Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 20151103

Limit the floor procedure process. And you mentioned bill schuster. Heres a tweet that you sent out. Ive been waiting three years for this so here we go he tells the House Rules Committee. Why did it take so long to get to this . One of the major contentions behind the surface transportation reauthorization bill is the difficult funding situation and, again, we have a couple timetables in terms of the deadline on the highway bill. First of all, current authorization runs out november 20, so were trying to get a bill passed by thanksgiving. The Highway Trust Fund, which pays for projects and reimburses states for highway and transit projects across the nation has enough money stuff estimate there iss enough money to keep programs going through the end of december. The department of transportation put out an estimate that the money in the Highway Trust Fund could run through the end of the summer. However they note theres a potential shortfall in the trust fund around the end of november. So all eyes are on thanksgiving as a deadline to get this bill passed. Just to touch on the funding issue again, because the gas tax that funds highway and transit projects across the country has dwindled in value and theres not enough money in the Highway Trust Fund to pay for the level of spending that congress has authorized lala makers have engaged in process from the general fund since 2008. It looks like this is going to be the continued process on this bill, again, were looking at some 35 billion in a general Fund Transfer into the Highway Trust Fund to keep programs going for three years. House leaders envision a sixyear authorization bill but they only have three years of funding and that work was done by the senate. Theyre hoping some type of International Tax overhaul can bring in more money for the highway bill, but thats something that leaders are looking at for a later date, theyre relying on three years of funding in the senates bill and that will be the subject of much discussion this week in the house. You mentioned the rules Committee Meeting to talk about the amendments. What are the key ones . Youve already mentioned the gas tax. The exportimport bank. Also truck safety rules. Talk about a few of those. Mondays floor procedure is mostly transportationrelated amendments. Those truck safety provision, those are going to make get a little consideration but the major truck safety amendment to watch on floor procedure monday has to do with raising the allowable truck weight limit on interstates. Representative reed ribble of wisconsin has gotten support from democrats, Curt Schrader of colorado is also a sponsor on this amendment however Many Democrats say that Safety Advocates oppose this provision so so this is likely to be a contentious amt on tendment on floor. As for other types of payfors, that will be the subject of a rules Committee Hearing tuesday so tuesday evening theres going to be another rule that the house leadership puts out governing procedure on those provisions which, again, are included in the senates legislation which the house is combining with its own house policy. Kelie mejdrich reports for cq roll call. You can find her reporting at cq. Com. A new article house rushlgs le setting up the floor debate parts of the highway rule. Whats your twitter handle. Its kelmej. Ill be tweeting all day today. Thanks, kellie. Thanks a lot. The highway bill is on the house floor with members considering nearly 30 amendments. The house rules Committee Meeting on the remaining 270 plus amendments submitted to the bill, the committee hoping to fashion debate rules for house consideration of the remaining amendments. Live coverage on cspan 3 gets under way at 3 00 p. M. Eastern. Cspan presents landmark cases the book, a guide to our landmark cases series which explores 12 Supreme Court decisions, including marbury v. Madison, korematsu v. United states, brown v. Board of education, miranda v. Arizona and roe v. Wade. Landmark cases, the book, features introductions, background, highlights and the impact of each case. Written by veteran Supreme Court journalist tony mauro and published by cspan in cooperation with cq press, an imprint of Sage Publications incorporated. Its available for 8. 95 plus shipping. Get your copy at cspan. O cspan. Org landmarkcases. Voters go to the polls in a number of states selecting local officials and school board representative, among others. Up next, a Bipartisan Panel of texas legislators and officials discuss the hispanic vote in the 2016 and 2018 elections. Plus, a look at Voting Rights and voter turn out around the country. This took place at the Texas Tribune festival in austin. Good morning. My name is alexa, im a reporter with the Texas Tribune. Im happy to welcome you to the fifth annual Texas Tribune festival. Were happy youve decided to spend your saturday with us and that you are here at 8 30 for our panel on unlocking the hispanic vote. We have a great set of panelists to talk to you. Before i introduce them, a couple quick housekeeping things. We are going to be on here for about an hour. Well do 40 to 45 minutes of discussion on stage then well open it up to q a. There are two mics on either side of the room, ill give you the go ahead. Please have all your questions ready. Were excited to give you an opportunity to ask them. We dont ask you turn off your cell phones, we never will but please put them on vibrate. If you are going to tweet about this panel, the hashtag is ttf. Lets get started. To my left we have juan hernandez, one of the founders of the hispanic republicans of texas group which helps hispanic republicans run for office here in the state. He is a longtime political advisor to many, many folks including senator john mccain and his president ial race, visi vicente fox and president ial candidates in latin america. Next to him we have senator rodney ellis who has dubbed himself the honorary latino on this panel. [ laughter ] senator ellis is a state senator from houston where he was elected in 1990. He serves on the transportation and business and commerce commit ties. Before that he served several terms on the houston city council. Next to him is representative jason vialba, a republican from dallas where he was first elected in 2012. He serves on the business and industry and economic and Small Business development commit s the in the house. Next to him is state representative celia israel. Celia israel was elected in austin in 2014. I think shes had about four elections since then. She won a special election to replace mark strama in his previous district, now hers. She has a long history in texas politics, formally worked for former governor ann richards and she serves on the elections committee. Last but certainly not least we have secretary of state carlos cascos. He is the current secretary of state. He was one of Governor Abbots first appointments when he was elected. He was a former democrat from the rio valley before switching party to the republican side where he was elected county commissioner and later became the county judge before being appointed. Thank you for being here, we appreciate it. Weve done several iterations of this panel. Last year we did latinos in the gop leading into the 2014 Gubernatorial Elections but this year we have a president ial coming up. We have a very, very prouded fie crowded field. On the republican side, if you ask me a year ago if my first question would be about donald trump i would havent believed you. But here we are. So we have a very prouded republican field in which the frontrunner is at the front of the field despite some of this rhetoric weve heard of him calling saying mexico isnt sending its best to the u. S. , theyre rapist and drug dealers. Do the republicans on this panel struggle how do you look ahead to an election in which you can gain more hispanic support after a dismal turnout in the last election for the republican nominee . How do you reconcile those statements with support for whoever ends up being the leader of your party . Youre looking at me. Pass it on. Such a difficult question. And by the way, hes not only of national interest, hes of International Interest and ive been to several countries recently and people come up to me and say juan, i hope youre not supporting trump. Because it is insulting what he has said about hispanics, what he has said about women, what he has said about my family members, many i friends. But its also a phenomenon. An international one. We were talking about that in mexico. From out of nowhere appears a gentleman different in many respects to a trump but very similar in that hes offendive. Shes a showman and bronco wins the governorship of the state, some would argue the most powerful state in the nation of mexico, the most educated state, the state with the most finances and bronco beats the pri party for the first time in the history of mexico theres an independent governor. People it happened in costa rica last year. It happened in panama, outsiders won. This year we have a comedian winning in guatemala, jimmy morales. People are tired of politics as usual. And in this nation, republicans and democrats, i must say, if you look at the research, they love that there is a trump guy out there, swearing, kicking everybody and making things moving things around. But if you also look at the research and do not ask who would you vote for or do you like trump, et cetera, but show what trump stands for, what he believes in and americans are horrified i wouldnt vote for anyone like that. If you dont put a name to it. So the good something that though we end to vote with our emotions and not with our mind, thats also international, in this case we have a year, more than a year for his ideas to come forth and i think we will be missing him on panels very soon. I will say, alexa, there is a kwul churl connection that i will remind everyone of. When any of us were growing up or whenever our kids have a Birthday Party you buy a pinata. [ laughter ] and youre going to beat up on that pinata and its a celebration. The hotselling item in austin right now is a donald trump pinata. Beat away. So thats an indicator. As a democrat donald trump is the gift that keeps on giving. [ laughter ] look, donald trump gives voice to the frustration that exists in the party today. I think the people that are following him, the people that are most enthusiastic about him are those that juan mentions are disenfranchised from the current political system so hes one of these outsiders that we can attach ourselves to. That being said, his policies are just offensive. Theyre deeply troubling. I think any republican thats thoughtful about these issues, as a latino, as a hispanic, im hearing these commentaries and am horrified that someone who has risen to this level in our party, who is this close to being the nominee has even said those things, uttered those things. Thats very troubling. Ill think most republicans will have their summer flings with candidates while we are enjoying the process and entertainment of politics but i think as we go into thefall and as we go into the spring and begin to discern who our next president ial nominee will be, i think at that point we begin to winnow away the carnival barkers of the Republican Party. If you look at history, what we did last election cycle, we had people like Michele Bachmann and herman cain all had their moment in the sun. Its fun. Its interesting. Its entertaining. We love that. But in the end we nominate a somber, solemn individual who ultimately did not achieve what we had hope bud at least the american Republican Party, electorate, came together and said we need a seriousminded individual to be the next president of the united states. Also i would mention that trump is not a republican. If