tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 7, 2015 9:00am-11:01am EDT
by 9 aspect ratio. and i want to thank the role they've played. i spoke here several years ago. i apologize. i'm not mitt romney. i'm willing to apologize when i was wrong. in terms of where we're going, i share a lot of michael's views. things are going to be different. over the top is coming really, really fast. it's hitting. we're going to ip video very quickly in all sorts of forms and different ways of doing things. clearly when we talk about these things and we actually had the two prior people. we can do the exact same thing. and i went back and looked at what e we said. you were getting an award and
spoke and said some things as well. i listen to what you say and i don't always follow it. there's tablets, things you carry, a lot of displays virtual reality coming. there's all sorts of technology. some of which are aware of lcd and things like that. some have not been invented or research labs. i really do want to correct. it's not just about apple. apple is a great company. they are doing great things. vizio is talking about going public today. in terms of what else we'll be
seeing in the near term it's had a successful run. when i talked to retailers, i hear about sets going off the shelves. the numbers are truly astounding in terms of how they are selling and the price you can get. >> because we all work in washington, d.c., i suppose the obligatory question has to be, we'll start this time with you, michael, what can the government do to help or, on the other hand hinder your industry and filling out its role in the future of television and feel free to lay out any concerns you have about government regulatory issues in that regard. >> i think it would start at a philosophical level. when you're in a period that's
marked by innovation that period also involves explosive experimentation. and regulation is at its best when markets are mature and well understood and my own belief is they are at their worst when it's a fire of change and experimentation and they are trying to -- i would look for a category of having the commission being committed to incentives that align with that experimentation and the importance of not letting there be arbitrary or premature reflexive reactions to experimentation. new business models new roles for interactive or consumers, the role that data will play in
trying to bring because a lot of those things will have an element that you're worried about. if you act on it you'll distort the market by the consumer. i think the disincentive you mentioned is the opposite of that are hoping that they not do. at some point, a combination of the fcc and the congress just have to confront the reality that they have a myriad of laws based on market and technological predicate are false. tons of cable regulation that are premised with program access that is premised on the cable industry is the only source of distribution of video content and its premise on the idea that
cable companies vertically own most programming consumers watch. when the law was passed, cable companies own 54% of the content carry ed carried ob their systems. that's down to 1% and if you took out comcast, it would collapse almost entirely yet the rules still exist. now there's directv and dish yet they are not even subject to the same set of rules. there's a lot of simply inequity in the regulatory environment because the market grew up on the rules. and nobody has tried to go back and address the efficacy of the rules. the government owes you accuracy. it's reflective of the actuality of the market and not the way it was 20 plus years. >> gordon probably speaking for
the industry has got the heaviest regulatory burden, i'd have to say. how do you see this question? >> i was going to suggest to michael, i have some i could give him u if you'd like. >> you've been trying. >> i think obviously the elephant in our room is our heavy regulatory burden and certainly the upcoming auction and our hope that the fcc will have a successful forward and reverse auction that protects our contours and is mindful of interference. so i think there's so many things that could go wrong with the auction unrelated to the lawsuit that we currently have which we tried to expedite as quickly as we can because we'd like this in the rear view
mirror. but i was on the senate commerce committee when we went from analog to digital. by comparison, that transition was like kindergarten recess compared to the complexity of the upcoming auction and the potential for disruption that that poses. i could name ownership rules and regulations. i could go down a long list. they simply haven't kept pace u with the requirement to look at ownership across ownership issues. we are kept as no one else. and that presents its own sets of challenges. i would hope that the fcc would be the enduring value to the american people of localism and free and that it is a video future for all of the american. people and not just those who
can afford pay video. the world we grew up in and the world we should to our children is one that irrespective of your income you should be a able to have local news, weather, sports, emergency alerts, which so often, so commonly are literally the lifeline to rescue and relief that the fcc keep a dedicated band between the analog transition to looking forward to the auction coming up in 2016 broadcasting will have relinquished two-thirds of its spectrum and there's simply a limit if we're going to keep broadcasting in the important place that it occupies in telecommunications. >> we're going to follow through on some of those issues a little
later that you raised effectively. how about you on this one? >> i'll step back and say the competitive nation is innovation. and innovation is what we're great at. i share some of michael's concerns. if you have to go to the government and ask permission, that's really slowing you down. there's a system there. things have to work together. the primary role and we all agree as a nation under your leadership that we would recommend something to the fcc and that worked out great. it does have a fact there's a limited amount of spectrum. it's a fuel for a lot of innovation. so much of what we do is based on that. you mentioned there's a debate i'm struggling with and a addition that is formed in the
last few years about rich versus poor. and some of it is some resentment by the massive america that people get government monopolies and special treatment and make a ton of money. a lot of these regulatory things that created so long ago so the way we view it is we want to see a healthy broadcast healthy cable, we want competition among every type of broad band provider. if there's intense competition, the needs for regulation go away. i would argue that and i think eventually our policymakers will get this. what can we do to get tremendous kpecompetition in broadband? they claimed authority. it's something where i think that's the role of congress.
this is your authority. we want open internet and this is a good thing. this is what you can do rather than the fcc saying we can do anything you want requiring you come to us before you offer new services. >> staying with you for a moment. we're here at atsc. therefore, i think we should talk about what hopes and concerns you have for a possible new standard. by the way, congratulations on the private sector role you play ed ed, but what about? >> 3-0 is an elegant standard that does a lot of great things. success or failure would be determined by the people in this room and their ability to convince in a sense broadcast management to promote it.
they are willing to introduce and try things. if there's not support in the marketplace, you'll see that dry up. it's a chicken and egg thing in part. really if the broadcast industry gets behind it, it will succeed. it can be the last opportunity to expand the market share. if they don't, it will fail. i was going back 11 years and reading about predecessor talking about hgtv is the last chance for broadcast. ers to step up. the reason we invested so much, we worked so hard on it. most of the country rely edied on their antenna. today it's less than 10%. and broadcasters started out fast but they got slower compared o to satellite and even fiber and cable and others. they jumped in so the competitive advantage for broadcast was not realized.
we can come back. we already have -- it was announced that blueray dvd has created a standard for disks. disks will come back. people love ultrahd. and netflix is already streaming. it takes awhile and you have to have a good broadband, but the trend line is there. americans want good-looking pictures. the number of americans with over 40 inches is really, really high. it's 79% of americans have big sets. that wasn't true when we were doing the transition. the content actually is very important. even without good content i shouldn't say good content, it's a great viewing experience and people are buying it anyhow. >> senator smith, after two
decades of development, we went through a transition just six years ago, a nationwide transition to digital television television. do you foresee this time around we go to 3-0 that we're going to have another nationwide transition or market by market and how would that work out? >> well, let me just first surprise you and say i agree with what gary just said. probably to the irritation of some of my member, i believe 3.0 is essential for broadcasting to have the flexibility and incentive to do new things with less spectrum and i believe it's actually critical, even if you're a broadband provider like michael or the telephone companies, i don't think there's enough spectrum to do video by
broadband. it will always be an inferior experience and it will be an enexpensive experience and i believe that 3.0 is important for more than just a great new picture. it's important for mobility for broadcasting. and again, in emergencies, that becomes pretty critical. if you have a mobile device you can get a broadcast signal too. i think that broadcasters need to be interoperable. this new standard will permit that. it opens up the future so broadband can play its vital role to all the americans. whether it's prescription or over the air, it is probably 60 million americans depend exclusively over the air. when you add up second and third it tvs in houses, it's a lot more than that.
