tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 29, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
-- telling a mother of a child who is suffering from anaphylactic shock that she needs to pony up with $600. i hope you never experienced that. mr. chairman, i yield back. hour that was about a one of a three-hour hearing on the a b penn. on can watch that c-span.org. carolyn johnson from the "washington post" is joining us again. you wrote a story about that .ylan profits what happened? guest: profits they reported, that they pen, wereroifit per
calculated using a tax rate they don't pay. a pentual profit is $80 according to that filing. though they justify the way they just for the number, their annoyed members of congress who already seem to be frustrated at that hearing at not getting straight answers to the questions they ask. >> the members of the committee asking about mylan's marketing of the epipen. what role has marketing played in the growth of the company itself? bought this drug drug.7, it wasn't a huge not only through marketing, but lobbying they helped push through federal and state laws requiring the epipen to be stocked in full in some areas or in other places. they also did a lot of outreach
to the patient community. that helped kind of grow the drug into the brand name recognized product that it is were a lot parents don't necessarily even -- they just say epipen. they don't say epinephrine auto-injector. they referred to it by the brand name, sort of like cleaning or other familiar names that usurp the actual product. >> representative tammy duckworth brought up mylan's ceo's mother and marketing. tell us about that. >> there was an "usa today" mother, who at the national state board of play a role ined getting guidelines so that
schools would be more open to stocking these as an emergency measure. that is something that -- it didn't go much further than that. it definitely shows how a family withction may have helped this expansion of product in the schools and because they wasnate the market, mylan the main beneficiary. was recently in the news again because of the settlement with the justice department. tell us what that was about. >> another thing that has been pontificated is a way that this drug is classified under medicaid. it's kind of complicated, but medicaid gets a rebate depending on a drug -- it's a brand-name drug or an older, non-innovator drug. the branding drug has a much
bigger rebate. and, what congress has been of letters to the centers for medicare and medicaid services is to find out why epipen is classified as a non-innovator drug even though it's been around for a couple decades. milliond a $465 settlement to the justice department over this issue. their settlement is maybe the government has been -- medicaid has been paying too much for the drugs. >> back to the hearing, we saw a lot of back-and-forth with the ceo and her $19 million salary and the nearly 500% increase for the epipen. you've written over 10 stories on the company. what is the take away on mylan anded epipen? >> this is part of a recurring
pattern we have seen where congress is concerned about the consumer pocketbook issues of access to drugs. other ceos have come and try to explain high drug prices, they've talked about possible solutions. i think one of the realities, as someone who covers drug practices and the industry, this is a complicated issue. it's hard to fix it with a band-aid. it's also not going away, because consumers are increasingly shouldering more of their health care costs. thato, drug companies raise the prices of their drugs in outrageous ways do risk ofiting the wrath politicians. and for me, watching this, i thought this was probably something we would see again, something we have seen before, and we will see what kind of solutions happen, but is kind of
a symptom of a larger issue that continually rears its head. >> read carolyn johnson's stories at washingtonpost.com. thank you for joining us. >> our viewers can watch the complete hearing on mylan and the epipen at c-span.org. joining us now is a reporter for bloomberg. she's been covering the hearings on capitol hill dealing with wells fargo after it issued unauthorized now is a reporter for clients -- accounts. >> this issue really came to a point. allegations that it had opened more than 2 million accounts without customers knowing about it.
this was something that immediately got the public's attention as well as outrage from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle over consumer protections and the fact that the size and scope of this misconduct had gone on for so long. allegedly it had touched thousands of employees. the bank failed to stop it over a period of five years. about whetherns the bank had failed to inform investors about what was happening at the bank and what they were doing about it. the backlash came from both sides of the aisle, very quickly after the announcement was made about the settlement. the chairman of the senate banking committee called john moref to testify and give information about what the bank was doing about this, who knew what, a lot of the basics.
i was there. republicans and democrats were outraged. it did not help wells fargo's case that this was two months before an election. used wells fargo as an example to advance a number of issues that were important to them in the financial services space. what was notable is that it was a tough morning, had to be a tough morning for john stumpf. he was getting a grilling from both sides of the aisle. what came out in the hearing, one of many issues, was a republicans saw this as an opportunity to look at what the regulators knew, and whether or not they were asleep at the democrats look at this as an example of why there need to be stronger consumer
protections. fiery -- someas a fiery exchanges on both sides of the aisle. >> how did congress even first hear about the issue, and why did they decide to hold hearings? >> it was public. the announcement was made that they had reached this settlement, and that's when details, but was made public about what was known about the scandal, how many customers it might have affected or how many accounts it my have affected and what the bank was doing about it, that came to life. lawmakersat spurred to not only react, to call the hearing and take action, was the scope of this, that this had and raised so long questions of accountability and whether or not executives, including ceo john stumpf,
should return their compensation, whether or not they should be reprimanded. this became public, and it was a reaction to a public announcement. >> what was the reputation of wells fargo before all of this cmaame out? here in washington, wells fargo had always maintained an image of being a hometown, big regional bank, even though the bank is one of the largest in in country, and does engage investment banking and trading and traditional wall street practices. i knew washington had always sort of spun this image of a hometown bank. what was interesting is that ais was an issue -- this was business that was not a wall street or a complicated business.
in the traditional bread and butter consumer community bank at wells fargo, and it was pretty simple for consumers and really anyone to understand that the bank was opening up accounts and misleading, and essentially lying to its customers. >> what about the reputation of the ceo? before all this came out, then after? >> wells fargo had always stood out as a bank that had not had as many scandals so to speak since the financial crisis. that has certainly changed. the bank has taken quite a reputational hit, in washington as well as broadly with its customers and investors as well. it's an issue with trust. a raised a lot of doubt -- it raised a lot of doubt about trust with the bank.
tim sloan has taken the helm as ceo. returnedpf has also that she and other exit -- executives return $41 million. the bank has been taking steps to show that they are holding their executives accountable and writing this wrong, so to speak. but a lot of damage has been done and time will tell how successful those efforts really are. >> we are going to take a look back at some of the senate hearings? we are going to start with the former ceo, john stumpf, and then we will come back and continue our conversation. >> do you swear or from the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? you may be seated. your written statement will be made part of the hearing record. welcome to the committee.
stumpf: thank you for inviting me to be with you here today. i am chairman and chief executive officer of wells fargo, where i lived for nearly 35 years. it was my privilege to found , which has played a vital role in the financial thisry and development of country. we employ more than 268,000 team members, 95% of whom are in the united states. working adults is a member of the work of the wells fargo family, and we have a presence in all 50 states. i am deeply sorry that we failed to fulfill on our responsibility to our customers, our team
members, and the american public . i've been to many challenges as wells fargo, but none of which paints me more than the one we will discuss this morning. wrongful sales practice behavior in our retail banking business goes against everything regarding our core principles, our ethics, and our culture. it runs counter to our vision of helping our customers succeed financially and it is not representative of wells fargo as an institution. i'm here to discuss the situation today to tell you about the actions we have taken an hour commitment on how to move forward. our entire culture is centered on serving our customers. in this case, we let our customers down. , sales issuesking
are not a reflection of our hard-working, intelligent team members who deserve thanks for helping our customers with their financial needs. i want to make very clear that wantedr directed, nor our team members to provide products and services to customers that they did not want . that is not good for our customers, and that is not good for our business. it is against everything we stand for as a company. that said, i accept full responsibility for all unethical retailractices in our banking business. and i'm fully committed to fixing this issue, strengthening our culture, and taking the actions to restore our
customers' trust. and senators, let me tell you here today, the wells fargo board is actively engaged in this issue. the board has the tools to hold senior management accountable, including me, and carry toll stood, the former head of our actionsretail thinking is yes. any board actions taken with our officers will be appropriately disclosed. respect and accept the decision of the board. september 13, 2016, we announced a major decision that we will end product sales goals for
everyone in our retail banking business, because we want to make certain that nothing gets in the way of doing what is right by our customers. the new leadership team's primary mission will be to provide the best possible service to our customers. i'm also announcing today three new initiatives that will reinforce our commitment to our customers. first, we're expanding the scope of our view and read meat -- or mediation to include 2009 and 2010. second, we will be contacting every single one of our deposit customers across the country, using the same process that we agreed to with the city of los angeles for our california customers. we have begun
contacting hundreds of thousands of our customers with open credit cards, including those for whom we have already refunded fees to confirm whether they need or want their credit card. in addition, we've recently started sending customers a confirmation email with one h our, within one hour, of opening and an deposit account, acknowledgment letter before submitting a credit card application. we recognize now that we should have done more sooner, to eliminate unethical conduct or incentives that may have unintentionally encouraged that conduct. stepsk many incremental over the past five years in an attempt to address the situations, but we now know those steps were not enough.