you look at the issues he cares about and the things he has espoused, he is clearly not a republican. Hes certainly not a conservative and people that have begun to gravitate towards him because hes conservative, they dont look at his record. This is a man whos wanted to continue the funding for planned parenthood. He has supported single payer universal obamacare style Government Health care. He has been a person who just went on the news this week and said that george w. Bush is the reason is we had 9 11, even though hed only been there for two months when that occurred. These are not orthodox positions in the Republican Party and for someone who espouse those positions and yet still maintain a pretty good sizable portion of the early polling suggest were flirting right now. Were not serious yet and once we get serious and sober after the summer of trump youll then begin to see remembers go that direction away from him towards somebody else. At the end of the day, he is running in the republican primary, but is there a Silver Lining to what you all have described as flirting with trump . Does it put more pressure, kenneth, on both sides to step up and defend hispanic voters and try to energize them . Is this something that will resonate . Will the candidate at the end cut through theize in and wi ii noise and does it benefit voters . It provides an alternative for people like jeb bush and marco rubio and even senator cruz to be that other. I think senator cruz is banking on the fact that trump will implode and the people that are think willing gravitate towards him but i think people like marco rubio who are articulate, fresh, new voices in the party and are also latino, hes cubano but hes still brown skinned and one of us. So i think that will resonate with people saying look, we have to broaden this tent, we have to be better about reaching hispanics. We saw the numbers in the last president ial cycle when romney got 32 of the hispanic vote nationwide. That wont cut it. George w. Bush was in the 40s. We have to get back up in the 40s if we have a chance again and the only candidates that can do that are those that are more thoughtful and open minded about these issues. Im not saying abandon our conservative principles and be open border amnesty but im saying we have to be much more thoughtful and engaged on this particular issue in order to attract the electorate were seeking to attract which is critically important for us to be victorious in the fall of next year. I want to talk our panel is called unlocking the hispanic vote and we know that texas voters in general but hispanics in particular do not turn out in the numbers that they represent in this state and i want to go back to last night during our opening one on one with Lieutenant Governor dan patrick. He was asked about voting in texas youre making that this easy, you know. And the Lieutenant Governor said he doesnt think texas needs to make it easier to vote. Im going to quote him. He said if people dont show up and vote, theyre either happy or dont care. Is there anyone on this panel that agrees to that approach when it comes to getting more hispanic voters out . Let me interject real quick. Hi, everybody. Good morning. No. I dont think that that should be the premise. What weve done, at least in my office, weve started to do weve been reaching out to campuses and theres a generational gap in voting right now and you have a lot of firsttime voters that are very cynical, they dont trust, and that seems to be the word that im getting. Not just from hispanics. Everybody across the board and i think to try to focus on how were going to get the hispanic vote is somewhat disingenuous. I think that my role as secretary of state is to get everybodys vote out regardless e. But i think its so great being nonpartisan and i just sit back and watch the carnival atmosphere. But you know i think if you go back to mr. Trump, i agree with the panel, hes not a republican, hes an independent, he may be a trumpicon, i dont know. But i think whats somewhat concerning, obviously, aside from the negativity and the rhetoric the fact theres actually a pofollowing out ther. That his message is resonating. With whom . I think its i look at like most of yall when youre watching, i look at whos in the background and whos there. I look at the ethnicity of the background and its predominantly what i can see is anglosaxon protestant type. Every once in a while you will see an africanamerican, an Asian American, a hispanic. But i think the concern is here at least in texas. And let me deviate a little bit. Everybody talks about the hispanic population and the proliferation of hispanics and how its growing and then you have an asian constituency as well thats growing and im speaking to first time voters, whether its tcu or acc, whatever it is, the growth of the hispanic population is i hate to say this, but its true its somewhat meaningless if we can not generate and excite and engage people to go out and vote. It doesnt matter how fast any particular segment is growing if we dont exercise that right to vote. But the message that came across from the College Campuses is that of trust. They dont trust elected officials and theres a reason for that and its ironic that if you Poll Congress as a body, the poll numbers are very, very low. The unfavorables are high, favorable low. But when you go to any particular Congressional District and poll that particular congress person, their numbers are much higher so theres something not resonating. So i have people that im trying to convince to vote go and they say well, we wont vote for the lesser of two evils. Well, then go out and vote and cast a blank ballot. Get that number registered because all votes do matter and regardless of where we are but as far as reiching out in the hispanic population, the Asian Americans, the africanamericans its incumbent on everybody here to make sure that those votes get out. Id like to speak as the only member on this panel who has had the ability to do something about the fact that we werent voting well. One of the ways we can do that is to change the laws. I was disappointed to hear dan patricks comments because i worked very, very hard to pass online Voter Registration, house law 76. It got a very late hearing despite having support from Senior Republicans on the floor. 76 coauthors and a very late hearing and then the hearing turned into a partisan attack to suggest that is if you pass this bill any republican colleagues would be in danger. My suggestion is texas is already in grave danger because only 34 of us bothered to vote last year. That should be a cause for alarm and concern to say what can we do . Can we do sameday reg administration . Can we do online Voter Registration . Theres mechanical things that are within our control and i ran head first against what turned out to be a cement wall but i will do it time and time again because we have to value the vote and do better than 34 stinking percent. I respectfully and very strongly disagree with the Lieutenant Governors comment. I think theres a tendency for us to forget how we got here. Officially in this country you had to be free, you had to be white, you had to be male and you had to own property in order to vote. And it took a while before people realized somethings wrong with that. [ laughter ] but for a while, in the beginning of our great democracy people thought that was okay one day ill get some property, maybe one day maybe i wont make it but you might be white. It took a while to get beyond that. I think theres a tendency for people in government to look at life through their prism, where they are. And if you won in a lowturnout election or a highturnout election you tend to be for or against those kinds of elections. We ought to change the way weve been doing stuff. I happen to be the author of the motor voter law. It was an accident. Gene green put the bill in. He never got a hearing. It was a Democratic Legislature back then in 1991. In the middle of the night i added his bill on as an amendment to a sunset bill to a transportation bill. I think, mr. Secretary, as a result of that bill ive registered more republicans than anybody else in the history of texas. [ laughter ] but back then republicans were against it. I think the lieutenant was responding with a knee jerk reaction to a question about californias new system of automatic registration. California did it . Oh, im against it. I hope well take a deep breath and it isback to think about it. I gave you an article when we were in the lounge earlier. In the 1960s, the hispanic vote, the slipping giant i think was the reference. This was 1965, 66. Ralph yarborough and the Catholic Church marched to increase the minimum wage, which was 1. 25 and the vote didnt come out. Black vote didnt either, might i add. We ought to change that and not keep doing stuff the way weve always done it. Everybodys spending all of this money, the limit red sources we have to try to register people to vote, you dont get enough then youre broke when its time to come for them to get out and vote. We ought to look at same day registration, technology lets us eliminate issues related to fraud and we ought to use technology to do that but we ought to not operate the same mentality our Founding Fathers operated under. If i could add that on the one hand, yes, we need to make it easier for people to vote in general. I love the use of technology, i think we should be able to register the same day. I agree. We should also make it attractive. One thing i dont agree, respectfully and most of you may disagree is that we put all of this blame on the voters and since we hispanics dont come out in vote how can we expect to change our nation . When we created the hispanic republicans of texas we decided lets go for candidates. Lets find young people and not young people, hispanics and invite them to run for office. Yes, as republicans but especially run for offers. If you want to run as a democrat but hispanics, run for office. And individuals like jason vie yall be that will represent us, that will go to the middle in many respects but that they will represent the community. If you find a good candidate, people come out and vote so i hope theres some that think about running for office. We need more people, good people running for office not saying home and just watching whats going on out there. And we need to cultivate hispanics that are flirting a little bit with running for office, make sure they get some money to get an education, know what it means to run an office and then you will get the candidates out there, theyre not that interesting to us as hispanics. They dont offer anything for us. So, yes, we should go out. We have more responsibility to vote even for no one but we have to be like celia israel who set up her campaign in her living room, touched every Single Person, made it clear to them she was interested in their lives and was able to pin. But its not just going to be by condemning hispanics for not running for office or africanamericans. Africanamericans came out for obama in incredible numbers. You get a george w. Bush in the state of texas and in historic numbers they come out and vote for him as republican. Finally we as hispanics do tend, it is true we tend to vote for the person much more than the issues, unfortunately, but definitely much more than the party. Let me make a i agree with juan. I fall prey to that sometimes because you get so frustrated as a candidate but what is so rewarding as a latina who knocked on so many doors, i was elected because it was a grassroots Oriented Campaign and being able to connect with someone at their front door. Whether it was an africanamerican voter and you could talk about their mom who was a teacher or a latino voter and you could talk about hey, were both from