and so i think the broadcasting is a matter of public policy and needs to be there for all of the american people. >> we have 79% of the big screens. we just paid out all that money. we're going to go through it all again. >> it could be rolled out in stages, but obviously, a national deadline like it was before, it worked very well. and it probably is going to require that again. it's not an easy proposition. again, i was a part of the last transition. i know what it took. and this will be just as big and just as important. but i think the -- i hear chairman wheeler talking a lot about channel sharing. that actually becomes very possible with 3.0. n a way that isn't quite as possible with 1.0. there's just so much flex nlt blt. so my hope is that you all will finish this job. it's good for broadcasting good
for telecommunications, it means more than just a prettier picture. it means all kinds of developments, leap of faith on behalf of broadcasters but just as they made in going to hd but that needs to be done again. >> michael, what about cable this it time around given the key role that mtta played and you personally plays, by the way, on 1.0. how do you see it rolling out this time? >> first of all, we're a proud founder and partner of everyone in this room and we think extraordinary engineering work has been done and people are to be commended. i do think the circumstances are meaningfully different and probably more challenging in terms of rollout. for one, there's not a second channel to jump to as there was in the transition which makes me believe that that suggests market by market much more clearly than it does a
nationwide switch. i also think it's important to say that i think the government has an infatuation with internet over the top video and i don't know whether it will be as easy to galvanize around an incremental change in the traditional television experience in the way that it was. by the way, we should remember it took a really long time even before the political dynamics of that are even a little more challenging today. one of the most virtuous transitions is we had a transformation in the form fact of what a television was. many people went to buy it in part because of the love of thinner, lighter, it became furniture, not so heavy and oppressive oppressive. we had these things going on.
it always gets more difficult. it get. s a little more challenging. so not that it isn't worthy and important, it's more challenging. >> senator as i certainly recall, when we did the standard the last time it took government approval and took a long time even after the committee turned in its recommendation, nearly a year. do you foresee that 3.0 is going to require government approval in whole or in part? >> there's a debate about that, but i would hope for their approval. i think it's in the fcc's
interest to be a part of this and approve it, help fa civil tat it. it if they are interested in competition and broadcasting needs to be a part of that. and 3.0 helps facilitate some of their goals to get gary more spectrum and the phone companies more spectrum. but in the end, my answer is yes. it does require the fcc to be our partner in this and i think there's a public policy reason that the congress would agree with that says they should be our partner in approving it. >> i see you frowning a little bit. do you disagree? >> people mistake my intense concentration as a frown. something maybe. plastic surgery can fix. i was thinking about that about how this is different this time.
i also think it's a different transition in the sense that we have a totally different environment in so many ways. we have also learned from the past and take the best lessons. very painful years we lived. you were the guy running it. and you were a senator. i remember the fear amongering and the horrible things that will happen and people will -- members of congress out of office because they didn't have their tv signal. and it was a whimper. even president obama, his first decision was to delay the transition. and we spent $2 billion that we didn't have to to delay the transition because of fears that were totally unfounded. when it came time to make the transition, i never heard of a complaint because we so over did it. cea did not take a position
either way. we did not support or oppose the fact that we had $2 billion spent on a coupon program so people could buy these boxes. we don't ask the government for money. in terms of the government role, there is a role because it involves the transmission standard and spectrum. our goal in the short-term is to make sure the standard is done, we go forward in a way that makes sense. this collective industry is smart enough to do it. it's a lot better that this is an industry-led transition. which is what we had last time. government was a partner. the truth is everyone is talking about this fcc. it will not be the fcc in a year and a half. there's a new president and probably a new chairman. so speaking of the new chairman we're focused on getting a spectrum. may i ask one of the panelists a
question? >> no. >> you're going to get one back. >> as you know, fcc chairman wheeler reiterated the need for the option to go forward. this is very carefully read. >> what we have done is because we so object to the modelling that they have for the repack is simply fought clarification so we preserve our contours and serve the customers that we currently have. we saw an expedited proceeding. >> no new issues raised or studies done or arguments thrown in, no delays will be sought? >> i think that really depends
on how this goes. the truth of the matter is this is so much larger than the last transition. the repack is going to dis rupt hundreds, thousands of tv stations. whether they participate in the auction or not and so we are hopeful that they come forward with rules to allow things to go just as quickly as possible. we want to know what our space is and with 3.0, we hope to be able to do everything we do now and more. >> so i heard across from a gentleman who introduced himself as a low powerer guy and he will do everything possible to delay until he gets some relief by congress. and he said i want to get mine. and i just react to that and ask is this a healthy way to approach a national problem?
just delay when everyone agreed we need the spectrum? >> there are problems in terms of the amount of if there's 120 mega hertz involved $1.75 billion for packing is short. i don't know who makes up that shortfall. there's some open questions that i don't have answer for right now and i hope the fcc and the congress will. >> not talking about anybody delaying anything, but is there a problem that you see if we had the perfect world that we would have a standard in place before we did the auction. so there wouldn't be an unfortunate timing incident. the broadcasters would know what their level was. >> it could be unfortunate timing. it also could be fortuitous timing if they get the job done. and we can piggy back that.
we're a step on the accelerator. erg you can do to help us in a timely way helps make for one disruption, not two. >> do you see worldwide commonality than we had the last time around? >> you mean do we have to take trips to brazil and europe? we tried, didn't we. i still think it's proven to be by every measure the best in the world. i think the good thing here is that 3.0, because it's different, it will be a global standard. i mean obviously countries can do whatever they want and often do for reasons that are not technical and so people like to be different. we see the standard in spending all the time. >> what they are coming up is so good for broadcasters, so good for telecommunications, i think
it will set the standard for the world. 3.0 will help us leapfrog the rest of the world. they will be catching up with us instead of us trying to catch up with them. >> there are probably engineers all around the world working on this. >> looking at the programming ahead, gary had touted ultrahigh definition television and everybody wants to see advances but i wonder if it's going to have the same kind of wow factor that we all experienced as consumers when hdtv came around. what do you see in that regard? >> it's difficult to say because people have different perceptions. i can tell you i don't find it
as radically transformational as analog to hd was. everyone knows i'm a consumer of television, it doesn't have that dramatic, some things yes, some things no, but r there are other characteristics that improve quality quite dramatically. hdr capability, color, the way color is rendered is beautiful. the human eye has certain limitations. you can make a machine that can
expaid real life. you have to be careful. i don't know how to put this but over time, at some point my own instincts are we're exceeding what's natural. and the experience becomes unreal and jarring and almost too sharp that it creates a way with the real world. it's worth being careful. he has so sell more tv sets this week. >> i want to help gary sell more tv sets and 3.0 is important to doing that. what is noticed is if you put content on a current tv it's mar marginally better. if it you put it on a 4k tv, i see the wow, but that's my eye. >> i don't have to sell these
things, they sell themselves. the greater colors, the greater reality of ultraand in generations that will follow, the experience you get being surrounded by walls of video and floor, the fact to be there with someone 3,000 miles away the opportunities here are really big. and one of the drivers is not necessarily traditional broadcast or cable content. there's other things out there. there's video. there's other senses that we haven't tapped. i'm not going to say we're using two senses. there's five of them there. there's all sorts of things happening that will change the experience that we have as consumers of entertainment. 20 years from now they might be talking about different locations and talking to each other. i grew up in a lot of science fiction and that's what excites me about my job. a lot of it will come true.
