tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 2, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
and it was his way of saying we have to force-- we have to have a forcing function in there has to be urgency. may give them broad guidance, but in the end they have to work at the details and then when they do that and they have convinced the senior leaders you have to sell it to the members of the house and senate. it is hard, but it's doable and i don't want to be too pessimistic or it's always darkest before the dawn and we have seen two of these deals in the last five years and i think if you had gone back to the times before the american taxpayer relief act and bipartisan budget act you would've heard many of the same say we can't do it. i think we can and i hope we do:
and it really is meant to be the thing that ties the different pieces of the u.s. army together. this is what got us good in the 80s. this is what the army figured out coming out of vietnam that it made realistic training with his culminating event and we stop giving them because i sequester lifetime. we stop than you might think you them later. national trading in her stomach the capacity to cycle through plus the soldiers themselves cycle on. if someone is a lieutenant they have one opportunity to a national trading center
rotation. they move on to some other job, maybe a desk job. maybe they don't go back until there cap been four years later. with less experience and knowledge of how the system and the unit is supposed to perform. it is really bad practice to stop these army units from doing brigade level trading and that is what happens at the annex that could shut down from the showdown and continuing resolutions which may be depending how it happens you may protect more of it with that. >> just a couple weeks ago the good training and culminating trading we need very much to protect it and nobody wants to. >> next question in the front. >> hi, we mean from the charles group. for your proposed two-year budget, how do you feel or what do you see happening if that
doesn't happen for the department of defense and specifically for the national guard. >> is a mentioned before if we don't get in to your deal, my next preference would be congress actually appropriate. the law would require the funding and other regions defined come down to the budget control act about $500 billion in fiscal 16. better to appropriate the level of deity has the right authority so congress makes decisions about what not to do it put in the guard. the worst event would be a true continuing resolution with no special authorities. that would be more an appropriation bill. the guard is coming down modestly in dies right now. i assume it is like me to you, at least the administration will propose it. congress has some reservations as you are well aware. i think what you would see if
they had to come down to the cap level in some type has on training money is. i don't think they would accelerate the draw down because if we make this decision it will be only for fiscal 16 and dod will stay around to fight again in fiscal 17. i would expect trading money is pretty tight in the garden elsewhere on trading. that would be a bat in but i wouldn't anticipate an acceleration of drawdown. >> right here in the third row. >> .diamond from product knowledge. the question addressed to both of you and congressman if you could talk for an industry they and mr. hale from the building's days. within the sequestration of drawdown and reduce finances that go into that, we have
spoken about morale and relationships that is today. how do you see conversations and relationship between industry and the building in the current environment moving forward? >> you know, first off come the dod depends critically on the private sector to maintain national security and it should. they build weapons, produce many of the smaller products that dod depends on an something to the order of half of the defense budget goes to private sector firms. i think there is to live regional relationship. i'm not the very past person to answer this but i'll take my best shot. a pretty good relationship. as i sat in the dod depends on man. will it be frayed at the edges if they go through another
shutdown? yes, they were frustrated. i did some interviews of industry people in connection with the paper. they didn't have clear guidance. that is what happened during shut down. if we go down to the cap level of the president's proposal we will have to cut back on bias and that will be frustrating. do i think it will strain the fabric? they need us and we need them and i think for that reason the relationship will survive but there will be some strange. i don't know if i've answered your question. [inaudible] -- alignment of profitability in that perspective. >> if we end up taking the budget of 535 billion bring it down to 500 billion, we have to
make major changes in my sizes of weapons. a lot of growth was in procurement because dod can't a lot of the drawdown because it takes time to reduce the number of dod employees can save money and the personnel side. when they begin to address that it was a more balanced program. a lot of that has to do with the go to a lower level. it will harm better buying power because it is inefficient to produce a lower rate and in the strain environment, some of the agreements that frank and others have been able to sustain will be frayed also. as i say, we need them and they need us. the relationship will continue. >> three quick points. the first is my experience at the big guy, lockheed, boeing,
all adapted my crazy to this new world in which we live. they are very much for getting away from ldta. everybody is looking forward to what others do with procurement reform in part due as they adapting. they are big growth areas in medical technology. northup grumman has a huge thing what it will do. part 3 is to see silicon valley breakout. the pushback that all those millennia else like to work in the middle have no idea about government contracting and their big systems. they are really good at apps. but relevant and do apps have? i am not weighing in, but it is fascinating to me. >> you've got to have it as a theoretical physicist.
>> catherine ballenger, former military construction analyst and dod. i have two questions and you can answer the one you want. one is with the development of ever increasing sophisticated weapons platforms. they seem to be crowding out other procurement programs and i am thinking of jss, which is now the largest procurement program to be followed by ohio replacement. how do you afford both of these without an increase procurement line, which again with caps means you have to spend less and other appropriations. the second question was when secretary mcnamara introduced the planning programming to my
budgeting system something years ago, it was supposed to modulate the annual planning that the services had done previously. 55 years later, is there some thing to be more agile because the services start planning and programming 18 months before. >> let me try the first one first. i think you're exactly right. we will have to take a number of steps to accommodate a bomber out there, ohio class replacement. we haven't not much in the way of major weapons for years so there's probably a ground combat vehicle in a number of others. what we do is not very efficient and see that happen again. we will also have to try to move
money or dod will from other areas of the budgets, things like military construction frankly cut that a lot already and order to get procurement. i think given the state of the world, i noticed some strange sitting here in 2015, but if you look over five years there some chance we will see further increases, maybe even above the model. i say this for two reasons. the defense budget is notoriously cyclical. in the sixth year of the real drawdown in total budget, they're a bit longer drawdown, only went to my knowledge and would not be surprising to see a turnaround. defense budgets are clearly influenced by threats to national security between north korea and continuing problems in iran and who knows what else,
disenchant could be added funding and they'll have some personnel drawing too at the money to procurement. on the planning side, the biggest thing -- i am actually an advocate for the planning program and budgeting system. it has many critics and legitimately so. i think it does bring -- everybody gets a chance to have a say. the biggest problem right now is we don't know what we are planning for. the insurgency now is quite broad and not just about your budget. it is about this series fiscal 16 budget. this thing we could do to improve is get some consensus in the country about defense for more than a year in advance so that the planners and programmers have the opportunity to shape a budget and executed or something close to it.