el paso, you make a connection and they know this is a woman 40 has the humility to say she wants my vote. That whether youre remember or democrat will weigh much more heavily with any latino voter. Polls show latino voters are neither left or right, theyre up for grabs, any of us who overlooks them overlooks them at our peril. I can pretty much i think you mentioned i used to be a democrat then a republican and i ran three times as democrat for county commissioner, three times for county judge as a republican in Cameron County and i think, juan, you kind of touched on it. Its up to the candidates versus the s. O. S. Office to generate that interest. And it is about the person and i think when you have a county like cameron thats overwhelmingly democrat, 65 , 70 democrat and i was able to win three times against strong democrats where the straight ticket vote in cameron is two and a half times that of the republicans so on election day im down eight or nine, ten thousand votes but i think its important to recognize that it is about the candidate and i think speaking nonpartisanly, theres a lot of good rs and ds that have great idea. Both have not so great ideas. Neither party has a monopoly on good government. Neither party has a monopoly on good ideas or bad ideas. Thats the message i did my door to door and standing on the Street Corner by myself with a sign to get that emphasis but in order for any candidate to get that vote and engage, they have to be able to connect. They have to connect with the voter because everybody votes based on a personal impact or issue. Whats important to them personally. And thats what i have found and if you can get that message to resonate. To me, my goal is not to get out the vote, i dont think thats my role. I think the role of that is the candidate, the individual parties, nonprofits, whomever it is, our role is to provide information, educate voters as best we can, is, make it information readily available, today is not like that 60s. You didnt have twitter and facebook and instagram. You didnt even have cell phones so its important that all of us here keep stay in our swimming lanes. What is it we want to do . Get the vote out. Make sure the hispanic vote gets out, the africanamerican vote gets out, the Asian American vote gets out. Everybody, thats the role. But you have to connect. How about reverse the question a little bit in texas. I think all of us ought to be embarrassed that we have such low voting participation. Particularly because there are only four states in the country that are predominantly minority, were the fourth. First is hawaii, second, new mexico, not a black thing, third is california, we are the fourth. Somethings wrong when our levels are so much lower but the real question i think ought to be have we done things in texas to make it more difficult for people to vote . Were already at the bottom, have we done things that make it more difficult . If people want to vote, i believe aside from the online and all that stuff, lets forget about that and go back. I dont know a whole lot of folks that have more than two weeks to vote. At different mobile voting sights, different locations throughout the Community Whether its a school, church, whatever. Were given two weeks so can you give . Absolutely. Will that increase Voter Participation . I dont know. But weve already got two weeks plus election day to go vote and i think when that was implemented it was like, you know, were going to get a bigger Voter Participation. Well today 50 of all votes cast during election are done during the early vote. At least in can rommeron, i hav seen the numbers go up significantly. Theyre about the same. Your voting ethic is going to stay the same. And the generational gap i spoke to a few minutes ago, there is a generational gap between first and secondtime voters and their parents. Theres a gap there and ive equated to this that if your parents were religious about going to church every saturday or sunday theres a strong likelihood youll go to church if they didnt, theres a strong likelihood youre not going go to church, you dont grow up in that environment. The same thing for voting. As a youngster coming up, if i saw my dad and mom going to vote every single election that kind of gives me the impetus to develop that voting ethic. But if i never saw my parents votes, they never talked about voting, im going to grow up that way. Its not important. So i think what were trying to do in our office is to reach out to those first and secondtime voters by going to College Campuses which weve done, speaking to 50, 60, 70 students. You take one vote at a time. Speaking to them and say, hey, if anybody wants to get anything done, go to the school system. If you want to do recycling, if you want to do whatever you want to do, if you take it to those kids in school, they take it home to their parents and this is what i want to do with voting. Get these young adults, first, second, third time potential voters to get them engaged and excited. Right now i think youre right. When you have somebody speaking negative and rhetoric and stuff without knowing all the facts about the impact that our mexican relations have with texas, you know, that its the economy somebody says its the economy, the same thing, so part of our message is to go out and get students engaged and ask them the hard question. Why is it youre not voting . I think its trust, cynicism and, youre right, they dont care. Let me defend Lieutenant Governor patrick for just a moment. I think what he was suggesting is that in texas today we have a situation where people vote and if they dont vote, its not because of some of these impediments that youre referring to, right . Like photo snid. Well, lets get to that. I want to touch on that point, too, but its because we dont have candidates that are truly interesting to the voter electorate. So hes just saying, look, we have eliminated most of these barriers. Weve eliminated poll taxes, property taxes. You have two weeks to vote in texas and on election day if youre not going to the polls its because youve chosen not to because youre disengaged or not interested in the candidates. I think thats a very real point hes making. I know senator would suggest there are existing impediments in place that cause that resistance but i dont think what thats whats driving the lack of voting participation in texas. I think whats driving it is two things. One, theres a fundamental issue where we have a very disparate population where you have very far right and very far left. The way the districts are drawn, youre either all republican or all democrat so we end up in texas which is a very solidly red state so if youre a democrat on a statewide basis, your know your primary vote wont be relevant because its going to be determined by republicans in their primary vote. If youre a remember you know youre going to win and your candidates are all relatively the same so why go out and vote . So that leaves a very distilled component of the Republican Party primary voter that happens to be of a more strident tone, more libertarian minded, further to the right. And that only create mrs. Impetus for folks not to vote because we elect these folks that are very conservative. Sometimes more conservative outside the mainstream and that alienates folks that would otherwise come to the polls. To touch on your argument that we have a voter identification law thats one of the strongest in the country, i believe as a republican and i think most republicans would agree that we have to balance the need to bring people to the polls with the concern about fraud. And the mantra from the other side is there is no fraud, theres never been a lawsuit, theres never been a case. Well, i served on the Citizens Election Advisory Committee in Dallas County and from one polling station we had two volumes of things that went awry on voting day that related to fraud. So we do have an issue with fraud in texas. There is a concern about that. Voter identification is meant to make sure that the ballot is delivered in a way that is an adherence to the existing rule of law. Its not asking for much. Having a voter identification you need that to run a car and get on an airplane or get a tattoo. Why not to exercise the franchise . I dont think its asking too much. I know the courts have suggested recently that our law needs to be addressed. They didnt say it was unconstitutional as many would argue. They just said the way its drawn it needs to be revised to expand the ways the numbers of identification, the types of identification. Like a student i. D. Of course, theres no effort to do any of that. But i think there will be. Were running out of time so i want to get one more question in but i want to give you a chance to respond. Its clearly a modern day poll tax and i think that opinion is well worth reading. The real issue is if people honestly believed it was an issue, why wouldnt texas do things like oregon and california did to do automatic registration . Why wouldnt we simply put more of it online . Why wouldnt we show online in an easy transparent way who voted and who didnt vote . I wouldnt go as far as other south american countries do so that if you dont vote you pay a 1 penalty. It encourages more people to turn out. If you honestly believe in a democracy and i think all of douse democracies work better when a maximum number of people participate. It may mean some of us wont win, but thats okay. I see it from both sides. When Jesse Jackson ran, there were a lot of people were starting their career like me who were worried. That was a high turnout, would i make it . But thats not the way we ought to look at it. We ought to look at the model oregon and california have done. We ought to look at other things that may be unique to texas to encourage more people to participate. We ought to be embarrassed so few people are participating. We talked about 2016 but i want to talk about 2018 because we know that latinos and minorities turn out in much bigger numbers in the president ial year and then we have a Gubernatorial Election and turnout is terrible. Looking back at 2014, Governor Abbot won a big portion of the latino vote but it was a very low voter turnout election. Is what is it going to take to get latinos out to vote in 2018 and any nonpresident ial year . Is it going to Julian Castro . How can we get hispanics to vote when its not a president ial year . I think it takes all hands on deck. Its not just its bottom line its connection to the voters. Hillary shows very well in san antonio this week when they said im with hillary she said yo soy tu hillary. She made that connection. She has a history in texas of being here and people remember that. But we have younger 33 of the latino vote in texas is between the ages of 18 and 29. It doesnt matter if theyre latino or any other race or ethnicity, that segment is always the hardest and the leading indicator of whether or not theyll vote. So it means reaching out and connecting in a culture way, in a personal way whether were at the hillary level or whether were at the celia level so i put the burden on all of us on the ballot and putting campaigns and resources together to not overlook the latino vote. Ive been involved in so many campaigns where we only have so much money, okay, well, whats our target universe . 