tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 15, 2016 9:59pm-11:46pm EDT
"washington journal" every day with issues that impact you. discussing the fracking debate ahead of next week's vote in new york. joining use blum from new york. she will preview this tuesday's key republican and democratic primaries in new york state and provide analysis of recent polling in those contests and talk about how the new york electorate in 2015 is different from 2012. -- 2016 is different from 2012. live at 7 a.m. saturday. join the discussion. at 10 p.m. night eastern, a look back at president's giving their last speeches at the white house correspondents dinner. one of the key events each year in washington. have not hadgan: i time to watch the oscars. i was disappointed in that movie
"the last emperor." i would -- that it was about don regan. >> church to be bush has addressed -- a brand spanking new campaign strategy. he is moving toward the medical center. distancing himself from his own party, stealing ideas from the other party. i am so glad that more has finally found work again. [laughter] [applause] mcclatchylk with senior white house correspondent. join a saturday night at 10 p.m. and tune in for our live coverage of this year's white house correspondents dinner on saturday, april 30 starting at 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the u.s. house has approved a bill that would prohibit the fcc from regulating internet rates. theblicans strongly support
measure even know the fcc says it has no intention of regular eating rates. democrats oppose the bill. saying the language is too broad and would weaken the ability to protect consumers. the measure goes on to the senate. the white house said he will veto the bill. the floor debate was just over one hour. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2666 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the federal communications commission from regulating rates charged for broadband internet access service. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized for such time. mr. walden: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 2666. this is the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act. from the first indication of the federal communications commission intended to reclassify broadband internet access service as a title 2 service, subject to utility, imagine that, utility regulation, the subcommittee on communications and technology has made it a priority to ensure that the f.c.c. bureaucracy never has the authority to actually get in and then micromanage and regulate rates. the internet is a model of innovation, flourishing under decades of light touch or no touch regulation. that's how it's flourished, mr. chairman. in recent years, as the f.c.c. has repeatedly attempted to regulate the management of internet traffic, the potential reach of those regulations has grown, prompting concerns that the f.c.c. would retreat to the world of rate regulation that typified the monopoly telephone era. .
the f.c.c. announced in early 2015, mr. chairman, that it would reclassify the internet as a ue title-style service as -- utility-style service, rules that are challenged in the courts, i might add. i will address the most common attacks against this legislation that we are going to attempt to quote-unquote gut the net neutrality rules. that simply is not the case. we are supportive of clear, bright line rules of the road for i.s.p.'s and the way they treat internet traffic. in fact, last year i released a discussion draft bill along with chairman upton and senator thune that would codify those very rules. what we don't support is the use of outdated, ill-suited regulations to achieve those goals. this bill isn't intended to touch the net neutrality rules. in fact, an amendment i offered
up in committee markup goes so far to make an explicit exemption to make sure it would not impact the f.c.c.'s work to ban prioritization. what this bill does is prohibit the f.c.c. from regulated the amount charged to a consumer by an i.s.b. for provision of a broadband service, a fact made clear by our definitions. there's another objection, mr. chairman, we heard repeatedly and that is the f.c.c. chosen to forebear in title 2 in that the chairman of the f.c.c. had promised not to regulate rates anyway. so this bill is really unnecessary. again, this is simply not the case. the f.c.c. did forebear from various sections from title 2 but the authority to regulate rates through enforcement is still very much on the table. in addition, while chairman wheeler did promise before our subcommittee and multiple other committees before the congress that he would not regulate
rates, there was nothing to bind him or his successors to that commitment. the need for the certainty of a statutory ban on rate regulation became even clearer a few weeks ago when the bill's sponsor, representative kinzinger, asked the chairman of the f.c.c., chairman wheeler, whether he believed the f.c.c. should have the authority to regulate rates. chairman wheeler's response, yes, sir, quote-unquote. well, given the philosophy of the chairman himself, it's clearly more pressing than ever that this bill becomes law. the f.c.c. cannot and should not be able to regulate the rates charged by i.s.p.'s to their customers. this sort of regulatory overhang clouds the decisionmaking of providers and dissuedes them from offering innovative, pro-consumer pricing plans and service offerings less the commission comes back after the fact and penalize them.
take t-mobile service as a prime example. consumers are able to access video offered by any participant in the program without the data counting toward their monthly usage limits or charges. edge providers win because their content is viewed more often. the service provider wins because they actually attract more customers. it's called the marketplace. it's innovation in the market prays responding to what con-- marketplace responding to what consumers want. the consumers win because they content. o access i'm not here to advocate one company over another. this is what entrepreneurship is all about. under the opaque rules of the f.c.c., t-mobile had no way of knowing whether this sort of binge on pricing scheme would violate the commission's rules. they didn't know. while t-mobile has taken this
risk, many providers may choose not to do so ultimately depriving customers of choices they otherwise would have. you see, everybody's a little afraid, does this chairman or the next chairman come back after the fact and say, well, you know, that's really not something we think is too dandy to do so we're going to penalize you. it's called after the fact regulation. so it's an unfortunate core lear to this chapter in internet history, the same kind of flip-flop we're concerned on rate regulation is exactly what we've seen is expected. you see, chairman wheeler was quote-unquote ok with it until he decided maybe not. as a former business owner myself, i can tell you can't make business decisions based on a hope and a prayer of your regulator. i was actually regulated by the f.c.c. i knew the rules. i followed them. they were clear. they were bright line. in an incredibly open marketplace, can you imagine
the lack of clarity and the ability to go back after the fact and in affect rate regulate? this will stifle competition, innovation and consumer choice. finally, i'd like to address charges that this bill would leave customers helpless overcharged or worse by i.s.p.'s. we'd all share that concern. we don't want that. and this bill provides protection. the notion that the f.c.c., an agency that didn't have authority over internet provider rates until last year -- until last year -- is the only line of defense between customers and fraud is frankly silly. it's a silly claim. customers have gotten along just fine without the aid of the f.c.c. regulating rates. and this notion that the f.c.c. is the only cop on the beat for consumers would come as a surprise, real surprise to many states' attorneys general and consumer advocates across the nation. all those protections, fraud, abuse, still prevails out there. this bill is a carefully
tailored piece of legislation that's targeted one thing, one thing, mr. chairman, that's unnecessary bureaucratic washington-based rate regulation. we use the most narrow definition inserted rules of construction and made specific exemptions all in an attempt to address the concerns that were raised by the witnesses in our hearings that we held, mr. chairman, members at markup and others who participated in the process. we listened to all of those voices say, how do we make it right, how do we make it narrow to a bureaucracy that wants to expand and grow and micromanage and rate regulate? we sought unintended consequences unlike the f.c.c. who have the broad and furthest reaching scope. imagine that, mr. chairman, from a bureaucracy that writes rules they would write rules that are broadly written so they have more power for themselves. in fact, many of the changes we made to the bill at full committee markup were inspired by an amendment offered by
representative matsui of california, drawing on her suggested changes, we amended the bill to be a more targeted draft. felt it would not have the prohibition this bill narrowly calls for. not just before the fact tariffing where they say you can charge $7, that's it, that would be tariffing after the fact. but after the fact and say, oh, by the way, whatever you're charged, we think it was too much or too little or whatever. well, i'm disappointed many of my colleagues across the aisle can't support this bill. it wasn't for lack of trying or lack of hearings or modifying our underlying text. i nonetheless strongly believe this is an essential step in having a vibrant internet ecosystem that prompts and
promotes new jobs and investment like no other service. the last thing we want to throw on there is the cold water of washington bureaucracy after the fact regulation that will stifle competition and innovation that is so benefited consumers in this great internet economy which we find ourselves. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: good morning, mr. speaker. rise in opposition to h.r. 2666, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. today we're debating a bill that the majority has tiled the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act. t sounds tariff.
