Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622

Neutrality has become the law of the land. Hows that going . Guest well, its early. Our rules have just become final, so we have some implementation to do as well so its early to know exactly how the rules are going to play out and what are the impacts. We still have a court case going on, and well see how that moves through the process and see what happens in the litigation side of the equation. Host well, theres some talk up on capitol hill with the republican ares about doing republicans about doing something to mitigate Net Neutrality. Is that something thats possible at this point, or is it going to is it all in the courts . Guest well, i leave of the legislating process to my good friends and former colleagues on the hill. They know best on what can be done and cant be done on capitol hill. I have left that institution enjoyed my time there but im not in a great position to answer per se. I suspect in talking to my friends it seems like a heavy lift right now. Seems like those folk toes who feel theyve done fairly well in the Commission Item dont really have any interest in negotiating any compromises. So i suspect its a heavy lift, but i leave it to them. Host is there anything you can do as a commissioner . Guest my job is to highlight those instances where were doing good and highlight those instances where we can improve even if i disagree with the rules themselves. Ill also point out problems that hopefully we can fix Going Forward. Host we are join ared by lynn stanton whos joining our conversation today. Following occupy up on that you dissented from the order adopting the open internet rules which are in place now are the fccs rules. What do you do as a dissenter with a case comes before you where someone says those rules have been violated, im being harmed by a violation of those rules, fcc, enforce what youve said as the rules . A couple parts. As you know, there are some bright line rules and other is Just Authority provided to the Enforcement Bureau and others to kind of see how the land develops as it goes forward. So its hard to know exactly what we will do on that side of the process, but in terms of the rules themselves, i will analyze anything thats put before us, any complaint thats filed in terms of a violation and i will act accordingly. I dont always agree with every rule but when the rules are in place, im obligated to enforce them. I dont want people violating theres no, there havent been to my knowledge anyway, there havent been complaints in previous to our rules and really im not expecting too many complaints. But i will act accordingly. You talked in the past about the delegation of authority to different bureaus including the Enforcement Bureau. Do you think especially in the case of new rules where there hasnt been a lot of case law developed in terms of how the fcc enforces them, does that put an to us in to elevate more of these kinds of questions to the full commission to deal with if something does come before you . Guest i think two parts. One, it does put burden, i believe, onto the bureau to make sure they have done all of their homework, theyve dotted every i and crossed every t and made sure everything theyre presenting is accurate whether it be a recommendation to the full commission or a decision they make themselves. I have not been a huge supporter of delegating swaths of authority to different bureaus especially in the Net Neutrality situation. But i do see as your point is very well taken that there are instances that especially on some of the early ones i mentioned, they are going to be elevated but thats not for me to decide as only a commissioner. Host commissioner orielly did the politics of the Net Neutrality decision affect relationships on the commission, do you think . Guest you know, i dont think it was one particular item. I have, you know, i enjoy my colleagues very much, and were not chummy by any stretch of the imagination, buzz we do but we do try to get along as best we can. There have been some issues that have caused, i would say heart burn and certainly some disagreements on policy. Hopefully, they dont bleed into the personal side. But were, but, you know, i dont think theres any one item, and i dont think it was Net Neutrality. Its a culmination of things as you go along and start to realize in my case as a minority commissioner, you start to realize that your views are only so much of interest. Youve talked also about the need for procedural reform to create Greater Transparency and openness in addition to the nondelegation issue. Does that play in at all to the partisanship issue . Are there things that can be done in terms of openness and transparency that would alleviate some of the because from the outside it does look as though theres a good bit of partisanship and not just in terms of the substance and Decision Making, but even in terms of how information is being communicated to you as a commissioner and to commissioner pai, the other minority commissioner. You dont get the same information or same access to the policy making part of, you know tweaking the order having your suggestions entertained. Guest so, again, i hate to say its partisan. Its not necessarily republicans and democrats. Its people with different philosophies and backgrounds approaching an issue. Where ive had trouble is in how weve gone about making some of the decisions, and you highlight a number of instances where we could have done a better job in terms of the information thats provided to the public and the transparency available to everybody. And that would improve i believe, relations for everything and have more sound ground on when we do make a decision. So things that ive been seeking, for instance, is that when the item, when an item is made for an open Committee Commission meeting and its presented to the commissioner level, that that document should be made available publicly. I think that would provide an opportunity for everyone to comment on exactly what were thinking. And so it would also allow people to hone in on issues they may see as robmatic. Right now we have problematic. Right now we have people who raise concerns regarding our items, but they often dont know exactly whats being put forward. So theyre kind of doing rifle shots in many different scattered structures, you know . And thats problematic from my point of view. Id rather people target exactly where theyd like to see fixes and not spend time on things that dont need attention. I think thats something that would not in any way restrict the power of the chairman or the majority. Im not interested, i dont think any ideas put forward would undercut their authority in any way. I think it would make the process better for everybody. I know youre planning on giving a speech next week i think it is on the issue of procedural reform at fcc and i wont ask you whats your pattern or whatever the metaphor would be, but there was a bill that passed through the House Commerce Committee last month that had a number of openness, posting of rules and orders as theyre adopted or as and also of a little bit more on the Decision Making deadline side as well. Are those the kinds of things you think need to be done, or are you looking for something more fundamental, more far reaching . Guest so i would say that one, i certainly leave the legislating to the legislators. But a lot of the ideas and i did testify before the house energy and Commerce Committee on that legislation and supported the ideas they put forward. Those are some of a number of ideas that ive written about. Ive probably, i think i have about eight or nine blogs on this topic and i probably have a half dozen more in the works in one form or another and were getting ready to release another one in the next couple weeks. There are a number of ideas and those are three that are very good that i think are helpful. They also combine them with three ideas from the democratic side that i feel are helpful. Well see where that legislation goes, and i leave et to their leave it to their capable hands. But i think it will be helpful to everybody. Host speaking of legislators, you recently coauthored an oped with a legislator representative marsha blackburn, on the Lifeline Program. Would you like to see that Program Ended . Guest no, and fundamentally i think thats a very important point. I have argued that i would prefer that we do reforms to the existing Lifeline Program before expanding it to the broadband to broadband services. But i was recognizing the lay of the land, and my colleagues were interested in going to the broadband side so i was willing to put that aside and say, well if were going to do both at the same time, im willing to do that, but i want to make sure its fiscally sound. I want to impose certain obligations on the program make sure that we dont exceed and get into problems further problems on waste fraud and abuse which have been do exist in the current program. And i want to make sure that we can live within a budget, because where theres a real deep concern that when you expand it to broadband the program could explode in terms of its cost. And the cost, generally, people dont know, people that watch the show dont know that the costs come from every consumer out there today. Youre paying 17. 1 this quarter, the number changes and fluctuates. But that cost is coming from services youre paying more than you need to today in order to fund these programs like lifeline, like high cost and a couple two of the four we have. So in that sense i wasnt trying to end the program, i want to put some fiscal restraints that will help it function and therefore, if its going to do broadband, it should do so in a fiscally sound way. Host what are the parameters around coauthoring with a member of congress . Guest so we Work Together on different ideas and send them back and forth and see what the language, you know, matches up with our different philosophies. If theres in this case ive worked with congressman blackburn before so it was an easy discussion. Your fellow commissioner, minion clyburn, has argued very strongly for getting carriers out of the business of vetting individuals who benefit from the Lifeline Program and current status. Basically, its the carriers who sign up the individuals and obviously, they have a financial interest in seeing as many people getting the subsidy as possible. Do you think thats a major driver of fraud waste and abuse in the program, or do you see it more as individual consumers who are driving guest i think its both. Its not necessarily its not carrier wide. There are certainly some carriers that are more prone to this, theres certain smaller carriers that have built Business Models along these lines, and there are definitely individuals that are taking advantage of the program. I know my colleague is interested in moving to some kind of mechanism that maybe some of the states or maybe in partnership with s. N. A. P. Or other programs, and im hope to having that die dialogue. We put out a lot of questions in our nprm, and hopefully, well see if that comes back. I dont know its necessarily one particular group we can target and if we could, we probably would have eliminated already waste, fraud and abuse. We have done a fairly decent job in trying to reduce it, but we still have a pretty big problem on our hands. So is it sorry. Is it within the rules themselves are there loopholes that you need to close that are allowing this . Guest i think, you know some of it is enforcement side of the equation some of it is there are tightening the rules and third is to recognize what the program should do and people who, you know, i would like to target the program better. Therefore, in targeting exactly who needs the program, then you reduce the extra people who are receiving today. And, therefore it reduces the size of the program and you really get to lets fund who really needs this program. Thatll help reduce waste fraud and abuse. Is that how you determine what the cap should be, you look at the need and set the cap there . Guest i was willing to have a dialogue on the cap. We really didnt have too many discussions on the size of cap. I thought the best starting point was what we spent this year excuse me, last year end of fiscal 2014. We spent about 1. 