tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 14, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
international, some both. we have always faced great challenge. we always will. whether wen is not face challenges, it's whether we solve them and move on. i have an extra ordinary promise. economically, we live in a world where hundreds of millions of people by the things we make and the services we offer. we never had a global economy where so many people buy things. invest in things. i'm area optimistic about that. i'm optimistic about the fact that all of the world a growing of people aspired to liberty and freedom. while the internet poses challenges, for example the ability to radicalize americans, it also poses extraordinary opportunity, the ability to collaborate and spread information quicker than ever. do we harness our choices and lead or are we overwhelmed by them and are left behind?
americans are insecure about tomorrow. our economy is not undergoing a downturn. it is undergoing massive transformation. it is like the industrial revolution happening every five years. the question we must answer is are we going to embrace it or are we going to ignore it, fight against it, and get left behind. in the absence of our leadership, which you leave behind as a vacuum. america never asked for this job of being the global leader. for some reason we don't fully understand, fate has given it to us. we either accepted or the world will become a darker more difficult place to live in. the chaos that follows makes the world more dangerous and less profitable.
>> with that inspirational closing i think we should let senator rubio get on with his day. will everybody please stay standing? fair and balanced. thank you every much -- thank you very much. them political has put together 199 quotes from donald trump, calling it the most donald trump thing donald trump has ever said. a couple of them on nbc in july the president shall candidate said, i will with the latino
vote because i will create jobs. the latinos will have jobs they didn't have created another quotes, i will be phenomenal to to help women.-- that is live at 7:10 eastern here on c-span. hearing on new technology called the internet of things from the house judiciary subcommittee. this is an hour and 40 minutes. today we welcome everyone for a
hearing on the internet of things. short history the internet has been transformative and a powerful tool. it has shaped communication commerce worldwide. technology has proven to advance that only moore's law describes, with the doubling of that about quickly the time you have run out of your short warranty you in fact have a product that can outperform the one on your desk. the internet of things as a brolly affects interconnected the vices with each other and across existing internet infrastructure is a newer portion of what now becomes the of our lives and communication in the 21st century.
it is estimated by 2020 there will be 25 billion connected things. 2020 there will be more connected things. by embedding devices with , we in factensors have smart devices. those smarter devices already include, if you choose, every light switch in your home, the and productsr, throughout the home, whether they be speakers to hear from or in fact sensors to control climate to a portion of every room. data driven technology is improving the way we understand health care. prevent, detect, and treat any number of
afflictions. a generation ago the insulin -- today it's not only could but it soon will. the same time, when we talk about your home, your lighting, and messaging, your voice, your health and actual biological function, issues like privacy and data security for these interoperable technologies not just something to talk about, but an area in which we in congress played a large and potentially destructive role
in the development of these technologies. every day in america somewhere someone is being hacked. they are finding out the personally identifiable information has been compromised. too often it is in fact government we hear it from, the government to controls whether or not you can further secure your internet of things products or not. witheration ago i stood one of our witnesses at a time a which a member of congress, former fbi agent, was trying to prevent 256 encryption. the fbi needed to be able to quickly crack the bad guys transmissions. he needed to be able to unbundle a floppy disk information in a they wereseconds if going to deter organized crime. quickly duplicating it and
denying them millions or billions of dollars. it took a number of years for congress to realize that official control was not only circumvent double by exporting to other countries, but it was ludicrous because the bad guys were not going to limit their unlicensed spectrum within the internet of things is going to be talked about again and again today. i hope my witnesses will feel free to talk about the benefits of greater spectrum. atould remind my panelists the fcc is not in our primary jurisdiction. to bundle these and other things will take a coordination between committees that do control spectrum, those of us who control a great deal of privacy
requirements and the overseeing of government allows. a report that followed months of stakeholder roundtables that focused on private security. broad and made a nonbinding recommendation about how the company should address these issues from the onset and laid the groundwork for future ftc involvement in the internet of things. the first question we receive is usually the internet of things and why does the congress care? we played down a number of those in my opening statement today.
enforcing breaches and security wall providing little guidance. exampleyet another where we can come in with the heavy hand of government, but seldom with the safe haven. today we look forward to a hearing with stakeholders. further opportunities to deal with the challenges that and those ings which we can bring relief. i look for to our witnesses and i recognized the ranking member, a gentleman from new york, for his opening statement. >> the internet of things is the next revolution in our increasingly wired world. everything from household appliances to transportation systems can harness the power of the internet to increase productivity and consumer choice.
we must also consider privacy and security that are inherent in any system with wireless connection at massive data collection. the internet of things is experiencing explosive growth in recent years. there are already 25 billion connected devices today. in five short years there may be as many as 50 million. we have only seen many innovative uses. for example, according to one study in 2020, up to 90% of , less than 10% in 2013.
the safety of their driving and even the fuel efficiency. as the new york times described last week, researchers are able to track internet -- to track internet. blinkers.d off their in some cases, control their brakes and steering. so card smart cities are incorporating the internet of things into their transportation energy and even waste management systems. streetlamps can conserve energy by telling them no one is around. imagine the garbage can talking
to the sanitation department. sec tech -- such technology has the potential to revolutionize the infrastructure. unless the city's integrate strong security measures with employment technology, their infrastructure could be vulnerable from hackers looking to do mischief. in addition to security concerns, the internet raises a host of privacy implications, particularly with respect to consumer device. the technologybt can improve the consumer's experience in ways large and small. the thermostat can be controlled remotely. has introduced the -- button. withdo these companies to massive amounts of data? and what choice did consumers
have about how their information is used? these are all questions that must be considered to expand its reach. millions of americans where devices that track physical activity and other health indicators. they demonstrate a healthy lifestyle. beyond encouraging healthy behavior, it is not clear how insurance companies may seek to use this information in the future. will it be used in a discriminatory manner? in its examination of these important questions the federal trade commission made an important number of recommendations that we must consider. they also recommended that they
monitor connected devices throughout their expected lifestyle -- lifecycle. urged companies to protect consumer privacy by engaging in data minimization as well as providing notice and choices to consumers as to how their data may be used. although no specific legislative recommendations, we should consider the congressional actions. should we seek solution to these concerns that are specific to the internet of things, or will there be legislation on these topics? the internet of things have led to important breakthroughs. it has the potential to spur tremendous information. we must find a proper balance of funds information in ensuring as itivacy is protected continues to grow. i look for to hearing from witnesses that have to address these challenges.
, i now recognize the gentleman from virginia, the chairman of the full committee, mr. goodlatte, for his opening statement. then i believe this has the ability to transport the -- to transform the health care industries. this is of particular interest to the judiciary committee, considering her loans jurisdiction -- considering our long-standing jurisdiction. internet of things refers to machines containing sensors that connect and transmit data to other connected devices and the internet. growth in cloud computing over the past several years has helped enable this technology to reach full potential without the ability for data from the internet of things device to be analyzed in
real time. the ability to access this information through mobile apps makes these internet of things device is a key tool to finding a creative solution for many of the problems in daily life of the 21st century. smart agricultural will help us promote less waste. to monitor be used road conditions and structural components of bridges and overpasses. new wearables not only monitor the number of steps we take, they can also include sensors before it actually becomes one. as this committee continues to study this new technology, it is important for us to keep in mind the full scope of the internet of things and because this it of its effects on public policy today and in the future.
in particular we need to examine the privacy and security in and look into the privacy and security measures the industry is building now. i'm hopeful the new technology will help fuel the engine of american innovation, prosperity, and creativity. i think we have a fantastic panel assembled today. i look forward to hearing from witnesses about this exciting area of technology. >> a short opening statement. thank my cochair on the internet of things caucus, as well as the ranking member calling this hearing on this important subject. what is called the internet of
things from whole appliances to personal wearables, it might be easy to conclude the promise of the internet of things is limited by american ingenuity. to start we need to make sure we update existing laws and where we are heading in the future. that means updating the privacy communication act, protected by the same warrant standard. multibillion-dollar internet of things, for the economy to be successful we need to be stewards of policy. vulnerable to hacking or spying. devices should be able to talk to each other. that means an adoption of uniform, preferably international standards.
