The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently voted to reinstate net neutrality rules, a move that has sparked strong reactions from various industry groups.
From the April 1, 1968 Telegram: "The little town of Brule literally 'came to life' and was bulging at the seams with what was described as a 'record number' of down-staters and non-residents to try the famous Brule."
The new ward boundaries mean no one is certain where the pieces will fall. New battle lines will be drawn tomorrow as the town’s politicians prepare to fight the first elections with new ward boundaries. As part of cost-cutting measures, the number of councillors on Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council will be cut from 60 to 54. With that, comes changes in the boundaries of each ward, changing the battlegrounds for the first time since 2008. Therefore, it is hard to anticipate how exactly the results will go. But as ever in elections, certain parties will be more popular in certain areas, and by looking at historic results in the predecessor wards, we can predict which wards may be closest fought.
perimeter securities. we are attempting to get a republican governor to join us tomorrow for the program to talk about issues from their state and nationwide. that will be on washington journal tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.. we will see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] up next, a discussion on unauthorized telephone charges. after that, we look at the u.s. economy would senator al franken, congressman sander levin, and richard trumka. and later jeffrey imelt. we will have remarked from governors from the national governors convention. that is live at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. next week as the one-year anniversary of president obama s signing the dodd-frank act into law. on monday, a public meeting with the oversight council created under the legislation and chaired by treasury secretary tim geithner. the mandate is to identify and manage risks that threaten financial stability. you could watch live monday at 11:30 a.m. on c-span 2. i am very interested in what i call disappearing america. america that may not be here 25 years from now. for 30 years, carol highsmith has traveled the world documenting the country through our camera lens. follow her story sunday night on q &a. we will have an original documentary, the library of congress. you are watching c-span, bringing politics and public affairs for it every morning it is washington journal about the news of the day. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house of weeknights congressional hearings and policy forums. also supreme court or a document written on the weekend, you could see our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org and it is all searchable on our cspan video library. cspan, washington your way, the public service created by america s cable companies. americans could be paying up to $2 billion per year in unauthorized charges on their phone bills. according to a study by the senate commerce committee on cramming which is when phone companies allow third parties to add charges to landline phone bills. we will look at the committee s hearing. this is about an hour and a half. good morning, this hearing will come to order. today s hearing is about a scam that has cost telephone customers billions of dollars. all of you at this table are aware of this in various ways. it is called on authorized charges. the telephone company can have authorized charges if you want to buy dish tv or something, that as an authorized to charge. the great percentage of on authorized charges un authorized charges appear on the bill. a person who does not carefully read the bill which is four or five pages long, sees this thing and doesn t know what it is. they did not ask for and they did not want it and it is not authorized to be there. legally it should not be there. it is there. it is called cramming and refers to mysterious charges that appear on american phone bills for services that people don t want and don t use and did not ask for and should not have to pay for. the companies responsible for these charges don t sell legitimate projects. anything. really sell most of them don t seem to do that. their sole purpose is to place bogus charges and your telephone bill and they are very, very good at that. they hope you will pay your bill every month without looking at it too closely which many people do. of the late 1900 s, the congress and the media devoted a lot of attention to the subject of cramming. there were hearings on this and bills were introduced. at the time, consumer advocates and federal authorities in the telecommunications industry all agreed that something needed to be done v. the industry told a pliant congress that they would fix the problem themselves. that made sense but they did not want to have they wanted voluntary guidelines but they did not want any sort of mandates. they said the industry has a powerful self-interest to correct this. we moved onto other issues because we thought this issue was being addressed and it was not. we know that the cramming problem was not solved. the minute the senate decided to trust the industry, the crammers saw that and moved right back again. american families and businesses have been paying the prices ever since then. in this committee, we held a yearlong investigation hundreds of thousands of pages, hundreds of witnesses, consumers, businesses, all kinds of folks. we now have a very good idea of how high this price has been. this is what we have learned more than a decade after telephone companies implemented their voluntary guidelines, hundreds of cramming companies, we don t know how many, continue to place tens of millions of bogus charges on families and businesses on their land lines. they do that every year. the individual charges are usually small amounts, between $10-$30. when you add that up, it becomes an enormous amount it is billions and billions of dollars. there is also a cost of cramming that is hard to put a figure on. it is the agony that people go through if they look at their bill. the wonder how to get rid of it. they call the cramming company and nobody answers the phone. they get lost and give up and get mad and feel even less friendly about their congress. it is a problem. one of the questions we have asked is what have the telephone companies been doing for the past decade to protect their customers from these abusive tactics? i was with a major telephone ceo last night and we talked about that. there was not a great deal said. the short answer is, not enough. all telephone companies have nt- cramming policies. they have not made a serious effort to keep the cranmer s off their landline phone bills. even when they take a company of the bill, theh crammers come right back in. there are many iterations of their obnoxious behavior. one reason the telephone companies don t crack down on them is because they make money from them. do they make a whole lot of money ofno, but in america money is money. if you can make money, why not? according to the financial information that the committee staff has reviewed, telephone companies earn $1 or two every single time they place a third party, an unautorized third- party bill. that is well over a million dollars in profit. my staff released a report revealing how cramming works and how much money it is costing. it is not just american families and businesses but people in particular. i ask unanimous consent to enter this report and other related documents into today s record. hearing no objection? no objection. it will happen, thank you. although congress and the telephone companies have not been doing enough to protect consumers from cramming, i am glad to say that some state and federal law enforcement agencies have stayed on the job. we will hear from the attorney general of illinois, lisa madigan and she will tell us our office has filed more than 30 lawsuits against crammers and will he will hear about a law that the state of vermont at passed recently to protect its citizens against cramming. many other law enforcement facilities have filed lawsuits and shut down crammers but they need to know that crammers , back. they are everywhere , back. they are everywhere. come right back. they are everywhere. when the shutdown one crammer, new ones appear to take their place. voluntary guidelines will not solve this problem. it is also pretty clear that case by case law-enforcement approach will not work. there are too many crammers written off to many consumers. it is time to do something more about it. one more thing there are about to 300 million charges, mostly unauthorized entered onto telephone bills each year. that is worth about $2 billion. .0 that is not a lot of money unless you have to pay it. people living on the edge, that is a lot of money. we estimate there have been about $10 billion worth of third-party charges on consumers telephone bills. we estimate that at&t and quest and verizon have earned more than $650 million. those three companies are earning big money. we ve got a real problem here. we want to do the right thing and we want to protect people. that is the end of may. i call on senator ihop. i want to thank you for holding this important hearing. you and your staff to put a great deal of time and effort into preparing the investigative report the committee released today. i also want to thank those at the federal and state levels who have pushed for the legal action. i want to recognize a former colleague, lisa madigan, the attorney general in illinois who i worked with. she has been active in this field and i welcome heard here this morning. for more than a decade, new hampshire has had a primer for responding to a practice known as cramming. when i served as the state s top law enforcement officer, and oversaw an active protection consumer protection bureau which include the publication of consumer protection source book and brochures to provide individuals with information how to protect against cramming. in new hampshire, the public utilities commission is authorized to find service providers and bend them from access to the telephone company building apparatus to prevent further harm to consumers. as we continue to examine this issue and discuss how to best address this, we must not lose sight of the fact that cramming affect regular hard-working americans who are being scammed out of their hard earned dollars. we want to recognize that there are legitimate business is providing services to consumers. it is my hope that we will spend some time this morning talking about the prosecution of crammers and how to go after them without strict or fear. of fear we re not fully addressing this issue. in addition to the witness is from illinois and the vermont law enforcement who we will hear from today, and i appreciate mr. byrd being here, the ftc and the fcc have brought law enforcement actions against bad actors regarding 11 it cillegitimate charges. the fcc announced yesterday that they will help consumers detect and prevent unauthorized charges. there is ongoing action to help consumers protect themselves. one of the issues this committee will i hope address is whether those steps are sufficient to protect consumers and hold wrongdoers accountable given the clear importance of this issue and the urgent need to find workable solutions that protect the public, i appreciate the work that went into his yearlong investigation. i am disappointed that the findings were only released right before the hearing because i would have liked to have heard from our witnesses more an analysis of what their view is of the report. i hope that all of you will feel free to augment the record with your perspective on the yearlong investigation that was conducted by this committee. i appreciate each of the witnesses for sharing their expertise and helping the committee better understand this issue. as a follow-up to this hearing, i believe it is necessary that we hear directly from local exchange carriers, aggregate is, as well as the department of justice, the ftc and the fcc. so that we can hear their perspective on this report and provide additional information as we address this very important issue on behalf of consumers. i look forward to the hearing today and i want to thank each of you for being here. i yield back the balance of my time, thank you. thank you very much, senator. should we be kind? we have amy klobuchar here. she has another hearing she has to go to. ne might like to say something that leaves mark so we have to figure out i will pass. senator klobuchar can have as much opportunity as she desires. thank you, mr. chairman. the work in this area has been very stable and very helpful in our state has been taking this on at the federal and state level. our attorney general joined together and talked about the consumer fraud lawsuits against a company that charged the thousands of minnesota andns for service that they did not use. the company is called a cheap to dial at a charge to hundred 57,000 consumers in minnesota for long-distance service fees. 200 set 257,000 customers in minnesota and nine people used to this service. it is one example of an industry practice that has cost consumers and businesses millions of not billions of dollars. i will never forget the consumers standing there. i think one was a lutheran minister and his wife and she had checked the bill and was able to discover that charge which is not something i would do. it is very hard to consumers to notice these charges because so often, they could be $10, $15, $20, $5 amounts that they would not normally notice on a larger bill. that is what you when you added up, it becomes a big chunk of change i am one that believes it should not be up to the consumer to play detective. i believe that phone companies and third-party aggregate is need to crack down on crooks who are stealing from our citizens and their businesses. we need clear rules of the road that prevent this behavior. there has been good things about our deregulated market. it has led to innovation but here are issues that we are seeing like this one where crammers have been exploiting this open market. i applaud the commission for the rule making. i look for to help in any way i can. i look forward to hearing the testimony. i am chairing a issue on judiciary. i may not be here for all the questions but if i am not, i will submit my questions on the record, thank you. thank you much, senator klobuchar. my vice chairman, senator ayotte will make the next introduction. thank you. it is my privilege to introduce the attorney general from illinois, lisa madigan who will provide testimony and has been active in going after crammers in her own state. i know how diligent she is in protecting consumers. thank you, attorney general madigan. thank you. i appreciate this opportunity to testify. i want to stress three points that draw my 8.5 years experience investigating and bringing enforcement action against phone bills crammers. number 1 most consumers are completely unaware that their phone number can be charged almost like a credit card. many consumers will never discovered that there are unauthorized charges buried in their phone bill. my office has yet to see a legitimate third-party charge placed on a consumer phone bills. 