tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 1, 2014 2:00am-4:01am EDT
victory, they will not make peace. why would they make peace? a need for the treaty to be signed. there needs to be a strong and clear and consistent commitment from the international community. reduce the hope of the taliban for any potential victory. the future government has to be a broad-based coalition government. again, what we need to do is we need to get peace and negotiations. from a position to make as, we have lot of concessions. considering the amount of , weifice that we have made
can't afford to make concessions. i pray for a smooth transition. that, i ame achieved confident that afghanistan will be on a path to long-term stability. two, allo to round endorsejor candidates this bilateral security agreement. american forces to remain in afghanistan after the mission is formally ended at the end of this year. that may seem like a technicality, it was the failure
to get a similar arrangement with iraq that led to the departure of forces there in 2011. abdullah abdullah may have the most specific agenda for political reform. he would also like to see reform in the senate. these are ideas if you listen to the agendas. it is hard to say how much those will translate into governance agendas. right there. one of the things we are
concerned about is the lack of air force. they be able to compensate for the lack of their own air force? what kind of consequences will that have for their ability to fight? that is my main question. which of the two leading candidates is best suited to power in afghanistan? >> was there another question? we will go over to the side. i am colonel joss urges.
-- burgess. i served under general allen. >> that is why you are exhausted. >> i have had time to recover just a little bit. my question for ambassador what isregards happening inside afghanistan. a is well-known that there is greek game environment that is being played out among regional powers. i am wondering how these relationships and what they are doing inside the country might impact the transitions that will take place and what we might be able to do to minimize those impacts? >> that is a great question about the air force. the build is not going to be complete until about 2016.
we will continue to provide support up until the end of the mission. we will continue to provide advisory support to the emerging air force in the. of time.iod your medevac question is a good one. we spent a great deal of time working hard to work with the ministry of public health and work with the ministry of defense and interior to optimize all the resources across the country. theexample, instead of helicopter medevac that we became there used to, we built the process. a large number of armored vehicles had been procured for
the forces so someone who is medevac on the ground will find that his buddy is well-trained. theye point of wanting, have capacity for some care right on the spot. the medevac process begins by moving a casualty to an armored vehicle which will move it to a casually collection point. we take advantage of the local clinics that will be improved or a field hospital that was purchased for the national army to be deployed when operations occur in the field at the core level. the point is, we are not pulling out our helicopters. we went to a great deal of trouble working with surgeons and the deputy minister of public health to optimize all of
the resources necessary to take advantage of every capability we can short of the helicopter medevac. there will be fewer helicopters then you are used to seeing. we have more work to do on the air force. i think you are aware that we have a ground attack aircraft that is coming in through a series of contractual issues. that aircraft is delayed. the intent was to use some of helicopters to up thatthose to be a gunship can take the place of that turboprop aircraft until it ultimately enters the air force. it is worth noting that right now the production of pilots in there aren't, enough pilots to fly every airplane. the process is to continue
unabated. there are a lot of afghan pilots who are drying pay -- drawing pay. in the conversations i have had , holdingident karzai of the younger officers who are quite exceptionally well-qualified pilots to get them into uniform and get them into training and the cockpit, that process is going to take a while. we have a gap. we will do whatever we can at this point to advise as best we can. >> i am glad to hear the information from general allen. not having the air force in places of the biggest complaints
of the people in afghanistan, particularly the generals in the army and our president. i'm glad those activities are going on. centralization, none of the candidates are advocating for federalization. the only difference that we have is in the agenda and platform of dr. abdulla. towants to change the system a parliamentary system. is the only big change in the platforms that we have. to get to your question, i think the equation and the region are changing.
there is some acceptance that is coming into existence finally, after 13 years. i feel it is shaping up. in afghanistan is good for their countries. pakistan is coming to the i using violence policy hurtseign themselves very likely. offer ifn has a lot to there is economic cooperation and economic integration. we have central asia with huge national resources. we have huge human resources. in between, we have afghanistan.
what has happened with russia willhe ukraine, that affect their policy in the larger picture. that further increases the need for the united states to have a presence in afghanistan. since the people of afghanistan have been badly hurt through out theyry by its neighbors, have proved that the entire region in a region where sentiment is being propagated by the government, afghanistan is the only country
which proves to be an ally to the united states. don't want to talk about what the president is saying. it is not a good idea to give him much importance. the more important to give to his rhetoric, the more his objectives will be realized. he is leaving. we should stay cool about it. afghanistan -- one other point i would like to make that i wanted to make earlier isut the future government even if you have disputes in the elections, everybody understands will try to disrupt,
there will not be instability. any deadlock will benefit. that will benefit will be the taliban. all other groups -- it is a lose lose situation. the only group that will take advantage of that is the taliban. that is why they will make attempts to create a coalition government. we put the real enemies of afghanistan on alert. many of you have been in enough sessions to greet with great suspicion anybody who opens by saying i don't have in to say on this but... view of the time i will try to make it brief.
what you have right now is .verybody saying -- playing i hope we are correct. i hear more discussion in pakistan but not much change in the actual policy. that is destabilizing to afghanistan in the long term. in the long run, it is destabilizing to pakistan. afghanistan needs a kind of regional neutrality where it is not partisan between pakistan and iran and india. when there iscome a government in afghanistan that a strong enough to maintain basic internal order. without that you have a contest for power which draws in foreign support. it is a long term vision but not
a short-term practicality. i don't think there is a candidate who is looking to federalism. there is a lot of discussion of that. everybody understands that you have a system which is centralized on paper and in capable of carrying out the centralization with which it is vested. the problem is that decentralization would be to decentralize to the warlords and powerbrokers who are the problem of the government already. there is no political mass ready to take up regional governance nor does tribalism have the same strength that it had 30 years ago before all the trouble. you see that in this election. there is an enormous split among groups.
there is a discussion about the parliamentary system. it is very vague. and nobody explains what they have in mind. a parliamentary system without formed parties and discipline would mean even less stability than you have now. a prime minister dependent on that parliament would have to renegotiate his mandate. he would have to repurchase his mandate on a virtually weekly basis. that is a recipe for disaster. might mean something akin to an appointed prime minister who could be dismissed by the president rather than by parliament. that is not really a parliamentary system. you have a kind of chief executive authority who is responsible for running the government who can become the
lightning rod that you dispose of when he has encouraged too much displeasure. then you can start with somebody else. that is possible. it is a long way down the pike. thank you. wish the afghan people a successful election on saturday and please join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] >> coming up, a look at potential 2016 u.s. residential candidates. the house appropriations committee hears from tom wheeler
about his budget requests. testifiesstrator about her agencies in 2015 budget. -- agency's 2015 budget. autism speaksof and she will talk about the recent cdc reports showing arise in autism for children in the u.s.. a report shows that people are leaving rural areas in record numbers. the executive director of compete america on advocated for tech companies in the h-1b visa process for highly skilled journals. washington journal, live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span.
tuesday, the world bank president discusses global economic inequality. live starting at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the car spun around in the circle and the driver instantly didn't know where her phone was. she was looking for her phone. she was alive for about 45 minutes until they cut her out.
