Those meetings but one . I dont know the details of those meetings. I cant recall the details of those meetings. I can assure you that there were no, nothing that would trigger an ex parte. So you meet with the white house multiple times during the open Comment Period after the Comment Period closes, and were supposed to believe that one of the most important things the fcc has ever done that this didnt come up and they didnt have any discussions and they didnt comment back to you. Is that what were supposed to believe . The administration was very scrupulous in making it clear that i was an independent agency and they were not telling i guess the point is chairman. You met with them multiple times. They came to visit you. You went to visit them. We invite you to come in an open and you refuse. We asked you to send us documents and you didnt send us a single one. Thats very troubling for us. I need to move on. Mr. Chairman, one thing here, i did agree to come. Im here. No before the ru
July 17th. September 11th. September 30th. October 15th. October 28th. And then mr. Zinaz visiting with you on november 9th at the fcc. Does that sound accurate . If thats the list that we provided, sir. And you only provided an ex parte for one of those meetings. Why is that . First of all the rules are quite clear on what constitutes an ex parte. And that is an attempt to file specifically in a specific docket and to influence the outcome of that docket did you discuss this just and. Dids you discuss this matter during those meetings. And there are provisions long established going back to the Bush Administration also legislative council. I have five minutes. I need to ask very specific. You are asking about ex partes. And there is no requirement that there be an ex parte file. There was no need either. I dont understand that. You met with them. Youre telling me this proposed rule did not come up in any of those proposed meetings but one. I dont know the details of those meetings. I
About his possibly the case and i would love for you to. I kind of did ask. To follow up and say that we now have interagency structures to raise red flags to the highest level. How is it possible that the state department wasnt looking at this intentionally in november and december and i think that is a followup opportunity. And he did play an important role. They were convening behind the scenes at the state department was the key of sharing information in august, september, october, and november. And they did have open sessions with the partners so that we could express what we were seeing. And that would not have happened without this and still are questions are what happened in march and were does the atrocities prevention said on parallel with other National Intelligence priorities. If it was irrelevant until these atrocities were occurring, how are we better elevating that prioritization framework and how can we get ahead. And had we put a better emphasis ahead of the curve inst
The conditions are such that that is a legitimate concern. In the negotiation of the geneva statement, the u. S. , the e. U. , and the ukrainians all urged the inclusion of a sentence that referred to the may 25 elections and the need that they be carried out in an orderly and transparent way. The russians refused to include that in the text of the statementle. The disruptions were already taking place in the ukraine that are bound to complicated the election efforts and we believe that those that the instability there is being fomented by the russians. Thank you, mr. Hartley, ms. Friedt. The chair will yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. Meeks, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me, you know, there was a beginning where we thought that wed be entering a new world, we would be able to have with the new stark treaty, not abolishing ewe near Nuclear Weapons altogether, we were moving in the right direction the senate ratified the treaty and the Russian Federation ratifi
Cash in there and it would probably be appropriate that just to revisit that and do some sort of economic analysis. And if its not something they cannot be part of that. But certainly its a great concept overall. Im happy to look at it and get back to you. Thank you. Now turn to mr. Serrano. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to try to get in at least two questions because i know we have a short time, and mr. Secretary, you draw a big crowd. As you can see. Great attendance. Your request eliminates the Bank Enterprise award program, something im very concerned about. I have heard very good reports about the impact this program is having in my district and elsewhere. In fy14 we provided 18 million for it. Why are you proposing to zero it out this year . And i must tell you that its been awhile since ive gotten so many comments from constituents on an issue as im getting on this one. Congressman, we had to make a lot of tough choices in this budget, as you have to make in the appropriatio