3 phone bill cramming is such a pervasive problem, i believe the only effective solution is to enact legislation banning third-party charges on phone bills. to give you an overview, ill. individuals, businesses, churches, and government agencies have been filing contains complies with the attorney general since 1996. in response, illinois and other states and the ftc have taken a series of law enforcement actions and when we did that initially, it temporarily quelled the problem very we are seeing a strong resurgence in the number of cramming complaints. initially, the phone bill cramming scams were perpetrated through telemarketers. recently, crammers have moved to the internet. some internet victims tell us they have done nothing more than submit their name, address, and their phone number in response to online offer is for either a prize drawing, coupons, or free recipes. eventually, they learned they had been crammed. they did not know they re buying anything and they did not know that by giving their phone number, there are authorizing a charge and their phone bill. they are understandably puzzled and angered when sometime later they noticed their phone bill contains a charge for a product or service that they did not seek out or authorized paying for and they never used. that is when some of the victims turned to my office for help. however, fcc data indicates that as few as one in 20 consumers that are billed for third-party charges are even aware of the building. my own investigation has revealed a similarly low level of consumer awareness. through our investigations, we learned that many victims have never visited the website of the vendor was product or service they are being charged for and wars, some of the victims don t have access to the internet. additionally, victims consistently tell us they have never use the product or service for which they were billed parrot that is not a surprise when consumers did not know the purchase anything in the first place. in one case that we handled, we managed to obtain the data on more than 3500 illinois consumers who had been billed for internet service and extended cell phone warranties. most of the consumers we talked to did not know they were being billed and non of the 3500 consumers had made a warranty claim or had use the internet service. our investigations consistently reveal the most fun crammers rely on deception. others engage in outright fraud. the basic marketing strategy has remained the same period weather over the phone or on the internet, the consumer is never clearly told that they are making a purchasing decision or they will be billed for the purchase on their phone bill. for that giving their phone number will authorize a charge on their landline phone bill. in contrast, or the victim participate in the transaction also unwittingly, the scams involving outright fraud do not require the victim to take any action. this cramming is free referred to as phantom of billing. the acceptance of the victims o of the deal is completely fraudulent. the voices of recordings are not the voices of consumers who were bill. i should note that in another of our cases, a county coroner s office, a restaurant, and the public library phone line were among the 9800 illinois businesses build for credit repair services that assuming the services were legitimate, could only be used by an individual. i would argue to this committee that when an automated children s dial a story from my the supposedly signed up for credit repair services, it is time to stop third-party billing. from the beginning, third-party charges on phone bills have been an open invitation to fraud and deceit. has been a scam or vendors, billing and irrigators, and carriers make significant money by consumers never noticing the charges. i strongly support the size of legislative action on the state and federal level to ban the practice altogether. a bank for the opportunity to testify today and i am happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you very much. now we turn to general berg. it is assistant attorney general byrd, but thank you for the promotion. i appreciate the opportunity to testify to the committee today. over the past year-and-a-half, our office has been issuing subpoenas to third-party billing alligators, to vendors. we have been interviewing consumers and we have reached a number of conclusions about the problem of cramming which i would like to share with you today. i would like to talk about a potential solution to the problem that has been embraced in vermont. first of all, the incidence of cramming in for not in vermont is extremely high for a 90% of the people responding to a survey had absolutely no recollection of ever having given consent to be billed on their local phone bill. secondly, the level of consumer awareness about the possibility that one can be billed for third-party charges on a local farm bill is extremely low. thirdly, we have found many instances of deception being used in marketing third-party charges that get passed onto local phone bill. and fourthly, and this is the major point, and it has to do with consumer expectations, ordinary people do not expect that third-party charges by companies that are not related to their local phone company can be placed on their local phone bills. they are simply not aware of that any more than people would expect or any of us would expect to have third-party charges placed on our monthly mortgage account statement for our electric bill. without that awareness, people will not play the detective. they will not scrutinize their phone bill to figure out if there is something on there that they should be complaining about. vermont has given the potential solution of disclosure a fair shake. for the past decade, there has been a statutory requirement in vermont that third-party vendors send a notice through the mail to people who will be billed on their local phone bills by the vendor. the fact is, that system has not worked. the level of awareness of the possibility of those charges have not increased in the state. in january, the attorney general s office proposed to the vermont legislation that a bill be introduced that would actually prohibit third-party charges of local phone bills. with some limited exceptions for things like direct dial services that are initiative by the consumer or collect calls for operator-assisted calls are companies rub regulated by public utilities. the proposal was otherwise to ban such charges. a bill was introduced to do that. it was approved by voice vote in both houses of our legislature. it was signed into law at the end of may and became effective immediately. under that law, a claim by a vendor that the consumers somehow consented to the charge is not a basis for allowing the charge. this is an actual prohibition. other forms of payment are allowed. vendors who want to charge people using a credit card or debit card or electronic funds transfer or a check, the kinds of them and mechanisms that people understand and expect, that is all permissible. you cannot do it on the phone bill. since may, there has been no negative feedback whatsoever about the bill. we think people are pretty happy with it. i would point out that the local phone companies supported us in that initiative in the legislature. we approached them last fall and made the pitch to them that these are their customers as well. they came on board. we were able to get that legislation through with that coalition and i would modestly suggest this may be a model for other states and the nation, thank you. thank you very much. now we turn to miss susan epley from georgia who has an experience you like to share with us about cramming. thank-you. thank you for having me here today. i am from decatur, georgia. i m here to tell you about my personal experience with cramming. in early 2011, i work for a successful franchisee of 32 quick service restaurants as the accounts payable rep. this company offered incentives to managers and crew including bonuses paid to managers for hitting their number is based on profit and loss statements. in october, i was entering the at&t invoices and i got curious about how different the bills were from store to store. upon investigation, i noticed there were charges for services that were not from at&t. i called devin spoke with a customer service representative who recognize the problem and she explained that at&t was billing on behalf of a third- party company. she said it was the customer s responsibility to block phone bills from such charges. she told me she takes a lot of calls like mine. i contacted the third party company at the phone number provided and spoke to their customer service representative who said we requested the service. i then contacted the area manager for the store and he said he did not request the service. it went back and forth. until i insisted the charges were never requested because only area managers are authorized to make those requests. the representative offered to take three months of the charges off and credit the at&t bill for the next month. i insisted that all $1,900 the credited back. the representative said he could not do that and he had a record of the request for service. i asked to hear it. i was transferred to a supervisor who credited all the charges and i never heard a recording. for the next two months, i went through every single at&t bill for all our accounts, set up a block on each account to prevent future cramming and to my best estimates and, i spent about 15 hours dedicated to this issue alone. those hours to not include the time our accounting department area managers have spent on this. in the end, six of our 33 accounts were affected the estimates the total amount crammed on your phone bill was about $4,200 for it upon my persistence, that amount was credited back. even though aged on the third party company told me they had a recording proving we requested each service, they never played the recording for me. it is certainly is annoying and a hassle to deal with additional administrative paperwork making additional phone calls, and keeping information organized especially for services not requested. are busy accounting department had to deal with their own administrative issues such as readjusting profit and loss statements. the inconvenience and cost of administrative paperwork on this issue pales in comparison to what it has taken away from the managers of our restaurants. these managers work long hours in a busy and demanding environment with a smile on their faces and have a tremendous job juggling employee relations, customer satisfaction, serving safe food and controlling costs. great managers are rewarded with bonuses and some of our managers no matter how hard they work and no matter how much they earned, did not receive their bonuses because of cramming. it is infuriating to me that it is illegal for companies without authorization charge our businesses and in effect, take money out of the hands of hard working men and women. i worry about senior citizens who are falling victim to cramming because they don t have an accounts payable representative to check their phone bill for unauthorized charges. does my hope that our lawmakers will prevent businesses and individuals from being a victim to cramming by making it illegal for at&t and other companies to allow third-party billing, thank you. thank you very much i wish there were more consumers like you. you are a bulldog. but you have to be. thank you, sir. that is not complementary but i meant it to be. [laughter] our next witness is dave spofford who is the president of zyco and what you have to tell us? thank you for having me here today. i am the founder and ceo of zygo in manassas, virginia. thank you for investigating this important issue. i have a 20-year background in telecommunication billing and i have never seen cramming as bad as it is today. as we process tens of thousands of carrier invoices every month for our customers and are responsible for moving these third-party charges for many of our clients, we are interested in this subject matter cramming charges have been and remains a major problem for the industry. we manage approximately $1 billion per year in telecommunications expenses for more than 200 clients. we have software that helps companies of all sizes manage communication expenses and identify areas where they can cut costs. where a member of the telecommunications expense management association of which i have served as president. our clients spend $50,000 debt $10 million per month on a variety of telecommunications services. we monitor their invoices every month which allows us to identify trends, recurring problems, and the results of our joint effort to get control of expenses. we have the unique view into the view into the world of telecommunications services after reviewing three years, we found the following information that i hope will help the committee to investigate this problem. we have found 40,000 instances of cramming. the recurring amount for average cram is approximately $18 per month. we estimate that over 80% of all businesses experienced cram charges. 71% of our customers have experienced cram charges in the last three years. since the average charge is small and the time investment required to eliminate the charge is high, many customers simply pay the charge. we have identified several major third party billing consolidators who are responsible for the majority of these charges. we have also identified approximately 600 third-party bill names that are used to build nearly 3000 different line-item charges. biller rge quantity bu names may be a way to avoid automatic detection. these charges often have descriptions like voice mail, e- mail, director services, web hosting, and other names that appear to the normal services to the customer. as it turns out, more than 99% of these charges are not authorized by the customer and are for services they are not receiving. decentralized companies have more exposure than other companies for a large retail chains are particularly hard hit. the more invoices a business receives, the harder cramming is to detect. zygo has provided the committee staff with the details and a third party billers commonly used for these charges the communications industry is already complex and growing quickly and they stopped the practice of cramming would be a welcome relief to all communications customers. i thank you for your time and we are committed to supporting our efforts anyway we can and we look forward to working with you to put a stop to this problem. thank you very much. our final witness will be mr. walter mccormick, the president of united states telecom organization in washington. thank you. thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the united states telecom association. i might add is a personal pleasure for me to be back before this committee but i had the honor of serving for many years as general counsel and as chief counsel to the minority. our industry accepted your invitation to appear here today for three reasons first, to a acknowledge the existence of a continuing problem, one that impacts consumers, one that has continued for many years despite remedial measures undertaken by our industry and by the federal communications commission. second, we appear to honor and cooperate in your effort to draw attention to cramming and eliminate it. third, we put our good faith dedication to work with you and the federal regulatory agencies to work for reforms. mr. chairman, our position simply put is that consumers should not be charged for services they did not purchase. for our industry, a third party billing had its genesis in a well intentioned pro consumer initiative by the federal government. in the wake of the at&t divestiture is, the fcc required telephone companies that had been part of the bell system to bill and collect charges on behalf of competing long- distance carriers and enhanced services providers. federal regulators believed that the convince of having all communications related services on a single bill was an important process competition, pro-consumer policy. although no longer required, third party billing continues to be valued by many legitimate businesses and by some consumers as a convenience. three into related measures form the foundation of the basic consumer protection from work in place today. they are the industry s anti- cramming best practices guidelines, the ftc driven billing order, and truth in advertising. telephone companies do four things to protect our consumers. the first level of protection seeks to prevent bachus from getting access to the telephone bill in the first place for it contractual commitments with billing aggregate is require active oversight of all service providers. the second level of protection seeks to make charges on a customer s bill clear and transparent. third-party charges are aggregated in a separate section of the bill along with notification that such charges may be contested without risking phone service. the third level of protection is to provide an instant credit to any customer then notified the company that a charge on their bill is not authorized. the policy of leading companies in the industry is to eliminate the charge, no questions asked. the goal of this first call approach is to provide the consumer with full relief without hassle including an offer to block further charges from that service provider and review prior bills to see a similar charges previously went on noticed and needed to be removed. many companies offer the customer the option of pace placing a block and all third party charges. the fourth level of protection involves monitoring and audits and suspension of service to problem providers. these measures, taken together can have dramatic results. one