50 and over . Everybody else, youre on your own. So its been a selffulfilling prophecy that if latinos are not voting, we havent been asking them, we havent been spending resources on them. So what happens were getting to such a dem goosk poiographic po you have to spend the resources and we will be thoughtful about doing that and connecting with them as personally as possible. We were at an event last night and the comment was made its to you all, its going to take more than hispanics. Its going to take money, is its going to take strong candidates and some anchor. With all due respect to donald trump, i think hes going to bring some hispanic votes out. Im not sure that the conventional wisdom would have been it would have been Hillary Clinton and bush. I dont know if that will happen now. Ive been saying it for the longest but this is a little different from when my brother 999 was running. That was flybynight operation. He didnt have the resources that you have on the other side. May your words not be prophetic. Please. [ laughter ] in california they did something unique. Strong hispanic population, happens to be a Democratic State now but the top two vote getters had to run. My initial reaction would be against that because i dont want to have to run just for the heck of it. But if that helps bring more people out, thats a new experiment. So the way our districts have be gerrymandered. They were trying to help me, itsminority. They said why are you complaining . Your district is 98 minority. My response was i dont want to go to the senate floor talking to my damn self. [ laughter ] but if you have two people having to run every time that might force but you cannot underestimate the significance of money. You cant knock on every door with 27 Million People in texas. You are in houston, airs county, dallas, the bigger the district, the more significant money becomes and what w that court ruling, even in a nonpartisan oney get to gon a nonpartisan have an inordinate amount of influence. 2018. We must by then have passed a comprehensive Immigration Reform. Weather it be a democrat or a republican and we can no longer be asking hispanics to participate when, on the one hand, some of the remember candidates, some democrats, too, are insulting the new americans, insulting our family members and asking for their votes or with their vocabularily insulting by saying i will pass Immigration Reform in my first 100 days, in my first year and then not putting the Political Capital into passing Immigration Reform. So both parties have failed this core group. And people say hispanics, theyre interested, polls show theyre interested in jobs and the economy and education just like the rest of us. Were all the same. Nonsense, of course were interested in those. Very, very important issues. But the filter is mi familia. How are you treating those who are the new americans . The new immigrants . So democrats get together and spend your capital instead of telling me youre going to do it because we do remember. And the last Immigration Reform was passed by a republican. Or republicans get your act together and pass it and we will have all kinds of wonderful relationships with the hispanics. Let me go back to juans earlier point. He mentions how do we get voters out . We give them interesting candidates in 2018 i think youre looking at two that can be interesting. One, george p. Bush truly a hispanic even though his last name is bush. But someone else thats even more interesting. This is a person that is doing this over the course of the last few years and she is simply, i think, the future of the party and that is thank you. Oh [ laughter ] eva guzman. Eva guzman, the Supreme Court justice. Shes has a fascinating story. Lati latina, comes from the mexicano community. She has shes articulate, smart, she says the right things. Shes very conservative so she identifies with conservatives but is a true blue latina i should say true red. I think you put someone like those two individuals at the top of the ticket governor, lieutenant, not that theyll run against the current, but if there were openings, i think in that instance you do galvanize the young hispanic vote, you galvanize people who have never voted before to say this person is interesting to me. This person shares my heritage, this person shares my identity and im going to get out there, much like obama did for the Africanamerican Community. Now, the Africanamerican Community historically has voted very strongly but when obama came on the scene, my goodness the numbers expanded because he was a person that the Africanamerican Community could identify with, be proud of and really energize them. We need our obama. We need a hispanic obama. A hispanic obama. I want to make a point that issues do matter. With all due respect to your party, you can run someone that looks like me but if they dont speak to issues that matter to people, you dont have hispanic candidate to speak to issues that matter, to latinos, in my judgment, you wont get the vote. And today people tend to vote their interest. Well, your idea of what resonates with the Hispanic Community might be different than my idea. I believe in selfreliance and making sure we have got a goode cosystem, economic ecosystem to create more highpaying jobs. You might say we need universal health care. I disagree with that, you disagree with what i say but thats the debate we would have but we dont the voice to give voice to that argument. I think it puts us on the same wavelength. What im saying is regardless of someones ethnicity, color gender, orientation, by and large at the end of the day, early on in terms of entertainment i like trump, as an example. By at the end of the day when the issues are clear people vote on issues they think matter. I guess my point is an elderly anglo individual would not likely have the kind of credibility in the Latino Community as a young lat knina female. Theyre just given more credibility and may listen to the message and the message once we get to that point does resonate. But unless we have the voice to give that message its a nonstarter. So if its someone from a Given Community that speaks to issues that riz nate with that community. I think we agree. Honorary latino. I think its important to know we may be focusing too much on the messenger. And not the message and i think me running in cameron as a republican it was someone unique. It was because there was a message there. As i prefaced earlier in our discussion. I think theres validity to it, but all of yall are saying that particular voter, you have to resonate with that candidate. You dont have to be an hispanic or africanamerican to generate and promote a good message that will resonate with the voter. Is it possible for an africanamerican to win in a hispanic neighborhood . If the message resonates, i think it is. Dallasfort worth. Right. And can a hispanic win in an anglo environment in . If its the message, yes. I think it goes to how youre going to resonate that message. You have a remember winning three times in Cameron County, in a county 75 plus democrat. Three times. So the message resonated. Hispanic, yes, cameron. But you know fortunately or unfortunately the way the politics and partisanship is, that outweighs the ethnicity of a candidate. I wish everybody would just run at large. Theres no party affiliation, you kind of run based on principle, based on message. Because what im hearing from people is that i dont want to be want to be identified as who i am by who i vote for. Because its very fluid. One day youre going to vote for a democrat. One day republican. Back and forth on a ballot. Not every Single Person on the d side may or may not be good. Not everybody on the r side may or may not be good. But what youre seeing, at least in cameron, is people are deliberately choosing who they want to vote for. And to me, thats because the candidate actually resonated and connected with all walks of life in that particular county. Would you agree the money they knew you, and im assuming you didnt change much. Youre the person they knew. Yeah, but i didnt have a lot of money. Its hard to raise money in that environment. But the credibility. Well, you kind of do other things. Candidates do what theyve got to do to win. I would stand on Street Corners by myself with a shine. I got a lot of onefinger howdies and all kinds of stuff. It goes back to connecting with that doortodoor i knock on a lot of doors, too. Unfortunately, money does generate. You cannot knock on 10 million households or 3 million households if youre running statewide. But now with social media, thats basically free, youve got to look at the Hispanic Community. How many within the Hispanic Community that are of voting age have access to internet in some of the rural areas, have access to facebook, you know, have access to what they call latais in spanish, how many of them have that access . I think when i saw senator rodriguez, el paso i think is the one. I work a driver responsibility program. We knocked, i dont know, i think i read close to half a Million People. Thats the easiest way. I was walking last night. I didnt have my i. D. Im in austin. I dont know if id do it if i was in dallas. But all the things we could do, using technology, using the law to make it easy. Are we all a little embarrassed when we say hey, texas, you at the bottom on voting. Id like to say in, but im kind of embarrassed. Theres a mandate. I think there is some theres a lot of concern. And yes, its embarrassing. But again, my compliments to the legislature and trying to continue to outreach to the voting constituency by trying to make it somewhat easier, trying to facilitate. But again, youve got second or third world countries, that their Voter Participation is much higher and theyre only voting one day. And so here we give folks the opportunity to vote for two weeks plus election day plus all kinds of locations. And yet we just cant seem to do that. I think it goes back to what we talked about early on. I think were all going to agree on one thing. Its up to the candidate to really get that message out. Theyve got to appeal to the constituency. Theyve got to be attractive. And its not just the messenger. Its the message. I think were going to open it to q a from the audience. Were running a little bit out of time. But go ahead. I just witnessed on a local level our School District is primarily hispanic. And weve never had a Hispanic School board. And what ive seen repeatedly is wonderful hispanic candidates running and being crushed. They get the message out. But theyre still crushed. Because what we have is a voting machine of caucasians that are holding the power. So im still here wondering, what does it take . To me, its not about the candidate. Ive seen it happen locally. Excellent candidates. Excellent messages. But theyre being crushed. So i still have the question. To me, the question is, are we ready to share the power . Thats an excellent question. And i think you can have an outstanding latino or latina who has a wonderful record in the community. And if they dont have the campaign resources, ie a budget to reach out and do three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten mailers, tv ads, other social media types of advertising to run a robust aggressive campaign, to reach beyond the anglo 50 and over, it costs money. Ive raised the money. Ive worked through this with my staff. When you only have so much money, you go with the high propensity voter. So its going to change over time. But you have to have the complete package. You have to have experience. You have to have a good candidate. And you have to have the resources to say im not going to go with the baby universe, im going to go with the robust universe so that i can get more turnout. And in my mind, in my experience, its come down to money. My question has to do with early voting. This is something that maybe the elected officials up there have learned since they got elected. If you can handle something administratively, rather than trying to pass a bill one way or the other, its a lot easier than getting something done. But we are talking about getting people out to vote. And we have early vote. Is there a way to ensure that there are two saturdays or two weekends in that period to where everybody