-- it sounds terrific. on the surface, it does something we both support this. we both support this and what we support is very clear. prevent the f.c.c. from setting the monthly rate that customers pay for internet access service , but in reality this bill is about undermining the f.c.c.'s authority to protect consumers and ensure a free and open internet for all. i listened very carefully to the chairman, whom i respect, who's my friend, talking about innovation, talking about what the effects that that has on so much that we do. i represent the innovation capital of our country and the world, silicon valley, so i think that i understand something about innovation and the ingredients that make it work. as the ranking member of the
subcommittee, i have made it very clear that i do not support setting rates for customers to pay on internet access nor do any of my democratic colleagues on the committee. in fact, and the chairman left this out, the chairman left this out. in fact, during the subcommittee and full committee markup of this bill, i offered an air-tight one-page amendment right here, right here, one-page amendment to codify that the f.c.c. will permanently forebear from setting the rates that customers pay for internet access. it is air tight. it's as clear as a bell, but it was rejected twice. now, why would the majority reject exactly what they say they are seeking? it's a good question. it's a rhetorical question but
it should be raised. i think it's because this bill is more about than the f.c.c. setting the rates that customers pay for internet access. the f.c.c. is the cop on the beat in the communications marketplace. that means the f.c.c. has the responsibility to keep watch over the companies that provide our cell phone, cable and internet services to ensure that everyone is treated fairly , and i think in the absence of the following, not one consumer organization in the country supports the bill that's on the floor because it's overly broad. the definition of rate regulation in this bill leaves the door open for courts to strike down the f.c.c.'s authority to protect consumers and act in the public interest that they interpret any of its actions as impacting broadband
internet rates. that's what this bill does. that's what we object to. what the -- ect to essentially what the title of the bill, no rate regulation of broadband internet access. these protections include prohibiting internet service providers, i.s.p.'s, from capping the amount of data that customers can use, outlawing pay for privacy agreements where consumers have to pay fees to avoid having their data collected and sold to thirt parties, en-- third parties, enforcing net neutrality and reviewing mergers that increase consolidation and limit choice in the broadband internet market. and as i said a moment ago, there's no wonder this bill is opposed by over 70 public interest groups, including the national hispanic media coalition, the consumer
federation of america and the national consumer law center. and the white house has said that it will veto the bill. we could have come here with the very simple -- with a very simple bill that essentially was what my amendment stated, no rate regulation, but that wasn't -- that's what the majority says they're for but the bill goes way beyond that. i want to make it clear to my colleagues and to the american people that may be tuned into this debate. this bill in its broadness is an attack on consumers and an attack on the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules. now, that's not a surprise because the majority has never supported that, and that's why i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 2666, and i reserve the balance of my time. i'd also like to ask, mr. speaker, for unanimous consent that three letters from
consumer organizations be placed in the record. the chair: that request will be covered by general leave, and the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. chairman, it's now my honor to recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, the vice chairman of the full energy and commerce committee and a very important member of our subcommittee, mrs. blackburn. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for how much? two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor today and stand in support of this bill. it is the right step, and the gentlelady from california references the amendment that she had wanted but her amendment was not exactly what that bill is, and what we are seeking to do is to encourage the f.c.c. to make good on the promise that they have made. even chairman wheeler, we have
in march, 2015, he was speaking at the mobile world conference in barcelona. he was talking about net neutrality and rules and regulations and he said, this is not regulating the internet. regulating the internet is rate regulation which we don't do. . whoops. they do. that's what they are trying to do. there is a difference in what the gentlelady was seeking to do in committee, not have tariffs or regulations, but if they had done it we would have to get into a process of trying to undo. that's what people don't like. they don't like that kind of mess. what they want is something very explicit. that is what mr. kin singer's bill does -- kinzinger's bill does. it says f.c.c., you cannot, you shall not, you will not do rate
regulation. it is not what the american people want to see. it is what the f.c.c. has promised they will not do. so what we are doing is helping a federal agency keep their word and keep their promise and not get in to rate regulation. of course we all know that what they would like to do is regulate the internet so they can tax the internet. so they can then come in and set all the rates. so they can then come in and assign priority and value to content. it is a commerce issue. it is a free speech issue. it is an issue for the american people who want to make certain that the information service they have known and appreciated and utilize every day in the virtual marketplace is not going to be regulated by a federal government agency. i yield back.
