tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 7, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
i wanted to test facebook live just to see what kind of audience i could get. no lie, i took my breakfast, empty plate, one pepper on it put up facebook live and within a minute i had 1500 live viewers. within 30 minutes i had 10,000 live viewers. i thought, okay, maybe that's just facebook live, it's new. i went to a new platform called lively. i was with my kids. again, i try to be a geek and keep up with this. my kids were going down a slide into the lake. and i just put it on them. on lively within 20 minutes i had 35,000 live viewers. for an independent network, that's huge. that's changing the news. cnn, a great program, is 2.5 million viewers watching it at a given point in time. that's nothing on facebook live compared to -- and other
platforms. it's changing whether we want to admit it or not and it's having significant impacts and the biggest challenge is getting people to watch tv. that's going to be -- you know, with all these things, you're hoping to find new ways where people go back and say, okay, i want to try watching tv again. and that will increase -- and we see it with the nba and the nfl and all forms of content. >> and i think something else that one of my colleagues mentioned was -- well, first of off, if i look at hbo, hbo became a premier channel not because they charge people to watch it but because they have extraordinarily good content. extraordinarily good content that people will be willing to pay a premium for but there's a lot of times when i'm channel surfing -- which usually happens late at night when i'm back in my -- i don't get to channel surf as much when i'm at home because my wife can control the remote. but when i'm looking i'm going through these channels going why am i going through all these?
am i paying for them? nbc is not free. abc is not free. they're all negotiating some baseline cost that go into your baseline cable bill and i would like to reach a point in time where i have a freedom to have options, a sportsless option will seem like a sad place to me. i don't consider the channels extraneous based on my viewing habits and from time to time i will pay a premium if i want to go and access content that may be on a channel that i would not regularly want to pay for because i don't have a need or desire to have that. that's the model we're getting to and i think if we don't as a matter -- i'll leave it to the antitrust division in the department of justice to ask you the right questions to make sure you're not waiting in any antitrust areas.
if we just focus on where the puck is in terms of content delivery, i think we'll disadvantage some real innovators. there's legitimate issues that need to be addressed but we need to be very, very careful or we're going to cause some of the leading innovators in the world not to be able to innovate because constraints we're putting on people using old world models to assess where the new horizons are for content delivery. thank you. >> senator flake? >> thank you, mr. chairman, this has been enlightening. i'm trying to view this through the lens of my own kids. i have two married kids, newly married, who would no more sign up for directv or dish or broadcast than they would to get a land line in their home. it's just not something they
would consider. they might try to crib off of my directv, find out the password and use it but they would never think of that. and that's why when i hear mr. zimmerman talk about this and the competitive angle, it seems like an excellent argument you're giving that would have been more appropriate ten years ago or 15 years ago. i think we have to consider more who the competition really is, that this isn't traditional antitrust competition among broadcast media but among the edge providers and mr. cuban you talked in your statement about the real competition. do you want to talk a little more about that? about who the real competitors
a are. >> apps compete for our time now. when we look for a way to kill time we look at our phone. all you have to do is look at the rise of snapchat, the rise of lively, the rise of instagram. that's what consumes our attention. kids don't go to tv anymore. you mention your children. i have a seven-year-old and i went to help coach his baseball team and none of them knew the rules. because none of them ever watched tv and watch baseball like we grew up doing. they didn't know the rules for football. i mean i can't even bribe my son to go to a cowboy game. that's just not how it is. but if i take away his minecraft videos, he throws a hissy fit. and sure our consumption habits change as we age, but -- and i'm sure they will for all my kids but at the same time on demand
in-hand viewing through streaming is how people consume content and it's going to be a challenge and i think they face additional challenges from a tech perspective. randall mentioned 5g coming along and i think it will get here sooner rather than latheer. there will be penople cutting te broadband cord. and just like you mentioned your kids won't think about a land line, i tend to think there we won't think about wired broadband. so technology marches on whether we like it or not and i think we can't look backwards and look at historical norms in order to predict the value of this merger. >> when senator blumenthal talked about the incoming president talking about going against this merger simply because of the size of it, how does the size of the merged company, how does the size compare to the real competitors
we're talking about, some of the edge companies? any figure there is? mr. randall? >> yes, senator, if you put our two companies together the combined market cap depending on the day you look at the market is $350 billion. the companies that mark has referenced, whether it be google, facebook, apple, these companies have market caps that are about two times that size so as we talk about size and the significance of size in a deal like this i think we have to recalibrate what size means in this new world. because we're about half the size of most of these companies that are providing the competitive threat to our core businesses today. >> mr. kimmelman, do you have any response to that in terms of where are we discussing what the market is or it was a few years ago? >> senator, i totally concur in your assessment. my kids do the same thing as yours. i think we should skate to where
the puck is and we should look at where the market is going. >> i'll just note, on the margin, young people are doing different things. 90%, though, plus of the revenue comes from traditional sources and the companies will skate to where the puck is. they will try to control as much of that new distribution as possible. on the online platforms, i totally agree, there is a lot of attention but what we used to do on phones a lot of kids are now doing on snapchat. what we used to do in terms of listening to records is now itunes. it's not that tv has disappeared or video doesn't matter, it's that people are doing it in new forms so i'm all for looking at who the other players are, but none of them charge me $200 a month to get access to that online content. that's where your kids get it and if they're mooching off of your directv, that's probably why -- they don't want to pay $200 a month to get all this
stuff so somebody's paying and i want to make sure it's a fair price but there is no question that the online platforms are going to be big players here but they don't control that wire, wireless, whatever it is, even if it's not wired broadband. they don't control that into our homes and you can probably only get it from a couple players. that's where there is a antitrust problem. that's where the control problem is that we want enforcers to look at. >> is that -- who's paying for content, is that really relevant to the competitive nature of these kinds of mergers? mr. cuban? >> i would say if you aren't paying for the content, you are the content. you're being sold and advertising is paying for it and i'd also say my ten-year-old daughter doesn't have a cell phone account but she has a phone and she gets access to wireless through wi-fi at various distribution points and she knows where they are and goes there -- i'm not just
