Of return carriers that would encourage broadband adoption. I know senator thune, senator coveture, led and i wanted to can i make a commercial just 30 seconds . Will it have the same unity your answer did earlier . Yes, sir. The answer is yes, sir, we are going to do that. We needd, the best in their job is worthy of Henry Kissinger and i hope we can have the help of you and senator thune and the committee to help send a message that says, hey folks, its time to quit bickering over details lets have a common approach. Because were going to move, and well make that decision if we have to make that decision. But it sure would be good if we understood that the various segments of the industry could pull together and say, hey this is the kind of north star youve got to be guiding to. Thank you, and i appreciate that. Were so close to each other i feel like we ought to be having a cup of coffee. Want a beer . Ill take that. Commissioner clyburn, this is something senator heller talked about as well it makes little sense that the general public did not have access to the text of the order until two weeks after the Commission Voted on it. So my question to you, commissioner clyburn is this. Should the fcc publicly release items put on circulation prior to a Commission Vote, especially those that significantly impact the economy . One of the things that i like to talk about in terms of this process, it is one of the most open in the world. We had a notice and 4 million comments that allowed people to weigh in. One of the things im also cautious about when we talk to them im open to any type of you know ways that we can improve the transparency is there is a deliberative process that takes place among us, and i would love for that to continue. Im able to speak in an unbridled fashion. One of the things im worried about in terms of releasing things prematurely is that could be compromised if i have a question or concern or want to get some feedback. I would not like for that to necessarily get out before i come to terms with the exchanges. There are apa issues. We are a kwauzq uas ijudicial body and apply to epa movements so i think that needs to be flushed out before we move in any direction. Commissioner reilly, i know you talked to this. I believe these documents should be revealed at least three weeks before the commissioner vote. The fact it wasnt revealed created a big haze of confusion and what you saw in days leading up to the order was it was prescribed in response to a particular company and a special interest that wanted that removed for a variety of reasons. There is a great deal of press interest. If you google it so to speak youll find a lot of people wondering, what was this change about . How does it affect the order . How are we going to respond to it . Because of the sunshine prohibition, none of those people are able to respond to it. If we had the product on the table day one when it was circulated, the American People could see it and it would have made our work product better. It would have been more sustainable. Im running out of time with a couple questions. Perhaps we could do answers for the record. A number of petitions before the fcc, things for reconsideration, other petitions that have been before the fcc and wondering how we can make sure that these petitions are addressed in a timely manner. Perhaps, members of the commission, you can get back to me on what internal process would change at the fcc to facilitate and have a more timely process. Senator wheeler, 20 million was transferred out of the fcc budget to the fccs general budget. Im afraid that could affect something im very concerned about, and thats rural funding usf issues. Chairman wheeler, what additional, not ongoing, Agency Activities will this funding shift pay for . Its a proposed gift. And the attitude the idea is this. The money has to be spent. That kind of money has been spent traditionally on the activities of the wire line bureau, the Wireless Bureau and others on usf. We fund our auction activity through the revenues from auctions. The question is why should universal Service Activities be funded by people who are not involved in universal service . Why should a broadcaster have to pay fees for programs theyre not involved in . Why should, you know, some marine licensees, et cetera, et cetera . So all this was was an attempt to say okay how do we make sure that the gazintas and the gazuntas are balancing themselves out . It has to be paid. If the decision is that Congress Wants to say hey, yes, you ought to make sure broadcasters pay for this, so be it. What we were trying to do was to say, what makes logical management sense . Somebody just clarify. So the 25 million isnt dedicated to anything, its just being put back into the general budget . The money gets spent, okay . So the question is, does that money get raised by the jena assessment that goes against everybody who was involved with the commission . Or does it get raised through the program that it relates to . And, you know, there will be a significant decrease for broadcasters, for instance, if they no longer contribute to something that they do not participate in. Thank you, senator gardner. Senator booker. First of all, i wanted to say thank you to all five who are serving our country. Often debates in congress get personal, but every single one of you have done a Great Service in trying to achieve noble aspirations, noble goals and im grateful for your work. Some issues individuals have been bringing up have been really important to me and they wont get headlines. Honorable clyburn criminal justice is critically important to me and what youre doing through your advocacy with your fellow commissioners and to me what is absolutely essential to end the nightmare of broken families and those linkages that are so important for us to bring justice back to our legal system. I just want to jump in and really commissioner wheeler, give you a chance to address some of the things that i hear said consistently that i see no evidence for whatsoever. And i would just like to give you a chance