of our company reports have achieved an 89% reduction in chronic complaints since january, 2010. nevertheless, as this hearing in your investigation demonstrates, the problem of cramming persists. we close our testimony as we begin by acknowledging the existence of a continuing problem and by committing ourselves to working with you and the committee in addressing it. i thank you very much. that are twoint out t votes of the morning, i think are their two boats, have started. nobody panicked, we will be back. we will let amy klobuchar who has to go see? do you want to ask a question? we can have time for one or two questions and then we go vote and on the second vote, we vote immediately and come back. it should be no more than 15 minutes, can you live with that? all right. attorney general madigan, the word convenience was used by mr. mccormick. i am fond of that word because i am a student of oriental languages and zen buddhism. i am trying to figure out what convenience means because it is frequently used by telephone companies. you brought 30 lawsuits against companies. one of your recent cases you filed against a california company call i.d. lifeguards who charge more than 5000 of your illinois citizens $12.95 per month for a so-called identity protection service. when your office contacted these consumers, they said they never authorized to these charges and did not know the charges were on their phone bill. that is correct, is it not? that is correct. we found hundreds of companies like this. where does the word convenience telephone companies use this word when they say that will fix it themselves and use it now. how has this become a convenience? mr. chairman, the only people who would describe third-party charges being crammed on phone bills as a convenience might be the carriers for the aggravated or the vendors. it is not a convenience. it is an enormous and expensive passel for individuals and businesses and government agencies who are constantly having to be aware of the fact that they may be crammed and go for a very time-consuming process to have these charges removed. on like the testimony that mr. mccormick date, we found that when consumers have tried to remove these charges by contacting their care, they are given the runaround. they are told they cannot do anything about it that they will have to contact the vendor. then ms. epley went through the experience similar to what consumers have gone through. in terms of our case, there was a 56% refund rate. in other words, of the 5000 + consumers, 56 percent some of them had the bill had the charge removed from their bill. that is the outright fraud. they re supposed to be receiving a credit of the recovery of a credit report. no individuals have received a copy of their credit report. there is no convenience. it is a terrible inconvenience. that is the reality. i think you are right let me call it 15-minute recess and we will be right back. thank you. [no audio] [no audio] let me just finish out my question with you, attorney- general madigan. all we did was the eighth largest telephone companies. that was our search. imagine if we start going elsewhere. how much we would find. why do they do that? these are huge companies. they make some money from it, yet. ah. hopefully they ll get bad publicity from this. that is the promise and it broke that promise. if the ceo i had in my office yesterday whether he knew about it or not. i don t think he did. that is the big corporate structure and there is always the middle people. eventually everything is money and it is on an account or a report and company and companies are responsible for what they do. why do they do this? obviously, the response will be enlightening. we would not disagree with you from the perspective of what we have seen with consumers. there is an obvious financial opportunity for the carrier s because they are receiving a portion of those charges that ultimately end up on unsuspecting consumers phone bills. but not that much. not that much but this has been going on for 15 years. over that period time, it adds up. another thing you probably need to look at is the fact that land line service is a declining service. many people are now relying solely on their wireless carrier to provide them with their phone service. it may be looked at that this is a last opportunity to earn some money. i don t think that is the proper way to look at it from a business purpose perspective. that is all we can come up with in terms of why they allowed this to go on. consumers are absolutely furious. people are completely unaware of the fact that their phone number can be used as a credit card. i talked to my husband last night. the husband of the attorney general is not a lawyer and does not delve into this and i explained to him what we were talking about today and he said he had no idea that it could be done. if he doesn t realize that your phone number can be used essentially as a credit card, i would argue very few to nobody understands that in this country. i don t remember a previous example of when a telephone number becomes the same as a credit card. do you know such an instance? no, we don t know of any other instances. clearly, consumers don t realize this which is why the vast majority of them don t even find these unauthorized charges on their phone bill. here is one of the typical bills. this bill is five pages long. it has very small print. even with my reasonably corrective glasses, i have to really look hard to find the cram that is usbi. it doesn t say what they are doing. they have a telephone number. they have to pay $19.95. they have to do it every month. then there is more stuff. who goes through this? you do because you are an american heroine and the accountant, ms. epley. there is more. almost nobody goes through this. isn t the point that they should not have to go through this? there should not be the doubt and suspicion. these huge companies make hundreds of millions of dollars. mr. mccormick, how do you answer? you promised you would take care of the problem on a voluntary basis. in such strong language that we, unfortunately for us, to our embarrassment, accepted that. now we are in the mess we are in and nothing has changed. why do companies do this? mr. chairman, i am aware of the commitment that was made in the late 1990 s. as i began my testimony today, we agree that this is a continuing problem and that the need to be addressed and we want to work with you on it. that is not the question i asked. i am aware of the problem. , that s what you said 10 years ago and stronger language. i said why do they do it? what is the company as large as at&t and many other people on that list that do this? they get this money. why did they do it? i don t understand. it is bad publicity. it is scant. ming. it cannot be very good for a telephone company to have that reputation. i can share with you what my companies have told me when i asked that very question which is that the system began with a federal requirement that it was coupled with state requirements in various states around the country that it is even unclear today whether or not the industry has the ability in every state to launder engage in this business and i believe the staff report that you released this morning indicates that there is some uncertainty in that area. let s say there is some uncertainty why would the telephone company take the chance? that does not seem to be a lot of question that it is illegal or wrong. it is scamming. why would they take that chance? bell make that much money from it. correct. why, why haven t you clean up your act? one of the just say stop it. why don t they say stop it? i don t know the answer to that question other than to reinforce what i mentioned a moment ago about the fact that it began. as a began. as a federal requirement. the industry has taken significant steps. even the report issued today indicates there has been improvements but it remains a very significant and pervasive problem. the challenge is that once you identify a scammer, they quickly come back and another disguise. it is a very significant challenge. all right. thank you very much. i want to follow up with attorney-general madigan. can you help me in terms of what are the current laws and penalties in place to address craming? what is it that has been difficult in addressing this through a prosecution route? i think about when somebody steals from a convenience corps, we generally shut down this we go after the thief. when you ban all third parties, what are the difficulties? we want to ban third-party charges on phone bills because we have yet to see anything legitimate in terms of the products or services. people are obviously aware. it should not be the responsibility of law enforcement to play whack-a-mole with these organizations. there might be a law enforcement action that ultimately results and that vendor being kicked off the pillars billing platform but they reappear with another name engage in the same activity. there is an entity we filed a lawsuit against twice because we got rid of them once and they reappeared doing almost exactly the same thing. it is on reasonable, i would argue, that requires state level law enforcement or federal level law enforcement to constantly go after something that is clearly deception and fraud. we use our consumer protection act to go after the vendors. again, when the end up going after them, these are the people who had the wherewithal to eventually contact the attorney general s office for the vast majority of people if they ever become aware of these charges will call their carrier. very few of them make it to us. at the end of the day, you have to say that if we are getting five complaints about one company, by the time we start the investigation, they have moved on. they know they are engaged in fraud and they know that if there is a significantly higher refund rate, there s a chance they will be thrown off the billing platform. they are clever in the sense they are constantly reconstituting and changing their name or the type of service they are providing and hiding under different lines. this is a serious situation that is costing individuals and businesses and government agencies a significant amount of money every single year. as a follow-up, on the federal and, you said you have been working with the ftc? they had workshops and have been engaged in this over the years. they are able to pursue these grammars under federal law? i don t know the details of their lawsuits but i know they have had significant action. one of the issues we would be interested in looking at is making sure that the tools of law enforcement and that they have the tools they need to go after the bad actors. i want to follow up with mr. byrd. he said vermont had a notice statute in place that was ineffective? how did that wework? why did it fail? i think the notice requirement failed because of the extremely low level of understanding in the public about how local phone bills can be used as a way of charging people for unrelated goods and services. you will not open the letter that comes from the vendor that looks like a piece of junk mail because why would you? you would not scrutinize your phone bill because it is your phone bill. you are being charged for your phone service. isn t that correct? it is not correct because there may be something on their that is often not related to your phone bill. we have been working for decades to get people to scrutinize their credit card account statements. you can be charged for lots of unrelated things. that has even been difficult thom the data pa discussions. the phone bill is such a normal payment pathway for normal goods and services that people are not looking there. this is one of the reasons why you have a huge disparity between the number of complaints are filed and the number of victims that you have. to have that complaint base as a prerequisite to good law enforcement action, we find barry few complaints and a huge number of victims. it is not surprising. when these notices were sent, assuming there are many bad actors participating, i assume under prior law, they would have to send these notices to the consumer? i m not clear on that theme yes, did they even sound of the notices? send the notices? there were many vendors who have a veneer of legitimacy who will respond to subpoenas we send out and they will say that we got consent from everybody recharged. in fact, there is no way of determining that. it is an online sign up, there is no way of telling whether the data that was used to charge somebody on their phone bill came from the consumer or came from a data file that was obtained in some other way without any involvement of the consumer. the prior law require these vendors to send a freestanding notice through the mail to consumers. many of the vendors said that they did not send a letter through the mill but we have a clear notice on our website. when the consumer signed up, the consumer knew that he or she would be billed on the local phone bill. there is no way of telling if the consumer side up. when we did our survey and this was not coupled with any promise of refunds or anything, people in our state tend to be pretty straightforward and they respond to this kind of inquiry, we had a vast majority of people saying that they don t know what we were talking about. they did not give consent and should not have been billed. thank you. i want to follow-up with you mr. mccormick. you had said in your testimony with respect to third party billing that was valuable to some businesses and consumers. can you provide us further information of how it is valuable? if we were to ban the practice, what are your concerns about the consequences? general madigan said she did see legitimate charges. what is your perspective on any value to the consumer? [inaudible] we would absolutely agree that it is not convenient to have unauthorized charge put in your telephone bill. in the case of vermont, mr. byrd testified that although vermont moved to third party billing, even their there were certain exceptions. it was believed to be convenient for the consumer to be able to have certain services aggregated on a single bill. any kind of examination in this area i think would require some broad understanding of what legitimate businesses rely on this third party billing as a competitive opportunity and a consumer convenience. we try to provide you with more information for the record that i would appreciate that. i think it s important for us to understand that if there is some legitimate purpose, what that would be and what examples are, given the experience we have heard from general madigan, thank you. centre mccaskill. thank you all for being here today. i would like to place on the record a letter that the committee received from a company that is based in my state, o reilly four parts. it is quay tail. for 10 years, they realized that they were being victimized by extensive cramming, they began hiring people full-time to do nothing but monitor their bill. they now have three full-time employees that do nothing but monitor billing. the experiences they have had with at&t and others, frankly, are outrageous. , how difficult it has been for them to curb this practice for the estimate that for 10 years, over $200,000 of billings have been attempted against their company. they acquired another company just a few years ago and they have done the work on that company. they think they have lost $300,000. $550,000 worth of cramming overeaten this year. and they are particularly victimized because they open new stores all over all the time and the number is available to the public. the small businesses and their new number is is where these companies are feasting brought in on small businesses. they have spent $400,000 on their staff to do this over 10 years. they have only netted $150,000. most companies don t do this. most companies try to beat it out if they can and try to do their best. i know you are in an awkward position, mr. mccormick. my wrath will probably directed will probably directed to you and we know each other by don t need to pick on you but how much are the phone companies making on this. they are allowing these people .o use their platform to bill how much did at&t make on cramming? i have been told that the rebbe is related to a third party billing are about 1/10 of 1% of overall industry revenues. that does not tell me how much it was. i would have to provide you with the exact figure for the record but i believe that the at&t revenues from third-party billing amount