6 billion so i was hoping we could tie it to that framework but we really didnt have too many discussions. You know, there just wasnt receptivity to it at the time so im hopeful that we can do something before the end of year. When we do come to final order on this, thats something, as i said a couple different times, that can be something we can address thats something thatll help get to my vote in support. Sorry one more on this. Host no, please go ahead. If there were a cap and demand started to bump up against the cap, how would you just as a practical matter envision the cap being enforced . Would it be first come, first served or first came, first out because theyve had you know, push them out something new in . Would you lower the income threshold . How would you go about guest theres a couple things. One, we have to, you know, were not sure were going to get demand thats going to bump up against the cap because we are imposing a number of things my colleagues are in favor of. Annually, were making only one consumer or one subsidy per location. So you can pick either if you want to stay with voice or you want to move to broadband. Those two things would likely keep the size of the program relatively small. Thats why i dont think a cap is that problematic. But in that situation, what im worried about is some carriers all of a sudden exploding their you know, they become the favorite, and thats where you normally get the most waste fraud and abuse is the carrier says oh, im going to sign up as many broadband customers as i possibly can and you start to see Enormous Growth by one or two companies. And there ive suggested we ought to have some automatic gates to try and address those particular situations right at the time automatic i was calling them Circuit Breaker ors kind of like you have in the New York Stock Exchange when things go haywire. You want to be like okay, lets hold this until we figure out exactly whats happening in this front. Host so that kind of ties into potential usf reform. Where does that stand . Guest so we have four universal service programs. The one that has gotten attention is, obviously, the Lifeline Program. Another one thats been is high cost. A couple different programs were working on, one thats captured a lot of my time has been rate of return. These are traditionally smaller carriers independent carriers that are trying to provide broadband to American Consumers and were trying to work out the subsidy mechanisms because they often work in very rural places in america where the costs dont match up with what they can get from the consumers. So were trying to figure that program out and provide some reforms there. And also in addition to the serve, you know, theres many people who are unserved in those areas, were trying to tie those things together. Host Michael Orielly, march 29 2016, are there going to be incentive auctions beginning on that day . Guest so the date of the incentive auction has been talked about recently, obviously. I cant tell you at this moment. I amgenly supportive am generally supportive of the time frame the chairman has outlined. Im sympathetic to his goals of trying to move it as soon as possible. I am also willing to listen to any legitimate only legitimate concerns that are raised and why we should potentially change that date. So im not listening to anecdotes, but i want people to come forward and say this is the reason auction should be delayed, and i will take a hard look at that. Right now im comfortable moving forward as best we can. I believe well spend the rest of the summer doing items we need to, not only formal items as we have a number of items coming up for our open meeting in august, but also a number of things on the back end you wont see necessarily like making sure the Software Works doing mock auctions for those potentially maybe bidders so we can hit that First Quarter timeline if thats ooh to be. Host what do you consider to be a legitimate complaint . Guest sure. So we have obligations under the statute that i worked on on behalf of a number of members in the senate, so we have an obligation to have a successful auction, in my opinion. There is no value this having a failed auction. Theres it harms everybody. It harms carriers, it harms consumers, it harms the legislator the legislature it doesnt help the fcc. So i want to have a successful auction. And those items that may come forward that say if this isnt done be this isnt delayed for this reason, it would harm the chances of getting successful auction. Its a very complicated auction. The first one ever attempted before since you have youre trying to in a reverse auction trying to convince broadcasters to sell and trying to convince wireless carriers to buy. We have to have those two pieces moving at the same time or relatively same time and, you know, the complexity adds to it and so i want to make sure we can have a successful auction. Part of having a successful auction is being able to close the auction. That means that the numbers match up and that, you know, the amount of money the broadcasters want meets the amount of money that the Wireless Companies are willing to bid to use the spectrum Going Forward. And so i want a successful auction, and if it takes more time im willing to wait to make sure that happens. Is success just insuring the transfer of a certain number of megahertz from broadcasters to wireless, or does it include a revenue number in your mind . Guest so the good part about the statute that i worked on is that we have solved some of the revenue targets so far in terms of the spending, things that congress estimated we would spend some of the dollars for weve, theyve already spent the money. Were in the process of recouping some of that. Some of the good work we did on the aws iii auction helped raise significant revenues and funded a number of different programs that congress sought to do so. To me, its closing the auction. That means we do have to get to certain revenue targets but not for purposes of, like, cbo or the congress, theyre revenue targets to meet the demand for dollars from the broadcasters. So its how do we get to that i question librium so we can have and i dont know what the right megahertz will be the right amount of clearing spectrum will be. Nobody knows at this time. Were going to run the process hopefully, based on the current structure. Were going to run the process and just see what the demand is by both big industries. And speaking to industry members at this point, just before we can even talk about the numbers and the dollar amounts have to actually come to the auction, and what is your sense in terms of there being enough broadcasters who are willing to just take that first step and participate in the auction . Guest so i think theres interest from the broadcasting community. Ive had a number of conversations over the last year on this issue. Certainly, the financial dollars that came from our aws iii auction and when they see how much could be available for them that certainly has helped entice broadcasters to have a more open mind on the process and theyve participated. The commission has done a fairly good job on a road show trying to convince broadcasters on heres the information. I would like to see more information provided, as much information is necessary, to the broadcasters so they can make a decision. I think weve withheld some information. I would have liked us to have more open towards the end. Just recently, we had some scuffle, and i would have liked us to provide as much information as possible. Many times its been generational and youre asking them to give up their business or move to channel sharing, a whole different approach to broadcasting, and youre asking them to take dollars and get out of the business in some sense in one form or another. I want to make sure they have enough information as they need to make that decision. I assume youre talking in part at least about the duplex gap issue that seems to have pushed back or did push back some of the issues you need to address from the july meeting until, one hopes in august. How does things get to that point . From my perspective it seems as though a large segment from all segment obviously the industry, all Interest Holders were saying no, dont put the broadcasters in this gap this space between the paired blocks that wireless carriers would have. Guest sure. And yet that was the recommendation that reportedly was coming out in the order that you all would have been voting on. How does that happen when everybodys saying, no, dont do that, and its coming out do that . Guest i have to be careful here, because it is something were going to be voting on in a couple of weeks and i want to be careful to try not to prejudice my decision as decisions may change along the way. I articulated many months ago i didnt support putting a broadcaster in the duplex gap. Since that time you started to see a number of vocal opponents come forward from different segments of the outside communities express concerns about that. You know i think that the auction team is trying to put together the best structure they can. I think they made a decision that this was something that was doable. Well just have to see how that plays out. Host commissioner, why is it important to hold it in the First Quarter of 2016 . Or begin it, i should say. Guest sure. I think theres interest in holding it as soon as possible. Thats certainly, you know, my goal, but i want to get it right. Timings only one component. I dont have great input into the agenda or the timing of the issue. Thats to the discretion of the chairman. So he has been very interested in holding it in that time frame and articulated the date. I didnt have much input into that. There was one, or one of the decisions that was made at the fccs july meeting that could affect it was on the entities, on the credits they get and you dissented. Whats wrong with what the fcc is doing and how do you perceive the best way of approaching insuring participation by smaller entities but not allowing larger entities to take advantage of those opportunities . Guest sure. So i support the designated entity program. It flows from the statute. Many years ago i worked on a different part, so im supportive of that. The real question came down to would we in this item allow a company to win licenses with a de credit and then lease out their license to somebody wholeheartedly to a big company and, therefore, kind of be a passthrough, and i thought that was completely wrong. There were a lot of good things decided in the item and if we could have solved that issue it probably would have got me a lot closer to being supportive. I just think its wrong when we allow a company to get a bidding credit and then lease out their entire spectrum and basically the argument has been presented in the item as you would get operation aleck pierces. Really all you doing is collecting a check. Youre getting license and youre leasing it all out to a big company youre letting them do everything, the buildout, the offering the service. They get to use it completely, and you just get a check. I think thats just wrong especially when youre getting a subsidy from the american taxpayer of 1525 we havent gotten to 35 but 25 . If youre getting a discount on the license, because then youre giving a discount to a big provider, and i think its something we could have fixed. I tried a couple different ways of not doing that. Even i said maybe if we cant go this route, because i was told that was a nonstarter gee, maybe theres a way to go about it here and make you break up your lease instead of having 100 to one provider, maybe we make you go to different providers and lease in different structure. But neither way didnt satisfy my colleagues and therefore my ideas were not accepted and became a problem. Think thats a big loophole that eventually were going to face a problem and were going to be kind of back to where we are today. In addition to transferring spectrum from broadcasters to Broadband Wireless carriers also some spectrum is going to be made available for unlicensed use. How is the Decision Making in your head, what is sort of the policy rubric for addressing how much to allocate for licensed and how much to allocate for unlicensed . Because thats something you really cant leave to the market because once it gets in the market that decision has already been made. Guest sure. So there has been a recent ongoing debate on the value of licensed spectrum. I happen to believe that carriers are going to need licensed spectrum Going Forward and we have certain obligations under our statute under