>> hello. i am 16 years old and ready to start driving. and very eager. many drivers are focusing their attention on their cell phones rather than roads. distracted driving is incredibly dangerous and cell phones have no place behind the wheel. some things need to be done about this. >> we have announced the winners of this year's c-span studentcam video competition on what is the most important issue, should address this year. watch the winning video starting tuesday in every weekend -- weekday throughout the month. see all the winning documentaries online at stude ntcam.org. of the potential 2016 presidential candidates and their responses to recent foreign-policy events. this is 40 minutes.
>> "washington journal close quote continues. host: our guest is josh kraushaar. thank you for being with us. wrote an interesting piece that says foreign policy is reemerging with a vengeance. usually think about foreign policies. at theyou have to look republican jewish coalition meeting where some of the leading republicans spoke over the weekend. chris christie, john kasich, jed bush, all focused on foreign policy. when you look at the broader picture, with the challenges and president obama's administration .s facing you can see to 16 being a dropdead point for a lot of these challenges.
clinton in various speeches over the past month has a more hawkish tone than president obama. there are all sorts of warning signs and data points read while voters may not put foreign policy on the map right now, it is certainly looming large as a major issue in 2016. host: i want to listen to some of her ring marks and get your response. coming months will be crucial in several regards. first the hopes for a just and lasting peace that guarantees israel's security, that creates a comprehensive path for two people.
we ensure that iran never requires esch never acquires a nuclear weapon. filler clinton-- at the american jewish congress. guest: i agree with the broad points. iran, sheme to expressed some deeper notes of skepticism read it was very much a trust but verify the type of approach. soundfinitely didn't optimistic for the american jewish congress. i think a lot of their leaders are very optimistic. she was playing to the crowd. there can be a negotiated path
to a nuclear issue with iran. will her tight to obama's secretary of state help or hurt her? guest: it can only be a challenge. when she famously gave a reset button to her counterpart with we are now seeing the aggressiveness that russia is it looks like it will be coming back to bite her. there are a lot of things to pore over. her record will be scrutinized. if anything else will be focused on it will be her record as secretary of state. there is some pressure points. guest is the political editor at national journal. if you like to join our in.ersation you can call
secretary kerry was meeting with his counterpart in paris. the attempt that russian -- they seek diplomatic agreement but it doesn't seem to come anywhere. the conversation was extremely unproductive. it seems the and -- the administration wants to avoid when you haveion troops on the eastern ukrainian border, there are very real reasons that the situation is going to get worse and it won't be a diplomatic solution that is going to get us out of it. host: he argues if he was president he would take a harder stance against the russian president.
talk about his foreign policies. guest: he certainly resents that point of view within the parties. even rand paul, as you just quoted from his column, has moved to the middle. upset and isre calling on the ministry should to do more things in response to russian aggression. when it comes down to the specifics and when it comes down to the actual event that happened, americans are much more interventionist than the public polls would indicate. host: our next caller is from oakland michigan.
journal.n washington caller: thank you for the ability to call into c-span. i am a 68-year-old woman and i listen to all the republicans with their criticisms to president obama. i see what they did when they are in charge. that is a problem president obama is supposed to solve. if we have just bombed and toward door and got out of there, we might have had even better. listen to for me to all their criticisms when i watch what they did. i actually talked with some military people.
i listen to rumsfeld criticizing everything. the one that got us into the mess that we are in. really have a problem listening to all the republican criticisms because i have been watching this for a long time. they have nothing to criticize president obama. they are the ones that got us into this mess. same thing with the economy. the republicans got us into this mess. guest: the situation in iraq has led to president obama's noninterventionist posture when it comes to the syrian civil war, when it comes to what is happening in russia. the public is very war weary.
mood definitely isn't a for foreign conflict. a lot of it has to do with problems we face in iraq. hitsthere is a crisis that , you can bet the public opinion is going to move more in the hawkish direction, more in the interventionist direction and the president is going to have to respond. host: a poll says it is more portman for the u.s. not to get involved in the situation with russia and ukraine than to take a firm standing. you walk the line between knowing there is a war weary nation and still trying to appeal and deal with these crises we are having? guest: more than any other issue the public opinion on foreign
policy is very malleable. you see those numbers change significantly. where the an issue presidential bully pulpit has a role in affecting public opinion. if president obama was giving speeches on a weekly basis, talking about the need for the u.s. to give more support to nato or give more -- relief the energy russia that europe is facing and get a regular set of speeches about the crisis that is emerging in russia, i think you would see public opinion move more toward the interventionist i'll. the president's instinct has been not to get involved. he has been trying to fight as many diplomatic options as possible to avoid ramping up the crisis. change.ategy may that instinct from the white house has shaped public opinion. i think if the president was a little more assertive on stating the challenges of the united
states, those numbers would move accordingly. host come there was an associated press poll that did look at obama's foreign policy. while americans have given him high marks on foreign policy, the new polls show him registering his low support level yet on the issue. disapprove of how he has handled the situation in ukraine generally. why is it so bad now? guest: the president's approval rating -- 41%. approval on foreign policy was 36%. despite the president's response to what the public wants, not getting involved in the conflict in russia, his numbers have
declined pretty substantially over the last six months. president obama has been very responsive to where the public has been on foreign policy. the numbers have gotten even worse. there is this real conflict. america is looking to the president for leadership on the issue. they are seeing the situation worsened and the president seeming to be helpless in affecting the outcome. there is a conflict with the american public does not want to much involvement but they want involvement when it comes to the actual outcome. rachel in reseda, california on our line for independence. can't believe all these ignorant callers. i don't know if they are watching cnn or msnbc or fox. news,ve to get unbiased go to -- you can go to presstv .com. i am totally behind putin.