i hope that answered your question. thank you. >> i will add one small thing which is on the two programs you mentioned, the f-35 and the ballistic missile submarine, these are programs that the size, shape and purpose can be debated and should be debated and i'm not completely in lockstep as one opinion. i don't think we need these costing 6 billion each. the point is what i would say in the conversation the current shut down debate serves no purpose in relation to god conceptual and strategic conversation. it distracts from it. to the extent we should debate more, what do we do a fantastic by in ukraine or what do we do
about the issues you raised. we can have the conversation is easily because we were concerned that oxygen was an unnecessary south of pose crisis. the amount of senior-level congressional tie that has spent the unnecessary showdown event. a comment in the back. >> then booker from the reserve officers association. my questionable fallout to the national guard, just wondering us receive this turmoil in the budget and cut down the drawdown's personnel, are maybe in the biggest example. i was wondering if the reserve component is used more and more to fill in the gaps where there still threats abroad. i wonder if there's more pressure place in the reserves to that point had the skin question is do you think that will affect retention and
recruitment within the reserves and military personnel talking about struggles. i wonder if that played within the other military personnel as well. >> so i'm amazed that with every observed component had done. i've been out this a while. i go back to the commission i set up the all volunteer force, which essentially said one thing and all volunteer force won't be able to do if i don't want her more because we wouldn't be able to mobilize the reserve components. recruit favre i think should be proud of what they've contributed the last 10 years. because we are heading into a period where at the moment with no major war going on, they will
be relevantly less years and probably also to some extent although they are more involved in the problems in eastern europe and others. there will be some drive down and modest ones planned in the army. but i would bet some drive down there. i don't see us moving away from a fundamental dependence on the wrist for to augment the reserve components, to augment their forces during very busy peacetime. but particularly to augment them if we find cells in a major contingent fee. they should be proud of that and will continue to depend on them. >> not reserve specific, but connected to this, is the budget
control act and the striking defense budget on military benefits and general and the commission? we have many, many active duty moving across the river and many of them worry about pex, commissaries, contributions. the new discussion about the serving 20 years to qualify for a military pension or how do you do this in eight, 10, 12, 19 years. very complicated one that looks to what we spend. a huge part of the defense is spent on personnel. at the same time to integrate that, i was at a food bank in mort about three weeks ago in the majority of people were military families. wives with kids until who say they are not paid enough to support the family.
these are cfcs in the legs. >> any other questions? >> lorin hirschi, thank you for allowing a second question. climate change was raised in you said congressman beyer that general dynamics was the firm with a lot of attention and majors. berries as i learned recently and virginia and the tidewater area, a lot of flooding going on and national security costs to be incurred. is it mr. hale or dr. hale. >> mr. hale is fine. >> thank you head has been a look to see how the seawater will affect naval bases around the united states and the world as well? >> somebody probably has but it wasn't me.
i'm not aware of the outcome of that. can either of my two colleagues help? >> north of berman's presentation bride off the lobby that looks at more fault because of the base and urges from the content through today and draws a straight line is that the base by 2050. 35 years from now, basically they will all be underwater. i continue to make the climate change argument in the congress which is not always a friendly place to do it. it is best to come back to the military stuff because many military leaders and the u.s. government or years talking about potential for climate change to incite conflict around the world. one of the things that usually goes unsaid in syria is the initial part of the conflict had to do with migration based on
draft. >> i invite each of our panelists to add any answers or concluding thought and will come back to the question of what kind of a deal could divert the train wreck. you may not want to talk about that so you'll get a pass if you prefer. let me hypothetically put this on the table. we all know that the maori rhine plan offered amounts for defense and nondefense. part of the debate has been the president saying i want to do that again in the congress say no, the pentagon is it more than the domestic side and will lose the war supplemental to help the pentagon and not the other parts of government and that is the philosophical debate. each side thinks it can win and steps that the arguments a little bit.
sounds like a spirit of our conversation is take it to the voter next year and in the mean time do good governance. i don't want to put words in your mouth, but when the reasonable compromise be to add the 35 billion to the pentagon budget and had half as much to the domestic side. a literal mathematical compromise on the fundamental dispute. it leaves aside other issues which may be the driver. it may be more attackers one in an issue of other partisan -- if you're trying to talk to hum the mathematics project, wouldn't that be the proposal that might be meeting halfway. i will start with you since you're at it government. congressman beyer has to worry about the hill.
and the other concluding thoughts you want to bring into the discussion as well. >> i am not prepared. as we discussed it as we discuss here they are some important of nondefense funding and other programs. roughly defense is about equal but not a lot. i am not prepared to say we ought to go to a formula or full defense. i would like to see some negotiations if it yielded the result i could live with that but i'm not prepared to endorse it at the moment. another aspect to budgetary negotiations and 90s paid for through our sites and they did have offset and fairly up scare entitlements and the changes. that's another important thing that's part of the negotiation.
i am on the leon panetta school. given the piece is with the people you trust and tell them they've got a come up with a deal. one of an assertive comment and then a parting shot for me and the administrative one is that if you are interested in further contact with me on paper, kimberly west is here. on the substantive side, you rarely get to write your own headlines. never if you are in government. if i was picking one for me, it would be former dod comptroller pleads for kind of budgetary chaos. i hope i've made that clear in the paper in my remarks today and i can only hope that we see that during the next couple of months or at least mitigation of
the budgetary chaos. >> thank you are offering constructive approaches. the president has said it is not acceptable to skip the budget caps for defense using the oco track and did nothing for the domestic side. there has to be some middle ground. i just assumed a budget compromise as the camper pose a lot of ways and means that many ways we can increase revenue without rates. there are so many budget gimmicks do not like they give us the opportunity. thank you. it's a great headline. i enjoyed being with you, bob. thank you were some encouragement and education. >> we wish you the best as you go into this big month for the congress and the country. thank you both for being here.
>> afl-cio president richard trumka sat down yesterday to discuss the u.s. -- she will be the 31st senator to support the agreement, making it a veto proof majority. "wall street journal" reporter christine peterson points out senator mikulski is retiring yesterday. republican leaders will return from their summer break next week. senator mikulski really someone's statement explaining
her decision point by point ended with no deal is perfect especially when negotiated with the iranian regime. i've concluded that joint comprehensive plan of action is the best option available to block iran from a nuclear bomb. are at present i will vote in favor of the scale. congress must reaffirm to safety in security of israel. secretary of state john kerry explained the nuclear agreement today during a speech in philadelphia starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span.
>> afl-cio president richard trumka sat down to discuss the u.s. labor movement. his organization's role of democratic primaries and the 2016 presidential election. he says it is conceivable the afl-cio could make an endorse it by the new hampshire primary. the washington bureau chief, david cook moderated this discussion. it is about an hour. >> things are coming, everyone. we are going to have some people join us in progress as they say
in tv land. we want to keep to our schedule. our guest is richard trumka, president of the afl-cio. this is his seventh visit with their group and we thank him for coming back. he grew up in the pennsylvania coal fields aside his father and grandfather in the mines. he worked his way through penn state university in 1974. in 1982 at age 33 he was elected president of the united mine workers of america, the youngest person in history to hold that position. ..
