate in this discussion and share my perspective on this and to hear yours. as we begin what i think can be a truly productive year in tackling many telecommunication challenges facing congress, the commission, and the country. it is my firm belief that broadband is key to america's 21st century prosperity. the president, congress, and commission see infrastructure as
a key tool for ensuring a better and brighter future for americans. there is work to be done to ensure that everyone in this country has equal opportunity in the digital age. i believe that preserving a free and open internet, the focus of today's hearing, is an essential part of that challenge. another their disagreements of fungus about the issue, but i've always been open and candid with you, before the subcommittee, and in your personal offices on where i stand. i believe i have been consistent in what i say both here and at the fcc. most americans have a broad ban monopoly or at best and duopoly from which to choose. without adequate competition, it allows companies to exercise unfettered control over america's access to the internet, not only creating risk to technological innovation and economic growth, but also posing a real threat to freedom of speech in the future about democracy.
this is why have long had to get it for some limited rules of the road to maintain openness and freedom on the internet. it is why the commission adopted in 2005 on a bipartisan basis and internet policy statement that contain the basic rights of internet consumers. this is not about government regulating the internet. it is about ensuring consumers, rather than big telephone four big cable, have maximum control over their experiences when they go online. during the fcc house proceedings to examine open internet rules, i've heard from every interested stakeholder. i met with broadband providers, technology consumers, many individual citizens from across the country. in the and, given -- i concluded again that we must make sure a few gatekeepers' cannot favor their own content, while certain
types of applications, can block access to information that will. with the adoption of the open internet order last december, we have some concrete rules to prevent gatekeeper's from circumventing the openness that made the internet the internet. the commission has acted using the parties -- the authority i believe that it has. and now both congress and the court will help determine where we go from here. olin and not always agree on how to proceed and every policy, there many challenges confronting us where you and i share common cause and where i think we can make real progress this year. first and foremost is ensuring that our first responders have the communication tools they need to protect american lives and property. we're fast approaching the 10th anniversary year of 9/11. ee that we must make good on our promise to create an interoperable public safety network and make progress in significant in tangible ways this year.
another area crying out for attention is spectrum policy. the demand on our finite resources skyrocket. this last week the president set an ambitious goal of getting high speed wireless coverage to 90% of americans. this is an area where we can work hand-in-hand to maximize this resource. in addition to help meet our shared broadband goals, the commission to an important step toward transforming the universal service fund, a compensation system to address going forward infrastructure needs. there are other challenges, digital literacy, where i believe that we can work together to make sure our citizens of the tools they need for are increasingly online world. in addition, while i will not dwell on it here, most members of the subcommittee know of my concerns about america's current media environment, and this goes to the question of broadband and online, too.
of hybrid media landscape is critical to providing our citizens with the news and information they need to participate in our democracy. there are some huge problems here. finally, as i do every time i come up. , i urge you to take action to modify the closed meeting will which prohibits more than two commissioners from ever talking with one another at one time outside a public meeting. i believe this prohibition has on many occasions during my tenure at the commission stifled collaborative discussions among colleagues, delay timely decision making, and discourages collegiality. removal of this prohibition would in my mind constitute as major of reform of commission procedures as anything i can contemplate. thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. look for to your comments and your questions. chicken that is why we have you here, so we can all get along and chat. [laughter] i would like to -- and we've
never commissioned -- questioned your fourth right approach to telling us your opinion. nor has anyone in america. we appreciate that. all like to go to commissioner mcdowell. >> thank you. i would like to give a special shell out to congressman harmon. this is the last time all this will testify before you. i want to thank you. i know my brother, the former mayor, is said to have you leave this congress. i know the woodrow wilson center will be in excellent hands with you at the helm. thank you for your service. [applause] mr. chairman and members of the committee, the markets under the purview of the fcc are dynamic and ever-evolving. but that the cornea to the internet, they are growing at a breakneck speed, all to the