talking inside my house, i'm talking outside the home so the notion that a wireless provider is the only way to access this content isn't necessarily the case and those options are expanding rapidly. i'd also say to respond to gene that flurry which is an app monitoring company that came out and said for non-traditional tv-type content, all consumers are consuming 133 minutes, more than two hours per day, of norn tv-like content on their phones. the world is changing and how we consume it is changing and it's not driven by pure mobile. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator flake. we're going to start our second round of questions. mr. stephenson, let's go back to you. section 5 of the ftc act, as you're aware, permits the ftc to take action to prevent "unfair or deceptive acts or practices
in or affecting commerce." however, that provision contains a carveout. it contains an exception for common carriers and as i'm sure you're aware the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit extended this exception to cover even aspects of at&t and its activities that are non-carrier activities. is it your position that time warner's business will become exempt from section 5 of the ftc act if this transaction is approved and kicks in? >> i'm not a lawyer so i'll try to address your question as best i can. obviously with the net neutrality provisions, at&t is -- our privacy standards and so forth are under the purview of the fcc. as with time warner, so verizon
has the same issue of buying aol, buying yahoo! so comcast and nbc you have this same issue where there's this confusion about a company under the purview of the ftc, a common carrier, per se, is under the purview of the fcc. it is confusing. and i would suggest that this is an area perhaps where congress really should consider taking up bringing some clarity because it's not that we have regulation gaps in this area, it's that we have regulation overlaps and it's a bit confusing as to who controls who. so i would encourage perhaps maybe legislative effort to address this issue. >> sure. and i get that. i get that we have regulation overlap. we're not talking about regulation overlap here, we're talking about a gap. we're talking about a carveout and i would imagine you would have to agree that if that were the case, if the exemption for section 5 currently enjoyed by at&t also extended to time warner if this transaction were
completed that would be cause for concern by some. i assume you would acknowledge that? >> i believe the law is that if at&t owned time warner they would come under the fcc's purview in terms of regulating these issues. >> okay. i've got to -- another line of questions i'd like to extend both to you mr. stephenson and mr. bewkes jointly. so when comcast and nbc completed their merger back in 2011, you recall there were some concerns expressed by cnbc and others and -- or rather concerns expressed by bloomberg and others relative to cnbc. and there were conditions put in place to guarantee that bloomberg would have access. it ended up taking three years
of litigation to bring that about. shouldn't we be concerned about the possibility that any conditions put in place here designed to guarantee access to your network might not be followed in much the same way that this required three years of litigation, expensive time-consuming litigation occurred in the wake of this other merger. >> i've been asked a lot about conditions imposed on other companies in this regard and i'm not knowledgeable about the ability of those companies to comply with those conditions. i would tell you wefd several mergers where conditions have been posed on us. i think you would find our track record in adhering to those has been very strong. i would also suggest the department of justice has not seemed to have any lack of resources in pursuing areas where they believe we were out of compliance with conditions so
i fully expect that if any conditions are applied to this particular transaction, we'd comply with those just as we have every other transaction. >> did you have anything to add to that, mr. bewkes? >> yes. i think the same is true in the history with time warner. we had a merger of aol where some agreements s of carriage e made. in the turner and time warner merger we had conditions which also were followed without incident. so our record is without -- there is no instance in which we did not comply with any conditions we had in our various mergers. >> all right. and, of course, i'm not talking about your companies in particular but your companies in particular are the ones that want to become one company right now and you can understand why some people would express this concern when you do own some news entities and there are other news entities that have
expressed concerns that they might be blocked out for one reason or another, either through pricing models or as a result of where you locate them, what number they are assigned. what channel they're assigned, whether it's putts in the same grouping as other news outlets or otherwise. do you understand why people might have that concern? >> yes, sir, i do and i don't think those are terribly unique to other concerns people have expressed in past mergers that we've been a party too and i do believe that that those have been adequately addressable with concessions and conditions and i -- again i will repeat i think both companies have a stellar -- flawless track record in complying with those conditions. >> ms. ziman, you state over-the-top distribution is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy, as
you put it. can you explain why this is not what you would consider a viable business model for independent networks? >> well, right now the ott market doesn't have the amount of subscribers that make it a business. number one, it's a maze of confusion, as i said before. for a lot of people that aren't used to it. mr. cuban's children are more used to it than people that are older. but in order to get license fees, that's impossible and in order to get advertisers to advertise with you in such a small market it wouldn't work. plus you need to be able to use the linear service in order to actually get your brand known to the public and at the same time you need to be able to show the public that you're delivering a
network that is curated and that meets their interests and needs in order for them to want vods of the market. we are actually distributing an ott market but the reality is it's a very fragmented market right now and confused market. and therefore if we relied on it solely, it would be a one-way ticket to bankruptcy because you can't survive. we are all gatekeepers to the communication media. that's a fiduciary responsibility to deliver to the public content that is quality oriented, that they deserve. that means that you have to spend money in either licensing content or original productions. i disagree with some of the people that think that hbo is
there because of distribution. hbo is there because of quality. many people, many stars, come to us as a small company and give their services for very small amount of money because of the quality of the programming that we ask them to participate in. the reality is we still have to spend money. we still have to convince advertisers to go along with some of this, that's impossible. in order to get an advertiser interested you have to have a distribution of 55 million subscribers. that's almost impossible right now because the mvpds are shutting the doors on independents, on innovation, on good quality, original programming. unless you are bundled, you don't have any negotiating power. i mean, mr. cuban is partners with cbs. it's a different story.