she has two masters degrees, speaks four languages come and organized events for the london school of economics which shows you what kind of help the bosses need passionate think i need to stay with. as always we are on the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting are in short no filing of any kind of the breakfast is on the way to give us time to listen to what our guest says. there's no embargo when the session ends. to help you curb myself the urge will be no pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast inns as regular attendees know, if you like to ask a question please do the traditional thing and send sending a subtle nonthreatening signal and i will happily call
on one end of the real start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make opening comments in the mood to questions from around the table. thanks again for doing this. >> let me thank you and thank the monitor for having me again. is always an event that i look forward to. we always do it around labor day and liberty is the in which we reflect on all the hard work that we do everyday and the gains we have made to make work better while recognizing the challenges that remain. it's also not a bad day for a barbecue, family and friends. every labor day there's a quick nod to pass labor victories, and then there's a knee-jerk assertion that organized labor is in decline. i'm going to tell you it's time to retire that old chestnut because it's just not true. in 2015 there's an untold story
about the rising tide of working people finding new and innovative ways to create a better life. all of this thing face as he corporate opposition, archaic labor laws and gridlock in washington. it's a story that's taken place in cities and towns all around the country, in offices and factories and among ordinary people who have decided they can stand together to make a difference. quite frankly the momentum hasn't gone unnoticed completely. a recent gallup poll shows support for unions is at its highest, since 2008, with 58% expressing approval, 63% of women, and the really good news for us is that workers from 18-34 support unions by 66%. we have the obama administration
is preparing to host a white house summit on workers a voice in the fall. so from main street to the white house, our country is taking notice of the different ways working people are on the rise. and so with that, having said that, i want to each -- i want to wish everybody a happy labor day but more importantly a safe working like the rest of the year. >> thank you. let me be knee-jerk, as you say. can you talk about what you're doing to change the path of membership, the latest labor department report showed that union membership was down just slightly, .2%, from the previous year at 1121%, at the number of workers in unions was little changed. are you expecting this new and
innovative ways and the people on the rise to impact your membership numbers, or do you see accomplishing what you need to accomplish without necessarily needing to grow membership? >> i think it's some of both. you have workers are finding innovative ways to come together to raise wages. and this by the way, 2015 is going to be a record year for collective bargaining. 5 million of our members are bargaining contracts this year, and so far the average wage increase has been about 4.3%, so we are starting to push wages up. if you look at places like wal-mart and target and ikea, all those places are coming together to push for raise wage increases. the other thing i would say is that if you notice, we are now,
workers, are now driving the debate about the economy. chose the debate on trade, a different debated this time when. most of the time it's the neanderthals versus free trade, protectionists versus free trade and it was at this time. it was about whether the trade agreement was going or not, whether the rules were good or not. we changed that to be. we changed the debate on an equally. presidential candidates are all starting to address the. and then in the meantime we've also organized workers, peanut workers in alabama and afscme organized members last year in the first three months of 2015. so it's a combination of workers coming together collectively to demand a better deal and then those workers, together also to form unions. >> last one from the. can you talk about labor's role
in the selection of a democratic presidential candidate, according to press reports you met with vice president biden last thursday. what is the endorsement process stand was is he a better candidate speak with vice president is a good friend and a great champion of working people, but the next phase of his illustrious career in public service is a decision for him and for his family. i don't know whether he would run or not but he has been a good friend and he has been a champion of working people. >> you're not going to get an endorsement here this morning unfortunately. do you see bernie sanders as especially skilled in talking about the concerns of working people of? >> he's connecting. he has a very unique and genuine way of talking about the most pressing issues in politics, and that's inequality in america.
but let me explain our process before -- i don't endorse anybody. i announced what our members want to do, quite frankly. so what we've encouraged our athletes to do, each and every one of them, is go back and talk to your members. give them the facts honestly about where candidates stand and then find out there want coming in when you find that out and endorse that candidate and work that candidate to make sure they adhere to the policies that they've asked the host. and when we come together we will have our athletes come together after that process is done, have a debate and eventually we will endorse a candidate. when we endorse a candidate to we represented of what our membership wants, needs and desires. >> want to ask about last week's
decision, the browning ferries case. do you see congress this fall, republicans in congress, taking an aggressive approach to try to block that? do you see democrats taking up the to see some democrats in congress. >> i think you'll see an aggressive approach by the republicans to stop anything. that helps workers get a fair shake. they've done that repeatedly for the last several years ago do it again. i would expect two things that i would expect democrats, friends of workers who stand up to defend that decision because it's all right in their decision. and i would expect the president if it ever did get through, the president would veto it. >> gallup released a poll showing president obama's approve showing president obama's a program, union workers down to 52%, 1.1 of its low and
down from 69% when he -- >> i hear. >> sort. talib released a poll showing president obama's opprobrium come when union workers is down to 52%, which is one put off a bit slow and down tremendously from when he is elected and reelected or how do you explain his sliding standing among labour? >> he still represented by 52%. i think it would be a lot of politicians would love to 52%. look, he's tried hard. yes and then everything that we need and we haven't done anything, he hasn't done everything we agree with. i think what you're seeing is that the residuals of tpp. our members understand the importance of a good free trade agreement that really does help workers and changes the rules of the environment. because you are seeing cincinnati, a group of rules that have been designed to lower wages, to entitle -- nafta -- we
want an end to that. you receive the messages of the. he supported it firmly, still does and we a posted speed do you agree with "the new york times" story this morning that argues that in the second term obama has taken a turn towards helping workers with various regulation? do you notice a change of? >> i would say he's probably been more overtly pro-worker in a second term. you have overtime rules that we talked about. disappointments he's made to various places. the wage increases he's given to the federal employees. is starting to talk openly about having to come out important collective bargaining is for workers to raise their standard of living. the fact he's having a summit this year at the white house to talk about collective bargaining and increasing the workers
voice. i think all of those come together to say, yeah, i think in a second term he has done. now, when you talk about regulations, there's also health and safety regulations. here's something that genuinely bothers me. everyday in this country 150 workers died from injuries received on the job or occupational health diseases that they pick up. 150. i'll bet not one that he knew that and i'll bet not one of you has written about that. not one of you is concerned about it because they die quietly. like my dad who died from black lung, died at home after years of suffering from black lung, expired. and we haven't seen the needed
regulations to keep pace with the changing environment of the workplace. we've been trying to get silicosis regulations passed for silica. they are finally starting to move after years. mine health and safety regulations, they start to move after every disaster and then they slow down after the spotlights leave the mine, that's smoke belching out of it, the regulations slow down. we kill 150 workers every day in this country. doesn't that bother any of you? should you write about that? shouldn't we demand a safe workplace wrecks isn't that something that's everybody -- that everybody is entitled to? in my opinion, yeah. so when you talk about
regulations we haven't been anywhere near enough. when it comes to health and safety regulations. >> i want to take you back a year ago to your remarks and simply your answer to my question about the political goals of the afl-cio in the elections of last year, and specifically you said, governor walker of wisconsin was public enemy number one, your phrase, and you also revealed that the afl-cio's -- within a fresh target in the state of texas if there is great opportunity to make political gains on the issue of regulation and on new workers coming into the workplace, placed a priority on texas. both of those states with strong republican.
walker is a presidential candidate and governor perry is a presidential candidate. >> really? >> looking back, what do you think if, are you going to change your goal and put a little different emphasis for 2016? >> first of all our gold in an article about is a simple thing. it's called raising wages agenda. you a member at beginning of the year we started off with a summit talking about raising wages agenda and we had academics income we have politicians income we have businesspeople then, and we talked about raising wages. that is still the yardstick and the main goal that w we're using in every election. we did make gains in texas. we built tremendous ground strength there and we did a great educational job there, that continues to grow. scott walker, i've said everything i need to say about him. dauphiné liberé he is a national
-- [laughter] he is a national disgrace and is still a national disgrace. he is a candidate but we will see where that ends up. i think he has slipped in iowa. he was leaving therefore while, but there is no there there and people discover that. and we will see what happens with this presidential election whether scott walker or rick perry are the nominees. one can only pray. [laughter] >> so you have targets in both states -- [inaudible] >> will be going down dollars -- dallas and a number of states. we haven't decided on all the targets right now. with our focus on pennsylvania right now because we have a race
going on in 2015. we are focused on effect because if they raise their in 2015. were not looking beyond 15165 after we're looking at 15. >> amanda becker from reuters. [inaudible] >> what role do you plan on playing -- [inaudible] >> that's the last thing -- it dropped off spin what role with a better split in the second which we may have a democratic candidate going into the junk that isn't with labor on key issues? >> well, i d don't know that its fair to say that the our candidates on the democratic side are not with labor on key
issues. i think you are seeing come when you could identify a populist path, how popular you get and how to support its very, very activated. candidates to try to skirt the issues, not talking about where you are on tpp hurts you when it comes to activating the membership and the general populace. they want to know what people are, even if they disagree with you that want to know where you are. so i think any candidate is going to have to become active in get a clear path on how they're going to raise wages. and double we played as a catalyst to make sure that, one come any candidate that ultimately gets the support of working people has articulated a clear path to a shared economy, how they would change the rules to make the economy work for everyone and then, after they do that, our role would be to make sure that we hold him accountable so that they make that vision a reality after they get elected.