the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i would note that the f.c.c. chairman is not a member of congress. it is only congress that can write a statute, and the amendment that i offered codified, codified that there would be no rate regulation of the internet. i now would like to yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you. i want to thank my colleague from california, the ranking member of our subcommittee. today we are considering a deceptively simple bill, h.r. 2666. the bill states that the f.c.c. may not regulate rates for broadband internet access service, but i urge members on both sides of the aisle to not fall for this rhetoric and
misinformation. just because this bill is short in length does not mean it is narrow in scope. it is designed to gut the f.c.c. because as experts have pointed out, the definitions in the bill for rate regulation could mean almost anything. while the republicans claim that they intend the bill to be narrow, we have heard over and over that their draft would swallow vast sections of the communications act. most notably the bill could undermine the f.c.c.'s ability to protect could be sumers -- consumers. democrats repeatedly offered to help improve this bill, but make no mistake there was not an negotiation. we offered suggestions but were rebuffed time and again. in fact, we raised concerns from the beginning that the original bill failed to define rate regulation. then at the 11th hour the republicans provided their own take it or leave it definition with no democratic input. and this is not negotiating. the result of this one-sided conversation is the definition of rate regulation that simply
confirms our worst fears. the definition is so broad that it effectively would gut the agency. now, we have said repeatedly we do not want the f.c.c. to set rates, but we can't support a bill that undermines the f.c.c.'s core mission. we can't support a bill that prevents the agency from acting in the interest of the public. we can't support a bill that prevents the agency from protecting consumers from discriminatory practice. and we certainly cannot support a bill that undercuts the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules. the republicans have rebuffed all our efforts to narrow h.r. 2666 so the consumers are not harmed. if we are all serious about passing a narrow bill accomplishing these goals would not be hard. our collective interest should be aligned. that clearly is not the intent of my republican colleagues. so i urge members to cast a vote against h.r. 2666. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey nng yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: may inquire you how
much time each side has? the chair: the majority leader has 19 minutes remaining. the minority has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: at this point, mr. chairman, i would recognize the author of this legislation, very distinguished member of our subcommittee on telecommunications and great patriot for our country, mr. kinzinger of illinois. the chair: for how much? mr. walden: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the committee. thank you to the other side of the aisle and even though this is something that we are going to put through and would love to have a lot more support from the other side of the aisle. we do appreciate the working relationship. let me just say, this is, in my mind, very simple. the f.c.c. when they, in essence, chose to reclassify broadband internet access service as a common carrier, that gave them the classification, ability to
regulate rates of private companies. and understanding this it was a concern as we looked around and said, well, we want to make sure the f.c.c. doesn't have the power to regulate the rates charged for internet access. if you look back in the history of this country and really what technology and what the internet has been able to do for jobs and for economic growth and for everything along that line, it's all been because it's free of government regulations. let as you put this into law that the f.c.c. shouldn't have the authority. in a couple hearings the chairman wheeler, chairman of the f.c.c., was asked, do you believe you should have the right or the ability to regulate the rates charged for broadband access? he said no. i forebear that. in fact, i asked the chairman, what if we put into law a simple statement that said the f.c.c. shouldn't have that authority. i'm in basically is what he said. well, we now over the next year kind of run into some more issues. and all of a sudden three weeks ago i asked the chairman the same question again and he
admits that actually the f.c.c. should have the ability to regulate broadband internet access. this is congress simply doing its job. congress' job is to determine what authority the f.c.c. should and should not have. that's what we were invented for. that's what we were created for to determine those laws and those rules. all we are doing is taking back a little bit of power from the f.c.c. and saying, look, let's keep the internet free market. let's keep broadband free market. congress is going to have its say in this. i hope the other side of the aisle and my colleagues join me in supporting this measure. it's the right thing for our country. and it's a great first step in preserving the internet as free for future generations. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from kentucky and just an outstanding member of the committee from kentucky, mr.
yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for four minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. as i said on wednesday during debate on the rule, the bill before us today is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem. while we all share concerns about the idea of broadband, it net rate regulation, chairman wheeler has made it absolutely clear that the f.c.c. will not seek to regulate those rates. since this bill is before the house anyway, i thought i would offer an amendment that would address an actual problem that can be fixed by the f.c.c. section 317 of the communications act of 1934 requires broadcasters to disclose the true identity of political advertising sponsors. the f.c.c. currently relies on an outdated 1979 staff interpretation of the law that does not account for the dramatic changes that have taken place in our campaign system over the last six years.
including the citizens united and mccutcheon decisions. but the rule makes sense. the american people ought to know who is actually trying to influence their votes. unfortunately, sponsors in today's world don't indicate who is actually paying for the add. no. we get sponsors like americans for kittens and puppies. that's not very helpful in disclosing to the american people who is trying to influence them. it would be, for instance, if somebody ran an ad for -- promoting sugarred soft drinks, and instead of coca-cola or pepsi being the actual people paying for the ad, you would have the advertising agency. this ad sponsored by owingle bye or mccann-erickson. not very helpful to the american people. this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interest and wealthy donors can
anonymously spend limitedless amounts of money to influence the outcomes of our elections. that is not what congress intended. despite having the authority to do so, the f.c.c. has refused to take action to close this loophole, my amendment by restating the original constitutional intent, would have sent a message to the f.c.c. that it is time to october. we all know how much secret money has flooded or politics. weakened accountability in government. and made it harder for voters to develop a true opinion of the individuals they will send to congress to represent them. my amendment would have helped to change that and hopefully begin to restore a minimum level of honesty in our electoral system of the the amendment was germane, within the rules of this body, and the solution it provided was well within the authority of the f.c.c. most importantly an overwhelming majority of americans, republicans, democrats, and independents, want us to do this. they want us to reform and fix our broken campaign finance system. unfortunately, republicans on the rules committee voted
against the interest of the majority of americans and blocked my amendment from coming to the floor. while they killed my amendment, i'm glad the amendment offered by my colleague, mr. lujan, will be up for consideration today. it will give us a chance to debate the lack of disclosure and transparency in campaign ads and unlike the underlying bill, it offers a specific solution to a real problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i now recognize another terrific member of our subcommittee on communications and technology, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. as a member of the telecom subcommittee, i rise in strong support of mr. kin singer's bill. the inter-- kinzinger's bill. the internet has changed the economy and how every one of us lives daily lifmente it is a great equalizer, providing open platform to expand expression and free speech.
as much as any invention in history. but some un-elected officials here in washington are eager to regulate it and some in office across the country are eager to tax it. we must prevent both. the prosperity and opportunity we have come to know from the internet will be compromised if internet access becomes another victim of an overwaning governmental agentcy. the apps on your mobile phone and online accounts, social sphere, and personal and professional information come not from the permission of un-elected officials but from the work of innovators who have invented this 21st century technology. they must remain empowered to continue their innovation. we cannot allow the government a foothold for internet control. i strongly support h.r. 2666. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i now would like to recognize
the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, a wonderful and important member of the subcommittee. how much time do you need? three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my ranking member on the telecom committee and the chair of the committee. there's two questions here. first is net neutrality. one of the biggest decisions that the f.c.c. made was to protect net neutrality. before they issued their order, they had literally millions of comments from people all across this country in your district and in mine, urging that the net neutrality be maintained and preserved. and the chairman and the f.c.c. did that with their order. now, that has raised some questions as to whether the
assertion of f.c.c. authority is going to result in micromanaging through regulation. that would be a legitimate concern if it were a concern. but the chairman has made it extremely clear that he has no intention whatsoever of doing any kind of rate regulation under title 2. he's not going to do it. it hasn't been done. o this bill, which is going to "prohibit rate regulation" has some significant and potentially very dangerous consequences for two things -- net neutrality and protection of consumers. we need a f.c.c. that is going to be there to protect consumers against some potentially bad practices like cramming or overbilling. things that traditionally the f.c.c. has done as the agency that is protecting consumers
gainst bad practices. the reason why many experts believe this bill would result in that happening is because there is no definition of rate regulation. this is' none. and the burden -- there is none. and the burden on legislators when we propose something is to be clear and specific to what it is that's being proposed. and there is no definition whatsoever in this bill about rate regulation. this bill is founded on an apprehension that something bad will happen, but it depiffs an undefined answer to -- but it fiffs an undefined answer to -- but it gives an undefined answer to it. you have a bill that's playing fear on the unknown. my preference would be for us to not pass this bill, not endanger the authority of the f.c.c. to take steps that help
consumers in your district and in my district and to focus where we should be focusing, in my view, on steps we can take to improve broadband access and speeds, particularly for rural areas, rural vermonters. there's a common goal that we have on our committee to try to get the broadband out and deployed at higher speeds in all of our areas, particularly the rural areas that are in jeopardy. so i would urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from vermont has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. speaker, before i yield to my colleague, mr. shimkus, i'd like to point ou for the record on page 4 of the bill, h.r. 2666, is -- on line 7 is a definition of broadband internet access service. we also have definitions of rate, we have definitions of
regulation all spelled out in the bill and very specific to the issue of cramming and illegal actions on truth in billing and all, those are also called for in the bill. he may be looking at an old draft of the bill or something, but it's not the legislation before us. we do define what rate regulation is. we do make sure the f.c.c. part 64, to enforce title 7. it's lines 18-20 of the bill. those things were addressed in the legislation that's now before the house. with that, mr. chairman, i recognize mr. shimkus for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend, mr. chairman. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. it actually was great to follow my colleague from vermont who's
a thoughtful individual. raises always good questions and really is open to debate. nd he stumbles on the truth in this. this does have an issue of net neutrality and our problem has always been, we now have a federal agency imposing what there was no need or desire by many of us believe to fix. and so now, now we're trying to make sure this federal agency doesn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg, right? there is a fear. he was correct in also saying there is a fear. so how do you ease that fear? you enshrine into law the promises made by the administration and by the chairman of the f.c.c.. you take away the fear. it's not like, well, maybe, this is what he said but maybe he'll do this. just codify it. then we know what the law is.