and even he couldn't get a time warner. it's an impossible marketplace right now and we need to improve it and if we really look at what is happening here, we're moving towards an oligopoly. and if you look at taiwan with six conglomerates owning all the media, when they want different content they simply trade at the cost of the public, which is rising and rising and at the cost of free speech. >> thank you. senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much. i apologize for leaving. senator mikulski was giving a speech on her career and we had a meeting on cuba to lift the embargo so as opposed to mr. cuban, i was with the cubans. i want to go back to these cost issues, mr. kimmelman, the money the typical american household spends on these services, $2700
per year, continues to trouble me and i'm concerned that this transaction will reduce that burden and i think you argue there could be a chance that it would increase it is this a legitimate concern and why? >> senator klobuchar, i think that that's the baseline and it is the result, if you look at a 20-year period, of consolidation and limited regulatory oversight during periods of that that have enabled prices to be enlate inned. there is competition on the margin, there's new competition coming from new sources but it's hard to squeeze that out. whether will say that with what is being offered in the market that includes what time warner is offering and at&t, there is hope. the online platform is opening up some and they're offering new products and new services and sot at lower prices. the real fear is whether the
combined company once it gets -- looks at its overall interests will favor itself. and potentially harm competitors. so that's where the rub comes on the prices, they might offer a better price and they may offer it for some time but in the long run will the competitive process be benefitted? that's what i think enforcers need to look at. >> so you see this as there is a chance it could be another model rather than just monthly cable? >> absolutely. in some ways i think that's our only hope for all the reasons everyone here has stated. >> okay, but you're concerned about a few things. one is that the price may initially be 60 bucks or something and then it goes up and then it would be $35 for 100 channels and it goes up so you're worried about that and you're worried that there would be less competition for, say, contend and things like that and eventually we have problems because of that. and you think you could build
some conditions into that or not? >> let me just say, part of the reason for the longer term concern is that comcast is already vertically integrated and has all the nbc use suite of programming. here you have time warner programming. will they compete aggressively against each other? i certainly hope so. but in a market where there are few vertically integrated companies, there is a danger that they will buy more, cbs, viacom, who knows to escalate against each other but also possibly follow the same basic market business structure and deal with each other maybe even at pretty high prices because they pass those on to the consumer in their own market but then charge them through to every other distributor in the market. now, again, if somebody can come up with something comparable to hbo, they can compete against it. it's been tough, there are only a few major content providers that provide that high-quality
profession aal content and we g locked into that. so yes you buy other things on the side but that just means you're paying more for other things. that's why the bill is so high. >> so $35 for 100 channels is a good deal but isn't that an introductory price and it's going to go up to 60 bucks or something like that? >> these two go together but i think it's important to understand why we put a $35 product out in the marketplace and it's because the other system, the old system is just flat out broken. content costs continue to escalate. cable bills continue to go up and we're at a $100 average cable tv bill and 20 million households have opted out. they've left the system. they said we don't want this product anymore, it's too expensive so we brought this product to market to address those 20 million households and it's proving, we found, the sweet spot so it's not as though
we have pricing power down here. the pricing power daunt exist because the customer said we on the out if you don't meet this price point so we have tried to get the content cost down, the distribution cost down. no set top boxes to ensure that we can get into a market and hit a price point the customers will come back in to the pay tv system. and they're doing it. i think as soon as we think we can move prices up and take advantage of that, they have demonstrated they'll leave us again so i think we're bound on this and i think we have reached a place wheith the consumer tha they're happy and willing to enter this marketplace again. >> to get at some of ms. ziman's points, you say, mr. stephenson, in short, we are still going to purchase high quality content from all corners of the content community and we'll continue to distribute time warner programming widely. am i understanding your position correctly then that after the acquisition, at&t would not discriminate against independent content providers in favor of time warner content?
>> i don't think we have a choice. the business proposition is you better have a wide array of content, there are too many alternatives, you will lose customers if you do not. now i think we've pointed out an interesting dilemma here. we want a bride wide range of content brought into this ecosystem and everybody wants to be paid for their content whether it gets broad viewership or not. at the same time we're being challenged can you get prices down, get prices down, get prices down? the two are inconsistent so we have to figure out what content do the customers want? not what does the government want but the customers. >> get it, but at the same point what i'm asking about is will you discriminate against non-time warner content because -- >> no. there's no advantage to it nor would we do it. >> how do we determine at this point where contract negotiations between providers and distributors are long, difficult and complicated, how do we determine whether at&t has lived up to that commitment?
>> i think we ought to allow the department of justice to formulate an approach for doing that. >> mr. bewkes, my last question here. in your testimony you explained that "time warner's goal has always been to distribute our content broadly across all distributors and platforms." so am i understanding this correctly? that after the acquisition, time warner will not limit the availability of time warner content to content districtors that compete with at&t? >> right. correct. >> and we've heard that one can deny content through the offered terms and prices. how would we determine that at&t or you were living up to this commitment if there's some kind of discrimination based on prices? >> again, i think the doj would be able to easily see that. we've got fairly uniform contract provisions across all distribution platforms so all of the -- if you think of verizon,
at&t, comcast, all the different companies, they've all quite vigorous in the negotiation and it's a very competitive situation and so everyone would know because they would not accept terms that were not equal for what they could get on other -- from other content providers. >> my last question, mr. kimmelman because i've had the incomings of some of these complaints, the comcast nbc universal merger was approved with conditions, as you know. how effective do you think those conditions were in preventing anti-competitive harm? because i think it will inform the justice department and agencies and this committee as we go forward in terms of what conditions we think would be appropriate. >> senator, i think it's a mixed bag, i think that the fact that netflix has grown, the fact that, sling tv has been able to get comcast nbc programming are the more positive signs. some of the big companies have
been able to take advantage of that, i think smaller companies have come up short, even bloomberg went through a three-year painful dispute over that, the problem with conditions is exactly the questions you were just asking. is it discrimination? are the prices the same? here it's even more complicated than we comcast because it's nationwide distribution. it's wireless which has inherent latency problems and issues where bandwidth isn't enough and there's legitimate reasons why you're not getting the quality you want but there could be some finger on the scale and i will say as much as i firmly respect the justice department's ability to enforce conditions i know they do not have the engineers and the network exports to look at all these kind of issues, they're very aware of that. so these are very difficult areas to thoroughly police if there is an inclination to diskrim nation. >> very good, all right, thank you all of you.