and firmly upholding their duty to protect the public health and safety. we must work with stakeholders to create a privately -- create a privacy landscape that provides individuals with control of their own data. setting the stage for what i that be abe an productive and informative series of hearings that our economy and committee can play. thank you, i yield back. >> it is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel. they will be placed in their entirety.
i will ask witnesses to summarize in about five minutes. before i introduce the witnesses pursuant to the committee rules i would ask all witnesses stand to take the oath. white --ly racing your your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. please be seated. let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. today our witnesses include mr. , mr. deaniro garfield, president and ceo of the information technology industry consul, mr. mitch a from thesident and ceo alliance of automobile manufacturers, and mr. morgan read.
before i go down the road with the witnesses i have to take a point of personal privilege. the other three know it. mr. shapiro and i go back a long time. the birth of at the modern consumer electronics association. i once worked for them with a highly unpaid position as the chairman. ,f today i can rough him up remember it takes a while. >> this is a historic moment in my life. chairman over a good portion of our freedom and you rankingk members.
the consumer electronics association represents 2000 technology companies and we produce the ces, which is held every january in las vegas. it is so vague that 900 of our exhibitors had internet of things products to show creative over a ilion smartphones have been sold. they contain microelectronic mechanical systems. these are tiny devices that actually move in a measure all .hings like temperature now cost pennies apiece. and smart innovators are putting it together in very clever ways.
to connected thermostats and the like, from household appliances to connected cars. consumers are using this device to stay healthy, create efficiency, stay secure, and make better decisions. you heard the estimates of how these are going to grow. i can't say they are factual. there is definite growth. see it in ourselves. we can did you 2% in terms of connected home devices. it is already a billion-dollar marketplace. these home control systems allow to manage security systems, turn on appliances, manage cooling and interlining systems. temperaturesst even when no one is home.
there is an opportunity to care for our aging population, as well as the 56 million americans with disabilities. provide novel interface like voice control to help people reduce mobility and dexterity. smart detectors can be connected to lighting control and they can light up the whole house for a safe exit. think about our older loved ones. retain their quality of life and they can do this with caregivers. will retainericans privacy and share what they are comfortable sharing.
it does face impediments. first it requires a spectrum. wireless spectrum is a platform in which you devices connect. the internet of things is changing what skills we need to retain our nation's competitive advantage. internet of things require government restraint. legitimate concerns about safety, privacy, security. stakeholders can and should be discussing these things today. it is up to manufacturers and service providers to make good decisions.
we are passionate industry solutions are best while protecting consumers. theecognize and respect legitimate roles of government and transparency, clarity, and experimentation. activities that produce standards focusing on technical aspects of the internet of things. of course it is just beginning. growth of stymie the the internet of things. any government action should be narrow and specific and focus on real harm. we look forward to working with this committee to make sure the government policies and growth ins support this dynamic sector and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you members of the committee. on behalf of 51 of the most
dynamic and innovative companies in the world we thank you for hosting this hearing. it is our firm view that the internet of things has the potential to be one of the most transformative technological into -- technological innovations. to ensure i am not accused of myaging in ever violent -- we think that is the case. what we are doing to enable it, and third hour limitations in congress. internet of things is essentially the physical world through connecting sensors into a network of computing systems. what may sound simple has the and thel to be -- creation of new industries as well as the destruction of
existing ones. aboutr we're talking watches that have the potential to not only help you, but how then can you help, or whether it were thereld wipers and autonomous vehicle to the potential to a construction zone. there has been much discussion of the home and personal manifestations of the internet of things, which are truly exciting. it is important not to ignore the potential of commercial deployment. those commercial to appointments are real, and have huge economic benefits. whether it is the diplomat of sensors in our energy grid to ensure greater said that greater , to sensors and transportation systems to allow
more efficient delivery, or to allow safeties of workers, the will come from those deployments, by which 2030 is expected to be $7 trillion. what are we doing to ensure that they hope -- they emphasize security privacy standards as well as an investment infrastructure. we are working and innovating around those issues. they are part of forethought rather than afterthought. we are developing solutions to ensure both security and privacy are tailored to the particular iron meant. and we are investing in innovation.
it is the right thing to do. we are moving forward on global that are driven by the and are open standards to ensure we have high interoperability as well as scalability. finally we are investing on the infrastructure. mr. shapiro noted the need for ensuringas well as that spectrum is available. the use of spectrum is growing with thech year disposition of physical things. it will only grow more expeditiously. spectrum will be increasingly important. in addition to doing those
we need to partner with congress and the administration to ensure policies are smartly developed. we need a national strategy around the internet of things. the national broadband plan was able to focus our -- focus our attention. we need more spectrum as of as pointed out earlier. the u.s. government is the largest holder of spectrum. greatest ability to impact the deployment of spectrum, and we hope we can make it work more efficiently. finally we need the exercise of restraint. in order to grow to reach its full potential, it is important that we put the thumb on the
scale of particular technologies. >> i look forward to your five minutes. committee,of the thank you for the opportunity to testify. another industry was engaging with the challenge of technology. axis began to replace ownership. the fundamental model of business transformed. i resent the six major european
manufacturers and the three manufacturers as well. the impact of technology is -- i bit as profound represent the six major european manufactures and three major japanese manufacturers as well. we have seen enormous safety and environmental gains in the last half-century, striking with members. the next generation of progress iot-basedfrom technologies. ownership patterns may evolve as ridesharing becomes more prevalent. the truly material impact of technology is the convergence. the convergence of quality benefits that arise from conductivity. it wasn't that long ago that safety and environmental objectives conflicted. do you go heavy and face or strategies for safety centered on surviving
crashes. combination and connectivity harmonizes safety. from technology that manages the car better than a human hand, fosters more efficient mobility, there will be more -- there will be fewer crashes on the road, generating fewer injuries, fewer fatalities, lower emissions, and less need to fuel. fast asto the future as we can is critical. about 90% of all traffic fatalities is the result of human error or environmental conditions. technology is so powerful because it offers the promise of mitigating human error. lane departure warnings, blind knologynings, and must
-- and tomorrow's technology. must be embraced and seen as the answer, not the problem. that means working proactively in terms of our privacy and security. the first in the iot, a internet sector to adopt a comprehensive privacy principles. they have a strong lineage. -- the whitese house bill of rights. status,for contact, security, and choice. the most sensitive type of --sumer information needed geolocation, where you are going, driver behavior. requireacy principles clear notice about the collection of such information. it isrposes of why collected and the entities of which it can be shared.
the industry is working to stay had of the threat posed by malicious hackers. we announced the formation of an information sharing and analysis center to establish an interesting a -- an industrywide -- they would facilitate private sectors while protecting individual security. we hope the senate act soon. of the next 20 years and the evolution of the internet is in or and offers the possibility of amazing outcomes on the road to we look forward to working with you and to a the challenges that come along the way. >> thank you. >> members of the committee, my name is morgan reed, i am executive director. i thank you for holding this important hearing. the association represents 5000
companies and technology firms around the globe. we are currently spearheading an effort through our health initiative to clarify of regulating and ensure an environment in which patients and consumers can see an improvement in their health. this coalition of leading health companies and stakeholders needs congress. and the hhs to encourage innovation and support policies that keep data private and secure. traditionally this is a moment in my testimony where i should recite some interesting numbers about jobs created. i would like to break from them. i would like to tell you a story. nearly everyone in this room is caring for an aging parent or know someone who is. imagine that your parents are fortunate. they are living in their own home but significant medical challenges are facing them.