in 02011, a dedicated team began to engage in proactive monitoring of data analytics, specifically for the purpose of rooting out sales practice violations. began reducing sales goals that team members would need to qualify for incentive compensation. in 2013, we created new corporate wide. 2014 we further revised our incentive compensation plans to align pay with ethical performance. in 2015 we added more enhancements to our training materials, and began a series of town hall meetings to reinforce the importance of ethical leadership and always putting our customers first. throughout this five-year period, we identify potential inappropriate sales practices.
we investigated those, and we took disciplinary actions that included terminations of managers and team members for sales policy violations. the 5300 terminations over the five years that had been widely reported, despite all these efforts, we did not get it right. we should have realized much sooner that the best way to solve the problems in the retail banking business was to completely eliminate retail bank product sales goals. one of the areas that we missed was the possibility that customers could be charged fees in connection with accounts opened without their authorization. deposit accounts that are not used are automatically closed. we assumed this cannot happen. we were wrong. and we took steps to refund fees charged and made changes so this
cannot happen again. workingt 2015, we began with a third-party consulting firm, price waterhouse coopers, which conducted extensive large-scale data analysis of all 82 million accounts and nearly 11 million credit card accounts that we had open from 2011 through 2015. through 2015. a proximally 2% of the accounts, 1.5 million deposit accounts, and 565,000 consumer credit card accounts, were identified as accounts that may have been unauthorized. to be clear, pwc did not fund these accounts that had been unauthorized because it could not rule out the possibility --
these accounts were further review to determine if any fees being charged. calculated that approximately 115,000 of these accounts had incurred $2.6 had beenf fees which refunded to those customers. account on authorized is one to many. this type of activity has no place in our culture. we are committed to getting it right when hundred percent of the time, and when we fall short, we accept responsibility, and we will do everything we can to make it right by our customers. i will close by saying again, i'm deeply sorry that we have values inup to our this way. i also want to take this 268,000ity to thank our
team members who come to work every day to serve our customers. today i'm making a personal commitment to rebuilding our customers and investors' trust, the faith of our team members, and the confidence of the american people. i'm happy now to address your questions. thank you. >> thanks for calling this hearing. learning is soen deeply disturbing at so many levels. first, we discover that wells fargo has a sales culture that antithetical to what was best for customers trade we discovered the management had far too few common sense controls in place to prevent abuse that customers were subject to. in a 2011 forms article, wells fargo was rated the best at cross-selling its products and
the only problem is we wells fargo wasn't always cross-selling, signing up customers for products when you know the customer doesn't want the product, failing to notify customers about these sham accounts -- this isn't cross-selling. this is fraud. and then we discover way too frome done to prevent it continuing even after it was discovered. fargo employees continued for years to literally forge customers' signatures on documents to open up accounts, and in the case of kerry toasted between 2010 and 2015 were awarded because of strong cross-sell ratios. yet we know in some cases she was hitting numbers by these fraudulent accounts. let me begin.
that theknowledge employees who engaged in this activity were committing fraud? >> i'm not a criminal officer, and i don't know -- i'm not a lawyer. i know this. of ethics,our code they were dishonest, and we did everything we can to support law enforcement on these issues. >> i'm not a lawyer either. most adults are not in america. i think most people understand the meaning of the word fraud. fraud is a miss knowing representation of material fact made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. ely signing al customer upfront account they don't want, how does that not meet the definition? if that the definition -- i
can tell you this. it's absolutely wrong. we found this out, we got rid of those people, and they have no place. int behavior has no place our culture. if that meets fraud, that means fraud. you notifypoint did law enforcement that you had probably criminal activity happening on a large scale? >> it was 1% of our people, senator. >> 5000 is a big number. >> it's bigger than my hometown. we also had a vast majority who did the right thing. let's talk about those. time --ppened one >> i'll have five minutes. everything -- did >> did you refer to law enforcement? mr. stumpf: when it was
required, we did everything according to the rules. >> when did you begin to disclose in sec filings that you had is potentially adverse set of circumstances that could have huge damage to your reputational value? that,umpf: i can't answer i would have to get to our legal team. this was not -- i would have to get back to you on that. i don't know. >> we haven't been able to , andver such a disclosure disclosure is required of material adverse circumstances. i don't know how this could not be deemed material. i think the market cap plus 9% over the last couple of weeks is pretty material. mr. stumpf: from a financial perspective, $2.6 million to much, $185 million was not deemed material. >> i get those dollar amounts may not qualify as material to a
bank the size of wells fargo, but the reputational damage done to the bank clearly is material. >> when thousands of people conduct the same kind of fraudulent activity, it's a stretch to believe that every one of them independently conjured up this idea of how they would commit this fraud. isn't it very probable that there was some orchestration that happened at some level? i'm not suggesting it was you personally, but doesn't defy common sense to think there wasn't some orchestration of this? mr. stumpf: senator, i don't know how, what motivated or why people did this, but we did fire
managers and managers of managers and an area president. many.% is way too i don't want to minimize it. i also want to make sure we recognize the vast majority that people did exactly the things they wanted them to do. we have put a number of other controls in place besides taking sales goals off a table. deposit open any account today or any credit card without a signature. while there's a couple cases where ada or they can't, we will have a notice, we are also doing mystery shopping and giving customers a one-hour notice by letter to make sure that we know exactly and they know exactly what they have opened. >> it seems like it took an
awfully long time to impose those basic controls. asiana out of time. >> -- i see i'm out of time. >> since this came to light, you have said repeatedly, quote, i am accountable. but what have you actually done to hold yourself accountable? have you resigned as ceo or chairman of wells fargo? have you resigned? mr. stumpf: no. nickel you returned one of the millions of dollars you were paid while this scam was going on? mr. stumpf: this was by 1% of our people. >> is about responsibility. have you returned one nickel of the millions of dollars you were paid while this scam was going on? mr. stumpf: the board will take care of that. >> have you returned one nickel of the money you earned while this scam was going on? take that as a no. have you fired a single senior
executive? asking about people who actually let your community banking division or your compliance division. mr. stumpf: we made a change to lead our regional bank. sen. warren: i'm not asking about regional managers. i'm not asking about branch managers. i'm asking if you have fired senior management. the people who lead the community banking division, who oversaw this fraud, or the compliance division that was in charge making sure the bank complied with the law. did you fire any of those people? no. so you haven't resigned, you haven't returned a single nickel of your personal earnings, you haven't fired a single senior executive. instead, your definition of accountable is to push the blame to your low-level employees who don't have the money for a fancy pr firm to defend themselves. it's gutless leadership.