then everyone who gets -- brings it to litigation says here's a black and white law. of course we also have trouble with the courts. we would hope the courts would read the black and white language of the law and then rule that way, but all we're troig to do is -- trying to do is trust but verify. because what we -- what we see is that the net neutrality debate was a fix seeking a problem. there was no problem. sight can stand in our and say we haven't advanced by this new technological age and that we need more government to help cause it to flourish more. and so we are afraid of a federal agency. we are afraid that the f.c.c. has gone too far.
we need to shrine this into law. everybody knows the ground rules, and that's all my colleague, mr. kinzinger, is trying to do and i ask my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'll reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: mr. chairman, can i get an update on time remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 13 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from north dakota, who has an incredible background in rate regulation and the commission there and is a terrific member of our subcommittee, mr. cramer. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as the chairman said, i served 10 years as a title 2 rate regulator on the north dakota commission. i know what rate regulation
looks like and the internet is not an appropriate vehicle or medium for this type of regulation. the internet is not a monopoly telephone company. it is not a monopoly electric or gas utility. the internet is a dynamic, competitive innovator and even the threat of this type of regulation stiffles that innovation and we don't want that to happen. i want to address the amendment that was referred to by the ranking member of the subcommittee who i have great respect for, but she referred to the term permanent fore barnes. that -- forbearance. that is a contradiction in terms. it is by definition temporary. he who has the authority to forbear has the authority to un forbear. that's why it was not adequate to this bill. this bill simply codifies that which the president of the united states and the chairman of the federal communications commission promised, to not
regulate rates. if they promise to do it, god bless them, but we don't know that the next chairman and the next president will live up to that promise. this law ensures that that promise is kept by codifying it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlewoman from alifornia continue to reserve? the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from california, the distinguished majority leader of the united states house of representatives, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, the biggest goal of the innovation initiative is to bring government into the modern age, making the policies that come out of washington reflect and adapt to the world today. now, what has shaped our world more in the 21st century than the internet? education, commerce,
communication, information, everything in our lives has changed because of the internet. how did the internet become something so important, so useful and so widespread? government left it alone. it expanded to reach and help billions because bureaucrats weren't allowed to micromanage it. you know, i remember hearing this from a.l.o. founder steve case. it was back in 1985. he said, only 3% of the people were online and for an average of just one hour a week. today, the internet has reached about 40% of the world. that's an amazing growth. unfortunately, the freedom that led to this amazing success is that risk. right now it's an open question whether the f.c.c. can regulate internet rates, and congress needs to clarify that. it has no authority to do so, because if the f.c.c. were to
regulate rates, it could harm every american across the country that has a wi-fi connection by imposing artificial restraints on their plans and service options. it would stop needed investment in expanding and improving the internet, and it would block innovation we depend on to create better and faster internet. regulating rates means bureaucrats think they can manage the internet better than the private sector which has already brought fast and affordable connections to millions across the country. w, i know the f.c.c. and president obama promised it wouldn't regulate internet broadband rates from their office in washington and that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean i'm not concerned. i don't know about you, mr. chairman, but after seven years of broken promises, i have a hard time trusting this administration will follow through. so today we're voting to hold the administration to its word. they promise not to regulate
the rates. this legislation bars the f.c.c. from regulating rates. it's as simple as that, and i can't imagine why anyone would object. so i want to thank congressman kinzinger for his work on this legislation, holding the f.c.c. and the obama administration accountable. the innovation initiative is all about giving the american people the freedom to grow and prosper. with this the internet stays a little fiscal year, executive overreach is held back and we leave space for the people to innovate without the federal government trying to control it all. i yield back. the chair: the majority leader yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, does the majority have more speakers? mr. walden: yes, we do. ms. eshoo: then i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'd recognize another member on our subcommittee, the
gentleman from missouri, mr. long, for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. long: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and, mr. speaker, you don't need a ph.d. from m.i.t. to understand what's going on here. despite president obama and federal communications commission commission chairman wheeler's past promise not to regulate, retail rates of internet service providers, the chairman announced last week that the f.c.c. will start a new regulatory framework for the evolving business data market and told other house and energy committee members last month that the f.c.c. should have the authority to regulate broadband rates. today, service providers -- today, service provided over modern broadband facilities to customers are unregulated. it's a vibrant market where broadband compete vigorously for customers. if the administration gets in their way, the f.c.c. will reverse course, price regulate
business services and create disincentives for further investment and deployment of high speed fiber networks throughout the nation. these burdens would harm investments, stifle innovation and cost tens of thousands of jobs. mr. speaker, our economy and american workers cannot afford the impact. i urge my colleagues to join me and support this crucial bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlewoman continue to reserve, the gentlewoman from california? mr. walden: do you have more speakers? -- ms. eshoo: do you have more speakers? mr. walden: oh, yes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. mr. walden: i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, i recognize for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to chairman walden and i want to thank my
colleague, congressman kinzinger for his leadership on bringing this bill. we want to continue the great innovation we've seen from the technology industry. it's not because government sat there and regulated every aspect of what they do. it's because government frankly hasn't figured out how to regulate because the industry moves so fast and i think that's been a good thing and it's shown if you allow an industry to go out there and invest private money and create great new technologies, great new projects, you look at the development deployment of broadband, it's literally changing people's lives for the good. it's allowed america to be a great technological leader. when you see the threat of the f.c.c. setting rates, regulating broadband, it will send a chilling effect that will not only kill that investment, slow down the ability and the growth that we've seen that have been so evolutionary in this country, but it will kill jobs in this country. we need to stop the threat of
the f.c.c. being able to set rates in a way that can slow down that growth. we've seen such tremendous growth in the technology industry by the government not being in this arena. what congressman kinzinger is doing for this bill protects taxpayers and innovation we need in this country. i urge adoption of this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: i continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i recognize the gentleman from florida, another member of our committee, mr. bilirakis, for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 2666, the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act, which will prohibit the f.c.c. from regulating the rates charged for broadband internet access service. this bill will help prevent
further f.c.c. overreach, save tens of thousands of jobs, keep rates affordable for consumers and provide certainty for the future of internet broadband regulation. for the last year and a half, the f.c.c. insisted it would not regulate broadband internet rates. that changed last month when chairman wheeler reversed course and contradicted all testimony on the f.c.c.'s intent to regulate late rates. many of our local businesses and organizations would suffer from further f.c.c. overreach. many already suffer from the uncertainty and vague new legal standards imposed by the f.c.c. regulating rates before and even after they are issued would further infuse the worst government meddling into a market that should remain nimble and competitive. i thank congressman kinzinger for his excellent and timely work on this bill. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2666.