i'm absolutely convinced. the only things that can go. wrong is if government does things out of requiring permission before innovation. in terms of whether it's broadcast or not, i don't lose sleep over that because the broadcast is an opportunity for broadcasters. cable is a phenomenally great pipeline and it should be. the cable industry is the most clever and strategic. we came up with cable land and said we're going to make it by being a a pipeline and whether they can keep up remains to be seen as well. a lot of the stuff is coming on the internet and youtube and all these other channels and new products are coming up that i wouldn't have considered. snapchat was created a couple years ago and $2 billion offer and was rejected because it wasn't enough money. pair scope allows you to do all sorts of things and we still
have a long ways to go. there are parts of the body not yet used. >> gary what some people find jarring -- >> and we're grateful for that. >>. >> is we're talking about ultrahigh definition and now we're talking about 8k, super high vision. is that likely ever to be an in-home consumer product in the near term? >> i don't talk about it. i think 4k ultra that will be blown away. there will be further visions. we know there will be robotics and drones and 3d printers and home health care. and driverless cars. those transitions for all these things and a great future ahead of us. so yes, there are other generations that will certainly come. we're not done inventing stuff. this is like the patent guy that
said everything is going to be inventive. we're not done. you have such a great vision of technology and appreciation for it. but you think our senses are going to limit us to what we're going to enjoy in the future. there will be in algorithms. >> one thing that is -- you can plug in. then we have to roll you out of here. but i agree about the consumer and someone around tv a long time, i share both of these gentlemen's understanding that part of what our challenge is continue to make quality important. but we're being naive if we don't understand there's a a trend that always exists in the internet called good enough. and the mobile phone is not near the fidelity of a fixed line
phone. you could have fought forever. i'm old enough to know when cell phones were launching, a bunch of people ran around in the phone business saying you can hear a pin drop. we sell quality. telephone service don't go down more than two minutes a year. there's no way these mobile things are going to accept. they accepted a an experience for the exchanged other things they valued for it. the internet can do the same thing around video if we are not careful. there are kids who are happily content with parascope and there's nothing about that will ever match anything on tv today. it doesn't mean you could ak acclimate a generation around a different kind of value exchange for good enough. so we shouldn't think -- the only thing i disagree with is we can sit back and it will sell itself. i think we have to be advocates and creators of using the
palette in a way that makes the policy to quality as high as the other values and virtues people are getting from mobility personalization, data that supplements some elements of quality. it's just a challenge, not either/or, we have to be committed to being able to make the case for quality, not assume just put it in front of me or gary or anyone else and it will sell itself. >> gordon as wonderful as as ultrahigh definition with further developments will be isn't the even greater possibility is the great. er put that this standard may have to mobile devices. how is that going to impact broadcasting? >> this is one of the greatest virtues of a 3.0 is the ability
to be mobile and that broadcasting can be part of the mobile future. so i can name other things. you can do targeted advertising and political advertising is important to broadcasters. i would just simply say the future is broadcasting still but it's going to shrink unless you can be more targeted and microtargeting in elections. 3.0 allows you to do that. so there's endless potential opportunities and my challenge is to get all my members to understand that if they want to play in the telecommunications world of tomorrow as an equal partner with cable and satellite and phone companies then they need to be on this new standard. it will open up new opportunities, new customers, as opposed to bye-bye subordinated to in a position that leaves us
really just over the top in mobile world. there's just not enough spectrum to do video over the top. it's not going to be. so we need to do that. >> gary on 1.0 the current standard, the government spent a couple billion helping consumers with box converter costs. are we going to see a market-driven program this time? >> i think it depends whether broadcasters get behind it or not frankly. that's the challenge. so broadcasters there in the beginning for hdtv they did a good job getting it technically. our biggest thing we were wrong about, even though market projections were perfect, we were wrong that broadcasters would drive the transition. it was sports movies and, believe it or not, dvd, which at that time wasn't hdtv quality. things looked better. we're seeing the same thing with
4k ultra. broadcasters had an opportunity to say it's important and they do a little bit but individual broadcasters do not promote the use of antennas. that's going to increasingly be a detriment. same thing with phones. >> the reason for that is michael and i shared too many members. you mentioned audio. the big surprise for our industry was our quality went down. apple introduced their ipod and it was such an amazing product. people accepted lower quality. and it was a trade off. smart phones don't have fm capability because there's no market to manage this point. radio broadcasters have not created this.
so broadcasters have this phenomenal marketing ability. broadcasters don't see the return to themselves. the industry, there's no question that marketing does work if you tell consumers they are not creating a need that may not otherwise exist. >> gary will appreciate this. i know michael will as well. every one of your members views different policies, different changes through the pris m of their own balance sheet. we're trying to keep all the bull frogs in the wheel barrel. it's easier said than done and part of our job as association head is to look beyond the quarter ly quarterly report and say it does require a leap of faith as it will do again with 3.0. and so that's a great point. >> i also have an easier job
because that's what our companies are doing. they don't make money off the products. they are always looking down and going in a direction that's far uphill. it's a question of aiming towards a future or trying to preserve the past. i don't think there's a company that can preserve the past. there was one when it was called circuit city or radio shack. it doesn't happen that way. >> stepping away from the standard for a a moment and talking about some of the key issues in the whole future of television world michael, it seems like every day we see a new streaming service. over the top is becoming the thing, so to speak. how is that going to impact the cable industry? >> it's going to impact it profoundly. it's both a risk and a challenge and it's an amazing opportunity. internet protocol allows strategic processing and manipulation and use of content.
ip technology or some form of it is what allows recommendation engine. it's what allows integration with commonly shared social plaid forms. it what allows a targeted specific data that advertisers increasingly demand to have and pay for. so the people who harness all of those varls will do really really well. anyone else who puts their hand in front of their eyes and wishes it would go away i think we'll get run over by it. i do think we get a little techno ecstatic. television is still watched in a great story. i sometimes think that so it's over this distribution platform or that distribution platform. i'm still at home watching "madmen." whenever something comes at you a new way, we can get a little bit over hyperbolic about how
transformational it is. what isn't transformational is the human being still craves story and the human being still craves being entertained and informed through the visual medium. that's not going anywhere. any time soon for the history of the world, whether it's that screen or one on my hip or this wire or that or over the spectrum or through the ground, americans love their tv and will watch it 310 hours a month. >>. i agree with that totally. for the last 20 or 30 years i have been confronting other industries. all content will evaporate. obviously, the vcr is the worst thing since jack the ripper. obviously, the opposite has happened. there's much more creativity
because in part technology enabled people to do it cheap erer. and even the music -- big record labels have suffered but creation of content is incredible now. you can be an artist and get it out there yourself. you don't need a big distribution company. >> one of the biggest challenges is that the consumer is becoming even increase caningly acclimated to wanting the finest and best television can produce and increasingly unwilling to pay or desiring to pay the cost of what it takes to do it. the average major television drama costs $4 million an episode to make. my kids don't want to watch cable. but i want to watch "game of thrones." they want to watch "breaking bad", but where is that going to be funded and financed if the -- >> "house of cards."