can come out to vote . The issue seems to be that theyve politicized the elections. When one party sees theres a certain technique of voting like early voting thats bringing in a lot of numbers for the other party, youre going to want to mess with that and reduce the amount of time, reduce the amount of i guess any kind of exposure you have to losing votes. So to our secretary of state, is that something we can do to ensure that there are weekends . Last time there was a weekend cut off and its like theres only one saturday. My polling is the other direction. And i have to vote early. If you limit the number of days, youre, in fact, impacting the election. Well, let me just briefly talk you know, i think if i remember my county judge days, county Commission Sets those locations and times. There is some mandatory times. But i think that would be up to the local commission, to open it up. It comes down to money. Theres limited resources. Theres no romance in it. Its just an election department. Its like having an i. T. Department. I think you need to go down to the local counties and emphasize that with them to have them open it up. In cameron, it was only a discussion of where are you going to have those locations . Got to have them within the precinct. Within the center of the county. A Catholic School on the east side of brownsville because thats where the majority of democrats are, at least in cameron thats where theyre all at. Even at that level, it becomes very politicized. You reach out and let them know. A lot of these polling locations are open until 7 00. Its on the local level then. Politics is local. These local levels, its what transcends into state and federal politics. Thats the way it is. If you want to vote for a state official, its that county Elections Office that is running that election. Coupled with, you know, county Commission Races or county judge or district clerk or whatever. Id be in favor of guaranteed two saturdays. I think historically weve had two saturdays. This year was unique and i think we cut one off. It makes perfect sense to me. One less limitation. Will you be cosponsoring it next session . Im in. You know, look. We wouldnt be having this discussion. Its just really sad that weve come full circle, and now states can make those changes because they decide to do it on a political whim. Most people dont give up power willingly. Youve got to run. Ive been in this game long enough, im more interested in my legacy than winning the next election. The real tragedy is most of these decisions end up being made by people. I hope in the next congress, they can find a way to do what democrats and republicans historically have done, realize the significance of lbj and Martin Luther king in the Voting Rights act. What format and language . English and spanish. That hasnt seemed to be successful. What other ideas do you think will be more successful to the hispanic audience . You know, i want to go back. I still think its up to if candidates themselves that are running. Our role is to provide the education and languages that are prevalent. Provide that information thats readily online. We really started getting aggressive with our facebook page. Is there more . Absolutely. If were looking at circulatory things, his staff was in support of well, couldnt say they were in support of, but they said we can do this, online Voter Registration. The latino vote, they are young. I dont know any person in that age who has a book of stamps in their purse. So theyre not going to fill out a piece of paper and mail it in. We go back to structural things. So for a young mobile voter who moved here from l. A. Or from Harris County to south austin, they wake up in the middle of early voting and say damn, i didnt change my Voter Registration. These are small, simple barriers that we can overcome. When we have a Lieutenant Governor who suggests that we cant overcome them, we are doing a disservice to the american heroes who took the hoses and the dogs of bull connor and who gave up their life for the right to vote. Im sure they might be able to stay around after. Im sorry. Go ahead. I teach Young College students about American Government and texas government. They dont trust the system. Most fundamentally, i think a lot of them believe their vote doesnt matter at all and that money controls the entire political system. So my question to you is how do you really address the issues of young people and particularly i mean, which is mostly young hispanics. That they fundamentally are alienated from the system, and i mean, how about Public Financing of elections so that they would actually feel that their vote matters . Youre absolutely right. And thank you for your public service. I asked the question of the student body. Who did not vote . Half did not vote for various reasons. So give me a reason. The number one reason was that of trust. I think you go back to the candidate youve got to engage these young adults. Public finance, thats above my pay grade. But im thinking that we have to engage. So the question was, okay, you dont trust anything and everything. So that means youre going to not vote simply because you dont trust. Thats why i indicated to this student, cast a blank ballot. Ifr vote does count. If im there and theres 200 blank ballots, that means theres 200 people out there that took the time to go vote, but they were so disenfranchised with all the candidates that they didnt bother to cast a vote for any particular individual. Its going to take people like yourself to convey that message. At the end of the day, its up to the candidate as an individual to regain that trust. Its not so much the messenger, but its a message. Or maybe its a combination of the two. Thank you to everyone for coming by. Revolt, revolt. I want to know i heard both of you speak to how low turnout is related to voter disinterest. Principally because of the way that you district according to the Voting Rights act. So youre only adding power to minority districts. So in the general election, we know its going to be so the real election is all about the primary. Because of this specific issue, would you support repealing the Voting Rights act to remedy that aspect of the politics . I think this is the principal reason, the vogt rights act paradoxically may be the reason why we have uncompetitive elections in this country. Well, i think you read it the right way. The Voting Rights act is the principal reason that we have diversity in american politics. Under the old system and slick schemes. You run in a Congressional District. That would mean by todays numbers, you represent a district of 220,000. You would run in a congressional seat of 650,000. So this system was designed so people could stay in power. In old days, my predecessors, and the state senate, they had to fight with their democratic counterparts because in the old days, they would try to crack the latino and africanamerican voter. You want some, but not too many. And then, in this generation, i have to argue respectfully but stronger with my colleagues, may want to pack it. And they say oh, no. It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with party. I would say the blacks and hispanics have a right to decide which party they want to vote in, just like everybody else. They want to go pack it in there. It really is a distinction. Weve gotten to where we are because of the Voting Rights act. But you couldnt go make changes without some independent entity, looking at it and saying does it disenfranchise a Certain Group . And thats a tough thing to do. In part is the chief liaison with members of the legislature. When youre in that position, you represent the governor. Whether its a democrat or republican. I think we ought to try to take some of the partisanship out of the electoral process. The voter registrars, the appraisal folks on the local level. I think our responsibility ought to be more than to just hand them the elections. We ought to be figuring out a way to make it as easy for people to participate. Why not have open discussion . In brazil, you get like a parking ticket. You pay a buck if you dont vote. I just think thats structural things we could do. Even when you had contested primaries, texas was still at the bottom. In my district, we are 97 anglo. Im hispanic with an unpronounceable last name. And yet i was able to win. I dont think race should have an impact on whether or not we the bipartisanship that youre referring to, right . Merely because we have communities that need to be represented. Shouldnt be scrapped because you have a perception that those individuals vote enbloc for one side or the other. If youre a good candidate and hispanic, you can win in an anglo district. I would not be in favor of that. Thank you very much for our panelists for being here today. Thank you. Coming up in about an hour from now, the House Rules Committee will gather to consider hundreds of potential amendments to a sixyear highway and transportation funding bill. That legislation is currently being debated on the house floor, and the rules committee has to decide how many more amendments will be debated tomorrow. You can see that meeting live starting at 3 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. And coming up tomorrow, the House Foreign Affairs committee will hold a hearing on russian relations with syria. Assistant secretaries of state Anne Patterson and victoria newelen will testify. You can watch that hearing live tomorrow starting at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, also right here on cspan3. I thought, there is only one person about whom i would write if i were to write a second biography. Of course, i did write that book. I thought, im going to be standing next to the president , speaking to 3,500 of the most important people in the world in this room here in d. C. Who knows how ill feel in the moment. I dont know. So i had the idea that i might do that. I thought maybe ill give him the books later. But if i feel the chutzpah in the moment to be able to pull off the goofiness, ill do it. This sunday night on q a, eric metaksis on his writing career, his crossover between religion and politics. I think its important to take politics seriously and at least to vote, but never to make what we christians would call an idol of politics there. Are people that have done that and theyre sort of worshipping at that theyre worshipping that idol rather than the god who would cause them to care for the poor and injustices. And i think thats a fine line. Its something i talk about fairly often. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern and pacific on cspans q a. Coming up next, remarks from s. E. C. Commissioners Michael Oreilly and minion clyburn, as they discuss internet privacy and other regulatory issues. They spoke recently at the Technology Policy institutes annual aspen forum. Its about 45 minutes. So lets just jump right into it. I want to start with a bit of a thought experiment. Whether youre talking about over the top video or high speed fiber. So i guess we spent a lot of time talking about those, but also about how to protect and manage legacy systems. I guess the question for you to start is if you could looking at how the Competitive Landscape looks like right now, if you could redesign the s. E. C. From the ground up, what would that look like . What would your priorities be . How would you allocate resources . What would you want to what kind of interest would you be hoping to promote . Maybe commissioner riley, ill start with you. Good morning, everyone. Im from the south, so we always say good morning. And thank you for the opportunity. So im going to redesign because its what i do kind of take a liberal interpretation, not because im a liberal necessarily. To your question, because i think part of the benefits that were realizing right now is because of legacy regulation and platform. Were learning platforms. Were learning. So i would not be an advocate of redesigning. I am always advocate of being nimble and forward thinking when it comes to policies and the things that weve learned in this space. So, when you hear me speak and take positions, you know, particularly with the notices, you talk about over the top in our quest to seek whether or not things should be redefined and the like, looking at the landscape ever changing, i think its important for us to always keep in mind those four pillars that we speak about in Communications Act and how its applicable to these spaces. We want competition. We want choice. We want consumer protections. We want all of those things. How do we achieve that in the different in the different media or telecommunications flat forms . I think thats the most Important Foundation for me. So i am advocate of having a diversity in voices. I am advocate in diversity in terms of choices. Thats what you see me doing based again on the experiences on the things we learned. Respecting legacy platforms but knowing that all of these things need to be complimentary as we approach regulatory our regulatory posturing. To you the fcc is mainly an agency that is trying to promote choice for people. And we learn from both the things that weve done right and those things that we have misstepped and i think thats why im not necessarily proponent of, you know, starting over. But again learning and grasping and growing from those experiences. Commissioner riley, what is the fcc for . Thank you for having me and please continue to eat. But, i think i would start by saying im not one of those people and there is a debate that has been long standing we should get rid of the fcc. I still think theres value in having an fcc. Your question is what would it look like Going Forward in my Perfect Vision in i dont know that i want to go through every component. Video is a very good place to start. I would spend considerable amount of time removing legacy regulations. You saw dinner last night from what google is able to do on youtube, what a number of over the top providers are able to do today, all thats being done without the fcc. Then you think about the regulations that we put on current providers and the burdens that come from consumers, that cost is going to consumers in one form or another. I would remove a number of those barriers rather than i articulated saying well have an item later this year. I have very little interest in capturing those companies that will trying to provide over the top into title 6. If i were still in Congress Working for members, i would be very interested in spending time on title 6 because i think its outdated and has a lot of work to catch up to our modern video marketplace. So, just to touch on another agency thats been in the news lately, the federal trade commission recently released a set of guidelines sort of defining more clearly what it means by competition. Are there certain authorities at the fcc that you think would benefit from a similar kind of clarification . We talk a lot about Getting Congress to update just what the fccs authorities are, but are there things that the fcc can do itself to clarify what if any would be sort of authorities of the fcc . We could have a number of things to eat up to do just that. We are always reinventing ourselves and i think thats a positive. And i would take slight i dont want to say issue but exception so early to issue. You know, to what you say because, yes, we talked about and we see the magic of youtube and other similarly situated evolutionary technologies, and i think that is in part because of our regulatory continually regulatory our ability to reinvent ourselves. And i think its in part because of the fccs willingness to be forward thinking. We dont live in vacuums. And so, you know, a pebble, an fcc pebble in the water has a Ripple Effect Going Forward. So i think all of these things are influenced, complimentary. Sometimes they kind of rub against the norm and i think all of those things are positive. We are doing that. Again, various decisions that you will hear about over the course of the next few months and well continue to do so. I still dont think that the providers that are providing over the top today have benefitted from the fcc. Theyve been fitted from not having fcc. Thats a wonderful thing. I also dont know and maybe i might disagree that we are forwardlooking agency. I would like to hope we are but i dont believe we are at the current structure and the current decisions we make. But, so im a little troubled on that side and may disagree, but were very good friends. Thats fine. Most days. Provide a lively discussion. So, i just think that theres a great deal of things that the commission can do to provide more clarity in a number of different areas. The difficulty is that every time that we provide take neutrality for example. We spend a great deal of time on that issue yesterday. We opened up great swaths of area and just said, this is called a catchall. Go do what you want. That is not any clarity for industry to try to figure out how theyre supposed to operate Going Forward. Every time we try to provide some clarity, at the same time we seem to open up unknowns and companies have no idea how to operate within our structure. We talked about yesterday the enforcement guidelines and how i personally believe they will be useful or harmful Going Forward. No one knows what that process will be. It is whatever the agency, the burr rue feels at that given moment. Thats not the clarity that we need to offer services in our current environment. So one of the things that i see in anything we do particularly in a regulatory space, is you have a quest for clarity and perfection. Getting there oftentimes is bumpy and uncomfortable. But not allowing if you travel around the world, you will see different regulatory frame works that do not allow for the engagement in which we do. So, democracy, robust engagement, notices and further notices all of those things can be regulartively uncomfortable, relatively messy, ill go on record the and you can quote me on that. But its a framework which is inclusive and that in and of itself to me is worth all of the imperfections that we speak about. And it doesnt lock, you know, every incumbents or new entrance into a new paradigm. I think in and of itself, that is a price worth paying for any type of discomfort or bumps along the road that we may be realizing. So i take what you say in terms of our i think our quest for continual information flow and i believe the capacity to keep learning and doing better again its going to be imperfect. And well just keep working towards a perfect until we get it as close to right as possible. I dont want to get it 100 right because i think that would lead to stagnation. Being stagnant. A little friction, a continual friction i think is a positive. Most of you in this room are here as a result of a little friction and less stagnation. I dont think we have to worry about ever getting close to perfect at the fcc. Point taken. I think we have plenty of room to provide as much friction and provided a lot of opportunity people in washington to make a lot of money. God bless them. Im for making money. Switching gears from friction to cooperation something you both have worked on is giving rate of return carriers the ability to collect universal Service Funds for stand alone broad band. Are we still on track for a mechanism for that by the end of the year . Can you give an update on that . Yes. My colleagues and i are trying to provide a mechanism that would address the issue of stand alone broad band for rate of return carriers. We would like to do that by the end of the year. But its more important to get it right. Were trying to do that in collaborative way working with all interested parties not trying to force the answer on any particular company or association. Were trying to figure out the best way we can do that with sound principles behind it. But i have approached this, too, saying this is an important task. But my real concern is, you know, most of these providers are offering these services. The question is should they get subsidies and thats something we would like to answer. Until we can answer these questions, we cant deal with other issues because its front and center. The areas that the concerns that i have most are those areas in america that have no Service Today or just dialup or something really poor. Ive traveled around the country and seen and talked to people about how bad their service is and trying to figure out how can we get we cant address that until we can solve this issue. It is a very important issue and i think were doing a good job. We have similar thoughts on this. So were doing the hard work thats needed to try to find a solution, but i really want to solve it and move on to the bigger, more difficult questions Going Forward. And this is i want to give credit where credit is due. You often hear and see us disagree on key issues. On this one, were working collaboratively and were looking at the rate of return carriers. Were looking at making the universal service fund as a whole more efficient. Getting rid of any waste fraud and abuse that exists. One of the things that was striking to me, you know, leading when you look at where subsidies are going and as my colleague said, not going. Subsidies for years were going to maintain, support for disney world. Disney world. A lot of need for subsidies there, right . And so we need to really look at our framework and recalibrate it so the moneys are flowing where needed. That where haircuts and other clips that need to be made are made. Because this fund was set up to bridge communication gaps. Not to maintain either gold plated or platinum plated systems. Im just going to put it out there. So this is what we are working this is where i might have a little harder edge than my colleague and i will be the first to say that sometimes i go a little further than he would verbally speaking. But im very passionate about when i go home to south carolina, the common refrain particularly in rural areas is we need broad band in order to thrive. The money is not flowing there but the money is flowing at disney world. Got a problem with that. I really do. So lets talk now about another program, lifeline. And commissioner oreilly floated a cap on lifeline spending at current rates i think the figure is 1. 6 billion. But commissioner, clyburn, you said before, what you would really like to see is you described it as disciplining program expenditures. The question to you is in how much in savings are there before you have to think about disciplining with the cap . Well, what has not been said enough in this space is how much money weve saved since the reforms in 2012. We saved 2. 75 billion in lifeline alone because of the reforms already in place. I dont see any exposes about that. But this is one of those areas where i think we have maybe the same overarching goal but different ways of getting there. So youre going to see a little bit of debate. If you came here for that, youre going to see a little bit in a second. And so, i was not a proponent of setting a cap at this point in time in a program because the cap that was proposed, you mentioned the 1. 