to about $50 million per year. to the total industry is making $50 million per year? that would be at&t. that sounds like real money to me. $50 million for third party billing, i am not saying that they make that much off of cramming. the make $50 million in fees off a building third-party billing service. for the industry, it is somewhat less than an estimated $200 million and over all, that would represent about 1/10 of 1% of industry revenues. it sounds like that either you will take a minimal position and a good reputation of these companies are being maligned to a point where they would consider it inappropriate or it is significant money and they are willing to bear the burden of this bad practice because ultimately it is the consumers out there fighting for their life and every dollar that they see on their own bill. when my credit card is used, there are a lot of hoops i am expected to jump through to use my credit card online. i have to have the right billing address and they have the ability to match up whether the billing address is correct is pin number on my credit card that i have to use that tells the company that i actually have the credit card in my possession. why don t the phone companies require these third billers to get this kind of identification? the companies have contracts with the third-party aggregate is that require the aggregate not only to authenticate to the provider but require that the service provider provides authentication of the actual authorization of the charge. those contractual commitments are in place. the telephone companies actually bought it those third-party aggregators. this remains a very significant problems. the report found that it is very difficult to tell what are and are not authorized charges. the company that wants to bill you, they could get a self- identifying number and there is nothing there for that. if somebody calls my house and my grandchild answers the phone and they ask if you want to spend $2 per month to get tv listings in your area delivered to your internet account or whatever and my grandson hangs up the phone, they could start doing that because they can say they have called and somehow they got authorized. some of them don t bother to call. why don t these telephone companies say you have to produce from the person authorization for these services that have to produce pin #that matches? that may be a good idea. it is my understanding that the way in which they require authentication today is through three of specific methods. one is through actual recording of the individual when they are called and they authorized the service. number two, it is on the internet through double click but that s and number three, the delivery of welcome packages that are then accepted. they do now youpin numbers but they have industry standards with regard to authentication. two of those three are very easy to do fraudulently. the o reilly folks told me they heard the recordings and they they think they are as legitimate as the rhetoric flying around the capitol right now. i don t think the recordings are even pull through. it seems this would be a simple way. when you got a phone line, you pin number and before some of the charges, they would have to be able to produce that number. i m not giving my number out on anything unless it is something i want. it seems like that would clean it up pretty quickly. you could do that on your own without the government getting involved. would you mind taking that your association? i absolutely will. that s great. how many third-party vendors have been disqualified this will be my last question how many third-party vendors are you aware have at&t disqualified from using their customers phone numbers? i don t have a specific number. i would like to know how many total third-party vendors at&t has a contract with. they are the biggest and have the most resources to shut this kind of step down. according to o reilly, they have been very difficult. there are some parts of a country that cannot block. i would like to find out from at&t how many third-party vendors they have total and how many they have disqualified annually for the past five years. thank you very much. thank you, senator. i will defend i will defer to senator udall. are you sure? go ahead. thank you very much. once again, you are steering us and the right direction in terms of consumer protection and focusing on this hearing. i very much appreciate that and i appreciate the fact that you have an attorney general, an assistant attorney general here. senatoryotte was very aggressive in her state and the both of you are very aggressive in terms of stopping this kind of scams and we appreciate your presence because you bring a very important perspective. i understand from your testimony that almost all consumers who were crammed were unaware of the charges and did not want or use the advertising services. i think both recommend the prohibition of third-party charges to landline phone starts. when we get the innovation and new uses and we have the cell phones going, we will next be looking at cell phone and what is happening there. do you have any recommendations on how to prevent a problem of this scale, $2 billion or more, what can we do as far as cell phones affecting third party billing? what is your recommendation? me give you a perspective on the overall complaints. it appears that about 82% of the complaints were regarding land lines and 60% of them were wireless lies. in the state of illinois, we have seen very few complaints regarding wireless lines. our belief is that wireless carriers are much more vigilant and intolerance of third-party billing. they have been very aggressive in ensuring those bills are claimed and they maintain their good reputation for. again, i would propose that if you ban that opportunity, he will prevent that fraud from migrating from landline bills to the wireless bills. many people are starting to rely exclusively on wireless service as opposed to land line service. your concern is a good one but i would tell you that we have not seen the problem at the level it exists on land lines. it s certainly as the opportunity if we don t cut it off entirely. do you have the thoughtsm,r. byrd. i think it is important to look at the issue of consumer expectations and whether you can be billed and for what and to see if those expectations are the same in the wireless environment as and a land line environment. it may be that because of the availability of various related services and those kind of thing that in the bill to wireless account that people will expect that to be billed but an outright prohibition may not be the right way to go. you could have a blocking system that could be automatically open a wireless account. you could opt out of that which would protect the broad public and those people who want to be billed for a whole range of things on their cell phone account, they can do that. two and the other panelists have thoughts on this issue? do any other panelists have thoughts on this issue related to wireless? our company as a service out now which allows people to upload a fumble and detect third-party charges and we are seeing an increase on the wireless site for it is nowhere near as bad a problem yet. due to the legitimacy of many third party charges on wireless build app,s, movies, songs, for smart devices, it will be a tough challenge to determine what is legitimate and not. we do that based on actual heart research of every line item charged so we can catalog the bad ones and inform our customers about it. the broad prohibition would be difficult but it is coming and it will get much worse on wireless. i don t think any legislation on the wireless side will affect wireless. thank you. i would also ask consent to put my opening statement into the record. absolutely. thank you. i don t really have any questions. i appreciate you holding the hearing and the ranking member being here and participating. this is a problem that i think will continue to grow and it is not just this area. my daughter was telling me the other day she had somebody called and asked if she would like to increase your sales and visibility throughout the country and she said yes. they took the yes and use that as a justification to add about $100 per month. it was very substantial. there are all of these areas. wireless is important. in arkansas, where 70% wireless at this point. you see that especially with young people. it does all go together. i think it is really important that we discussed this. we ve got a lot of differences of opinion from the panel. the panel is excellent and we appreciate you being here and sharing your insights. all of you being on the front lines are fighting the battle in your own way. law enforcement does not want to see this happen. the phone companies don t want to see it happen also but the key is how you do it. in a reasonable way. thank you again, mr. chairman. thank you, senator. we have to wind up it is interesting to me that at&t itself has been crammed. some 80 times my question to you, mr. mccormick, i think there is total agreement on this panel except for you and you are off if at&te ofit itself as being crowned 80 times, they probably don t know about it. on the other hand, how can they not know about it because they have good auditors and bean counters. simple t we just take a thing and put all of our agony at an end and try to protect authorized charges but get rid of all the rest? why would we not do that? it is millions of sleepless hours for millions su ofsan why go through all the tomfoolery of hedging bets. ? this should be a monumental embarrassment to the telephone companies. we will persist on this. because that is what we do here. we protect consumers. we disband that so you would not compromise yourself so much as a witness? mr. chairman, as you know, the industry supported the legislation. the business of third-party billing represents less than 110 1/10 of 1% sun. i don t care. you have said that. do you know how misleading that is tha? it affects hundreds of thousands of citizens across the united states every single year. don t give me that represents a 1/10 of 1%. that is the corporate view. why do you use it? what to think about her instead of the 1/10 of 1% which i don t necessarily agree with. why not ban the on authorized building? give america a reason to wake up with a smile. don t embarrass the phone companies and all the others that we will investigate. why not? mr. chairman, we to ban all authorized billing. with regards to billing all third-party billing, that is something i will explore with the industry to see if the industry would like to support that. alright, i will turn to send ayotte to ask a final question that i will have a closing statement. thank you, mr. chairman. this is a follow-up. i appreciate mr. mccormick, that you will speak with the industry and i look forward to your supplement to the question that i a week and have a full understanding if we were to go in that policy direction and what would be the full consequences of doing so for consumers as well as businesses. i appreciate that. attorney general madigan, as i understand it, illinois passed a craming lot in 2009.. which does not have a complete ban on third-party billing. can you help us understand you are asking us to do a complete ban what has not worked in your law and what has brought you to this position today? when we brought our lawsuits, all three of them, we used our consumer fraud act. we have yet to use the new law. the reason we re here today is we would be we would like to be more like vermont because they have been successful in being able to pass an outright ban. that says that we have to spend countless hours in a slightly similar way to what aep ms.ley does. we taken hundreds of complaints, filed a lawsuit in the eventually after a lawsuit after an investigation and get restitution for the consumers but not nearly all of them. what we have seen repeatedly and what you have heard everyone testified to today is that consumers don t know that their phone bill can be is like a credit card account. consumers and that would services and products crammed on their phone bills that they did not ask for an because they never ask for them, they never knew they were paying for them, and they never used them. the way to eliminate that without having to go through the heroic efforts of most people on this panel is to simply ban these third-party charges. yes, there are some exceptions operator-assistance, dial around services, there are certain things that everybody knows what those exceptions are. those are things that individual consumers or businesses affirmatively asked to be put on their bill. this is not some secret mystery that ends up crammed onto their bill and all they have done is put their name, address, and telephone number into an online solicitation to get coupons. that seems to be the way that many people on the internet end up being charged for these things. , if they were on the internet at all. because of the enormous level of fraud and deception that is the entire industry here, it should just be banned outright. one final follow-up mr. mccormick, if you have it as an industry have to follow a bunch of different state laws in this area of you have to follow the law that illinois passed, i assume this is what you are dealing with. if we are looking at a solution here, whatever our solution would be that this committee comes up with, what is the industry view in terms of having a one federal standard whether it is banning third party billing or some other solution? what is your perspective on that? this is primarily a national business. these issues have come up. we have been looking to thefcc as the principal regulatory agency. it is good to have a single nationwide standard. [no audio] i have to ask the attorney general s here if you have any concerns about prevention? we always have concerns that the state level. there was somebody who kindly mentioned the fact that you would want to make sure that while the federal regulators had authority to do whatever they needed to do against cramming that the states are not stripped of that authority. we find that is not often strong enough to contend with the on- the-ground problems we have in the state. thank you. . but we closed with a couple of things 1, thank you, very much for being here and what is an american problem, a classic american problem. we re not talking about the war and afghanistan, or raising the debt ceiling. i grant that, but we are talking about something that is profoundly troubling and disturbing. for millions of americans, it is also a necessary. i mean, i thought what we were meant to do is try to clear up problems here. 10 years ago, the telephone industry said they will clear up the problems because they make us look bad if we do not, therefore you could trust us to do it, and they did not. all i am saying is we are going to stick with this. the sec stated yesterday that they are seeking comment on whether a band third party billing banned third-party billing they have settlements, the ftc, but that this stuff that is already done, and that is an admission of guilt. i am not a lawyer, but that is the way i read it. anyway, in the near future, i plan to introduce, working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, legislation that will put a side stop to this because i simply cannot find any grain of sense in us having to have a hearing like this. and and, to have and to have all of you, you have not gone off of the gotten out of the all of the spotlight, but susan is better looking than you. no argument. why put people through that? it does not make any sense. it will not change the future of the nation, but it will change to a whole lot of household functioning and ability to survive in truly horrible economic times. those times would be with us for quite some time would be my guest. i do not think we should mess around with this. let s not worry about whether something is convenient for not. let s say if there are certain authorize things that should be done, let s work on that and figure that out, then take the rest, and just ban it. so, with that neutral statement, this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] today on c-span, the national governors association 2011 annual meeting with remarks from the governor of arizona, and martin o malley of maryland and remember in 9/11 and border security. remembering 9/11, and border security. next week is the one-year anniversary of president obama signing the dodd-frank act into law. on