the spectrum act to deliver licensed spectrum because thats how you can generate revenues and therefore, meet the equilibrium i talked about. Broadcasters respect going to participate and, therefore, you could have a failed auction. You have to balance that out. In the opportunity were trying to write as much licensed spectrum as possible. There are still pockets and opportunities for unlicensed spectrum, and i have a huge im a huge supporter of unlicensed spectrum and is what can with done. One of my old bosses said the beauty is you never know what someones going to do with it and you look down the road. I love what can be done with unlicensed spectrum, but we do have a priority given the statute and our budgetary obligations to provide as much licensed spectrum as available. Were going to continue to need it for carriers Going Forward. Its not one or the other, its both and theres also some opportunity in between. The third model is the sharing model. And how long will it be before the American Public is actually using if the auction starts in the First Quarter of 2016, are we talking about two years . Five years . Eight years . Guest probably realistically in the fiveyear time frame because youre talking about a number of months for broad washingtoners to broadcasters to relinquish their licenses. Weve got a number of things to go so its not unrealistic its going to be give or take three to five years in terms of when the carriers are able actually to deploy this. And that does have an impact on what the wireless carriers are willing to bid for the spectrum knowing they wont have it immediately, its going to be a number of years before they can use it. So youre going to see it, you know, the good part is carriers have some inventory today that they can deploy and expand services, and this will feed into that in a little bit of time frame. Host commissioner orielly im going to just because im keeping the time im going to steal one of lynn stantons questions here as the final question or the final topic guest sure. Host and this is about the Communications Actup date and whether or not it should be done piecemeal, wholesale. As a former congressional staffer and, again, this is lynn stantons question, how would you like to see a Communications Act update approach . Guest well, i still stick with my original ten uric thats the congress is in the best position to decide what to do. If i were still there i might recommend that it be given where we are today as oppose today the beginning of the congress, where we are today i may do more piecemeal and then, you know but it depends on what the circumstances i would probably spend a good deal of time in title vi which deals with our video offerings. Thats been something that probably hasnt received as much attention over the years. It deals with how you regulate cable, and the market has changed substantially on the video side of the equation with over the top offerings. I would probably spend a considerable amount of time there, but thats something that my former colleagues would know best on whether its wholesale or piecemeal. I probably am probably more piecemeal at time, but the start of a new congress is a new life, and so maybe that changes the equation. Host and politically because were going into an election year, is it unfeasible to think about a Communications Act update . Guest its probably a heavy lift in terms of a wholesale update or a rewrite. There are definitely probably pieces that could be done, but the politics being as they may you never know. Host lynn stanton do you want to follow up to your question . Rather than a prescriptive, are you advising Congress Just more as a handicap or interested observer, you mentioned title vi, do you think thats the most likely either from an ease of doing it or from an amount of interest . Are video issues the ones you think theyre going to go with . Guest well, you know im not sure. I think thats what probably i would spend some time on. But i think its probably more likely that the congress is going to deal with the process side and the fcc reauthorization bills theyve been working on. Thats probably where theyll spend time before the politics of late next year overtakes the congress. Theyll probably spend more time on that. Theyre certainly trying to see what they can do in the rewrite side of the equation, the update side, but i suspect those are probably more likely and then handicapping id say those theyre capable of doing both but only they know the time of what can be done. Host one more follow up . Youve got time for one more follow up. If not well. Host well leave it there. Do you think the kinds of changes the congress are considering, will they or should they ill make this prescriptive. Should they go to the greater issues, like should the fcc be an antitruth organization . Should it be a Consumer Protection organization . What should its role more long term be . Guest thats a very interesting question. I have this has been posed to me in many different ways over the years. Some people have suggested that we get rid of the fcc and use a model more like the ftc. I havent been supportive. I think theres very good work the fcc can do. I think it does its best work when it focuses narrowly on the law and tries to be creative. I think, you know, if it just does the jobs that Congress Asks of it, thats plenty of work. In terms of what congress may contemplate in the bigger ticket universe, im not so sure i know in terms of whats the best mechanism. I think we do a decent job. We have really good, hard working people at the fcc and i really respect the work they do. I dont always agree with their outcomes. I wish there was more give and take and more receptive to ideas, but i do think the staff does a really good, hard job with the task ahead. Host lynn stanton of Telecommunications Report and, of course, Michael Orielly fcc commissioner, one of two republicans on the commission. Thanks for being on the communicators. Guest thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Cspan, created by americas Cable Companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Today massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and Maryland Congress bank Elijiah Cummings host a forum on Economic Growth and job creation through federal investments in innovation and science. Other speakers include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and experts in business and education. Watch live at 3 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. The Senate Returns today to continue work on the highway and transportation funding bill. They met on sunday to take vote on two amendments, a repeal of the Health Care Act which failed and another to reauthorize the Exportimport Bank which passed. Heres a look at the debate from yesterday starting with senators Mitch Mcconnell and harry reid. Its about an hour. Mr. President our country needs a multiyear highway bill, and were close to finally passing a fiscallyresponsible and bipartisan one. Time is running short to to get a bill through congress but as with most legislation we still intend to consider some amendments from both sides of the aisle as we continue to work to pass it. Well start on that today. Most important is a proposal that would repeal obamacare and allow our country to start over fresh with a Real Health Reform proposal. Theres no question that ill be voting for it. Theres no question that every senator should join me in doing so. This is a law filled with higher costs, fewer choices and broken promises. This is a law thats failed repeatedly and that continues to hammer hard working middle class families. The vote well take this afternoon represents a stark choice for every senator. Protect a president who likes a law with his name on it or stand with the middle class by finally opening the way to truly Affordable Care. Another proposal relates to the Exportimport Bank. Ill be voting against it. The Exportimport Bank is a new deal relic that has outlived any usefulness it might have had. If a project is worthy, private banks will step in to finance it. And if its not worthy, we should definitely not be financing it by putting american taxpayers on the hook. Either way exim is not necessary. At the same time, i understand that many senators on both sides take a different view. A significant percentage of my conference and Many Democrats support the exims reauthorization. Theyre entitled to that view. I dont see a reason why they shouldnt be allowed a debate and then a vote to sort all of this out. Ive said repeatedly and ive said publicly for months that the exim supporters from both parties should be allowed a vote. I also said publicly that the highway bill would be an obvious place to have that vote. So, mr. President when there is overwhelming bipartisan support for an idea even if i oppose it, it doesnt require some special deal to see a vote occur on that measure. This is the United States senate after all where we debate and vote on all kinds of different issues. The supporters of exim can still lose the vote, of course. Theyre not the only ones with passion on their side. Those on my side of the issue are passionate too and this debate might just present the perfect opportunity to make the case against exim and carry the day in an open and democratic vote. But whatever the outcome the slots for these amendments will be open once the senate disposes of them. That will open the possibility of considering other important amendments. So let me repeat that. The slots for these amendments will open once the senate disposes of them. We know there are many other ideas from both sides of the aisle about how to improve the highway bill further before its completion. But we also know that time is running short to complete our work on the underlying highway bill. Jobs, mr. President are on the line. Infrastructure projects important to the people we represent are on the line. So weve got to get this done. Weve got to get this done. And with cooperation, we can insure that more ideas from both sides of the aisle are still heard and voted upon. This is a new senate. Amendment votes are hardly a rarity here anymore. We will have more opportunities soon to address other issues in the weeks and months ahead, and i will work with colleagues to help insure that votes on other priorities occur. Mr. President . I ask unanimous concept that the clerk be allowed to make technical changes to the substitute amendment regarding references to titles divisions page and line numbers. Without objection. Mr. President . The democratic leader. [inaudible] motions to overturn rulings of the chair brought birdies gruntinged republican by disgruntled republican senators. At another time republican senators would have called this a number of things, not the least of which is the Nuclear Option. Republicans have controlled the senate for about seven months now, and its becoming increasingly clear that whats wrong with the senate today is the same thing thats troubled the senate before republicans took control. Dysfunction in the republican caucus. Republicans probably wont succeed in overturning the rules of the senate today. But an honest observer of the senate will recognize that the day is coming when they will unless the republicans become a party of eisenhower, dodd, dirksen and even president reagan. Mr. President i was amused to hear the republican leader say that he looks forward to amendments. Many senators on our side look forward to being able to offer amendments, for example, to improving the work safety provisions in the bill but the amendment tree is filled. Theyre not going to have that opportunity unless something untoward happens. Today the senate will vote on two amendments. How senators vote on these amendments will demonstrate their priorities. Who is for American Families and who is doing the bidding of special interests. Consider todays vote on yet another republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care act obamacare. By all accounts its really working and working well. Is it perfect . Of course not. Thats why weve invited the republicans for years now to join with us in having a Better Health care delivery system. But obamacare is helping families all across this great nation. There are many many facts. Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people with a preexisting condition, they cant discriminate against anyone as they did when they discriminated, basically against everyone. 