benefit of american consumers. for instance, the u.s. leads the world in 4g wireless deployment and adoption. it is the fastest growing segment of the broadband market. the u.s. is also the global leader in the creation and use of mobile applications. in fact, the top 300 free mobile apps enjoyed an average of more than 300 million downloads per day last december. not surprisingly, smartphone -- smartphone sales have outpaced pcs for the first time. last year the private sector invested an estimated $44 billion in new broadband technology, significantly lower than years past. i am hopeful that the fcc can work to create investments for job growth by bringing regulatory certainty to the broadband marketplace. with congress is guidance, i look forward to adopting more
spectrum in the hands of consumers, help with adoption, maker universal subsidy program more efficient, and modernize our media ownership rules among many other endeavors. in addition, the fcc should also strive to clear away regulatory underbrush that may have outlived its usefulness and now only deters constructive risk- taking. congress empowered the commission to do just that when it codified section 10 forbearance mandates more than three years ago. streamlined regulation could take significant regulations off the backs. since the regulatory action could serve as a much-needed shot in the arm for america's economy. president obama said as much in a recent executive order. of those secret about the fcc, which the chairman has touched on, more than 90 percent of our votes were not only by partisan, but are unanimous. i've enjoyed working with my colleagues on many recent initiatives come including continuation of our longstanding
work on 1 license use of one process, a simple fine, spectrum reallocation, in initiating this that to reform our systems. we've had a few respectful disagreement, such as our disagreements concerning the new regulation of adenine and network management. i've included a copy of my descent. i am confident that the five of us have the ability and desire to continue to find common ground on an array of other issues that touch the lives of every american's every day. thank you, mr. chairman, and i look forward to the questions from the committee. >> we appreciate your testimony. i'll let to go to the distinguished member of the commission, mr. clyburn. we look forward to your comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the morning and thank you for inviting me to testify. the current success of the internet is largely due to its open architecture. this tremendous technological
leap is a great equalizer. it allows traditionally underrepresented groups to have an equal voice and equal opportunity. it enables any connected individual to distribute his or her ideas to a global network, or run a business right from their very own home. the internet reduces the barriers to entry for the players. it is a gateway to success at a low capital costs. that is why it is so important to me to see that this technological marvel remains an open, accessible, and affordable for every american regardless of where they live, work, or play. there been strong criticisms of the past several months regarding the commission's open internet order. some say that nothing was broken, so rules are not needed. in that this will fill a job opportunities and stifle innovation and investment. we have also heard that the order is riddled with loopholes, provides an adequate protection
for wireless technologies, and prioritize profits over the general public good. first, i want to speak to the assertion that the internet marketplace is something confined and does not need fixing. there have been formal complaint files and allegations lies to the commission about internet service provider's behavior, despite their expressed belief in an open internet. to that point, the rules we codified in december to make sure that the internet remains open and vibrant, and that millions of servers come innovators, and everyday consumers will have the essential protections they need said that an open internet is still there tomorrow. the action we took in december will allow people to view photos, sitcoms, and full length movies without delivered interruption, distortion or blockage by any isp which may head competing economic interest.
a blue one of my primary obligation as an fcc commissioner is to protect consumers in their lawful activities on the internet. our open internet order does just that. i embrace the position that without clear rules to make investment in new services and applications will be uncertain, or early costly, and will result in an underperforming market place. before this repeatedly from innovators and small businesses. a number of companies told me of their difficulty, sometimes in ability, to obtain financing because the rules of the road were unclear or that open internet protections were inadequate. would discriminated is there possible competitors. small businesses like these are the lifeblood of this nation, and the uncertainty and lack of investment in the sector will stifle the full potential of these american the enterprises.