>> i want you to weigh in on whether or not -- [inaudible] i'll take the bait on the workers safety issue. we had a kid died in a mine. just kind of disappeared. what did you expect out of the obama administration? what they think you would still be able to get any area of the safety? >> first let me give you the positive. president obama named joe main to head in shopping is probably the most effective leader of in shock that i have seen in my lifetime. he does a great job. enforces the law and he's doing everything he can to make mining safer. he is making my safer.
this by some shortcomings in the regulations. the same with osha. ahead of osha's doing a great job enforcing the act. of course, osha is a very weak act that makes it difficult to enforce. the resources they have are totally inadequate. i think if they take them for 500 years to inspect every workplace in the country just one at a time, which isn't much of a deterrent. so we need to focus on the resources that osha has, but he's done a good job there. on deregulation side, i think for most of the first term and the beginning of the second term, he was baited by republicans talking about too many regulations and he said, i will show you, it's of the regulations just stuff. silica is an example. everybody has known the dangers
of silica. by the way, seven people die every day from silicosis, just about to see. seven every day. sundays, holidays. every day. seven die every day. [inaudible] no, not my workers get workers across the country. they could be carpenters. they could be cement workers breathing silica because there substandard for silica in this country. every other industrialized country has the standards board, we don't. we've known about this for 100 years. remember your history to a place called hawks nest? happened in west virginia in the '20s. they were drilling a top of a mountain for a railroad, and young workers started dying after three, four, five months. it was solid silica they were drilling for and are getting silicosis and dying so they started studying it and found
out that silica is bad for you. so we don't about it at the standards in this country are totally inadequate. they need to be upgraded. that very regulation said that omb for almost two years. omb doing nothing. i think they are required to get the regulations out within 60 days, and it sat there for over two years to i don't know what you're doing, whether it was just sitting on it or what, but they didn't you put the required to do, get it out one way or the other. we finally talked to the administration, convinced them, and we've gotten it moving now but we'll see where it goes your if it doesn't get done by the end of the administration, then it's not likely to happen because the new president, if it were a republican from which is black all of those and we would have to start all over again.
>> -- black all of those. >> i'm curious, you said you don't know what joe biden is thinking but you guys wanting to run quick deeply to see if you expanded at this point? i've talked to lots of your member union folks to talk about this head versus heart decision between bernie sanders and hillary clinton, and kind of the folks, bernie sanders -- they seem to think of are likely to get the nomination. they don't want to upset. with bernie sanders commitment of both the censorship with your member unions into the give you a more serious look at? how are you perceiving the possibility of a joe biden temping? >> first of all i think the field is still wide open. there's still a lot of time. remember in elections going by,
they haven't even announced yet at labor day a year before the election, and that campaigns took off labor day before the election. that's when everything, people started listening and got accelerate. so there's a lot of time for things to happen and for issues to unfold. we keep pushing those issues. we keep pushing them in making candidates respond, and those responded with sharp answers that are workers can identify. addresses the needs of those workers. they get the support. not just i'm going to vote for them but they give active support. that's the difference between the supporters, okay, i'll come out to vote and people to work between now and election day. so that i think makes a large difference. i said i guess everything there is to say the joe biden a joe biden is a good thing. he's been a champion of working people and he's got to decide
what is going to run or not. he's got a lot of come a lot on his shoulders i would say. you know, when you commit to run for president, you guys unfold every crease saying you badger people over stuff that is totally irrelevant, out in the field but you make a great issues. >> that's the job. we have to do it. >> of course you do. i don't fault you for it. sometimes i do. i just decide whether he's got the full focus for that. he and his family. i don't know the and do that. only he knows the answer to that. they would be a good candidate. he would be a good president. his decision is his decision and it's going to fall completely on him. >> you haven't mentioned hillary by name yet. can you do to i don't think it's that hillary clinton speech i have is that anybody's name except to say because you asked
me specifically. >> can you talk of it about how you're feeling about hillary clinton specific at this point? >> i think she as an experienced good birth. i think she would make a great president. i think chester road to god where to energize workers. has got to come up with a narrative that, one, she believes in, and two, she is going to fight for. that's the litmus test workers look at. you can mouth empty words like jeff osha says inequality in this country is terrible. no worker believes he's going to address it in a way that works for them. or very few of them do anyway. -- jeb bush. she has to come up with america. if she does she can catch fire. she's got the track of all the other issues. i said this in the past i will say it again. hillary clinton has to do a plus work to get a seat.
-- to get a a. why? because she's a woman. i think that's tough in this country and if something that male candidates don't have to overcome. >> i was asking about the geek economy and specifically over and lift. what policies this afl-cio contemplating to address the geek economy stickers well, first of all we did a bunch of them. economy, out to do a few list as soon as i find them. i'll find it in a second it anyway do you see what just happened in seattle? seattle is passing of regulation that gives everybody, cobra people comfortably right to collectively bargain, to the collective voice. so that those workers have to try this out independent contractors, we don't have anything to do with them, now
they're going to least himself it's going to be tougher. the same with a decision from the nlrb last week or the nlrb says anything she's -- a franchisee that you control, you can't run away from the. that's going to make it easier for them to get a voice. we've done darker, salon all of those are organized just recently. -- gawker. i'll find all of them in the second. i can remember everything off the top of my head. as brilliant as i am. or not as brilliant as i am. anyways, i'll find them. i can't find them. josh, do you have that list of
gawker and salon and things? you have it there. do you have at there? i hate to walk away from that issue without giving it to you. >> if we get it later, my highly educated multilingual assistant can send to everybody in the room. >> i speak to languages to english is my second language. >> i wanted to talk to you about the minimum wage campaign across the country. particularly if you have a threshold in mind for minimum-wage? they support the $15 an hour wage? if so, how'd you come to the conclusion that taking the amount is the light touch to the right wage for workers to? >> here it is.