in your time as chairman and ceo, wells has been famous for cross-selling, which is pushing existing customers to open more accounts. cross-selling is one of the reasons that wells has become the most valuable bank in the world. wells measures cross-selling by the number of different accounts a customer has with wells. other big banks averaged fewer than 3 accounts per customer. but you set the target at 8 accounts. every customer of wells should have 8 accounts with the bank. it is not because you found the average customer needed 8 banking accounts. . it is because, quote, eight rhymes with great. this was your rationale in your annual report. cross-selling isn't about helping customers get what they need. if it was, you wouldn't have to
squeeze your employees so hard to make it happen. cross-selling is all about pumping up wells' stock price, isn't it? mr. stumpf: no, cross-selling is shorthand for deepening relationships. sen. warren: let me stop right there. you say no? 12e are the transcripts of quarterly earnings calls that you participated in from 2012 to years in three full which we know this scam was going on. i'd like to some of them for the record, if i may, mr. chair. -- to submit them for the record, if i may, mr. chair. you personally may your pitch to investors and analysts about why wells fargo is a great investment. in all 12 of these calls, you wells fargoited success at cross-selling retail
accounts as one of the main reasons to buy more stock in the company. let me read you a few quotes that you had. april 2012, we grew our retail banking cross sell ratio to a record 5.98 products per household. april 2013, quote, we achieved record retail banking cross sell of 6.1 products per household. april 2014, quote, we achieved record retail banking cross-sell of 6.17 products per household. the ratio kept going up and up. it didn't matter whether customers use those accounts are not. and guess what? wall street loved it. here is just a sample of the report from top analysts in those years. in for because of
the numbers. i would like to submit them for the record. when investors saw good numbers, while it was going on. value your how much stock gained while the scam was underway? -- s a way >> i asked you a very simple question. do you know how much the value scam was going on? public.f it is >> do you know how much? you personally held an average
point -- 6.7 5 million public stock. than 200out to more million dollars in gains. here's what really gets me about this. a one of your tellers took handful of $20 bills, they would probably be looking at criminal charges for theft. they could end up in prison, but to squeeze your employees the breaking point so they could she customers and you could of your the dow you
over massive fraud. we need tough new laws to hold executives personally accountable and we need prosecutors that go after them. until then, it will be business as usual. >> some tough questions there warren.ator elizabeth we just saw some of the key portions of this hearing. what happened immediately after this senate >> is elizabeth warren has been one of the most outspoken
critics of this misconduct that occurred at the bank and wells fargo's response to it. as you just saw, it was a fiery exchange. continued toular call for the ceo to to resign, for there to be criminal into his and other executives at the bank's conduct and involvement. immediately after that, as you just mentioned, the house held its own hearing which was on -- itjust focused was longer and there were more questions, and the criticism could get personal at times. and, soon after that, the ceo did step down. hearing he hadnd returned, he and other executives at the bank had returned quite a bit of their pay. the bank has taken a number and continues to take a number of
stats to change their sales practices, the culture at the bank. they have certainly been trying very hard to reach out to customers, to their own employees, to folks on the hill, and answer questions and be more accessible and right the wrongs, so to speak. this continues. people on both sides of the i'll have continued to call for investigations. it definitely will continue. wells fargo continues to be in the hot seat. regulators across the board are under pressure, more so than before, to demonstrate they are on top of specifically what happened at wells fargo and more broadly at other big banks. fargo has a-- wells
lot of work and continues to do a lot of work to remedy this. you mention them reaching out to customers and employees. what have they been doing to help affected customers, employees who might have been you mention them reaching out to customers and employees. fired? >> that's part of their strategy as well, several different aspects of how they are helping -- i will give you an example, helping identify customers whose credit score might have been affected by having the bank had opened an account and that could have negatively affected their credit score. the bank is working with credit bureaus and others to identify any of those customers who might have been affected and then fix that so their credit scores are not harmed. they are taking many steps to demonstrate and rebuild this trust, as well as fix the problems that exist at the bank. >> you mentioned regulators. what steps have they been taking exactly, if they're going to
move forward as a result of the scandal? occ --ady the fed, the one of the regulators that was part of the settlement in september, has said they're going to be looking into sales practices at large banks. the fed has indicated that they are going to be looking at compliance overall and how well banks are following through on what they should be doing. e already seen wells fargo recently, separately, a report about whether an annual report with the fed that all banks have to go through that shows whether or not they can withstand -- in the case of a bankruptcy, that they have the adequate tools in place, so to speak. they failed that test, and so it shows you how wells fargo continues to be in the hot seat
here in washington and something that is very much on all regulators across agencies' minds. >> do you think this will continue, the trump administration will be coming in controlcans are of congress. do you think that will continue on what can we see in terms of the dodd-frank laws? >> it's a great question and there's a lot of uncertainty and unknowns. democrats will continue to use wells fargo, use the example of wells fargo, to illustrate why they think more consumer other financial regulations are needed. it remains a question about whether or not this will be as elevated an issue as it would have been had democrats been in control of congress. dodd-frank, the trump administration, trump and advisors have indicated that they would like to see changes sort of where
this fits in, where wells fargo sits in on that. certainly come up, whether or not you have additional hearings like what we saw with john stumpf remains to be seen. >> elizabeth deck timer, a reporter with bloomberg. you can find her reporting at bloomberg.com. thank you for joining us. you can find the hearings, both the house and senate going with wells fargo on our video library at c-span.org. joining us now to talk about the senate hearing on cable and satellite billing problems is the editor of a digital publishing company. tell us how this all began. how do we get to the point where senators were bringing cable executives before them to hear about problems on folks' cable and satellite bills. i think you have to kind of
go back to the beginning, when you have myriad cable operators who are regionally focused. footprints,eir own and they act cooperatively instead of competitively. before satellite operators like before and dish network att u-verse and verizon fios and into -- the game of cable was just a edition business -- a no competition busines. have a tv and you didn't lot of choices. there were myriad billing issues and customer service issues and overtime, if you were in congress, you heard a lot of complaints. the industry has grown more competitive with the entrance of new technologies, and brought sophistication into things like the internet.
there is this legacy reputation. in terms of these billing concerns, what specific charges were they talking about the people were complaining about? daniel: they run the gamut. there are issues like service protection plan that ostensibly protects things like the cabling that sometimes are put on the bill without the customer even knowing about it, four dollars or five dollars a month. if you actually need it,, the coverage is very narrow. you're unlikely to have the problem of the planned covers. there's ste toet top box leasin. if you have a paid tv service, you are on the hook to lease the box and use the service, and
that costs anywhere from five dollars to $12 a month. likethreere are things regional networks sports surcharges. operators are sneaking in mysterious charges in the bills to try to recoup some of those dollars. >>operators are sneaking in rep, the headline said, comcast charter, others under fire at a senate hearing, reports, blast cable, satellite customer service. what were the complaints regarding customer service? >> if you have a billing or technology problem or overcharge notoriousmpanies are for putting you through the ringer and making you go through myriad calls and hours of frustration to fix the problem. inse problems manifested embarrassing viral video
situations for companies like comcast. the senators who called this hearing heard it from their constituents thousands of times. it got out of hand. prior to the hearing, comcast tried to address it. spend $300d to million a new technology and reorganizing call centers to try to do it better, but it is still a challenge tommymillion a new d -- challenge. >> tell me about the executives who testified at the hearing. notel: the operators did send their top executives. most of those are rank-and-file executives who don't appear in earnings calls or in front of wall street. it's difficult to say what the there wass, but definitely a lot of important action on the judicial, regulatory front subsequent to the hearing. did you get the sense that
lawmakers were just learning about this issue? daniel: i didn't. claire mccaskill had been petitioning her constituents to offer up their stories about the paid tv industry and their complaints. years in advance, the fcc was addressing a key component of billing complaints. and, class-action suits to address various paid tv charges were springing up. i think a lot of these issues have been addressed and are being addressed sort of outside that hearing. >> we are going to show you some of the highlights from this senate hearing, then come back and hear more from our guests.