monday, a meeting with the oversight tonsil. the council s mandate is to identify and manage risk that threaten its financial stability. you can watch live monday, at 11:30 a.m. eastern, on c-span to. you are watching c-span, bringing new politics and public affairs. every morning, it is washington journal connecting you with politicians and newsmakers. weeknights, policy forms. on the weekends, you can see our signature programs and sundays, prime minister s questions. all it can also watch our programming and a time that c- span doubt or at c-span.org. washington, you re white, a public service created by america s cable companies. your way, a public service created by america s cable company. next, an afl-cio forum on monday. he is it you will hear al franken, joined by sander levin, and richard trumka. this is a little over two hours. welcome to our forum. thank you to our sponsors. i am bob herbert. sometimes i wonder what universe the policy-makers in washington are traveling in. we have a full-blown and plummet crisis in this country that is not a sense you would get if you followed a full-blown in employment crisis in this country, but that is not the sense you would get. i am from back from ohio, where i ve been talking with people who have been out of work, and whose families have been struggling, this in mortgage payments, deadlines, and meals. one man was out of work for a year, married, and the father of a five-year-old, and he told me what it was like last christmas, when the family put up a christmas tree, but had no presence to put under it. it sounded like a figure from one of those old, depression-era hollywood movies. even though we were not able to give each other gifts and everything, we still had each other, he said. we still have a roof over our head. americans are learning in this hideous economic environment to be thankful for small favors. there was a time when this man was so far behind in his bills that he would go to downtown columbus as often as he could to donate blood, just so he could collect the $50 they gave to donors. i thought of that as additional income he said, and we needed it. all over america, people once thought they were solidly in the middle class are facing an economic abyss. poverty is one of our few true growth sectors, but the poor are not even talked about now any more. there must be close to 50 million, but you hear almost nothing about them from our politicians in the mainstream media. or are invisible. the poor and the middle class are competing for the same jobs. when mcdonald s announced they would open new jobs, more than 1 million people applied. on friday, we had another horrendous jobs report, with over 14 million americans officially counted as unemployed, which created just 18,000 jobs in june, and very few of them were good jobs the jobless rate rose only to 9.2% because the number of people counted in june declined by a quarter of 1 million, not yet another bad sign. the reality is much worse than official statistics. young people in our society are in danger of becoming a lost generation as far as economic well-being is concerned. for perhaps the first time ever in the united states, they will likely earn less and experience a lower standard of living than their parents generation. college graduates are increasingly working at jobs that do not require a college degree, thus pushing people with just a high-school diploma or less, into thule begin to truly real war, are out of the work falls entirely men and women 50 and older are facing the out of work entirely. men and women 50 and older are facing the reality that they can not work any longer. paid vacations, fringes, they re going the way of the typewriter and the carbon printer. the need for urgent action could not be more clear. whether they doing here, in washington s alternate universe? are they trying to do all they can to create millions of new jobs? are they in a desperate rush to reinvigorate this faltering economy? now. they are engaged in a mind- battle over dueling agendas. pick your poison the president s misguided let s return the social contract approach, or let s make the rich even richer subaerial favored by the republicans. both plants will both plans will further weaken an economy that is already on life support. until recently, vice president joe biden put the top economic advisor road washington needs to quickly aggressively shift from its long-term debt obsession to the much more immediate job problem. to do otherwise, would be deeply irresponsible. ca irresponsible. i do not think anybody is listening. maybe they understand that only too well. if there is one thing i hope we emphasized during our program today is that you do not put out a conflagration by spraying it with the accelerant that started the fire. we are here to take a more constructive approach, so let s get started. i will introduce our panelists. [applause] i am delighted that congressman sander levin, an old friend of the afl-cio, and a champion of working families could be with us. he got his start as a labor lawyer in detroit, and though he served in the house for more than 30 years, he has never abandon the fight for working people in the united states or abroad. he is a past chairman of the ways and means committee, and now it s ranking democrat. welcome, congressman. [applause] we are fortunate also to have with us heather boushey, senior economist at the center for american progress, where she works mostly on labor market issues, especially the stunning impact of the great recession on workers and their families. heather has worked as an economist at the joint economic committee of the u.s. congress, and the economic policy institute. she has always been a powerful and articulate voice for progress of economic policy, and we welcome her here today. [applause] richard trumka is here. some of you may have heard of him. he is, of course, the president of the afl-cio, and one of those rare individuals who really knows the ways of washington, but also understands from long, personal experience, the real lives of real working people in the real world. he came out of the coal fields of pennsylvania and one on to become a lawyer and true policy expert. he carries the concerns of working people with him wherever he goes, and that includes to the white house, where he serves as a member of the president s jobs council. we are thrilled to have him here today. welcome, rich. [applause] speaking of the real world, we also have a couple of workers that will be telling us firsthand what it is like to be out there. i spent a little time with both of them while i was in ohio, where i also got to spend time canvassing with working america, whose folks are going door-to- door, and asking people about their experiences. the first thing? amazes me about working america is that anybody talks to them. i did not know what their secret is. people to talk to them, and you would be amazed at the percentage of people who are really struggling, that are either out of work, or having trouble making ends meet, or their kids are having trouble finding a job and cannot pay off their college loans. it was a real eye-opener. i appreciate the help they gave to me. so, anyway, the couple of workers that we have with us here one is shonda sneed, who was from young s field, ohio, and two weeks before christmas in 2009, she and several co- workers were laid off from the company in dayton that designed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units. she is still on unplowed, and is set to lose her insurance next month. because of her kuatz, she might lose her health-care aide who provides assistance to her mom who is suffering from dementia. some-kneed, thank you for coming out here. welcome shonda sneed, thank you for coming out here. i know it was not easy. welcome. [applause] i am delighted that bob stein is on our panel. he is a father of three that lost his job last year. after working more than 20 years year in sales, and another six as a custodian, bob was fired and and replace with the cleaning service. he will tell us a little bit about his hunt for a new job, which has not been easy. welcome, bob, and see what. [applause] thank you. [applause] the empty chair down there is not because anybody feared showing up to debate as today. al franken fears nobody. he will be here later, and he will wrap things up for us. senator al franken grew up in st. louis park, minn., and spent 37 years as a comedy writer, author, and radio talk-show host. i wish he was elected reps and will retain about the shenanigans he has seen since he, since he came to washington. let s get busy. we will do some work here. since we are talking about the real world, bob, why don t i start with you? exactly how long have you been looking for a job this last time, and give a sense of what that has been like? i have been unemployed since may of 2010. my background is primarily in sales, and i think that is where my skills said is best, so i have tried to find a job in sales since that time. as you are all aware, i m sure, when you apply for a job that will pay you a living wage, and i am not asking for anything o 70bitant, there are 60 tw applicants for each job, and it is difficult because there might be people that are better qualified, or have college degrees or beyond. you do the best you can to make a good impression and answer the questions properly, putting together a good resume that is very professional, and it is frustrating because almost all of your job applications are down over the internet, through various web sites, and from what i understand it is very easy to turn people down. if i have been told they go through these resumes mechanically. a real person does not even look at them. it is hard when you know you are a hard worker with a good skill set, have the right work ethic, and can not find a job. you had mentioned what it was like going to job fairs. he said it was depressed. you get the feeling that they are there more for advertising and finding good in place. they will list all the people that will be here, and when you go, you will find the most of the jobs are very low-paying, where they seem like they re not really looking for someone. you can get that feeling when you are talking to someone, whether they are really engaging you, and try to find out what you have to offer, rather than handing you some information or a brochure that says we would like you to apply. shonda sneed, how long have you been out of work, and what is your job search than like? i have been out of work since december, 2009. i m sorry. december, 2009. it has been hectic. when you came out, to search for a jobs, i was employed 10 years of my less physician, and it was not the same. at my last position, and it was not the same. you have to go on the internet, submitting resident over resume after resume resume after resume. i ve gone to job fairs. the last job interview i was told that 450 people were applying for one position. i m still upbeat that maybe i will be that one. you call back, and you say can i contact you, ken i said more references, and they say please, do not contact me. that is basically what it is. i can talk my way into a job. all i want is a fair share. i want a decent job, a safe environment. i have worked for 20 years. six months after leaving high school i got a job in the engineering field, and until 2009 is not like i do not want to work at i love work. what are you going to do when your unemployment checks ron paul? honestly, i do not let run out? honestly, i did not live in the here and now, i have been banking for the last year. i did not know what i m going to depend i have a mother that i have to take care of. i have a home that i have to pay off. i thought i was living a dream, go to work, get a job, take care of your family, and you will be ok. it is not like that anymore. i want the american dream. i guess i am going to have to get four or five jobs to make what i was making before, but then who will take care of my mom? congressman sander levin, and millions of americans are going under in this vast sea of unemployment, and there does not seem to be this sense of urgency required here in washington on capitol hill, or at the white house. can you explain that? do you agree with that, and if so, why is that the case? in a way, it is difficult to follow bob or shonda sneed, is it not? i do not think anybody can tell the story quite like you do. i think the problem is, as you said, you used the word urgency. there is not a sense of urgency about the unemployed in this country. i just want to go over a few facts and figures to kind of illustrate how the two of you really represent millions of people. 14 million over six have been unemployed for over 26 weeks. it is historically the highest number on record. what is happening is that this program is going to expire at the end of the year for most people. the emergency fund ends. those that are unwind tear can continue. there are on one teir, can continue, there are four, but after that, you are out in the cold. as for the state program, the provisions that we have put in place at the end of december go out of existence, and they help the states because there was 100% funding, and we changed the time for a look back from two to three years. that goes away. essentially, you have millions of people who are facing what you are facing. i come from michigan. i want to be very blunt to show you the lack of urgency, the lack of sense of community. if this is the state of michigan? recently, they changed the basic state program from 26, to 20 weeks. what would it take to develop a sense of urgency among elected officials? what do your colleagues say behind the scenes, when you are just having random discussions about the unemployment situation? to show you how difficult this is, i am on ways and means, and the majority of republicans passed a bill out of committee that would have given the $30 billion that was there in the federal program to the states to do what they wanted to in terms of unemployment. they can either provide the benefits, or lower taxes on employers and give the unemployed nothing. so, you asked me what is going to take there was an article yesterday about the invisible unemployed. one of the problems is that now the unemployed receive checks through the mail, or through their cards. for 20 years ago i went with a reporter, and we went to an office in madison heights. he interviewed people, and they were in line, and he was able to see this was 20 years ago that these were a very diverse group, and he wrote the stories. they were on the front page of the newspaper. i would just ask reporters, if i might say so, needy people, to do what you did the media people, to do what you did media people, to do what you did. he mentioned the unemployment. you mentioned the unemployed. there is also age discrimination. applications come in in these huge numbers, and ages indicated on the application. so, when you get two hundred or 300 applicants for one job, it is very easy not too clearly obey the law, right? you just take the younger ones. so, what do we do? i think what we have to do is do what you are doing here today, all of us. we have to somehow elevated the issue. when we raised our voices once the bill committee came out of ways and means, and we challenge them to bring it to the floor, they did not do that. we spoke up. we said to them dare put that on the floor, dare let people vote to take $30 billion away from the unemployed and give it to the states, to lower taxes. one more question, just to sort of hammer home the idea of how serious the situation is so, this is as we all know the worst employment crisis since the great depression. give us a sense of how it is effecting your workers, and what you are hearing when you go around the country talking to members of the afl-cio. let me also introduce our executive vice president. thank you for being here. i think it goes from mild anchor to hostility and a lot of places. workers have been out of work. when their first laid off, they have high expectations about getting a job very quickly. that hope slowly fades, and as it fades, it turns to anchor. they turn around and say who was actually working for us? in some areas you have over 20% unemployment. manufacturing has been hit very, very hard. our members are getting not only laid off, but they are having benefits taken away from them. if you look at the fights that we have seen throughout the states, the republican governors used budget deficit fights as an excuse to try to take away collective bargaining, and the