There now we say we will do some things and regulated without acceptable practice which i think is a terrible message. What are your thoughts . I agree with the commissioner play agree with the views five years ago when they represented we are concerned that Net Neutrality could be used as the justification into block unwanted information disseminated to citizens to think it is a bipartisan issue by hopewell was standing this doesnt apply to the future spent just for the sake of the record could resubmit the full quotation the was an excerpt by commissioner pai because that was taken out of context stomach we recognize the gentleman from ohio. From the great state of ohio. Stop at. [laughter] i am honored they paid tribute to ohio state today. This is the view to button. [laughter] my with your opening testimony with the mobile devices i cannot agree with you more i was then i t for over 30 years long before there was any such thing as the internet as we know it today and the reason we have these is because we had the and regulation by the federal government with Information Services that allow the innovators so i agree with you. Chairman we have requested a number of documents that have been denied under the claim of the deliberate give process privilege but for that to apply and agency must show a communication was a direct part of the delivered give process and makes recommendations to express opinions on legal or policy matters. Subject to the commissions ex parte rules. By the contents of those meetings memorialized in any docket at the commission . How could these conversations with the white house have been both a direct part of the deliberative process but not have been have substantial significance in that proceeding . Those are questions that are rolling around in my mind. Guest a question for you. You you have indicated in your written testimony you received a no secret instructions from the white house. Of course secret instructions thats not the standard for determining when exporters are available in the town meetings you with the white house is my question. And attend meetings you had with the white house in advance of the fcc action on the open internet is it your opinion that only that that was the only meeting that addressed the merits of the commissions open internet proceeding. Yes. Did you say yes . Yes. The town meetings were not meetings that were necessarily on open internet. Internet. We had trade issues, national security, cyber issues. But in the ten meetings that came in advance of the fcc action on the open internet you are saying that there was no information or discussions of substantial significance clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision which would require the disclosure of that information . There are two parts. Thats a yes or no answer you correctly identified. Is a yes or no . I did not get instructions in those meetings. Am not talking about that. Do they qualify . [inaudible conversations] how do they qualify under both . If they had discussions with the white house of the highest office in our land. Have fun with the american taxpayer doesnt see that a significant and substantial. How can they not be significant and substantial clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision and yet he denied them under a deliberative process. There are multiple parts. There were not instructions given. Ive been on the record on that. Second is thats not the determination. The determination is that specifically interactions with congress and the white house are excluded from ex parte and have been since 1991. Going beyond that, that is a non ex parte conversation if there was a conversation a conversation that was taking place in that kind of the construct and how even ill even go under what basis . You cant just make that up. The losses what is required to be revealed and what is not to be revealed. The deliberative process privilege applies when you can show a direct part in that it makes recommendations or express his opinion rather than substantial significance and clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision. Im disagreeing with you and i think its irresponsible the withholding information that rightfully should be openly disclosed to this committee and the American People. The chair now recognizes the german from new york. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i get to my questions one followup there were ten meetings and we do understand there was disclosure on one. It is my understanding on the other nine their was nothing of significance discussed relative to the fcc where hundred levels of ex parte that he should have would be required to disclose. Is it true there was nothing disclosed . The test is im not asking [inaudible conversations] was there anything disclosed . I have no instructions. No. I am befuddled that in nine of the ten meetings ten meetings at the white house there was nothing of any consequence discussed relative to the fcc that would require disclosure. I we will take you at your word. One thing that we were clear about today is the importance of certainty. Chairman we were struck the importance to the providers and the internet space of certainty. I cant agree more. Certainty drives investment and returns. With certainty you invest in innovation. It is pretty obvious today the way things have worked have been pretty good. The investments have been billions. As a commissioner said, maybe trillions of dollars. Really the world today. We have also we have also heard unanimous agreement of the commissioners. Litigation is coming and likely to take three years. Guaranteed. That is not the definition of uncertainty, uncertainty, i dont know what is. For the next three years the folks looking to invest and innovate in this world have to live under the ultimate uncertainty of which court is going to rule how and when it moves. To me there is a real issue genuine issue of inconsistency with the chairman stressed the importance of certainty and then saying were going to court. I would like to say again lack of