>> senator franken? >> thank you, mr. chairman. so i googled on my phone "wayne gretzky and where the puck is going." [ laughter ] and the first entry is "in the annals of overused corporate cliches --" [ laughter ] " -- few match the immortal words of walter gretzky as passed on to the world through his son wayne skate to where the puck is going not to where it has been." so congratulations to several of us for using the moist overused corporate cliche. >> i must have really missed something. >> you did. you were listening to barbara mikulski talk about -- i doubt about hockey. [ laughter ] i want to -- i'll tell you where the puck is going, it's going to
wireless. okay? so mr. stephenson, i want to talk briefly about data-free tv which allows at&t customers to stream directv without incurring any data charges. at&t's white paper on the topic suggests that this offering is not discriminatory against other programmers or over-the-top competitors because they can pay the exact same rate that directv pays at&t for the privilege. however, as i understand it, the fcc has done the math and estimates that it would cost an unaffiliated mobile video service provider like netflix or hulu far more to participate in the program than the $35 a month that directv currently charges. the fcc argues then that
participation in the program would make it difficult if not infeasible for a directv now competitor to offer its customers a competitively priced service. so my question is, mr. stevenson, explain again how your company is not taking money out of the -- how this isn't anti-competitive because you'd be taking money out of your right pocket and putting in the your left pocket if directv is paying a lower price and you're basically supplementing them and as the fcc asks in its most recent letter to you, how exactly does directv make payments to at&t mobility for this service and do the respective entities record such
payments? >> i don't know what exactly the payment mechanism is across entities. >> i think it would be good that you did know it. >> the results reflect -- well, i don't know if we do a wire transfer or if there's a journal entry to record the transfer but at the end of the day the results of directv do indeed reflect that cost that's paid to our mobility business. they do and so when you look at the margins of directv they reflect that cost in it and there is a cost incurred by delivering mobility, it's a variable cost business. to put another megabyte -- >> but how do we know that you can't be favoring something that you own, directv, as opposed to something entity that would like to have their data delivered free to the consumer? >> we are charging everybody the exact same, the lowest wholesale
price for data transport that we have. everybody gets the same. big companies, small companies. companies are buying -- >> i'm not sure about that assurance, how do we know that? >> we can provide the data. the justice department can look at this and get themselves comfortable with the data. it's just a data question, right? and we can make the data available. that's not a difficult thing to >> it sounds difficult to me because we don't know how much -- how do you compute that? i mean, this is basic -- >> how do we compute what? >> this is basically unlimited data to -- for your users to directv so how do you -- in other words, if some other provider is parallel to directv wanted to get free data or wanted that service on -- delivered by at&t, to stream
them mow do we know that you're not giving directv a deal? because you own it. >> this is a mechanism that's been used in our industry for decades and there is a pricing mechanism. same terms and conditions, we will not discriminate against others who want to provide the same service so it's been going on for decades. >> mr. kimmelman. could you speak to mr. stephenson's characterization of at&t's track record on complying with commitments as spotless? >> senator, all i can say -- i think it's a great company and i think they are a very aggressive competitor. sometimes aggressive competitors can step over the line. there have been varieties of complaints at different points in time. i don't think it's worth going into it in great detail. these will be reviewed by the agencies. they're a wonderful company but everybody competing hard
sometimes competes a little too hard and that's nothing new in the marketplace. >> well, a year ago at&t was slapped with a $25 million fine for failing to protect its subscribers' personal information, mr. stephenson, about a year ago he and i discussed how his company lobbied to prevent municipalities from building their own broadband networks to meet their communities' needs this is using your competitive advantage and i'd love to see that data. and i think by the way i would like to see the fcc involved in this. when bloomberg -- in the bloomberg dispute, that was the fcc dealing with it. you said doj has all these resources. that was the fcc dealing with bloomberg, right? >> that's correct, senator. but the consent decrees in these things are with the department
of justice. >> well, in a number of these cases, senator, there have been parallel commitments that the fcc with an understanding the fcc would do the enforcement because they are the regulator of the industry with expertise so i will say there were -- for example, on access to programming on comcast nbc-u there were restrictions put in place, the department of justice decided not to impose those because the fcc was putting those in place. there were parallels for trying to block online innovation in video and the department of justice consent decree said they would defer to the fcc for enforcement action in most or nearly all instances. so each one of those, at least, involved dual agency action with a reliance on the fcc for the deep industry expertise. may i also just mention one thing?
mr. chairman you raised the section 5 issue. i just want to point out that we believe that the court decision was horrible and it needs to be appealed but there is a gap here that i think mr. stephenson missed which is that if they purchase time warner and they have content, the fcc can only regulate their common carriage business, regardless of how the court wanted to look at it. they are restricted by congress to only looking at common carriage asset which is i do not believe these assets would be and many of their other value-added services or any online service so there is a gap there that i think is significant. >> i would not -- i'm not smart enough, knowledgeable enough of that particular area as it relates to contend to refuse that, i just do think it points out that there is a need to get clarity around the regulations over these issues. >> where we going to go to a third round or can i complete my questioning? >> if you have another question, go ahead. >> sure. mr. stephenson, i want to turn now to something you said at a
"wall street journal" live event. you shrugged off the comparison of your deal to comcast nbc universal saying one of the biggest regulatory concerns around that deal, net neutrality, is largely resolved. now, that event happened prior to november 8 so i'm going to give you another chance to address the comparison. mr. stephenson, do you still think the concern over ensuring net neutrality has largely been resolved and as an historic opponent of net neutrality, are you going to urge president-elect trump to enforce the open internet order and ask republicans in congress to halt their plans for legislation to repeal the order in order to get the deal approved? >> i'd like to first suggest i am not a strong opponent of net
neutrality. we have, i have, 2010 been an advocate of the net neutrality principles, no blocking, no discrimination, no paid prioritization. we helped craft those rules, worked with senator waxman to help craft rules we hoped would become law. >> wait. didn't you go to court against -- >> we went to court against title 2 categorization of our services. that is not synonymous with net neutrality. net neutrality has historically been defined by this body and the senate and historically at the fcc as no blocking, no discrimination, no paid prioritization. the fcc chose to take a much broader approach and put all wireless and broad band services under title 2 regulations, a 1939-based regulation for these services that are moving and transitioning fast. i do -- >> you went to court before they did that. you went to court which basically forced them to do that.
>> no, sir, we did not. no we did not. the between rules that were imposed, verizon opposed those in court, we did not. we supported them and helped craft them. >> okay, then i stand corrected, i guess. it's not the first time. so thank you. i just wanted to -- i guess i'm done. i would like to see the fcc sigh, by the way, have jurisdiction here. mr. kimmelman, would you? >> yes, senator franken. i again, i think that there's a legitimate role. there's a question of exactly how that jurisdiction is divided and what assets are involved in the transaction that is for companies and fcc to work out but at least as compared to previous transactions that are similar i think it would be beneficial to the public policy process. >> but mr. stephenson and mr.
bewkes, you have not committed to committing your deal for review by the fcc, is that correct? >> we're working through that process right now, senator. the trigger for fcc review is whether we assume any licenses from time warper. we're going through -- they own access to over 100 licenses. we're going through license by license discerning which license do we need to transfer so until we get to that, we can't state whether there will be an application with the fcc or not. now, i would suggest to you that the doj, as mr. kimmelman pointed out, looks at the fcc on these matters for expertise. i have no doubt the doj will continue to work request the fcc as they go through this review. we will also keep the fcc posted on our process whether we do a formal filing or not. >> it's just that there's a different level that you have to meet whether it's fcc or doj and fcc, their merger review
requires that any proposed deal actually benefits consumers so i would think that the message you're sending to us and the current and potential at&t consumers if you can't confidently assert that this deal benefits the american public is not a great message. mr. kimmelman, do you think the fcc should review this deal? >> yes, senator franken. if it's within their jurisdiction at all, i think they should. it would add a benefit to the overall public policy analysis. >> okay. thank you. >> i want to thank all of you for coming and participating today, for answering our questions in providing your testimony. we have received a statement from mr. patrick gosh that will be admitted into the record. the record will remain open for a week for additional questions and submissions.