the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: with that i yield one minute to a gentleman who cares deeply about this issue, that is mr. carter from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today to express my support of h.r. 2666. in 2015 the f.c.c. reclassified internet service providers as title 2 common carriers, giving themselves the ability to regulate internet rates and user privacy. the administration has promised this new agency power would not be used to regulate broadband rates. however, f.c.c. chairman tom wheeler has admitted that the f.c.c. should have the authority to do so. this regulatory uncertainty is why this bill is needed. h.r. 2666 would prohibit the f.c.c. from regulating rates charged for broadband internet access, holding the administration to the promise
they made to american consumers. preventing government interference with broadband retail rates would give smaller providers greater confidence when making investments. particularly those that would increase internet access in rural and small communities. i urge my colleagues to help prevent government micromanagement of the internet access by supporting h.r. 2666. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman, we had one other we thought was coming but he has not arrived. i don't know if the gentlelady wants to proceed. ms. eshoo: i believe we have someone that has arrived. i would be happy to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, an important member of the committee, ms. clarke. the chair: the gentlewoman from
new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. clarning k4r08 -- i thank our ranking minority member, ms. eshoo, and chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today to rate h.r. 2666, no regulation of broadband internet access act, that will prohibit the f.c.c. from regulating rates from broadband internet access. i agree with the premise behind the bill. the commission should not be setting rates for broadband access. in fact, we have heard from f.c.c. chairman wheeler, he has stated several times, that he does not intend to set rates. like millions of americans who made their voices heard last year, i support a free and open internet. i do not believe the f.c.c. needs to get into the business of regulating consumer
broadband rates. h.r. 2666, however, is overbroad and far-reaching. the unintended consequences of the bill before us would undermine important consumer protections and would threaten a free and open internet. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill before us today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields bafpblgt the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: mr. chairman, how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has seven minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from california has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. walden: with that i would be happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for your work on this important bill. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2666 the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act. the bill does just that,
prohibits the federal communications commission from unnecessarily regulating broadband rates. this legislation ensures that not only the current commission but future commissions do not have the option to regulate broadband internet rates. protecting the free market and encouraging competition and promoting jobs. that's what we need to be all about. plain and simple, un-elected washington bureaucrats at the f.c.c. have set out with another solution in search of a problem. by shifting the classification of broadband internet to be a title 2 common carrier, the f.c.c. is simply reclassifying broadband internet to fall under their rule making purview. this is nothing more than another power grab by the administration to regulate and control yet another strifment it is i--- industry. it is estimated that if rules regulating broadband services are carried out, it could cost over 43,000 jobs. i think we could all agree, it is not time to gamble with american jobs. when bureaucrats in washington
play the regulation game, no one wins. i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 2666 and encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: mr. chairman, i have no further requests for time. i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman. this has been an interesting discussion on the floor this morning. for people that are tuned in, i think that i want to stay away om federal talk, telecommunications talk, governmentese. what this debate is all about is the internet. clear difference between how the democrats view the internet and how to protect
its openness and its accessibility, and that rests in net neutrality. not a very sexy term, but what it means is is that no i.s.p. can get in the way of the consumer. people want to -- all you have to do is look in your purse or in your pocket, and what you take out and the contents that you view, and all of the -- whatever the internet carries, no company can get in the way of that. to chop it up, to slow it down, to speed it up, to charge more. now, our republican colleagues have fought mightily, and i alute them with their mightily launched campaign. that they don't believe in that. and that's really what's underneath this. they talk about federal
bureaucracies. they don't like that. they talk about bureaucrats, they don't like them. they talk about the president. they don't like him. but really what's at the heart of all of this is that we believe in that open, accessible internet, we do not believe that the executive branch, in this case the f.c.c., should be able to regulate broadband rates. we have said so. we have said so time and again. the gentleman from north dakota objected to my amendment. he said that there was an oxymoron. our amendment codified, codified, no one else codified. we offered codification in the law that future, not only this f.c.c. commission, but all future commissions, all future chairmen, cannot exact rate
regulation. i don't know what needs to be done in order to get to yes around here. and it's curious to me that all of the speakers on the other side never referenced what we put on the table. that there is agreement. so really what this bill, this bill goes beyond that. and that's what we object to. there is not one consumer organization in our country that supports what the majority is doing. we stand with consumers. they need a cop on the beat. we don't need rate regulation of the -- of broadband, but the f.c.c., just the way other agencies are supposed to look after the best interest of the american people. in fact, in the communications act, the public interest is
stated over 100 times. we believe in that. the majority has gone too far with this bill. and it can hurt small businesses. it will hurt consumers. and that's where we draw the line. so, mr. chairman, for all of these reasons i urge my colleagues to vote no on 2666. it goes too far. we were willing to meet and join hands and have something sail through the house. i think it would have in the other body as well. and that is that there be no rate regulation of broadband and the internet. but that wasn't -- i don't know, maybe i think the majority was shocked that we agreeed with their talking point. we are serious about it. we offered a solution to it. that was rejected not once but twice. very disappointing.