do they move in to my basement and? how do we feel with the fact that my parents don't want to move into my basement, and -- what do i do to help them live at home with dignity? product with the tagline help, i've fallen and i can't get up. the devices known as a personal emergency response system. these are great devices but incredibly limited to what they can do. with sensors that can attract blood sugar, pressure, heart rate, biomarkers, geo fencing for alzheimer's, and more. watch ande fit into a -- all ofse devices those devices connected to a loved one's phone and a medical record.
suddenly mom can stay at home. maybe two,er year, maybe three, all well managing your health. if mom allows the data to be sent to you, you can be part of the solution, staying in touch. as significantly, your basement gets to keep its big-screen tv. by 2050 there will be 83.7 million americans over the age of 65, twice the amount from 2012. 80% will have at least one chronic condition. they age groups rapid growth will strain public and private health resources. the picture i painted u.s. imperative to preventing a cataclysmic outcome. what is standing in the way? what is needed to make sure everyone can benefit from these new innovations? innovation in health care is happening. it can lead to lower costs,
better care, and improved patient outcome. found one will be trust, which require strong security and privacy measures. regulatory barriers and lack of clarity around reimbursement are a threat to the advancement of mobile health. some casesn and in must play an important role in improving health outcomes through innovative technologies. questions about privacy, security, reimbursement, and ,overnment regulation have met and physicians worry about the impact on their practice and reliability. patients think care providers need to know their information is private and secure. industry practices around the treatment of sensitive health data, as well as the commitment to support these practices are important to establish trust. clarification on government access to data matters as well. as most of this health
information will eventually end up in the cloud. congress should be pushing back .n any government pressure finally, ensuring the doctors are reimbursed for the use of these technologies is essential to cms has statutorily lamented the three different kinds of remote patient monitoring because of the -- because of absurd -- successful, link technology altogether. i asked the congress to help ensure that happens now, rather than in c -- rather than see one more of our family members move out because they failed to act. them on that note i have questions. -- >> on that note i have questions. mr. shapiro, you are not an engineer. you are a long recovering
lawyer. as we sit here, what percentage of the bandwidth are we using in this room of the entire if we were to look at the radio waves being used, the old bandwidth from television, what percentage of the spectrum is being used as we sit here? >> they use actually a small percent. >> i said i wasn't going to dwell too much on spectrum. if we are trying to create the ability for almost an unlimited amount of communication between large and small devices, isn't one of our greatest tasks to recognize that we have allocated bandwidth and used hardly any of it in any given time?
>> now i realize you gave me a softball. >> you can follow up with devices that they take advantage of. on spectrum is pretty much the same. we categorize it differently. categorize whether it is licensed or unlicensed. means -- unlicensed because it promotes innovation. and a study we did last year, there are $62 billion of activity created by unlicensed spectrum. of increasingkids the amount of licensed spectrum. it does allow innovators to do really cool is that looked as economic activity and provide benefits. there is a lot of spectrum the government uses. figuring out what could be
available and repurposed for commercial purposes. that not only takes some of the pressure off, but it also creates economic activity. if so it will make a tremendous amount of money for the treasury. i know that at some of the issues involved going forward. we think there is an opportunity there to test some of that spectrum and split it up a bit and share it. >> there is going to be a lot of questions about whether or not automobiles are safe or not. say whetherfair to or not you share the bandwidth,
it has nothing to do with whether or not you are going to be effectively hacked on your encrypted singles -- encrypted signals? >> i think i would say a few things, one as it relates to spectrum, we have heard the message of congress, the notion of sharing, if we can make that work it is something we want to do. field testing is going to happen. of finding a way to satisfy the spectrum but also meat safety imperatives is something that we are prepared to try to test to see rather than test to fail. --o want context in terms of they couldte that
mitigate or eliminate 80% of all crashes on the road. the implications for life, injury, productivity, they are enormous. the predicate for moving forward has to be do no harm. >> the history of data on the automobile has been one of the automobile manufacturers having .roprietary data buses as a representative, is that going to be different in the vehicle to vehicle world? .t has to be an open standard isn't that true? >> i think it is true interoperability matters. it is also true in a dangerous world where you have malicious
hackers that system integrity matters a ton. the balance for both his best. >> i will tell you from this part of the day that working on legislation that makes the penalty high and in civil against those who try to maliciously hacked automobiles ourn area in which jurisdiction is not only appropriate but needed. >> we have a history of driving based standard set fully integrate privacy and security protection and can do that in context as well. >> mr. shapiro you argue for a .arket approach -- it is an important
that the government set clear rules on what is not ermissible? >> i think it is important to companies know what is legal or not legal. there is something between the two. we have heard many people to the importance of trust for companies. everyone wants privacy. sometimes there are different types of information. research has been lost. records have not been trans--- treated.been -- have not been traded. the consumers can be able to make a reasonable decision on
what they are willing to give up . it was premature for congress to say this is the line we are drawing. having a discussion is really important. i think there should be a national consensus on what should be protected and what should not. >> itched the notice to consumers to require. >> in terms of giving up if you are sharing something, which you shouldn't expect, i think it should be noticed. i think our companies have an obligation. there are a lot of private lawyers that will be more than happy to see it. >> the laws clear and we should leave it at that for the time
being? i don't think there is a need yet. yet for's not a need congress to do anything because the sec is handling it? >> is a quickly evolving area. before we put new services and rather than jump in, we should take a deep breath -- >> let's assume the congress chooses to disagree and chooses to enact privacy. in that case, other anyways we should treat the internet of things differently from other companies that collect data or to the internet? >> i would like to think about that answer. off-the-cuff i would say the internet of things has easy connectivity quickly and rapidly. when knowledge is appropriate and commission, but sometimes there is and. the internet of things allows police forces to monitor crowds in a public area.
it allows them to monitor conversations to see whether people are being angry or not a public area. it provides an opportunity to have video and see whether they're bad people that the fbi wants for identification of not only facial but voice. there's a tremendous opportunity here in many different areas, and to me with most important is we let it play out a little bit. if you're going to legislate, it would be very specific and narrow and address a real problem. >> thank you. you reference the consumer privacy protection principles. can you briefly describe these principles in detail? >> the written testimony goes into some depth, but focuses on things like transparency, context, data minimization and clearly the notion of express consent for marketing. we think it works, it's a floor, and i think i build on gary's
point, this applies to privacy and everything else as we enter an era of massive innovation. >> we should be careful and wait for experience. >> i think the final challenge i have is that innovation outstrips the face of regulation. we are seeing that in the area of distractions. i will give you a specific example. >> a specially given what you just said, do you think the principles used in numerator it -- you enumerated should apply to all things, or they are uniquely relevant to the mobile industry? >> think they are more broadly
applicable, but i'm testifying today on behalf of the auto industry and i'm reluctant to impose my judgment on others. >> i can give you my perspective. >> we are talking about the internet of things as if it is a single thing. what is the privacy settings for a winchell weber versus a watch that is monitoring you personally? we shouldn't assume this is the wild wild west and that there is no one out there monitoring. the fcc has been engaged in is taking action. >> i know you are out of time, but the chairman will -- >> in the health context, i think you are about to see some very significant industry best
-- you are about to see significant and is the best actresses that rise up because ultimately what happened right now is we are not seeing the kind of growth -- a study came out that shows only 15% of doctors are talking about wearables to their patients. 50% of doctors think their patients with that if it from the use of those. >> why the difference? >> privacy. with an aging population that is concerned about how their information might be used for marketing or other purposes -- they hate those late-night telephone calls -- we are working very closely with a lot of folks to come up with industry best practices that gives some more bright lines trade we believe the ftc will be a good mechanism for those practices, but that's where we are today. >> thank you very much. >> you did not even get to the question of what this the garbage men say to the garbage can say back. i'm assuming it is, you stink. that is going to cost me. with that, we go to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, for his questions.