>> even netflix, whose ha jumped into original content, that's $300 million annual expense. >> mr. chairman isn't it true that a la carte pricing or slimmer packages of programming are something that consumers are going to want? >> they want it now. >> how is that going to impact the future of cable and other industry? >> look i don't treat it as a disruption. i treat it as a new market. there are new markets of consumers who want to consume in a different manner. they have the same passion. they have different expectations of when and how and they have different expectations of what they see as the value trade off. how much do they want? we had a wonderful period where we all celebrated the 500-channel universe. and when i first came into this business, that was the greatest thing.
i remember this quest commercial. a guy walks into a motel with every movie ever made and cureuation is still valuable. consumers crave the ability to have something more simple that's less is more well priced, well valued and that means you have to create flexibility around packages. whether that's working with your programming partners or them experimenting or the government not to mandate bundles, but you have to create a flexibility to try to give them what they are asking for. this generation doesn't have to just take it. they have the tools, the ability, and the inventiveness to entertain themselves. if you don't give it to them, they will sit there and watch youtube for the rest of your life. >> i give you credit for those comments because it's probably difficult for you to say. when you talk about consumer trust, when you were chairman i
asked you about tivo. you said god's machine. it's the most memorable quote of when you were chairman. that was my favorite quote. it it turned around a lawsuit that was filed against tivo and now we expect it to be a usable product. it wasn't clear that it was legal, but that's the lesson. you have to give consumers what they want. >> in that regard, we have suggested that people have to pay for what they get. senator, what about the future of retransmission consent in that regard? people paying for broadcasting, how do you feel about that? >> we're all for it. look, as long as broadcasting continues to produce the most watched content, as long as localism is valued, as long as we're free people in america, we simply ask the right to bargain for the value of our content
without the government dictating it. >> and michael, what's wrong with that concept? >> if it's valuable and they don't want the government to dictate it, then sell it in the free market and people will take it if they want it and reject it if they don't. >> what do you need of government sanctioning it? >> this it marketplace negotiations. isn't that what we're getting? >> it's not marketplace negotiations. lots of the rules e derived out of consent are not marketplace derived rules. people always want to make up fight over retransmission consent. american consumers increasingly looking for the consent they want in many forms and what's going to become in. relief of that is the role of which the content e owner or ip owner or broadcaster has much more control about where and when that goes.
increasing scrutiny about how it work works. that's the reality of what the market pressures are going to produce. i think the -- back to my original question. the only thing i ask is if the government wants to reevaluate the market as it exists today and reevaluate whether the market conditions that led you to those choices 20 30 years ago, then revalidate that. but i do think that there are strains, and it's not just retransmission, i don't want to get. caught up in that, but there's a real important need to revalidate what our judgments are. just like -- gordon would love for the country to have a modern revalidation of principle. we could talk about what that is or whether there really is one, but the reality is i think that's a fair question to ask. someone should have that debate and decide whether we care anymore. it if we do care, i think he's got a point. if we don't care, we loved you,
but good-bye. none of us are entitled to permanent. we have to be relevant to the modern age. >> i don't know how many come from washington and new york i think localism means less there than it does in the cities. i will tell you being from rural oregon is absolutely vital. it is the glue that brings communities together. all of fly over america a very important value. if it went away, it's not going to go away because every member of congress values it. >> you say like the guns debate if you live rural, take my localism out of my dead hands. >> if you're in wichita kansas, and you want to know what the weather is, it's vital to your crops. when's the tornado coming, what's the weather, these are things that people count on in a
daily way. you may not feel that in washington, but 9/11 or when there's an earthquake in washington, d.c., the one thing that kept working and one thing everyone counted counted on it wasn't broadband. it was broadcasting. >> we're missing a point. i would agree with everything gordon just said and localism has that value. the question is does it rise to the level that the government should demand other entities subsidize that model and should it require that the government create legally, enforceable preferences for that value as protected by law. >> i think "mad men" is super super valuable and i don't want to miss it sunday night, but it doesn't necessarily mean that i want the government to make it part of the regulated regime. >> if the government wants to get rid of the all of the things related to broadcasting.
most of them are harmful to our cost. a few of them a few of them must carry and are beneficial to small stations. so there is a tradeoff here but if the effort is to get rid of the few things that benefit broadcasters and leave us with all of the other cost impositions, then i would say you're right. >> i would join you in that. i'd take them all away. i tried to. >> michael. >> didn't i, preston? >> your industry right now is engaged and just getting started in a rather strong litigation front because you're concerned about the fcc's open internet order and the possibility of title 2 regulation. you want to speak to that? >> can i say something about that? as a member i did not vote for net neutrality but the best thing about net neutrality is it put michael in the bull's-eye and not me.
>> happy to do that for you. [ laughter ] don't worry. you'll be back there soon enough. first of all, i want to go back and commend gary who is the one who first addressed this and he's totally right. i can get in the weeds on this issue, but just let me start from a high-level point that's very important. since the internet was invented in this country. the administration at the time, clinton administration ira, and i could name people who were heroic and created the original foundation in they would have the internet. including me at the fcc and there was recognition of some amazing things. in essence, the national e tos was let entrepreneurs, innovators and engineers and
everyday people determine the growth, path and evolution of this phenomenal infrastructure and let's not adopt the model of a central regulator who is a set of attorneys and bureau crafts, acting not as the bottom up as the internet works but from the top down as we try to do in the history of the phone system. that was a major national commitment and it's been in the etho is that has governed the policy of the united states. it is the national policy of the united states for the internet to grow unfettered by state and federal regulation, quote, unquote. for 20 years we have watched this country produce some of the greatest, wealth-generating and innovating companies in the history of the world. there would be no google. there would be no facebook and there would be no amazon and ebay and no snapchat and no
whatsapp without this policy. this policy attracted $230 billion over one industry over a decade and the technology would deploy faster than any technology in the history of the world under that commitment and secondly, we as leaders wandered around the world and demanded other governments do the same. we demanded governments who had much more evil intentions toward the internet russia china, arabian countries. no we will not stand for regulating the internet like the telephone system so you can censor. on this decision of net neutrality this government switched that long-standing policy perception. we've gone from an infrastructure principally directed by markets and innovators and entrepreneurs and people to one that has lawyers, regulators and lobbyists through an adversarial process
determining every business evolution of the network and i don't know why anybody believes that that's a virtuous moment in time, and i don't know how we will have the moral authority to sit at the international telecommunications union a year from now and tell the russians you shouldn't regulate the internet like a telephone infrastructure. that's the switch. that's what title 2 means. title 2 is the most powerful source of authority that the fcc has available to it bar none. it is now a central and powerfully armed regulator and it has created a process of complaint that allows any company to collaterally args tack a business decision to allow anybody who is unhappy with any aspect of the market to run to the commission and we will all sit there for the year or year and a half on average it takes for them to make a decision about anything waiting to decide whether the cool innovation they came up with we could deploy. i will end with what gary said,
a genius is innovation, and we've made prerequisite for innovation and i think it's a tragic choice in the country that we'll deeply regret. >> [ applause ] >> powell for president! >> why don't you tell us how you really feel? >> i want to see you two with that clip as much as the john oliver clip got. >> okay. we are here in 2015, suppose, gary, it's 2025, five years from now and we're talking about the future of television. what's the headline? >> the headline is lots of choice. lots of great things but i really believe that it depends upon the bird alive or the bird dead and the wise man has to kill the bird if he says it's alive and he'll let it go if he says it's dead and the wise man will be wrong. the future is in the hands of
the people here and the people who make the business decisions in broadcasting and whether broadcasting is off the table depend upon their ability to go over the air and go along with the auction instead of rather delay it and that's for broadcasting. for cable, they have more options and simply as a broadband provider they've been very well situated and other services that have come along whether it's wi-fi or power line or there's a new set of dish stock went up today because they started talking about broadband for satellite which is a nice thing. there are a lot of choices and alternatives which are healthy, but in terms of what the device will look like, there are natural progression paths and surprises will come as clever companies do some amazing things. >> senator, maybe the answer for you would be a smaller, and more compacted, but maybe stronger broadcast industry. i think the headline in 2020 is gary's book, ninja inventors
will be in its tenth printing and the nab chief will have resigned or retired, but in all seriousness, i believe the future broadcasting will be very bright because atsc 3.0 you all have gotten your work done and we would have gotten it implemented and the localism and free and local live large will be available for all americans. >> michael? >> if you're looking for headlines and these are long headlines. >> that's okay. >> golden age of television goes platinum. i think that we think that we live in the golden age of television. i don't think how much more can it be? i think video will be so omnipresent it will come out of your pores. it's going to be a stunning period for consumption and cable trials, hol graphic television.