[ indistint conversation ] we'll continue with live coverage now as we take you to a u.s. navy ceremony marking the 75th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor. the japanese attack led to the u.s. declaring war on japan and germany and entering world war ii. again, this is live coverage from hawaii on c-span 3.
again, we are live in hawaii as we await the u.s. navy ceremony that will mark 75th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor. today, of course, september 7th, the date that will live in infamy, the date of the attack on pearl harbor. we're commemorating it here on c-span3 today. on saturday we'll be featuring programs about 75th anniversary. it will start 8:00 eastern and last through most of the morocco and into the afternoon. again, starting saturday at 8:00
eastern on c-span3. good morning, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to today's joint national park service united states navy national pearl harbor remembrance day ceremony. i'm lieutenant commander franklin, deputy chief of staff navy middle pacific and i'm truly honored to serve as today's master of ceremonies on this historic 75th anniversary. this year's theme is honoring the past, inspiring the future. today we will pay tribute to
those members of the greatest generation who paved the way here in pearl harbor for current and future generations throughout the world. will the guests please rise, as able, for arrival of the official party. the official party for today's ceremony includes miss jacqueline ashwell, superintendent world war ii valor in the pacific national monument national park service. miss laura jos, regional director, pacific west region, national parks service.
please be seated. >> ladies and gentlemen, it is customary on december 7th that we observe a moment of silence at 0755 to commemorate the beginning of the attacks on pearl harbor. at 0755 you will hear "uss halsey" sound the ship's whistle. please join me at that time in bowing our heads for a moment of silence to remember those who courageously fought and those who died here on december 7th, 1941. completing the moment of silence will be f-22 raptors from 199th and 19th fighter squadrons known as the hawaiian raptors executing a missing man flyover formation from just beyond the arizona memorial and continuing overford island in honor of
>> present. off. >> our national anthem. ♪ ♪ ♪ o say, can you see by the dawn's early light ♪ ♪ what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight ♪ ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? ♪ ♪ and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air ♪ ♪ gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪
guided missile destroyer "uss halsey" commanded by kenneth athens of bridgeport, connecticut. earlier this morning "uss halsey" rendered honors to uss utah memorial. since december 7th, 1941, uss utah and "uss arizona" are the only two ships that remain in the harbor with service members still. gil meyer represented fellow u.s. utah survivors who are here with us today, bill hughes and louis underwood as well as all utah service members. it is customary for ships passing "uss arizona" memorial to pay their respects by rendering honors. today, in addition to rendering honors to "uss arizona" memorial, "uss halsey" will also render honor to the pearl harbor survivors who have gathered with us today. mr. donald stratton, escorted by
petty officer first class juan rodriguez and national park chief historian mr. daniel martinez is ready to return honors as a representative for all pearl harbor survivors. mr. stratton is a former crew member of "uss arizona." when the attacks started, then 19-year-old first class seaman stratton had just finished breakfast. when he saw the japanese planes topside he ran to his battle station even before the general's quarter alarm sounded. during the attack, don stratton suffered severe burns on over 60% of his body. following the attack mr. stratton spent nearly a year recovering from his injuries yet chose to return to sea as soon as he was able. mr. stratton reported to uss stack as gunner's mate and continued his service through the end of the war. mr. stratton made the journey back to pearl harbor with his family to honor fallen crew members and reconnect with old friends. he's one of five known remaining
[ speaking foreign language ] -- good morning, heavenly father. our dear creator, my blessing this day is for the sacred presence of our pearl harbor survivors who are physically here. my prayer also is dedicated to the great heroes who lost their lives that day. we're also spiritually here sitting and walking among us. heavenly father, i come before you humbly and ask for this, to make things right finally and righteous and to ask for a forgiveness. for the pain and suffering has been so long. and in doing so --
[ speaking foreign language ] -- there shall be a commitment beginning from this day for peace. and in this peace, it shall translate to world peace. gracious and heavenly father, enough of wars. for here on this sacred day before you, we all come humbly and ask for -- [ speaking foreign language ] -- to love one another. until we are received into your fold, allow us to be at peace. humbly i ask and say these things in thy sacred name. amen and amen. >> for the past 35 years, japan
that time. this is our 35th year to offer prayers for peace and consolation to the arizona memorial. this year commemorates the 75th anniversary of pearl harbor attacks and the 71st anniversary of the end of world war ii. it is the most appropriate time to reflect on our shared past, so that the great wisdom and lessons learned from history may be passed on to future generations. we are gathered here today in the name of peace. given how our countries were sworn enemies at one point in time, this is a most remarkable thing. we are living proof that time heals, that it is possible to become the best of friends and allies and to have the deepest consideration and trust for one another. after the g7 summit in japan this may, president obama took the time to visit hiroshima.
in his speech for peace, he said there is a future we can choose in which hiroshima and nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening. working together to share the wisdom of our forebears is paramount. we must do all we can so world peace can be achieved for the sake of humanity. let us pray. may lasting peace prevail in the world and may all of mankind know true happiness. may we all live together peacefully in this home that we share and may our planet become a shining beacon of love, compassion, joy, and sincerity for all. thank you very much. [ applause ]
>> today's national pearl harbor remembrance day is co-hosted as it has been since 2005, by the national parks service and united states navy. here to share in official welcome on behalf of the national park service is jacqueline ashwell, superintendent of the world war ii valor in the pacific national monument, who will introduce guest speaker miss laura joss, regional director for southwest region. then our navy co-host rear admiral john fuller, commander navy region hawaii and naval surface group middle pacific will offer a navy welcome and introduce our keynote speaker admiral harold b. harris jr., commander united states pacific command. ladies and gentlemen, miss jacqueline ashwell. [ applause ]
>> aloha. it is my great pleasure to serve as a co-host and welcome you to the national pearl harbor remembrance day commemoration marking the 75th anniversary of the attack on oahu. among the dig stories we welcome today, and ladies and gentlemen, if you could, please hold your applause until the end, the honorable daeon onable david egay, governor of hawaii, governor of the state of arizona. the honorable ralph torres, governor, commonwealth of islands. former secretary of veterans affairs. admiral john richardson, chief of naval operations.
admiral harry harris, commander, u.s. pacific command. admiral william fallon, former commander, u.s. pacific command. admiral thomas fargo, former commander, u.s. pacific command. admiral richard mackey, former commander, u.s. pacific command. the honorable spencer cox, lieutenant governor, state of utah. the honorabon rabhonorable lieu governor of hawaii. chief justice, hawaii state supreme court. the honorable janine davidson, under-secretary of the navy. the honorable franklin parker, assistant secretary of the navy for man-hour and reserve affairs.