so for all of these reasons and what my colleagues stated on this side in the magnificent statements that they made i would urge the house to reject this legislation because it goes well beyond its stated intent. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the comments of my friend and i consider her a good friend. we worked together on a lot of issues successfully and found common ground time and again. then there are days like today where we just see things differently and perhaps read them differently. that is what democracy is, after all, all about. competing ideas, coming to an open marketplace where we can have an up or down vote by the people's representatives. let me talk about a couple of things, mr. chair. first of all the issue of net neutrality itself. as my friend from california knows, i put together a draft bill in january of 2015. nearly a year and a half ago
now. that bill said no blocking. no paid prioritization. no throttling. and required transparency. the core principles of an open internet order. for all those things my colleagues on this side of the aisle are for all those things. the door remains open for democrats to join us in sponsoring that legislation. we look forward to that, hopefully going forward, but we couldn't reach agreement on those very clear positions. my colleague said, gee, they are for not having federal communications commission regulate rates for broadband internet access service. i think that's an accurate description of what you said you were for. let me go to page three of the bill and just simply read section 6 -- from line six, section 2. regulation of broadband rates prohibited. line seven, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, federal communications commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband internet service -- internet access service.
that's what this bill does. now, here's where people may get a little confused. because on the one hand we say no tariffing. that means no setting of the rates ahead of time. we agree on that's a bad idea. you have heard that from both sides of the aisle here. but see the door that remains cracked open is the one they refuse to close. so the chilling winter air of regulatory overreach blows through that crack in the door because if you don't close the ability of the agency to come in after the fact and say, what you did on your rates we no longer think is correct, then you have after the fact rate regulation, which is even more uncertain than up front tariffing. up front setting the rates. that is what we find ourselves in disagreement with my friends across the identical -- aisle. they are willing to say no
tariffing in advance, but they are not willing to close the door that allows the chilly air that will freeze out innovation . a post-action regulation from occurring. and having been in small business for 20-plus years early in my life and the radio business, i know what regulation is. i know what a public file is. i actually kept them. did all these things at our radio station. can i not imagine after the fact my regulator could come back and say you know those ads you sold to the local car dearly, we think even though they were printed on your rate card and publicly disclosed, we think, you know, maybe that was a little too high. and so you got to go back and you got to change things. there's no definition of how far back they could go. could they go back six months, a year, two years, 10 years? i don't in a moment the internet thrives today in an environment where it was never regulated. that's what really made it go off the charts is the
innovators in the silicon valley and i dare say in my district in oregon and elsewhere, all over the world, literally, there a's -- there's no central only point of innovation when it comes to the internet and technology, it's global. and the economy has flourished globally and it's done it without three commissioners -- three people in america deciding what you can and can't do. mommy can, daddy can, is it ok after the fact? this is the new environment when you treat the internet like an old black dial-up phone and that's what chairman wheeler decided to do. they lost their independence and has gone down the path saying the internet is like an old phone uhle line and you heard my friend, mr. cramer, who was in the rate regulation business. he said the internet, it's not appropriate to regulate it as
an old common carrier, like a monopoly because the internet is not a monopoly. we want competition which we know drives down people. when you have three people in america wanting to set the tes after the fact which was what would happen, they get to make the call, not consumers who say, you know, i kind of like that ben john thing. that's new and innovative. the chairman said, yeah, we let that go. we think that's ok. ah, that's the point. the chairman got to say we think that's ok. prior to title 2 regulation, the chairman didn't have a say in that. the marketplace did and the consumers could say, i don't like that, so i'm going to that carrier. another say, i'll offer you this. now it's going to get second guessed by a government, that will get more regulatory in its scope and scheme. finally, let me state, the
argument raised early whier that somehow consumers could be hurt by truth in billing fraud, paid prioritization, we specifically address those in the bill that came to the floor. we listened to our colleagues. we listened to those who testified. we made changes in the bill. we didn't do everything that everybody wanted because this is a compromised process and it is a good piece of legislation that protects consumers, encourages innovation and does what our constituents want us to do, draw clear statutory lines that agencies have to follow, not devolve all the authority to them. with that, mr. chairman, i urge passage of h.r. 2666. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce shall be considered as an original bill under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 114- 490. each such -- 490.
such each amendment may be offered by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided by proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject >> live coverage of the presidential race continues tuesday night for the tuesday -- for the new york state primary. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. rater more on the internet bill passed by the house, we talked with a capitol hill reporter. is alicia green. the house is considering legislation on federal regulation of the internet. what would this bill do?
alisha: it would prohibit the fcc from regulating broadband access rates. author is adam kinzinger. this is a promise that chairman wheeler made a long time ago when they first implemented the net neutrality rules in february of 2015. we will not be regulating the monthly rates that providers charge for internet access. lawmakers said, that is great, but we want to put this into law. the fcc has taken several actions that republicans have concerned about -- are concerned about. this is a move to make sure chairman wheeler is sticking to his promises. >> the pill -- why are democrats
standing against the bill? have been saying the way the bill as written, it would prohibit the fcc from regulating any kind of rates and that ties into things like being able to review mergers, consumer protection actions. the bill is too broad as it stands now. house is also unhappy with the legislation. the administration issued a statement in opposition to the bill. what are the some of the concerns? alisha: the white house is expressing some of the same concerns. the white house said the bill is overly broad, they cannot support it, and it would go far beyond what republicans have said the bill would do. you are right, the againstration issued it
the legislation. >> should we expect to see other legislation from the house on that neutrality? alisha: this is something pending in the courts as well. lawmakers are concerned regardless of how this court case plays out about what the impacts of the net neutrality rules could be. they want to take action legislatively. >> should we expect to see anything coming out of the senate? alisha: it will be interesting to see what happens in the senate. they want to make sure the chairman cannot change his mind. articles atead her cq.com.
tour takesan cities you to tuscaloosa, alabama, to explore the history and literary culture of the southern city. on book tv, we will learn about the history of the university of alabama in the 1960's. get the university of alabama away from this party school, football school focus and heading it in a new direction to become a viable academic institution. it took a while to do that. he had to hire faculty. --n he became president,
today, we have our share of sound the finest faculty in the country. we are attracting students today that could go to harvard, yell ale. we leave the country in the number of merit scholars. thee will visit archaeological site and learn how the native american culture lived from about the 11th through 15th century. >> in its heyday, it was the largest city north of mexico and 30tains the remains of about mounds. we are standing at mount b. 112,000 cubicout yards of dirt and this would have been where the structure for the highest ranking clan
would have been. scientists that the amounts were built by one basket load of dirt and time. research indicates the base of the mind and possibly the sides of them were initially built with sod blocks. this would give a lot more stability to the structure as they were building it. periodically, after the mound was built, it would be capped over with different colors of clay. tourtch the c-span cities saturday at 4:00 eastern and sunday at 2:00 on c-span 3. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> our live coverage of the presidential race continues
tuesday night for the new york state primary. join us at 9:00 eastern for election results and viewer reaction. on the road to the white house with c-span, c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> donald trump spoke at a campaign rally in hartford, connecticut. new york state holds its presidential primaries next tuesday. connecticut voters go to the polls on april 26. this is about 30 minutes. ♪ mr. trump: hello, folks. hello. [applause]
amazing. who loves hartford, connecticut? everybody. thank you, everybody. it is an honor to be here. a lot of people. people pouring in from outside. it is great. an honor to be with so many -- wow, look at this. i want to thank you. we have phenomenal poll numbers in connecticut. [applause] we are going to bring back your economy, jobs to connecticut. we are going to bring them back. it is sad what is happening. our jobs are being sent to mexico, all over the place. everyplace but our nation and we are not going to let it happen anymore. we are not going to let it happen anymore. remember that. you heard it here first.