daniel frankel with fierce cable. for went to thank you allowing me to pursue along with you and your staff this investigation. i think that we can feel great about the fact that justice, investigation, and hearing have caused good things to happen for consumers as it relates to pay tv. we've had a change just from the investigation, both trotter and time warner agreed to issue credits for thousands of customers who are overbilled, and comcast provided additional guidance to its retention representatives of allowing customers to cancel without an argument. we can already claim some small victory as a result of these investigations and this hearing today. this is an important area for us to continue to look at. it's amazing to me, when we
began asking for input, the volume and passion of input we got from people about how they byl like they are mistreated their pay-tv provider great this morning, for the first time, our nation's largest cable and satellite companies are testifying together about their customer service and billing practices. i tried to have this hearing as the chairman of the consumer protection subcommittee and i got no cooperation from any of these companies in connection in the laterring months of 2014. i made a determination then that i wasn't going to give up, and that we would stay on this. i'm really grateful, chairman portman, for your agreement to allow this investigation to go forward.
the five companies here today provide video services to more than half of all american households. they enable more than 71 million subscribers and their families to receive news, entertainment, and other programs. while we may love watching our shows, we don't love cable and satellite bills. we hate dealing with the cable and satellite companies. although the companies have made gains in the last year, pay-tv providers remain among the most disliked industries in america. this year, a survey of consumers found that more than 20% of the people who had interacted with tv providers reported having a bad experience during the previous six months, the highest level of any industry. how did i begin down this road? well, it was with a personal experience. i called one of my providers and ask questions about my bill. in the process of that conversation, i learned, this is over two years ago, there was a $10 charge on my bill for a certain service than i was included in the basic package. -- that now was included in the basic package.
i said, so i'm paying $10 that i don't have to? and the other person said, yes. you are paying $10 and you don't have to. i said, were you going to tell me this? they said, no, you have to call in and ask. that is exactly the thing that in. people. if i have to call in and ask, that $10 could still be on my bill today, based on the billing practices of the companies represented at this hearing. so, we have done a huge investigation, and i have reviewed a lot of materialm and my staff has, and i have consumed a lot of information about this, so i decided today's days ago to take another spin. now, i know a lot. i know the difference between a customer service representative and retention specialist. now, i know what to say and how to say it. two days ago, i called one of my providers. on my website, people can listen
to the recording of this conversation. in fairness, because i don't think this is necessarily one company versus another, i am not going to talk about which company it is, and nor will the recording. i'm not going to be here, nor on the recording will i give my personal information i was asked to give, but here's how the conversation went, the first part of it. hello, and thank you so much for calling. can i have your name please? my name is claire mccaskill. can you spell that? i spelled that. i gave the representative my service address. i gave her the name of the account, to say that was my husband's name. she asked what my relationship was to the account holder, i said it was my husband. the woman said, how can i help today? i said, i would like to have something removed, there is a fee on here for a protection plan.
i don't recall buying that are being asked about it, and i would like to have it removed. now, she wants to get my information about my account and by that my active credit card to make sure i am the person i say i am. she goes through what credit card i have on file. she says, you said you are seeing a charge for the protection plan and you would like to know what it's for? i said, no, i would like to take it off. she said, you would like to take it off? but you are aware it covers equipment upgrade every two years, and if you lose your equipment we replace it for a charge. -- no charge. i said, are using the equipment i have now is mine or is yours? it is ours. if there are any issues, like spills, or the cables that cut, we will replace it for you. i said yes, but let's say if it is your equipment and something goes wrong, don't you have to
fix it anyway if i can get the service i'm paying for, since you own the equipment? well, let's say the remote fails or stops working. the protection plan will fix it free of cost. i said, what would it cost if it were to quit working? your remote that you own, what would it cost to get it fixed if i did not have the protection plan? the one and said, information on that is done in our equipment department, so i would like to connect you therefore more information. i knew better, so i said i did not want to do that. then i have to tell the story all over again. i want to find out why i cannot get you to take off the $7.99. i'm not saying i'm not able to take it off, i'm letting you know the benefits you are able to get. i said i understand. frankly, it is a rip off, because you own the equipment and you should fix it since you on it.
if you can't fix it, i would go to another provider. what i'm asking is, will you just disconnect it? i don't want to pay that. i don't know how it got on my bill. i wasn't paying close enough attention when it was put on the bill. all right, she says. but if i actually have the protection plan taken up, there will be a $10 disconnection fees. it would be a $10 disconnection fee for me to quit paying seven dollars 99 every month? that's correct. and it is a one-time fee? yes. and what am i paying for? for you to quit charging me for the service, i have to pay you $10? > and then i say, i think what we ought to do, it is time for me to switch carriers. if you are going to charge me $10 to quit charging me for something i don't want, it is time to switch carriers.
well, basically that's just the policy. once i take off take off the prn plan charge, you will be automatically on your account. is if what you're saying i want to cancel seven 99 and you have been getting, you will tartly $10 to do that. you have no choice? i have no choice. you can't waive that? it is policy, that's correct. do you have discretion to give me a one time credit of $10 to do away with that? i'm really sorry. i don't really think you want to lose me as a customer, do you, over $10? well, we do value your business, but it is just the policy here. so once i take it off, there will be the $10 charge. and there is nothing can you do about that? you do not have the option to waive, and she says, no, i do not. so then finally, i said well who could waive the $10? she says, well, i would have to give you to the retension specialist. and i'm not really sure how it
works in that department. so then she switched me over to the retension specialist. now this is typical. and more importantly, when she switched me to the retension specialist, i knew what to say. i knew to quit -- keep threatening i was leaving, keep threatening i was leaving, not give up. keep threatening i was leaving. and by the way, it was a long call. even when we edited to take out some of the things that are not personal, it was longer than 15 minutes, and at the end of the call, i managed to get the $7.99 off. i was told by the retention specialist i never should have been charged the $10, and i got so mad and escalated as this is called in business that the retention specialist ended up giving me $10 off a month for 12 months. they were looking at at screen that told them all information about me including the fact that i'm a pretty good customer. my bill is pretty high.
so i say this because i think this is what the industry maybe doesn't completely understand in terms of the anger. we found that customers being charged a host of fees not included in advertising pricing, some of which are for programming that used to be included in a customer's video package. we also found that just as many customers have long believed some of these fees, like hd and dvr service fees, aren't really a true reflection of the cost of the company of the service but rather are based on the revenue goals of the company. and the price of the customer is willing to stomach. in fact, some of the fees are charged to old customers while new customers get the same services free of charge. existing customers may not be informed of this, and when they finally figure it out, they have to call and complain to get it taken off. we found that customers who called for help on their accounts face agents whose job it is not to just solve the customer's problems but in fact to sell them additional services.
at one cable company, even when the customer called in to ask about why their bill was going up, the company told them, "the price adjustment brings with it an opportunity to upsell customers, and these agents are compensated in part on their ability to sell you more." then if the customer decides they want to cancel the service, they have to jump through more hoops. although all the companies here today allow people to sign up for service, or upgrade their service online, none of them provide customers options to cancel service online without speaking to a company representative. and if they call, they have to speak to salespeople like the one i spoke to this week who are trained to prevent the customers from cancelling and hopefully selling you more product. even when customers don't say -- say they don't want to have this discussion, the agents are expected to ask questions about why the customer is cancelling. customers trying to save money by lowering their level of service or often routed to the same agents which -- and should be prepared to negotiate
aggressively. we found evidence that they train their agents to question customers' decision to drop channels and make offers in a top down fashion so the customer must repeatedly push and push and push to get the best deal. finally, we found that two of the companies have failed to provide notice -- provide their customers with notice that they have been overcharged or refunded of past charges. as the chairman pointed out, thousands of people in our states have been impacted by that. missouri, time warner overbilled 4,332 customer -- missouri customers last year for a total of $44,152. and charter estimates that it annually overcharged approximately 5897 missouri customers a total of $494,000 each year. i want to acknowledge the cooperation we received from all
the companies represented before the companies represented before us today as well as acknowledge the commitments they have made during the process of this investigation to improve customer service. unfortunately, our investigation suggests that there is a long way to go. and as did my conversation with one of my providers just two days ago. i thank the witnesses for their testimony and look forward to the opportunity to ask you questions. >> let me start, if i could by saying i really appreciate the testimony. we have learned a lot. we followed up in terms of competition. let me zero in on this issue of not providing refunds to customers. i appreciate you being here. you are a private-sector individual now not in particular company but as a private citizen. yet, you were in charge during this time period that we looked into, which was before time warner merged with charter and even going forward, some of the time warner practices that did not allow customers to get a
full refund or charges they should not have incurred. especially with equipment. my question to you would be, when you look at the data, 40,000 ohio customers in 2014 were charge $430 they should not have been charged. they are getting no refunds for that. the first five months of this year, 11,000 customers are being overbilled over $100,000. mistakes happen. we talked about that. we mentioned the checkout at the grocery store example where sometimes they make the mistake but then they correct it. they don't say we will charge you less next time you come in. they said we will do it. so it seems to me the company could have looked at these overcharges, and companies of represented here have. it was simply too provide them a refund for that, do you agree with that? >> i think i agree with that.