mr. marino: thank you, chairman. mr. garfield today it is estimated that the average home has 11 wi-fi devices during in my house with my tech savvy kids, it is triple that. i will give you an example. my children have a different taste in music than i do. this just happened last week. i'm in the study, listening to this music, and the next thing i hear is captain john looked the card's -- john-luc picard's voice saying, this does not compute. my son found a way to get into my system and switch the music i was playing compared to what he wants to play and tell me he did not like this music trade it's fascinating what these kids can do with this equipment.
be that as it may, it is an unprecedented boom the requires significantly more wireless spectrum. could you expand on the implications of how this might impact the connection for can tumors as well as the overall growth of the sector of the economy? >> your household sounds a lot like mine. i agree with what my colleagues have said about the need for more spectrum, whether wireless or wireline or license or unlicensed trade in this context, wireless is particularly important.
given the lack of optimization in the use of spectrum today and how much spectrum is held by the government, there is a significant opportunity both in the deployment of iot and economically as well to more efficiently use term and make more of it available. there is a huge opportunity there. the reality is that it is absolutely necessary. as we think about all of the physical world essentially being digitized, then the growth we have experienced in the use of spectrum will certainly explode great it is something we need to plan for, anticipate, and take action to deal with. >> thank you. i have realized i can raise my garage door of an down from 2000 miles away, turn my lights on. but what is to prevent the hacker, the state-of-the-art the -- state-of-the-art thief from checking in on my software on my computer system in my house, for example, when i go on vacation, i will turn the heat down.
they could tap into my thermostat, read when the heat is reduced over a certain period of time, come to the conclusion even though there are lights going on and off all over the house that no one is there. and this is open to anyone. what is the industry doing to protect us from that? >> thank you for your question and or your work on a lot of the encryption and privacy issues. welcome to encryption. encryption is a critical element of preventing that from happening. there are technological things you can do, man in the middle, etc., but when you start getting above 256 bit encryption, 512 encryption, it takes an enormous amount of power to break it. what the questions the consumer electronic side of the world as well as the cloud computing side of the world is looking at, is how do i put encryption into every device and make it so no
one can mess with your life or more importantly, other things in your house that might have a direct impact on the evil living there. we need to make sure the government does not we can encryption. we need to continue to see the >> going back to the garage door opener, when it was first introduced, it was very primitive. it was fun to drive around the neighborhood and open other people's garage doors great if -- doors or similarly with cordless telephones, if you played it right you could listen to other people's phone conversations. it is, by today's standards, relatively prim testify. as we have gotten more sophisticated, as memory chips have grown, as there is encryption, there are solutions and we don't even hear about those problems anymore. it has not been an issue. >> the reality is that significant investment is being made in innovating around privacy and security because
it's the right thing to do and because consumers are demanding it. that explains in part the shift by gary, mr. shapiro and mr. reed have articulated. mr. marino: if you have a device where you can block my son from changing my music. >> i have something. it's called handcuffs. goode goode mr. marino, did you get to the launching of your trade secrets bill today? no, you didn't. ok. mr. collins will be announcing it so hopefully you can talk to that on next. did i mention there will be announcement on trade secrets bill today? mr. issa: ok. did anyone not hear that? ok. we now go to the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. chu chu i recently read an article about two security
researchers that were able to wirelessly hack into a jeep cherokee, first taking control of the entertainment system, windshield wipers and then disabling the accelerator. they were able to slow down the car to stop on a busy highway. this experience reminds us that connectedness flows in both directions and that hackers can manipulate these devices for evil if they so chose. what specific best practices does the industry have in place to ensure that something like this does not come about? and how are automobiles being designed to prevent exactly this from happening? and what role do you see the federal government playing in this scenario? >> and i have five minutes? great questions. or he jeep hack of a week two ago obviously received enormous attention. i am struck by the need to both take the threat very seriously, and we do, but also not to get sensationalism
of stories like this. both things are true. our companies are designing and building to meet security risks from the very start. that's point one. they are working with government, academia, third parties, security technologists to address the hack risk. the hack risk is real and palpable and we need to address it. we need to take it very seriously. we have formed an isac. it is a mechanism for the industry to voluntarily share risk and how to address those risks. there is a mechanism that is in formation for specifically this challenge. the risk here from a governmental side is the one we touched on before and, what's the touch? how heavy a touch should there be? a world in which innovations happen so rapidly, how do you
make it work so it is not rigid? that is the challenge. i think what you've done thus far is facilitate sharing of risk threats and that's great nd we hope that moves forward. ms. chu: mr. garfield, you stated that connectivity and communications between vehicles must be secure and reliable, especially for safety applications. that's something that congress, the department of transportation, the federal trade commission and other stakeholders should oversee to protect consumers. you are referring to the consumer's physical safety. but when it comes to another kind of safety like privacy and data security, you urge the federal government to essentially take a wait-and-see approach and asking that we should only step in if the industry fails at self-governance. so what, in your mind, is the difference between these two kinds of safety that would warrant such a divergent approach? mr. garfield: i guess twoour
suggestion is not that the points. government do nothing. our suggestion is the government exercise restraint in that the approach that has been taken today on privacy hat is secretary torially driven, that is monitoring and enforcement by the f.t.c., is working. in the first instance there is a significant market failure that may not be being met. immediate action is clear. in the second instance, it is less clear. i guess the third and final point is the point we have all made about the innovation that is taking place in this space, not only around i.o.t., but around ensuring that we are driving privacy and security by design at the very beginning of these processes is actually making significant headway, and we worry about the unintended consequences of legislation at this stage. ms. chu: mr. shapiro, you acknowledge in your testimony several concerns about privacy.
then go on to state that industry-driven solutions is the best way to promote innovation. but how do we rely on the industry to self-govern and avoid the problems implicit in the fox guarding of thei asked the question henhouse? particularly in the context of one concern you raised, which is, who owns the data from these devices? isn't the industry incentivized to claim ownership over the ata? r. shapiro: thank you for that question. it is true that a lot is going on vertically. we have our own wireless had company group focusing on creating rules everyone can live by, in part because it's the right thing to do and in part because there's congress because -- they will do if we don't but there are already free market solutions which are happening quickly. for example, in the automobile, hundreds of thousands if not millions of consumers are already choosing to give up their data to insurance companies in exchange
-- return for a lower insurance rate. so the insurance companies are essentially monitoring how fast they drive because the consumers feel it's valuable to give up that information. that's informed consent. it's a free market decision, etc. also, there's solutions coming up for parents if they want to give the kid the keys to the car, they have the ability to monitor their children. now, with many different solutions that are coming out quickly. my point was that this is not a legitimate area -- is it not a legitimate area for government conversation. there is so much happening from an innovation point of view, that there's different directions we can go in. if industry goes in the wrong direction, we are fully confident government will be there saying this is wrong and consumers will be there, trial lawyers will be there. even in the distracted driving area where the federal government has stepped in say r vow scissor ousley
to industry, you should do everything you can to ban a driver from using any product in that driver seat, there are at least 80 different solutions and more developing every day which basically cut down on distracted driving through monitoring lanes, monitoring heads falling asleep, watching your eyes, or even technology produced locally which monitors your cell phone as a driver and figures out if you're not paying attention to the oad. mr. issa: will the gentlelady yield for just a follow-up question quickly? ms. chu: certainly. mr. issa: ms. chu's question was, who owns the data? wouldn't you agree that data that comes from an individual inherently government does have a role in defining what rights they have to retain, protect, or retrieve their own personally identifiable data? i think that was your question, wasn't it? ms. chu: that's right. mr. shapiro: only the consumer that creates data should have some rights in that data.