12 million more people now have coverage through the Medicaid Programs and c. H. I. P. Programs. Health care costs are growing but very, very slowly. Slowest rate of growth in a long, long time. And perhaps most importantly the share of americans who Lack Health Insurance coverage is dramatically declining. After the latest Supreme Court victory less than a month ago, i urged our republican friends to stop banging their heads against a wall because it, obviously doesnt feel good. Why do they continually try to repeal the Affordable Care act . Apparently, two Supreme Court wins and more than 50 votes by Congressional Republicans to repeal and undermine the Affordable Care act is enough for isnt enough for the republican leader and his friends. Theyre insisting that yet another partisan attempt to strip Health Insurance coverage for more than 19 million americans, coverage that a recent Commonwealth Fund survey found that more than 80 of americans are satisfied with this program. Republicans claim that president obama repeals part of their crusade to reduce the deficit. But the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that repealing the Affordable Care act would increase the federal budget by more than 350 billion. So todays vote isnt really about reducing the deficit, this is about the republican and their leader desperately trying to appease their base. Im really appalled, and more than that disappointed by these continued partisan attempts to strip away Insurance Coverage for almost 20 million americans. Congress passed the Affordable Care act the president signed it into law and the Supreme Court has put a stamp of approval on it not once, but twice. So its time for republicans to move on, not take another politicallymotivated vote thats going nowhere. Finally on another subject, mr. President , Exportimport Bank. After the obamacare vote, we will then consider the reauthorization of the Exportimport Bank. In fact, their chart every. Once charter. Once again house how senators vote will reveal their loyalties. Companies like boeing, caterpillar, general he can trick, honeywell along with dozens of companies in sparselypopulated nevada along with thousands of Small Businesses across this country use this bank to find a market for billions of dollars of their exports. Its not only to for boeing and caterpillar and those Big Companies, its for thousands and thousands of Small Businesses. Jobs in america are created not by the great Big Companies but by Small Businesses, and they need this. They want this. Thats why even the u. S. Chamber of commerce, even the u. S. Chamber of commerce, they must have been desperate, finally siding with us on something. They support the exim bank. This year alone the exportimport or bank supported 165,000 jobs in america. A vote for that bank is a vote for jobs to help the economy and the prosperity of American Families. Conversely, a vote against reauthorization is nothing more than a shameless attempt to garner the affection of the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers. After all, opposition to the Exportimport Bank is a prerequisite to having their support. Every person running for president stumble over themselves to say oh, what do the brothers want today . What they want today is a vote against this bank contrary to the needs of the American Peoplement the Koch Brothers distributed a survey to the republican president ial hopefuls that essentially obligates those candidates to oppose the exim bank. So i ask my colleagues here today, are you working for the American People, or are you doing the dirty work for a couple of Billionaire Oil barons . A vote for the Exportimport Bank is a vote for American Families. A vote against the repeal of obamacare is a vote for American Families. Today Senate Democrats will vote for American Families. Mr. President , i want to say one more hes not on the floor and i was hoping he would be. The senior senator from oklahoma is a very conservative republican senator. And he and i disagree on a lot of things. But i have Great Respect for his courage on this legislation. I think this legislation that were moving forward on is far from perfect but i listened to senator inhofe yesterday when he was on answering the president. A republican always follows the president , and senator inhofe did, i think a fine job explaining how important it is that we have a bill, a transportation bill. So weve said a lot of nice things about senator boxer but its time we said some nice things about jim inhofe because this bill would not be where it is without his efforts. Well its sunday, and its unusual for us to be here. But as i said many times, this is the reason were here, mr. President. Look at this photo. This is the bridge collapse in california, and theres another report coming that says this is going to be far from the last one we have. This is a bridge that carries thousands of people a day from california to arizona. Mr. President , this can happen in any one of our states, and the fact is we need to pass a transportation bill. And i am is so grateful i am so grateful to my colleague, senator inhofe. To all of us on that committee that got this really started the environment public works committee, we had a 200 vote. So we dont have to face this anymore. And after that we had other committees act not in as bipartisan a fashion so it was difficult. And at that point leader mcconnell and senator durbin stepped in with senator inhofe and myself, and all we did was try to get to where we are right now, which is a place where we can pass a fair funding bill. Mr. President , i have a list here, its really interesting and id ask unanimous consent to place it into the record. Without objection. My state counts on the federal government for onehalf of its transportation funding highways and transit. Rhode island counts on the federal government for 100 . Alaska 93 . Montana, 87 . South carolina 79 percent . Hawaii 79 . North dakota, 78 . Wyoming, 73 . Connecticut, 71 . New mexico, 70 . And it goes down from there but the vast majority of our states count on the federal government for funding. And what we have done as both senators reid and mcconnell have pointed out, is we just keep patching up the Highway Trust Fund. And if i were to go to a bank and say i want to buy a house and the banker said youve got great credit, thats the good news. The bad news is, its only a five month mortgage. What would i do, mr. President . I would walk away sadly. I cant afford to invest in a home if i only have five months of a mortgage. Its the same way with the states. The way the house went about it and the way some of my colleagues on both sides here want to handle it is another five month extension. And our states are stopping. Tuesday the general contractors told us that in 25 states they have begun to lay off many, many many construction workers. In 25 states. Now, we all know at the height of the Great Recession we had millions of unemployed construction workers. Its been tough to get them back to work. And remember, the businesses that employ them, tough to get them back to work. Its been so hard, and now were seeing a reversal of all the hard work we did because we did a twoyear transportation bill that was very helpful. This would be the first threeyear funding i believe in ten years. It could be more. We need to do this. I just want to close by saying this working across the aisle its always difficult but its exciting, its interesting and the staffs from both sides have shown that they can do it. Last night i was on the phone with senator mcconnells staff. I think it was 20 to 12. And i kept saying if we cant fix this i have to call the senator, and they said, oh, please dont please please dont. [laughter] well, we worked it out this morning. So i see the senator from rhode island, senator whitehouse, come anything now. And i just, i told the senator that rhode island counts on this federal Highway Trust Fund for 100 of its funding. I also did not mention that senator whitehouse is on the environment and public works committee. Hes a very active and productive member, and theres a program in there that is important to all our states major programs that will finally have a fund regardless of whether its in kentucky or utah, rhode island or california. This is a fair bill. A good increase for highways, a good increase for transportation. States want it, cities want it. Yesterday i found out from senator inhofe who did a terrific, by the way National Radio address on this, i thank him for that that the mayor from oklahoma and the mayor from new york a mayor from Oklahoma City and the mayor from new york city wrote a letter saying how desperately they need the certainty. Were on the cusp. I personally support the exim bank. I know my colleague senator mcconnell, we do not agree on this. I think that the exim bank is important, and i ask unanimous concept to plus my full statement into the record on why i think its important. Without objection. And to sum it up, weve got a lot of Small Businesses that count on the exhibitioner m Bank Exim Bank because we can export their products. We have so many in our state. So i hope it passes on a bipartisan vote, and i want to thank leader mcconnell. I know this is not something he likes at all but he made a commitment, and hes sticking to it. And lastly, were going to have a vote to overturn obamacare. And senate hatch and senator hatch and i were discussing before how much we disagree on this point. But i told him i wouldnt hold back, and i just think it doesnt make any sense. We are looking at millions of people, millions of people nationwide who now be have Health Insurance who now have Health Insurance who cannot be told by their insurer, you have a preexisting condition . Forget it. We have so many families that now have their 24yearold 25yearold, 26yearold on their insurance. And i have stories stories that would really make you feel good stories from people in my state. One whose cancer was caught at a very early stage, mr. President and as a result of that, she has lived to tell the tale. Because before obamacare she couldnt have gotten the test that she needed to discover this deadly cancer. Finish so i just say rhetorically to my friends on the other side and they are my friends. Ill tell you, we have really built up some relationships over this bill which im so happy about. Why dont we Work Together to fix the problems . Why dont we because we know no bill is perfect. The transportation bills far from perfect. Weve got to fix that too. So maybe theres a new day dawning here. We keep saying that, doesnt seem to happen. [laughter] but maybe something good is going to come from this bipartisanship. Tough as it has been the transportation bills far from pert. I wanted to do so much more on safety, and i want to say senator nelson did such a good job. Senator wyden, i must have talked to him half a dozen times. He kept putting on payfors that were good. They were rejected by the other side. And we could have done so much more senator, if we had gone that way. We did what we could do. And just as in the trade battle where our caucus was very split our caucus is very split here. But i hope we can find enough courage and interest and, most important, keep this in mind this is, to me the poster child of why we have come together. This is america this doesnt look like america. Its wrong and we can come together, hopefully vote for exim and against the repeal of obamacare and then move forward with a good cloture vote tomorrow night on our very much compromise, because it is a compromise bill, on transportation. Again, my thanks to people on both sides of the aisle democrats, republicans everybody, for moving this along, and i yield the floor. Mr. President . Senator from gop. From oregon. Mr. President i have spent much of my time in Public Service working to promote bipartisanship in health care. In fact, the distinguished chairman of the finance committee is here, i think he may speak next. Our colleague from tennessee senator alexander a cosponsor of my comprehensive Health Reform bill. So for me, bipartisanship in Health Policy is enormously important. And theres certainly plenty of ways in which democrats and republicans could be working together to strengthen the Affordable Care act. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be on the menu either today or in this congress. Today instead of look forward on health care in america the senate on a transportation bill will have a vote on whether to go backwards on health care. Backwards, for example, mr. President , to the days when health care in america is for the healthy and the wealthy. And i specifically use those words because the moment you repeal the Affordable Care act millions of americans lose protection against preexisting conditions. The moment that happens, mr. President and colleagues, if youre healthy, no sweat. Be youre wealthy if youre wealthy, no sweat. But for the millions who arent, they are back into that abyss where they go to bed at night worried that they may get wiped out the very next morning because they have a preexisting health condition. So protection for those individuals, gone the moment the senate votes and i hope the senate will not vote for ending the Affordable Care act this afternoon, but the moment it does, gone is that protection for preexisting conditions. Gone are the tax credits tax credits. These are opportunities for americans to to get a little bit of tax relief when hard working families pay for Health Insurance. Gone when you repeal the Affordable Care act. Gone would be the protections that bar Insurance Companies from charging top dollar for rock bottom coverage. Gone would be the protections for young adults. Right now they cant be locked out of their parents insurance plans. Gone would be the protection for individuals to make sure their insurance isnt canceled the moment they get sick. Once again pregnancy could be considered a preexisting condition. So what i think this shows, mr. President and colleagues, is this debate is no longer about numbers on a page bills we write, lots of charts, lots of graphs, lots of small print but this isnt an abstraction when you go back, as ive described so the days when health care was for the healthy and the wealthy. More than 16 million americans have gained Health Insurance coverage by virtue of the Affordable Care act. Their health is on the line every single time theres a vote to repeal that law. So those are the consequences, mr. President , and im going to wrap up, because i see my good friend from tennessee here, and my senator and my colleague from utah. Because both of them have joined me repeatedly in trying to promote bipartisan approaches on Health Care Policy. I dont take a backseat to anybody in this body on working on Health Care Policy in a bipartisan fashion. There is nothing that i think would be more valuable than to have democrats and republicans come together not to talk about repealing this law but to find ways to strengthen it. There is not a law thats been passed that you cant strengthen, and having talked with my friend from utah and my friend from tennessee, you know, repeatedly i think they know that im serious about reaching out for Common Ground with respect to this issue. But this pie in the sky senators time has expired. I ask for 30 additional seconds. Without objection. But the tie in the sky insistence, mr. President , that the Affordable Care act will be repealed and somehow were not going to have the suffering that i have just described thats not reality. What we ought to do is reject this amendment repealing the Affordable Care act and get back to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen the law. I yield the floor. Mr. President . Senator from tennessee. Mr. President will the chair please inform me when ten minutes have expired . The chair will so notify you. Thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , today therell be at least three votes. The first, as weve heard, is to end debate on senator mcconnells amendment to repeal obamacare. The second will be to end debate on the Exportimport Bank. And then there may be a third vote on an appeal by the senator from texas senator cruz, to overturn a ruling of the chair that an amendment of his is not in order. Now, this is how that came about. On friday senator cruz offered an amendment regarding iran. The chair ruled that the amendment was not in order because and this is what the chair said at the time it is inconsistent with the senates precedence with respect to the offering of amendments. The senator from texas then appealed the ruling of the chair. His intention today would be to try to obtain a majority vote to overturn the chairs ruling. I respect the senators strong desire to offer his amendment but i believe he ought to do it within the senate rules. Or i believe we should change senate rules in the way our rules prescribe. If instead a majority of senators agrees with the senator from texas the senate will be saying that a majority can routinely change senate rules and procedures anytime it wants on any subject it wants in order to get the result it wants. The problem with that, as former senator carl levin of michigan said once, is that a senate that changes its rules anytime a majority wants is a Senate Without any rules. Think of to it this way, football seasons coming up. Lets say the Tennessee Titans are playing football against the Indianapolis Colts in nashville and the home team sets the rules of the game. So when the titans gain 9 yards they change the rules to say 9 yards is a first down. Or when the colts gain 100 yards, the titans say sorry you need 110 yards to score a touchdown. No one would want to play such a game no one would want to watch such a game, no one would respect such a game. That is why every monday in new york city a team of National Football League Officials review every referees call or noncall from the previous sundays game played in the nfl. A rules committee that meets between seasons to consider changes in the rules. It has rules about how to change its rules. The nfl, of course, wouldnt even consider allowing the titans to change the rules in the middle of a game in nashville in order to defeat the colts. Mr. President , if the United States senate has a rules committee too. And we have rules on thousand on thousand change our rules. We should follow those rules. The United States is the chief rule making body for the United States of america. If we cannot follow our own rules, how can we expect 320 million americans to follow the rules we write for them . If we render ourselves lawless how can we expect our fellow americans to respect and follo e rule how can we expect our fellow americans to respect and follow the rule of law . There is a practical problem with what the senator from texas seeks to do if he succeeds he will destroy a crucial part of what we call the regular order in the United States senate. He will create a precedent that destroys the orderly consideration of amendments. There will be unlimited amendments, there will be chaos. Ironically while destroying regular order he wouldnt get to vote on the iran amendment 96. Thats because if it overrules the chair and creates another branch of the amendment tree, but Senate Leaders have a right to offer anonymity of opened a branch of the tree before he does. Thank you the United States senate is unique. Its been called one of think piece of genius in the american political system. Its uniqueness of based upon rules president s procedures and agreements that encourage extended debate. This process encourages consensus and consensus is going to govern a complex country. Whether it is a civil rights bill portrait agreement or an education bill. But a body of 100 of us that operates by unanimous consent requires restraint and good will on the part of us senators to function. We saw a good example a couple of weeks ago when the Senate Passed 8117 in one week a complex elementary and secondary education bill. Any senator could have made the process much more difficult but not one day. The country is impressed with the results. There are different ways several different ways to establish senate rules and procedures but they all fall under the same umbrella. They are standing rules adopted by the first senate in 1789 upon the advice of thomas jefferson. There are Standing Orders. Sometimes we set rules by passing a law such as the budget act. Sometimes we established a rule by unanimous consent or by agreeing to a new president. Taken together, all of these represent the full body of the senates rules of procedure. These rules of procedure have several things in common. No matter how they were established. The authority for establishing and changing each of them comes from the same place, article one, section five of the United States constitution. Every one of them could be changed by 67 votes following rule 22 of the senate, except a Standing Order may be changed with the 60 votes. One of the things these have in common is that the latest change supersedes whatever rule or precedent was established our military. So the senator from texas first which the majority to overrule the chair today, that decision the governance of the senate for over until it is changed, or unless it is changed. So theres no difference between changing a rule or changing a precedent. What is important is not how the precedent was established with the rules established that what is being overturned. It is a true that occasionally the Senate Majority uses its power to overturn the ruling of the chair to refine the interpretation of rules or precedent. This means that in some limited circumstances the Senate Changes its role by majority vote. The question today is not whether we can overturn the ruling of the chair but whether we should overturn the ruling of the chair that i believe we should not do so. To do so would destroy regular order in the senate. It would create chaos in the senate. Most important, a sin in which a majority routinely changes the rules by overruling the chair is the Senate Without any rules. Mr. President , theres a right way and wrong way to change our rules of procedure. This would be the wrong way. I urge my colleagues not to agree to the senator from texas in his effort to overturn the ruling of the chair. Mr. President i rise to address the senate in my capacity as president pro tempore. Of my colleagues will give attention to what im about to say and would take to heart because i speak from the heart out of respect for my colleagues and out of love for this great body in which we are all privileged to serve. Mr. President , the senate has a long and justly celebrated tradition of comedy and respect among members. Although there have been occasional exceptions throughout history, senators have taken great care to treat each other with courtesy and respect. Both in private discussions and in public deliberations. We do this for some reasons. First, because Mutual Respect is essential for us to be able to Work Together to forge consensus on difficult issues that stir deep and sometimes do this if you. Passing meaningful legislation in this body to requires the two parties to Work Together. And that in turn requires trust and a certain level of goodwill. Courtesy and decor and may foster an atmosphere where we can work in good faith to find Common Ground where we can appeal to nobler instincts to do whats best for all americans and not just those of a particular partisan persuasion. Reason we treat each other with courtesy and respect is because its the honorable thing to do. We come to this body is 100 men and women with vastly different backgrounds, Life Experiences and views on how government should operate. But we share a common humanity and a common goal to improve this great nation and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity. We divide into parties and join caucuses your we fight passionately about matters of tremendous consequence but we do not become enemies. We remain colleagues, and colleagues treat each other with respect. We treat each other with honor even when we feel and other has perhaps not a courthouse the same fisting. Squabbling and sanctimony may be tolerated in other venues or perhaps on the campaign trail, but they have no place among colleagues in the United States senate. The third and most important reason we treat each other with courtesy and respect is because we are the peoples representatives. We are not here on some frolic or to pursue personal ambitions. We are here because the people of the United States have entrusted us with a solemn responsibility to act on their behalf in shaping our nations laws. This is a high and holy calling. It is not something to take lightly. It is a sacred trust in which betting is our grandstanding should have no part. We are here to do serious work and doing this work, the ghost will