but if given the opportunity to give a quick overview of the situation that we are discussing and how we handle credits and refunds. >> quickly, if you would. >> i would like to bring up something that did not come up when we started which is that we , are under charging customers significantly more than we are overcharging them. that is what we found and submitted as a part of a revenue assurance program. that is noteworthy in the context of this discussion. secondly, as a company, we provided over $150 million in credits a year to customers and a lot of those are done in real time, and many of them are done when we know the origination of the air date and when we can quantify when the customer is impacted, we do provide the exact amount of what the credit will be. several years ago, we build the revenue assurance program. this revenue assurance program
was really designed to find these kinds of issues. over time we found these issues. what the revenue assurance program found as it looked to tie out whether equipment was being charged properly on the account, up to 37 million leases -- pieces of equipment that we have active on the network, a very small fraction were being improperly billed. on top of that, if you bring it down to the customer level, it was about 0.7% had a problem. so what i said earlier about this, we take it very seriously. it does not matter if it is 10,000 out of 2.5 million customers. and that 10,000, 11,000 is what we have got to get right. rob portman: we are talking about customers in ohio alone 40,000 who were overcharged.
40,000. you're talking about many more thousands of that in states represented around this panel. it is easy to say, well, we under charge some people, we overcharged others, it all evens out. not for those 40,000 families. not for the family that is getting overcharged. you should not under charge either. i am not suggesting that there any benefit to under charging or overcharging. what i'm suggesting is if you're overcharged and find out about it you ought to make them good. that's what other businesses do. i use the example the checkout counter, but it's true in other businesses that you and i deal with every day. my question to you is simple. should you have, having identified those people, simply provided them and still you're not doing it because what you're saying is you're going to give them a month credit where it could be years of having equipment that they were over charged for, isn't that accurate? >> it is not accurate to say that they have been overcharged
for years. and i will just -- rob portman: how do you know that? >> if i could just take time to explain, in the revenue assurance program, we are looking for miss message -- mismatches for pieces of equipment, and we are trying to figure out if that ties to the actual equipment. because of the amount of volume equipment we are turning over whether upgrading modems, upgrading set-top equipment or actually going all digital and launching dta's, there is a lot of transactional volume. what i am told and what i have learned through the revenue program is that a mismatch is being driven when a customer is during this transition window of putting equipment on account and taking equipment off the account and matching that up to the actual service charge. what we are doing is proactively every month running a report to find those discrepancies, based on what i've heard from our team is that i would venture to say that the majority of those are more recent and within the
actual 30 to 45 day span. rob portman: the majority are more recent, but you don't know this hasn't been years. you are now doing this monthly analysis, which is a step forward, as i said. and i think this hearing has created improvements in customer service for you and charter and based on what others have said. it sounds like you be looked at your processes and come up with new suggestions. so that's positive. but still, you're not providing people the money that they're owed, even though you know they deserve a refund. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for hosting this hearing. senator paul mentioned as well, there is a context to this. as i mentioned and read through the notes and received early this morning, late last night, one of my first thoughts on the section of not getting an answer on the first time you make a call in customer service, i wondered how many times are constituent service folks in our staff have tried to call v.a. or
social security or multiple other agencies, and we will work for months to get an answer to a question that should be a straightforward issue. so there is a great deal and government right now that is lacking in customer service as well. i think that deserves it very public acknowledgment. all of us have a long way to go dealing with cable customer service is the pot calling the kettle black as we work through this process. saying all of that, i have had people call my office that have been incredibly frustrated not getting attention with their cable provider. they reached a point where they called their cable provider so many times and got nonanswers that the eventually called their senator, who we called someone that we knew, and they got attention. it was the oddest thing to think, why does it take an act of someone in congress to try to
get attention on someone who has a billing problem, especially for senior adults that call our office? i understand there result of selling and work towards profit. saying the people on the phone want to actually sell you a program is not shocking to me. it is not shocking to say there is gambling in casablanca, people are trying to stay in business and selling product. i do have a concern often when we deal with people that are senior adults that do not understand the billing, so the request i have is, whatever customer service upgrades you have made, and all of you have made comments about increased training and capability, would you make sure you are paying attention to the fact that they are senior adults who are calling who have no idea about this billing practice and all of these packages, and they are
being taken advantage of? that is something intolerable in this process. let me ask you something in this. somebody give me a guess. in the typical customers paying for cable services, what example is state, federal, and local taxes that they are paying when they pay that that monthly bill? can somebody give me a guess? i see lots of thinking. pen and paper is coming out. >> i can say that at a minimum, we, we charge, you know, what is called a franchise fee, which is around 5% at a minimum. and other tax and fees on top of that. the reason why it might be difficult to give you those exact numbers, it varies by state sometimes. >> right.
>> so on an average $100 bill, i think 5% is a minimum number, and then i think you could work off of that number depending on the market for fees and things like that. >> anybody have a different number besides 5%? >> i would guess at least 10%. >> ok. at least 10% of state, local and federal taxes, some sort of fee that is attached to it? i want to talk about an ongoing challenge that we have with packaging, and then i also want to get to streaming. we're going to have a conversation about some of the streaming services. i know you are experimenting a great deal right now. the cost of the actual content that's coming to you -- there's an ongoing conversation about that. what i hear from cable providers, is do you have any idea it costs for xyz content coming in? where does that fit into the typical billing practice? you are trying to forecast five years from now when you talk
about hardware, when you talk about fiber being put in the ground, when you talk about content, where does that rank? when you do your own analysis, where does content fit into that? >> i'll take that, senator. the content costs rising is a really significant issue. i don't think consumers truly understand the dynamic that's in place. we talked a lot about pricing, billing and fees. but you know, for us, eight out of the 11 years, the cost of the content has exceeded the pricing that we've passed on to the consumer. and so we're in a difficult position, you know, it's a very challenging thing to do to pass on pricing to a consumer. no matter how you notify it, you know, it's going to be something that causes a negative reaction from customers. and from 2005 to 2015, content costs grew 195%.