>> that's great. at least he didn't say smell-a-vision. >> all right. just in the final question -- just in a few words, michael what do you think about the future of television? >> it's bright, but upon it's not -- the first thing we could do is think beyond television. i think another headline will be we will increasingly begin to understand that it is a form of human content and entertainment and that it's not fixated around bonn central device or room or experience and that we will have transformed into a much broader, richer kind of experience with many more opportunities and many more companies and players that are in the ecosystem, and i think that's super exciting. challenge is challenge, but it is also opportunity and who wouldn't want to be in this
business, right? >> senator? >> live, local on every platform available at all times. >> gary? >> when you say television i always hear television displays and sometimes i think you mean television content or the ecosystem of television. no matter what you mean, to me, television is one of the many great technologies that will totally transfer on the human experience and the truth is the problems we're dealing with today is society whether it be health care or agriculture production or food or clean water will be resolved by technology and the internet of things and sensing devices and things like that and part of that is the type of display you have and the content you get so it will raise all of us up. i'll just add my own words of thanks to everybody in this audience for what you contributed to the current standard and to what will be a great new era in the future of television. thank you and let's thank this wonderful panel. [ applause ]
in a few moments we plan to take you to columbia, south carolina as the state debates a bill to take down the confederate flag from the statehouse. they're expected to have a final vote on that today. it was expected to begin at 10:00 straight up, and it's a couple of minutes late but we'll have live coverage when it gets under way here on c-span3. the senate arms services committee is meeting right now to hear about the administration's efforts to combat isis. defense secretary martin dempsey and join chiefs of staff -- actually, the defense secretary ashton carter right now are testifying. this comes after yesterday's
visit by president obama at the pentagon to meet with his national security team and top military leaders about isis strategy. senator john mccain is chairing the hearing and you can watch it as you can see on your screen. ashton carter is offering testimony. >> the u.s. congress is back from its july 4th break today. the house this week comes in at 10:00 -- actually, at 2:00 p.m. today and work on a bill that would fund the interior department, the epa and other related agencies. a bill making changes to no child left behind and allowing states to set their own accountability standards and they're working on a separate proposal and how much weight to give standardized test scores. you can see the senate live on c-span2 and the house on c-span.
and again, still waiting for the start of today's session on the south carolina senate with debate and removal of the confederate flag from the statehouse. while we wait, a look at some of the debate that took place yesterday on the house floor. >> absent mr. bennett. >> present. mr. bryant? absent. mr. campbell? absent. mr. campson? absent. mr. cleary has leave. mr. coleman? absent. mr. corbin has leave. mr. corson. >> present. >> mr. chromer. >> present. >> mr. davis? absent. mr. fair? absent. mr. gregory? absent. mr. grooms? >> mr. grooms is present. mr. hayes? absent. mr. himry. present. mr. jackson? present. mr. johnson present.
mr. lury present. >> mr. maloy? >> present. mr. larry martin. present. mr. shane martin has leave. mr. massey has leave. mr. matthews? absent. mr. mcilveen. present. mr. mickelson present. mr. rodel, mr. peeler? present. mr. reese. absent. mr. saab present. >> mr. sexler. present. mr. shaheen? absent. mr. thurmond. present. mr. turner. absent. mr. vernon. absent. mr. williams is present. mr. young is present.
>> is present. >> carl allen is present. fairfield, mr. coleman is present. shaheen is present and kershaw, senator matthews and orangeburg is present. >> we have to keep going. >> the quorum is press end. a quorum is present. we're all with amendment number one. clerk, please read the amendment. >> amendment number 1, strikes a bill in its entirety. it's a bill to provide for the advisory referendum related to whether the infantry battle flag of the confederate states of
america should remain on its current location of the capital complex. >> senator spartanberg. >> members of the senate i understand this is a non-binding referendum, but it would give the people a chance to be heard because the statehouse grounds obviously belongs to the people of south carolina. i know we're emotionally charged over what happened in charleston, but i do not hold folks that believe in the ancestry of the south to be the ones at fault for one deranged individual in charleston. we're going to have some serious debate on this and i'm saving this for later. we'll have this vote on this amendment because i know where the votes are, but i want to give an opportunity to allow the citizens of south carolina to be heard on this issue. >> senator would you approach. >> would the senator from
spartanburg yield for a question? >> the senator yields. >> i appreciate you. we've had several conversations over the weekend and this morning and i don't know if they understand exactly what your amendment does, but your amendment sets it up and is this what is set up on your referendum? >> as opposed to the 45 senators that are here now that this matter is referred to the voters and the state of south carolina for them to be voting on. >> and i'm willing to take amendment to which election i discussed with staff, and i thought there would be other amendment, but since i'm the first one out of the box that we had described at the primary dates and that is the soonest opportunity. i would think the earlier the better, but if we have to wait for the next general election. >> do you know how long the flag has been up?
you and i had this discussion and how it relates to me? >> yes. yes. since 1961 and that was the year of your birth. >> correct. >> so it's been up for a long time. >> 53-plus years. >> 53-plus years. >> it's been a while and this discussion has been ensuing during that period of time. >> absolutely. there's been a lot of discussion and during the governor's campaign about how the current governor was for leaving the flag up and i do understand that what happened in charleston has got a lot of people's attention, but i'm more against taking it down in this environment than any other time because i believe we're placing the blame of what one deranged lunatic did on people that hold their southern heritage high and i don't think that's fair. >> i believe that your amendment is germane. there was some discussion that it was not. >> yes. >> i believe it is. i ask that question because it concerns how you take it down so
it's a logical extension. >> and absolutely. i appreciate that discussion. you know, you look, and i'm not here to talk about this amendment but you are one of my closest things in the senate. senator jackson is one of my closest friend in the senate. it is a situation where we agree on the issues, but we disagree on issues and this is an issue that we may disagree on what we'd like the end result to be, but the esteem in which you hold the senate is something that i admire and the process is what's important to you. >> i will be against the amendment and we were elected and even though we go to him in certain points in time for advice that kind of thing, this is an issue that most of the people know where they are and so even though i agree with the process and procedural and all
that kind of thing, i just think that we are here as spokespeople for those people and that is the reason for our disconnect on this subject matter. >> i understand where you're coming from on that front. senator from florence. >> senator it would be a short question and hopefully there will be no follow-ups on it. senator, i keep up with the world news as much as i can for several days and weeks over in greece they're going through a very critical, financial. >> yes. yes. >> and i think yesterday their people voted in a referendum to accept or not accept whatever the european union was proposing. they rejected that. today, the last thing i saw in the news that country is in
absolute chaos. you know, our people and they'll show good judgment and i believe they do but our people are not in tune with the things that we talk about in this body as much as we are and i tell you when i saw what happened in greece, that country is probably going bankrupt. i don't know what happened to that country. i'll just say that i'm not against people voting. i think it's great to allow them to vote but they elect us to come here and make these decisions for them and i think if we don't do that we're derelict in our duties. >> see if the senator will yield for a question. >> let me briefly respond to the senator from florence's comments. i don't believe this is -- this is, you know i'm a firm believer in the republic and a republican form of government
where leaders were elected to make decisions, but this decision, i believe is something that's a little different. this is about what goes on the statehouse grounds. this isn't a budget and this isn't a regular statutory law and this is a decision on what the statehouse grounds look like, and i see so much emotion that has gone around this chamber because obviously we've lost a colleague, and we want to honor that colleague and i understand we'll hang his picture on the wall and we're never going to forget him. he's always going to be in our heart, but i just can't see how the two correlate in saying that the folks that waved that flag and that st. andrew's cross where st. andrew did not want to be crucified like christ. he didn't think he deserved it that he wanted christ alone to be notified or dignified with that crucifixion, and he was crucified as an angle and that's where the st. andrew's cross
comes from. i believe the majority of south carolinians would like to see it up and i believe i'm speaking for a majority of south carolinian, but i will prove that with a vote and i don't think doing that makes us any less of a republic, but it makes us more susceptible to the views of the people. >> senator you probably didn't know this but did you know that when i first heard about your proposal to have a referendum i have some concerns about that understanding -- >> debate from the south carolina senate yesterday and now we bring you live coverage of debate as it continues into a second day on the same issue, a final vote on this item could come today.