admiral scott swift, commander, u.s. pacific fleet. general robert brown, commanding general, u.s. army pacific. general terrence o'shaughnessy, commander, u.s. pacific air forces. lieutenant general david berger, commander, marine forces pacific. general david brenlan, former commander, u.s. army forces command. former commander, u.s. pacific fleet. general gary north, former commander, u.s. pacific air forces. the honorable kirk caldwell, mayor of the city and county of honolulu. the honorable bernard carbajo,
mayor of ohio. honorable mayor of japan. the honorable hirohisa ishibashi, mayor of japan. consulate corps, senior executive service and all other flag and general officers, elected and appointed officials, business and community leaders, welcome. [ applause ] >> nestled along the waters of the lava stream is the pearl harbor visitors center where more than a million and a half guests come each year to learn
the history of the pacific war. three memorials dedicated to "uss arizona," uss oklahoma and "uss utah." collectively, these and other memorials represent those who were lost on december 7, 1941. over the years we have collected oral history interviews of hundreds of pearl her better survivors, both military and civilian, other world war ii, japanese ancestry incarcerated during the war. that library of recollections gives us the opportunity to share the stories of those who witnessed, fought, and died during the attack on oahu, or who were otherwise affected by
the war. this morning, on this 75th anniversary, i will share the accounts of a few of those who experienced the attack. their stories honor our past and inspire our future. on the "uss arizona," james forres had a working party on the fan tail rigging the ship for church services that morning. the white canvas awning flapped and snapped in the breeze. the sun was warm. the clouds were high. and all things considered, the day was perfect. in the distance, unidentified planes started coming in low from the southeast lock. heavy, muscled explosions began
booming down the line atford island. ensign officer of the deck pulled the alarm bell. he shouted over the p.a. system again and again, all hands, general quarters, air raid. this is no drill. on the west side of ford island, clark simmons, a friend of uss's dory miller heard about and witnessed the attack. sim obstacles recall there were several of us in the compartment. i looked out on the port side toward pearl city. as i looked out the port, i saw a plane making a run for the utah. and as she dropped the torpedo, the wing dipped and then straightened up and the torpedo headed for the utah. another one right behind it did
the same thing. as it hit the ship, we felt the jar. at that time the bugler sounded, "man your battle stations." well, our battle stations were below deck. when i first went down to what they called battle stations, we were frightened. there was water coming to the ship. it was knee-deep. it is just as vivid in my mind today as it was on that day. a few miles from pearl her better, a young woman, a young nurse, anna busby, found herself in a unique position. she was in the army nurse corps, but on this particular day she was a patient receiving care at tripler hospital. she called in her oral history, i was a patient that day and i had just placed my breakfast tray on the floor when we heard all these sounds. they sounded horrible.
when the head nurse ran down the hall, i ran after her. when we got to the back porch, you could see all this smoky in pearl harbor. i heard her say, my god, the japanese are bombing pearl harbor. i said, we will all need to be on duty. the days after the attack, the nurses of tripler treated a great number of the wounded and dying. in honolulu, caught in the crossfire of battle, a terrified community began to pull its self together and respond. among the first to take ac, the honolulu fire department. that day they responded to 39 callouts. three companies of firefighters raced to hickam at 8:05 to assist military crews battling multiple fires involving
military aircraft, barracks and hangars. the department lost three firefighters that day. captain thomas macy of engine 4. capitalon john herrera engibb one. and one from engine six. in time they awarded purple heart to those civilian firefighters injured and killed on december 7th. the only u.s. civilian firefighters in history so honored. here in pearl harbor, we watch over the memorials. we also preserve the memories of those who experience the attack so that their words will live forever. the national park service keeps america's memory of the war
alive for future generations. we do so to honor the past and inspire the future and to help the world learn the lessons of history. today our "uss arizona" memorial stands for everyone who served in uniform during world war ii. the memorial you see across the harbor is a symbol of hope. it is a symbol of respect and resilience. it touches the best and greatest ideals in all of our hearts. in the words of the late historian michael slackman, today the "uss arizona" stands as a reminder of the event of that saturday mormorning.
it has different meanings to those who visit there. but to all of themmish it speaks silently and eloquently of the distance yet to be traveled before the world lives in peace. thank you and aloha to all. [ applause ] >> now it is my pleasure to introduce our national park service regional director for the pacific west region, miss laura joss. miss joss oversees operations for 61 units, trails and areas of our national parks system and six western states and in three territories of the pacific. we are able to do our jobs here in pearl harbor preserving the memorials and the memories thanks to her leadership and support. ladies and gentlemen, miss laura jos.
>> thank you, superintendent. aloha. a bridge at concord, the golden fields of gettysburg, the waters of pearl harbor. these battle fields all share a common bond. they are sacred ground to the people of the united states. their historic sites that are part of the national park service, who preserves their memory and shares it with the world, we gather at these places to remember, to understand, and to honor. as we commemorate the 75th anniversary of pearl harbor, we recall the distant memories of "war and peace." this year also marks the 100th
anniversary of america's best idea, the national parks. from the park in maine to war in the pacific national historical park in guam, parks serve the nation as places of retreat, wonder, discovery, and reflection. the history of the national parks service began with the country's desire to conserve lands that were being threatened. the idea to preserve unique landscapes originated with places like yellowstone and yosemite and soon grew to include not just landscapes but historic landmarks and treasures as well. becoming gateways to telling america's many stories. as the number of parks increased, it became clear that a dedicated agency for their management would be needed. president woodrow wilson, working with the congress,
created legislation to establish the national parks service as an agency of the department of the interior on august 25th, 1916. twenty years later, another president, franklin d. roosevelt, would comment on this new and unique adventure with preservation management with these words, "there is nothing so american as our national parks. the fundamental idea behind the parks is that the country belongs to the people. it is for the enrichment of the lives of all of us. over the past 10 decades, we have as a country set aside the best of what america has to offer. we have set aside treasured landscapes. we have also set aside places that tell the stories of our past, both the history we celebrate as well as the
monuments we should never forget. there are now over 400 such places of reflection that the national parks service shares with the people of the united states and the world. today's ceremony is taking place at the close of the national park services centennial year. a theme of our centennial asked, what is a park to you. as i conclude my remarks, i ask that you look out over the waters of pearl harbor, gaze upon the memorial that rests above the "uss arizona," and ask your self what that memorial means to you. for myself, i believe it is not merely a fitting tribute to the men who lost their lives aboard the arizona. the memorial and this commemoration honor the past. but also inspire the future to
strive toward a world of peace where reconciliation is achievable. how honored we are as employees in the national parks service, your national park service, to be the stewards of this hallowed memorial and the internationally historic landscape that surrounds it. thank you and aloha. [ applause ] >> thank you, miss joss. ladies and gentlemen, it is now my pleasure to introduce our navy co-host rear admiral john fuller. he oversees two installations, the joint base pearl harbor hickam and pacific missile range facility as well as all home ported surface ships here in pearl harbor, hawaii. please welcome commander navy region hawaii and naval surface
group pacific rear admiral john fuller. [ applause ] >> on behalf of united states navy i join our partners and welcome everything to this historic commemoration. to our most honored guests, pearl harbor survivors and other world war ii veterans, thank you for honoring us with your participation in today's ceremony. we are holding the day's events for you. our objective and theme is honoring the past and inspiring the future. we remember your lost ship mates. we salute your service and your sacrifice and that of your family's. we offer you our most heartfelt thanks for all you sacrificed and all you suffered. on december 7th, 1941, most of