inevitably be bruised. Feeling from time to time may be hurt. This is inherent in the nature of politics but we are here to carry out the peoples business. We serve the people, not our own egos. When we are on the losing sight of the particular debate, when we are disappointed, we pick ourselves up and move ahead to the next challenge. Our nations founders designed the senate to play a special role in our constitutional system. In contrast to the more raucous popular house the senate was to be a body of deliberation and reasoned judgment. Senators were to seek the common good and consider national not just parochial interest in crafting legislation and considering nominees. Mr. President , decorum is essential to executing this constitutionally ordained rule. The liberation and reasoned judgment require an atmosphere of restraint an atmosphere of thoughtful disagreement. To liberation without decorum is not deliberation at all. It is bickering, and bickering, mr. President is beneath his body. Regrettably in recent times the senate floor has too often become the forum for partisan messaging and ideological grandstanding rather than a setting for serious debate. It has been misused as a tool to advance personal ambitions, a venue to promote Political Campaigns, and even a vehicle to enhance fundraising fundraising efforts. All at the expense of proper functioning of this body. Most egregiously, mr. President the senate floor has even become a place where senators had singled out colleagues by name to attack them in personal terms and to impugn their character in blatant disregard of senate rules. Which plainly prohibits such conduct. Mr. President , the senate floor has hosted many debates on crucial issues over the years. Tempers from time to time have flared. Voices have on occasion and raised but we have also, we have almost universally can find our criticisms to policies into ideas do we think is wrongheaded about particular bills or proposals. We have not at least in my memory called our opponents are dishonest or sought to disparage their motives. To bring personal attacks to the senate floor would be to import the most toxic elements of our current political discourse into the well of the senate come into the very heart of this institution. This will serve only to pollute our deliberations to break the bonds of trust that are essential for achieving some measure of consensus and to invite the dysfunction that so saturate our media and Popular Culture into this storied chamber. For those of us who care about the senate as an institution and who want it once again to solve the vexing challenges that face our nation, such misuse of the senate floor must not be tolerated. Each of us, republicans and democrats alike must stand together in support of the senate timehonored traditions of collegiality and respect. We must stand resolute in requiring that the senate formal rules concerning dignity and decorum be absorbed. We must ensure that the trend of turning the senate floor into a forum for advancing personal ambitions for promoting Political Campaigns or for enhancing fundraising activities comes to a stop. There are enough other platforms for those seeking to accomplish those jackets. The senate floor need not be one. Mr. President i recognize many of my colleagues are quite new to the senate, and may not yet have had many opportunities to experience this proper institutional role as the form for reasoned discussion and constructive debate. Some are less only with its traditions of comity and respect that others may know little of the senates history and rising above parochialism and narrow selfinterest. And a few i regret to say seemed unconcerned for its historic role in promoting consensus at helping to overcome our nations challenges. Mr. President , as well as had the privilege of serving you for the past four decades, i can attest from firsthand experience that the senate can be and has been in times not too far past a distinguished and construct a body that does much good for our nation. I recall vividly times when his body was marked by cooperation and goodwill rather than rancor in disrepute. In some respects the senate today is but a mere shadow of its former self, another casualty of the prominent Political Campaign at this is deeply disheartening to those like myself who are here to experience this body is better days, or were here to express this blog is better days. Is a very damaged the governance of our nation. Mr. President , iban frank in my remarks today. This candor stems from a genuine concern for this body and its future. I have been great because ive seen so much what i love about this body frittered away in recent years for small minded shortsighted partisan gain to by virtue of my long service in the senate and my role as president pro tempore im a dedicated institutional list. I get deeply about this institution and i want it to work. The current majority leader has made strides in putting the senate back on a path towards meaningful to liberation and constructive lawmaking and at the common good. Itis efforts and those of other senators on both sides of the aisle who take the long view of seeking to build this institution will not suffice in most each one of us is committed to instilling comity and respect as a core feature of everything we do. Let us each move forward with a renewed sense of honor and respect. Resolve not to tolerate misuse of the senate floor, a commitment to do our part to restore civility and constructive debate as defining characteristics of this body and renewed willingness to Work Together for the good of all americans. Thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i think the senior senator from utah for an excellent speech, and i entirely agree with his call for civility and decorum and respect. No member of this body should engage in ad hominem attacks are directed at any other member of this body can be they republican or bday a democrat. At the same time i would note that it is entirely consistent with the decorum and with the nature of this body traditionally as the worlds greatest deliver to body to speak the truth speaking the truth about actions is entirely consistent with civility. To a quote often attributed falsely to George Orwell the sentiment has been expressed thusly, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. I would make for brief points. First of all, on friday i gave an unusual speech, speech unlike any ive given in this chamber it was a speech i was a happy to give. It is a speech to which the senior senator from utah is responding. I would note in the course of that speech i described an explicit promise the majority leader had made to me and to all 53 republican senators. Neither the majority leader nor the senator from utah nor the senator from tennessee has disputed that the majority leader in front of every republican senator made that promise, looking me in the ayes namely that there was no deal on the Exportimport Bank, that is proposed that operate in the regular order and would be no special preferences whatsoever. We said on friday, that promise was false. In particular for the amendment on the Exportimport Bank first of all it was not offered by its proponents. It was called up by the majority leader. Very few of us get our name is called up by the majority leader because he is priority of recognition. He can edge of any other amendment in this chamber. Secondly the majority leader followed that by spilling the truth from a procedural mechanism that is often decried when the former majority leader employed it to block other amendments. And third, the majority leader filed cloture on the Exportimport Bank amendment, two key is used only once in his entire tenure as majority leader. Those were extraordinary steps designed to force a vote to reauthorize the Exportimport Bank and they were directly contrary to the promises the majority leader made to all 53 republicans and to the press. My saying so may be uncomfortable but it is a simple fact entirely consistent with what decorum, no member of this body has disputed that promise was made and that promise was broken. The senior senator from tennessee gave a learned speech on changing the rules of this body to appealing the ruling of the chair and i very much agree. When the former majority leader use the Nuclear Option it was wrong to violate the rule that the amendment tree does not come from the rules. The amendment tree comes from the precedence and precedence are set precisely through appealing to release of the chair by a majority vote. Indeed i would note that previously many members of this body have voted in favor of overruling the ruling of the chair, including my friend, a senior senator from tennessee who was voted four times in his career to overrule the ruling of the chair. My friend the majority whip who was voted five times and his crew to overrule the ruling of the chair and indeed, the distinguished majority leader who has voted 14 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the chair. I would note beyond that that as recently as april 2 2014, there was a third degree precisely the one i found i was all but senator vitter. The ruling of the chair was a keel, a number of republicans voted in favor of that appeal including the majority leader, including the majority whip. Many republicans railed against the building of the tree when the democratic leader was the majority leader. It was an abuse of power then it remains so today. Indeed, i would note with his current majority leader said at the time, which is the practical effect of filling the tree is to disenfranchise the people i admire people are represented was simply a number of people his members represent where the boys are simply not heard in the senate. Beyond that let me say on the subject if you oppose filling the trade to silence the and minutes of members can be in the Majority Party or the minority party, you should vote in favor of allowing my amendment to go forward. I would note the senator from tennessee was incorrect that they would allow unlimited an image. It would add so something a third branch to the tree not unlimited and minutes. At the same time if you are resolve to stand with a friend and ally for nation officialdom is a result to stand with american hostages in iran and if you are convinced that lifting sanctions on iran unless and until iran recognizes israels right to exist as a jewish state and releases for american hostages, then you should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on. Needless to say if you oppose the Exportimport Bank you should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on. And, finally, if you want other amendments on pressing issues, the date the funding planned parenthood, bday stopping sanctuary cities, be they passing kates law or bday any the congressional exemption for obamacare you should vote in favor of allowing this amendment to be voted on. A great many members of his body had given long eloquent speeches as the senate operates with each member has right to offer amendments and even difficult amendments, we debate and resolve them. That is the heart of this vote and i would encourage each member here to vote his conscience or her conscience on both the substance and on the ability of the senate to remain the worlds greatest deliberative body. I yield the floor. Mr. President . The majority whip. Mr. President , i would ask unanimous consent to speak up to five minutes. Is there objection . Without objection. Mr. President , i have listened to the comments of my golly the junior senator from texas both last week and this week, and i would have to say that he is mistaken. First of all if in fact the majority leader had some have misrepresented the 54 senators what the facts are with regard to the exim bank, i suspect that you would find other voices joining that of the junior senator, but i hear no one else making such a similar accusation accusation. And second i would just say to my colleague that there is an alternative explanation. Theres an alternative explanation. As the majority leader has said time and time again come anytime safety the senators want to do something here in the senate, sooner or later theyre going to get their way. And indeed that represented the vote in support of the exim bank, something i will end up voting against the where i realized that majorities military debate eventually. But if the rule that the junior senator from texas is arguing for is embraced, we will lose all control of the senate schedule. There will be chaos and, indeed we wont be able to meet simple deadlines such as the one that exists on the 31st of this month with regard to the expiration of the transformation transportation fund. In the senate wants to get a vote will be entitled to do so. And that cant be the rule. Its not the rule. Its never been the rule and thats why what the junior senator is attempted it is so extraordinary here. I will be opposing fat and milk all of our colleagues would join us in opposing that. Because ultimately what that would mean is that a determined 51 senators want to raise taxes the want to pass obamacare to point out i want to pass a capandtrade bill or a carbon tax 2. 