-- for the army and ukraine without getting men on the ground. you can support them to try to stop any further incursion on the rest of the ukraine. . lot of things we can do we have to start showing our might because we are a very strong military and they do not want to mess with us. we have a president who will absolutely do nothing to show any type of strength. he thinks if you go over there and everybody is nice, it is going to work.
a lot of conservatives point to that moment for we were trying to find some diplomatic way out of it. russia offered the olive branch. all of a sudden, russia gained clinical capital, -- gained political capital, and with their own advances in ukraine. so eageristration is to find a political -- a diplomatic way out, they are not using the power of the united states. >> i want to ask you about another republican. that is ted cruz. he said russians are openly laughing at obama. the only thing vladimir putin is strength.
the weakness and incoherent policy of the administration under secretary of state hillary clinton and undersecretary john kerry has undermined our allies and has strengthened our enemies . your thoughts? ted cruz is emerging as the hot. -- hawk. groundlearly staked that . ted cruz and rand paul are going to be competing for many of the same tea party voters. rand paul is likely to win the support. has positioned himself with the evangelical side of the tea party. they are willing to support an active u.s. role internationally. >> our next caller is gilbert in oklahoma.
his notion of being the bully, being tough and honest and straightforward is a much better way of conduct team foreign policy than the diplomatic approach. he has a very large jewish constituency. governors already have a disadvantage when it it comes to talking about foreign policy. i think chris christie would be pretty well prepared if he was to handle conversation about the middle east. he did step into it over the weekend, we recall the west bank and gaza, so he got into trouble and his team may have to walk act that phrase. bio march, i think he has a large support. >> -- by and large i think he has a large support.
caller: hi. i just want to say it is just a joke. does not matter what obama does. he will be the bad guy no matter what. anything he does will criticize. for instance, rush limbaugh with the curse in that first he says obama better not be weak liberal cannot do anything about it and then sent the navy seals he said obama said the seals over guest: it is interesting when you look at the president and how he handled foreign policy in the reelection campaign and looking at how he is handling things now. the administration was willing
to the president was willing to talk about killing in mod and. that was a bit part of the foreign policy messaging in 2012. the other point is president obama being the largest geopolitical threat of now having to expand and deal with the foreign-policy legacy. you cannot rely on just killing foreign -- killing osama bin laden. i think he got testy last week when jon karl at abc news was asking him about mitt romney. he was right when it came to questioning russia. >> russia, tennessee. >> i wish america would look at the track record of the united states. every time we talk about saving the people, the democracy, it has been a dismal fate. we may terrorism. we may terrorists and that guinness fan, terrorist and a rock.
-- terrorist in afghanistan, terrorist in iraq. the president said we gave iraq back to the people, we give it back to the terrorists. when will these people wake up. >> in crimea they have been there since the 1800s. why don't we actually open our eyes and see that america has been an abysmal failure and cannot be depended on to bring justice, peace and democracy anywhere over there? we need to bring our troops back home and bring this thing alone. how many trillions of dollars to we have to spend? i would like your guest to address this issue and be truthful about this. let's stop killing young men and women.
guest: in american politics there is a big divide between those who believe in american exceptionalism that the u.s. has a role to play in international affairs, a leading role based on history. we see that among internationalists on the democratic side. you have views like a caller suggested that are more in the rand paul realm that we should keep the business to ourselves and not involve ourselves in the activities of other countries. there is a divide that crops up. usually the former that took precedence. even george w. bush in the 2000 presidential campaign talked about america having a more humble policy and expressed skepticism about previous clinton administration involvement in the balkans. the divisor always taken place in american politics. you have an interventionist side of both parties. you have the side of both hearties that are much more or less and eager to get involved overseas.
>> we talked about leading republicans and secretary of state hillary clinton, are there other democrats forced -- speaking out this forcefully as we look ahead to 2016? >> the short answer is no because there are not many other democrats looking at running in 2016. one you look at the names that have been mentioned, mark o'malley does not have much foreign-policy experience under his else. one other name mentioned as brian schweitzer, someone who takes a non-interventionist view on foreign-policy. if he does run, if he does challenge clinton, he would have unique form and when it comes to foreign-policy, definitely running on the non-intervention side. he would be the rand paul of the democratic artie if you will. >> our guest is the political editor at national journal. join the conversation for democrats.
for independents, (202) 628-0205 annex color is dave on the line for democrats. -- our next caller. caller: the first question is the ukraine, let's say we support them and support the opposition corridor, is there a chance they would turn around and join the u.n. tom and if they did, if they joined nato, would we then be able to put the anti-ballistic missile defense systems and ukraine? and in doing that, is a kind of threatening? i know he is portrayed now as this aggressive type situation, but is his action really more defensive? is he nervous we will try to use
the ukraine to box them in with the missile defense system? >> as far as missile defense, a big debate between republicans and democrats, the debate is the obama administration canceled the missile defense plans in eastern europe, which was intended to give russia assurance that the u.s. had no intention of presenting defensive posture that they are pointing at american weakness and citing the fact that we should redeploy as a way to counter russia aggression. there is one political issue sparking a debate and is the issue of missile defense. >> next up, alex and the line for republicans. i have a specific question i want to have the guest validate my questions.
why do we have to refer to domestic issues? in our country, this is the point that i want to ask about this. why do we interfere in domestic issues. we have a lot of political economical problems. somehow the citizens do not have enough money under the line of poverty and, lots of juvenile and do not have any amount of salary for their lives. i think by putting restrictions on the russian government, it somehow it takes advantage for the government because there is a lot of citizens who invest in russia, and by restrictions and sanctions in the country, we have stopped investing to country, which has a lot of benefits for the country that
can help improve the economic side. guest: president obama famously said we should focus on nationbuilding at home and not a broad. that is a common sentiment, at least on the surface for a lot of voters. that is a challenge the president is facing, whether to ramp up pressure on russia, and i can imagine president obama hoping to focus on the economy back home, having to deal with that then unforeseen challenges overseas but looking like foreign-policy may dominate the final few years of his second term. host: judy on the line for independents. caller: i wanted to know why no one is talking about it, the reason the united states wanted
to influence all over the world is because of the labor. cheap labor. they want to get it everywhere. as cheap as they can get it, does not even matter. that is why the richest people here in america are the ones changing our laws, writing legislative in congress. we should make it that if you have never worked a day in your life that you should not be running the government for the people. they constantly take the money out of education and that is unacceptable. that is why we are through all of these wars because wars bring money. guest: i am not sure if that has to do with foreign policy, but surely the cuts, the sequester cuts and further cuts to the defense budget is something that will come up as a political issue in 2016 come at the notion that if we do have unforeseen conflicts emerging, you will hear democrats and republicans calling for a larger military budget to handle the conflicts.
host: one of the points we have not touched on was senator marco rubio who was on the floor and gave a speech about tom harkin. talk to us about his foreign-policy and what you see there. guest: if there is one republican that would benefit from a renewed forecast on foreign-policy, it would be marco rubio who did not have a good issue with 2013 that has really found his footing and voice when it comes to talking about foreign-policy. speaking in an interventionist tone with his comments. he spoke a few weeks ago and was one of the few twos focus -- to focus on foreign-policy is the theme of his speech. did not get a great reception with conservatives in the room but registered with the broader elite am especially looking at the 2013 election. he is one of the few candidates that has foreign experience,
tenure on the foreign relations committee. he has that under his belt. if there are conflicts overseas and secretary clinton uses this to her advantage, i think you'll see a lot of attention for him for the intervention. host: next up on the line for democrats. caller: hello? what i want to talk about -- can you hear me now? what i want to talk about is the real reason the ukraine and them are having problems is because they have natural resources over there and the corporations here in america want to maintain control over foreign lands and raw materials. that is what it is basically about.