and to put that into perspective, it's growing at three times the rate of any other goods or services. and so, i think it is an issue. i think it's exacerbated by the fact that the agreements require you to carry a lot of channels that consumers don't have demand for. and both of those things i think create pressure and create a sort of a structure that's not in the best interest of the consumer. >> so going back to senator paul's conversation and senator portman and senator mccaskill have all raised this issue. the ongoing conversation in the country right now is about just streaming content rather than actually buying cable or satellite providers. y'all are doing both. you are streaming content as a separate service with sling, is that correct? and then also through satellite. so tell me about modeling for that and work through providing competition in that area for
another completely different delivery device, because the key thing for me is, can people get content they choose to get in the medium they choose to get it in. if they're ticked off about the latest $3 to $6 fee per room that they have to pay for it, they have some other option to go to. >> the sling is our over the top product we have for streaming. sling is a little bit more modular in terms of what we can do to provide content. so where we have a bit more bundling with our traditional product, sling is more modular in that customers have more choice in terms of having a basic package that's affordable and then adding, you know, slimmer packages to it. so it gives them more choice along the line, along those lines, and so does that answer your question? >> it starts that. this is a longer conversation that we can have that we don't have time for right now. i have to tell you, i along with
every other american gets incredibly frustrated. senator mccaskill did a good job of outlining a basic call on customer care. all of us get ticked off at that, not only the length of time, but i am especially concerned about senior adults in my state. and the potential for them to be taken advantage of in this process based on the complication, but also the difficulty they have had even seniors who have called me saying, i can't even disconnect my service or get an answer, and they just want to say no, but they're so incredibly kind and nice, they can't seem to turn things off. and so that has to be addressed in the days ahead and should be addressed in a way that actually honors the people that have been part of that service and paying customers all along. thank you. >> we are back with daniel frankel, after that senate hearing. what did satellite and cable companies pledge to do? what are they doing in the wake of not only that hearing but the
senate investigations? >> comcast continued to push customer service initiatives. it pledged to to send -- spent $300 million improving customer service acumen, and it did improve on some customer service ranking. it has still suffered from bad press, videos of egregious customer service and interactions with the public still leaking out. >> what about the overages reported at that hearing? >> well, in washington, the attorney general bob ferguson launched a $100 million suit against comcast, alleging the service protection plan was not properly advertised and violated state consumer protection law.
currently -- a superior court judge will decide if it will go forward. that is expected next week. it has the potential to be very costly to comcast, not only to itself an expensive one $100 million, but the attorney general is alleging 1.8 million violations of consumer protection law, you outline that, it comes to 3.6 billion dollars, and if it proves successful in washington state, other jurisdictions where comcast has gone over 20 other states, they can find themselves defending themselves in other places. they have top counsel on that one and defending itself vigorously. >> senator mccaskill is clearly passionate about this issue. any other plans for the 115th congress that you know of? >> i don't think so.
based on the change in governmental direction, i think the pay-tv cable satellite issue has sort have been backward. all of the analysts who covered for wall street are fairly bullish on the sector. craig moffett, who really updated charter to neutral to buy, studying all of the regulation including title ii and the rate regulation that has clouded the future of these cable companies, has gone away. republican control the house and senate and executive branch. anything that sort of regulates the telecom industry does not look like it will go forward anytime soon. > tom wheeler, who is a democra,
he pushed a fairly aggressive regulatory agenda on the telecom industry, specifically cable on -- fueled by claire mccaskill's hearings and others in congress, other democrats in congress. he is stepping down in january. the sec commission will have a republican majority and a much lighter hand on the cable industry. >> that is the case, as a follower of the satellite industry, what is your advice if people see something on their bill and have a question about it, want to question the company, what should they do? david: first see if the company will cooperate. the media is very vigilant. specifically the consumer media that covers technology about these companies. there has been a lot of attention paid to the way they treat customers. there is a lot of interest in
terms of leadership and viewership about this issue. take your complaint to the local tv news station, write to the editor of a tech blog, let somebody know. these companies are very responsive to bad press and don't want to see anymore. write to your congressman. it does not hurt. >> one of those companies covering that, fierce cable, our guest is daniel frankel. you can learn more at fierce cable.com. thank you for being with us. david: thank you. >> you can watch the entire hearing on cable and satellite billing practices on our website at c-span.org. >> tonight on c-span, in memoriam. a look back at some of the public figures who died this year, including nancy reagan, antonin scalia, gwen eiffel, robert bennett, and after mikvah. we start with mrs. reagan's funeral.
there is a few minutes of the remarks from reagan carbon maker -- camden member james baker. the cold war that president reagan did so much to end brought them together. in 1950, the name nancy davis appeared on a list of communist sympathizers with the hollywood blacklist is now that this was a different person and not the young actress? she took her problem to her union boss, the president of the screen actors guild, ronald reagan. they had met at a hollywood restaurant. the dinner would be brief, they agreed, because each had an early casting call. in fact, neither had an early casting call. [laughter] an early casting call was the standard hollywood excuse to put a quick end to unpleasant dinners.
but when i opened the door, she wrote later, i knew he was the man i wanted to marry. >> do you think that ronald reagan could have been elected president without nancy reagan? >> oh. [laughter] oh, my. well, i think i may have helped a little, maybe? i hope so. [applause] you can see all the nancy reagan's funeral tonight on c-span at 8:00 eastern. we will also look at the lives of supreme court justice antonin scalia, journalist gwen isil, senator robert bennett, and judge abner mikva. >> new year's night on q&a. >> while people were starving,
van buren were having these fancy parties in the white house, so it's part of the image making where harrison was the candidate for men, for the poor people, and here was this rich man in washington sneering at the four people. of acreshad thousands and an estate, so he was very wealthy, but he was portrayed as the champion of the poor. women came to the parades, waved handkerchiefs, some gave speeches, some wrote pamphlets. it was very shocking, they were criticized by the democrats who said these women should be homemaking putting. ronald schaffer, author of "the carnival campaign." how the campaign changed presidential elections forever. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. with donald trump putting his cabinet together, gavel-to-gavel
c-span coverage of all caps level confirmation hearings on tv, on the c-span review app, and online at c-span.org, live as they happen, and again each night in prime time. the president-elect's nominee to be attorney general is alabama senator jeff sessions. his confirmation hearing is scheduled for january 10 and 11th. he goes before the senate judiciary committee. and as we said, that hearing will be live on the c-span television networks, c-span radio app, and online at c-span.org. joining us now from boston is jessica vaughan, she is the director of policy studies at the center for immigration studies. here in washington is tom jawetz , vice president for immigration at the center for american progress. they are here to discuss how the trump administration and congress will approach not only illegal immigration but also
legal immigration in the united states and the changes that may happen. thank you both for joining us today. let's start with you, tom. how would you describe the trump administration's current approach from what has been said so far on both legal and illegal ?mmigration tom tom: honestly, we don't know right now. there is concern from statements that have been made on the campaign between president-elect trump and candidate trump. has been ans immigration hardliner, not only on the issue of how you deal with immigration but also legal immigration as well. there is some concern about what impact that will have not just on the millions of authorized immigrants in the country today, many millions of citizens and residents who live in those
households, and also the legal immigration programs in our country and the families, businesses, schools, institutions that rely upon them. host: time magazine reprinted some of his comments about immigration. i will read them and then we will go to you, jessica, to get some reaction. president-elect trump said, i'm going to build the wall. stronggoing to have borders but we will also have people coming across the border because we need workers.