you veterans were teenagers or in your early 20s, and you were away from home for the first time. back home, your families long to hear any news about the attack. mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandparents, all loved ones were desperately looking to hear news about the fate of their boys. meanwhile, you pearl harbor survivors faced the grueling recovery and restoration. joined by navy divers, shipyard civilians, citizens from hawaii, you responded. you rebuilt and you resurrected pearl harbor and the pacific fleet. you felt the shock, endured the grief, and then you shouldered the burden of bringing the world back into balance. in the days after the attack, facts and information crawled
along but rumors raced along at light speed. it would take weeks to get detailed news to your families. in some cases it took months. people stood in endless lines at the western union in honolulu. on the mainly, families waited at home and wondered. some mothers and fathers received the worst possible news, the news they dreaded. family -- family is our most precious institution. family is our most precious possession. yet in war, innocent families are always victims. historian ken burns chronicled the second world war both in europe and the pacific and he called that war the greatest cataclysm in history. he said it came out of human emotions, anger, arrogance,
bigotry, victimhood and lust for power. i ended because of other human qualities, courage, perseverance, selflessness, faith, hunger for freedom combined to change the course of human events. those of you who served in world war ii, you earned the freedom and the prosperity we enjoy today. you forged and bestowed upon us a lasting legacy of freedom, with your resolve, toughness and grit. you polished that through your honor, courage and commitment. those of you who served in world war ii ushered in the current era of peace and prosperity we've enjoyed for decades, and you did that with your blood, your sweat, and your tears. you recreated a world dedicated to order and instability. you inspired great equality and civil rights.
you earn our commitment to always remember pearl harbor. your life changed on the morning of december 7th, 1941. after that day, you would change the world forever. as a humble beneficiary, i simply want to offer my sincere and heartfelt thanks. today we are very fortunate to hear from the pacific commanders perspective. add mire harris son of navy chief and japanese mother who met in post-war japan. he exemplifies, poetically, how far we've come in seven decades. he's a tough and courageous leader, a diplomat and fighter. he leads our military to the pacific. when you talk about the area he lead the pacific, he leads army, air force, navy, and marines. and his area of responsibility spans the width, the breadth, the area over, on, and under the
sea for the pacific ocean. an area of responsibility encompassing half the world's surface so. i'd like to say from the arctic to the antarctic, from california to india, it's a lot of responsibility, a lot of real estate, it's a lot of good leadership. ladies and gentlemen, it's my honor to introduce the commander of u.s. pacific command admiral harold b. harris, jr. [ applause ] >> note to self, never follow a tall man or a small child to the podium. so ladies and gentlemen, let's give it up one more time for the band for the inspirational rendition of the national anthem. [ applause ]
>> thanks, john, for that introduction and for your terrific stewardship of this historic region. ladies and gentlemen, good morning. hearing the words, the land of the free and the home of the brave means something special for every american every day. but today on december 7th, it takes on extraordinary significance as we're joined here in this hallowed place by world war ii veterans and survivors, attacks on military bases all across oahu including right here on pearl harbor. that fateful morning 75 years ago, they were about to conduct morning colors when they were surprised to hear the sounds of real bombs bursting in air instead of the reassuring melody of our nation's anthem. that early light they ran to battle stations and guns as they
recognize a few of our honored attendees. governors, mayors, state and city leaders, under-secretary davidson, esteemed member of consular corps, chief of naval, admiral richardson, serving officers, larry jones, thanks for highlighting our veterans past and present for the second year in a row. gary sinise, garth brooks and trisha yearwood, thanks for entertaining our troops. thanks for remembering these hallowed places and congratulations on your centennial year. distinguished guests and ladies and gentlemen, just prior to the attack 75 years ago on a morning not unlike this one, people not
unlike us were waking up to enjoy another day in paradise. indeed some of the veterans were probably thinking about spending day on the beach, playing baseball, hanging out with friends or listening to the battle of the bands at block arena right here on this base. no one knew it would be the last moment of peace for almost four years. the horrific events that took place here caught america, her navy, army, army air corps, marine corps and territory of hawaii by surprise. we were attacked all across oahu, at scofield barracks, barrows, hickam and of course right here at pearl harbor. it fell upon the shoulders of brave americans like these here in the front rows to respond to crisis that fateful day. the surprise sought by the imperfectly japanese navy lasted
110 chaotic minutes. almost as long as this speech was going to be. a day of gallantry and unquestionable heroism, a day of sacrifice and immeasurable loss. less than 24 hours, the majority of the pacific fleet taken out of action, catastrophic by any standard. the scars remain and we see them all around us. the battleships, "uss arizona" and "uss utah" still entombed in these waters behind me. the uss oklahoma memorial bullet holes at ford island and hickam field, bodies and minds of the veterans here with us today. these scars remind us of our history and how america responded with conspicuous valor. today we have a precious opportunity to reflect, to reflect what it means to be a patriot, to reflect on what it means to be a nation tested by
war and to reflect on both the costs and the blessings of liberty. they say hindsight is 2020. history has shown us the alarm bells had been sounding throughout the 1930s will as american-of- america looked eastward toward europe we watched as a military leadership in germany began to grow in power. in fascist italy allied itself to nazi germany. we looked westward as well, sawmisaw militaristic rise of japan. the fleet from california to hawaii in 1940, a move designed to give pause to a potential adversary, the original rebalance of the indoasia-pacific if you will. even so, 75 years ago the the united states was strategically surprised, caught flat footed by imperial japan. military and first responders here on the islands, incredibly
brave defense against staggering odds. they engaged the enemy as best they could with what they had. for those that gave last measure of devotion for their nation that day, we feel a deep sense of sorrow, yet we're also inspired by their great gift to the world, the gift of freedom itself. they did not go quietly into that night. along with those who survived, a reluctant nation emerged to fight and ultimately win world war ii. those who survived pearl harbor also left us a warning. remember pearl harbor. keep america alert. eternal vigilence is the price of liberty imperative never to be caught by strategic surprise again. but 15 years ago we were again surprised by a major attack on our soil. not by a nation state this time but by terrorists. as before in the preceding decade, alarm bells had been ringing. even as we worked hard to
understand those alarms, few, if any, could have anticipated the methodology behind those events in knock, shanksville, the pentagon on that fitful autumn day. i'm not a preacher man, in fact chief of chaplains is in the audience here but there's a passage in the good book which define for me, those who responded in 1941 and 2001 are. god was searching for the right man, a man with the right staff, a man embark on a dangerous mission and go into a dangerous land. whom shall i send? whom shall go for us. it was isiah who respond, here am i, lord, send me. here am i, send me. powerful words. when our nation was attacked 75 years ago today and again 60 years later on another sunny day, this time in new york, lady
liberty called out in her pain and anguish, whom shall i send? who shall go for me? and everywhere soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen called out, here am i, america, send me. here am i, america, send me. [ applause ] america is the country she is because of young men and women who are willing to forego wearing a business suit, forego strolling down easy street and forego living the good life to wear instead the cloth of the nation. to travel instead along an uncertain road fraught with peril. to live, instead, a life on the ragged edge of danger. to live lives that matter.