they will kill the indigenous people who live on the lands, and i think what we need to do is just lock the people up in congress and corporations and find them for this feeling and pilferage and they have been doing. they are tyrants and racketeers. guest: if anything, it is the resources that europe depends on from russia that have hindered a more active, robust response from the united states and european nations. if anything, it natural resources are playing any role in the conflict, it is in favor of not getting involved. host: robert on the line for independents. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. i served i country for almost 10 years. -- my country for almost 10 years and was only a disability that forced me out.
we have not learned a thing from what happened in vietnam. we went into afghanistan and were only there to kick the taliban out, yet we decided to stay and went into iraq the way we did. the government has only two major functions that it has a responsibility for. one is the security of the country, the other is to take care of the needs of the people of the country. when you start getting overly spending on government for the military and neglect the people, we will not be safer than it who came into this country. i would like to know your comment on that. thank you. >> the sentiment not to get involved in russia and the conflicts is certainly alive and
well. the question is if things get worse and russia invades further, will public opinion change and will the tax ask in confronting russia become more aggressive? >> has the role of foreign-policy in presidential campaigns particularly changeg overtime or remained pretty constant? guest: 2004 into a large extent in 2008 foreign-policy was the dominant issue. he likely would not have one over hillary clinton if it was not her positioning to the center on the supporting of the iraq war. in 2004 president bush used the threat of terrorism and election as a referendum on his handling
of the iraq war, which more voters judged in favor of his record than john kerry. foreign-policy is an issue when it is front and center in the news. when we are facing concerns are not quite as pressing as they have been over the past five or six years, then foreign-policy does not rank as a major issue. god forbid if there was a terrorist attack or awful conflict the took place, you can bet the public concern over foreign policy would go back up. host: next call is leonard and on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i would like -- i am sorry. let's try it again. i would like to say that i support the fact that we need to
deal with the problems at home, but i totally disagree with what is going on with russia and the ukraine. the united states has always been a world supporter and figure that is the lead in the world that supports countries that are about to be overtaken. we did do the iraq war. we did do some good. i support obama's shares is maybe not the right word, but getting involved. but putin is laughing at us. we just had the sochi olympics and all that while we were unaware.
i cannot believe that. russia walks right in and takes over. they are laughing at the united states, and the idea that the rest of the world is taking a very close look at what we are going to do about this. i hope mr. obama does do something. >> it does seem the administration was caught off guard from russia's aggression. you can look at the thet does seem that administration was caught off guard from russia's aggression, theyou can look at administration's rhetoric, in youweek of conflict where would hear both obama and secretary of state kerry about a 19thsia was acting in scn try way, as opposed to 21st century standards of
law. is,his administration foreign policy could be the central issue for his final couple years in office, and how handles russia and how he handles the conflict in iran are his long-terme legacy. >> just a couple minutes left, iowao to j.t. in red oak, on the line for republicans. >> good morning. >> good morning. regarding comment germany's role in all of this. interesting, because we don't really want or need the ukraine in nato. and i don't think that's even a question. of this goesart back to 1999 when germany accomplished what they intended to get accomplished 50 years earlier. in yugoslavia. and russians like so many over ifre in the middle east,
through, the near east and eastern europe, are long memoried. and when they see something like that happening in yugoslavia they take that to heart and i mr. putin has done exactly that. and i believe it makes a link between the olympics and the shortly there after invasion. but i don't think mr. putin mass designs on taking over the it toane and returning .epublic status though i do believe that that in muldova could happen and i think we'll see something like that happen year.
>> the caller brought up the inervention in the ball cans the 1990's, and interestingly when you look at public opinion after the involvement took place, strongly in favor of the involvement. level oft seen that presidential outspokenness on the issue and that's one thing when you look at public opinion, how active a president is in for a greater american role. that's going to be a big indicator. >> the political editor at national journal. with us today.g
>> bend is a timber town, you wouldn't know it to look at it but timber qualities are almost completely removed. townes, bend was a timber to begin with. at the height of the timber if you were to drop 1928, you would have smelled the mills, would saw duts if you went through certain parts of town, you'd get saw dust on your clothes. would hear periodic mill whistles from the two gigantic ther mills that were on banks of the river. it would have permeated tferg. minutes have been 10 off from the downtown core where all the shops were, so you would seen the smoke from the smoke stacks and burners, you heard the whistles, you would have known that you were in the middle of timber u.s.a. >> this weekend book tv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of
bend, oregon. saturday at 4:30:00 p.m. eastern atc-span 2, and sunday 2:00 on c-span 3. f.c.c. chairman tom wheeler testified before the house appropriations committee on financial servicethe president's budget request for his department in 2015. hour 40ring is an minutes. >> the meeting will come to order. witnesses,elcome our chairman tom wheeler and pai for the ajit committee today. this is the first time both of before ourpeared
subcommittee, so i want to welcome you and thank you for being here today. the focus of today's hearing is the f.c.c.'s fiscal year 2015 budget request. the request is for a $35 million or 10.5% increase over the current level. f.c.c. is limit -- by fees, these are fees passed onto consumers, so i that congressional oversight is an important check on the commission's activities. learning that the commission prior tour arrival had planned to spend money on an study outside the agency's jurisdiction on operations, leads me to think that perhaps the commission has more money than it really needs. while we understand that you may have some funding need in order to keep up with the ever changing technology landscape, we expect you to look at your current spending first before
coming to us for increases. as you both know, the middle relief and job creation act of 2012 provided f.c.c. with the authority to this is a complicated process expected to raise over $25 billion in revenue as well as create a nationwide firstications network for responders. so these auctions will be quite a task for the f.c.c. to and i look forward to hearing more about the development of these auctions we are moving forward. andn today's technological comparative landscape, my interest in seeing a leaner more and more transparent f.c.c. has not diminished. you can wheeler, i hope take seriously the committee's request to review your organizational structure to reform and reorganize the f.c.c. to more appropriately reflect
current rolen's and to keep up with the pace of technology. youhe industries that regulate. this committee is committed to fiscal responsibility and we that chore seriously. we expect all the agencies that jurisdiction to operate as efficiently and effectively as you can. includes the f.c.c. so the industries and services f.c.c. regulates are crucial, critical to american businesses.ns and these technologist are advancing at an ever quickening pace, and the f.c.c. must keep up while not deterring or stifling innovation.and overregulation hurts american businesses and markets. the f.c.c. should consider the impact of its regulations and rigorous, cost benefit analysis and rule makings wherever possible. so i forward to discussing these important issues with you today and there's much to discuss. for beinghank you