certainty is a wet blanket on investment. My worry is with less innovation and less investment we will someday wake up and not be the leaders in the world relative to what we think and know is probably one of the most important aspects. Could you briefly comment on that . Thank you for the question. That they not only of the private sector that the people will get the benefit. First with respect to the socalled internet conduct standard and the fcc after the vote conceded, we dont know where things go next. The Electronic FrontierFoundation Target in this particular rule and so the problem with all this vague is that the isps nor Internet Users know in advance what practices will run afoul. No one knows exactly how it will work. Commissioners wont have the ability to have input. When you pair the process but this internet conduct standard the entrepreneurial spirit will be funneled through this regulatory bottleneck no one we will know in advance until they get permission from washington what is allowed and what isnt. I could not agree more. The only thing certain is uncertainty. I could not agree with my colleague anymore. I was in st. Louis a couple weeks ago and talked to isps about what could happen what it would mean for the business. These are the small guys. 800 wireless isps 800 wireless isps trying to serve the most rural parts of america stringing together networks under unlicensed bands. What does this mean for me . More paperwork, paperwork compliance. You dont know what you can do for your business. They were frustrated beyond belief. I share your concerns and think america will. My time is up and i yield back. I think the gentleman from new york and our witnesses. I have heard some of the same things. They feel like they will be overwhelmed. I no the gentleman is on his way here. Try to accommodate try to accommodate his questioning. Am going to have to leave. I have to catch a flight. I dont know if that has an effect. We can seek counsel on that. Obviously we should try to accommodate. We started at 11 00 oclock. Im a patient person. I dont want to miss my flight. What time is your flight . I have to go out to dulles. As he is 1st of all because of the nature of her work that like to have prompt responses to the question. You probably have questions or other committees as well. To the extent to which you can respond promptly that would be helpful. We would like your feedback on the draft legislation. Your feedback would be most helpful. We think its a. With that i would now recognize the gentleman from louisiana. The width of the United States house of representatives. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the commissioners being here. Going to testify about their mission in this proposal that i know i have strong concerns about. I guess when you get back to the basic question of what has worked so well with the internet and the Technology Community is all that somebody who graduated in Computer Science has worked in the Technology Industry i have always felt the federal government has not figured out a way to regulate and slow down. It sure you come with an answer to a problem that does not exist. Heavyhanded. The fcc traditional the fcc traditional role has not been to have a heavy hand. When when you look at the proposal that is over 300 pages of regulations. This is the 1st round. Everyone is looking for a free and open it is not broken. Why is why is the federal government to fix it has been working incredibly well especially when you look at the role of federal regulations and what they have gone to harm our economy. I want to ask you because you made comments about the potential taxes and fees that can come with this classification. Classification. You look at section 202 of the law that gives that the to get involved for the fcc to get involved in regulating cost for the internet. If you could share with me just what kind of impact this could have on both these being able to come a higher prices that consumers will ultimately pay from this classification. Thank you for the question. Question. A multitude of fees and taxes will be lifted in a way that will ultimately get to the consumer detriment. Detriment. Our broadband has been classified as a Telecommunications Service that opens the door to billions of taxes and fees being assessed. In in addition to the line at an you see in your phone bill paying a fee on broadband what we will happen the next several weeks or months. There are all sorts of other things that will be assessed. For example, currently broadband providers that have not been classified paid a great with equipment they attached utility poles. If you donate under section 22014. Now they will have to pay a much higher rate. Smaller providers in particular we will have to pay 150 to 200 million a year. You add on top of that the higher state and local property taxes at these companies will have to pay because they are not taught providers, these costs have to come from somewhere. That is one of the reasons im concerned. We have seen this time and time again. These regulations and new fees and taxes that would be paid ultimately going to be paid by consumers consumers for the people that have been enjoying the benefits of the investments. This is not this is not the federal government. This is private investment to the tune of billions of dollars. We do this quote. There is nothing worse for investment, innovation, job creation of all things that flow from investment and business is not knowing what the rules are. That is as i have pointed out many times not just the private sector but the consumer did not know what will be a lot of what isnt. It is exactly in that environment with the private sector is the least likely to raise the risk of the capital raised infrastructure. I believe as you pointed out eloquently for part of the reason we enjoy the best internet experience in the is because we have had this historic bipartisan commitment of the internet would be free from state and federal regulation. That was chairman we were at his confirmation hearing. I want to ask you