the question is the service provider, if they own data. this goes into a lot of the areas of the internet, to not just the internet of things. if there's apps for writing services, etc., what's the tradeoff that's involved? and i think it's fair to say there should be transparency as to who is using the data, as to who owns it and can retain it. i guess i would say that depends on the level of personal information in the data. whether or not you are using your windshield wipers, for example, is the type of data that can easily be collected and shared to provide information on where it is raining without a lot of consumers saying, that is fine. as opposed to something more personal when you get into the health sphere, when you should of course own and determine what happens with your data. mr. issa: thank you. i think that will start a dialogue that will continue. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: thank you, chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. i'm going to try to break this down and try to keep it what's complex very simple.
the issue is privacy. the time of the dick tracy watch is here. be in fact, our gentlemen here has two dick tracy watches . i don't even wear a watch for it will help you in the answers, i hope. mr. issa:? -- what time is it? r. poe: i can't see the clock. anyway, the data that is stored is stored by a provider. and it's information about an individual. the privacy of that individual is paramount to me, and i think the law, the constitution, the right of privacy, and it has to be protected by congress because it's a constitutional right, privacy. ongress needs to set the
expectation of privacy for individuals that have shared their information with different entities. i'm concerned about the privacy of the individual two ways. one, the provider or service provider sharing it with other nongovernment agencies. and the service provider providing that information to the government. especially the government. i think there should be a -- we should update the epca law which right now information stored on the cloud for six months is private. but six months and one day, the government can have it. there's no expectation of privacy. absurd protection of the constitutional right of privacy. for 180 days only. i don't think that we should leave it up to the f.t.c. to set the guidelines or the f.c.c. or the f.e.c. or any
other government agency to determine what the right of privacy should be. so i'm not threw asking the question yet. so how do you know the answer already? anyway. should not we in congress update the epca law to provide whatever rules we think should be provided so that citizens know that the government to get this information -- and you can use geolocation and all other information -- has got to have a search warrant based on the fourth amendment of the constitution before they can order you to give the government that information about the citizen out there in the fruited plain, should we be proactive to do that? are you recommending that we wait for all these different things to happen out there and try to solve them, get the
lawyers to sue and all these things, or should congress be proactive? i have been working on this for years and we have not been able to get anywhere for updating the law so people know the expectation of privacy, that the government knows you cannot get that information without a search warrant, should not we do that, congress do that? it's kind of like a yes or no answer on that. >> the reason i was coming in there because i wanted to say amen. the reality of the situation is, yes, reform is essential. 289 co-sponsors. this is something the committee has to do. congressman marino was here. congressen woman delbene was here. we absolutely need these kinds of legislation to move forward so we know what we can tell our customers what i will protect, how i will protect it, and when i will be forced to share it. mr. poe: and a person may not be a customer for this very reason. well, i like all this stuff out there, it's wonderful, but i don't want the government getting it. and right now they say, well,
maybe they can have it, maybe they can't it. what about the rest of you? got an amen here on the right. good. >> we support reform. strongly support reform. >> i think you're totally right to determine what government has the right to and what private parties can exchange with each other. so in the government side, we've been burned as an industry pretty seriously to the tunes of billions of dollars of sales in europe and other countries are using the fact that our government took information at a total competitive disadvantage to say cloud services and things like that should not be based in the united states. they are not secured. government can take the information. it has been very harmful to the u.s. technology industry and it has been used against us. under the fourth amendment, yes, it is clear in the constitution as you can get about the government must have only -- will not unreasonable searches and seizures and it's determined ecpa needs an update. i agree with that. on a private basis, i think it
is a much more complex discussion. the reasonable expectation of privacy is set by the supreme court is almost like the definition of obscenity in many ways. it changes with technology. your reasonable expectation of privacy in some data if you're out in public -- and i'll use the windshield wiper again -- is not the same as perhaps in other data and that's a much longer data. mr. poe: it goes into whether you voluntarily, whether volunteer to give it to people. i'm interested about the government, the federal government, state government, local government, which all right now can see that information in the cloud without a warrant and the person involved does not have notice about it. one more -- >> amen on the government side. i would note, as gary indicated, and this is on the nongovernmental side, that data is necessary to provide ervices that consumers want. so whether it's the insurance example where you plug in -- i'm one of those consumers. i know exactly how my kids
drive because i get a report every month from the insurance company that tells me how fast they're driving, how they're braking. as a parent it's a useful thing and it's a disincentive for them to drive poorly. i wouldn't want to get away in people. mr. issa thank you, jefment we go to the gentlelady from washington, ms. delbene. ms. delbene: thanks all of you for being here. i want to follow-up on the electronic communications privacy act conversation ere. when we talk about issues of making sure there is a legal framework to protect information and so consumers feel like they understand what is happening with their information and law enforcement is clear on how they would access information -- what do you think about extending that to include geolocation and the
international issues we face in terms of access to information? anyone? i guess i'll start with mr. reed. mr. reed: well, thank you for your support of the act. thank you for your introduction. it's a valuable thing to figure out how we move forward to we are all americans here. we're in america, but one of the things to realize from my members who are developing the applications is just how much opportunities are overseas. so when the issues you raise about u.s. government access to that data start harming our sales, it hurts jobs here in the united states. so i think you're precisely right. this is an issue congress has to step in on. it can't be do through best practices and standards. the question of geolocation is something we will have to work both with you and law enforcement has law enforcement does have a duty to work and protect the citizenry. the problem comes when i have to tell a customer i don't know about the answer to the question of when i have to hand over that information.
the difference between the sixth circuit and the ninth circuit and this idea that i have to tell my customer i don't know is enormous. i think the other element that should be raised on this is how other countries look at what is happening. if the united states government says, we have access to any cloud data at any time in any way we please regardless of -- any way we darn well pleased regardless where the data is stored or who is on, we have to expect that russia will want the same privileges from our companies. that china will want the same privileges for our companies. legislation like what you are proposing is what we need, because we need to have a strong stance that we can look at those countries and say no, i won't hand over that information without -- without some better legal authority. so thank you very much. ms. delbene: mr. garfield. mr. garfield: your question gives us a chance to raise something congress can do in this area which is legal redress. the lack of legal redress rights in the united states is something that creates great
challenges internationally and this congress and this committee has an opportunity to do something. that's another step that can be taken that would help internationally. ms. delbene: folks, you were earlier talking about encryption and we've been having a conversation recently about whether there should be a backdoor for law enforcement access to encrypted data and whether that should be mandated. if such a policy were mandated by the federal government, what would the impact be specifically on user data and what you think the impact would be for your customers? mr. garfield: i think the impact would be quite negative both here and internationally for a host of reasons. it's important to keep in mind that security is a part of advancing privacy. if you create any kind of door, it won't only be used by those intend it to be used
by. in many respects, you create a pandora's box of challenges that would be highly problematic for both privacy and security interests and as -- is something that should not be done. both worked nd i in the recording industry years ago and one of the things we realized was rather than fighting technology, the best solution is deploying the use of technology. i would suggest for the federal agencies in this context those answers may hold some merit in this context as well. mr. bainwol: we learned hard lessons. i feeling we have a bit of déjà vu right now with the clipper chip reduction we are facing. over 40 of the leading security experts have already come out and said the idea of the government mandating or -- mr. reed: creating a front door into our devices and systems is an anathema to the idea that we want to create by telling our customers that we have secure systems. we have done this dance before. it was already figured out to be a mistake.