to talk for the brief comment i have a little bit about this idea that somehow what you did was antibusiness, that somehow it undermines the ability for companies to thrive in this marketplace. Some of the other folks talked. Im a passionate believer in the importance of us to have a free and open internet Net Neutrality. It is critical for the growth of the american economy, and more importantly, as i work with kids especially urban kids and see that those skill sets that they can learn the democratizing force to internet access, to democratize access to capital, all that excites me. As a guy who is kind of probusiness, i wonder if you can address the issue, because when i read that tmobile Google Windstream that title 2 of forbearance doesnt change their plans. Time Warner Charter have said the same thing to their investments, its not going to undermine their investors. Wall street barely noticed the news. Thats because the order in the title 2 framework does not regulate rates or impose other socalled utility regulations. So wall street didnt budge, the heads of companies that i know and talk with on a regular basis say its not going to affect their behavior. So what these rules do plain and simple is keep broadband providers from discriminating. Would you just address the mountain of evidence rebutting the speculation about investment harmz harms . And i think users deserve not just rhetoric and how title 2 in a sense does not undermine, but still, in my opinion, could provide an environment where there is more investment in the space. Thank you, senator. You know, i think it would be hard to find a bigger capitalist sitting at this table than me. I am a capital c capitalist and have been involved in starting companies and helping build companies for most of my professional life. The key there are multiple keys to the success of risk capital enterprises. One is that you have to have access to the consumer. The reason that steve the reason that steve case was able to build aol as he was is because he had this open network that would scale like this. And, you know, he could get six people over here someplace in new jersey and seven people in boston and a couple people over in albuquerque and excuse me i keep out of that build a whole. If he had had to go serially to the various folks who provide service there and said can i get on can i get on which weve had to do so many times in history, it wouldnt have been that kind of success story. So open access is key to innovation and growth. Secondly, you need to make sure that those who are providing that access are getting the rate of return that they deserve because thats the only reason theyre going to invest the capital to build the pipes to begin with. And that has been a threshold issue with me from day one of this topic. And, again, i come back to the model that the Wireless Industry has used most successfully for their voice services, and not having rate regulation not saying this is what Consumer Prices are going to be, not having terrafin not saying you have to build something and then unbundle it. Its a structure that encourages the investment, and i think that thirdly, that is a reality that has been proved out by the market. As you said sprint says this works for them tmobile says theyll invest. Google fiber, who has never been regulated under title 2, says of course were going to continue to build even though were now under title 2. Cablevision comes on and says its not going to change our business practices. The small rural rate of return carriers that weve been talking about here in this hearing they filed in support of title 2 with us because i think everybody understands that appropriately done, title 2 provides certainty and serious opportunity for return. Im going to stop you there. Ive seen the chairman bench press. I dont want to tick him off. Thank you senator booker. Purge that one from the record. No. We have senator deines up next. Thats quite a statement. Im not cory gardner. This is the full thanksgiving dinner here, so good to be up here. My background was 12 years in Technology Cloud computing part of a startup we took public and we were part of the freewheeling wild west of the internet and seeing what that does for innovation and Value Creation for jobs. Im one for innovation, speed of commerce, and im just hoping the only constraint well see is Technology Constraints but not regulatory constraints. It just gives me pause. And i heard i have Great Respect for my friends across the aisle here and some of the proof points theyve demonstrated in terms of the Capital Markets didnt move with these announcements, cfos saying theyll be okay in some of these companies. Im very concerned about where some of this goes long term. There have been a lot of hearings in washington8 g where what we began was perhaps a wellintended and good idea turned into overreach. Ive not even many federal agencies and regulations diminish, they tend to only grow. So im looking at kids and grandkids here where this all heads, because i think we have something very special here in america, which is free and open internet. With that as background, i do want to shift gears and talk about the transparency and accountability of the fcc. Im concerned about the commissions routine practice of granting broadband editorial privileges to staff, the technical and uninformed edits. Commissioner oreilly, in testimony you discussed this broad scope of privileges. Could you describe specific examples of what needs to be done to be sure of a smooth process . The bureau asked for regulations and i objected partly because i hadnt had the opportunity to look at our manual. There are no fast rules on what we have, theyre just practices we have written down in this commissioners guide to what the agenda meeting should be. So what ive suggested is, one, we ought to caudify our practices here rather than just have them as free flowing. Two, ive had a problem with the practice itself, because whats been encompassed within editorial privilege has not been technical conforming. Its also been changes to the text