gawker, vice, the guardian and salon put all of those digital outlets have joined the union recently. okay, now? >> for minimum-wage across the country and $15 our threshold, do you believe the you have a hard and fast threshold $15 an hour at least or are you more flexible on that? how do you come up with a minimum? what the appropriate minimum wage is? >> for so it shouldn't be a minimum-wage. it should be a living wage. is the truth. words should try people in poverty. h. lifted them out of poverty. right now if you work for minimum-wage were trapped in poverty. you are below the poverty level. $15 is a good minimum-wage but ought to be a living wage, after growing the economy as the economy grows. we have targeted a number of cities where we have is campaigned in the. our last election you will recall five states increase the minimum wage significantly, and
to cities did as well. want at least to $15. others even places like huntsville, alabama, are discussing it right now, and other places. cities we have come we started off with densities, it actually now 14 cities because we acted some cities to it where we have campaigns doing to internally. and to do things like we've done in seattle, to start talking out ways to address places come workers that were left behind because of archaic labor laws that we have, class like some as an independent contractor and saying i control all of your work, your independent, i don't have to deal with you. and minimum-wage again should be a living wage, should be indexed to inflation, it should lift people out of poverty, it shouldn't lock it into poverty and it is just that. it's a starting point, a starting point. collective bargaining allows you to go from that point up at
increase the share of which are produced to get a more fair share of which averted as a worker. [inaudible] >> well, we think that should be a minimum, 15. we got to be and we got to go up from there. [inaudible] i just wanted you to talk more about that is that something that is still under raider, the trans-pacific partnership, or are you declaring -- >> we forgot all about it. >> maybe your declaring victory for this administration. i guess unions have been active on three big issue remaining into ttp, dairy, rules of origin for cars, and biologic drug, intellectual property. but i'm going to if you think the two can be concluded and
ratified in this administration to? >> conceivably it could be. will get? i don't know yet because it's not completed and that our new issues that have arisen, old issues had been resurrected i should say. currency manipulation, china's recent foray into manipulating its currency to its economy shows the need to have for us to of currency manipulation in any trade agreement that's going to be perpetual and is open dockings where others can talk on. the nose other countries followed afterwards with the currency manipulation. you still have that, rules of origin, you still have tortured the roles that are still out there. so there's a number of open issues that they still talk about. unfortunately, it's sort of sad on rules of origin. we heard in canada, they are for high rule of origin and the
united states, that the united states has sort of made a deal with japan with the rules of origin does anybody know what rules of origin been? >> i don't. >> here's what it means to in order to get the tariff protection you set a percentage of the product has to be made into participating country. with nafta it was 65%. so the product have to be 65% made in mexico, u.s. and canada to get the tariff reduction and protection. if it wasn't then it didn't get that protection. that has dropped out and is not into, talking about in the 20s, 20%. which is absolutely ludicrous that this is so much worse than even have to was come and nafta proved ineffective on the issue. it will cost jobs and it will cause a lot of unemployment, dislocation and allow china to
purchase it and get all the benefits of tpp by senator products to of the country. so china can make 70% of a product, send it to another country that makes 25% of the product and the product will get the benefits as if it were made in the tpp countries. >> on the presidential endorsement process, the afl-cio has traditionally waited to see if the primaries play out. the exceptions were in 2000 with al gore and 84 with mondale. do you see any scenario in which the afl-cio endorses before the iowa caucuses by the new hampshire primaries? secondly, or using any consensus among her larger member unions -- >> in what? >> any consensus among her larger unions, or has the vice
president reset deliberations essentially put that endorsement process on iced? >> i think those of our athletes are still going through the process i described earlier. go into their membership, getting the facts, trying to find out where the members are, what they want, what they desire to which candidate is that the best. most of them have not completed that process. i think with a couple of unions that have endorsed so far, and they went to the process and ended up endorsing bernie sanders. aft do that. they endorsed hillary. the mission is completed. they endorsed hillary, and so the process can change. some are more further along than others. some are probably, i would say within a month or so, they could endorse. we've encouraged it. and then we've encouraged him have to find out, go with that
candidate but force them to make them deal with our issues. if you went with him because of those issues are up on, are you going to do with inequality and the country? how are you going to do with wages with our equidistant and the boys of workers in this country so they get a fair shake, and make that candidate talk about those issues. if we do that, if we could all the candidates talking about those issues, then no matter who wins, we have one. because our goal has been to get those issues out and debate those issues. [inaudible] >> probably not. probably not, no matter how i say this you're going to write it wrong. because i tried this before and i never, i never can get it right. if i sai say it's conceivable, e headline will be trumka says
they can endorse before i would. i'm not saying that. it is conceivable that could happen. make sure you hear what i think i'm not saying it's going to happen. it's conceivable that that can happen. i posted it as not likely. -- i will see it as not likely. >> we will go next to michael rose totenberg -- from bloomberg spent i was waiting to talk about labor law reform or changes to labor law books you mentioned, use the word archaic several times today and i just was one if you could talk about in an ideal world how would you like to see labor law changed and are there any prospects for any of that happening, as a result of republican caucus or how they see the fight for the going forward?
>> i say arcade for a reason to be written in 1949. does anybody here think the economy is sort of the same as it was in 1949? -- archaic. our laws have changed, they've gotten worse and worse and more oppressive. if you look at any international agency that looks at the worker's rights in international country, our laws are very, very bad. you will see, bernie sanders is talk about labor law reform. you will see a bill, a small bill, not a comprehensive bill but a small bill of dealing with remedies that will be introduced in the house and in the senate before long, a couple, three, four weeks. that will be debated. people will get a chance to say whether they are for it or against it. we will they do. the more we debated the better off it is. ulysse i think a lot of that. because workers understand how
they get it put to them with the law, like the google people put into we had to change they were excluded from the law -- goober people. excluded from the laws and our laws just our very, very arche. when you look at government employees, federal employees or state employees or county or local employees can it's all over the map. their rights are skewed back and forth. most of them don't have the right to collective bargaining in any sort. even though they paid the price for bad decisions of their elected leaders. there will be a good debate. the debate will decide. we could have asked that the other candidates come to you support it or do not? those who do will be good.
those adult will tell them something. >> two things -- and any? you said when you're talking, two things that struck me. you said hillary clinton needs to figure out a way to energize workers and the secular clinic needs to do a plus work to get a train to -- c. she needs to do a plus work to get graded only as a c. i'm curious if you could talk more about those two things in the context of elizabeth warren and whether is it really -- >> that's way beyond my pay. put the deck together with hillary and -- >> but you're saying hillary is not energizing workers, and in part because of her gender, that she has to work much harder, she
has to get a plus work to get a c. when you look at the landscape in terms of elizabeth warren, who is clearly energizing our base. i'm curious is that hillary's gender that is an issue here as opposed -- >> you are mixing apples and oranges. >> please clarify. >> when i talk to hillary having to get a plus work, i think over her career she has done extraordinary things. they get minimized. i think they get minimized in many instances simply because she is a woman. i ready to patch has to do a plus work in order for most of the pundits, particularly on the right side, to even give her a passing grade. i don't think that there anywhere near as hard on males as they are on her. that's an issue totally aside from the campaign i just mean
wheweshould send a state, when e was first lady, all those things, i think she got, was a different standard that was applied to her. i wish she could eliminate the. i wish we could eliminate as a weapon have the same shot in the same standard used to judge them as we did anybody else. [inaudible] >> not without. know i would not. i'm glad you clarified it because if people thought that, that's not what i intended. i think she needs, her narrative right now, when you say, i don't know whether tpp is good or bad, and if you don't articulate what a good one would be, i think that the lessons the energy to the workers derived from the. so i think the narrative really has to speak to the wants and needs of workers out there. not just hers.