i'm disappointed we are having to revisit it again when we know the answer, and that is encryption with as few openings as possible is the best solution we can provide to all citizens in every country. ms. delbene: and as you know we have a piece of legislation to prevent their being such a backdoor. mr. shapiro, did you want to add something? mr. shapiro: yeah. we are all americans and we sympathize with law enforcement and what they are trying to do. it's a difficult question. it's not that black and white. i think history has shown that having given government a backdoor is not the best approach, as technology has evolved quickly. on the other hand, as americans, when there are a super crisis that involves, you will see companies step up and try to help governments. we saw it in boston in the bombing, where technology companies work closely to try o find out who it was that did this dastardly act, and i think we have to recognize there's flexibility and it does not require an act of congress to
say there must be a backdoor. if there is a backdoor and everyone must have it, it makes the technology industry not only uncomfortable but our customers very uncomfortable. ms. delbene: thank you. mr. issa: with that we go to the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for hosting this very important hearing. mr. garfield, your testimony mentioned the desire of the industry to be free from new regulation without becoming a wild west of privacy. earlier this year, the federal trade commission reinforced this message in its staff report on the internet of things where it recommended among other things that companies build privacy and security into the designs of their connected devices. last congress i introduced the apps act, a commonsense approach to an urgent problem that would protect consumers
without disrupting functionality or innovation through a safe harbor and other mechanisms to promote trust through self-regulation. i view this legislation as reinforcing of the f.t.c. staff recommendations on privacy and security for connected devices, and i plan to reintroduce the apps act during this current session of congress. privacy is an issue that should unite us, not drive us apart. in an always on ecosystem where over 25 billion connected devices store and transmit information about consumers, it's time that we have some rules of the road. what steps will private industry take to keep congress informed and address legislative concerns regarding security and privacy of these emerging technologies? mr. garfield: thank you for your question, congressman
johnson. the point you made at the beginning about the f.t.c.'s recommendations, particularly around privacy and security by design, i think are in fact -- is occurring. the industry is spending billions to invest and innovate around privacy and security in part because it's the right thing to do but also because it. mers are demanding the -- as well, we are advancing, as mr. bainwol pointed out, sector-specific principles around privacy and security as well. and so there is much action happening right now in this space, and we are committed to making sure that congress can fully aware of the steps that the private sector is taking to advance those issues. it is in our business interest to be aligned with both you and consumer interests around these issues. mr. johnson: thank you. mr. bainwol, i want to focus on the portion of your testimony
regarding advanced driver assistance systems. i understand the benefits that you're explaining about these systems, the senses it provide braking assist and adaptive cruise control. i understand newer software will go far beyond just those actions. my concern reinvolves around the encryption of this -- reinvolves around the encryption of this technology. if these systems are being operated on a broad range of technologies between vehicles, how are these frequents being protected -- frequentses being protected? -- frequencies being protected? mr. bainwol: i will come back with a vetted ennear's answer. so based on bsrc which is a technology that was built for the purposes of communications between vehicles, and i will come back to you again with the specifics of the security that's embedded in that.
we're obviously not at a point of full deployment. this is being tested. there's been an expansive test out of ann arbor over the last several years. it's been tested abroad, and the fundamental point i would make is that the benefit stream here, if you do a cost-benefit analysis here, the benefit stream is absolutely enormous and, yes, we got to address the cyberrisks and the security risks and they are being dealt with from the design phase on up. but in terms of the security embedded in the dsrc i'll have to come back to you. mr. johnson: if end-to-end encryption is being utilized, how will law enforcement access the information stored within a vehicle? do you have an answer to that question? mr. bainwol: so we would require a warrant of some sort. this is, again, this is the oint that mr. poe was making
earlier. mr. johnson: ok. i'm sorry. go ahead. mr. bainwol: we're very careful and our principles are very specific that the information will not be shared with entities unless there's a compelling and specific reason. mr. johnson: but there will be an ability to counter the ncryption? or kind of a back door, if you will, for lack of a better record? mr. bainwol: i am not an engineer. this is a zone i am not going to give a great specific answer on so let me come back to you in writing very shortly. mr. johnson: ok. thank you. and i yield back. mr. issa: i thank jat. you know, i -- i thank the gentleman. you know, i had two of you say you are not engineers, but i want to talk about something for a moment that's a little complex and make it simple. in the aviation space, collision avoidance of all
sorts has been around for a long time. it started with the large commercial scheduled aircraft, and then little by little has come down. one of those technologies, adsb, is in fact mandated now in just a few years for all aircraft. and it's a cute name. i said it forever but now i have to say it's automatic dependent surveillance broadcast. absb. or adsb out. now, that technology in short says, here's where i am and it sends it out to everybody. the f.a.a. regulates. other aircraft, well, they're sending out where they are, receive where you are. makes for a very exact g.p.s.-based within a few feet of knowing exactly where you are and, of course, which way you're going, how fast. making a collision almost an impossible thing to do if you're simply monitoring the
product which has alerts. the question -- and i want to make sure i ask mr. bainwol and others -- when the f.a.a. having jurisdiction over this, they made a decision that only those who send out a signal can in fact receive a signal. so today systems that cost anywhere from six at the very low end plus installation to hundreds of thousands of dollars equipped in aircraft, they communicate by sending out and receiving information where others are. mobile devices, devices that can be bought for a matter of a few hundred dollars, that only receive are blocked from receiving that information. meaning that as you roll out a new technology -- mr. bainwol, clearly these kinds of technologies are what big auto is looking at rolling out -- countless millions of automobiles will not be equipped with those systems for decades to come.
the 1965 mustang or any of the classic cars that congressman juan vargas has will never be equipped with them. can you comment on the need to make sure that any standard allows for after-market retrofitting of products that to the greatest extent possible enjoy the benefits of newer technology brought to market in new automobiles? mr. bainwol: i'm happy to comment. there is a challenge in the auto space with fleet penetration. the average age of a car is 11 years old. when you introduce a new technology, it takes a long time way through. mr. issa: not with mr. shapiro's after-market products. mr. bainwol: for anti-lock brakes it took a long time. fleet penetration, your point, is a valid one. in the case of these technologies that offer such value to society, i think you
raise a legitimate point we have to find a way to fill the gap. now, the truth of the matter is in part that gap is filled with his phone that gary peddles so brilliantly. just to give you an example. mr. issa: i'm not sure gary wants to be a called a peddler. mr. bainwol: waves is a wonderful app. cloud sourced based. it provites many benefits but not with the same absolute standard of certainty so we got to find a way to fulfill the marketplace and i think the app world does a good job of bridging that and ultimately to fill the fleet. so i think your point is a valid one and we have to find a way to make it work. mr. issa: gary, mr. shapiro, the question more was as new innovative items come out of the o.e.m. market and new fleet
and there's an ability to get perhaps some but not all of those benefits, government, at least in the case of aviation, has blocked the ability of thousands of small pilots, pilots with a piper cub made before you and i were born and which a mobile device can be put onboard, today are blocked from knowing there's a fast mover heading for them because the f.a.a. has saw fit to block it unless you're sending a signal. that's really the question of enabling as much benefit from potentially low-cost hand-held division. mr. shapiro: i'm glad it will be rectified even though after years. mr. issa: it's being rectified. within a few years all aircraft will have a.b.s. out.