here today. i look forward to the testimony, turn to member cerano for any remarks he might have. you, mr. chairman, i'd like to join new welcoming you subcommittee, both of you are testifying before this subcommittee for the first time, hard'll try not to be too on you, beside we're too close to be angry. growinggy plays an ever role in the lives of most americans, peel increasingly depend upon television, roorks satellite and internet service to connect with others to better understand the world and to expand their economic opportunities. from insuring consumer access to internet to row meeting media diversity, the f.c.c. is the primary regulator in ensuring fair access to and fair our within every aspect of wide variety of communications methods. as technology rapidly changes, it is important that the fcc be able to meet these
is whyibilities and that we are here to discuss your budget request today. growingose broad and responsibilities, it is not surprising to see that you are requesting additional resources year 2015. your budget request is approximately 36 million higher than the funding level you received in fiscal year 2014. discussing howto you will prioritize this money and how we can better understand increases in light of your goals to protect the integand insure right of the public air waves. one of the areas of interest to me is the problems that have cropped up with the growing use of smart phones. smart phones become common in our society, their use has been by a steep rise in the number much thefts of these devices. unfortunately while some steps been take bin the f.c.c. and others, not enough has been done to deter smart phone theft can be lucrative both here and abroad. legislationroposed
to require all smart phone manufacturers and service make a, i hate the tod, kill switch, available consumers which will allow smart to render their phones useless if taken from them. i'll give you an example. in new york city, i think like 30% of crime now is related to smart phone.of a i believe i may be having the think 20ber, i something attorney generals including new york have come forward and said that this is a serious issue, one that we have to address. thoughts ont your this issue, and i what more need to be done in this area to consumers. once again, we welcome you and i must say that this is one of hearings i, that i take seriously because i'm a user. i have every ipad you can
of, i have every smart phone you can think of. of not ashamed as a member congress so say that i watch tv. most members of congress, they or fox andcnn nothing else. i admit that i watch westerns channel and everything else. radio, i have satellite radio in both cities. and so i take seriously what you do, and what chances you have to of servicequality that you provide the american people. understanding always that the belong to the american people. years agoan, lastly, i was very strong on the issue was goinge f.c.c. after some broadcasters for the way in which they conducted i said atramming, and that time all you got to do is you howard stern off if don't like it, don't get upset, just turn it off. that big believer in freedom of expression, even if it upsets someone. forhank you, and thank you
being here with us. >> thank you. now we turn to chairman wheeler. we'll make your written statement part of the record. if you'd limit your remarks to minutes, that would be great. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. serrano. as you both have pointed out, this is my first time presenting before an appropriations subcommittee. it's not my first time budget, however. and what i thought might make revertnse would be if i to form as i used to do in my days as a businessman and just arethe issues that i think important that we ought to be paying attention to in this budget. you are absolutely right, mr. chairman. this is a $35 million increase, 10% increase, this is serious money. you have the right to take a look at it,hard because it demands explanation. increases break into approximately thirds.
one-third is for tech not upgrades. andh is a cost saving efficiency increasing expenditure. for universald is service reform, which is enforcement and new rules. is forut the final third two things. one, it's inflation, salary, mandatory things that we have to do, we're required to do. movementther is the from the broad band map from ntia's responsibility to the f.c.c.'s responsibility and how we pay for it. can unpackee if i each of those quickly. information technology, request.lion is our is -- our i.t. is old, inefficient and insecure. 40% of our i.t. systems are more
than 10 years old. this means that for many of them no vendor support. maintain.re costly to we have, amazingly, i discovered in, 207 different computer systems for an agency of 1700 people. there's not a business in withca that would put up that. our systems are incompatible, other.n't talk to each inefficient.ighly worst of all, they're insecure. happy to go into more detail about that in a nonpublic serious but there are challenges that we have. $13 million, as you pointed out, money.t of we the reality here is if don't spend that now, we will spend that in the next two years
the bailing wire and glue that we have to do to hold the existing systems together. the second issue, universal service fund reform is about a $10.8 million expenditure. an $8.4 billion universal fund, universal program, that is going through significant change challenges sizable with it. the life line program has been abused. we'll save $160 million this year through eliminating recipients. companies, not just consumers, in this. involved we need to beef up enforcement. if you talk to the enforcement bureau folks, my line from day
has been i want heads on pikes. enforcement capability that we don't have. high cost part of universal service, shifting from voice to band, we're running some trials in rural areas to help as well.h that the resources of our wire line competition bureau are constrained and pulled in other directions not the least of which is overseeing the all i.p. networks which is a key component of have the we don't resources there. finally the e rate program, the third part of the universal service is an 18-year-old program built around 18-year-old priorities that is not focused of broad bandy delivery to schools and libraries. redirects, it needs cost efficiency, and we're in the midst of developing new
accomplish that. but let me talk a little about here.ment we need more muscular onorcement of what's going in universal service. strike forceup a to focus on waste, fraud and abuse. have today 25f.t.e.'s for enforcement in an $8.4 billion program. sufficient.k it's to do the job. we need more muscular enforcement. need investigators, we need auditors, we need financial enforcement. lawyers.just more we need people who are out there and can make sure that the being administered efficiently and we need to spread them throughout the agency. enforcement bureau, the office of managing director in the office of the inspector wire linend in the bureau. the last leg, the last third as
said there's $5.7 million for mandated personnel pay benefits obligations, and about $3 million for the broad band ntia used to pay for. mr. chairman, two quick notes. paysu noted, the agency for itself through fees, and you noted this is a huge growth area for the economy. trying to bring to regulation, we're trying to wean from regulation the idea that best.gulator knows we're trying to encourage force that, as a regulates the marketplace to protect competition, to expand competition. and we're trying to have a regulatory policy that reflects there is competition, need forless
regulation. and we also have the thatnsibility to make sure we're providing stability for those who make the investment in capital, for those that create jobs, and that we're fulfilling the consumer obligations that congress has laid down for us. ourke your admonition about responsibility for fiscal responsibility very seriously, discussingrward to it more with you. >> thank you very much. would you likei, to make an opening statement? >> i would, mr. chairman. yours.floor is >> chairman crenshaw, and members of the seub committee, for inviteery much ming to testify here today. i expect and welcome your the budgetbout specific nature of this hearing but today in my opening statement i'd like to important policy issues. first the incentive option, and second e rate reform.