anybody who wants workers support is going to have to have a narrative that lets them say here's how i'm going to solve your problem. here's what i'm going to do to create an economy of shared prosperity that changes the rules and really does make work pay. they will have to be specific about the and if they do that, i think it energizes workers. i think you're seeing a smattering of the. elizabeth warren does a magnificent job of articulating the needs of workers. people respond to it. i think bernie does a great job with other people respond to the i think hillary has a good job at times and workers have responded at those times. i think it has to be here's the economy, the vision of the kind i have, here's where you fit in, here's what i'm going to do, and then they have to believe that
that candidate is going to fight to make that vision a reality. because in the last election when we analyze it and we spent a great deal of time analyzing, they said that they heard no coherent economic message coming from the democrat. nine. and -- not from the republicans either but they heard nothing from the democrats. each% of those to we talked -- 80% of those we talked to said both parties do too much for wall street and too little too main street. 80% of republicans, democrats and independents. so if it's unclear where you stand, that residual knowledge takes over this.
during the fight over tpa there were some democrats on the hill who are frustrated that some of the colleagues who may not have voted how they would like but they're still being targeted by outside allies. the democrats were being targeted by outside groups in general loyal to democrats over this one issue. during the fight over tpp do you expect the same intensity, especially as it gets closer to the election of course do you plan to put pressure and democrats speak with yes. >> do you want to elaborate on how you plan to do that? >> what else is there quick you asked me if i intend to run a campaign against the tpp. yes. is going to be intense? yesterday isn't going to roll out everything we have? yes. first, we are still working right now to try to make tpp an acceptable agreement.
i don't know how far we are getting but we are working. we keep articulating issues, submitting information, round and people to talk about the issues. and see what happened. so we will run a campaign. if it's acceptable to we will run a campaign to pass it. if it isn't we've run a campaign to defeat it. i suspect that there will be a campaign to defeat it because what we've seen so far is not very exciting for workers. >> president trumka, sounds alike president trump. >> lord, help me. >> i wonder if you could share your thoughts on the republican to associate i will ask you to assist anybody but me they could talk about donald trump and his relationship with the workers and also maybe he's made these
comments about other classes make it sound a little bit like hillary so not sure what you think about that. also about john kasich. like you, the son of working-class pennsylvania spent what was the last thing? >> i was pointing out he is the son of working-class pennsylvania. >> yeah. look, i think what donald trump started with immigration is dangerous your i think it's un-american. and i think it is racist. it's saying that one group of people is superior to another group of people. then look what it's done to the other candidates. just this past weekend. chris christie starts talk about tracking immigrant workers like fedex packages. rick perry, your candidate, says
that a document workers is a disease -- undocumented workers is a disease. jeb bush is still talking about anchor babies and things that go along with it. in one way that is horrible and a step backwards for the country. but quite frankly on another level it shines a spotlight on the issue and is letting us talk about it and letting americans start to discuss it in earnest away from the spotlight. so it's a given us an opportunity to go after. in fact, we are doing the commission, the afl-cio, we put together a race commission to go around the country talking to our members about race. because i believe that the
afl-cio and the labor movement has an obligation not to be okay on race. we have to be exemplary. we have to lead the way on that discussion. so we're taking that seriously and we are working on it. the same with immigrant rights. we are taking that on, the same thing with black lives matter. we're discussing those. the fact that you are the son and daughter of workers, if you forgot where you came from, doesn't mean much to me. it's what you policies are. because john kasich when he was in congress might of been the son and daughter of a worker but he helped pass more laws to hurt workers than virtually anybody else. his budgetary style hurt workers in the process. so don't tell me your pedigree and then that you forgot everything. the few remember, it should show
up in your policy. i'm the son and daughter -- i'm the son of immigrants, both of my parents. you may call me in some cases they would call me, refer to me made as an anchor baby as well. i didn't forget where i came from. you go back and look in 1967, and i did by the lake i was giving speeches and saying the same exact thing about health and safety, about immigration, about race than that i said no. i didn't forget. because my background molded me do that. somewhere along the line he got separated and he doesn't like to talk about the fact that his dad and mom may have been workers, he got a free ride with wall street and made a bunch of money on those deals. his dad never got the opportunity.
is bad sweat and his moms sweat put him in a position where he could either go to work wall street go to work with workers. they chose wall street. he left his dad's side of the street without. >> any thoughts on donald trump's comments on the need to help the middle class? >> wasn't trump ever in the middle class? -- was trump ever in the middle class? we will see. let's see his policies. i'd like to see them come out with policies in just help the middle class. in fact, i would welcome that. i would welcome the republicans and the democrats talking about policies that help the middle class. that would be democracy at its finest. i have not seen it yet. i have seen democrats try to talk, talking about the economy
and talking about it seriously. the republicans are still tired, tied down in the same tired old stuff. we've got to give it a government. when you get rid of government everything will be great. don't tax the rich. may god, no. let's freeze the government so it can do anything. it's like, bounces off of people know. jeff bush, inequality is the issue of the day. help you going to address it? trickle-down economics. >> spee get back on immigration but you talk to somebody fire language being used to going to ask ask you how closely our workers paying attention to this? you mentioned that it's still very early in the process. want practical impacts do you see this kind of language and how having in six months with,
especially with guys like jeb bush to talk about legalization? >> is dangerous. because when the leading candidates for one of the parties talks and un-american racist way, it starts to become mainstream. racism can never become mainstream. the danger of it is, if we believe, as he does, he believed one group of people is superior to another group, it tends to govern them. no, no, i'm talking about trump. all of them are talk about it in the same way now. in order to pander to the right, they have to go so far to the right beyond what is public most of them stringently believe. but if they intend to govern that way, that's bad for this country. to say one group of people is
better than another group of people is bad for this country. bad for democracy. and i just think it's dangerous and someone has to stand up and say enough, knock it off. knock it off. talk about issues that really matter. comprehensive immigration reform is a legitimate issue. because the system as it is right now doesn't drive down wages for everybody. when an immigrant worker gets cheated out of wages and their employer under the my employer, i get cheated out of wages. my wages get lower. when immigrant worker points out the health and safety violations and gets deported for it, everybody works in unsafe conditions and the standard goes down, i have a lower standard to live in. so that, correcting the issue is important to raising wages. is a legitimate issue but not to talk about people from the south
of the border coming this way, and only south of the border he doesn't refer to white immigrants. he doesn't refer to the canadian democratic he only refers to people south of the border. that's un-american. that's dangerous. six months from now the country will suffer the scars from this unless somebody calls him out on it. >> we are out of time. we have a couple -- still questions but we're going to stop to stay on schedule. thanks for doing this. appreciated. >> thanks for having me, dave. appreciated. thank you. [inaudible conversations]
>> [inaudible conversations] it looks impressive obama has enough votes to stop a resolution disapproving iran nuclear agreement. retiring maryland senator barbara mikulski became the 34th centered to support the deal. she issued a statement detailing how she reached her decision. she says no dea deal is perfect especially one that osha with ever-increasing. she said she called the accord the best option available to block others from having a nuclear bomb and for these reasons i will vote in favor of this deal. the letter delivered to congress today, john kerry called israel's security sacrosanct, counted on to those used to provide pictures state for missile defense and other security assistance to that letter was sent to suggested john kerry defended the advantage of in philadelphia at the constitution center.