0. Those who want to pass doddfrank 2. 0, or if the additional Government Spending they will be able to do it. They will be guaranteed an opportunity to get an amendment and vote on that and it will pass in the trade center. I dont think thats in the best interest of the United States senator, that its in the best interest of the 27 Million People that the junior senator from arizona to believe thats in the best interest of this institution from which we all revere. If all 100 senators have the opportunity to offer an amendment without restraint, then there will never be any deadline. There will never be any conclusion and we wont be able to do the simple work weve been asked to do on behalf of the American People. And the final point, mr. President , i know the senator, the junior senator feels passionately about this amendment to the fact that is where the process thats been set up to review the iranian deal that president obama and secretary kerry negotiated and we will have a chance to examine it and debated and argued over the next two months and then will have a chance to vote on it. There is a time and place for this, and i will no doubt support the same position that the junior senator is supporting but its not on this bill. Its not now and its not that expensive breaking the orderly procedure that has made sure that everyone gets a chance to participate. And i would just say in conclusion that there was no misrepresentation made by the majority leader on the exim bank. The only thing the majority leader promised was an opportunity to offer an amendment on a bill. And recognizing that if he denied that opportunity when 65 senators wanted it, not just one senator who we know can stop things around you, slow them down but 65 would be bound and determined these inevitable leverage until they got to vote. So i agree with what the majority leader has decided to do and how he has decided to handle it. I know that there are passionate views around here but that doesnt justify changing the rules of the United States senate is such an extraordinary means. I hope our colleagues will join me in voting to ratify the running of the chair when the time comes rather than to overrule it it because as i said to overrule the chair on something this important to the orderly consideration of the senates business i think would be a terrible mistake. Tonight on the communicators, commissioner Michael Oreilly on key issues before the fcc like Net Neutrality, regulating the internet and the public influence on policy policy making. When an item is made for an open Commission Meeting and is presented to the commissioner level, that document should be made available publicly. I think i would provide an opportunity for everyone to comment on everyone to comment unacceptable we thinking. It would allow people to hone in on issues that makes it problematic. Right now we have people who raise concerns regarding our item but they often dont know exactly what is being put forward. They are kind doing rifle shot him a different scattered structures and thats problematic. It tonight on the communicators on cspan2. On friday transportation secretary anthony foxx announces agency has opened an investigation into alleged Airline Price gouging following the amtrak crash. Secretary foxx made his comments on anything with reporters at the Christian Science monitor. This is just under one hour. Thanks for coming. Im david cook from the monitor our guest is anthony foxx. His last visit with a group was a year ago this month so we are grateful for him to coming back. I guessed our discussions are great at davidson calls for the first africanamerican student body president and his law degree from new york university. After law school he spent a month in new orleans playing trumpet and becoming friends with wynton marsalis. He worked in a law firm, clerked for a judge militia that Just Department of justice and on the staff of the house future committee. He returned in 2000 went to work in a law firm and got elected to the Charlotte City council in 2005 and he was reelected in 2007. He was elected the citys mayor in 2009 the youngest person ever to the job and go comfort at the 17th transportation secretary in june 2013. So much for biography. Now onto the ever popular process portion of our program. As always we are on the record here. Ive been told are just making that news is boring as we are listening to the following ground rules are important. As is always the case after these gatherings visit chokes me up, excuse me. [laughter] just an emotional moment. But striking ive been to our guest me make news this morning and so the following ground rules are important. As is always the case at these gatherings, please no live blogging or tweeting. And short know if i have any kind while the practice is underway. To give us time to listen to what our guest says. The embargo comes off at 10 00 it is worth it to help you curb that self they urge we will email several pictures of the session do all the reporters are before the breakfast inns. As regular attendees know if youd like to ask a question please do the traditional thing and send a subtle nonthreatening signal and i will happily call on one and all with the timing of available. We will start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make opening comments and to move to question from on the table. With that, mr. Secretary thanks for doing this. The floor is yours. Thank you dave and for all of you for being here this morning. Ive been in government for a while but ive spoken and a lot of chicken dinners and breakfasts so please feel free to go ahead and eat. Youre not going to be attending at all. And the first bit of this unwanted take care of this morning has to do with an investigation by the department is opening on the allegations of price gouging following the tragic accident of amtrak train 188 in the philadelphia area. We have sent letters to for airlines, delta, american southwest and jetblue to begin the process of uncovering whether, in fact the airlines drove up prices in direct response to this incident and created a challenge for consumers who are trying to move in that area at that particular time. So this is the opening of investigation. It doesnt mean we have close to the investigation, but were beginning the work today. So theres also other news in transportation. Obviously, ive spent a good bit of my time as secretary traveling the country and going to more than 100 communities in 42 states by this time. Really urging the country to not only avoid highway shutdowns about to raise our ambitions for transportation investment and what we need in the 21st century. Theres been a flurry of fully of activity in the senate this week and boucher said at the outset that the encouraging thing is that we have folks on both sides of the aisle who i think are earnestly trying to do what they feel they can do. We are still in the process of drilling into this 1000 page legislation. It continues to change and we expect that perhaps there will be some changes introduced today as a result of input that folks have received. So i dont have any hard and fast position on the other than because its still very fluid. But i do want to point out a couple of things. First of all as the agency that is responsible for transportation safety, that is of utmost concern to us. And has introduced last tuesday there were portions of the bill that we found to be highly objectionable. I understand that theres been work to try to soften some of those provisions and well just have to see what the senate comes up with, but thats an area where our department is fiercely committed to raising the standards for the American People not lowering them. And so without im just going to stop and maybe have some opportunity for back and forth. Im going to do want or to one or two to start. Let me do one in the air and one on the ground. Let me ask you about gun firing drones. Can you tell us what the department and the faa have learned about the homemade drone fired a handgun four times will be operated . Are those the kinds of things that will be covered in the state and federal standards that youre going to try to have in september, and will you meet a september target . First of all this is is a matter that is to agree to subtle have anything to report out to you about that investigation. More broadly we recognized that the state immigration of these come with faa calls Unmanned Aircraft has to be done and has to be done as quickly as possible. Are small uas rule resulted in more than 3000 comments. We are sifting through the trying to push that rule out as quickly as possible i also think theres some consumer site issues over the availability of the drones and the use of drones, and we are scouring our authorities to see what, if anything, we can do as an agency on this question, and we will have more to say about that in the future weeks and months spent are you hoping to meet a september target date for . Well, i think hopefully we will meet that deadline or come real close to it in terms of getting the road over to omb and hopefully soon thereafter having to roll out of there as final. Heres the last one for me. A lot of talk this week about car hacking as a result of wired magazine report on the Entertainment Systems and cheap charities and other chrysler products were you can get control of steering, brakes and transmission. Wanted to know your view of the proposed legislation like senator markey, senator blumenthal and also what the department is not a subject . Look, this is a place where the government and the private sector have to be working very closely together. We have urged the Auto Industry to develop a roundtable of sorts to focus in on issues like cybersecurity when it comes to these technologies. A lot of the technology are a proprietary in some respects but there are common issue that the industry has to do with. We found another industries that these types of collaborations are useful. Weve offered to extend the resources of our department to help that work. We feel like this is an area where the government and private industry are going to have to step up in a big way but we cant do it by ourselves. In the meantime for the typical driver how concerned should they be about hacking . You know this is, its an issue. I think you know as we look forward into the future of transportation, we will also see even more of a push towards technology with connected vehicles and drivers cars and things like that. And so the time to get on this is right now. And as i say we will push as hard as we can within government but is industry developed this technology does going to be no substitute for publicprivate collaboration to ensure that the security of our vehicles is airtight. I had two questions. One was i was hoping you could elaborate a little more on this price gouging investigation that youve opened. You said, im sorry how Many Airlines . What is your evidence of this . Isnt this just the northeast corridor between washington and boston . And the second part was the highway bill question. I know youre still drilling down on the republicans have made a lot of tweets to it in the senate, and im wondering if you got a deal like this do you think its something, how would you feel about it . Do you think it is an advancement, a step forward or not . Okay. On the investigation, its still very early. We Just Launched it today, but there are for airlines that we are looking after ive identified of them already. Those airlines have allegedly raised these beyond what you would ordinarily expect in the northeast corridor at a time when the amtrak line was shut down. And our investigation, our inquiry is focus on getting to the bottom of