can we gauge from what we have heard from president-elect trump so far? jessica: it is clear the emphasis first will be securing the border. in particular, putting up a wall, additional barriers to make the border more secure. my think there will also be a restoration of more enforcement in the interior of the country and a return to more traditional types of immigration enforcement including worksite enforcement. you read,ments that he is reaffirming this idea that most americans agree, immigration is a great thing for our country, but the question is, in what numbers, and have it can be done in a way that does not cause problems for americans. i think we will see more balance in an approach that tries to
avoid the negative effects of mass immigration and uncontrolled immigration that we have had for the last few years. host: we are talking with jessica vaughan from the center for american studies. jawetz, from the center for american progress, about immigration policy, both legal and illegal immigration under the incoming trump administration. we also have a line for illegal immigrants, if you are in the country illegally. tom, in terms of what the focus will be, of people here in the country illegally, we know the president-elect wants to focus on border security, but he has to deal with the roughly 11
million people here illegally. what can we expect realistically he can do about that? tom: the first decision he will need to make is what he will do with the 740,000 young people who have come forward in the last two years under the daca initiative, provided information to the government, received work authorization, people who came to the country years ago as children, many of them only know the u.s. as their home. they have already received this protection. works, once you get this protection, it last for a period of two years of essentially. people will be coming up for renewal of that policy very early on into the administration. has been-elect trump unclear about how he intends to handle the situation. you are beginning to see now a lot of bipartisan support in
congress, strong statements by lindsey graham, in particular, others as well, saying the worst thing we could do is for the u.s. government, after offering this policy and incentive people to provide this information, to pull the rug out from under them and, in the worst case scenario, use that information to pursue them. are the options available to donald trump, and what might he do with the dreamers? jessica: this is a problem that was created by president obama. he did not have the authority to provide work permits to these people. only congress can do that. the solution rests with congress. i would expect president-elect trump to rescind the improper executive action that president obama issued on not just the dreamers but many other aspects
of immigration policy, because they were improper and unconstitutional, and did not solve this problem. i would expect him to turn to congress to solve it. i don't think congress will be ready to do that until some robust immigration enforcement is in place so that we do not continue to have illegal immigrants coming here, giving them a reason to try to get here before legalization. i would expect to see some kind of an attempt to work this out in congress that might involve an offset in legal immigration numbers. in other words, if congress is going to provide green cards to the dreamers, then there should be some kind of offset, or elimination of other immigration categories that have come off, outlived their usefulness, like
the visa lottery or the category of siblings of u.s. citizens, in order to mitigate the impact of giving the green cards to these dreamers and help to modernize our immigration system. post" ine washington an editorial had this to say about president trump. his most recent stance suggest dreamersould depart what do you think about that assessment of the potential plan by the president-elect? again, very unclear.
the things that come out of his mouth, or his two thumbs on twitter, it is pretty impossible to know what he is saying. you will see one message on his twitter feed and then you will see another one literally contradicting it on our later. so i don't know what to expect. onhave seen a renewed focus targeting immigrants in the country who have more serious criminal convictions under this administration. led to increased consequence for people entering the country without authorization, both in terms of imposing formal removal orders against them and also criminal prosecutions. a high level of enforcement from this administration compared to the past administration. i don't think this administration cut any credit for it. what you heard from jessica vaughan earlier, this idea that you would prevent people today
from bringing siblings into the country so they can be reunified , that is somehow offsetting green cards to people who are already in the country, does not make any sense, unless your goal is to reduce immigration into the country. that is a stated goal from the center of immigration studies, but that is not something that makes sense logically and is not in the economic interest of this country. host: carl is calling in from chicago on the democratic line. you are on with jessica vaughan and tom jawetz. republicans, i don't know for how many years, have been using immigration as a wedge issue. the most significant thing you could do to control immigration is at the employment level. they don't want to do that because they do not want to offend the business communities.
when they talk about securing the border, that is a big lie. we are never going to have a border that will satisfy what they call secure. secure in their terms -- the only place in the one where we had that kind of security that they suggest they want is a place called north korea where you have the dmz zone, land mines, barb wire fences, soldiers waiting to shoot people. the republicans have had every opportunity to do reform, and when they had the opportunity, they never stepped up to do it. president obama tried to get them to do reform. for the lady to say what he did he asked for reform and they refused to act. host: let's give jessica vaughan a chance to respond. jessica: there are some truth to what the caller said. it is true immigration security is not just about border security.
at least 40% of the people who are here in the country illegally came here on a visa and overstayed past their time on that visa. that is a big problem. them to doentive for that is because they can get a job in this country. certainly, focusing on illegal hiring is going to have to be a part of the trump administration's immigration enforcement plan if we are going to control illegal immigration. that is why most people come here illegally. one of the biggest roadblocks in achieving immigration control has been the house republican alignedip that has been with the interests of employers who take advantage of the cheap labor that illegal immigration offers them. that will have to be dealt with. immigration has never been an issue that falls neatly into
republican and democrat ideology . but i do think the majority of republicans in the house of representatives, in the u.s. senate are going to want to do more enforcement and address the problem of illegal employment ,hrough things like e-verify addressing problems in false documents, stolen social security numbers, things like that. i very much hope that will be a part of enforcement that we see restored under the trump administration. the obama administration, there were high deportation levels, according to the chart, we can see, there was inip in 2005, but a high 2012. ,ver 400,000 deportations primarily people convicted of a crime. we saw the percentage remain
mostly the same of criminals versus noncriminal immigration violations. high levels of deportation nonetheless. do you expect, tom, that the trump administration will try to keep up or increase the levels we have seen? tom: all appearances suggest that we expect the numbers to increase. having said that, i think they will come up against a natural barriers that will make it more difficult to do that. one of the reasons why this administration has gone removal , one,s up has been focusing on people apprehended crossing the border, and, two, ,mong those convicted of crimes engaging in a number of programs to get more information during the cooking process -- booking process the time of arrest. this next administration will
certainly ramp up those but what routes, jessica is alluding to is maybe an increase in workforce enforcement raids, home rates. that say policies certain sensitive locations like churches, hospitals, where you generally do not do enforcement actions, because you don't want to does incentivize -- this where they people must go, for example, parents dropping off their kids at school there they are citizens and have the right to go there. this administration could begin to break down those barriers. up.e is a big hurdle coming we are far exceeding our detention capacity. under this administration, while immigrations customs enforcement is housing 34,000 people on any given day, for the last couple of months, it has been at around
45,000. a large percentage of those are people requesting protection from persecution, requesting asylum. that will be an area where this next administration will see what it will do with that. we could see a huge boon to the private prison industry. host: jessica, what do you think about the deportation numbers and what could happen in the next administration? jessica: there is only one place to go and it is up. going to be very easy for the trump administration to increase deportations of all kinds, particularly deportation of criminal aliens. they will end the catch and release policies and the start using more accelerated forms of due process where appropriate. they will start going after people who have been deported before. this is one thing the obama
administration stopped doing in 2014 largely. they nullified all those prior deportation orders, and that means people come back after they are deported. you see these stories of people deported multiple times and everyone wonders why they are here. i think there will be a crackdown on cases like that. i think we will see a crackdown on sanctuary jurisdictions also. eyes possiblyut making arrests in the community. i don't think ice will start hauling people out of churches, first-graders out of school, or anything like that, but the problem is when the sanctuary jurisdictions are allowed to have these policies that ., they have no choice but to arrest people in their homes. prefer that they make the arrests in jail, which is safer for everybody. that is something that needs to
be addressed early in the administration, i'm sure. caller on our public in, arkansas. good morning. -- republican line, arkansas. i had my car stolen in the 70's by illegal immigrants. i asked the officer, i would run for attorney general for the state of california and we would hang all the car thieves. haveughed at me and said i 600 cars stolen, i cannot even do that paperwork on the crimes the illegals do. host: reaction to the issue on crime from people here illegally? thatthis is an issue president-elect trump brought a lot of attention to. focusing on some of the facts here would be helpful.