the senate and guests come to order and please remain standing while we are led by the chaplain and followed by the pledge of allegiance. >> thank you. the prophet ezekiel declares you are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and i am the lord god says the lord god from ezekiel chapter 34 verse 31. let us join our hearts in prayer. holy god, how comforting it is to be reminded that you are our shepard and that each staff member and all of us together are your sheep in your pasture. we truly thank you oh lord for your guidance your blessings and for your gracious comforting love. moreover, we pray dear god that these servants themselves will labor diligently on behalf of
and be concerned and thoughtful to those who are in their care. every woman, man and child here in this pasture we call south carolina. may these shepherds employ wisdom and demonstrate steady integrity in the leadership of your state to your glory of course, and for the betterment of all citizens and we pray this in your wondrous name, oh, lord, amen. >> the guests invited to join with us as we pledge allegiance to the flag. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> please be seated impeach. some the motions for the grand jury are such like paper. there are no communications
informed by the clerk therefore the only introduction of new bills and resolutions. the clerk will please read. >> georgetown county delegation has appointed favorable on the georgetown county magistrates and the honorable elaine c. elliott. the question is confirmation, georgetown magistrate honorable g wendell r. mcneil and pyatt and elaine c. elliott. those in favor confirmation say aye. opposed, na. ayes have it. >> it has reported favorable on the magistrates the honorable aaron c. butler. the honorable margie b. livingston, the honorable christopher c. rackus the honorable gerald t. whitley,
jr., and the honorable mark a. harris and the honorable monty l. harrison. >> these are county magistrates and aaron c. butler, margie b. livingston christopher j.arackus, and benjamin c. allen and gerald t. whitley jr., and bradley d. mayers mark a. harris and monty l. harrelson. those in favor of confirmation signify by saying aye. opposed, na. the ayes have it. >> it is cleared of any requests for local bills. any requests for local bills? hearing none that takes us to the calendar. page 4, statewide third reading -- statewide third reading and senate bill 897.
senate bill 897 the clerk will please read. >> this is a bill on many of the flags authorized to be flown atop the statehouse and on the capital complex to remove the south carolina confederate state of america to provide for the permanent removal of the flag and to the confederate soldier monument and provide the removal of the infantry for the confederate states of america for appropriate display. >> the question is third reading of the bill. this is senate bill 897. the question is third reading and senate of spartanburg. >> like to be heard. >> proceed. >> well president and members of the senate. first, before i go too long into
this i want to thank my friend from richmond, senator sax ler, i didn't mention him yesterday, but he is my friend and i have to say in the south carolina senate, the democrats are the minority party but they're very respectful when folks want to be heard because they understand what it's like to be in the minority and of course i am in the minority of the majority when it comes to many issues, but i wanted to -- and i wasn't going to speak today, but the emails i received overnight from folks that were very upset and many said there was a way to impeach someone in the south carolina senate and could i be removed because of my -- pushing my faith on others and as i was walking into the lobby i notice we have a chaplain in the senate
who read from, you guessed it those folks who seem to have hostility towards almighty god, he read from the bible! and then he said a prayer in your name which i would assume since he read from the bible that would be jesus' name so i guess that all the folks that watch the national media will now be coming after him or i guess all of you because you see, it doesn't stop with the flag. we found out yesterday it's not the flag because i put up an amendment for a flag that's not been used by hate groups that was only flown as the first flag of the confederacy and got very few votes so it's not about the flag. it's about heritage but the emails that i got yesterday and i want folks to understand that when i -- when i had several people say why were you talking
about gay marriage -- why did you bring up gay marriage and this flag debate? are you not paying attention to what's going on in the senate floor? so i know we have an attention span of 30 seconds and i'm guilty of it and that's why millions and millions and tens of millions are spent on 30-second ads because they know that's about the attention span because we're all so busy. we're an information society, but for those of you all that didn't have time which i know many don't have time to see the entire proceeding, what i did was i moved to amend our signing so we could take up a bill pertaining to marriage since the supreme court ruling came down and then i had someone tell me the supreme court didn't decide that for south carolina. well, yes, we did have a judge who had already decided that before it made it to the supreme court, but had the supreme court ruled otherwise, obviously that would have had an impact. so this idea of federalism, this
idea of states having rights pretty much ended with this war. it pretty much ended. lincoln -- let's think about this. this is a president who suspended an entire state's legislature, and i've had people that have come out and said well, you're not a patriot. you're not a patriot because those folks were traitors. these are the emails i'm getting from people in our own state. in our own state. these men fall for what they believed was what the constitution said. listen, i found that our nation was wrapped up in slavery. you can't get around it. i got an email today about how we need to end this cycle of hate, and i realized how many people of color died on the
slave ships and i have to tell you, not one confederate flag flew over a slave ship. let's learn the real history and that's why i'm worried about this flag because it is the real history being removed. let's discuss it. let's debate it. i'm not going to be long today and i don't plan to filibuster, i don't plan to draw this thing out, but these emails i've been receiving from people in our state need to be addressed. this thing about our nation's history and not having anything to do with god is just absolutely ignoring history. to say that the confederacy, the fight for state's rights was only about slavery is to ignore as much as ignoring the history of god in our founding. when you -- when the federal government passes an amendment to basically enshrine slavery in the constitution, in order to get the south to return, we're
ignoring that and ignoring our history and legislatures aren't -- we're not here for history lessons, but we are involved in public policy and i know the house is going have a much different debate, but i just want those viewers out there that say that this country was not founded on judeoe ed oned on judeeo-christian values and they didn't want a secular, humanistic state either. let's think about what happened under the flag that i love. the united states flag. i love our flag. i love our country. listen there has more good done to the world by the united states than any other country in history, and i'm not ashamed of that, but there are things that have been done under our flag that i'm not proud of. i have native american history, and they were drug from their
land and died on the way. you read about the trail of tears. and i just think that it is so hypocritical to throw our confederate ancestors under the bus because they're not here to defend themselves and it is popular right now let me tell you, it is very popular, attacking the south and southern heritage and attacking those racists from the south. it's very popular and it's been popular for a long time but i've got to tell you, what you saw with charleston, the south has changed. it has changed. and there's love in the south and i know that folks spoke up about what happened in charleston about the grace that exemplifies christ, and i appreciate that grace and it is humbling to see it in my home state, but i don't believe after that vote yesterday on the stars
and bars getting rid of the battle flag, but when i saw the stars and bars i know where we are, and it's not just about the flag. it's about an acquiescence that the south was the racist, the evil, the white supremacists and lincoln was this great emancipate emancipator, and it's just not true, and people need to know the truth. people have a right to know the truth and people have a right to know the history and the history is that politicians, and i want to say one of my favorite quotes is by napoleon and that is the history is the most agreed-upon fable, and we need to learn our history, all of our history. what happened in the '60s and the way people of color were treated is wrong. what happened during jackson's days of dragging the indians across the country was wrong. we were at war with germany and