during that speech he warned of the consequences if it doesn't go through. >> that because of our strength, because of the power of our banks, all the requisite do if congress rejects this point is turn to the bargaining table, puff out your chest and demand a better deal. i have heard one critic said he would just sanctions to give iran a choice between having an economy or having a nuclear program. well, folks, that's a very punchy soundbite but it has no basis in any reality. as dick said, i was chair of the senate foreign relations committee when our nation came together across party lines to enact round after round of economic sanctions against iran. remember even the toughest restrictions didn't stop iran's nuclear program from speeding ahead. from a couple of hundred centrifuges to 5000, the 19,000. we have already been there.
if this agreement is voted down, those who vote no will not be able to tell you how many centrifuges iran will have next year or the year after if i can. if it is approved we will be able to tell you exactly what the limits on iran's program will be. the fact is that it wasn't either sanctions or threats that actually stopped, finally stop the expansion of our brands nuclear activities. ..
so just apply your common sense. what do you think will happen if we say to iran now, his forget it committed deal is is off, let's go back to square one. how do you think our negotiating partners will react? all of whom are prepared to go forward, how will they react? what do you think will happen to those multilateral sanctions regime that brought them into the bargaining table in the first place. the answer is pretty old. the answer is straightforward. not only will we lose momentum adults have been nuclear activities, we will almost surely start moving in the opposite direction.
>> secretary kerry speech was carried live in iran come an unusual occurrence. you can see his entire speech at 8:00 eastern on c-span. coming up at 7:00 eastern, live on c-span2 is republican and democratic pollsters talk about the 2015 presidential election. chuck todd, the host of nbc's "meet the press" will moderate the event from george washington university. that will be live on c-span c-s2 starting at 7:00 eastern. the >> all over the colorado plateau especially in mesa county outside of grand junction where
surprise by morris in rock beard we find a lot of dinosaur bones, a lot of fossils and that's really intrigued scientists for a long time. the other thing we also find is a mineral, iraq called carmen typed. it contains radium which is radioactive and used by marie curie to solve anticancer. it also contains canadians to strengthen steel said during the buildup to world war ii and during world war ii itselfcome it was of extreme value. it also contains uranium and uranium as we know was one of the best sources for atomic power in atomic weapons. >> he fought the battle to reserve water for western colorado by amici ensure that we
got our fair share. how did he do that? beginning in his state career and then going on to his federal career, he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was able to exercise more power than you might normally have certainly in the united states congress where he was able to make sure colorado and western colorado would be treated fairly in any divisions of water. his first major success was the passage of the colorado river storage project in 1956. >> live at the national press club for a discussion about control of the internet.
brothers the federal communications commission or the federal trade commission, they both claim oversight responsibilities. we will hear from fcc commissioner archie pye and marine all housing. >> i am also a member of the federalist society's telecommunication and electronic media practice group. i would like to thank the federalist society for hosting today's event and in particular i would like to thank will courtney for facilitating. before we get started i would like to mix a brief introductions. from the federal communications commission, we have commissioner ajit pai. sworn in as fcc commissioner in 2012 and during tenure has focused on creating a regulatory environment that fosters competition and innovation and is thought to remove regulatory
uncertainty by creating clear modernist rules for the road. previously, commissioner pai is that the law firm of jenner and block them prior to that held positions in the sec general counsel office serving most prominently as deputy general counsel. from the federal trade commission we have commissioner maureen ohlhausen. commissioner ohlhausen was sworn in in 2012 and a strong kid of innovation, government transparent date and consumer protection. prior to joining the commission. commissioner ohlhausen is a partner in my law firm. and served in various positions for 11 years in various capacities. moderating today's discussion we have alex cooley are, hopefully i got that right it was a
partner in the antitrust division at the law firm -- before joining the film, alex is a legal adviser to commissioner ohlhausen at the ftc. today is a reunion of sorts and prior to that a trial attorney in the antitrust division of the department of justice. we definitely have an all-star cast today so without further ado, give our panelists a warm welcome. [applause] >> welcome again everyone in thank you to the federalist society for organizing and hosting this luncheon panel on such an important topic. it is a pleasure to be here at moderate and keep the two of you separated and apart. we are living in an era of rapid proliferation of interconnected electronic devices and
increasing personal reliance on related services. i don't think it's an overstatement to say perhaps at no other time in our history have we as a nation and more of a ligand dependent on telecommunications infrastructure than we are today. it is therefore of paramount importance to have sufficient income effect is forward-looking government that this sector of the economy. recently the fcc adopt did the open internet order reclassified broadband services is common carriers. this has several practical implications we are discussing today and step into areas that historically have been monitored including key issues of importance large and small.
the privacy protection issues like deception, fraud and the development of competition policy with respect to brought them providers and other developers on the internet who need access to the broadband system to get to their customers. another broader technology policy issues are at play here in terms of what kind of a vision we have for developing the internet to promote innovation but also at the same time promote consumer welfare and protect the interest of consumers on time. we are quite fortunate to be joined by the most prominent federal officials and the telecom technology space. commissioner ohlhausen and commissioner pai of the fcc perhaps the two leading places
for rational and discipline approaches to governance in the sector. so i am excited to begin the discussion and get their insider views than thought on what the fcc's reclassification might mean for jurisdictional overlaps, what the implications might be for issues i mentioned late privacy as we move forward, whether the agency actions can complement one another in the doctrinal uncertainty over the years. who ultimately decide the -- we are going to begin a discussion at the table with her to ask for and after that we are going to
take questions from the audience. both commissioners are excited about getting into robust dialogue with those of the room. as they move through the discussion initially, save up your questions and we will have a microphone circulating late and you'll be able to ask your questions at that time. at this point i would like to begin by saying welcome and thank you for being here. commissioner pai, what we can do is set the stage here. a lot of people may be unfamiliar with network neutrality is an issue that they might be unfamiliar with more specifics about the open internet order what title ii reclassification means. would you mind walking through issues and telling us what it is the sec has done recently? >> with your indulgence if i could extend a few things to the federalist society and national press club thanks to kelley for
the introduction. thank you for moderating in your perception of the issue and thanks to my good friend and counterpart at the federal trade commission, maureen ohlhausen, always a privilege to see you in any capacity, especially one like this. i guess i would start by backing up two decades as we now know it, congress and the president faced a question how should we cover in this dynamic new space and bipartisan decision released to the internet with e. as they put in section 230 the communications act unfettered from federal and state regulations. they would let the free market determine trajectory of the new industry and i was largely the way across administration and the different stripes of the internet was governed. there were intermittent at 101028 and 2010 by adopting some
species of native trout are rules. those decisions were struck down to the d.c. circuit in washington. in 2014 the agency took a third bite of the apple and in 2015 this followed the president's november 10, 2014 instruction that he wanted the fcc to adopt a strong additionality regulation in february 26 that is exactly what the agency did. it adopted a bright line rule. first no blocking the internet service providers for isps of lawful content. no throttling, no degradation of the transmission of traffic to customers and no paid prioritization and service providers could not offer content providers the ability to deliver traffic more seamlessly for some compensation.