of all the studies that have been done on this issue, they show there is no causal link between unauthorized status and criminality. as the unauthorized population has increased, violent crimes around the country have decreased. border cities are among the safest cities in the entire country. when you look at how likely it is that an unauthorized immigrant will be imprisoned compared to a native born american, their rates of criminality and imprisonment are far lower. any crime is a problem, certainly. i know jessica has about a lot of work -- done a lot of work focusing on victims of serious crimes from unauthorized immigrants. those are serious and we should look at policy reforms that could be made in those cases. but we cannot choose a bogeyman without focusing on the fax more broadly. you can build the wall, you can bring legal immigration down to
to have are still going violent crime, we will still have serious problems. we need to take a more holistic view informed by the facts rather than bogeyman approaches. host: jessica vaughan? jessica: research shows immigrants, illegal immigrants less likely or to commit a crime. we know that there are certain types of crimes associated with illegal immigration, human smuggling, drug trafficking, kidnapping, identity theft, gang activity, and so on. the question is not our immigrants more likely to commit crime, that is not important. the question is what we do with that small fraction of the noncitizen population that has committed crimes. the answer has to be that they should be a priority for
close these that we cracks that criminal aliens are able to pull through because of sanctuary policies and other problems in our systems, and make sure they are not released. the obama administration released 80,000 criminal aliens with convictions over two and a half years. that has to stop. many of these individuals went on to commit additional crimes. these could have been prevented if we would have removed them efficiently. thatis one area of focus has to be there for the trump administration. jessica and i agree on a lot of this. this administration has been top on removing people convicted of crimes. but i will say a number of those released from custody after having been convicted or charged percentage-- a large of those individuals were released from custody because an
immigration judge set a bond for them and they posted bond. that is not unusual, that is how we handle things in the criminal justice system all the time. these are people that they could not hold because they posted their bond. jessica: we should not have been in a drawnout court process to begin with. a lot of them could have been removed in a much more accelerated form of due process, in a way that avoids long ,etentions, which is not only you know, not a great experience for the aliens going through that, but also costly for the taxpayer, slows the whole system down. there are lots of policy measures that can be put in place to make the system work better for everybody. the topic tohange border security, something that president-elect has talked a lot about. let's take a look at what a border patrol chief, mark morgan , said at a recent hearing about the fencing that is there now
and what else may be needed. >> fencing works. a better wall works, and it will also help relieve the personnel issues. actid pass the secure fence . i don't think we have built the type of fencing that will work. miles,t suggesting 1700 but we need better fencing in more areas. i wanted a quick comment on that. yes, sir, i agree. i can give you a quick example. i visited a san diego sector, a stretch where there are a few miles where there are primary fence and secondary pedestrian fence. not only did that work to stem the flow elsewhere but by doing so, the chief told me, he was able to take 100 agents and put them elsewhere because it did not require that level of deployment. another sector where they told me that, at one point, the free
market across on the u.s. side had all but dried up, an area where they put fencing up and the flow have stopped. now was a thriving shopping center once again. so it works on multiple levels, not just on the flow and our ability to do our job, but other aspects. so do we need more fencing? yes. does it work? yes. do we need it everywhere? no. is it the sole answer? no. it is part of a multilayered strategy. i was saying tongue in cheek, the fence is great, but if we don't have access, it is not as good. host: jessica vaughan, your thoughts on what is needed for border security, does it require the wall that donald trump has been talking about? agree with the chief. anybody who says the fence does not work has not seen the fence.
it is working very well in southern california, el paso, a number of other areas. it works where it can be patrolled, but it is not the only answer. i think we will see some infrastructure, barriers that look more like a wall. that is appropriate in certain parts of the border. one of the real things that has been lacking is the policy to back it up. it does no good to have all of this fencing if people think, if they could just get by the border patrol, that they will be fine living in the united states illegally. or if they're able to walk up to border patrol agent's, turn themselves in, and find they are a lot to stay here and get a work permit for years, gaining our immigration court system. so we have to have the policies to back up the infrastructure. places where are
fencing needs to be improved or enhanced, that is an area where i want to hear more about what border patrol agent's are seeing. i will not dispute that. san diego certainly has an intense system of fencing in place. my jessica was saying at the end is the crux of the matter. they, we really do not see level of people coming across the border that we saw historically, trying to evade border patrol, coming across in large numbers. we are now, and have for the last five years, have been at or near 40-year lows in apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants, which is the best proxy we have of crossings. primary concern are people coming to border patrol agent's, essentially coming into the country. when you are referring to is a credible fear process. in 1996, we instituted this ability to quickly remove people
who were apprehended along the border. the one safeguard put into the process at that time, presented was ak smith of texas, credible fear process. the purpose was to make sure that we do not return people without any process to their home country to face persecution or torture abroad. that is the one safeguard we have in place. the people we are seeing coming to the border right now turning themselves in requesting protection, largely coming from free countries in central america experiencing extremely dislocation,ce, that is really what we are looking at in terms of the current border security challenge. from kenny is calling dodge city, kansas. democrat line. caller: thank you. i am 49, and i work in a body repair am a semi truck
technician. i have been in manufacturing in my past. i have worked with hispanics side-by-side for many years. you know what? i think we need to do a little history lesson from the past until now. all of this is not by chance but by design. they are trying to get an influx of people because the business people, we don't know them, they say they cannot find enough young people to come in and do work. that is a lot of it. when it comes to the business owners, that is one thing the law would stop. the business owner does not want government telling them who they can and cannot hire. it is true. i am a white man. i understand the criminal part.
don't worry about that, the criminal people -- that will take care of that. i am talking about people that want to work. i understand that. all of us white people moved up because we want our $60,000 a year job after we graduate from college. what i'm saying is, we need those twentysomethings to do our $40,000 a year jobs. host: let's give jessica a chance to respond. jessica: when we allow employers to bypass u.s. workers and legal immigrants in favor of illegal wayigrants, who can get a with paying less, that is a drain on our economy. or is no such thing as cheap labor. i'm is one area where actually in favor of a role for government, telling employers, you cannot hire whoever you
want. you have to hire workers who are authorized to be in this country. is notnomy right now producing enough jobs, even for the people who are here now. we have historically high unappointed rate for young people in this country, approaching 25%. that is because of many reasons, but one reason is because employers have access to illegal immigrant workers, and that is denied opportunity for americans and illegal immigrants, and also has a wage depressing effect on especially those americans and illegal immigrants who have not had the benefit of a college education and are already at the margins of our society. the caller makes a number of great point. it is absolutely correct, businesses, historically, have wanted to have the ability to hire whoever they want.
jessica make some good points as well for the need for government to come in and regulate the process through which we have a workforce that is able to do the work the country needs to get done, in order for everyone to benefit economically. the big question after that is what do you do next? this idea that the response to that would be enforcement only, imposing e-verify, work authorization, seeing how things magnet -- up the jobs that is a policy option we could pursue, but at the end of the day, all that we do is kill the economy and send jobs overseas. what we should do, i think, is look at what the country and what the economy and job market can sustain, and then ensure we have a legal immigration flow that can fit that. we do not want to put together policies that will be counter to the actual pressures of the market that are at play.
at the end of the day, if you are looking at what an immigration reform package would look like, it is not a mystery. we had one in 2006 that passed the senate but not the house, another in 2013. these would combine effective for security, work authorization, and today we could be 10 years into a mandatory e-verify system. reform tolso involve our immigration system so that those same workers you are firm to would have the ability to get higher wages, fight for their labor protections so that not only will they and their coworkers not face the kind of exploitation or for conditions that flow from being able to unable to advocate for your rights. the rising tide will lift all sales. largelywhat economists fun when they look at the impact of immigrants on the u.s. economy, u.s. workers. host: the pew research center
says the u.s. civilian workforce included 8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2014, accounting for 5% of those working or were .nemployed and looking for work susan is calling in on the independent line from walton, new york. good morning. i am calling in because i have an idea that may help stop illegal immigration. you have people you say are working illegally who have to use a social security number to be hired. they are using somebody else's social security number. the money that they earn on that number should go back to the person who it belongs to, and then the people coming in with think about coming in before they get here. i don't know if you agree with that idea but it seems the only way to pay back the people who had their identity stolen.
i don't think as a practical matter you could attach salary payments to the person who owns the social security number. maybe this is what you are referring to, but i don't know. when an individual is using somebody else's security -- social security number and there is a mismatch between the name and the number, because of that and him, those funds going into a suspense file. the payroll taxes that are deducted from the person's paycheck and that going to the federal government and remain there in a suspense file until either the mismatch can be cleared up, or in perpetuity. workers wholions of are contributing to our social security system who don't have any prospect of benefiting from the system at the end of the day. i don't know if that is what you are referring to, that is the current situation, one of the major