japan, but we didn't lock out the germans, but we locked out the japanese and that was wrong. japanese-americans, that was wrong. i could go on for hours about the things that we do that were wrong. the one thing that was right that our ancestors stood for was states having the right to make the decisions that were left to the states and i think the very fact that an amendment to the constitution was passed by the congress and the senate to guarantee slavery under that u.s. flag, in order to get the south to come back, the corwin amendment which is something i've never heard of and i studied history and i wasn't a history major in college and i had this feeling that i was being taught a lot of things that weren't true, and after study issing the letter, i was right. there were a lot of things taught in college and a lot of
indoctrination. it was more of an indoctrination camp and this distorted and, i know the media for the most part especially the national media, they have a bent. i don't think anybody -- you know, it's -- it's up to the citizens to be informed and it's up to them to take all different forms of media and come up with their own conclusions because regardless of where you get your news from it needs to be through a filter in your mind and i think that's the bigger problem we've got is the fact that this debate on the flag has been purely one-sided. i wish that there were folks that were more than obviously just myself and there were more folks willing to come to the well and talk about the fact of
what's happened with the government and how it's removed all references to god and our public schools and that seems to be okay. it's amazing that if a principle did d what our chaplain did today what would happen in a public school right now? i know they're trying to take the ten commandments out of every vestige and people seem to be okay with that, and what's wrong seems to be portrayed as right and what's wrong seems to be portrayed as right. i believe that lincoln has been worshipped and pretty much canonized because he was a centralizer of power and i believe that move continues and if this nation does not turn away from the centralized power
or this power that is in washington that is trampling the very foundation of which our country stands i mean to think that we -- by removing this flag. to think that that's going to end racism and not just our state, but our nation is to think that you can go to the edge of the atlantic and drink the ocean dry. so we're going to do what politicians do. we're going to pass something that makes us feel good that will make a great press conference and at the end of the day is we would respect their southern heritage and kicked them in the teeth and i'm not going to filibuster and i am going to ask for a roll call on third and i just ask for roll call. >> third reading?
>> the senator from -- senator bird. senator from lawrence. -- >> thank you, mr. president lady and gentleman of the senate. >> kim, my wife is my conscience and my timekeeper. when i got home last night she reminded me they went beyond what she allows as 15 minutes. anything worth saying can be said in such timeframe. she granted me a dispensation yesterday, but i assure you i want to hold the floor for the length of time that i did on the amendment i offered yesterday. . i do want to try to put a capstone on my thoughts and
share with you some verse from a hymn that my mother sent to me less than an hour ago and to me, it encapsulates the ministry in life and death of clementa. it embodies his ministry and those of his parishioners and i believe thises very of him embodies the experiences of south carolinians and charlestonians over the last 19 days. i believe historically it embodies the life and testimony of the south carolinians that have preceded us in the 20th century, the 19th century.
the 18th century, the 17th century, and it's my prayer that it will be the testimony that embodies the life of our children and grandchildren. turn your eyes upon jesus and look full in his wonderful face and the growth will grow strangely dim in his wonderful grace. so much of the truth of that word has been lived in creed, lived in creed. i heard you, senator from charleston. i reflected on it. so much of it has been demonstrated here in this
chamber. the streets of our cities the prayer rooms of our gatherings and even in our private places of meditation and prayer, so i'm encouraged. i'm encouraged that things that transcend time, things that transcend time and care for eternity will remain poignant for us. also had a meditation shared with me by someone close to me who reminded me of the struggles of a very human, but yet very saintly servant of the lord king david.
a man that sought the face of god and trying times, who had to deal with the aftermath of his fallen state. i'm talking about his child with the wife of uriah and the lamenting, the angst, the anguish as they employed the lord to fix things that humans can mess up. well, the lord didn't immediately answer the prayer of life for that child and for seven days that child died but david arose and went forth. he sat down for bread.
he praised god and he led his people into the gaitest times of blessing and rejoicing that that family had ever seen. and i am so anxious ask so looking forward to that for our family and for our people, not knowing if we'll have another opportunity. i have one more family experience to share with you today, and i hope this is emblematic of a lot of people who would have their story told but in the spirit of fairness within my own family let me invoke the memory of ruben rufus owens.
yesterday, william bayless dixon, my children's great-great-great grandfather. today another great-great-great grandfather of my children the great-great grandfather of my wife rufus owens enlisted early 1861 company 8, tenth south carolina. tenth south carolina brigaded with the 19th and served in the army of tennessee. unspeakable hardships and struggles throughout that war, but the poignant experience that is recorded in history, that is still near and dear to his descendants is something that touches on eternity.
hot summer of '64. things are looking bad. joe johnston has had a systematic retreat through north georgia. they are in the desperate battle of atlanta. ezra church. ruben, rufus owens. the color bearer again. not all my great-great grandfathers were color bearers or my families but these two i've brought to you in the last two days are our owens with the colors of the tenth. with his captain and his dear friend john palmer. four paces to the front and a pace to the left went down in a desperate, desperate struggle on a hot day in july 1864.
at the conclusion of the battle our owens interred his captain in a makeshift shallow grave and erected a plank with captain pollard's identity, and in the following spring upon returning to upper dorchester county, he took department an palmer's father back to the battlefield the entire distance by board a hard crossing by many a river in georgia. found that burial site brought r.r. owens back to a small methodist chapel in ridgeville south carolina.
went off to war not contemplating so many matters of eternity and through the hard ships and the cruelty and the viciousness, through the ugliness of war looked and saw something better and the lord was made precious to him through his son our lord and savior. at that point in '64 and before bringing his beloved captain back to ridgeville, he promised the lord, if you spare me i will return and i will erect a monument monument, a place of meditation and peace. a bethel.
for your people. he completed that task in the late 1860s it still stands today just west of ridgevilled headed for devance cummins chapel. those are the places i'd like to go and meditate and contemplate how things can be good. again, i invoke the memory of john giradeau and hope that his legacy and others. i invoked john giradeau yesterday as a reflection upon
clem. gospel ministry things that transcend time, fellowship in eternity with our lord as the thiel onlying on the senator continues to remind us that eternity is a continuum. we should live for eternity in time. if anything i request do and say can knit our hearts together for that purpose and that cause i commit to live that creed for you in all my frailty, and all my weakness. i do want to say some thank yous, and i hope i express them for all of us regardless of the
aisle, regardless of the position, but there are so many people that not only have been praying for a working of the spirit spirit, god's spirit in our state, and i think of the 340-year current of gospel ministry in the state, but the prayers for us. i don't know about you, by my text messaging, i can't keep up with it with the overwhelming sense of we are praying for you. so to family and friends and constituents, to constituents who have been long suffering realizing that i'm not speaking for them particularly on this point, i thank even you.