if they get the signal they would know where a fast mover is and avoid it. mr. shapiro: i fly almost every other day -- mr. issa: that's what one needs to know. mr. shapiro: the reason i'm excited about driverless cars, the injury and death caused by cars is so huge. we all drive and it's necessary but it can be avoided. we are on the verge of this technology. several car companies and google have proven it. it would be an an salute tragedy if it was delayed in any way because an after-market was not allowed to develop to move it along. i think you are absolutely correct in indicating we'll get there in two different ways. one, the car manufacturers and themselves will do everything they can get this technology in the public's hands. along the way, as we've seen with almost every other automobile technology, including car security, the
aftermarket is quicker and provide competition. and what my concerns about some of the privacy discussions is when it comes to manners of losing your limb and losing your life, which is what we're talking about in collisions and cars, it's less important to have privacy than it is in some other areas. the privacy discussion is important. i don't want to denigrate it. when it comes to other own physical safety it takes a backseat. r. issa: i want to say you took a picture smiling. mr. bainwol: this is not to contradict gary but just to clarify. gary used the words about fatalities in cars. the cars are killing people. i just want to clarify, 95%, maybe 98%, maybe 99% of the fatalities on the road are the result of the environmental challenges and human error. the car itself works rather beautifully. and the critical point that we would both embrace is that --
mr. issa: i think mr. shapiro was talking about anti-lock brakes, traction control. all the items that have come out that have reduced the death rate in all too flawed drivers. mr. bainwol: we want them to move into the fleet as rapidly as possible. those technologies are the answer to human error which is a huge problem. mr. issa: thank you. and mr. reed, since you were given credit for the development of those apps, your members, wanting to be able to develop apps, depend on either an open standard or in the -- in the alternative being able to, if you will, hack in order to create interfaces because otherwise you're locked out of interfaces with the automobile and other products, isn't that true? mr. reed: so open standard will be a significant part how this moves forward. mr. issa: or public standards,
either one. mr. reed: you'll end up with public standards and you'll end up with what i believe will be interfaces where i won't have to hack it. there is the connotation to hack, which is a little odd. what will end up happening is a.p.i.'s will be published by the car manufacturers that will allow me to tie into the existing system or i'll do it through the phone and the phone manufacturerser will have a deal with the auto dealer and then i'll have a secure, safe a.p.i. platform that i can build out the apps on. so i'm actually quite hopeful about the connected car. i think that's a place where you're going to see an explosion of apps that will be really helpful and beneficial, especially those with kids in the backseat. mr. issa: earlier on, i mentioned in the opening statement that we do not have in this committee the jurisdiction over the bandwidth, necessary, for many of your products. we do, however, have a mandated seat at the table in consultation with the ways and means committee and with the administration in trade.
under trade promotion authority for both the european trade and the t.p.p. and the pacific. i'd like any of you that want to comment on the importance of global standards, of getting the internet of things to in fact be embraced in a way around the world that allows either for economy of scale or consistency of service, and ll go right down the line on that. mr. shapiro. mr. shapiro: global standards are nice but they're not essential. we've seen in technology that political and ego often play as to whose country standards. mr. issa: i wasn't necessarily talking about standards. i was talking about the access trade promotion is intended to have. the acceptance without terror for barrier of american products. mr. shapiro: so standards is one issue. the fact is trade promotion is god. the i.t.a. is great. we're very excited with the direction things have taken in
the last month. it's positive. obviously to the extent these devices get out there and they're improving people's lives and saving lives is an important thing. an here are -- if there's international low -- to approach, it's country-by-country high tariff. mr. issa: mr. garfield. mr. farfield: i think the opportunity you highlighted that trade agreements provide for driving global consensus-based standards that help to advance scaleability and interoperability are a net positive. hence our strong support for trade promotion authority and ultimately the trade deals that will emmate as a result of that. mr. bainwol: sometimes trade gets tricky for me. mr. issa: some of your members are for it and against it and you're with your members. mr. bainwol: hammonization is a big one. it's been around for hundreds of years as a concept, but
we're building different standards all around the globe and that ends up uping the cost of products for consumers all over and a new car is safer than an old car. we're getting new people into newer cars and that's safer and better for everybody. mr. reed: two quick points. every single member of your committee has a company in their district that sells an app overseas. we see 20% of the apps in china is from u.s. companies which is huge if you pay attention to the china market. it's hard. which brings me to the second part. our one concern about standards is we are finding some countries are dipping their toe into the idea of creating quote-unquote domestic open standards that are slightly tweaked from the united states and these are strictly barriers that they are putting up to protect domestic manufacturers, domestic app developers. we've seen it in the wi-fi space around the globe. we're seeing tweaks to standards strictly to protect domestic -- domestic production. and so we would support your
perspective on improving trade and improving those standards so they are available to all. mr. issa: thank you. on that note with no further questions, this will conclude today's hearing. i want to thank all our witnesses. without objection, members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses and additional materials for the record. that also leaves our witnesses five days, if you could please, to provide additional material, including that which some of you promised to give to our members. and with that we stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> our road to the white house coverage continues tonight with donald trump taking questions from voters at a town hall-style meeting in hampton, new hampshire. that's live at 7:10 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the iowa state fair is under way and we're covering republican and democratic presidential candidates. speaking on the des moines
register soapbox stage. that continues all weekend here on c-span. right now democrat jim webb at the fair yesterday. mr. webb: thank you for being with us today. this is a 20-minute event. someone that served in the marine corps, first first thing you learn is never put your crowd's face into the sun. whether you're talking to marines or citizens like you today. so i apologize very much for having to put you through being in the sun during this next 20 minutes. i've been here about an hour and a half. we just parked out in the parking lot and started walking through saying hello to people. it's a great opportunity to meet people and listen to their views. before i say anything else, i'd like to say also i belong to i
think one of the most unique fraternities in the world. it's a fraternity that you have to earn your way into. it goes across all geographical, political, business, ethnic lines in america and that's the united states marine corps. and one of my great friends -- [applause] mr. webb: who served in my platoon in vietnam is with us today. e's an iowa citizen. dan brew. and -- [applause] mr. webb: for those in the marine infantry during that period it was a very brutal time, folks. we lost three times as many marines in the vietnam war as has been lost in the entire korean war. during the period that we were there in 1969, more americans died. in fact, twice as many americans died in vietnam as had been lost in iraq and
afghanistan combined in the last 12 years of the war. so it's always a great honor for me to be able to give my thanks to people who served with us, and yesterday was the anniversary of when dan brew was wounded. he was wounded twice. and so it's great to have dan with us today. i also -- [applause] mr. webb: i was preceded by general george washington, president washington. i got to meet him backstage. always wanted to meet general washington because actually my four times great grandfather served in the virginia line during the american revolutionary war under george washington. he was at valley forge. those of you who remember the encampments at valley forge, crossed the delaware. general washington reminded me of how much he appreciated his virginia soldiers during that engagement. also glad to see that governor huckabee preceded me.
my mother was from arkansas. i've been to arkansas many, many times. it's good to have his views in this election process. folks, one thing i would like to say in this short period of time is that our country right now is going through a very emotional process. when you look at all of the debate that's going on about issues that are bothering people and the attention that some of the candidates who are more on the extreme are getting in the media and the way that people are trying to figure out where the country needs to go. and the one thing i would ask you, when you're looking at who you want for your next president is, when all of this calms down, when you are really going to have to make the choices about who you want as a commander in chief, who you want as a record of judgment and getting things done across party lines, i hope you will take a look at what we have
done during my professional career and the issues that we are trying to put in front of the country right now. you're going to need a commander in chief, the number one responsibility of the president of the united states is that burden of being your commander in chief and making these ultimate decisions about foreign policy and when to use military force and when it is wise not to use military force. i've been around the military my entire life. i grew up in the military. i was honored to serve as a marine in vietnam. i spent five years in the pentagon. one as a marine and four as a defense executive and assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the navy. i've covered the military as a journalist. in fact, i was in beirut in 1983 when our troops were in beirut just before that bombing that killed more than 220 americans in one day. i was in afghanistan as an
embedded journalist. and the experience that i have had in the senate as a member of the armed services committee and the foreign relations committee i think is something that has prepared me in the best way that anyone can be prepared to be your commander in chief. the second thing i would like for you to think about is how are we going to make this a better country in terms of issues like economic fairness and social justice. i've been speaking about the breaking point between the people at the very top and our working people for 10 years now. it was one of the primary issues that i put into my senate campaign in 2006. it was the first issue that i addressed when i gave the state of the union response to president bush's state of the union in 2007. we have a long record here. we have to remember we are the most unique society on earth. we are the greatest country on earth. we want to live the american
dream. the american dream has three pieces to it. the first is, if you have your ideas together, if you can get yourself into the process, you can shoot the moon. you can go all the way. we want to preserve that. the second point is, we're not doing our job right as your government leaders unless we insist that along that journey everyone has absolute fairness. everyone has absolute access to the american dream. and the third part of that is that for those who have fallen on hard times, for those who are in retirement, for those who suffer disability, this country has always guaranteed a safety net under the people. it's the marn trifecta, the dream -- the american trifecta, the dream at the top, the safety net under our people.