others market that existing law provides specific consumer protections and safeguards. i disagree. my understanding of current antitrust law is that violations in hong are fixed only after an incident has occurred. does isp's had the ability and potentially the incentive to stifle competitive businesses. no government intervention after the fact could address such significant impact. therefore, i believe that putting basic protections in place was not a reckless act. we did this in order to prevent very real and irreversible harm that could occur in the marketplace. hugely effective business models that were not even in existence 10 years ago have experience staggering growth due to their ability to directly offer their services to consumers on the
demandingithout isp's payments for prioritizing their website. i want to make sure that many more businesses have the same opportunities in 2021. most people rely on the internet on a regular basis as indicated in a regularpew research center study which shows that 70% of american adults sinon daily. the president has said that the internet is a bottle infrastructure and has become a center to the daily economic life of almost every american. you recognize this to. by ensuring that high-speed internet is available to all americans, no matter where they live. i do not think that we acted recklessly, nor do i believe that we will on the internet through what we did is put a policy into place that will ensure access to lawful
websites, applications, and services so that consumers, not their internet service providers, can choose which companies, products, services, and ideas will succeed. thank you for this opportunity this morning and i look forward to answering any of your questions. >> we appreciate your testimony look forward to your answers. alike to recognize the commissioner baker. we're lighted -- delighted to have you here as well. >> thank you very much. the morning, chairman walden. -- good morning, chairman walton. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. today 95% of u.s. households have access to broadband and the vast majority have broadband toys. our regulatory approach used by hundred billion dollars since 2000, and billions more have been invested in devices and applications they ride on those networks.
this is an area of our economy that is clearly working. the commission for a significant challenge is how to build on the success. given the nation significant budgetary constraints, it is clear that the next generation of networks will be constructed primarily by private capital. justice today's network were built. this -- how we craft policies to promote greater some investment in our nation's infrastructure? with that perspective, i believe that net neutrality was but the wrong policy and the wrong priority. further, establishing a nationwide policy is congress's role, not the fcc's. we have exceeded our statutory authority for promoting an open internet is non-negotiable. it is a bedrock principle serving all. the internet is open today without the need for affirmative government regulation. lacking evidenciary records of abuses, the decision was based
on speculative harm. their word "could cause " all loan appears over 60 times. acting in anticipation of hypothetical ones, the result is an overly broad role which will force the government into too prominent a role in choosing tamara's internet. the genius of the in a is that there is no central command to dictate how commission will occur. the commission has inserted itself into that role. government will be hard-pressed to manage the next generation of the internet as well as competition and consumer demand has done for generations. this risk is high because the internet and are broadband networks are still very much in their infancy. the internet will increase fourfold by 2014, and local broadband will more than doubled each and every year. to respond to the consumer demands for faster and more robust broadband services, operators will have to invest billions more in their infrastructure. they will need to experiment and
innovate to serve consumers. decisions about the future of the internet will not be managed by the commission, such as the uncertainty of government sanctions and the delay of government decision making. the open-ended nature of this decision, but then how what was justified and in the number of issues left undecided, will only breed greater regulatory uncertainty which necessarily raises the cost of capital. in too many ways, this decision was a first step, not last. congress has given the commission clear statutory mandate responsibilities, and net neutrality is now one of them. lacking explicit authority, the commission but for the statute in order to establish a national internet policy. under the same unbounded claim of legal authority, the sec could adopt any policy desires to promote. net neutrality was also the wrong priority for the commission. the focus on net neutrality
diverted resources away from the bipartisan reform effort that could have directly addressed the court challenge of promoting broadband a plummet. this lost opportunity is one of the gravest consequences of the net neutrality debate. we may disagree on the key to the details, but i welcome the renewed focus on universal service, spectrum, and broadband infrastructure. all these reforms to directly link to broadband deployment. i only regret that we did not place a higher priority on these efforts sooner. our ability to successfully take any of the steps is in to make up on our strong relationship with congress. to insure that we prioritize and target our efforts appropriately, in that we have sufficient statutory authority to move forward to promote our shared goals. i look forward to your question. thank you. >> now we will show you more about the net neutrality issued from the house floor debate earlier this week. house commerce subcommittee chairman greg walden filed in
inman -- filed an amendment. it passed later in a roll call vote. here's a look at the floor debate. this is close to an hour. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word and i have an amendment at the desk. which i would -- the chair: the gentleman will specify the number of his amendment. mr. walden: the one related to network neutrality. do we have that amendment number? 404. the chair: does the gentleman off the amendment 404? mr. walden: yes, i do. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 404 printed in the congressional record offered pli mr. walden of oregon -- by mr. walden of oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm offering this amendment on behalf of my energy and commerce committee colleague, mr. stearns, as well as mr. terry and chairman upton and my appropriations colleagues, mrs.
emerson, mr. diaz-balart and mr. graves of georgia. we all want an open and thriving internet and that internet exists today. consumers can access anything they want with the click of a mouse thanks to our historical hands-off approach, changing direction now will only harm innovation and the economy. i'm bringing up this funds limitation today to prevent the federal communications commission from spending funds to implement its network neutrality rules regarding the internet. it is a stop-gap measure while we work toward pag -- passing a more permanent solution. our resolution of disapproval which would nullify the rules themselves and i would encourage everyone who cares about keeping the government out of the business of running the internet to co-sponsor that resolution. before we even get into the harm the network neutrality rules would cause, it's important to realize the f.c.c.'s underlying theory of authority would allow the commission to regulate any interstate communication service on barely more than a whim and
without any additional input from the congress. in essence the f.c.c. argues it can regulate anything if in its opinion doing so would encourage broadband deployment. i'm relieved, however, that the f.c.c. declined under its new authority to regulate coffee shops and bookstores, airlines and other entities. now, this, of course, means the f.c.c. believes that if it had not so declined it would have subjected wi-fi in coffee shops and bookstores to government management. if left unchallenged. this claim of authority would allow the f.c.c. to regulate any matter it discussed in the national broadband plan, recall that the f.c.c. concluded that consumers' concerns over privacy are deterring broadband. does that mean the f.c.c. can regulate internet privacy? the national broadband plan also addresses i.t. and distance learning, smart grid, smart homes, smart transportation. account f.c.c. regulate all these matters too in the name of promoting broadband? under the f.c.c.'s rationale,
its authority is only bounded by its imagination. the internet started as a defense agency project to connect computers at research facilities. it did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until it was opened up to free enterprise to participate on and the america's entrepreneurs and innovators did what they do best. they grew jobs and created new technology. as early as the 1970's the f.c.c. took a hands-off approach to data services. f.c.c. chairman reaffirmed this approach during the clinton administration. in rebuffing requests to regulate cable internet access service, the chairman explained, the fertile fields of innovation across the communication sector and around the country are blooming from the because we've take an deregulatory competitive approach to our communications structure, especially the internet. there's no crisis warranting
departure from this approach. most everything that the order discusses is either an unsubstantiated allegation or speculation of future harm. the f.c.c. even contests that it's done no market analysis. it only selectively applied the rules to broadband providers, shielding web companies. if the mere threat of internet discrimination is such a concern and if the f.c.c. has done no analysis to demonstrate why one company has more market power than another, why would discrimination by companies like google or skipe be any more acceptable than discrimination by companies like at&t or comcast? instead of promoting competition -- competition, such picking of winners and losers will stifle the internet's phenomenal growth, hurting the economy. section 230, the communications act, may bes it the policy of the united states to, quote, preserve the vibrant and vibrant free market unfettered by federal or state regulations.
statutory statements of policy are not grants of regulatory authority but they can help delineate the contours that have authority. in light of congress' statutory pronouncement that internet regulation is disfavored, the f.c.c.'s theory of regulation by bank shot stretches too far. at bottom this is little more than an end run around the d.c. circuit court's april 2010 ruling in the comcast case that the f.c.c. failed to show it had authority to regulate network management. therefore i urge your support of this amendment as well as your support of h.j.res. 37, our resolution of disapproval. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. it shouldn't surprise me by now but it's amazing how folks will continue to get up during the
day, during the year, during the next two years, and support the big guys against the little guy. mr. serrano: so the f.c.c. rules and rules in a way that protects and keeps the internet open for all of us and we should remember that. it issued an order providing for a version of net neutrality, it allows the f.c.c. to regulate how internet service providers manage access to content, requires certain transparency from the providers about their policy and requires reasonable management of traffic on their networks. now, all of a sudden there's such a reaction to simply setting some rules. while we all use the internet, there are still many parts of this new service behavior that have not been looked at and where it allows some folks to just overrun other people and if there was ever a decision made by the f.c.c. that's in favor of
the consumer, this is one of them. so of course we will try to scale it back. but there are other issues here. i am a member of the appropriations committee and as such i think it's the greatest committee and most important committee in the history of man and womankind. but i know that there are times that even we should not take up an issue that belongs to people who are much more qualified and have the time to sit down and look at it carefully. and when i say qualified, i know it scares a lot of people, we're all quay qualified. but there are some people who -- we're all qualified. but there are some people who pay a lot of attention to this on a daily basis. we have folks who have done a lot of work and my first feeling here is that this should be left to the authorizing committees to continue to work on. in fact, they've been holding hearings and doing that kind of work. one of the great virtues of the internet is its openness, the ability of so many people to connect with so many other
people without interference from companies providing a service. the f.c.c. has been the guardian of that openness and needs authority to continue to do so. the internet has become more and more important in our lives. and we need to allow the f.c.c. to play an appropriate role in making sure that it continues to remain accessible to everyone as a level playing field. the f.c.c.'s ability to address other internet policy concerns such as privacy, accommodation for people with disabilities, is also at stake. now, for members who are on the floor who may be new to congress , let me just alert you to something. you're going to see amendments today and during this congress telling the f.c.c. not to get involved. then you're going to see some issues come back that haven't been around for a few years about certain personalities on radio and tv and you're going to
see the same folks who are saying, telling the f.c.c. to stay out of it, telling them to get into it and control what those folks say on radio and tv. and that's going to create a big debate once again. so, we have to be careful what we wish for. we want less involvement, more involvement, we should be consistent. lastly, i really believe that this should be left to the authorizers to continue to work on, a ruling by the f.c.c. should be respected at this point and i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri -- a member of the promingses de--- missouri, a member of the appropriations committee, rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: i rise on this. i feel very strongly that in spite of what my friend on the
other side of the aisle said with regard to the authorizers doing their work, because they are doing a great job, but the fact of the matter is, as usual, the regulators have swept in again and -- or at least moving well past the authority that congress provides to agencies and particularly to this agency, they've run in with a sweeping regulation that if we don't do something today about it they will put small businesses like one in my district, which is a family-owned business, a husband and wife who own a small company, who will be devastated by this regulation and the fact is that it's our responsibility to legislate and the regulators should follow the legislation that we write and we pass and get signed into law, not created on their own. certainly, this is very, very important for us as appropriators as a result of
the f.c.c.'s overstepping, we have to get involved, so i would urge a yes vote on this amendment. i yield become. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. the gentleman from new york has indicated this is the big guys against the little guys. he's got it wrong. if the government steps in and regulates the internet, then the little guy, theup start company won't have a chance. mr. stearns: any time the government stipulates regulations, it hurts the little guys. the big guys can handle regulations, handle the legal forms and the politics of it. but the little guy has no chance. so this really is trying to help the little guy. the other point is, as the gentlelady pointed out from the appropriations committee, the f.c.c. doesn't have the jurisdiction this belongs in congress. so really, this amendment in a larger sense is trying to
prevent the f.c.c. from regulating the internet and i think all of us agree that one of the bright spots of this economy has been the technology sector. yet for some reason, the f.c.c. has decided to step in and overstep its bounds and apply perhaps 19th century legislation, they would like to put this into title 2, in the rotary telephone service, instead of title 1, the information technology service, but they tried to compromise by putting something into title 1, but they have a process that's open to putting it into title 2, so they created a chill in the economy buzz a -- because a lot of manufacturers and people putting down broad band see this chill because they see the f.c.c. considering regulating the internet under title 2 instead of information services, so uncertainty is created in the market.
i think this amendment is simple. it says that the f.c.c. does not have the jurisdiction. in a larger sense, it says that we don't need the government to step in with regulation. at this point, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, let me offer the gentleman time. >> i rise in strong support of this amendment, offered by my friend, mr. walden, mr. stearns and others on the appropriations committee. there's an old adage if it ain't broke, don't fix it. the internet is not broken. it's working. creating jobs. look at all the devices that are out there, whether it be ipods, iphones, glackberries, cell phones, look at all the things that are working. mr. upton: we don't need regulations on the internet. i think it was george will that said most americans think that the government doesn't work so well and the internet does. why are we allowing the f.c.c. then to regulate the internet. it makes no sense. this amendment denies funds to
the f.c.c. to implement this order. it's a good amendment. i like to think it would be bipartisan. i support the authors that are offering this and i yield back my time. mr. bilirakis: -- mr. stearns: i will say it's not appropriate for them to make these rules on a whim without any input from congress and this would allow the f.c.c. to do anything, anything it could allege to promote broad band under their jurisdiction which they don't have. congress must stop the f.c.c., this amendment will do that by preventing any money to be used to implement its rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. >> i rise in opposition to the proposal. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word?
mr. waxman: yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: thank you very much for recognizing me. this amendment is bad policy. it would overturn a decision by the f.c.c. enacted last december that would protect the internet from those who might interfere with the ability of consumers to access whatever they want. mr. upton simply said a minute ago a lot of jobs are created by the internet. well that's why we shouldn't stop the f.c.c. the most vibrant sector of our economy today is our internet economy. u.s. companies like google, facebook, amazon, ebay, are leading the world in innovation. and they all urge the f.c.c. to protect and open the internet -- protect an open internet buzz common sense baseline rules are critical to ensuring that the internet remain ascii
engine of economic growth, innovation and global competitiveness. in fact, these high tech and high growth companies urge the f.c.c. to adopt even stronger rules than it did. contrary to the hyperventilated rhetoric from the majority, the f.c.c. rules do not regulate the internet. they do not grant the government the power to turn off the internet. do not determine what content is appropriate for users to access. their goal is just the opposite. they prevent internet gate keepers like verizon from deciding what content their subscribers can access. but the f.c.c. rules were a very light touch regulation. it's notable that the at&t, comcast and time warner, three of the nation's largest network
operators, support these rules. as at&t's c.e.o. stated, we didn't get everything we wanted, i wanted no regulation. but we ended at a place where we have a line of sight and we know we can commit to investments, end quote. and major wall street investment analysts have concluded that the f.c.c.'s open internet order removed any regulatory overhang for telecom and cable companies and reflected a light touch version of regulations that will not hinder innovation or growth. now, what is at stake here is those who are offering this amendment to stop the f.c.c. from doing what it has ordered want the people who carry the internet to be able to restrict the access for consumers and creators who have used the internet for such great success.
and that would be a serious mistake. we had a broad, diverse coalition of more than 120 organizations, including public interest groups, religious leaders, technology association, labor unions, internet companies, small businesses, wrote to us strongly opposing the republican efforts to block the open internet regulations. they argue that overturning the regulations would eliminate the f.c.c.'s ability to protect innovation, speech, and commerce on broad band platforms. if we stop the f.c.c. from regulating, well, then we leave the status quo which means that those who deliver the internet into our home could start regulating themselves. the american people, i think, would be against this. they want us to stop this relitigation of f.c.c.'s sensible internet rules. we should be working together
in a bipartisan solution to expand broadband access and create tomorrow's economic opportunities. the f.c.c. took landmark a action to preserve the open internet. let us not roll back the clock. -- roll back the clock and stop those regulations by f.c.c. to preserve the open internet from being put into place. do i still have time, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. waxman: i urge opposition to this effort and i want to say that this does not save any money, this proposal will not cut costs. this is not only about policy and the high tech, high growth companies have urged the f.c.c. to adopt these rules. we shouldn't use the appropriations process to make this effort to stop the f.c.c. from doing its job. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i'm here today in support of this amendment and i want to thank those who have been work -- mr. graves: i want to thank those who have working on this and it gets complicated sometimes when you have elected officials get up and start talking about broadband and internet and f.c.c. let's make it simple. government control means uniformity, regulation, fees, inspections, and yes, compliance. think, just think, if those words had existed since the 1990's with the internet. we wouldn't know one thing about broadband, let alone a tweet. the internet's free marketplace is defined by fierce competition and that competition is trans-- has
transformed this world with innovation, investment and what we need most of all right now, jobs. it's possible that the most intelligent and bipartisan policy that washington has had thus far has been to leave the internet virtually untouched by the federal government and regulators and the result, internet-based industries have complourished and employed a generation of americans. let's be clear today there is no net neutrality crisis. the speed and depth of the internet as we know it today came from consumer choice and competition. consumers have successfully picked those winners and losers, not government, and they've done it without the f.c.c.'s help. imagine that. consider the choice in rate plans, various points of access, a and demand for openness and accessibility. a service provider that restricts access would do so at their own peril and to the
prosperity of their competitors system of after all the life-changing inknow vase, the accidental billionaires, president obama's revolutionary e campaign, after all the ground breaking technology that has defined this age of the internet, we must ask that question, why? why would unelected bureaucrats at the f.c.c. want to take over and feel good about this internet takeover right now with their new rules and policies keeping things neutral being their claim? let me tell you three words come to mind to me today and that is trojan horse virus. so mr. chairman, let's pass this amendment today and let's install some anti-virus protection for americans in the internet. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida, a member of the appropriations
committee, rise? >> strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. diaz-balart: i want to really echo what the gentleman from georgia just did here on the floor of the house he brought some common sense to this debate. everybody has some talking points and their little notes and they're reading them and trying to confuse the issue, let's take a step back if we might, mr. chairman. let's just ask a very simple question. a very simple question. can somebody name an area in this country or in the world that has had more innovation that has blossomed more, that has opened up communications and connected people more in our country or anywhere in the world in the last decade than the internet? anybody can name it? anything? no. it's impossible. think about what's happened. the internet was even actually given credit for bringing down, helping bring down the government of egypt. it's allowed people to see the
atrocities in iran. it's allowed things like facebook and twitter and iphones to blossom. it's given access to millions of people and it has created millions of jobs. so what is the answer, then, for that incredible blossoming? for something that has revolutionized the way we communicate? that the world communicates? what is now the answer of the federal government? we keep talking about, you know, about letters. it's the federal government. what is the answer of the federal government? to deal with that unprecedented blossoming of innovation, of imagination, of job creation? oh, mr. chairman, the federal government now has to regulate. why? because it's too much innovation. the prices have dropped too much. it's too much imagination. it's too positive. and therefore the federal government must step in because
the federal government can do it so much better. the federal government has all the answers. mr. chairman, a little bit of common sense. i'm talking to my colleagues here but also to the american people. if you believe and think about 10 years ago, if you believe that the federal government, if it's in charge if it would have been in charge, would have been -- would have done a better job in blossoming this innovation, this job creation, and then you have to be with our friends on the other side of the aisle, you then should support federal government intervening, taking care of, regulating the internet. but if you believe that that miracle of innovation took place because of individuals, of people with imagination, and because the government got out of its way, you would support this amendment. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts
rise? -- rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i think a little bit of telecommunications history would be appropriate at this juncture. first of all, just let me explain that at&t and the regional bell companies had nothing to do with the invention of the internet. in fact, they were asked by the federal government in 1966 if they wanted the contract to build the network that would operate simultaneously with the long lines network across the country and at&t and bell south and verizon all said, no, we don't want to build the packet switch network. give it to someone else. mr. markey: and so they did. they gave it to a tiny company up in massachusetts which built the internet across the country,
designed it, without any of the bell operating companies. and back in the 1960's and the 1970's when people said to at&t and said to remember verizon and pack bell, -- and verizon, how about letting people go out and buy another phone, here's what at&t and bell south said, they said, if you allow someone to buy another phone other than a black rotary dial phone, it could destroy the entire phone system of our country. back in the 1970's and early 1980's, when there were new companies called m.c.i. and sprint that wanted to provide competing long distance service, remember, up until the mid 1980's, whenever grandma called from california, people would run to the phone saying, run, it's long distance, it costs $1 a minute. that was at&t. that was the bell system across our country. no competition, no incentive to
introduce innovation, no incentive to lower prices, no incentive to make the consumer the king. and then along comes the 1990's and 2000. we hear on the floor of congress -- we here on the floor of congress said, we must introduce competition. this system, this at&t, this bell south, verizon, pack bell system, it does not innovation -- innovate. not one home in america had broadband in february of 1996 when we passed the telecom act here. we had to order it. there were no broadband users in america in any home as we passed the bill. and so what we tried to do is to induce darwinian, paranoia-inducing competition. what did the broadband barons seek to accomplish? as the private sector they want to quash competition.
they don't ever and they never will invent a google and amazon and ebay. they will never invent any of these thousands of smaller companies which are the engine of economic growth in our country. which leads to our ability to export these products. verizon's not going to invent anything new. what they want to do is squeeze the competitors, price them out of the market so that they can maintain a monopoly across the country. that's what this debate is all about. that's what the f.c.c. rules are saying. they're saying that the new steve jobs, the new bill gates, the new larry page in the garage somewhere, and there are thousands of them across the country, must be able to get into the marketplace to create these new jobs without having to be tipped upside down and having every last cent poured out of their pockets to pay these large companies.
that's what this debate is all about. it's about whether or not we want vigorous competition in the marketplace. those who are opposed to the open network, those who are opposed to giving every competitor equal access with the biggest broadband beau heemolingt, that's what this bede-bait is about. they're covering it as though the government is really trying to control the internet. not so. they are siding with the broadband barons against the thousands of companies who are out there, who have reinvented telecommunications and information delivery in our country and across the planet just in 14 years, after the bell system had 100 years to do so and had invented every single technology. they had invented them all but they had had no incentive to deploy those new technologies because they had a monopoly. that's what the debate is about. you vote for this amendment, to give control by the broadband barons over the internet once again, then you will see an
inevitable decline in innovation , in investment, in the private sector, in the new products, the new technology, the new application, these new devices which are basically invented by hundreds and thousands of smaller companies in our country. that's the choice you have. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: vote no on this amendment that shuts down the internet. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. this is such a fascinating debate that's taking place here on the floor today. and i think that any one that considers themselves -- anyone that considers themselves connected in the country, and i'm not talking about being connected to wealth, but
connectivity in terms of communications, i hope you're tuned in. ms. eshoo: because this is a consideration about preserving the open internet and broadband industry practices. now, i don't know how many of you have spoken to your kids, but i have to tell you, if you've had a conversation with any young person in your family, and don't remember what the average age is of congress, but talk to young people in your district and i want to tell you, they will say over and over and over and over again, the way they spoke to the f.c.c., over two million people contacting the f.c.c., over 90% of them saying, leave the internet alone. leave it alone.
leave it open. leave it accessible to everyone. in just over five years $250 billion has been invested by the venture capital community which makes its home in my congressional district. and i have to tell you, i think if you took this amendment to silicon valley, when you go out there, and i know you travel out there, the next time, go there for an internet 101 series. not for fundraising, but go listen to people there. that's where the innovators are. and i have the privilege of representing them. they want an open, free, accessible internet. i think that your disdain for government is spilling over onto the internet. and i would caution you to pull up the emergency brake on it.
because if -- because if in fact corporations get their way instead of consumers and there is any blockage of content or where consumers have to pay more because corporations are in control instead of consumers, there's going to be a revolution in the country. i would not fool around with an open, accessible internet. you are barking up the wrong tree. you really are. this is a big mistake. so you want to hate the government, you want to try and hurt agencies that carry out what the congress does? that's where your party is. that's where your disdain lies. but i think this is a march to folly. i don't know if you so fully, if you really fully appreciated the
internet and what it represents and what it has done, not only for the people of our country but for people around the world, you wouldn't go near this. you wouldn't go near this. have you suggested to anyone in at that hire square in cairo that you were doing this -- tahrir square in cairo that you were doing this, i think they'd laugh a lot of people off the floor of the house of representatives. this is so wrong-headed and it says to me that you don't get it. that you simply don't get it. without some clear rules of the road, and believe me, what the f.c.c. did is so light. i thought that they could have done and should have done more. large corporations carve up the internet into fast and slow lanes, charging a toll for content and blocking innovators
from entering the information superhighway, you know what? i want to be at your town hall meeting when you have to explain that to your constituents. they will have your heads for that. they will. they will. this will supersede any other issue. so, my friends, anyone that considers themselves in the know , in the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, let's not turn the hands of the clock back. let's be on the side of innovators who weighed in at the f.c.c. and i as the ranking member placed all of those letters of support, representing hundreds of organizations in our country, all the way from the catholic conference of bishops in our country to tech net.