means for most people to be able to climb the economic ladder. so, there is anger. that. actually, it caught fire. we have been trying to have a debate about collective bargaining for a couple of decades, and we were unsuccessful in doing it. scott walker handed to us. we were having that debate, and 77% of the american people believe that workers, whether they are public or private should have the ability to increase themselves economically. there is anger and is going to be difficult to motivate our members. there is a lot of frustration with both parties. there is no comparison when it comes to democrats and republicans about who stands with workers and who stands with the rich. there is frustration that more is not being done. the time for excuses is about over. people do not care why it is not being done. they only care it is not being done. i happen to agree with them. this is about priorities. this is about wanting to do something. we can create jobs if we choose to do it. so far, as a nation, we have not chosen to do it. it is regrettable. we have created a generation of workers that will never recover for what recover what they have lost during this. bank of time. there is a big during this periiod of this period of time. period of time. can you outline the differences we can expect if different politicians were willing to do something like that? or the budget cutting they are talking about so much? thank you, bob. i want to start with where rich left off. the unemployment we have and on the bus is something that policymakers can do something about. as the economist on the panel, i want to leave the audience with one thing. what we do that is good for workers in the economy will be good for the economy overall. that is the way the deficit conversations are going. it is as though there is this big difference. we have to deal with the deficit because it will be good for the economy and dealing with unemployment is not. they could not be more wrong. until we get america back to work, we will not be able to get our fiscal house in order. your question about the difference between investing in the economy and addressing budget problems is a false choice. for starters, we are in this situation today because of the collapse of the housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis and all of the acronyms we have learned so much about over the last few years. the collapse of the housing bubble left a big gap in our economy. many of you in this room know that the middle class has been squeezed for decades. they dealt with that squeezed by taking on more debt. that debt was made for possible by deregulation. as middle class families that squeeze and they took on that debt, we have a big gap in our economy. they do not have as much home equity loans and as many jobs. until we fill that gap with investment in education or infrastructure i do not care what you and best in we are not going to be able to get back to full employment. until we get back to full employment, we cannot deal with the budget challenges. as bob and shonda know, when you are out of work, you do not pay as much in taxes. that is a big key to what is going on with our budget now. until we get that back on track, focusing on the deficit will only further push our economy in the wrong direction. my biggest fear writedowns is back if things work out in the way that it seems to be every morning when i get up and read the paper and get really mad over the breakfast table if things keep going that way and we do not invest more money in unemployment insurance and we have a deal to address the deficit crisis that cuts spending too quickly, that is only going to raise unemployment. it will only lead to a worsening of our situation. we are on a downward spiral. it is thanks to the leadership of people like congressman levin and senator franken that will hopefully lead people to the idea that we need to go in that direction. there is a program called build american bonds. over $100 billion in bonds have been used. it is infrastructure. somebody got up on the floor of the house and said the problem with the program is that the money goes to the states and local governments. yes, that is where construction money goes. they want us to bid out all of the contracts from washington? they refused to renew it. it went out of business. at least 25% of the construction workers in southeast michigan are out of work. it is probably closer to 35% and 40%. that has not happened since the depression. another example in frazier, michigan, we went to a training program. the money came through a federal program to the states revolving states, the balding funds for water programs. it put people back to work. it was a nonpartisan group. there were republicans and democrats who were saying, what a wonderful program. we could not have done it without the federal government. i stood there and i said, tell that to washington. tell that to some of the people in your own parties. those are two examples of the needy. now they are talking about bringing up a highway those are two examples of the need. now they are talking about bringing up a highway bill. if we do not have growth, we will not solve the unemployment problem. it has to have that ingredient. rich, i will double back to you. you have all of these manufacturing workers jobless at the moment. if i understand correctly, there is a $2 trillion deficit in terms of our infrastructure needs. this seems like a slam dunk. it does not seem like a slam dunk to policy makers. talk about what we could be doing in terms of infrastructure and what your members are ready, willing, and totally able to participate in. the infrastructure deficit is for old and infrastructure. that is according to the society for american engineers. it is $2.20 trillion. we have another deficit for the 21st century. that is doing high-speed rail to get us into the 21st century and keep us competitive. you are looking at a $4 trillion infrastructure deficit. what was the republican response to that? to cut 40% from an anemic infrastructure. if we come together a number of businesses agree with us. big business agrees with us. labor agrees with us that we can, should, and must invest in infrastructure to get the country going. it is a job creator. if we have strong buy american provisions, it has good implications. we have manufacturing and design and all of those things get pumped from this stuff. we are talking about doing a $10 billion fund from our pension fund that we can leverage five or six times. there is an infrastructure thing to do buildings. we are going to do this building to make it more green and more efficient. we are taking our pension money and doing that. we cannot do this without the federal government leaving. we cannot get up to scale. what you have is the republicans saying, we will not increase any taxes whatsoever. think about that. if that is the case that we never increase taxes again, america is at its zenith. it must start down. infrastructure will continue to decay. the more infrastructure decays, the less competitive we are. the less competitive we are, the more jobs go overseas. the more manufacturing jobs go overseas, the more research and develop a goes overseas. the more research and development goes overseas, the less competitive we are. we need to break the stranglehold that the house extremists have on the house. infrastructure is good for the country. it creates jobs. it makes us more competitive. it is everything that is right about this. they are saying no. we are trying to do things privately. we are working with a federal infrastructure bank to try to create that so that we can leverage federal money with private money to get these projects going on the scale we need to get it going to make our country competitive and create jobs. congressman levin, there have been a number of proposals on the hill to establish an infrastructure bank. are you in favor of establishing a national infrastructure bank? cardoza votes going to go anywhere? the answer is yes to the first and no to the second. i will tell you why. we are in a crisis that has to be resolved. the basic issue running through much of this is whether we essentially say to everybody, go it alone. or we have a public/private partnership. that is the basic issue. the infrastructure bank is tied into this. it means the kind of partnership that rich was talking about. it is interesting that groups come and say to us, do something about this stalemate. but when they go back home, they do not raise their voices to help us break it. bob, i want to go back to something be congressman said about eight discrimination. the congressman set about age discrimination. they are up against it if they are out of work trying to get back into the labor market. you are 60 years old. what are your views about what is going on with older workers? what are you hearing from others whether they are friends colleagues neighbors or anything else that are 55 or older and are out of work? the thing that concerns me more than anything else is that, for a long time i have heard that it is illegal to discriminate with regards to lapage. you believe that for a long time when you are younger and you are working. when you hit that eighth and you start going through difficulties, it becomes obvious and youackthat age, start going through difficulties, it becomes obvious. companies are losing people with experience and people with solutions when it comes to solving problems. that is why older workers do not get laid off as much as other people. when you are unemployed and you are older, that does not apply. it works against you. if you are applying for a job and there are 40 or 50 applicants, and 15 of them are under 40 and have college degrees or advanced degrees, and guess who is going to get the job? it is frustrating and you know that your life experiences and your experiences are in solving problems. it should be an asset to an organizations who have younger employees that don t have a lot of experience. i can remember 30 years ago, that was a huge factor, having someone further up in the chain who had experience and would pass that on to younger employees to make them better salespeople. it does not seem to be a factor today. shonda, it seems that workers in general are being treated with less respect than we have come to expect over the past several decades. you were let go. you had not done anything wrong. your employers made it clear they do have not done anything wrong. and how quickly you were off of the premises. explain how quickly you wore off of the premises. i found out that if you have been unemployed over one year, no one wants you. that is another point i want to bring up. it is totally unfair. on that day, i walked in and sat down. i was told i would be put on a big project. i was going to the process of getting stuff ready. my supervisor not on my cubicle and said, can you follow me? i said, is there something the matter? i am tried to get this set up and ready to go. he said, follow me. he said, are you going to lay off? he did not say anything. i remember saying, wow. i followed him and we went down and the human resources person was on a conference call. i did not hear half of the things she said. all i heard was, you are going to be laid off. you need to get this ready. i turned around and my supervisor said a few things to me. we went upstairs. i was grabbing a few of my things. i was walked out of the door. you were not even allowed to come back the next day? no. it was basically over. i gave them 10 years of my life, my loyalty. i was scooted out of the door. i have heard worse. people not even i do not even understand. a lot of companies have lost respect for their employees. there is no reason for it. you made it clear at the beginning of the program that there are things that can be done to stem this terrible tid e. in the broader picture, if we really wanted to do something about unemployment and reinvigorating the economy, what are some of the things that could be done? that is a hard story to follow. okay, there is a long list of things we could do. the most important thing we need to do it is things that are going to maintain demand in our economy. one of the things we see each month is that there is a survey done by the national federation of independent businesses. not a left they represent smalls all across america. they have said that our biggest problem is sales. in their june survey, they finally brought that point into their summery and started saying, people are worried about demand. they are worried about sales. if i could do whatever i wanted, it would focus on demand. you could do that in a bunch of ways, more investment on an in education, more money out to the states. keep teachers and state and local government workers at their jobs. we need to push back on the cuts that are being made to unemployment insurance. there are 19 states that have cut back on their unemployment insurance. not just michigan, although they were a leader in this period when the benefits expire in december, i am concerned that of will toot a lot of continue them. we report the headline numbers. 18,000 people gave a job last month. what is going on is that millions of people are losing their jobs and gaining jobs. 18,000 is a net number. if we can do things to keep those people on the job, that can solve a lot of our problem. there is a work sharing bill introduced by senator reid that was introduced this week that would allow workers who are would allow employers to cut back on hours and allow people to get unemployment benefits to make up for the differences in their income. there are other policies we can go through on that. there are two other points i would like to make. as i look out into this audience, i see the faces of many people and organizations that have long and fantastic jobs agendas. we have been doing this for years. this has been a crisis that has been here for some time. there are great ideas for things we could do. one of the challenges we have given ourselves at the center for american progress is to come up with things we think can create jobs and would be politically possible. these are difficult meetings that we are having. the bandwidth for what is politically possible is that you cannot spend any money. it is not clear how you can increase demand but not spent any money. there are things you can do on the margin. we have talked about helping students out of debt. let s lower interest rates. these are going to be on the margins. they will not solve the problems. the challenge is that we continue to have this big problem. we have had it for quite some time. the economists appear to be in some agreement on what we need to do. it is up to the world of politics to make that happen. which, he made a comment that has political implications. rich, he made a comment that has political implications. you say it will be difficult to motivate your members. that is going to be a problem for president obama. can you top a little bit about that? in 2010, it was tough to get people motivated. we were successful in getting them out by telling them there was a major difference. the problem now is that the debate on the deficit is subsuming everything. nobody is talking about job creation. the president is not talking about it. the senate has started talking about job creation. when you go back into the field, our political program runs on volunteers. the volunteers can be enthusiastic or non- enthusiastic. the more enthusiastic they are, the more that if we become. it will be a little more difficult this time. when you have people talking about extending tax breaks for millionaires, but not being willing to protect social security or medicare or medicaid, as heather said, that has wide-ranging implications for the economy. if you take benefits away from any one of those, money is diverted from demand into just living. they have less money to spend. it spirals the economy down. that is the central debate. it will be tough, but not impossible. it will be tough for us to motivate our members across the board. it will not be with a party message. it will have to be a candidate- specific. there are friends out there and there are acquaintances out there. the acquaintances say, we love you. good luck. in this election, we are going to say to them, we love you and good luck. [applause] to our friends, it will not be hard to motivate them. they will know. our members know that congressman levin stands up for them day in and day out. he fights for them on everything. senator sherrod brown stands up for them. for france, we will be able to motivate them. or friends for friends, we will be able to motivate them. rich, you have included a note on the importance of opportunity and the importance of fairness. the importance of community. these are the figures about income growth from 1976 to 2007. 