first, the incentive auction. given this subcommittee's focus on appropriations, it is worth noting that the f.c.c. is one of the few agencies in the u.s. government that can generate a the government. between 2005 and 2008, for s.e.c., held auctions that raised over devoted to that was deficit reduction. but the commission's auction program has not always turned a profit. from january, 2009 until 2013, the f.c.c. raised a paltry $72 million in revenue. indeed when you count for the commission's spending on auction, our auctions program actually lost money during those five years. in 2012 the congress tasked the f.c.c. with pushing new spectrum into the commercial marketplace leastising at $27.95 billion for national priorities. the inspector -- more than 20 billion for deficit
reduction and $7 billion for the buildout of a nationwide public broad band network. that buildout makes good on a recommendation, a long standing from the 9/11 commission, that first responders need interoperable communication systems in times of disaster. asideectrum also set 135 million for state and local tolic safety millions, up 300 million for the research and development of wireless public up to communications and $115 million for the deployment generation 911. the broadcast incentive option will be the commission's best opportunity to hit that target.illion at this point my greatest worry about the incentive auction is about participation. in order for the incentive auction to be successful we will robust participation, both by broadcasters and by wireless companies. avoidingin turn means
unwise policy choices, which deter participation. my own position on the reverse simple.is prices paid to broadcastes for their spectrum should be determined by the market. not setission should .hose prices by administrative the result of setting a spectrum cap would be less spectrum for band, less funding for national priorities, a higher deficit and increased failed auction. under the law we have only one option, which is success, because we only have one chance to get it right. the second issue i'd like to the universaly is service fun's $2.4 billion program,nd libraries better known as e rate. in many ways e rate has been a success. just last year, 87% of educators responding to an independent
survey reported that they had, quote, adequate band width for robust instructional needs, unquote, and all or most classrooms on a school campus. has had itslso share of difficulties. the only indication process for theis so complicated that majority of the universal service funds entire administrative cost is focused on e rate. many schools and libraries feel come -- compelled to hire outside consultants to manage the complex tees. others don't bother applying at all. right or tiezed over services like connecting classrooms. money is wasted. school hasok lynn received millions of dollars in e rate funding even though it tosn't allow its students access the internet. and there is no meaningful respect toy with either the amount for the impact of e rate funding. solve these problems, i proposed a student centered e rate program.
up frontalan location of funding and a matching requirement, so that know inand libraries advance how much money they can spend and have strong incentives it wisely. this means simplifying the application process. means targeting funding at next generation technologist letting local schools set their own priorities and this means making all decisionsd spending accessible on a central website. my proposal would reduce costs and in its first year alone, a student center approach would provide an extra $1 billion for next generation services, all without dime from an extra the american people. accordingly my view is that we should not increase the rate programs budget and under no socumstances should we do without finding corresponding savings elsewhere in the universal service fund. to payot ask americans more on their monthly phone bills, especially when median
household income in this country is now lower than it was in 2007. should note that while all commissioners are asked to the on a budget propose bid chairman, i have not been asked to participate in the development of our agency's request. with that context in mind i will do my best to respond to any have.ons you may so chairman crenshaw and ranking again serrano, thank you for inviting us to testify, i look forward to working with you in the days to come. much.nk you very we're going to observe what we five-minute rule. members ingnize order of seniority. if they were here when the meeting started. comers will be recognized in order of their late coming. forth fromo back and side to side. start by just reiterating
the commissioner pai said. you'll have a perspective, so if want to ask him or chairman wheeler about budget that. feel free to do i'd like to start by just saying chairman, you came out of the private sector, you had a lot of experience and probably bring a fresh approach to a lot of the issues that will come commission. and you and i talked a little balancew you regulation, both from inside and outside. you have become somewhat famous your famous see saw. so maybe you could tell the yourmmittee a little about view of that sea saw as it relates to regulation. mr. chairman. yes. and you got the movement down right.
concept.mple if we're existing in an area competition that is watching out for consumers and the marketplace, then there agency toed for the do things. but the important thing is to see saw goest the both ways. our responsibility is how do we this.age and in a period where there is so much rapid change in to recognizee need that we're not as smart as the internet. trying to guess it. facilitating competition, we be protecting alreadyion where it exists. but we shouldn't be going out and -- talked in my testimony about we're trying to wean ourselves from the old regulatory model knows best.ulator and that's the approach that on.e
>> when you talk about the 10% increase, you outlined a third, third, a third, and i appreciate that. as it relates to the regulatory aspect, do you find anyplaces you could save money, where maybe not as much regulation might be needed that saw? because you can say i'll take whatever i had last year and it. add onto and one of the things i think you probably learned in the private sector is that sometimes sure you're make spending the money in the right places to start with before you ask for more. curious, did you find any areas that you might be able to save money? the hardest adjustments in coming to this job is the inflexibility that you have in allocations. of our s and e0%
people.s and in business, you can deal with employees one way that you can't in the government. end up you do is you moving people around as shift.ies and what i can assure you is that priorities are constantly shifting because of the new marketplace.the one day you're over here about narrow band and you getivities, through that which is a huge undertaking, and you got to pull over andple off to go plug this dike. and it's a constant situation of doing that. >> so let me just ask commissioner pai the same kind of question, recognizing that the office of the chairman really puts together the budget.