with our competitors, the people i run against, i'm self funding. i come on my dime. when these other guys come up, it is a different route. just so you understand, they are controlled by the special interests, lobbyists. they are totally controlled by people who put up their money. no good. we have had it. we've now had it. this all began in june and i came down the escalator. i talked about illegal immigration. nobody would be talking about that if i did not bring it up. i talked about the wall -- the wall. you better believe it. [cheering]
mr. trump: we are going to build a wall. and mexico is going to pay for the wall. ok? i will tell you that. just like you are standing here, 10,000 people at least, just like you standing here, mexico will pay for the wall. they understand it, you understand it. we are going to have strong borders and we are going to stop drugs from pouring in. by the way, pouring in -- i was just backstage at a reporter was telling me how heroin is poisoning our youth. we are going to stop it. we cannot let it go on like this.
i came down the escalator and i said, you know what, this is something i have to do. running for president -- not easy, not easy. although, i'm enjoying it. we are having a good, good time. i love you, too. i love this guy. i love this guy whoever he is. so, i talked about trade, immigration, a lot of things. my focus was trade and illegal immigration. what happened is it took off. who would have thought this is happening now? we are leading in the polls by a lot. lyin'ted cruz has gone way down. whoa. he's gone down. kasich was in favor of nafta.
nafta has killed connecticut. it has killed hartford. it has killed big parts of our country. you cannot have people and you cannot vote for people who voted in favor of nafta. it is no good. it is no good. so, i started off with illegal immigration and trade. let me tell you -- let's talk trade because connecticut more than anything else. boy, do you need jobs. we need jobs. we are going to bring jobs back in. we are not going to be the dummies that lose all of our jobs. we are going to be the smart ones. there is one of the dummies. get him out of here. get him out. there is nothing more fun than a trump rally. nothing.
get him out. all right. all right. look. do we love our country? [cheering] are we going to take our country back? are we not going to be this stupid people anymore? we are led by people who are grossly incompetent. they don't know what they are doing. militarily, we cannot beat isis. we have people that have no clue. that is going to end, folks, it is going to end. it is going to end right after this election. it is going to end. let me tell you, when i came down, i said you know what we have to do? go ahead. usa, you better believe it. [chanting "usa"]
[applause] when i came down -- i have been doing this in new york. i was at long island yesterday. i just left upstate new york. it is being devastated by job loss. i know hartford very well. i love connecticut. i know we have problems. we lost general electric. how do you lose general electric? [booing] i mean, it does not help you folks much. at least we lost them to the united states. one of the few. this does not help you too much, but you cannot lose general electric. i don't know what happened. i will say this -- if i were governor, i would not be losing
general electric. that i can tell you, that i can tell you. so, since 2000, i said give me some stats because i want to have accurate -- this is right out of the book. since 2000, the number of foods that recipients in hartford county, connecticut has increased by 54,000 people. it is an increase of 150%. we need jobs, we need jobs. the economy of the state of connecticut has experienced absolute devastation having to do with manufacturing. we know that. i did not have to get a report to tell you that. i could have told you that. there were 300,000 people employed.
now there are 159,000. it has been cut in half. if i'm elected president, we are bringing our companies back and bringing our jobs back. [applause] there has been a cut -- this is terrible -- a cut of 30% in connecticut manufacturing jobs since only the year 2000. by the way, incidentally, that happens to be the year china entered the world trade. that is really when it came in. you know what? no good. cruz, lyin' ted cruz. do you know who that is? cruz. he supports currency cheating by china because what they have
done by devaluing their currency -- they are not supposed to be doing -- it makes it impossible for our companies to compete with chinese companies. we are going to stop it. cruz wants it to go want because somebody probably representing interest in china says this is what we want. let me tell you, folks, i'm self funding. they are not. they are being funded by companies, countries. they are going to go where the money is, not where you are. remember that, believe me. i have been on the other side of that equation for a long time. i have been a politician -- i hate saying it for nine months, but we are doing pretty well, right? [cheering] the labor force in connecticut today is 10,000 people smaller than 2011.
that is a lot of people. we are heading in the wrong direction. i can go on and on. no good. median household income way, way down. folks, we need a change but not an obama change. we don't need hillary clinton who is a disaster. we don't need hillary clinton. hillary clinton is a joke. hillary clinton -- [cheering] hillary clinton -- nothing about trade, nothing about business except getting business and money into her own account using what she has got to get it in. remember when she said she was poor and had no money and she had tens of millions of dollars? she is a liar, wouldn't you say? i don't know if we can use the same term. you only have one lyin' ted.
i don't think we can use the same term for hillary. hillary clinton is not going to bring jobs back to this country. wall street owns hillary clinton. wall street, remember. i agree with bernie sanders -- i agree twice. i agree there. i'm no fan of bernie sanders. i agree on two things -- hillary cannot do it. i agree with him on something very important. he feels foreign trade deals are a disaster. he cannot do anything about it. he does not understand. basically, he is a communist. what the heck? are we going to have a communist? the system is rigged. the top republicans said donald, can you stop saying that?
i'm telling the truth, i don't care. we are changing the system. all of these bosses have picked delegates -- i'm leaving by hundreds with delegates. i'm leading by millions with votes. hillary clinton said i have more votes than trump. i have been running against 17 people. she is running against one, ok? if i was running against four or five, i would have millions of more votes than hillary clinton. what is happening to the republican party is amazing because millions and millions of people are coming in that did not come in four years ago with romney who let us down. he choked. he choked. he was gagging.
we have a lot of athletes. you know the gag? he was gagging. we have millions of people right now, millions more coming into the republican party. 70%. in terms of votes, the democrats are down 35%. think of it. [cheering] the republicans wanted to play cute. if i don't make it, you were going to have millions of people who are not going to vote because they are tired of the republicans, the politicians. all talk, no action. they have totally had it. you can have millions of people that are not going to vote and hopefully that is all. they are very, very angry and disenfranchised. we have a rigged system on top of it.