i've heard people say that we have that system in place right now economically. i heard other people say we've got five billionaires at the top who are controlling a lot of different parts of how our economic process works. in a wayer in' kind of both right. -- in a way they're kind of both right. if you look back at the recession that we endured from 2008 going into 2009 and how we have climbed back out of it, in april, 2009, when we started climbing back out of it, you use that as a starting point, the stock market has almost tripled. ne from a little bit above 6000, probably 18,000, probably settled in the 17,000 right now. if you own stock, if you have capital assets, you're probably doing very well right now. at the same time, wages and salaries for our working people have been flat and actually have gone down.
as have loans to small businesses. so if you're not in the flow of capital, of owning stocks, real estate, those sorts of things, you're probably not doing very well right now. and we need to make sure that the american worker who is the hardest, most productive worker in the world, gets a share of this economy as we bring it back. [applause] mr. webb: one thing i can guarantee you, if you look at the record that i have put on the table over many years in government and out of government is that i can take complex problems, work with people from across the philosophical spectrum and actually get things done. i'm very proud of the post-9/11 g.i. bill. i wrote this bill. actually wrote it before i went
into the senate. i introduced it my first day in office, and we developed a leadership prototype as soon as i got to the senate in terms of how you can work across the aisle and bring people together and solve the problem. this was not an easy lift. the bush administration opposed this g.i. bill. the greatest g.i. bill in history until the day it was signed. they thought it was going to cause too many people to leave the american military. the exact reverse occurred. but in 16 months, working with republicans and democrats together, we passed the greatest g.i. bill in history, and now more than a million of our post-9/11 g.i.'s have been able to take advantage of an educational program that pays their tuition, buys their books, gives them a monthly stipend. that's what happens when you can get people together and solve problems. [applause] mr. webb: we did the same approach on -- in terms of frying to solve our broken criminal justice system in this
country. i started talking about this when i was running for the senate. we spent 2 1/2 years of hearings listening to different approaches from across the philosophical spectrum. we put this issue into the national debate, and we took a lot of hits along the way. but we got people across the philosophical spectrum. if you can imagine any issue in front of the united states congress that has the support of the national sheriff's association, the international association of chiefs of police, all the way over to the aclu and the marijuana project, we pulled it off. we pulled it off by getting people to talk to each other about how to solve these problems. i can do that for you as your next president if you will support me and particularly right here in iowa. so thank you very much for being with us today. i'm not sure how many -- how much time we have left, but i have time to take questions. yes, sir.
>> yeah. thank you for your service, first of all, senator webb. my question is, as a voter here in iowa, i believe that children all across the world have the right to grow into their full potential. one of the ways we can make a difference on that is by supporting early childhood nutrition and education. if selected president, would you commit to create a presidential initiative to fund programs for early childhood nutrition and education? mr. webb: would i sign as initiative as president for working for nutrition programs, education programs, etc. i'm not going to say right now that i will sign a petition to do anything, but i will tell you that i will focus on this problem. i don't sign pledges. i pledge i will give you my leadership. yes, sir. >> of the 20th century, who was your favorite president?
mr. webb: the question is, in the 20th century, who was my favorite president, and i -- i'm going to have to say two. this is -- i don't know how -- what party you're in but it's one on either side. franklin roosevelt for what he did. my mother grew up in utter poverty in east arkansas. she was one of eight children, three of whom died in childhood. not childbirth. childhood. her father died when she was 10 years old because there was no medical care after a fractured hip. franklin roosevelt stepped forward, put programs into place, created the t.b.a., put work out there. my grandmother could not work. there was nothing out there in this rural area after my grandfather died. but she finally got a job through one of the roosevelt programs. social security. anybody who -- back when social security was created, people
were saying this was a socialist program. i doubt anybody wants me to stop their social security check. i like mine. the other favorite is ronald reagan. i served in the reagan administration. i will tell you the reagan administration did a terrific job, whether you agreed politically with them or not, of putting strong people into the administration, giving them guidance and having them step forward and lead. in a webb administration we will do that. we will bring the greatest minds in america to the table, give them direction as to where we want this country to go and have them lead. yes, sir. >> senator, a lot of people are concerned losing our democracy because of influence to big money. what would you do to get big money out of politics? mr. webb: ok. the question is, what would i do to get big money out of politics? let me tell you, big money is having a very affect on our
democracy. particularly since the citizens united case. there is no question about it. the power of the financial sector to shape issues that are being debated right now. and i will say two things to you. first of all, i am unbought and i am unbossed. i do not -- you know, i will listen to everyone, but i have my own mind. everybody knows it. if they have seen the entire trajectory of my career. the second one is, if you don't like these super p.a.c.'s. i hear people say, i don't like the super p.a.c.'s. the idea is you can only give me $2,700 for my election campaign but you can walk across the street and write a check for $27 million for a super p.a.c. and i think that's wrong. you should ask candidates, if you think that's wrong why are you taking the money? i say to all of you, if you
want to change that then vote for someone who won't do it which is me, by the way. i have not had a -- yes, right here. >> how do you stand on the pipeline? mr. webb: ok. how do i stand on the pipeline. i support the pipeline. if you look at it in terms of the environmental analysis, it is neutral. you can come here in the northern part of iowa and watch these trains go down with all that oil in it and the accidents they're having and think about the environmental degradation of having to haul the oil down in that way. so on balance i think it's good. it's good for jobs. you know, we are gaining the kind of independence that we need in terms of our energy sources. by the way, i'm all the options above on energy, but i would support the pipeline. yes, sir. the question is, do i support
the renewable standards? i support renewable energy and i think iowa is a perfect example of where it can work. i visited a wind farm. i've gotten an explanation of how that works. i looked at -- i visited an ethanol plant. i'm very impressed, not only with the ethanol program but with the advances they are making scientificically in terms of the type of stuff that was not being used. and by the way, i am a proponent of nuclear power. you know, i went to the naval academy. i saw the brightest minds in the naval academy of my class going into nuclear power. we have the safest nuclear power programs in the world. they are the best managed and they are totally clean environmentally. yes, sir. >> so you talked a lot about how you were able to, you know, bring people together to solve problems. what do you do when people don't agree on what the problems are? how would you handle it? mr. webb: the question is, what do you do -- i talk about
uniting our country, bringing people together. what do you do when people disagree with you? well, the first thing you learn in any leadership position, whether it's the military or in business or in government, there's always people that are going to disagree with you and we live in the most creative society in the world because we have our disagreements and we work them out and we solve problems. and trust me, i was elected in virginia. i was the senator from virginia. at is a demo graphic microcosm. 40% of the people in virginia are angry at the people leading them. it could be the people from the far southwest who are very, very conservative socially in our coal, etc., or people in the north. so leadership is bringing people together and talking to them and figuring out ways that you can move forward. and i think we did that again and again on issues such as
criminal justice and veterans issues. and what we need is a leader who will stand up, look toward the future, make the recommendations and take the hits. instead of playing it safe and trying to figure out which way this crowd, this particular crowd would want to go. and that's what leadership's all about. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] has been a success story for 20 years. americorps, congress wants to cut it, nearly half. if you were elected president, would you support americorps to rebuild our country? mr. webb: the question is about americorps. what i support -- i'm not going to tell you i would export -- support the expansion of any particular program, but what i do support is finding ways to put young americans into issues -- into areas of public service that affect our infrastructure,
that affects the degradations not only in the cities but in areas like the appalachian mountains and i believe we can do that. by the way, when we talk about the early childhood program -- we have two things. i only have about one minute here. but only 70% of our young people are finishing high school today. we are not focusing on that when we talk about the educational incentives. how do we take that person, when they get to be 20, 30 years old, wants a ramp back up to education and provide valuable service to our country? one of the ways i think we can motivate younger people in our country is to get them involved in programs of community service that also address their