itself and substantial changes. Early on in my time the changes were quite i want to be careful in my wording but they were quite negative to one of my colleagues in terms of what the changes were that were being suggested. Im like its unnecessary to criticize another one of my colleagues when its something i had voted for. Its unnecessary to do that. Along that line, were there staff editorial edits made before the Commission Vote on february 26 . Yes. Were you allowed to discuss those changes made in the order . I think that i think i can suggest there have been changes since the item we voted on and to the item that was released. One of them was they effectively had to backtrack on the chairmans speech regarding as i pull out the specifics here regarding the piering issue. He argued that it would be separate and not part of this item, and the interconnection would be separate. Here they actually put a footnote in and said no its contained in here. They had to back off his own statement. Just to be clear on that this what youre quoting was a speech that i made over a year ago in which i said, you know, im not so sure i have been saying throughout this process as we led up to it that interconnection needed to be on the table. This was not an editorial decision that was made in secret this was a policy decision that was put forth to everybody. Let me bring it back here. Can i also say i would like to identify myself with commissioner oreilly, and the points that he made in his blog. I think he made some really valid points. And i think that we have to deal with those. He and i both walked in essentially at the same time at the same time. And date. Well, i was a couple minutes before. Commissioner wheeler chairman wheeler excuse me. Why did you choose not to have the entire commission revote on the order on march 12 especially if the fcc staff made substantive editorial change . The changes that got made were changes that were in response to dissents which we are required by law and in the spirit of transparency, could you make the february 26 order available to us . Sure. Its on the website. 26th february 26th. Its on the website yes. The final one, is he saying the one we voted on the day of . The one finally voted on on february 26. The final order is on the website. And thats the public document. The issue here is that i dont believe it is. Well follow up on that, but maybe we could get to the bottom of that. I think its an issue right now of transparency and accountability. Weve got the commissioners here. The final order is not on the website . The document as we voted on on february 26 is not on the website. The final document as required by process and the law, has changed back and forth. Id like then, to associate myself with commissioner clyburn who was absolutely right when she said this is an editorial process. And the going back and forth if we open that process up, there are multiple things that are going to happen. Markets arent going to understand, well, you know, commissioner clyburn wants to change glad to happy. Whats that mean . This is a q uas irule we exercise. We need to be going through and have the ability in camera to have our own discussions. 30 seconds more sir. I think there is a misunderstanding that the name the end of the game is the final rule. Because what happens is, you put it out, you publish it in the federal register and the next thing that happens is people are going to file for reconsideration. And what is reconsideration . Reconsideration is the entire decision is out there for everybody to see and then the public comes in and comments and says no, we think you ought to reconsider this, and were going to have to vote again. Im out of time, but let me summarize by saying the stakes are awfully high as we are looking at something stepping into title 2 and to the internet. And i would hope we could Work Together here to improve the accountability and transparency of that process so that we, one can ensure we have trust as well as Better Outcomes and with that im out of time. Thank you, senator daines. Senator shotz. Thank you for enduring todays hearing and yesterdays hearing and thank you for all the great work. We really appreciate it. I want to thank the chairman for the bipartisan process hes undertaken to explore the possibility of lejs lagtgislateing in this space. Im not clear were going to be able to get there because i dont think we have a meeting of the minds even on the kind of basics of a negotiation. Which is to say, its hard to imagine that president obama or house and Senate Democrats would agree to legislation that would undermine the basic principles of Net Neutrality. I think there is some openness among some of us to ensha ryanrining those principles in statute but if were unable to reach a Common Ground in terms of the beginning of a negotiation then im not necessarily hopeful, but i think it is worth exploring. I think it is worth discussing. Im a little concerned about the litigation risk, not just on the title 2 side but on the forbearances side. So i think its worth exploring, but i also think we ought to be direct with each other about whats realistic in terms of a legislative strategy or a litigation strategy, and im not sure at some point were not going to have to decide which it is and what is the most practical course of actions. Can you tell me, mr. Wheeler, how you arrived at fortthe forbearances . Did you start with the Net Neutrality and then arrive at those . Great question. Thanks, senator. We started with back to section 332 and senator markey and those 19 that clearly experience has shown are not necessary. And then we went through and said, what are other ones that in this situation are not applicable . And that got us a list of 27 up from the 19 of earlier. So what remains that isnt there for neutrality . Section 202, which is where this section resides, section 208 208, which is the Consumer Protection aspect section 222, which is the privacy activities. Section 254 which is universal service, and thats probably the first hand of priority issues. Is it fair t