whether there were unfair practices involved in setting prices at that time. On the highway side, i think its fair to say that has introduced on tuesday a very mixed bag. Again, i want to give credit to folks on both sides have been trying to figure this out. This is not easy. If it was easy would not have had 33 shortterm measures in the last seven or eight years. Its been a decade since we got the last sixyear transportation bill. But i think some of the glaring problems with it had to do with the safety provisions and i know they are working to try to accommodate some of the concerns there and well just have to see how far they are able to get on that. I do think this country is hungry for robust transportation, and the problems of congestion that have gotten worse over the last several years, the potholes in the rose the bridges that need to be repaired, you know, i could go on and on about the problems and i think one of the question is does this bill help us solve those problems in a substantial way. We will continue reviewing as the Senate Continues the very fluid work they are doing on this legislation and once they have settled out i think youll find us some and get into position on it. Thanks for coming. I just want to ask one more on the investigation. Can you say anything about what clues, what hints about the airlines actions raised suspicion to start the investigation of . Do you monitor prices . What sparked the investigation . There were a flurry of concerns raised in the wake of the accident in philadelphia. We have been asked to consider an investigation by senator murphy from connecticut. And we are doing our Due Diligence through this investigation to determine whether, in fact, there were unfair practices involved. And another airline question. How soon might we see scheduled flights to cuba . Is actually, we play a role in that but that also involves the state department and commerce department. You are aware that secretary kerry is planning to visit cuba in august, and my guess is that as we continue moving forward you will see those flights resuming at some point in the very near future, but i dont advocate the tv debate. The dallas morning news. A quick followup on the investigation and the question about rayola. On the investigation, i mean it strikes this probably legal pages rose raise the price in response to a sudden demand. But is what you are concerned about colluding, do that in an illegal way . Is a your investigation or is it doj court did they did involve . So the department of justice focuses on criminal inquiries and what we are doing, there is no relationship to what the department of justice is doing. We are looking at this from a consumer standpoint and yes in fact there is natural shift they are a natural shift in pricing depend on what the demand is. The question really is was this beyond the pale and we will find that out in the course of this investigation. We are going next few other at politico spin i have a followup. Sorry, go ahead. Your predecessor and folks on the Railroad Administration came, talked with excitement over highspeed rail earlier in the Obama Administration. Texas at that the time had an opinion there was no role for government so it didnt get any of that big money out of stimulus. Sex, seven years later it went with the private sector of them billions of dollars but most of the places where the federal government had initially supported highspeed rail is either rejected one or coming to some slow downs can et cetera. Just wondered how big of a priority is that for the Obama Administration . Is there any regret with the way they handled it Going Forward or is it the wrong time . Trying to get a sense of we see the nations highspeed rail. You pick any big project that has been done in this country and there was opposition to it at the beginning. I dont care what you are talking about. The new york subway system the brooklyn bridge. The golden gate bridge. You name any big project that has happened in this country there have been causes against those projects initially. And i dont think highspeed rail is different in that respect. But we are seeing highspeed rail gaining traction in this country. The california project broke ground in january. Even florida, a state that rejected the highspeed rail money back in the recovery act of days is working on highspeed rail project connecting orlando and miami. And the work is being done in texas to do high speed between houston and dallas. I mean you know how its done is less important than that it is done. I think your sink those realizing that the president was right, that we need to get a major city fares in this country, give people a different choice to get from a to b. , and youre starting to see it happen happen. Thank you, mr. Secretary the house of the administration been counseling senators over the last week to vote against this month, boxer playbooks what happens if we get to december 18 and theres no tax reform deal to bail out the trust fund speak with the short answer is no. We are not in a position to be either for or against the whole bill. Theres a certain portions of it that we find very troubling, and weve been communicating those concerned. But because the bill is in such a fluid state that hasnt been a settling down the position because it continues to be a moving target. Your second question . What happens if we get to december 18 and theres no tax overhaul to bail out the trust fund speak with this is a perpetual question weve been asking ourselves of the last 33 extensions. And at some point the music does have to stop and we need to get on with building the country. You know i think the good news here is that you are seeing people struggling in earnest with how to get there. I just hope that we dont keep perpetuating the problems of you know looking more or just that we think we can do and not looking squarely at what the country needs us to do. Because those can be two different things. The end of the month deadline on the highway bill. Doesnt the department to any recalculation of revenues on the chance that you could actually go a bit longer if Congress Fails to send the president a bill of . And are there any steps, contingency steps the department is taking in case that doesnt happen . Well, look, if, so when we think about the impact of the highway closed, you know its not a small impact highway cliff. You have internal the dot probably for thousand of our employees that would be for load. They range furloughed. Folks from federal Highway Administration todo permitting work and its a nhtsa to federal motor carrier to those with the primera impacted. External to dot we sent out letters to all the states and territories explaining what we would do in terms of Cash Management in the event that we started to go below the prudent balance, which is 4 billion in the highway account. And essentially we would apportioned to the states percentages of the remaining revenue until we ran out of it. On top of that lets just be frank. States have already been adjusting their ambitions to the federal environment. And we have six states that have reduced projects, 2 billion worth of projects already come and probably more states that we dont know about. All this basically comes down to jobs. It comes down to the fact that our countrys infrastructure continues to deteriorate, and not only for me and our president , but for future people who sit in the chair that i sit in and that he sits in. Im very concerned that folks in these positions in the future are going to be managing a declining system, and thats not in the interest of the American People. So thats a little bit of what the impacts would be spent any recalculation . You know the last report i saw basically stuck to the same timeframe, which is that we will, we will fall below the prudent balance sometime in the early part of august if they dont find a way to move forward. And again that will be a bad day for many states and maybe communities across the country. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Again, on the investigation that you announced this morning, realizing these things take time any timeline speak with weve submitted information requests from each of the four airlines that i mentioned and [inaudible] i think the letter went out yesterday. Today, its going out today. And you know we expect within a reasonable time that well get that information back and we will go where the information takes as. But we expect information to be sent back to us probably and hopefully we can close this out as quickly as possible but i dont have a timeline. Can you say what youre asking them for . I can teach you a copy of the letters. Can you so often, how optimistic you are it would be something other than similar stopgap measure to keep the highway fund going past july 31 xml so, frankly, to the end of the year do you have any real optimism that they would beat anything other than just another stopgap measure at the end of december . I think the American People are going to increasingly demand that congress solve this problem, and really solve it. Not paper over it. Thats because ive just been to summit places around the country where the traffic problems are getting worse. The conditions on the road are getting worse. And people are just saying no way out. Increasingly people are starting to draw the line or follow the breadcrumbs back to washington. We just cant keep doing it. Im optimistic because i see people on both sides continuing to work at this, and theyre working at it earnestly. Thats not to say that whats being discussed in the senate doesnt have problems, because it does, but we will just have to, you know keep watching it and keep sharing our concerns on a member by member basis. And hopefully the end result either now or at the end of the year, will be something good. So in all of your talks throughout the country you have made clear in your tenure that fixing this longterm highway funding problem has been one of your top priorities. If the senate received on this planet will have a sixyear deal with three years of funding. This will pretty much take this issue beyond the Obama Administration. So im just interested in your thoughts on that and whether there are some real priorities that you hope to address that you will have the opportunity to do so . Well look again its hard to know whether we are in the second inning or the eighth inning, but you know i will sleep peacefully at night knowing that ive done the very best job i can do of pointing the country in the direction we need to go. And i think the president has said repeatedly that its time for the country to move forward. Its time to get rid of the stopgaps and begin focusing on the longterm and the growth we need as a country. But under our constitutional system, congress has to take this up and do something about it. And as i said before the fact they are wrestling in earnest with this issue at all is a very different place than where we were two months ago or 10 months before that, or you know, you follow the logic. So i think as long as people are wrestling with this, theres a chance it could work out well for the American People and thats just what we have to believe. Mr. Secretary, one part of the senate bill is under discussion is percentage of the trust fund money that goes to mass transit and there was a proposal in the initial bill to reduce the percentage. How important is it to maintain it and what would the implications be for mass transit if it is reduced speak with let me answer it this way. We did this survey of the nations Transportation System beyond traffic a few months ago. We put the draft out and one of the startling things about beyond traffic is it points out that were going to grow by 70 Million People so will our population increases but not just population increases, more concentration around metro areas. So pick los angeles, for instance. Can you build more highways in los angeles . No. You might be able to expand the lanes in some places, but thats not going to get you to nirvana either. So need for transit is actually increasing in the country. Our grow america act had a 70 plus percentage increase, recognizing the need for it as the country continues to grow. So no i definitely dont think the percentage ought to be going down. If anything it should be going up, but you know i know that there are folks innocent who are very concerned about this that are pushing to at least keep it level