you look at the way that f.c.c. is working, does it leanlike the budget is as as could be, are there areas that you have observed, without being part of putting the budget together, that there could be savings? are do think that there efficiencies that the f.c.c. could wring out of the system, some on our own, and some frankly with congress' help. my e rate proposal would theatically reduce administrative costs that the f.c.c. has to spend because it applicationfy the process, so all the hundreds and thousands of forms that we have schools andt libraries across the country have to submit, we could withtically simplify that my approach. >> and we could simplify it for the schools and libraries that are applying as well, because we've created this structure that doesn't work for them either. >> i agreement agree. because we found a lot of schools and libraries don't bother seeking these fun because the process is so complicated. with respect to the latter saveory, a cost we could
if we had congress' help, a great example is the f.c.c. act.lidated reporting right now f.c.c. staff, and i used to be one of them, spent a reviewinge compiling, and submitting reports to congress on an individual basis. of stafftakes up a lot resources. with the passage of the consolidated reporting act we congress at to single book, essentially detailing all of the facets of communicationings industry, that would save us a lot of resources and frankly would be better for congress as well. a one stop shop where you could go for all the facts to discharge your legislative responsibilities. those are just two examples. much.nk you very mr. serrano. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i seem to get the sense that you both agree that changes need to take place. you don't agree on how the tonges or what changes need
take place, at least that's what i'm getting from this here.sation f.c.c. is one of the few agencies that touches just about every american. or a tvn't have a phone set or a radio or so on. so i would like to see wherever ranking member and the chair, in saying that we see a more united front in telling us how and what play.e should it's not simply for us to say you're spending too much money, must remind people that 35.5 million increase is fee funded and does not increase the deficit at all, so they're not money.us directly for but i'd like to see if i can be something more, of a joint effort in tell us how
help you. can you start off by talking bill, theersonal smart phone theft bill. your information say that that crime has gone up in the country? and in our bill, which is put the assistance of schneiderman in new york, we leave it up to the manufacturers to use the technology that they have available. we don't say you must do it this way or that way, and they have the ability to do it. number one, have those crimes continued to go up, is that an that you, either one much you or both of you are concerned about? secondly, can in fact not waste time in telling manufacturers, use what make surevailable to this doesn't happen any more. mr. serrano.ou,
let me take both parts of that. i agree with you about the of a commission that's working together. i checked this before coming here. we have agreed on 90% of the votes taken at the f.c.c. since i've arrived. sure, with we disagree on some issues and we disagree on some issues. but i think that's what makes the commission stronger. is the other part about it that at some point in time we and decide.down i think that my job as chairman decisions.help push when you can have an environment got 90% of the time
and 10% of the time you're not, and when you're moving the decisions, i think the commission is better for that. now let me talk specifically about your bill. i agreeit's a problem, it's growing. i just had a meeting, the,estingly enough, with with my counterpart, the director of communications in talking to meas about the great probts they have. it's not drugs any more, it's phones. and how do we work together on this. kill switch is an idea that right in concept and problems and implementation. and i think it can be solved. thea guy that came out of technology business, so i believe that technology can
solve it. my problem is that i lose cell phone, i think it's been stolen. i call and they kill it. they fry the innards. i find it in the seat of the couch two days later. my phone is shot. a way ofot to be overcoming that problem. i am on the phone later this week -- >> when you're in the subway and you, yourips it off of know you didn't lose it. >> so you got to be able to deal situations. i'm on the phone later this week with, i won't say who it is, but major figure in the production of devices that have redefined we use mobilech devices. and this is my topic with him. what can we do. it.e's a fruit attached to and you're very perceptive, sir.
this is one of my topics. we have got to solve this. something that ajit and i agree, again, one of agree.ces that we is that it's not just through thou shall regulation, but it's also through the bully pulpit. a responsibility, he's been doing a great job with hotel safety from his bully pulpit. we're going to try to move on this, i'm talking to folks about it now. understand your issue it's a legitimate issue. >> mr. pai? >> sure, i appreciate the question and i think the chairman is eloquently stated the rationale behind some of the legislation that you've talked about. do want to say that by and large we do agree on a lot of issues. marker noway down a however there is one issue where we're never going to agree. for never going to right the university kansas, i will never root for ohio state.
>> i will city towlt that. do agree in the power said, that ise the power of technology to solve problems. the ability to cross borders to cross cultures problems that have been unsolvable. we might disagree about how we never questioni his love of country, his care for the agency, his knowledge of the issues and his determination he believes to be in the public interest. in my own view of regulation is a little different. course think generally speaking that it should immediate three criteria, be sta it, costth the outweigh the benefits and should be restrained in the fact that are dynamic markets. but as he said, nine times out of 10 we tend to agree and i think that heralds well for the course of our dialogue going forward. >> i was just informed by the good people who are always am and more a prepared back here that our legislation allows for
which exists already said,ot to fry it, as you but actually to bring it back to but -- a certain way >> and the challenge becomes, i don't want to have a hearing on this. i understand that point and the challenge becomes how do you hacked.that from being there are solutions. we've got to fine those why i'ms, that's talking with these folks. >> thank you. mr. womack? >> it is refreshing to know that you can agree on a lot of things, with the exception of rooting for each other's teams. one of youg that will not be rooting for dayton won't bether one rooting for stanford in the basketballthe ncaa tournament. but i want to join in congratulating you on your
and welcoming you to the committee. first.to go to cyber while examining the budget observed a surprisingly strong emphasis on improving cyber security. improvements include storage expansion, cyber security an alittics, metrics among other things. can you expand on the commission's goals of these programs, both in the near term long haul?e >> yes. and i'd be happy to go into more without cameras. the edge of the d.h.s.'s minimum standards for what is expected for a federal security.
fix that. you just ran through the things we want to put in place to that.s with are charged responsibility for the networks america, and everybody keeps being those networks have to secure, by goalie, we'd better be secure. what we're doing. you point out. inng big data to do tests real time on security, security has moved so far past white black lists and fire walls. realo you use big data for time security? you'veyou make sure that got networks in place that and thats are secure the equipment is secure and that you're not using software themselves are so
easily hackable and when you're itng 10-year-old equipment is kind of per say that it's an hack.tion to but i'd be happy to talk a lot it. about cyber security has to start at home and it has to start with us. >> congressman, with respect to internal systems that are used f.c.c. i agree that cyber screurt is critical. under the law, the f.c.c.'s authority with respect to cyber security is relatively narrow. so i see the f.c.c.'s role in the overall public dialogue about cyber security is a being of a supporting one. i think other executive branch and independent agencies might be better placed to take a leading role when it comes to that. >> how do you work with other agencies? >> so we are part of an oneragency working group this. ofalso are the home
multistake holder processes, which goes in exact point to what the chairman was talking get the how do you people themselves to worry about it rather than walking in and saying i'm smarter than you and here's how i'm going to do it. we have astance, anding group on security reliability of networks that includes all the major network providers, all the major suppliers. they've come out with voluntary address the botnik d. n. with standards on s. security, with standards on router security. all did voluntarily sitting around a table that we asked them to come to. have now asked them to help toelop metrics so you have understand, okay, are we meeting the goals, because that allows
okay i need to zig or zag to do that. this same kind of a process, the multistakeholder to address other issues that may be arising in cyber. to do it in a way where we're bringing the industry in force,re the convening and we're saying, okay, what do you think we need to work on, work on it, let's come to conclusions on it. time,now i'm about out of i'll yield back on this round. >> mr. quigley. mr. chairman, gentlemen, thank you for your service. in my district and obviously in the country there have been incidents that bring about the the implementation of positive train controls as quickly as possible. difficult enough issue for the rail industry to meet in the time frame that's been given and the costs that are involved. but we're learning of other
even moret makes this difficult. with pollsy a role that be involved with transmitting this information. hear that they're going to be able to get done within needed, we're hearing otherwise that sometimes a single one can take three to four months. does this work out where we deadlines?hese yes. i think it's a critical issue, and i think that the f.c.c.'s general focus on deployment of wireless infrastructure really hits home when it comes to the question.rain control recently as the chairman can wireless, the telecommunications bureau issued a public notice involving trying tostream line this process identify what some of the roadblocks are and in a nutshell i'm hopeful that in the coming weeks and months, you'll find a much speedier proper says that
will allow the industry to in a manner that satisfies both the statute and of your --t >> are they both taking three to five month? >> yes. there's twosue is components, one is spectrum. have theou have to spectrum to be able to do that facilitated the transfer spectrum, licensing spectrum and i think you'll hear thatthe railroad folks that has been quite a success. thousands off poles that have to be put along railroad tracks, there is a requirement that we to consult with the native american tribes on the placement any such poles. every cellularof tower that's ever been put up.