the agency adopted an internet conduct standard and setting case there's any we are not described as her have it is, we will have a catchall category under the internet conduct standard. we lay out the exhaustive factors to evaluate the conduct in anything from t-mobile service which allows customers to stream music exempt from data caps smartphones and internet service providers and relationship with content providers and interconnection. any of that on the chopping block in the internet conduct standard. unsurprisingly this is a controversial decision i was one of the two. happily this decision will be bad for the american consumer and we see the policy institute
pointed out and in the first six months of 2015 spent $3.3 billion building the infrastructure bones of the internet compared to what they did previously. the third time in modern history that have been in the second time in 2009. someone that would be the case and we are rich and at least seen some of that take place now. >> we clearly articulated issues with the potential impact on innovation and i'm wondering the status of the order today. >> theaters challenged by a number of trade associations and companies. they have been consolidated in the previous two challenges. the briefing schedule has been that for december 4th -- some point thereafter the court will render a decision.
i would imagine any party unhappy with the decision would be likely to see the d.c. circuit and or the supreme court judging from previous experience that might be in for a long haul. the 2000 challenged 2008 challenge to two years to resolve. the 2010 decision was resolved until 2014. people have to wait quite a while to get revolution on the issue. >> is the order today effective at this point? >> it is in effect. the fcc is now doing subsidiary of rulemaking. it will start a rulemaking on the privacy implications of the net tetralogy decision. although it said in february it would forbear a number of the so-called title ii regulations, the fcc reclassified any service provider but also forbore at this time a number of the rules
that would otherwise apply to those isps and it is now trying to decide which rules should apply, how they should apply and so forth. there's a lot of work the fcc is going to do. >> how expensive is a forbearance? some of the documents are quite substantial. >> it is. the agency forbore provisions that title ii applied section 201 and 2022 litigation. it opened the door to privacy regulations through section 222 which will apply from the particular rules that currently apply to telephone companies. there's a whole host of regulations that will apply it were going to apply in the near future. it is going to be difficult for us at the agency to sort through
and i wish the the communications by well as communications by wealthy advice claims they have on how the regulations are likely to apply. it has produced a boon for washington lawyers. >> this reclassification brought in services as common carriers. >> essentially yes. title two was adopt in 1934. it was on relevant regulations in the 19th century to regulate what was then considered to be anticompetitive monopolies. the exchange is we'll regulate you in exchange for heavy-handed regulation. one reason i opposed the broadband providers as common carriers was the internet market is anything but a static utility. i can't think of anything more dynamic for innovation is
quicker and more consumers benefit so mightily. reclassify never broadband provider from comcast and at&t to main street broadband and isp which has four customers strikes me as using a sledgehammer to attack the problem and speaking of problems, he was search in vain to the 300 some pages to identify a market failure when we present the regulation would be predicated on extensive findings the marketplace is filled in providers are unable to thrive to smaller startups. to the contrary, the internet economy both as commissioner and consumer is the envy of the world that we lead the way of innovation investment and that is something undermines the entire foundation which as i said previously our solution that will work to a problem that
doesn't exist. >> of. >> is the agency can treat it as, how detailed gained the oversight -- a lot of it for born on most of it, but when can the fcc do in terms of dictating terms to broadband service providers? >> one concrete example from t-mobile's music if you're a wireless customer and how the data cap, you met and i want to be careful about how i consume data. defense butterfly in pandora from this data caps. if you listen to songs, the content does not count against your data cap. he seems to be a good thing for most customers at the agency said it could be considered a violation under the conduct standard raises the question how far will it go. but business practices that
competitors can introduce might be frowned upon. the fcc sat up and enforcement or advisory opinion process work on her knees come in and ask mother may i. do the business practice and even if the agency said you can't necessarily rely on it and if you don't come to the agency that will be used against you in the future. the question is where do we go from here. the best indication of that is the fcc's leadership on it mission on february 26th following adoption of the order when asked what is the conduct mean. we don't know where it goes next. that is regulatory uncertainty defined. i can't put it any better than that. >> commissioner ohlhausen,
you've been waiting patiently. thank you, pai for your remarks. many people similarly may be unfamiliar with the ftc's enforcement authority and its action on the internet more generally. could you give us a quick summary as commissioner pai date for the ftc legal authority here and highlight the processes and how those work and give us an example of recent enforcement actions. >> thank you for moderating the panel and commissioner pai, likewise always a pleasure to appear on a panel with you. our views are very compatible which i appreciate having fellow commissioners with a compatible view. thank you for the federal society for hosting the national press club. they are my own and the federal
trade commission. at the core, the ftc authority comes from section five of the ftc act and that prohibits deceptive acts or is stellar consumer protection authority not her method of competition which is her antitrust authority. particularly in this space, we have done quite a bit of enforced event using our traditional consumer protection authority. we have challenged companies. we have lots of online companies, lots of new technologies. we brought a case against snapshot alleging the privacy violations involving their service or promises and would be ephemeral to go away and was initially captured.
we brought against technologies which was that it was collect in near real-time location data. one case again company called trend that that offered an internet enabled camera to allow you to monitor children they also monitor your home and live feeds of over 600 cameras put online. we have brought against handset makers for failing to take steps to secure their mobile devices. one of the other important things the ftc has and we don't do a lot of roles. we have a few rules reinforce your children's online privacy protection act is one that plays a fair role of the internet
space. one of the other tools as our policymaking solutions. kelley mentioned some previous life and one of the things i did there as i was ahead of the office of policy planning at the end of the bush administration for 2004-2008. i had an upper internet task force and we look at some issues raised involving net neutrality. all of the things commissioner pai has identified as a possible problem with the fcc's move to reclassify and oppose net neutrality rules, we consider these issues ever looked for what is the harm happening in the market. what are tools we have to address those kind and we did a bipartisan report that came out in 2007 that said either
theoretically some arms? yes. do they seem to be occurring in the market? is it moving towards greater competition? seems to be. we can bring traditional antitrust law and consumer protection law. going back to the consumer protection issue, one of the things we've been able to do in the broadband space that is being put at risk is for companies that made cases, an active litigation to say what we've mentioned in the complaint if a company made a promise for unlimited wireless broadband for consumers. we elect they didn't fulfill the promise of a broad enforcement action against them. the part of the previous open internet order that had been
upheld by the d.c. circuit was a transparency requirement and the idea companies providing these crucial broadband services should tell customers how their traffic management, data management and those promises and if they don't adhere to them, that is something the ftc can reach under its traditional consumer protection authority. well, now that the fcc has reclassified broadband is a common carrier service command that creates a big problem for consumers. the ftc does not have authority over common carriers acting as common carriers, providing common carrier service. we were able to bring enforcement action against at&t and our authority to bring it, the decision has not been rendered on merit and authority to challenge behavior was upheld the district court that sad but common carrier exemption
prevents the ftc from exercising authority over common carrier providing common carrier services but not everything a common carrier does us a service and so at the time broadband was not the fcc with the brand next decision to say it is an information serious upheld and not. fast-forward to now, the challenge i see going forward is that the ftc has reclassified this large fact of activities as a common carrier service in the ftc tries to exercise traditional river protection authority and say you made a promise are you collecting people's information and didn't tell them about it or used it in a way that harms them. when we bring the challenges, a fair number say wait a minute,
you don't have the authority. we are a common carrier now or we are part of the type of common carrier service the fcc is trying to reach and its role. ultimately i think the ability to act in this space could be greatly impinged by the very broad reclassification. one other issue comes to mind here is that the ftc does have a wide authority outside the common carrier exemption and we are active enforcers on privacy and data security. we've brought over 50 data security cases. privacy cases of an equal number and we've been pretty act within the space. commissioner pai alder refer to this very dynamic area. there's so much competition happening between players who