The question of whether it was going to be released in a formal way other than ofr is a different questioned. Should the ofr report be immurn from public kmeblt . No, on the contrary, it was meant to elicit a public debate and that occurred. I very much believe it should have been public chls it was public. Last year, you said it is un5 00 se unacceptable to be in a place where too big too fail has not ended. I think you may know, your predecessor said is it too big to exist . Using your words, can you tell this kplicommittee today, with honest, striegt face that weve ended too big too fail . Im not sure well know the answer to that question until we have the next financial crisis. Thats the challenge that we all have in asking have we gone far enough. But i will say what theres mr work underway. We have heard from multiple wrnss of the Corporate Bonds and are concerned about the ill liquidity. It strikes me as somewhat ironic that the vo lrksz ka rule is touted by you around others is
And on several of them have said, we would not be opening new manufacturing facilities in the United States if there was no possibility of xm support for expouts. That would be too risky to have u. S. Manufacturing here. First solar, a company that does solar panels, manufactures in the United States and malaysia and he said without the xm bank labor costs have been pretty much the same. U. S. Actually has higher taxes but without xm bank he would shift more manufacturing to malaysia. So i think that well see some irrevocable changes if that happens. The threat of it is enough to make manufacturers think twice that this is going to be, on againoff again continually, as hard as a businessman, i was a businessman, to make five and tenyear investments when theres so much uncertainty. In the brief amount of period of time we have left, im fascinated to know how youve plibed such a low default rate and low loss rate. Can you express that in 25 seconds . How do you get that . Well, first of
The house examines the 48 billion merger of at t and directv. The house hearing today looked at music licensing and copyright, in particular the legal issues surrounding broadcast music over the radio. Roseanne cash testified along with Paul Williams and executives from Pandora Radio and National Association of broadcasters. This house judiciary subcommittee hearing is just under three hours. Ladies and gentlemen the subcommittee of intellectual property of internet will come to order. The chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. We welcome our witnesses today. Let me get my chair adjusted here. Thank you. Good morning and welcome to the second of two hearings on music licensing issues. Two weeks ago this subcommittee heard from your fellow Music Industry representatives about their concerns with the state of music licensing copyright laws. Look around the room i think we can conclude that you all have more than a passing casual interest in this issue and we welcome all of yo
Looking at ways that the vsos can be help us understand how the veterans are perceiving our care and the timeliness of that care. I think theres a huge opportunity there. I agree. And you know, chairman miller, i think it might be good to have a hearing where we hear from the vsos about their suggestions about how to fix this problem. I yield back. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, miss kirk patrick. We do have one hearing that will be coming up in several weeks. It will be specifically geared towards the vsos. And its at that particular hearing we will invite the secretary to be here to hear their recommendations, as well. Mr. Reese. Empty custer, mr. Orourking . Mr. Waltz. Im sorry. Youre recognized for five minutes. Again, thank you both for being here and listening to the testimony. I appreciate it. Ive sat here almost in this exact same seat for seven and a half years and just like you with the vsos and the va as partners and advocates to get this right for veterans. But im
Because although the internet and the thousands of mini antennas are new, the basic service that aereo is providing is not materially different from the Service Provided by the Cable Company before this court in 1969. Justice sotomayor why arent they Cable Companies . Theyre not Justice Sotomayor im looking at everybodys been arguing this case as if for sure theyre not. But i look at the definition of a Cable Company, and it seems to fit. A facility located in any state. Theyve got a, whatever they have a warehouse or a building in brooklyn, that receives signal transmissions or programs broadcast by Television Broadcast stations. Theyre taking the signals off of the theyre taking the signals, right. Justice sotomayor im sorry, they are. Makes secondary transmissions by wires, cables, or other communication channels. It seems to me that a little antenna with a dime fits that definition. To subscribing members of the public who pay for such service. I mean, i read it and i say, why aren