that i think was never really factored in to the reality, to the thinking on this. statutoryis a clear requirement. railroadlso that the thattry was not mindful of until recently. and putact went out thousands of poles in without this kind of approval and then realized oh my goally. so everybody has been in a scramble to do something. we've done. so we have convened two meetings far. with the various tribal groups. railroads, to sit down and develop an expedited batch processing. so that, because frankly they just weren't structured for the kind of tens of thousands of requests that are coming in. be okay, here this pole in this area, one at a time.
so we've got a batch processing structure in place. so what we're trying to do is two things. one, we're trying to expedite process, and two we're trying to be true to the statute enforce.re mandated to that we havecial the rapid deployment of p.t.c., period. >> there's another issue and i appreciate your response from you.of but for commuter rails in urban areas like mine, like metra, there's an additional issue of the extraordinarily high cost purchase ofith the broad spectrum that will have to take place there. is there something you are considering that will help along assist these rail country?s across the on issues like metra. >> so my understanding is that a
the freight railroads got together and acquired and that that spectrum shared with metro and that we have been working to facilitate the necessary license transfers, et cetera. if there is another situation we're not aware, i'd be happy to get on top of it. >> we will get back to you on that. both for your answers. >> mr. graves. >> thank you. beingmen, thank you for here and just listening to the discussion today i can only theine how difficult it is broadest issues from railroad to communications and spectrum auctions. mr. chairman, quickly, about a toposed rule that is going be changed here, or taken effect at the end of march dealing with j.s.a.s, i know the intent of the commission is to provide for
andrsity in the marketplace there seems to be a lot of disagreement that that might not be the desired outcome. in fact might have an adverse effect on diversity in the marketplace. you sense that this rule change will provide more ownership of stations and broadcasting? or less minority ownership. >> more. let me give you a couple of .tatistics were 19there african-american tv stations in this country. four.there are during that period there was an explosion, a tripling of the number of these j.s.a. waivers which, let's just make sure we define what's going on here, what happens in a j.s.a. waiver is that the commission approves waiver from its rule that says owner perbe only one
market.on station per and so what has happened is as this explosion in has enabled the are the baset company for that, that have the other stations to a price thatat benkly is higher than would for anse available entrepreneur to come in and buy it, because they have these scale.es of and so the issue about j.s. a's is that j.s.a.'s are a way commission's long standing rules and that they in an off the
record, nontransparent manner the years. what we're going to be proposing is thatnd of the month it be made transparent, that you need to establish why it is that publics.a. is in the interest, and that we believe results, this is not the main purpose, but one of the results will be an opening of broadcast licensees for minorities, women, small entrepreneurs. beinge they are kuptly softed off the market. 90%.is not part of the >> you said in 2006 there were owned j.s.a. -- >> television broadcasters. >> and today? >> four. and three of those four are
j.s.a.'s.nder could get the commissioner's thoughts on that, could you agree, will it provide ownershipss minority of broadcasting? >> this proposal if adopted will andlt in less minority female ownership of broadcast properties. anecdote and data. manager of wlo in mississippi is deciding -- told mey office and point blank that without the cost efficiencies that the involved in, he would have to hire his own sales staff, would have to stop gathering as much news and long-term he worried that the entire station would have to go under. wloo simply does not have the allows themre that to employ their own sales force. if you think about it, any business, especially one in the broadcasting industry, has certificationed costs. allows a small
entrepreneur like mr. parker to spread some of those cost as parties while still retaining the independence of his own news and entertainment good thing.hat is a that helps minority entrepreneurs across the board. data,th respect to mr. parker is not alone. 43% of broadcast television by women operate under j.s.a.'s, at my colleague out, 75% african-american owned broadcast television stations operate under j.s.a.'s. it strains credit youity could takethat you away this is efficiencies in smaller markets where you're not the huge revenues and hope to have diversity embodied industry. it's simply not going to happen given the current economic environment. could just ask one followup here, because there is disgrate between you on this. takingnow the rule is effect at the end of the month. is this something the community
on?voted >> we're voting on it in a month. >> i need to clarify one thing here. month, 31st, the vote takes place. it.e are two parts to one is a rule that will then follow, and the other is a proposed rule which will solicit comments. but i need to be clear. if we're goingr, to talk anecdotes, we can talk anecdotes. is that badty --ctices often behind the hide behind the skirts of good people. the reality that we're facing are beingat j.s.a.'s used to circumvent the rules.ion's and let's talk about the anecdote where one broadcaster a station, realizes that it is in a conflict situation because they can't have it, mother, and then agrees to operate it and take
from it.e cash and then buys another station, to his former financial manager, and takes all the that.e from we have a situation where public broadcasters are saying control.e.c., we have of these stations and saying to f.c.c., oh, no, that's a different company. accomplishtrying to openness,ansparency, a common set of rules, and waiver process that will make sure that the examples get taken care of, while at the same time we're to our rules and our process. come backave time to to this, each of y'all got one
anecdote. more. i got >> mr. wheeler's was more complicated. call on mr. holiday. >> so i expect to follow up off the record with you. however, i do want to -- i represent an area that's largely rural. used to be the whole state of vegas.minus las but now it about half of what it used to be. but my rural folks whether broadcasters or carriers are scared to death. and they're scared to death don't think that while we're talking about things for the majority of the population that we should, that of protection for folks who are still over the air rural areas in a backup context in terms of how that's going to be handled. carriers in terms of the cell carriers in those same areas, when you talk about
in thatrid of spectrum area, all well and good, but do we have a safety net for them? want to highlight that for both of you in terms of what's going on with the rural, just the top of your head, does the f.c.c. have an office or something that is focused on rural service in both of these contexts that we could use as a contact? or is it something where the same folks are trying to handle the board,across whether it packaging for fordcast, sale spectrum purposes of communications, how do you handle that internally? >> sure. there's no particular office that is focused on rural issues, people, myself included, are. i come from a rural area myself everywhere from my home town to small towns. >> with all due respect, kansas comparedty big state to nevada, but go ahead. right.'s >> they made a movie about somebody, dorothy. >> right, 75 years ago this
year. but i think there are all different contexts, in the wireless context, i've been forng to make infrastructure available in rural areas, where you might not necessarily see a business case doing so. >> we'll come back so we can get into more specifics and i appreciate that. also, there's an issue in terms of -- and once again it has to do with billing for communications carriers in terms of you want to make sure folks like big places in kansas aren't getting their service from nevada because they get a better deal. and i get that. but it also appears that is being done kind of without any regard for what the state publ