50% of the income growth in those 30 years went to the top 10%. 58%. 1/3 went to the top 5%. 20% of income growth in those 30 years went to the top 1%. nearly 10% went to the top 1/10 of 1%. we need to talk to our fellow ancestor citizens. this is the land of opportunity we need to talk to our fellow and sister citizens. when income is so tilted in favor of a small minority, it challenges the growth of the middle class in the united states of america. i come from michigan. without a collective bargaining, there would have been no decent wages. it would have been no decent health care. it would have been no decent pensions. now the challenge is, with the way income has been distributed, these attributes that were part and parcel of what made america a strong middle class country remembering those who were not yet in it that is the challenge we face this year and the next. those are great statistics. i would like to add two more. you talked about income. we have seen this divergence between wage growth and productivity growth. workers used to see the same increase in their wages as they were seeing in what they were producing in productivity. that diverged about the time i was born. it has been quite some time since we have seen that divergence between productivity and wage growth. what we need to remember when we think about that is that america is a rich country. we continue to get richer and richer. it is the middle-class workers who have not shared in it. as we think about jobs and what we should be doing, there is a lot of rhetoric around belt- tightening and it is hard for families. it is not hard for everybody. there is well be created. how we can make that work for everybody needs to be part of this compensation. we are creating value here. it is going to the top. we have to figure out a way to share it with the middle class again. i would like to build on what have their what heather and the congressman have said. the interesting thing is that the people in the bottom two areas at wages that were rising faster than the people at the top. the american labor movement represented about 40% of the workers. we were driving wages for union and non-union workers. workers were getting their fair share, about 40% of us. from 1973 to today, wages have stagnated and productivity has gone up. if you look at productivity and wages, that gap is increasingly going to be people at the top. we are down to 11.5% of the people right now that we represent in wages. sander gave you the figures for 30 years. let me give you the figures for the last 20 years. they are accelerating. in the last 20 years, the top 10% has gotten nearly all of the income gains. the top 1% in the last 20 years has gotten 56 sign 56% of the income gains. one person in every thousand has gotten 30% of the income gains in the last 20 years. it is getting more concentrated. it was not by accident. it was in the mid-1970s when ronald reagan the early 1980 s when ronald reagan and margaret thatcher did a thing called neo-liberalism. most americans do not understand it. they think it has something to do with being a liberal. it has nothing to do with it. it is the opposite. anything that distorts the marketplace, to get rid of it. collective bargaining distorts the marketplace. get rid of it. they went after all of those regulations. you saw the result of it. we had an economy that was not self correcting. it was not adjusting. we will get back to that if we do not change this and get more of a share of the income that is created in the country going to average everyday people so they can spend the money and create the demand that actually grows this country. that is not happening right now. heather, i would ask you the conservatives and the right wing will tell you there is no need to be concerned about this. concentration of wealth, economic inequality. there are winners and losers in this society. why should anybody care? tell us why we should care about that. we should care for two reasons. we live in a democracy. on that alone, we should care about that. i am an economist. i am not a political scientist. you can talk about that amount yourselves. caring about inequality is important for our economy and economic growth. one of the things we have seen is that as inequality wide and in the united states, there are reasons to believe that has an impact on how well our economy performs overall. as we saw the hollowing out of wages in the middle for a man in the 1970 s and 1980 s, you saw families having wives work. you saw this increase in duel- owner families. dual-owner families. wages were still not going up even though they were working longer and harder. there are implications for children s well-being and well- being for the sick. it also created the opportunity for families who were trying to just keep up. as we see regulate our financial market and said you can do as we deregulate d it our financial market and said, you can do whatever you want, families were taking on more debt to keep up with their standard of living. there is this area of interconnection between inequality and how we got to this economic crisis and how unstable we have become. there is this great new research done at the imf that pointed to countries that have more equality and have locker spells of economic growth. their growth. last longer. we should care in terms of economic growth. that is one last point. in terms of the politics, there was an interesting he did it is wonderful speech in luxembourg last summer looking at this question, the intersection between inequality and wages. he highlighted interesting research from political scientists. as we become more equal, it has led to this polarization in terms of our politics. i am not a political scientist. i think it appears to be something to that. we should be thinking more about how that is playing into what is go on in washington in terms of who is being elected and how they are being elected. in our last few minutes i agree on the inequality thing. societies that are more equal do better in a range of areas. the united states is among the most but equal of the advanced nations. most unequal of the advanced nations. i will go back to you, rich. is president obama a friend or an acquaintance? [laughter] he is a second cousin. [laughter] we put him in the category of a friend who gets delusional once in a while. i wanted to ask you to talk a little bit about the obama administration s approach to the employment crisis in general and the concerns the employment crisis specifically and the concerns of labor in general. i guess i have to go back a little bit. i have to go back to the original stimulus program. the original stimulus program was to banks small. we have to remember the original stimulus program was too small. it was set at 8.5% unemployment would be it was said that 8.5% unemployment would be the highest. it went to 9.5%. the tax cuts generated about $1.40 per dollar of investment. $1.40 per $1 of investment. $1.04 for $1 of investment. you had a stimulus package that was too small and it was drained away by 1/3 because it went into these tax cuts that most people did not even know they got. i used to go to meetings and say, how many people know they got a tax cut and two or three people would raise their hands. if the republicans had done it, they would have a neon sign when you open your check say, tax cut from the republicans. obama did not do anything like that. it started creating some jobs, some that were shovel ready and some that were so. there was a structural problem in it. they said the jobs had to be done in 18 months. that meant they were small jobs. the big jobs would have been a big job creators and they were not included. i think he made a strategic mistake whenever he started talking about job creation and deficit reduction in the same sentence. people got them all jumbled up. here we are talking about deficit reduction with no talk about job creation right now. that was his strategic mistake. he should have extricated themselves. he still should. that will only spiral us down work. debt will only spiral us downward. all of the cuts an austerity programs. look at greece. the deeper their austerity goes, the higher their debt goes. this was supposed to be a program to get them out of debt and the recession. it is pushing them in the opposite direction. all of the talk about debt reduction at a time when we have eight jobs crisis and 14 million people out of work a stop crisis and 40 million people out of work for the law period ever you made history, shonda. he beats to talk to people and let them know that he is going to create jobs. he needs to talk to people and let them know he is going to create jobs. i resent the fact that some of these politicians like scott walker and people like that are saying this is the workers fault. [applause] somehow, america s workers were unable to compete in the world and they caused these crises. we forced those bankers to loan all those billions of dollars. that is the most ludicrous thing i have seen. for any of the press to be of any kind of credence or any kind of legitimacy to that argument calls their it shows and to question calls their credentials into question. the republicans really seem to have captured the narrative that the stimulus failed and monetary policy failed and that what we need are more tax cuts and that spending is going to be harmful ,etc. l, etc. is it too late for the democrats to counter that narrative about 2012 is getting closer and closer. i think we are trying. it is not easy. the republicans have had a simple message. all tax cuts work. if you touch the tax cut for the wealthy, it will impede growth. i think we have one thing going for us. most people in this country do not believe it. most people in this country s sense in this country siense that maintaining tax cuts for the wealthy does not encourage economic growth. we are in a difficult position because of the rise in the deficit. it is up to us to try to thank a clearer picture and inject into this debate the basic fact that most economists agree with. if we do not promote jobs, we will not be able to get a hold of the deficit. ken obamas gets reelected if the unemployment rate is 8.5% or 9.5% next year? can obama get reelected if the unemployment rate is 8.5% or 9.5% next year? yes. but that is not where to leave it. i do not know what cameras are here or what reporters are here. i have no idea where you are from. shonda and bob, if i might call you by your first name. they represent the challenge faced by this country. they really do. you have worked hard. those who say that unemployment compensation is an incentive for not working should talk to you. the challenge before this country and before the president is to illustrate that we have millions of people in our country who have worked hard since they were in their teens, who have been laid off through no fault of their own. it is up to us to provide the balance to build economic growth so that you can get back to work. if you do not go back to work, it will not work for america. somehow, if we could just have you go on to our go on tour. we have to have some confidence that we can get this message through meetings like this. i have a sense of optimism. i am not sure what the unemployment rate would prohibit the election. election.- prohibit re we must take the steps now to get america back to work. thank you panelists. [applause] we are going to open things up to questions, hostile and otherwise. right in the front. let s start here. this is probably one of the best presentations i have seen since we have been suffering. shonda and bob, you describe to us where the american dream has gone, straight down the pot. it is not about the dissemination of the middle class. those who are working are the working poor. the piece you describe with the difficulty of struggling and putting your self-esteem inside. we salute you for speaking out. second of all, we want to say thanks to richard trumka, to heather and congressman levin for giving that fight back or what we have to do. you have given a clearer understanding that what the press has been doing for the last year-and-a-half. to be able to think after this is the bonus we have gotten from this session. i want to thank you. thank you. yes? this is really to president trumka. you have been encouraging to all of us. great panel. in 2001, the united states has run a trade deficit. congressman levin, it has been said that the trade deficits are a key part to contributing to the budget deficit. we are outsourcing be wealth creating part of our economy. dealing with the trade problem is an important part in dealing with the jobs crisis and the budget crisis. and yet, we do not get the media focused on the trade deficit as part of this problem in any way. we have got to understand that when you are running neck exports and deficits year after year, you are draining well out of your economy and you are not creating jobs in this economy. i am tempted to say amen. for eight years under george bush, even the feeble laws that we have were not being enforced. we took on a case and said china was openly cheating. there were sanctions against them. we created 3000 jobs immediately. tires. china was cheating. we created 10,000 tyre workers because we were playing on a level tire workers because we were playing on a level playing field. it is even tied into the tax code. the tax code encourages people to take jobs offshore and keep the money offshore. the tax holiday would be another disaster for america. trade is an important part of it. the tax cuts as well. if we lose manufacturing jobs, we lose research and development. as of last december 31, we lost 24,244 manufacturing plants in this country. those were good play good paying jobs. when you lose a manufacturing job, you lose or or by other was down the road. do louis four or by other ones down the road. you lose four or five other ones down the road. my question has to do with the free trade agreements with panama and colombia. i questioned is forheather and for heather and congressman levin. do you think these trade agreements will help economic growth in the united states? are you for them or against them and why? korea would lose 159,000 jobs. it is too large as 14,000 jobs we would lose. colombia is a special category. forget about the economics of it. 51 trade union members were assassinated in colombia. the most dangerous person the most dangerous place to be in the world if you are in a trade union is colombia. is 51 ceo s had been assassinated last year, would we be clamoring for a trade agreement or clamoring for the rule of law. congressman levin thought to get the work plan put into preliminary language so that it had enforceability. as it is, colombia lacks the ability or the will to enforce the rule of law and to protect trade unions. the work plan that the president agreed to was an improvement. after the agreement is signed, there is no way to enforce it. they could on their nose thumb their nose at us and there is nothing we could do. economically, it is a bad deal. the workers on both sides of the border disagree with it and they will fight it. i will add to that comment. there is new work by economists. i will point to a paper by a professor at mit. it shows the places that have had increased imports from china. the paper looks specifically at trade with china. there were job losses and wage declines in those communities. there is a burgeoning area of research that shows trade is not always good for employment and wages here in the united states. you never know what is going to happen until it has happened. the estimate on whether or not we would create a lot of jobs with panama and colombia there does not seem to be a lot of empirical evidence that that would be the income that would be the outcome. this relates to the colombia agreement and the action plan. it has real promise. i have insisted that it must be part of the free-trade agreement. this has not been understood widely enough. why is the american labor movement interested in workers rights provisions and trade agreements apply to workers in other countries? there is a basic issue here. people who care about our workers need to care about workers elsewhere. that is a basic premise. but also, it is not understood why it