6 billion, this is a 30year old program. And to establish a cap that just looks at one year or one snapshot in time that would in essence foreclose the opportunities for 60 of those eligible was not something that i was willing to sign up for. What i was what i did sign up for is i was asking the questions of what it should be. So, this is a program that has been stuck in a 30year time warp. It has not been modernized for the information age. I am passionate about what tools do we have in our arsenal to close the digital and communications divide . I think a recalibrated, rebooted program and i jokingly say the program formerly known soon to be formerly known as lifeline, i think we should sunset the Current Program and reestablish what i propose to call i bridge now which would be just what it sounds like. An Information Technology driven bridge to the future which would allow which will enable those who are temporarily down on the economically down on their luck to have an opportunity to have a monetary assistance to help them bridge their communications challenges. I dont know if you saw a program the news last night where there was this lady that would have brought you to tears that just picked up a computer for her 16yearold a refurbished commuter and she said i couldnt have afforded i cannot convey to you how moving that exchange was with that reporter. She could not afford to provide her 16yearold with an information, with the current tools needed. There are millions in this country who do not have the ability to connect. And i think a rebooted, you know, program that will allow all of those eligible to sign on is one in which i would endorse. I would say that i, we have a lot of commonality in this issue, all of universal services, it starts from a point, when i came in, there was already, you know, down the tracks, so its not something i would have designed exactly how we are, but we are where we are. And i would have preferred, and appreciate the commissioners comments in terms of rebooting, i would prefer we fix a number of things on fraud, waste and abuse. The commissioner talks about savings that weve been able to john rate, but that shows you how out of whack we were. If your reductions in spending is 2. 75 billion, it tells you how outofbounds you were. Im supportive of that, but weve got more work to do on that space. So i am for a Lifeline Program or whatever we want to call it. Im for appreciate the support for ibridge. Im willing to trade that for a cap, if you want. The right cap, well talk. I originally started with it, i think a cap is important. I also was willing to be flexible. And i went to what i was call ago hard budget. This is the one piece that doesnt have a budget. Hopefully we can find common ground. Im open to what that number is. I started with a place, but we can figure out how best to get to home. Because its something i generally would like to see us find a 5 0 scenario, but there are things we have to do to improve this program Going Forward, and hopefully well be able to do that. And to put another point on this, i am for continual reforms. I put a fivestep, i think, blueprint to do this. I just happen to be of the mind that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. That we can improve a pathway of provisioning services. People cannot wait for con activity. That 16 year old, if she had to wait would have graduated without the tools she needed. I dont want another person similarly situated if this will make a difference for them to be connected for them to be without. So, again, our timelines may be a bit different. Our goals are relatively in synch. And well duke it out. Well, no. You have a very good man. She had five points, i put ten points forward. He was jealous. One of them is the cap. Your point is valid. We want those people who absolutely need it to be able to been fit from it, but i also want those people who do not need the program to not benefit from it. So were in synch with that in terms of the entire universal service, the entire portfolio where it is not needed, the money should not flow, where there is not eligibility the benefits should not flow. So were in synch with that. I wanted to press you a little bit, when commissioner clyburn, you said youre in favor of a right cap. Or a budget. Because i like him today. You know, but im from a budgetary framework. I understand you cant float out a hard number or you may not want to. One of the things i may mention, right now were at a little less than 40 of those who are eligible in taking part in the program. Should have a realistic, should take into account as close to 100 as possible. I believe. But if its not used, its not spent. And thats why, you know, i was in favor of asking questions about a budget or a cap. But this is one of those programs, if you dont sign up, the money does not flow. But i did not want to, and would not endorse anything that would foreclose opportunities. That is my point. If its properly marketed, properly designed, its a dignified program that, and one of the main things that one of my five points reenforce, and this is not negotiable. The carriers. That is at the heart, optically is at the heart. If we get rid of the levels of inefficiency or in some cases, outright fraud, ill put it out there. That would be gone. And we can work on having a row gram that will be targeted and deliver the opportunities needed for those without. So i just comment on that. And i agree with a lot of that. I would say that im not committed to a number that is such a scope of if it at 40 were spending 1. 6, and whats the total to get 180 . 4 billion . That 4 billion has to come, thats more than doubling the program, that has to come from all of the consumers in america today. And so the woman who couldnt afford a computer, were going to take more from her, you know, in her phone rates, in her services, so we can pay for the other programs. And thats a problem for me, is that i worry about the, those folks who are in middle, middle income and lower middle income and the burden we already place on them. Were already imposing a fee of 17. 1 , i thinks the current number, and if were talking about adding on top of that another 2. 5 billion, weve already increased last year the a spending were doing for schools and libraries and doubled that budget, basically, so theres more spending going out the door. And im really concerned about how much were taking from consumers and how that impacts their daily lives. So i share a concern, and i know you want to move on. This is great, by the way. If we look at what we call the connect america fund or the highcost program, you talk about an unequitable of distribution in terms of, you know, and youve got the stua÷vv the next panel will be one of the authors of the study to prove just that. Poor people are not getting their proportion of what theyre paying in, what theyre taxed for. That money is not flowing to those who need it the most. That money is flowing to disney world and probably aspen. I purposely did not look up the aspen numbers because i did not want to be unset this morning. I know the money is flowing, and when i saw that airport and saw that flash that i could buy a home for 27 million. I dont think that person needs a subsidy. I just dont. So these are the things. I look at this lifeline as but one of the programs, but i look at the entire universal service pie. In terms of how do we look at it and make sure that the moneys are flowing to where its needed. We need to make some hard, probably politically unpopular decisions to do just that. And if we do just that, that equity that youre speaking of, that lady which youre speaking about, if she has a service, that money is not being appropriately spent if you believe in the word fair, which i dont use that very often anymore. If you believe in equity, shes not being well treated. I have worked on a number of issues in the past and if my previous life where weve done greater means testing. So i think means testing would be very applicable in this space. And lifeline is one that is a best example of somewhere where we do means testing. We do a little bit of it. Some of it goes in schools and libraries. Rural health care is so small its not the same. We do fund those that are extremely wealthy, and i dont think that makes sense. If you have a gross income above some number, 10 million, 100 million, whatever, that we dont subsidize you. I think thats a fair point. I think everyone would agree. Not everyone. Consumers who have greater income pay more for medicare. And congress has bipartisanly agreed to do so recently. So i think thats needed. I dont know what the number is. And i dont pretend to know. But im sure there is an artificial number we can agree to and can have some savings and realize were not subsidizing every american, no matter how well think you might be. Yesterday we heard a lot about, you know, david redle was talking about how the fcc was applying the privacy act and looking to tell isps what they can and cant do with private information such as Social Security numbers and others. So what other kind of personal information might potentially fall into this category . Whats your interpretation, commissioner oreilly of how the definition of cp and i could change in the future . I would just say we are, i believe the chairman has announced that hes going to do an item later this fall, start it with an rprm. Ive talked about the difficulty in terms what have it means for different agencies that would oversee the same kinds of information. But the difficulty i have is 222 is fairly narrowly written. It deals with telephone records. I know theres many people within the commission who would like to expand that, and weve seen that. Theyd like to expand what the definition is, but thats not Something Congress has given to the agency. Thats something they can affirmatively do, and we will certainly implement it to their instructions. I have difficulty on where were trying to go on 222. What it means for different providers. We also are trying to reinterpret 201. And what does it mean for throwing in 706. You know, it is an attempt to impose burdens. I said yesterday that i fully believe that were going to expand that scope to the end provider side. There will be more Going Forward, and thats extremely problematic. I mean, as a consumer, i tend to think of, you know, if were applying the cp and i frame work to internet providers, my mind goes to okay, all the traffic, meta data associated with my web browsing history, my ip address, is that sort of the level of granularity were talking about here . For me, i didnt have a problem with it. We talk about this a lot. Weve got quite a few interactions and briefings, you know, when i read, though not a lawyer. You know, 222a, it talked about, and to me, it affirmed our duty to protect retired, proprietary information. Whats more proprietary than your Social Security number . Im sorry. You have individuals who entrusted a company. Filled out their applications. Had their ssns on there. With the click of a mouse i would have had that. And i believe that the fcc had a duty, was aware of it, and had a duty to act. I also believe that where there is either shared or gray area by way of authorities, by way of authority with our sister agencies, we have and will continue to work collaboratively to ensure that nothing falls beneath the cracks, but i think we had a we, and i mean this in a collective family we had a duty to respond and act and to affirm to that company and the other similarly situated that you will not, you know, be have a casual, you know, arrangement or lack of arrangement with somebodys personal, you know, identifiable information. And we acted swift, as swiftly in fcc time frame, we acted swiftly and put out a definite signal to those that this will not be tolerated. I think my colleagues comments highlight some of the problems i have. If you look at pii, its not in the statute. Were reinterpreting and creating definitions that dont exist in the law to serve a particular purpose, and i certainly support your point that you dont want anyone falling through the cracks, but what that really means is were going to double agencies and double regulations for providers. Which means people fighting amongst themselves, do i do this for the fcc . And this for the fcc . How do i do this with so many regulators . So i have extreme problem on that side, and i think were heading in a collision course later this fall. I did not hear of any other agency that was poised to act on the behalf of these consumers, a lot of them who are not that wellheeled and had nowhere to go to get presented. I hear what youre saying. I think the mechanisms are in lace for us not to step on each others toes, but having, to be able to go on a website and access somebodys Social Security number, that is unacceptable, and i think we had to act. Lets take an audience question or two. Theres a roving mic going around. If you have a question, raise your hand. Yeah, in the back. Peter pitcher with intel. The levees, should that include broadband . I have had deep concerns about expanding the collection side of the equation until we resolve many of the other spending sides. What seems to me is were going to spend as much as we possibly can and well do the collection side reform. Then well add broadband because it will look like the numbers going down. And im, if the goal is just to spend as much as you can and collect it on this side, no. Im not for that. And if you want to have a, if people want to have a thoughtful conversation about collection reform, im always for that. And i think the conversation needs to continue and to tone down the rhetoric when we talk about contribution reforms. You know, i highlighted it earlier in terms of where what has been happening over the years is whether it is explicitly said or not, our funding has been going to support broadband. And so i really think its time for us to have, you know, an adult conversation about what the contributions, you know, those proportions look like and just really, you know, be, you know, go, go to a place where its as equitable as possible about, you know, where the money is actually flowing and how efficient and effective this current framework is, which quite honestly i dont believe is as, its not as efficient and effective as it should be. Im always ready for an adult conversation. I have difficulty because so many adults have answered this question. If you go to the congress, are you for imposing the tax. The acknowledgement has made by the congress that imposing this fee or some type of, all the state and local taxes would increase the cost and therefore decrease adoption. So we would be doing the same thing that congress, the people who give us authority have said dont do. And i say that the moneys are flowing. They are supporting the construction of broadband networks, and we need to have a conversation about that and what that means as it relates to contributions. All right, lets take another question. Mmhm, yeah. Alan rawls, ive enjoyed the healthy debate on whether theres Statutory Authority for enforcing against privacy for personal information thats not proprietary information and whether there was fair notice before the terracom decision was handed down. But my question is about penalties. I think in the terracom case, they started out saying this could be a 10 billion penalty, but in the exercise of grace, it was remitted down to i think 10 million, and it may have ended up lower, but isnt there a fairness issue with regard to the range of discretion that the agency has to establish notice of apparent liability amounts . So im not going to counter what you said. I will affirm that, you know, every case is different. When you talk about your Social Security number, which you cant get another one, as far as i know, legally. You know, to me, thats serious. I dont know what that troubles to. But you could talk about other instances where in terms of some of the lifeline potential, you know, decisions that those are very troubled if you talk to some of the providers based upon what their proposed, i mean, what the alleged infraction, so always i believe that there needs to be, you know, conversations and checks and balances as it relates to that. But every situation is different, so its kind of a, you know, difficult for me to say hard and fast, im not going to disagree with you. But thats, will be something that we will continue to look at, but some discretion, i believe, is needed, because, again, every case is different, and the severity of that may differ, depending on who youre representing. So i could, ill take the opposite view. Representing. So i couldnt ill take the opposite view. I agree with your point. I think the problem we have now is two fold. One, were grasping for numbers out of thin air. They are not based on anything at all. Ive tried to get a justification for numbers and its just not there. The second part is, if it was, you know, sound enforcement purposes, and a number of reasons ive talked about this in a number of different settings what enforcement is to do, what we seem focused on today and the activities is to get the biggest headline you possibly can. We want the headline to say, this is the largest fee for this purpose, the largest penalty for this purpose. That is not, in my opinion, the purpose of enforcement, not to make somebody happy that they have a good headline in whatever trade publication or newspaper to make them feel better. This is about enforcement in both the statute and our precedent and we seem to be ignoring that. I gave a speech recently not too long ago that talked about, you know, some of the folks within the agency had gone to and said we think the number youre starting with is 1 billion. A billion dollars. Where do you think that money is coming from . From the pockets of the ceo or rich dividend recipients . Thats going to come from the bottom line of the company. Thats problematic in and of itself. Secondly, they dont have a justification for the number in the first place. They get the headline and that seems to be important today. One of the things to keep in mind is if you get an action or if you get to that point, all is not right. Im sorry. If you get the attention of the enforcement bureau, all is not rosy. So lets work from that baseline. We can talk about the amount of troubled damages. Im willing to have that conversation. But more often than not, when a decision is handed down, its not because everybody was compliant. And so lets have that baseline conversation and the rest of this, i believe, we can work through. Lets take one more and then ill close with a question of my own. Oh, joy. I wanted to follow up on your apparent agreement about means testing for high cost subsidies. I was wondering if either of you had any concrete vision how that would work in reality. Because other than turning it into a Voucher Program for individuals, im not being able to picture anything. I was wondering what your thoughts were. I would start and say this. Right now im focused on trying to solve the issue that we are both tackling on rate of return, standalone broadband. Ive articulated my initial thoughts on this. Ive done quite a bit of work in my past life. I think we can set a cap, annual certification, pick a number, figure some of that out. Its very rough at this point but i think theres a way to make sure. Its never going to get to the point where you get down to the exact number of who should get a subsidy in a highcost program but we can certainly exclude a number of people that definitely do not need it. Thats my take. And one of the things thats troubling to me so the answer is, no, i havent worked out i dont have the template to present to you this morning. But one of the things that i am mindful and that is in the works is that were going to include the allowables. Whats allowable and what is not. Believe it or not, we didnt have that menu, you know, of what is acceptable spending or not. So you had and i bring this up this is where my edge comes in. You had Certain Companies that were with excessive ceos with excessive salaries. You had people buying artwork, extravagant travel and the like. Youve had those types of things going on. That needs to cease. You talk about, i dont know what fraud is but i think i recognize waste and abuse and that is it. No headlines in the media but thats just a personal push from me. So these are the types of things that i think are step towards that. Outside of that, we have a lot of work to do. Its 4 billion right now framework. A lot of companies. And this is going to take this is going to be a continual collaboration with our state counterparts because a lot of the abuses that im aware of came from state regulatory authorities who went inside the books. Went inside of the books and do that. So im sorry to be so roboast. I wanted to close by asking one more question about privacy which is, you know, should consumers be expected to have different expectations of what kind of privacy protections they are going to get when it comes to, a, edge providers and, b, their internet providers . Ill let you go first. I would say this. I spend a great deal of time in privacy. I think theres an expectation of treatment based on the information in and of itself, not on who is the provider, whether it be the platform. They have a sensitivity to health records, health information, sensitivity to Financial Information in some regards and we have a number of laws that cover that today. But difficulty with privacy, its a number of laws and a number of agencies and a number of governing structures that make it difficult go forward and were going to add another one come this fall. So i answer this, i guess, in a broader sense. That each time we click on a mouse or access, we give up a little of ourselves and i think that level of privacy and honestly, gets chipped away each time we fill out a form and we share our personal information. So i think we need to have a healthy, realistic series of expectations when it comes to and whats the definition of privacy anymore . Ive seen the videos. Its very liberal. And i dont mean party liberal. But still, when you entrust your personal information to a company or an individual, there are certain expectations you should have and i think that a regulatory backstop is one of the best means, you know, to help second out and affirm that its making current internet operating today. If you saw the video of what google was able to do, Amazing Things people like from that, thats information sharing that people are able and it does happen today. Absolutely. Thank you so much for joining me on this panel. [ applause ] and we are awaiting the start of the todays rules Committee Hearing on the highway bill on the house floor now with 29 amendments. The committee today is meeting on another 270plus amendments submitted to the bill. The committee hoping to fashion debate rules for house consideration for the remaining amendments taken up tomorrow and thursday. Live coverage here on cspan 3 in just a couple of minutes after a look at some background on the bill with a capitol hill reporter. Kelly is joining us. Shes a transportation reporter. Kelly, the house begins work today on a multiyear transportation and funding bill. What are some of the major details and how is this going to be funded . So, were going to have the second rule today from the House Rules Committee laying out floor procedure on the highway and transportation bill. In the house, again, were taking the senate bill as a shell and using the house policy inside of the senate bill which contains about now its about 36 billion and 35 billion in paid fors and provision that offers the export and import bank. Thats kinds of the overarching plan that we have today. Were going to have a rules meeting at 3 00 p. M. And then also 29 amendments on the floor today, the consideration of first of two rules on the house floor today. Now, under speaker ryan, how open do you think this process will be and with this bill in particular . Transpoat