because you commented on this will that it would negatively impact edge providers. Proponents of these that neutrality regulations. He raised he raised some concerns about how they would be negatively impacted if you could comment. A number of people have highlighted this. Under the knew definition blowing over time. The meeting today. That is going that is problematic as you try to figure out how to comply with the rules. Rules. I believe the commission will continue to push regulations up the chain. Today its about telecommunication providers. We now are having a debate. Some kind some kind of structure a deal with interconnection. We are building right into the backbone of the internet. It only exist to edge providers overtime. Am out of time but i appreciate your answers. The gentleman yields back. We could go five or six more rounds. [laughter] i want to thank our witnesses. Were all trying to do the right thing. Thank you for testifying. If you can probably response are questions that would be appreciated. We look forward to your return visit. Without the committee stands adjourned. On the next washington journal this weekend the cspan cities tour has partnered with media. Right here inside the museum the remains of a confederate ironclad. This was an ironclad that was built here during the war. The oval shapes are actually the gun ports. The jackson is armed with six rifles. The particular rivals one of the guns built specifically for the jackson it was cast this on the naval works and completed in january of 1865. The real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only for ironclad four ironclad the civil war that we can study right now. The jackson is right here. This is why this facility is your. First and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and the show people that there are more than just one or two. Watch all. Watch all of our events from columbus saturday at noon eastern on cspan cspan2 and sunday afternoon at 2 00 oclock on American History tv. Next arizona senator john mccain reacting to comments made by illinois democrat Richard Durbin about Loretta Lynch. Portion of his remarks 1st on. The fact is there is no substantive reason to stop this nomination. The republican majority leader announced over the weekend tha he the republican majority leader announced over the weekend that he was going to hold this nomination of Loretta Lynch until the bill which is pending before the senate passes, whenever that may be. And so Loretta Lynch the 1st africanAmerican Woman nominated to be attorney general is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate Calendar that is unfair. It is unjust. It is beneath that the decarlo dignity in the United States senate. This woman deserves fairness she seeks to leave the department of justice in the United States senate should be just in its treatment of her nomination. To think that we would jeopardize her opportunity to serve this nation and to make history is fundamentally unfair. I come to the floor today to address a very serious accusation leveled yesterday against republican members of this body by the democratic with the senator illinois. I do with some regret the senator illinois and i have been friends for many years served in a house together and here in this body of work together. That is why i was so surprised and disappointed in the comments he made yesterday on the floor Senate Comments that are totally inappropriate to be made on the floor of the senate. My colleague illinois said and i quote from the majority leader announced that are going to hold this nomination lynch until the bill which is pending before the senate passes, whatever that may be. Then then he went on to say, and so Loretta Lynch the 1st africanAmerican Woman nominated to be attorney general is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to this account. That is unfair unjust, and beneath the department dignity of the United States and. What is what is beneath the department dignity of the United States senate i we will say to the senator from illinois is for him to come to this floor and use that imagery and suggest that racist tactics are being employed to delay the confirmation vote. Such inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this body and serves no purpose other than to further divide us. Perhaps my colleague needs to be reminded of their own record when it comes to the treatment of africanamerican women. In 2012 Janice Rogers brown and africanamerican was nominated to serve on the us court of appeals for the district of columbia, court that had never included africanAmerican Woman judge, senator illinois voted to filibuster her nomination in 2003 and again in 2005 when she was finally confirmed after waiting 684 days. The senator illinois voted against the historic nomination. I would never suggest even with failed rhetoric that judge rogers brown race was the reason for the senator from illinois opposition to her nomination. He should extend i say to my colleague from illinois he should extend that same courtesy to me and my colleagues. I i would like to remind the senator illinois about how we were able to fill vacancies last year effectively alleviating a judicial emergency with tremendous bipartisan support in the nomination of two senators we confirmed a diverse and historic slate of six nominees which included a hispanic, and africanamerican and the 1st native American Woman ever to serve on the federal bench. Confirmations, just as ms. Lynchs race should have no impact on her consideration in this body. Those six judges were approved by this body because each of them had shown a commitment to justice, Public Service and the people of arizona. Each also had demonstrated the judicial temperament and professional demeanor necessary to serve with integrity. I further point out to the senator from illinois that at no time as the majority leader ever indicated that he would not bring the lynch nomination to the floor. In fact the opposite is true. We made it very clear time and again that we will consider the lynch nomination onc