america is blessed beyond riches. our nation is blessed to have strong men and women with exceptional courage who are willing and able to step forward to do whatever it takes to defend america whenever lady liberty is in jeopardy. just like the greatest generation who answered the clarion call of duty after pearl harbor and korea and vietnam and the cold war and the gulf war, a new generation of men and women volunteered to stand in the gap for us following 9/11. since then we have pursued and engaged our enemies even to the ends of the earth, and we're still at it today. a free nation cannot survive without those who are willing to place service to country ahead of service to self. so ladies and gentlemen, every december 7th -- [ applause ]
so ladies and gentlemen, every december 7th we've remembered the past actions of our veterans on oahu because they inspire us today and because they shape our future. a tour across present day hawaii reveals the depth of america's tenacity to protect our enduring national interests in the pacific. for america is a pacific nation, a pacific power, and a pacific leader. secretary of defense carter has rightly called the indoasian pacific the most consequentialal region for america's future. this area already drives global economic prosperity and will do so for the next century. our is a region of rapid growth, not only in population, not only in industry but also competition for scarce resources and military capability. president reagan once said we can't be innocents abroad in a
world that's not innocent. you demonstrated as "uss halsey" steamed around ford island and f-22 raptors flew overhead. on the pier next to stennis. your military forces based here and throughout the region stand watch to ensure our nation remains vigilant to keep america safe and to defend our very way of life. the best fighting force the world has ever seen exists because of the legacy of the men and women who did their duty when our nation needed it the most. 75 years ago today. the selfless service of the greatest generation, both veterans and civilians on the home front who supported them won the peace by ending a war. they defined our national heritage and today we thank them for their service and their faith in our nation. folks, this week's 75th
commemoration events have renewed mrenew ed my confidence in the future our country. from all works of life and across generations i have heard people telling their stories, i saw tear s and laughter, sorrow and joy. i'm reminded of the stories my father would tell me about his war experiences as an enlisted man aboard the uss lexington, an aircraft carrier that departed pearl harbor a few days before the attack. my dad and so many of the greatest generation are no longer with us. but we can still hear their stories of duty, of honor and of courage. their ghosts walk amongst us. their spirits speak to us. protect this house, this will defend. and we're fortunate indeed to listen and learn from living world war ii veterans, including president bush, senators dole and governors and tuskegee
airmen and so many others who are with us today or watching the broadcast across america. what we hear is that the future belongs to the brave. our country is both defined by her storied past and invigorated by her balanced future. we rise today to author that future, emboldened by the intrepid service of those who came before us and carried on ward by those young men and women who serve today. as america's joint force commander, i give you my word that the 380,000 civilians and military warriors that xicompri the u.s. pacific are ready to fight and win so that we may be free. we remember pearl harbor. we remember the response by america's sons and daughters who brought the broad stripes and bright stars through many fights. at north africa, at midway, at
the mountains, at normandy, at okinawa and ee with a gee ma. we honor sacrifices made during world war ii by the many allied nations. so that the world could see freedom renewed. today we work with allies and partners across the globe to protect those hard won freedoms, including our staunch ally japan. wrereconciliation turned bitter enemies into the closest of friends, united by shared values and shared interests, yet another lasting legacy of that greatest generation. ladies and gentlemen, as we look upon the majestic uss arizona memorial behind me, take comfort in knowing that our departed veterans continue to stand vigilant watch as guardian angels of our nation. i will conclude by saying the
joint forces have assumed liberty's mantle, passed down in an unbroken chain, watch to watch for 75 years. no one and i mean no one should doubt that a strong u.s. military will continue to stand a global watch for generations to come. as the legacy and lessons of pearl harbor are passed to our children and our children's children who will stand the watch. to america's world war ii patriots here and watching at home, we will never forget your courage under considerable fire and seemingly insurmountable odds. because of you, our future remains bright. we owe you an immeasurable dead. we can't thank you enough for answering the call. my god bless you all past and present who stood the watch and
the wreaths you are about to see are an expression of our gratitude and appreciation of service and sacrifice. today, we honor heros, military and civilians who lost their lives december 7, 1941. this morning, we will place wreaths to honor the territory of hawaii, army, marine corps, navy, air force and coast guard. the wreaths will be presented by active duty service members and national park service rangers. this formation represents our past and present. it honors those who fought in the name of freedom 75 years ago and recognizes our veterans and current active duty members who continue to selflessly serve our country. today, these wreaths represent hope that our future generation maze never forget the sacrifices
that took place and continue to take place every day. the bell is from the uss bugara, a diesel submarine. it was launched in 1944 and served in the pacific during world war ii. the territory of hawaii. on that fateful morning, 49 civilians lost their lives as a result of the attack. as a base for all of the services, the then territory of hawaii and its citizens played aid major role in one of history's greatest salvage and repair efforts, restoring most of the damaged ships and expediting the return to the fleet. hawaii's citizens opened their homes and businesses to servicemen stationed in the islands and to those returning from war patrols. today, the state of hawaii remains a strategic and welcoming home port for our military, continuing to offer aloha to all.
>> civilian survivors and witnesses, please be seated. united states army. while many history books tend to focus on the pearl harbor attack, the brave members of the united states army fought to defend their posts on december 7, 1941. the u.s. army had and continues to have a large presence on owe with a hugh. representing the united states army is captain moore of texas and park ranger barom of hawaii. will all of our army veterans please stand as able? [ applause ]