despite that, we can get there before the convention. i think we do. [cheering] so, i built a great business and i filed my papers. these are the most dishonest human beings you will ever meet, the reporters. [booing] the most dishonest. the media, the media. the most dishonest. [booing] the one thing i like about the protesters, i call them agitators because most of them are paid. we don't have any in hartford, but i will say this -- i will
put them in different corners because the only time the cameras will show these massive crowds, the only time is when there is trouble. meaning a little bit of a protest the raises their hand and says something. i want to tell you that. they don't tell the story. they don't tell the story. [booing] you know, it is funny. i've have the biggest crowds. last night or the night before, bernie sanders in new york, they said he has 27,000. believe me, that was not 27. when trump has a crowd, they will say, we are here with donald trump. they don't report what is going on. look, some are honest, but they don't report the kind of crowds -- they don't record, report it. bernie always has big crowds.
i have much bigger crowd than he does. they don't want to report it. we have a movement going on the likes of which nobody has ever seen in this country. [cheering] [chanting "usa"] people are fed up. they are disgusted. they are disgusted with obamacare. they are disgusted with every single thing that is happening to us in our country. we don't win anymore.
we lose that every single facet. get him out of here. out. out. [cheering] get him out. get him out. they just want to be on television for two seconds, that is all. i always say don't hurt that person, right? don't hurt that person. so, i will tell you what -- another they. trump rallies are among the safest places to be on earth. it is true. we don't hear that. because the people in this room love each other and they protect each other and that is what we have to do as a country. we have to protect each other
and that means everything. right now, we are undivided country. we have to bring our country back and be inclusive and that means everybody. but we have the safest places that you will ever be. i see it all the time. if one person raises their hand, the next day headlines -- "trump's protester." i love our loyal people. there are no people like our people. [cheering] so, if you look at what is happening to us from an economic standpoint, we have gross
domestic product which is practically zero. if china had practically zero, they would have a revolution. china goes down to 7%, 8% and it is a big deal and there is turmoil. we are practically at zero, meaning we have nothing going. when i come up to hartford -- when i go up to new york state and i look at all of those empty buildings that used to have jobs, workers, great companies and those companies have left for mexico and other places -- when i see the kind of business that china is taking out -- china has had 5 -- think of it. $505 billion -- a deficit. we have a deficit with mexico of $58 billion. we have a massive deficit with japan and vietnam and every single country virtually that we do business with. we have incompetent or crooked people making deals. we are not going to take it anymore, folks. it is over, it is over. you know -- get him out. [cheering] get him out. don't hurt him.
see how nice i am? i say get him out! and then i go, don't hurt him, don't hurt him. ok, get him out. not supposed to be here. not supposed to be here. you know, we have a first amendment right. they really impede freedom of speech and it is a disgrace. the good news is, folks, it will not be long. it won't be long.
recently, they said what do you think of nato? now, i never studied nato but it is obsolete and the united states is paying too much. yeah, get him out, thank you. get him out. get him out. you know the biggest problem with these protesters is us. they have nothing. the signs are beautifully manufactured and handed to them and they say why are you here? why are you here? the press was saying. the person said i don't know. i was told to be. why are you protesting against trump? i think so, yeah. this is such a con job being placed on the american public. it is a total and complete con job. the worst is this -- they have no voice -- they raise their
voice. don't keep pointing to them because we make more noise than they do. there is no problem. we end up making the noise. the poor person does not even know why they are there. that don't have a clue. here is the story -- we are going to bring jobs back to our country. we are going to have a strong border. we are not going to let carrier air-conditioning moved to mexico, make air-conditioning, fire people that were there for years and years. i'm a big buyer of carrier products. i will not buy them anymore. we are not going to let carrier moved to mexico. don't make any noise, folks. that is ok. just nice and easy. nice and easy.
is this the greatest place on earth to be right here? [cheering] the greatest. get him out. when i first started this -- i used to get angry at the protesters. i would say get him out of here! and then the press would say it was horrible the way mr. trump behaved. he was so mean and nasty. the next day we had a protest and i said please get him out. you know what happened? they said he is getting weaker. that was no good either. get him out. look at those cameras the way they are all turned. look at those cameras. oh, they are so dishonest.
so dishonest. get him out. [booing] get him out. go home to mommy. go home. i'm telling you -- most of them don't even know why they are here. when these guys -- they don't even show it -- but when they show it, they say we don't really know why we are here. i actually feel sorry. bring back what? ok. i won't say that. so, folks, you're going to be voting very soon. very soon. [cheering] you have to promise me, you have to promise me you are going out and going to vote.
thank you, thank you. i want you, i want you. we are going to get you. we are going to bring it back fast. they used to say the word silent majority. this is no longer a silent majority. this is a massive, noisy majority. we are on the cover of "time" magazine all the time. we are not going to let go. nobody knows politicians better than i do. i was establishment 12 months ago, right? they always love you when they take your money. now, i'm probably antiestablishment as god ever created.
i understand the game better than anybody. i understand the system and the system is rigged. the economy is rigged, the banks are rigged. we are going to change it around. we are going to bring it back. we're going to really look -- i'm leading and delegates by a lot, but the delegate system is a disaster the way they count. it as a disaster. not fair, not good and not good for democracy. it is not good for what we stand for. so, we are going to win it anyway. we are going to have our 1237 any way. [cheering] but i have to tell you, it is a bad system and a dangerous system because people are angry as hell about what is going on.
they are angry about what is going on. here is the story -- you are going to remember this evening. you are going to go home to your wife, your boyfriend, whoever you are going on to. whatever it is, enjoy yourself, ok? you are going to say that was a great evening. you are going to go very shortly, not this tuesday but right after, you will go because new york is looking fantastically. new york is looking big, big lead. big, big poll numbers. a poll came out nationwide -- he is gone, but lyin' ted cruz is like this. lyin' ted. what a liar. lyin' ted. did you ever see -- he walks into a room with his bible held high.
lyin' ted, folks. remember what he did to ben carson? ben carson who endorsed me. and chris christie who endorsed me. but, ben carson during the election in iowa -- during the election, he spread the word that ben carson had left the race any told everybody's come vote for him. right after the election, he apologized and said he did not know anything about it. he is lyin' ted, but he is going like this. he is dropping like a rock in the polls. you know, when he goes back in the polls, he is like a basket case.
watch what happens. watch how badly we beat him and we are going to have a lot of fun doing it, folks. here's the story -- i love being with you. i have lived in this state and i know this date and i have some of the greatest friends from the state. a lot of great people in hartford. except insurance companies charge me too much money which i hate. our country does not win anymore. we don't win with military, on the borders, health care, we don't win with our second amendment which by the way will be 100% protected by me. [cheering] you know what? we are going to start winning. when you cast your vote in a short period of time -- you have to promise me. does everybody promise? we are going to vote for trump.
and if you are not going to vote for trump, don't bother going. we are going to turn our country around. you were going to look back in two years, four years, 20 years -- we will look at your family and friends and say that was the greatest vote i have ever cast. that is when america became great again. that is when we started winning again. that is when we won with our military. we are going to take down isis fast. that is when we started winning on trade. that is when we ended common core and brought our education back. you will say that was the greatest vote you ever cast because that is when america became great again. i love you. thank you all. thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody.