, bu in no event shall debate continue beyond 11 50 a. M. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. Walorski for five minutes. Mrs. Walorski thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of legislation i introduced last week as a companion piece to a bill authored by senator kelly ayotte to protect the safety of the United States and its allies and restrict the transfers of detainees from guantanamo bay. Since mid november, the president and his administration have ramped up an effort to make good on a Campaign Promise to increase the number of the release of guantanamo detainee transfers. Last night during his state of the Union Address, the president reaffirmed his commitment to close this facility once and for all and he is releasing prisoners at an alarming rate. 21 terrorists have been released just in november alone to foreign countries. This comes at the expense of our own country. This bill would suspend the transfer of high and medium risk detainees and prohibit any detainee transfers to yemen as well as increased transparency regarding the remaining guantanamo detainees. Detainees at gitmo pose a real threat to our National Security. When i speak with folks at home, my constituents, moms and dads and they ask me how safe we really are, this rate of reengagement comes to mind. The u. S. Intelligence Community Reports that the number of former gitmo detainees who reengage in terrorism has steadily increased since 2002. According to the office of the director of national intelligence, they reported the combined and suspected confirmed reengagement rate of former gitmo detainees has risen to more than an alarming 30 . Before we proceed with any additional transfers, we must ensure that the transfer process is further examined and improved. In order to protect our fellow americans, we must stop releasing some of the worlds most dangerous terrorists, especially given the fact that they are already reengaging in hostilities against the United States and our allies. This measure would repeal current law that has allowed the administration to transfer prisoners to countries and reduce the number to 127. It would prohibit transfers of terror suspects to foreign country if there has been a confirmed case where an individual was transferred from gitmo and engaged in any other terrorist activity. The bill would also prohibit the transfer of terror suspects considered to be high or medium risk. Some of the most recent transfer detainees fell in those categories. In addition, this bill would stop the transfer of detainees to yemen. Because the country has become a hotbed for terrorist activities. It makes no sense to send terrorists to a country where there is an active Al Qaeda Network that we know has been engaged in targeting the u. S. Most importantly, yemens branch of al qaeda, commonly known as aqah, was found by former gitmo detainees. They have declared aqap to be al qaedas most effective affiliate, and we cannot risk trusting the worlds most dangerous terrorists to its most dangerous places nor should we simply cut them loose in rich, stable countries with no security safeguards in place. We have to ask ourselves today how much are we really willing to risk with our own National Security and our American Homeland . I want to thank senator ayotte for working with me and i look forwarded to working with her to advance this legislation. I look forward to continuing our partnership to prevent the release of dangerous terrorists who seek to reengage in terrorism against the u. S. And our allies. This bill ensures our homeland remains safe from those terrorist attacks. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. Blumenauer for five minutes. Mr. Blumenauer thank you mr. Speaker. Last night for the state of the Union Address by president obama, my guest was a portlander, cheryl strade, the author of the bestselling book wild, whos currently being portrayed on the big screen by reese witherspoon, in an epic story about how a young woman reeling were the loss of her mother and the cascading challenges of her life undertook a journey 1100 miles along the Pacific Coast trail, 96 days of an amazing struggle overcoming all sorts of difficulties, adversities and she helped work out her own challenges and issues. I invited her because i thought the story that she portrayed, the experience that she had, was an interesting metafor for the sorts of things metaphor for the sorts of things we are doing here, that we could come together as a cob, to protect some of the special places that are portrayed in her powerful book and in the excellent movie. But in the course of her visit, another thought had made its way to me. As i watched her interact with dozens of young people in a variety of meetings on capitol hill, fellow members of Congress People who were touched by the story of her journey, that it made a profound effect on them. She continues to receive hundreds of emails a day about people who were inspired by that effort. It occurs to me that it is an appropriate metaphor for what our challenge is as members of the 114th congress. Because this, after all, is a twoyear journey on behalf of the American People. And the question for us is if we can struggle with that heavy pact, navigate areas that the trail is sometimes obscured, can we put our trust in strangers that help us along this difficult journey . Can we be resolute in putting one foot in front of another on behalf of the American Public . Mr. Speaker, it was a very profound experience to watch those interactions after having seen the movie, after having been entranced by the book. But im absolutely convinced that this is our moment our journey into something that doesnt necessarily have to be wild even though there is a roller coaster of legislative activity. Im convinced there ought to be enough common interest, common commitment, common goals that we ought to be able to tease out elements that enable us to be successful in our journey. I hope mr. Speaker, that people will reflect on that experience of this young woman who was able to overcome adversity and open up an amazing chapter in her life and beyond. I hope well be able to do the same. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Perry, for five minutes. Mr. Perry thank you mr. Speaker. I wish to remind everybody about a reallife story of being outnumbered 101, a story of courage, will, discipline suffering immense sacrifice and success, a tale of two great militaries, it is marked with the graves of thousands and exemplifies the struggle for the very future of freedom in our world. The story ends with the 101st airborne and patons army being victorious in january and february of 1945. And i think its important to recognize the accomplishments of all the units who struggled and suffered greatly under the german siege of a small town in belgium named baston. This january and the recent december marks the 70th anniversary of the battle of the bulge. Most people know of the 101st airborne, nicknamed the battling bastards of bastions, as chronicled in so many stories and movies burned in the consciousness of our nation and rightly so. However mr. Speaker, on this 70th anniversary, i want to remind us of the untold story of the other heroes of the battle of the bulge and the little and critical town of bastonons. Its about the 20th division of pennsylvania who held at all costs. In late october to mid november of 1944, the battle of the hurtkin forest, where the 28th division was in a fierce battle with the germans 73rd corps. The losses was 248 officers 5,4 02 enlisted men and after the battle they needed a rest. The forest was thick and seemingly impen trabble. It was known as a quad sector in which they could reequip, reassemble while the division rested. Greatly weakened by the previous ballot, the 28th division was spread out among 25 miles on a front that was doubled which was recommended in Standard Practice by any division at the time. On the morning of 16, december 1944, the piece was shattered by the opening bradge of the german, opening up the largest displays of artillery bombardment ever, the last greatest offensive from hitler. For the next four days without sleep, often without food, their affiliates fought continuously, often until the last bullet and end to life to deny the enemy success. It was exceptionally cold foggy, damp and, of course, snow covered. Exactly what hitler had counted on as the winter would only add to the element of surprise. The germans armies 6 s. S. And 7th army attacked the u. S. 8th with a plan to go as close as possible down the seam between american, canadian and British Forces to split them. After crossing the muse river, they were to turn north and captured the port city of antwerp collapsing the supply. The german command called for the capture of the entire 28th sector early in the morning of 16 december, and captured of bastion by the same evening. It was a major road junction which was needed by the germans for armor and resupply units. In this Early Morning in the Early Morning hours of 16, december, the 28th division received a message telling them to hold at all costs. Keystoners, as they were known, dug in and began the slow and painful art of trading time for space, trading time and life for space. The 110th regiment was soon surrounded and fought until the last round from 5 30 that morning until sometime in the Late Afternoon in the 18th and 19th, men of the 110th infan free regimen all the while buying precious time for general eisenhower to move reserves from deep inside france. The two other combat teams of the division of the 109th and 112th regimens did only slightly better. This the 110th regimen meant stayed in place the Center Sector of the division. They fought elements of five german divisions which it was outnumbered at times 71 and i must abriefiate due to time. While many times come to mind like the 101st airborne, patons company, band of brothers, please remember the names and place of those who held 103rd, 109th 110th, 112th division. These men held at all costs and traded space for time so the 101st and patons third army could get in position in time to beat the german offensive. Mr. Speaker, we could learn a lot from these dedicated soldiers who refused to surrender but fought for what they believe in. I want to offer my salute to these finest americans. And i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. Kaptur, for five minutes. Ms. Kaptur thank you. I wish to associate my so with the prior gentlemans accommodation on those who fought on behalf of liberty at the battle of the bulk. We bow before them. They bequeath liberty to this generation. And it is a heavy burden. Let us hope we can measure up to it. At last nights state of the Union Address passing a transportation and infrastructure bill to repair america and rebuild forward the new century as we create hundreds of thousands of jobs got the broadest bipartisan applause. You could hear it on both sides of the aisle. I come to the floor this morning to say lets do it. Lets do it. Chairman bill shuster and Ranking Member Peter Defazio are two members who can get us there. We want to help them. I know the majority of members feel that way. My words to them are, onward, gentlemen. Lead America Forward by passing that bill through us. On another front, i rise to express deep dismay at what i believe to be republic efforts to weaken and begin dismantling the Social Security and its Disability Insurance program that so Many Americans depend upon. The headline in yesterdays politico reads, Social Security disability under attack by the g. O. P. Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place this article in the record. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Ms. Kaptur as this congress starts, republicans have quietly and without consulting democrats tucked into the rules of this house a point of order provision that aims to harm our nations 8,950,000 disabled citizens and weaken the Social Securitys earned benefits program. The number of americans on disability today out of a nation over 310 Million People amounts to less than 3 of our population. That is actually a very small number when you think about it. That has been good to god has been good to most of us. But that isnt true physically and mentally with many of our fellow citizens. And even though the number of disability approvals have been declining since 2010, republicans have begun this congress by singling out the disabled. They havent targeted wall street moguls to brought our economy down and stole trillions ofle toars of home equity and homes from our families. The republicans are targeting the injured, the suffering, those not able to fend for themselves. Even to touch this subject socalously is a cruelty. So callously is a cruelty. Why should such an important change not be debated on this house floor . Republicans instead hope to pull the wool over the eyes of the American People by hiding it in an obscure rule that was part of a massive parliamentaryry package for this 114th congress. Ill tell you what not all americans have been fooled. Despite this subtle attempt to pit pensioners against disabled beneficiaries, our office has already received a great number of calls and letters from citizens sick over the possibility that a 20 benefit cut could adversely affect our neighbors and relatives most in need. These proposed cuts in Social Security and Disability Insurance, i underline the word insurance, set the stage for what republicans truly want and i fear. Severe cuts, a weakened Social Security system and ultimately dismantling one of our greatest american legacies, earned Social Security benefits and earned disability benefits. For our old our disabled. They have the right to live out their lives with dignity. For so many their lives are not easy. I remind my colleagues who visit Nursing Homes and who have relatives in their own family who endure pain every day how vital these programs are. There but for the grace of god go you. This congress should oppose these cuts and at the same time we should support the passage of the transportation and infrastructure jobs bill to build our nation. There are items we can agree on and there will be items that we disagree on. But our roads, our bridges our harbors, our airports, our rail systems st. Lawrence seaway system and navigable waters all deserve our attention. We can make it happen this year. Mr. Speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired. She yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Jones, for five minutes. Mr. Jones mr. Speaker, thank you. I am sure that my colleagues would agree that we have many needs in our districts. For example, my district has an inlet that cannot be dredged which causes an economic problem and the reason it cannot be dredged is because of lack of funds. We continue to spend billions of dollars in iraq and afghanistan while theres no money for necessary Infrastructure Projects back here in North Carolina and across the nation. Mr. Speaker, as you know i have been outspoken on the continuation of war in afghanistan. I would like to recite a segment from the poem epitaphs of war. As my dear friend ron paul used it quote during the war in iraq, and this is the quote, if any question why we died tell them because our fathers lied. Mr. Speaker, a recent letter to the editor of the marine corps times echoed the same sentiment. Brian ciao wrote, i quote, remember the part i said about ending the marines presence in afghanistan . I lied. Said every politician. I assume mr. Ciao was referring to the president s recent statement that the war in afghanistan is over. How can the war be over when we could just sign a 10year bilateral Security Agreement with afghanistan to keep thousands of troops there while spending millions of dollars . The Afghan Parliament voted on the bilateral strategic agreement while we in congress had no discussion and no debate. According to the constitution, the president does not need to come to congress for permission on an agreement, but i think we have a responsibility to the american taxpayer and our men and women in uniform to discuss an agreement that will keep more taxpayers dollars and more troops in afghanistan in the coming years. Just a couple weeks ago the marine corps announced that the marines at camp lejeune in North Carolinas third district, which i represent, are getting ready to deploy to afghanistan. When does it end, mr. Speaker . When does it end . Mr. Speaker, i would like to quote grant from erie, pennsylvania, who wrote a letter to the editor of the marine corps times last week about afghanistan and he writes, and i quote, i believe in the mission 100 , but we have given afghans the tools to succeed and its up to them to use them. We have been in their country for more than 13 years. That is ridiculous. We have spent so much money funding these guys, if the afghans want to fight for their country, then they will. Or if the taliban will take over without much of a fight. These two men that i made reference to their letters are marines who have been to afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, beside me i have a poster from a book called how the u. S. Taxpayers bang roll the taliban. It was written by douglas wisling. Its a show of how taxpayer money ends up in the taliban and that blow up buildings with our money. In closing i would like to read we owe it to the American People our military, our constitution to debate war. As James Madison wrote, the power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. I agree with James Madison and urge congress to meet its constitutional duty to debate war and not let any president have an aumf to send our young men and women overseas to die and see the taxpayers money wasted. May god continue to bless our troops. And may god continue to bless america. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Mcclintock, for five minutes. Mr. Mcclintock thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise to express my deep disappointment in the address by the president last night in this chamber. 20 years ago president clinton was in a similar position. He realized his policies werent working, they had just been overwhelmingly rejected by voters, and he faced the first Republican Congress if 4e years 40 years. So in his state of the Union Message 20 years ago president clinton changed course proclaiming the era of Big Government is over. And he made good on that proclamation. He reached across the aisle to the Republican Congress and together they achieved some Amazing Things for the American People. Together they reduced the federal spending by a remarkable 4 of g. D. P. They reformed entitlement spending in bill clintons words, ending welfare as we know it. They approved what amounted to the biggest Capital Gains tax cut in american history. They produced the only four balanced budgets that we have seen in 50 years. And the economy blossomed. We enjoyed one of the longest periods of economic expansion in our nations history. Now, it wasnt a bipartisan lovefest. They clashed bitterly on matters great and small. Yet their accomplishments produced prosperity for our nation and assured president clintons popularity that endures to this day. President obama thus has a working, proven model to salvage the last two years of his failed presidency, and instead he is squandering it. The president says he wants to sock it to the wealthy by placing new and heavy taxes on investment, but the simple truth of the matter is, when you tax something, you get less of it. When you tax investment, you get rest investment at precisely that time when our tshyou get less investment at precisely the time when our economy needs better investment for more and better paying jobs. A smaller percentage of people are working today than at any time in more than 30 years. Until last year median Family Income had fallen throughout this administration. The American People dont want more government handouts. They need more jobs. They need better jobs. And that means more investment not less. They need a job market that isnt flooded with millions of Illegal Immigrants undercutting their wages and opportunities. Indeed, it was recently estimated that the number of Illegal Immigrants working in direct defiance of federal law is as much as the net increase in jobs throughout this administration. Most americans are not getting ahead. We now suffer the highest Corporate Tax rate in the industrialized world, and american businesses are fleeing from it. Who would have thought that socialist sweden would today be considered a tax haven compared to the United States . Our people need those american jobs back in america. In the president seeks to raise taxes still further at a time when the federal government is already extracting record tax revenues from our people. The percentage of our economy now consumed by federal taxes is well above the 40year average. Our economic problems are not the fault of taxpayers for not paying enough taxes. The president says he wants to help the middle class, but the proposals he set before us last night would drag the middle class still farther down the dark road of debt and doubt and despair that we have been on. If higher taxes and more burdensome regulations were the path to prosperity, we should be enjoying a new economic golden age today. If higher Government Spending and soak the rich policies were the antidote to income inequality, we should today be enjoying an egalitarian paradise. The reality is these policies have never worked. They have suppressed what should have been a robust economic recovery. They have increased the economic inequalities in our society. They have buried our children under an amount of debt that would stock them for the rest of their lives. The answer to income and equality and economic stagnation is genuine Economic Growth that requires reducing the burdens that government has placed on our economy. It worked when bill clinton did it, when Ronald Reagan did it, when john f. Kennedy did it, in fact kennedy was right. A rising tide lifts all boats. Yet bram clings obstinately to the opposite policies. It shouldnt surprise us hes getting the opposite results. He had a fleeting opportunity last night to bend to the will of the voters, reverse these policies and redeem his place in history. Instead whittiers words seem appropriate this morning of all sad words of tongue and pen, this saddest are these, it might have been. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. Jolly, r five minutes. Mr. Jolly thank you, mr. Speaker. This past december, the community of Pinellas County florida indeed lost an american hero, william m. Allen. Bill was 83 years old and served the u. S. Army as a sergeant. Charlie company 19th company infantry regiment. Mr. Allen was a prisoner of war from january 1 1951, until august, 1953. Held captive during the korean war after being overcome by chinese troops. Mr. Allen was just 19 years old at the time. To those who knew mr. Allen, he was one of those remarkable people that left a lasting impression on you after a single encounter. He was a patriot. He would share his stories not for his own intention but to impart on each of us the story of sacrifice that our men and women in uniform make so that the United States, all americans might live in peace protected by those who serve. Mr. Allens story was most human and in his own words he wrote about his enlistment to the army, quote then there are people like myself, the little guy that went to korea as a young kid, still wet behind the ear, fresh out of high school and found themselves in the most controversial, military, political situations at the time. When it was over we came home as veterans. No longer were we the kids down the street. We are now that kid home from war, a war that knew not that much about. A war that was unpopular. A war that would be forgotten. Forgotten by those who didnt have to fight it. Mr. Allen did fight that war for us and his sacrifice truly became real he knew he had been overcome by chinese forces. He recalls wondering at that very moment, would they shoot him. And in those brief moments mr. Allen recalled that he knew then that the course for his life was forever changed. Two things he said he knew for sure. One, he was still alive. And two, he was now a prisoner of war. Indeed, the course of mr. Allens life had changed forever. He endured many terrible moments as a p. O. W. His family endured much grief, much pain, but his life changed forever because mr. Allen would find another calling in life. That of teaching others the importance of service, teaching about the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, sharing with others the true cost of freedom. He would share these lessons with anyone he would encounter but he also did something very special. He contributed his many personal items from the war letters, to the History Museum in largo, florida, dedicated to his p. O. W. Story. But moreover he volunteered his time to teach young people at the museum the very lessons of service, to share with visitors his deeply story. Mr. Speaker, allen served our nation in war but he passed down his legacy to generations to follow. I was one of those individuals who had an opportunity to share in that story and i am blessed by my experiences with mr. Allen. For his military service, mr. Allen was awarded many medals, including the combat infantry badge, the purple heart, the bronze star and others. Mr. Allen is survived by his wife helen, of whom he once wrote, if she was not with me i dont know what i would have done. She was not only my wife but my best friend. Mr. Allen is also survived by his children, susan and bill and many grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, before mr. Allens passing, he presented me with a copy of his book, my old book 7 of memories and endescribed on the inside jacket is his message, freedom is not free. Indeed we know freedom is not free. Today i rise to remember and honor mr. Allen, to remember and honor his legacy, a legacy that will live on through the many people he touched and most importantly through individuals, children and youth, that he devoted his time to educating about the cost of war, the importance of sacrifice and the dignity of service. I thank mr. Allen today for his service to our nation and to pay a most fitting tribute, that for a man who sacrificed so much on behalf of our nation, today is remembered in the well of this house the peoples house, by members of congress and by a grateful nation. May god bless bill allen, may god bless his wife, helen, may god bless his family and may god richly bless each and every american who serves and protects and defends the United States of america. Thank you mr. Speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. Fortenberry, for five minutes. Mr. Fortenberry thank you mr. Speaker. Last night we gathered here in the house of representatives for a Great American tradition, the state of the union. The president ial address where we celebrate openness and transparency in our government, where a vision is laid out that we are free to disagree with or agree with components of but points to this Great American ideal that we are a people who selfgoverns and that we are accountable in an open way to the people who sent us here. Even in the midst of deep philosophical divides about the direction of our nation and, of course, the world was watching. And mr. Speaker i believe its important, though, that we take a moment of reflection and be honest about this moment in time and the Current Conditions in our society. Many americans do face downward mobility, stagnant wages and an increased cost of living. Many people feel very abandoned in the face of a washingtonwall street axis where more and more power is concentrated in the fewer and fewer hands. But i think we have to be careful about something. We have to be careful about seeing the solution as lying in more government. I think our nation deserves a smart and effective government, and i think our job here in congress is to continue in an open way look at the past and see what worked and see what doesnt work, to let go of that which is tired and old and worn out and continues to linger and to invest more in that which is smart and effective and can truly build a good society that creates opportunity for all. Now, mr. Speaker, i also believe that we shouldnt divide ourselves by class and income, and that in a healthy economy, it is one that is focused on Small Business. This is where most new jobs are created in our country. Particularly for young people, i think we need to create a culture of creativity, one in which a person who has an idea can seize the moment and use the gifts of their own two hands and their own intellect, to make good things, to create benefit for others, to create jobs, hire people, protect families and to make a contribution to society. Many young people want to pursue these avenues. And yet we have to be honest about what is happening. We are entering in this country into an entrepreneurial winter. What does that mean . In other words, the number of startup businesses, Small Businesses is less than the number of Small Businesses dying. We do not have a net increase in the number of Small Businesses and again, this is where most americans live and work making good things for others in Small Business, thats where jobs are created. And how do we address this problem . Well the tendency, again, in our body is to think about public solutions, but lets examine, not through my opinion, but just through the analytics as to why Small Businesses are not creating new jobs and are not starting up aggressively as they have in the past. And its really two things. Its health care and regulations. Now, smart regulations are necessary to protect the health and wellbeing of all americans. But when you have oppressive regulations that tends to stack the deck to those who are larger and can hire an army of lawyers and accountants it represses the ability of Small Business to take risks and create jobs. The second problem we have is health care. Mr. Speaker, i got an email yesterday from someone who said this. Congressman, my health care has gone up so much that i have to move into government housing. Now, think of the irony of that. Again, we need the right type of Health Care Reform one that is going to reduce costs and improve Health Care Outcomes while we protect vulnerable persons. But what has happened . Some people have been helped the new law but some have been hurt by escalating Health Care Costs and, again, it creates an environment in which Small Business is repressed. Now, mr. Speaker, again i think our government should be smart and effective and i think thats what most americans want. But washington continues to remain and mired in immediate ockriesity. Political gridlock has made smart government difficult and this recovery has dimmed the prospects of too many individuals who again, have stagnant wages or who have given up hope and feel directionless, isolated and alone. We can do better and we must do better. Despite these challenges i believe the start of a new congress is an exciting time to renew our government and this promise of our nation. Id like to say this, mr. Speaker, theres nothing wrong in america that cant be fixed by whats right in america. But its going to require bold resolve, innovative Public Policy and a return to our highest ideals. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in s until noon today. Boehner castanet neths address, which is scheduled for netanyahus address which is scheduled for february 11 the address would mark netanyahus third appearance before congress and second during boehners tenure as speaker. And now to a house hearing on Internet Freedom and Consumer Protection issues, former s. E. C. Commissioner mayor dilt baker, chad dickerson are testifying. Live coverage on cspan. This began about 10 00 this morning. This bill doesnt prevent Broadband Companies from creating choke points to the entrance of the last mile nor does it grant the s. E. C. To regulate this issue, referred to interconnection leaving a loophole to circumvent its intent. Our poogs today is the same as its been all along. We encourage the government to establish clear brightline rules that ban paid prioritization, application specific discrimination, access fees and blocking online and to apply those rules equally to fixed and mobile broadband and at the point of interconnection with last mile providers. We believe the f. C. C. Has all the authority it needs to implement such rules and that congress has an Important Role to play as well, particularly in helping to address the litigation risk that will inevitably follow f. C. C. Action. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to protect the open internet once and for all. Mr. Dickerson, thanks very much for your testimony. Well go to paul misener, Global Policy advisor for amazon. Com, a slightly larger platform for sales. Mr. Misener, go ahead. Its glad to have you back before the subcommittee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member eshoo, for this important hearing and for inviting me back. Amazon has long supported maintaining the fundamental openness of the internet which has been so beneficial for consumers and for invasion. Now there is widespread acceptance to ensure that internet openness, now policymakers need only to decide how to ensure that the internet openness of Net Neutrality is maintained and effective. Amazon, it starts with customers and works backwards. We begin proscombrectsjekts by determining what customers want and how we can invade for them. Here in the context of Net Neutrality Public Policy we have done the same. We take our position from our customers, that is consumers point of view. Consumers want to keep the were going to leave this hearing for just a couple of moments. The House Republican conference has just wrapped up a meeting and minutes are speaking with reporters in this News Conference which just began. Well go back to the hearing after this. We couldnt agree with you more that we need to be helping working moms and dads. So we have the right goal. He just has the wrong approach. More mandates on the work force is not the way to go. Weve seen this with obamacare and how it has hurt job creation rather than bring along more jobs in this economy. You know, we cant legislate another hour in the day. We cant. But what we can do is give moms and dads the opportunity to make choices about their time. Thats why today im introducing the working families flexibility act and in fact im headed over to the senate side to join with senator mike lee who will also be introducing the companion bill in the senate. This bill is is about allowing hourly wage employees in the private sector to choose whether they want overtime or to convert that to paid time off. Im a working mom. I certainly understand that time is of our most valuable asset and so we want to give parents in the private sector who may be taking care of Young Children but also could be taking care of aging parents at the same time. This is about letting them determine what to do with their overtime. This can already be done in the Public Sector and this simple amendment to the fair labor standards act would allow private employers to do the same. Again, the president has the right goal. He has the wrong approach. More government mandates is the last thing that we need. But flexibility in the workplace is a good thing for working moms and dads all over this country. Well, thank you all. Listened to the president last night. I believe he missed an opportunity. I listened to a lot of the old ideas, the old strategy, top down instead of bottom up which this country believes in. I listened to four veto threats at a time when he wanted to work together. I saw places where he could. Cybersecurity. Hire more vets. We already have a bill that passed the house and is moving forward. I believe if you listen to the American People on priorities, there is you a a new poll that came out printed even before his speech that same, number one, 85 creating jobs. Priority for all of us. When you listen to the rosey numbers that president gave, he skipped over the Participation Rate when you look at unemployment. It is the lowest point, 62. 7 since 1978, time of jimmy carter. But what does Participation Rate mean . That means those are the people in this economy that have given up. Theyve given up looking. That means theyve given up on their dreams. Theyve given up on their future. Thats why creating jobs should be number one and thats why it is with this congress. Second is the feeding and dismantling isis. Third is reducing the deficit. 18 trillion is our debt. On, passing legislation to secure the border with mexico, 58 . Well have a bill marked up today and move that next week. At the bottom of the numbers, closing gitmo and addressing climate change. I think its time for a new beginning with a new American Congress that we focus on the priorities of america, putting us back to work and putting us on the right track. No more bottom down. No more top down but bottom up. Congress has been working for a few years now on cybersecurity. You heard the president last night talk about cyberattacks. This is a real opportunity where the president can work with congress to further solve this problem. We passed legislation last year to increase the sharing between federal agencies as it relates to cyberattacks. That bill was actually signed. But as you can see, there are still threats, both in the government sector and in the private sector, where whether its individual hackers or foreign governments that continue to attack our networks. Youve seen millions of americans have their data and their privacy placed at risk. So congress is continuing this year to work on legislation to increase the ability for private sector and government sharing of the attacks that are out there, the real threats of cyberattacks. While also making sure that individual privacy is a very top priority and so theres a real opportunity where we got an opportunity for the president to work with congress to solve this problem and we welcome his participation. Im glad it was something he mentioned last night because its a real threat to millions of americans and those threats occur every single day. As i listened to the president last night, i couldnt help but think of the many hardworking americans that continue to have to tighten their belts because costs are going up, whether its food costs or Health Care Costs or their rent. Moms and dads that are having to work doubleshifts just to pay their bills, make ends meet, College Graduates that are saddled with more debt than ever, that have high unemployment, continue to struggle to find jobs. And last night id hoped to hear from the president that hed stand up for them. But instead so much what i heard was he was standing up for washington, d. C. He was standing up for the old approach, the top down, outdated bureaucratic approach that comes from washington, d. C. Rather than a vision that is focused on a bottom up approach, an open, transparent approach that empowers people individuals, families and creates a healthy economy. See, we agree with the president that middleclass families continue to struggle. But what they need what they need is to be empowered. They need to be empowered with lower taxes, lower costs and more opportunities. Thats what were going to be promoting in americas new congress more Job Opportunities and the legislation that we passed today is just the beginning. We want to improve peoples lives. We want to grow americas economy, not washington, d. C. s economy. Several years ago i had the honor of serving as president of the National Association of state treasurers, where we all worked tirelessly to expand and improve College Savings tools so families would have the opportunity to send their kids to the institution, Higher Education of their choice. Congress created section 529 to help middleclass families plan and save for their childrens future. And theres no doubt about the popularity of these plans. Ever since the earnings on the withdrawals for College Expenses became tax free back in 2001, one million account holders have turned into 12 million. Now, president obama wants to turn back the clock and further burden hardworking families with new taxes. Middleincome families that have worked hard and saved to send their children to college should receive our support not a tax bill to pay for his agenda. Taxing College Savings plans, as the president has pushed for and likely will again tomorrow in a speech in my district in kansas will only lead to less savings for middleclass families. It will remove the incentives for families to save for themselves. And i hope the president s working willing to work with americas new congress to fix our broken tax code and expand opportunities for all american families. Good morning, everybody. All the president really offered last night was more taxes, more government, more of the same approach that has failed the middle class for decades. These just arent the wrong policies theyre the wrong priorities. And growing washingtons bureaucracy here instead of helping to grow our economy and to helping grow opportunities for middleclass families. Theres a better way. We need to fix our broken tax code, balance our budget, replace the broken Health Care Law with solutions that lower costs and protect jobs. Veto threats and fantasy land proposals from the white house will not distract the peoples house from the peoples priorities. Another priority is protecting the United States and our allies overseas. Thats why ive invited Prime Minister of israel Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of congress on the grave threats of radical islam and the threat that iran poses to not only the middle east but frankly to the world. American america and israel have always stood together. We have a shared cause. We have common ideals, and now we must rise to that moment once again. Speaker boehner, last night president obama said hed like a new authorization military force agreement. Is that going to happen . I would expect the president s going to send an authorization to the congress. I expect that we will have hearings on that and that we will in fact have a debate and a vote on it the time yet to be determined. Spring . Surely. Mr. Speaker did you consult with the white house before inviting Prime Minister netanyahu . And secondly, is it [inaudible] on an issue like iran when you know hes very much opposed to what he wants to do . I did not consult with the white house. The congress can make this decision on its own. I dont believe im poking anyone in the eye. There is a serious threat that exists in the world, and the president last night kind of papered over it. And the fact is that there needs to be a more serious conversation in america about how serious the threat is from radical islamic jihadists and the threat posed by iran. Mr. Speaker, you have said for years that tax reform is one of your top priorities. The president said last night its one of his top priorities. Where do you put the chances that congress happily accomplishing tax reform this year instead of talking about it . Wed love to do tax reform. You hear the president last night call for raising taxes again. Now, if he wants to raise taxes, its going to make it very difficult for us to come to some agreement how were going to reform our broken tax code. Last question. [inaudible] i do expect were going to have hearings on iran sanctions legislation. Timing yet to be determined. Thanks. Whats on your tie . [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] members of the House Republican Conference Leadership addressing the media, following their strategy meeting this morning. Most of those remarks responding to the president s state of the Union Address last night. By the way, if you missed any of what was said here in this briefing youll be able to watch it online at cspan. Org later. Well go live to capitol hill with that hearing on Internet Freedom and today Consumer Protection. The rate of broadband among vulnerable populations is low, with a divide. Broadband adoption, rates among africanamericans and hispanics are still lower than whites. Africanamericans over 65, for example, still exhibit especially low rates. 45 of africanamericans seniors are Internet Users yet 36 only have broadband at home compared to 51 and 56 for white seniors. They have a lack of device as their prime reasons for not being online. So closing the Digital Divide should and must be an important goal for policymakers and steering the right course of action to protect and promote an open internet is one of the ways to get there i want to acknowledge that congress has a proud history of addressing structural injustices in our society and acting to correct them. In the 1860s, they passed the 13th 14th and 15th amendment enfranchised millions of americans for the first time. In the 1960s, they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act today, congress has the opportunity to show that leadership again. By enacting a legislative solution that preserves the open internet we all enjoy, congress can extend the promise of justice equality and democracy to all. And avoid a legal quagmire that will lead to an unending uncertainty for our economy and citizens. I agree with jessica gonzalezs demand for broadband which in terms simulates infrastructure and innovation. We know firsthand in this and its our belief that increased investment in broadband also improves access, adoption and the types of innovation wed like to drive in our communities. But of course, the way that we get there is going to have an impact. For the past 20 years administration and f. C. C. Chairs from both Political Parties have chartered a successful regulatory platform for the internet and communities of color have benefited. Look at the state of wireless adoption among those of color. Under the current framework nearly 70 of hispanic cell phone owners use a phone to use the internet. Under the current rules weve seen the type of collected mobilization in ferguson missouri new york city, columbus ohio. These stats should drive policymakers to continue the progress thats already being made. But unfortunately meaningful open internet rules have failed in the f. C. C. Last year the d. C. Circuit court struck down key portions of the open Internet Order and notwithstanding the current framework thats allowed broadband to flourish and adoption to take hold, the f. C. C. Is now considering the imposition of title 2 regulation which we believe its ill suited to the current realities. Imposing such heavyhanded framework on the internet would only serve to stifle broadband development, it would place uncertainty through regressive taxation on universal service and potential ambiguity on consumer enforcements. Some have argued that the adverse effects of title 2 regulation through judicious application of Forbearance Authority is the right way. We think that misses the point. If it the commission could act in the forbearance matter it would take years to appropriately calibrated set of rules and this uncertainty will continue to drive us away from the attention of those issues that our Community Needs the most the modernization of our schools, universal of the areas. So in closing, its for those reasons that our groups have actually asked that we steer away from a tight Regulatory Framework to something that has more flexibility to allow the ecosystem to continue to grow and we think the proposed legislation is close in actually getting there. As we look at this issue, congress should ponder the harmful practice of additional redlining. Its refusing to build and serve lowincome communities on the same terms as wealthy communities. It imposes digital segregation. Sadly the experience of our country shows segregation degrades all of us and this is no less true in the digital age. Congress should empower the f. C. C. To prevent digital redlining. We nurge this legislation that Congress Also look at how to prevent that because currently this is a problem. Second, congress should ensure that its open internet rules will be enforced. Mmtc has recommended to the commission accessible, affordable, and expedited procedure for the reporting of resolution complaints. One approach would be to use a could be sumer friendly complaint process under the title 7 framework of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under title 7, a complaintant receiving a expedited ruling from eeoc and does not need to hire a lawyer or write a complicated filing, whether the precise details of implementing a similar mechanism in a communication context the core principal here remains the same. Individuals in vulnerable population deserve an acceptable affordable, and expedited procedure for ensuring their government protects them. This must apply at whatever solution we seek. My friends, the time now to get past the morass of the debate thats been lingering for more than decade. With Congress Discussion and guidance on this issue, we at mmtc think we can make it happen. We look forward to working with congress to do such so that we can get to the issues that mean the most for our communities universal service, public safety, and ensuring we actually allow the internet to grow to the next level of innovation to solve our social problems. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony and your suggestions. Well now turn to our final witness this morning, meredith baker, president and c. E. O. Of ctia, the wireless association. Ms. Baker, glad to have you back before the subcommittee as well. Chairman walden, Ranking Member eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to share the Wireless Industrys perspective on the importance of an open internet. At the outset, i want to be clear, americas Wireless Industry fully supports an open internet. Wireless users demand it and a marketplace where competition has never been more vigorous. In the past 20 years, the Wireless Industry has grown from a luxury plod to a key driver of Economic Growth. We all benefit from faster speeds, more services, and lower prices. The u. S. Is the Global Leader in wireless by any metric and it is at the forefront of mobile innovation of health, automotive, and payment fields. Central to that growth was congress foresight in establishing section 332, a mobile specific Regulatory Framework outside of title 2. Congress has the opportunity to bring the same stability for broadband. We greatly appreciate this committees work to develop a Regulatory Foundation for future innovation with commonsense Net Neutrality provisions. The draft is an excellent start and offers a viable task to preserve an open internet with enforceable requirements. Properly crafted legislation will guarantee the protections the president has called for while allowing blod band providers to continue to invest billions, create jobs, and innovate products. We do not ask that wireless be exempt from any new laws. Only that any new requirements reflect our industry, our technology and our inherent differences. I want to highlight three key differences. First, mobile services are technically different and depend upon limited spectrum resources. This substantial Network Management, millisecond by millisecond to deliver service to consumers. Remarkably there is more bandwidth in a single strand of fiber than an all of the spectrum allocated to commercial mobile services. Second, we are competitively different. More than eight out of 10 americans can choose from four or more mobile broadband providers. This is fierce competition and its driving new services, official and differentiation that benefits consumers. Third, we are evolutionaryly different. 4g networks are less than five years old and the future is bright with advancement like lte broadcast, 5g services, and connected life applications. It is vital that any legislation is sufficiently flexible to preserve the competition differentiation, and innovation mobile consumers enjoy today. While we are optimistic that the process on the hill will enhance the wireless experience for all americans, we have significant reservations with the f. C. C. s proposed path of title 2. The application of title 2 in any form to wireless broadband would harm consumers and our economy. Title 2 is designed for another technology in another era, an era in which competition was largely nonexistent if at all and innovation came slowly if at all. Given our industrys Great Success with mobile broadband outside of title 2, we have significant concerns with how title 2 and its 682 pages of regulation would apply to the dynamic mobile broadband space. If the commission proceeds with title 2 as opposed to the 706 math the court contemplate add year ago the Wireless Industry will have no choice but to look to the courts. Given the clear language of section 332, we have every confidence that we would prevail, but it is not our preferred course. Under section 332, mobile broadband is legally different too. In 1993, congress exempted future nonvoice mobile Services Like mobile broadband from common carriage regulation. It did so unambiguously. Given our industrys greatest success with mobile proud band outside of title 2 we have significant concerns. Of how title 2 and its 682 pages of regulation would apply. The commission and the courts have repeatedly found that wireless broadband is not a common carriage service. The f. C. C. Lax the Statutory Authority to change course and litigation would harm consumers with a year or more of uncertainty and delay. As leaders across the globe are trying to replicate our mobile success and embrace 5g, this is the wrong time to inject uncertainty and delay into our nations efforts. We risk falling behind when the stakes have never been higher and our connected life and Global Competitiveness are more within reach. The better approach would be for congress to act and end this debate. Doing so would free us to turn to pressing bipartisan issues like spectrum reform and modernization. By act congress can help ensure the United States remains the most dynamic and innovative system. Thank you for the opportunity to appear on todays panel. I look forward to your questions. Thank you for being here. Thanks to all of our witnesses. Youve given us some good thought starters. Some you have like what we are doing. Some of you dont. All of you, i think we can all agree on the principles at stake here. Its matter how we get there. I got a couple questions i want to ask. Ill lead off. To follow up on your testimony, ms. Baker regarding section 332, im not trying to mimic our former chairman, mr. Dingell but in the essence of time i got a couple of yes and no questions that really would be helpful. I start, mr. Powell, work down. Yes or no, do you agree with ms. Baker that mobile would not be covered under the f. C. C. s existing authority when it comes to applying these new Net Neutrality standards . Mr. Powell . Turn on the microphone there. We believe that the f. C. C. Could reach wireless by reclassifying much as they are proposing to do with respect to fixed broadband. You think they could get there even though 332. Not without risk. We do believe mr. Dickerson . Im not an attorney. Thats two of us. I stayed at a holiday inn. The most important thing for us in our minds there is no difference between mobile and broadband. You want them both covered . And any ok. Mr. Misener . I agree with chairman powells assessment. Legal assessment. I also agree that consumers view these interchangeably and should be the same policy for both. You think its legally sustainable. Ms. Gonzalez. I agree its legal and sustainable. Ms. Turnerlee . Aim not an attorney but we think that title 2 would actually stifle the expansion of mobile. We think thats a bad idea. Ms. Baker . One more time from you. Mobile broadband has never been under title 2 because of explicit expression of congress. Its not sustainable. There might be an opportunity for litigation here, you think. This is my point. We have soltalyinted people. Some are attorneys. Some are not. Some are backed up by smart attorneys. Theres division right here on this panel. This is where i think certainty matters and legislating matters. Yes or no. Have you actually seen what the f. C. C. Is proposing . Mr. Dickerson . We have seen principles. I mean have you seen the language . No. Mr. Misener i have heard a great deal about whats in it. You have. But you havent read it. No. Ok. Dont no nothing. Dont know nothing. Ms. Baker . No. Does anybody anticipate theyll see it before they vote on it . No. Could you repeat that question . Does anybody anticipate being able to see it before the commissioners are called upon to vote on it . No. Mr. Dickerson . We found the s. E. C. Process to be quite open. We believe its quite possible that we could. All right. Mr. Misener . No. Ms. Gonzalez. Not sure we would see it. Probably not. Nope. We have two commissioners, former commissioners, both in the room said very unlikely, know that youll see t thats why we thats why its a better process. Youll get to see it through the legislative, transparent open environment. Text posted. You have given us great input as we move forward. There is a disagreement, ill say, this is what im hearing, regarding the application of universal service fund fees. If i heard different testimony correctly, some believe that that the f. C. C. s order would allow it. Some believe it wouldnt. Some think our bill would preclude it. Some wouldnt. My question to you is when it comes to universal service fees, under the what we know of the f. C. C. s order what, they are proposing, would the internet now be subject to u. S. F. Leff have i . Levy . The way it works in short is congress requires an assessment from universal service from any Telecommunications Service provider. If the s. E. C. Reclassifies the broadband it would be subject to assessment. Theres an argument the commission could forebear from that. In absence of that action it would absolutely result in increased charges on federal universal service. There is also an argument out there in the public, some agree, some disagree, that if the f. C. C. Goes down to tight 28 path and declares the internet is a public utility under title 2, does that nearly totally eliminate the federal trade commissions authority because they dont have authority on regulating common carriers, correct . Mr. Powell . Thats correct. Under the clayton act, section 5, the f. T. C. Is prohibited from exercising authority over privacy data security, and a number of other things against Telecommunication Service providers. They are obviously a champion of privacy today and have broad reaching authority to do so. That would be disenfranchised by the decision. Mr. Misener, you raised concerns in your testimony about Specialized Services. Youre not the only one. That exemption in our draft legislation. Both the f. C. C. And the president have said a Specialized Services exemption is necessary and the language in our draft traction the f. C. C. s proposals. Has there been a Net Neutrality rule proposed that does not acknowledge the need for Specialized Services . I cant say that there hasnt been one. But what we are concerned about if that becomes a substitute for paid prioritization. That is the concern. Whether someone has proposed it elsewhere, i dont know. Will i point out however in light of the prior comments by chairman powell, hes viewing title 2 as a binary thing, either its all there or its not. The commission did forebear from tight 28 across the board. It need not have back in 2002. So it could be partially unforeborn as it were, and done judicially. It could be much more precise about what this means and not view it as an all or nothing. You can also have another commission that decides to change all that, too. That gets to our issue of sencht. I have gone over my time. I now recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. Eshoo. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the witnesses. I think that you have done a marvelous job through your testimony today to highlight what you like and what you dont. Where you agree, and where you dont. I think that you have done it very well. And grateful to you for it. I just want to make a comment before i begin with my questions. It is thrown around, and its a heavy charge because everyone cares about this, and that is that if we go we move in a certain direction that the private sector will stop investing. Thats a big chill. For me and for everyone else. But there isnt anything to substaniate that. When you look at the wireless auction, billions of dollars have come in. And when we began that effort Cheryl Walden chairman walden myself, and the subcommittee, people laughed and said youre not going to raise a dime out of this. 45 billion so far. I dont know about anyone else, i think 45 billion is a lot of money. Thats a lot of investment. Thats worth something. The c. F. O. Of verizon said, well keep investing. Whether theres title 2 or not. The c. T. O. Of sprint. I dont think these are insignificant comments. I think its important for the record if someone makes that charge, we should it should be backed up for us because we need facts and the evidence that comes with the facts. I think that that would be most helpful to us. I want to go to mr. Dickerson and i should say to everyone, todays the first time i met mr. Etsy, but get a life, anna, i met him on cspan. He was part of a conference. The idea, washington ideas conference, and i was so taken with how he presented himself what he knew, and what his companys been able to do. Lets invite him in and be a witness so thank you for being here. Thank you for all the jobs you have created. The proposed bill doesnt prevent a broadband provider from prioritizing content from one of its own affiliates. My question to you is, if a broadband provider were to prioritize an affiliates content, what effect would that have etsy, and most importantly everyone that deals with you is a company. They created a new company. What kind of an effect would that have . One thing that you may not know about me, i was chief Technology Officer before i was c. E. O. I know a lot about technology. One of the things that we know is that for commerce sites, for business sites, and this is i define this broadly from etsy to amazon to google that the speed of your website is absolutely directly correlated with revenue. So if things are slower, revenue drops. If things are faster revenue goes up. So in a world of pryor at thisization, its Smaller Companies like etsy who are disadvantaged against Larger Companies, then you can see the Larger Companies see advantages purely based on speed. Higher revenues, and this would hurt the etsy sellers who receiving lower speeds than some of the other competitors. Could it put them out of business . As i said in my remarks we have sellers who are making money using the internet in rural areas and elsewhere, and they are using this money to feed their families, pay for school, do all the things that they need to do in their lives. Let me go to mr. Misener, under the proposed legislation, the problem of interconnection abuse is not only ignored but the f. C. C. Is prevent interested doing anything about it. In the future. Now, do you believe that if interconnection isnt explicitly addressed, how would your business and the ability to serve your customers what would happen . Thank you, ms. Eshoo, very much. Im not so clear in the bill whether it is or whether it is precluded or whether its not. Some people believe they strongly its precluded. I think its silent and needs to be explicit. It is included. Consumers shouldnt care. A customer of amazon should not care where in the Network Operators Network Discrimination is is occurring. Only that it is. To leave that out is a major gap in the legislation. Id like to see that filled. Lets see. Im over time. I just mr. Chairman, i failed to ask for a unanimous consent request to include in the record a letter dated january 20 from the mayors of new york and San Francisco and the letter urges the f. C. C. To adopt the strongest possible open internet rules using title 2. And i also ask letters from the National Association of realtors and a group of Racial Justice organizations be included in the record. Both letters reiterate that the legislative process should not hold up the f. C. C. From moving forward with strong legally enforceable open internet rules. Without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Yield back. The chair recognizes the himself for five minutes. Again thanks for our panel being here today. As the gentlelady just said, its been a very interesting discussion today. Mr. Powell, if i could start with a question for you. I find your testimony very interesting about when we are dealing with regulations in this town about trying to put round pegs in square holes and all the Different Things folks out there are facing. For many of us we have very diverse districts who represent suburban, urban, rural. But with many of the Cable Operators i have in my area, there have been concerns that the prospect of title 2 regulation may require them to overhaul their billing practices, change their require them to review all the customer privacy terms and conditions and subject them to new enforcement rules. For many of these Small Companies this would stifle future investment. Potential harm is the new regulatory burdens doesnt seem to be equitable to those small providers. Should small providers be exempt from Network Neutrality rules . First of all i would say we as an industry, i would think my small members would concur, are quite supportive of both the concept of open internet and the governments interest in developing strong and sustainable rules. Its simply a false choice to suggest that we are opposed to the core and substantive effort to do so. What we are concerned about is in the effort to do so we will employal comprehensive complex Regulatory Regime that will substantially raise the costs of being in the i. S. P. Business. Cost management is a critical concern for Small Businesses, much more than even the larger. And on the margins of uneconomic regions that have difficulty like Rural America, anything that adds to the cost of deploying that infrastructure in those places will dampen both the ability and enthusiasm to reach the hardest parts of the country. Thank you. Ms. Baker, if i could turn to your testimony, also some discussion about Rural America. Under your section under significant risk of title 2, you mentioned that if the commission proceeds down that path theres the litigation would would inevitably have more delays and certainties out there. And that also interesting that the harm may be acute for rural customers as a collection of regional providers applying an outdated and backward looking carriage regime to our service that would stifle innovation and investment and. Could you elaborate on that disservice for Rural America . Of course. We our association this year is chaired by ron smith, president and c. E. O. Of bluegrass cellular from kentucky. We brought our rural carriers in to visit with the f. C. C. They dont have armies of regulatory lawyers to go and comply with transparentcy and other burdens. Mobile broadband has never been under title 2. The uncertainty has already stifled their employment. They are worried. They do not know what title 2 brings. And additionally the Wireless Industry is extremely competitive. They need to differentiate who serves their communities. They need to make sure that they can compete with different concepts and they are not sure what title 2 will bring in that respect. Different lawyers and what tight 28 would bring is unknown. Competition and differentiation are important to our rural carriers. Thats a risk under title 2. My district, especially if youre a Small Business in an area that might have good coverage, i just talked with somebody not too long ago, about two weeks ago, they have a problem with being able to connect with their customers. People are trying to contact them. Are you saying that things like that for some these folks would be hampered because of that because of title 2 . And advance services. Thank you. Mr. Powell if i could go back to your testimony. You go into detail how it might touch regulatory structure spurred rapidly involving successful broadband ecosystem. Title 2 regulation do anything to encourage continued growth as we have seen over the past 15 years . And would the reclassification encourage incumbent providers to upgrade networks or new companies to enter the market . I think all hyperbole aside. The issue isnt is whether people will invest. Of course they will. They have businesses to run. The real question is whether it be at a diminished and dampened level. We hear the president and other people talk about wanting the nation to achieve world class top broadband smeed and status. We want gigabit to every american. We want every american to have access to the internet. We are impatient about that. Networks are rebuilt every 18 to 24 months to the tune of 30 billion to 50 billion annually to get the gigabit speeds, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars required over some amount of time. Its simply common sense to understand increasing regulatory costs, increasing uncertainty will slow the magnitude or the velocity or the timing or the pace of those evolutions. And im sure even in Companies Like mr. Etsys or amazon, they have just as much of an imperative of having a continued high growth of evolution of Network Capacity as a primary input to the businesses they provide. We do believe both the increased costs associated with the regulatory environment, the cost of borrowing that will go up when now the rate of return is based on regulatory industry rather than lightly regulated one. And the years of uncertainty to truly finalize and settle and stabilize the rules will probably have a negative and depressive effect. All you have to do is look at the recession when companies had plenty of capital but were unwilling to deploy or higher or invest because of the uncertainty that surrounded the market during the depths of the recession to have an example how this works. Thank you very much. My time has expired. The chair recognizes mr. Pallone for five minutes. I yield to ms. Eshoo. I thank the gentleman. I just want to state for the record something thats very important given what ms. Baker said. Wireless voice has been, as you know, a former commissioner of the f. C. C. Under title 2 since 1993. I think Everyone Needs to have an apleeshation of that. I dont think the testimony reflected that. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Gonzalez, i think we both agree putting Net Neutrality connection noose law would be a win for consumers. How might consirmse lose if congress were to enact the draft bill we are discussion today . Thank you, congressman pallone. For the question. I think with whats on the table today theres serious threats. This undermines f. C. C. Efforts to bridge the Digital Divide. Particularly concerned with rural subsidies and efforts to reform the Lifeline Program which brings could have the potential to bring affordable broadband to the working poor. It undermines privacy, truth in billing, all kinds of Consumer Protections that we as americans have come to expect and rely on. And it calls into question the f. C. C. s ability to continue protecting us in the on the Communications Platform of the 21st century. Thank you. My republican colleagues characterize the draft bill as consistent with the f. C. C. s 2010 Net Neutrality rules. Do you agree the draft bill provides the same level of protection as the 2010 rules . I think its true there are some rules that look like the 2010 rule. I think the theres a number of distinctions that i laid out in my testimony, but i think the critical distinction is that it strips the f. C. C. Of any flexibility to oversee Consumer Protection and ensure that there are not harmful, discriminatory practices on the internet. Thats the concern. It essentially freezes the f. C. C. In time. And so that can it cannot address any harms that fall outside the principles laid out in the draft legislation. Nor can it address any new harms that present themselves of technology in the marketplace evolve. Thank you. Mr. Powell, we have heard the argument today that title 2 will stifle innovation and investment. In fact i think the chairman called it the nuclear option. 8 how would we evaluate this argument in light of the fact that Cable Companies stock prices are up since barack obama announced his support for title 2 . Well, public stock prices are a complex question. Im no market expert. A careful examination historically over periods of regulatory intervention versus periods of light regulation will demonstrate a clear pattern. In the wake of the 1992 act when cable rates were regulated investment was depressed for several years. Until the prospect of the 1996 act which deregulated those rates again and they soared. In 2001 and 2002, when the decisions to regulate broadband as an Information Service were put in place, it unleashed a radical increase in investment, totaling 1 trillion over the course of the year. I sincerely believe that the market believed in the assertions and promises that tight 28 will not include rate regulation and will not include the whole bevvy of onerous regulations that exist. But unless that is clearly identified in an unequivocal way, i dont think its priced into the market. Very likely would be if nilling changed. If anything changed. Maybe the economy is just getting so good could be that, too. A we are just seeing it soar these days based on what the president said last night. Most broadband providers including your Member Companies say they are already in compliance with Network Neutrality, what they are afraid of is the rate regulation by the f. C. C. Both the president and the f. C. C. Have said they support forebarons from regulation of consumer plieses. Mr. Powell, if we all agree rate regulation should be off the table, couldnt congress narrowly address that issue in legislation and couldnt there be unintended consequences from placing the kind of broad restrictions on the f. C. C. That are in the draft bill . Thank you sir. I would say two things. First of all rate regulation is the most dangerous of all the provisions, i wouldnt concede that of the thousands of regulations in title 2, that alone we do appreciate the president saying that rate regulation should be foreborn from and chairman wheelers assertion. We have heard chairman whealer talk about the wheeler talk about the adoption of section 201, 202 and 208. 201 is the provision where rate regulation is derived. It says to ensure that practices for charging will be just and reasonable, that is the basis and the historical basis of the commissions rate regulation. So we dont yet have any confidence that the words they are matching the direction of the word, and whether the government will make clear that rate regulations off the table. Or merely say they have the power to rate regulate but for now are choosing not to. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. Now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. Shimkus. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My good friend, congresswoman eshoo, kind of had a shot across the bow at former commissioner baker. Now president chairman, czar, ctia. I thought i would give her a chance to maybe respond to the statement made by my friend, anna. Thank you, i appreciate that. Rank eshoo is correct. First of all we know the current framework is working. We have 112 billion of investment in the Wireless Industry in the last four years. But lets go to 1993 when congress is enacting section 332 and deregulating wireless. They did it two ways. They did two buckets. Cmrs, mobile voice. And they did that subjected to limited title 2 requirements. They separately created a second bucket which is called pmrs, that was for all news Services Like mobile broadband and they specifically exempt the f. C. C. From applying mobile requirements from mobile broadband. F. C. C. Has always acted in accordance with that and upheld that mobile broadband is not regulated by title 2 and cannot be, according to the explicit language of congress. Thank you. I know my colleagues have given some credit to the chairman of the subcommittee on movement. Im a paid pryor at thisization prioritization guy. Thats where i come from. I have been at the point if youre going to make the 30 billion of investment every 18 months to upgrade the pipes, you got to have revenue to do that. You got to have a business moddle to do that. My whole position in this has not been limited and government control of the existing pipes but encouragement expansion of more. So that was then. This is now. We are in a new world order where i think we have now looked at the debate and said, business vs. Done that, too, and said, hey, we need to get this monkey off our back. We need to get some rules. Some certainty. So again credit to the chairman by saying, ok, lets go back to the previous debates, look at what was put out in front by our colleagues. Where can we find middle ground . Thats what the product i believe thats the product that chairman walden has set forth. Now with great consternation from my friends on the other side. Im with the chairman. I think we can move forward and set some certainty, but im a legislator. Right. This process we want to legislate. We want to define in law and allow the executive branch or in this case the f. C. C. To implement the law. As again chairman walden said, another s. E. C. Comes and its established by some other president , it could get turned topsyturvy again. I just wanted to in the big point, just give some credit about how even chairman walden is bringing some of us kicking and screaming along with him. Boy, can he kick. On thispolicy. Would the gentleman yield for a second . I would. Im catholic and for catholics we understand concessions. So thank you. I still believe in the paid prioritization and incentivizing bill. Im not sure if we get there this way. Thats my concern. Would the gentleman yield . I would. I appreciate that. Remember part of what drives us through legislation, first of all we would love the f. C. C. , before they go off and regulate something, everybodys testified hasegawa worked pretty darn well. What we have today has been light touch regulation. Thats how its been build out. Theres no overwhelming evidence of clear market failure that would drive deep regulatory control from washington top down. Why do we have to go down this path . What is before us today, though is the president is now turning the f. C. C. Into his own puppeteer. Saying heres what you got to do. Go beyond where the f. C. C. Chairman said he thought he should go or what was right for the market. Hes being pushed and then hes saying we are going to act in the f. C. C. By february 26. By wait none of us here is going to necessarily see that order. Thats part of our reform effort by the way which we passed out of the house, where we would have more transparency. So they are moving. We dont know precisely what thats going to look like. We would rather give certainty because of this issue that ms. Baker has outlined regarding mobile devices because mr. Esty and mr. Miser as you know, we are going to a mobile world. Yet statute under 332 is pretty clear, that authority doesnt exist at the f. C. C. They may try to go there. Theres dispute whether you can get there and sort of hook something around. Youre going to be in court. Consumers arent going to get certainty. Marketplace isnt going to have certainty. For the third for fourth time, the lawyers will get rich. Mr. Dickerson, you and i are not lawyers. All we are going to do is get to pay the bill here. I prefer to get committee together, do what we do as a committee, find a Common Ground here, and thats why we started and with the 2010 order, we started with a lot of the work that the democrats frankly, had done in mr. Waxman. You go through section by section. Youll see that here. Then we just want to give pause to the market. I have overextended your time. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. Where do we go now . Woo go now to mr. Doyle who hopefully will be streamed on the internet on his version of his comments. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying im very concerned about the way in which this bill strips the f. C. C. Of its authority under section 706. And prevents the f. C. C. From giving new entrants being access to key infrastructure under title 2. The f. C. C. Needs access to every tool in its arsenal to promote and encourage the build out of advanced broadband infrastructure. Municipal broadband and new entrants in the marketplace like google fiper they are google fiber, they driving innovation by bringing much needed competition to the broadband market. These buildouts also create jobs across the country and often in areas where i. S. P. s have opted not to make the investment theirselves. I want to ask mr. Misener and mr. Dickerson, both of your Companies Offer innovative and high bandwidth applications. Mr. Misener i understand amazon has recently begun streaming in 4k. Are either of you concerned that the draft bill does not have any mention of interconnection particularly given how congestion at points of interconnection has recently been used to leverage payments from providers . Ill speak first. We are absolutely concerned that Internet Connection is not included. I agree with what mr. Misener said earlier. We think very much about our Customer Experience and their experience of the internet. Regardless of whether the choke point may happen up stream or in the last mile doesnt matter. So interconnection is very important to us. Mr. Mizer . I mr. Mizer . I chair that view. Where throttling or discrimination or paid pryor at thisization take place. Prioritization takes place. Where Net Neutrality is extended t could be done in congress, at the commission, mix of the few. And i would suggest consumers dont care. They want their Net Neutrality. Ms. Gonzalez . Thank you, congressman doyle. I think we should consider anything that impacts a consumers ability to access what they want to access on the internet. The decision discussion draft strips the f. C. C. Of authority to even investigate this issue. And thats very disconcerning. Would the gentleman just on that point. I dont believe our draft does that. As long as you give me all my time back. I dont believe our discussion draft does that. Would welcome that opportunity. On the interconnection piece, we believe that authority with the f. C. C. We dont do away with that here. Although its absent in the bill its still resident at the commission. That interconnection piece we felt was taken care of. We would be happy to have further discussion. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mice mr. Misener, there is the curve out for Specialized Services yet the f. C. C. Cant define what constitutes a Specialized Service. Can you see this language being used by an i. S. P. To sell preferred treatment tore advantaging one competitor over another or even they themselves proviggede Specialized Service that is unfairly compete in the marketplace . Absolutely. I think the lack of specificity in the language could allow for many applications that could be tantamount to discrimination. Yes. Mr. Mr. Isener. With rebect to affiliated content. The Network Provider itself could engage in Specialized Services which could look like paid prioritization which is a question of ownership. We are very concerned. I want to add on what ms. Eshoo was saying about we have read several news reports that Senior Executives from Major Companies that are represented by chairman powell and ms. Baker have made statements about title 2 which, mr. Chairman id like to enter into the record. The first is one that Comcast Charter and timewarner, all members of chairman powells organization, and i quote charter chief executive said that he added, so long as the federal Communication Commission weighed parts of title 2 that werent relevant, a step Net Neutrality advocates support, it would be an acceptable outcome. Similar statements made by comcast and timewarner cable. The chief Technology Officer of verizon sorry, sprint. A member of ms. Bakers organization. Sprint will continue to invest in Data Networks regardless of whether they are regulated by title 2, section 706 or some other like touch Regulatory Regime. The c. F. O. Of verizon said, i mean to be real clear, i mean this does not influence the way we investment. I mean we are going to continue to invest in our networks and platforms both in wireless and wire line fios where we need to so nothing will influence that. Id like to enter these three into the record. Without objection. I thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. We now turn to the gentleman yields back. We now turn to mr. Guthrie for five minutes. Wait a minute, mr. Barton is back. Sorry. I need to get reis recognized reconnected, mr. Chairman. Next is mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much, its a privilege to be here. Sorry on this committee we have so many subcommittees going on. With interesting testimony. I was out just a few minutes ago. I understand ms. Baker you mentioned bluegrass cellular which is in my district and we are very proud to have an interesting concept and successful rural airier. I understand you talked about issue spacing of small rural airiers. In the context of evaluating what constitutes Reasonable Network Management, how are congestion issues different for wireless networks, particularly in small rural airiers . Thats a carriers . Thats a great question. I did talk about bluegrass cellular. They are deeply concerned they have issued a letter in the record at the f. C. C. Im happy to offer it into the record here about their concerns for rural airiers. With no objection. There we go. As far as the technical capacity and Reasonable Network Management standard, we have to be very careful. Say million latta and chairman walden were watching the rehearsing the reliving the National Football championship and Ranking Memberwoman eshoo were tweeting and you were taking your email, if you were all on the same Service Provider you would be on the same cell. If we had a bunch of 16yearolds walk in doing a tour of what congress looks like thats a millisecond by millisecond management that has to happen by our carriers. Thats the same cell. Its constrained. One strand of fiber is the same capacity of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. There is an awful lot of Network Management that goes on. Its pretty much updated you are c. T. O. Of one of these smaller carriers, you were updating any things that can help you handle this data capacity. Just amazing upload. You could save 45 billion in the spectrum auction. Its no surprise because the data we use is increased by 730 . Is that the same as congestion issues and interference issues different . How . The data is increasing so the congestion is increasing. So we are all using more data. Its more and more congested. We have to manage our network more and more. What about interference issues . If we are all using the same, its raining outside, more people come on to our cell site then we have to manage it. We have to make sure that its optimized so that all of us have the best user experience. Thanks for mentioning bluegrass cellular, great business. Mr. Powell, i have a question. I know this issue was touched earlier. I wanted your input. The f. C. C. , do they need to act in february . Everybody wants the internet to remain open and vibrant . Is there some reason the f. C. C. Shouldnt wait and see if congress can enact a bipartisan bill . Its the decision of the commission and chairman. Thats the schedule he establishes. He has that authority under the statute. I do believe that the commission should always be respectful of the legislative process. And provide both the expertise it needs to make a decision. I also do respect they are separate and different authorities. They set their own time lines. When were you chairman in 2002, when Cable Modem Service is determined to be an Information Service, and comments of the f. C. C. The ncta indicated the record shows, increasingly sophisticated Broadband Services fall even more squarely within the definition of Information Service than ever before, unquote. Could you explain this from the perspective an understanding of technology that you had before you in 2002 to ncta comments expressed at the f. C. C. Last year . Ill try my best. Win tching to note the draft legislation as i understand it rather than disenfranchising the f. C. C. Of authority is classifying a service the same way this commission has classified that service for over 12 years, through both republican and democratic administrations, including most recently in 2010 by president obamas first chairman of the f. C. C. , who also agreed it was an Information Service. The commissions been operating under that definition for since the very beginning of broadband. That is not new. Its important to remember this isnt completely discretionary. Congress creates classes of service and defines them. It defines what a Telecom Service is and it defines what an Information Service is. When broadband first emerged, and i was privileged to see it come on to the scene when i was at the commission, there was an open question as to whether the nature of that new integrated Internet Service was either a Telecommunication Service or an Information Service under our precedent. It was our judgment that the factual characteristics, the nature of the service, the way that it was used was much more faithful to the definition that congress set out for Information Services than the one they set out for telephone services. That went all the way to the United States supreme court. Who agree with the commissions judgment. The commission now is proposing to try to reinterpret the facts and apply it to the other definition. Certainly the prerogative to try, but the facts are fundamentally the same as they were in 2002. And that will be a very serious source of litigation risk for the commission when it fundamentally changes its mind about the factual nature of the underlying service. The gentlemans time has expired. Well now go to mr. Welch for his five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. A couple of points and then a few questions. Number one, i thank you and the Ranking Member. This is an excellent hearing. Number two. We are way ahead of where we were last year. This draft bill does contain, i think real responses to the over three million comments that were offered to the f. C. C. So thats terrific. Third, i think the f. C. C. Itself, chairman wheeler, has been extremely responsive and i had confidence that he his experience in the industry as well as on the Public Sector side makes him someone who we can have confidence with respect to light touch regulation. Number four, this is the heart of it, whatever we do, my concern is for access to the internet and the cost. And three out of four americans this is especially true in Rural America, really only have one provider. So they have no competition in many parts of the country. This question of what do we do has been answered anirmively about trying to maintain affirmatively about trying to maintain Net Neutrality. There has been inject food it a major new issue which is new. And that is do we take away jurisdiction from the f. C. C. . And that is a fundamental question that requires an enormous amount of attention before we make a decision to go forward. Mr. Powell, i appreciate the point you made about uncertainty because if youre making big investment decisions, obviously knowing what the rules of the road are important to you, but the uncertainty goes both ways. If you have legislation, its very hard to change it. Lets be real. We know that. If you have regulatory policy its there and if its done right it can respond to issues. I want to go to a couple things will misener said because i appreciate how specific you were. In the legislation theres talk about Specialized Services without definition. Reasonable Network Management without definition in the legislation. Third, which parts of the broadband are protected by network connection. And under this legislation if there were a problem in any one of those three areas, who would resolve the dispute or provide the remedy to somebody adversely affected . Thank you mr. Welch. Its unclear. There is a direction in the bill to establish an add judetory process. Which sounds leist nice in practice but doesnt provide the certainty and detail that consumers seek. Who would resolve those issues . There is not a dispute here there is not a definition in our legislation. Its we could all anticipate there will be disputes. How will they be resolved . The first thing i think is important to note the commission under judicial precedent has the right and obligation to interpret the words of congress. What Specialized Services means or any other term would absolutely be been the commissions power to interpret and enforce as they understood it. Let me understand. Thats important to me what you said f there were a dispute, youre saying the f. C. C. Would have jurisdiction even though we are taking jurisdiction way from the f. C. C. In this legislation . The statute certainly the draft as i read it certainly contemplates the f. C. C. Enforcing the provisions this is serious. We know the questions coming. Lets say amazon had a dispute. Where would they gole to resolve it . Would they go to their legislator or they would complain to the federal Communication Commission, who as i understand is fully empowered to resolve that complaint under the provisions laid out by congress, as they do with every other client in their jurisdiction. Complaint in their jurisdiction. Thank you, mr. Powell. One other questions i have is most internet talk centers around happens around most of the open internet talk centers around over the last mile between the internet Service Provider and the end consumer. But arent there very real competitive concerns and potential consumer impacts that arise in the exchanges of data between the i. S. P. s and networks, too . How can we ensure under this legislation that the interconnection continues to happen for smaller competitive carriers in the telecommunication marketplace . That might be a better question for jim powell. We have been very focused on the mobile industry and technical parameters that are around the mobile industry and the competitive 235c9ors factors on the mobile industry. You mentioned competition and only one provider. In the mobile industry eight out of 10 americans have a choice of four or more providers. 94 have three or more. Its a very different issue. You may want to redirect your question. I think my times expired. Thank you. Yield back. The gentlemans time has expired. Id like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter to ms. Marlene h. Deutsch, secretary federal Communications Commission from various companies bluegrass cellular, and others. Without objection it will be entered into the record. Well now turn to the gentleman from texas, mr. Barton, for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Ive got to ask kind after General Information question. The gentleman at the end of the table down there, mr. Powell, i used to know a Michael Powell but his hair he had hair and his glasses reached perfection. My role model. Is this the same Michael Powell who used to be important used to be the chairman of the f. C. C. . The gentleman would yield, yes, thats the case. Hes reached perfection. I just wanted to make sure before i ask him a question. Mr. Powell, now that i know who you are, and im kidding, i wouldnt kid you if i didnt know you pretty well. But he is blushing, mr. Chairman. Let the record show. When you were chairman of the f. C. C. , did your commission give any thought to regulating the internet under title 2 . No. As i said this was a question of First Impression when the broadband was in essence invented. And that question was presented to the commission of how should it be properly classified under congressional law. So we did weigh whether to regulate it as a telecommunication provider under title 2 or whether to regulate it as an Information Services provider under title 1. The Commission Voted to do the latter. Are you aware of any academic or Industry Study that claims the internet is a natural monopoly . I am not aware i am not aware of any study. One of the most substantial decisions made by this body until 1996 when it passed the telecom act was to abandon that thesis the regulatory polcy, the markets are not natural monopolies they should be subject to Competitive Forces and it shouldnt be regulated as such. I think thats one of the things that concerns us about the historical use of title 2 built in and woven throughout that body of law is the assumption that the market is served most efficiently by a monopoly. A state sanctioned monopoly as at t once was for a very, very long time. Assuming, and i think its a correct assumption, that the internet is not a natural monopoly, that it is in fact, a competitive market given your knowledge both as your prior capacity as chairman of the f. C. C. And current capacity as an industry leader, do you view any participant on the provider base provider part of the market to have what would be called monopoly market power . No. Not during my tenure. And i disagree thats the case today. Well leave this hearing at this point as the u. S. House is about to start its legislative day. Members are scheduled to take up debate rules for a bill regarding natural gas pipeline construction permits. That measured will be considered later today. Another measure that would limit abortions to the first 20 weeks after conception. That will come to the floor tomorrow. The house is not scheduled to be in session on friday. Live coverage of the u. S. House here on cspan. While we have a quick second, we learned earlier today via the Associated Press that House Speaker john bane certificate inviting israeli Prime Minister netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress Next months about the threats from iran and radical islam. Also rebuffing Congress Call to delay new saxes against iran. Live to the house floor
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.