>> i do want to thank each of you. i think that again, what we demonstrate should be an example to how we communicate and how we commune just a few hundred -- just a few -- less than a hundred yards to our north immediately. so in light of what we might see that has intimated us with rule changes next year as it relates to points of personal interest and the efficiency of the body mr. president i still am going to be looking for opportunities to incorporate historical reference and historical anecdotes and try to bring practical application to the
contemporary issues that are before us. i'm not sure how i'm going to do it. it might just be very short points of personal interest but i am going to try to let history in its proper place speak to me and if you will allow it i'll try to share. i appreciate what the senator from cherokee said yesterday there's no greater museum, there's no greater repository of history, corporately that we share and experience together than right here. so i might just start with the listing of all of the things that have been near and dear to those that have gone before us because it concerns me that if we don't continue to show that reverence and respect for those and their emblems and their monuments that have gone before us, those that come after us might treat us the same way.
and there is a biblical injunction for it. when god was good to the children of israel he had them mark that goodness. my piling stone upon stone so that their children and their children's children will be able to come back and reference these stones? these stones mean that god has been good to you. god has been good to us. i'll take my seat on the bill. while i'm here, mr. president, i would like to introduce dear friends of mine, stewart jones county councilman from orange county. a good man with a pure heart and one of my longest and nearest and dearest friends jim yates. i don't want to embarrass jim too much, but the last time jim was here in the chamber he was
seated directly overhead and the senator from clairendon and the senator from manning sitting in his desk right here and his camera sergeant jim, you'll probably remember that the camera hit the top rail and it sprung into a million pieces here on the floor. that was my first day in the chambers. jim, i love you and appreciate you being here. also, my near and dear wife who is kim and caroline. please stand. a month ago my oldest daughter was here, and they're here so infrequently and i appreciate you indulging me in this introduction and kim's text message, please thank you both for joining us here today.
i know that it is sometimes hard on all our families to see us so infrequently, so as caroline, as you head off to college many i can get reacquainted with your mama when she's not running our business. kim is the businesswoman in our family, and i thank her for carrying and toting my load. thank you all. >> this, sir. welcome all of you to the senate. we hope you come back. thank you. yes, sir? senator from buford. >> unanimous consent that the words of the senator from lawrence be recorded. >> without object so ordered. the senate bill and the senator from berkeley. >> unanimous consent for the lead senator cleary. without objection so ordered and the question, third reading of senate bill 897 has been a request for roll call and the
clerk will please ring the bell. and call the roll. it's a two-thirds vote. >> mr.al exandriner? aye. mr. allen? >> aye. >> mr. bennett. aye. mr. bright? no. mr. bryant. aye. mr. campbell. aye. mr. campson. aye. mr. cleary has leave. mr. coleman? aye. mr. corbin has leave. mr. corson. aye. mr. chromer. aye. mr. davis. aye. mr. fair. aye. mr. gregory has leave. mr. grooms. aye. mr. hayes. aye. mr. hymnbry. aye. mr. hutto. aye. mr. jackson. aye. mr. johnson. aye. mr. kempson. aye mr. leatherman.
aye. mr. lury. aye. mr. maloy. aye. mr. larry martin. aye. mr. shane martin. aye. mr. massey hasmartin? aye. mr. massey has leave. mr. mack owe convenient. mr. nicholson? aye. mr. peeler? no. mr. rankin? not voting. mr. reese? aye. mr. scott? aye. mrs. shely aye. mr. thurman? aye. mr. verdun? no. >> mr. young? aye. >> have all the senators voted? have all the senators voted? then the polls are closed and the clerk will please tabulate.
by a vote of 36-3 senate bill 897 is given a third reading. the for from anderson what purpose do you rise, sir. >> i would like to be heard. >> proceed. while he is coming forward, the senator from newbury. >> a unanimous consent for leave from 9:00 until noon. i have shared this story with a few of you. a couple years ago i was asked to speak at my church about the resurrection, and we all appreciated senator pinckney's booming voice, and i thought that would be nice to have that
voice as the angel during that scene, and if you remember part of that passage and scripture, the angel asked why do you speak the living among the dead? senator pinckney is not with us now, but he is not dead. also it has been said many times very eloquently of the grace that the victims showed the biggest shock is when family members of the victim showed up at the hearing of this murderer and offered their forgiveness and pointed that man to christ. >> we need order, please. >> any other time any other place in the world, violence
would have been returned for violence, but not in south carolina. not in charleston. when a victim can show up less than 48 hours after a family member has been murdered and offer forgiveness and point that man to christ, mr. president and members of the senate, i don't know if i could ever forgive somebody who killed one of my family members, especially two days -- especially two days. that's the kind of leadership that senator pinckney's -- that our friend, clem, that's the kind of leadership his church got, and we appreciate it. mr. president, i have a unanimous consent. >> state your request. >> according to rule 35b, i ask that mrs. jennifer pinckney and
reverend middleton have access behind the rail. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i would like to be heard when granted permission behind the rail. >> i would like to provide information about it. >> without objection, so ordered. senator from arlington? while he's coming up -- >> permission to district material. >> without objection, so ordered. mr. malloy. >> thank you mr. president, and
members of the senate, obviously we have done something momentous and very historic, and at this time i have been in conversation with mrs. pinckney on a daily basis, and as clemente's wife, his everything, i would tell you that she has been amazing in this entire process. words cannot describe the deep grief that this family has been suffering from. the senate has responded and jennifer has been our strength around us, accompanying her today is -- i say this is senator pinckney's real best friend from childhood, brothers in christ, they came up through the ministry together, and he's
the person that clemente told me, this guy can preach the paint off the wall, malloy, and middleton is a pastor and has gone through college with him and gone through the ministry with him, and they have been together, i think they told me somewhere around almost 25 to 30 years, so he was a person that he talked to on a regular basis. in our discussions, jennifer wanted to be able to come today and thank this senate. she wants to thank everybody here, mr. president the president pro tem has given us great latitudes with the body and has signed on and helped us get the portrait hung, and senator from cherokee, without hesitation has allowed us to lie in state, and he is on the committee, and there was never a second glance at it.
our tremendous clerk of the senate did a great job in coordination along with john hastert, they were coordinating us to plan from day one during this very tough and difficult time even from the lying in state when jennifer was trying to decide as to how we take him back home to richland as she was deciding how we go back to mother emanuel and even when she sat there and was asking us to contact senator mphbgmcconnell and the senator agreed, and we had a lot of choices, but what she has done is she continues to be our rock, as you all know. she has two small daughters young daughters, ilyana and
milana and clemente called them grasshopper and baby girl, and you know clem is smiling downous and he would have been very proud to the way the senate has responded. i thought today would be an appropriate day not before this vote and this discussion but afterwards for her to be able to come by and to be able to speak to each and every one of you, it has been very tough but she wanted to show her gratitude and you can see, as a matter of fact clemente shined on her as well, and his grace is contagious and is contagious throughout this state. what we have done, we have spoken, one voice here with unity, and we are not being divisive and -- i told them, there is no time for victory laps and there is no winners and losers, and we are just trying
to make sure we are certain we move the straightforward. i want to make sure -- she has not been in public yet and today is the first place where he served where she wanted to be, and with that i am sure a lot of folks want to end up seeing her, and i hope that the media and the public would give this family time to grieve. let them make their exit today whenever they leave without trying to force interviews on her. she has expressed that she does not end up having that kind of conversation now, and there will be a time, and she's got her great confidant in this guy reverend middleton has been amazing, and he was the architect behind planning everything we end up doing and all the writings and getting the acquire and thechoir, and the tens
of calls that we shared during the day, obviously is very comforting to her. just to -- in uncluesonconclusion, this state loved senator pinckney and this state loves you and your girls and they love the entire pinckney family, and we will keep our arms wrapped around you and this family forever and it's the least that we can do for our brother, clemente, and we hope to have you back here soon when we hang his portrait so he will be sharing this spot with us forever. lastly i say this, jennifer is a believer. the first time that we saw him