is so important. it relates to the struggle we have had in terms of trade agreements with latin american countries. there needs to be the basic international standards in trade agreements enforceable for these reasons. first of all, it is important for the workers in other countries. secondly, it is important for the development of middle- classes in those countries. the countries that have not paid attention to the development of worker rights in the middle class have ended up with the authoritarian regimes. most of the people do not benefit from the economic benefits. it is also important for our companies. they need to middle-class people in other countries to buy our products. it is also important for the workers in this country. there is a basic principle. the workers in our country should not compete with workers in other countries whose countries to press their rights. for all four aspects, it is by no it is vital that there be enforceable workers rights provisions. it is clear in panama. with colombia, a new regime needs to put down an action plan on worker rights. there is resistance to placing that clearly within the colombia free trade agreement. in my judgment, that is unacceptable. another question. can we go to this side of the ron? right here in the front. we will go and we go to this side of the room? my question is this. how do we stop the habit or disease in this country for debasing the public worker? it makes it easier to cut important public programs because we are cutting public workers. mr. restarts when your job misery starts when your job is lost. we need to put as much effort in preserving jobs as we do in creating jobs. we need to stop this country s horrible habit of the basing of debasing the public worker. great question. i would like the congressman and then rich to respond to that question. i will do this quickly. i was a labor lawyer. i called wayne state university. a building trade union had the cards of two workers. they said, we cannot what cannot recognize the union. i said, why can you find yourself as to representation by a union? is said to me, it is based on english law. the king can do no wrong. [laughter] that is what i was told. i chaired the labor committee and we wrote the most first comprehensive labor contract in this country. if public employees have not had a collective bargaining all of these years, they would not be such a vibrant part of middle- class america. we need to stop pillorying the public workers of this country. [applause] there is no question about that. they have been used as a scapegoat issue after issue and in state after state. scott walker and governor christie in new jersey. public employees are not overpaid. in wisconsin, the higher your degree, the more underpaid you are. if you have a ph.d., you get 35% less than a ph.d. in the private sector. the pension program. we were told they have outrages pensions. a penchant average $19,000 a year. america stood on its head. when we look at a group of workers to say they have something and other people don t, they say, in america, we should take it away from those that have. when we were at our zenith and people did not have something, we look at them and said, why not? how can we get it for them, not how can we take it away from those who do. heather can tell you the implications that has. fewer jobs, less growth and the spiral continues downward. that is one thing. we are talking about preserving jobs. i should have said is what we were doing on i should have said this when you ask me what we were doing on infrastructure. we are training 40,000 people from the community to do green tops and retrofitting. we are training 100,000 of our workers so that they cannot do just one thing in the grain economy, but green economy, but everything in the green economy. we provide more skills and education than anybody else in the country for just that reason, to try to preserve those jobs. i would ask you, and everybody here, when we hear people making jokes about public employees, we should stand up for them. they are the ones who make the world go around. they are in your hospitals. they rush into a burning building. they take care of your sick mother, you re sick dad. they teach your kids. they teach your kids and your grandkids. and they plow the roads. easy there. i did not say great grand kids. [laughter] there are influences the same people who brought us the financial crisis, and i do not think it was people barring more than they could afford, it was the whole borrowing more than they could afford, it was the whole financial system beginning with the repeal of glass- steagall that led us down that path. those same people are now fighting raising the debt limit. both of those have the same effect, which is seriously damaging the american economy. that same group is taking their money and investing in overseas markets. their interests are not in the strength of the united states economy. it is in access to profit wherever it can be found. a strong america does not give them that kind of access. that is a huge white elephant in the conversation. here comes the question. the other side of the coin is that there are real structural changes in our economy. one of them is that $1 of gdp has fewer workers associated with it. the other is that there is a bifurcation of the work force in terms of high-end and low-end. seriously, we need a question. i m going to have to cut you off. can someone tell me if we have an al franken site in the house? the question is, in days gone by, one of the things we have done is increase the mandatory age of education, and that takes people out of the work force. seriously. i question is, what is wrong with doing that now my question is, what is wrong with doing that now? in addition to investing more in education and giving all the workers access i do not understand what your question as. the question is, as one solution there are others. that we expand the minimum age it is now 16, take it to 18, and add four years of college. i m really sorry. you had an opportunity to make your statement. i think people understood what you said. but i have got to stop it. next question, right here. how important is it to fixing the job crisis in america that obama be reelected in 2012? that is a good question. [laughter] congressman? ivory said it is essential. rich, i have already said it is the essential. rich, do you agree? keeping some coherence the and reality to economics is important. each one of them on the other side simply says cut, cut, cut. when you ask them what their jobs program is, it is cut, cut, cut. cutting does not create jobs. i think it is important i think it would be more important if he focused more on jobs from the run-up and afterward and said, i am not going to listen to your chatter. i m not going to listen to your sound bites. i m going to focus the century on job creation and put 14 million people back to work. we will solve your deficit problem and a whole bunch of other problems. that is what we re going to do. it would be great if he would say that. over here. two very quick questions. i guess they mostly pertain to the representatives since you can take action on this. it is no surprise that there are crooks on wall street. i m wondering when you re going to fight to get a glass stiegel sed glass-steagall pas sooner rather than later. the other thing i wanted to point out, since obama has blatantly come out and said that he wants to put your social security and medicare, which is socialty butchere security and medicare, which is a pretty right wing thing to do, will the congress come out against that? in all fairness, the president has said the social security and medicare are on the table in these discussions. i m not sure you can say that he is going to butcher them. anyway. i m not sure what group you belong to. i think we need to be careful to be accurate. the president has never said he will butcher social security or medicare. in terms of glass-steagall, i think we need to focus on trying to enforce dodds frank right now. let me just say that not a single jobs bill has been presented to the house of representatives. we had a debate on the ag bill, and there was an amendment that not a single dollar could be used by the ag department for the enforcement of dog-franc. that past dodd-frank. that passed, and virtually every republican voted for it. that shows what we have in the house of representatives. the differences between the two parties are deep and wide. so, it all so, when it comes to re-regulation, when necessary, let s fight those who say the answer is to deregulate everything. what side are they on? what side are they on when they say not a single dollar to implement dodd-frank, not a single dollar to address the swaps problem. whose side are they on? i will fight anybody who tries to obscure those differences, because we see them every day on the floor of the house, every day. that is where the battle is. just very briefly, there is a fight going on right now on dodd-frank. they are doing everything they can to weaken those regulations. i have got to tell you, the secretary of the treasury weighed in on the wrong side recently and exempted for in derivatives, which is a big chunk of that regulation that needed to happen, and now they are exempt because secretary geiger said that secretary geithner said the definition should not include them. that was a big setback for all of us. if you want glass-steagall back, dodd-frank is the substitute, and the regulations being written are either going to be broad enough to cover the situation or they re going to be contracted so much that they are neutered. each one of you needs to weigh in on those regulations remaining strong. there is a lot of fighting going on over that right now. question way in the back. you guys yourive exercise. the cheaper seats. i think we started the discussion with the deficit, and i think if we look back to right after the depression and world war ii, our deficit related to the size of the economy was about 125% of gross national product. we re looking at about 77% now. we came out of the 1950 s and 1960 s by manufacturing and by having a booming, a strong economy. with that, i have to ask, i have heard a lot of good stuff about columbia, but i have to ask, south korea trade agreement, lowers the content standard to 35%. that means 65% of a good can pass through from china, north korea, or actually from mexico into the united states and the called a south korean good be called a south korean good or an american good, and it gives up power supply chain, and that is where the jobs are. gives up power supply chain, and that is where the jobs are. we do not need a model modeled after the global auto industry. we need a model modeled after the american aviation industry. thank you. by the way, this is not the time to discuss that, but we will be discussing that. some of your facts are not correct. but we will have plenty of time to discuss that. de want to ? no, i do not think we need to get into a long debate. the north korean reference is simply incorrect. there are differences of opinion about that, but i think it will not help if there is a distortion of the facts. i will be glad to discuss it with you and we will have plenty of time. are right. i have been following american history since 1965. i think we have to restore fairness. it is a good concept. you re talking about ways to compare profit measurement. one thing you have to think about [unintelligible] that is why you have a labor problem, and unemployment problem. those people who have a highly in come, who are realtors of people s house, they re taking the jobs. we have to change the productivity and get rid of negative productivity. if you want to create a job, you have to send the money to where the jobs are needed. those people who create the jobs are destroying our economy. we have to have money where the jobs should be and where the benefits should be. homes. away people s [unintelligible] thank you very much. we re going to have to wrap it up here. i appreciate your comment. i appreciate the panelists one and all. i hope you can give them around of applause. a round of applause. then, if you be kind enough to welcome senator al franken. [applause] thank you. i thought the panel was brilliant. i m sorry. i did not hear a word, but i can imagine some of the things, and i will probably end up repeating what the number of folks on the panel said. heather actually testified to a committee that had a couple of hearings on the middle-class. they have been overshadowed by some other stuff that is going on. this current debt crisis, of which is upon us, whether we re actually going to become a dead the nation deadbeat nation, and some of us feel that we are currently in a situation where we have certain the republican party holding the president and the democrats in congress hostage, and holding us hostage with the debt ceiling, knowing that in the game of chicken, that the irresponsible and, dare i say, irrational player has a distinct advantage over the rational and responsible player. i think it is very unfortunate. i am very pleased to be here at the afl-cio. i am a member of the afl-cio. i am a member of four unions and proud to be. i am a member of the writers guild, of the american federation of radio and television artists, of the screen actors guild and of the directors guild. i still get some residuals that were negotiated, the residual payments schedule was negotiated union. jun i walked the picket lines to make sure we got those, so every time trading places is shown, i get about $12. [laughter] that is a public service. [laughter] to me, there are so many wrongheaded things going on right now. heather spoke at a panel on the middle-class, and i believe it was tethered to be said that the purpose heather who said that creating a middle-class is not an end unto itself. the middle class is the engine of our economy. the middle-class in our country has created demand, has created entrepreneur is, small businesses that are the of our economy. in a middle-class kid. i dad did not graduate high school. my mom did not go to college. i grew up in a two bedroom one bathroom house. i considered myself the luckiest kid in the world, because i was. i was a middle-class kid growing up in america in the 1950 s and 1960 s. there was wealth if you wanted it. and i felt that i could do anything i wanted to do. i felt that i could be a comedy writer and do comedy, and become a senator, in that order. [laughter] that was always my plan. you know, there is a lot of talk about where we are in terms of debt. we have a serious debt crisis. the question is how do we approach it? we have 93% of our gdp our national debt is 93% of our gdp. that is a scary number. we have been here before. at the end of world war ii, it was worse. it was 127% of gdp. we had something to show for it. we had won world war ii. we also had some distinct advantages that we do not have now. we had europe and asia destroyed, so we had no markets right away. despite our dead, we started a market plan. debt, we started a market plan so we could help europe and create people to buy things. you need people to buy things, folks. rich people can only buy so much stuff. at a certain point, they just run out of stuff to buy, even rich people. and there are only so many of them. and then they save their money, and it sits on the sideline. we see that. we see a couple trillion dollars sitting on the sideline. why? because there is no demand. why is there no demand? because people are unemployed, under-employed, not being paid enough, wages have gone down, we know this. i know i m repeating step that has been said. and it is stuff that has been said. and it is not because i m like a mind reader. it is because i know what had to have been said on this panel. i know these people, i know what had to have been said. so, the idea that those of the very top, who now are richer than anybody has ever been, you know, we now have people who are richer than any people have ever been in the history of the world, and there is why they cannot pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes is crazy. [applause] and i listen. i, you know, those of us in the senate who are democrats, we talk to people who are rich. we go to fund-raisers and we talk to people who are rich. and you know, there are some of them who say, well, i do not know of any of them that i need who say they are unwilling to pay higher taxes. i know the republicans go to their own fund raisers and the different kinds of people, and i respect that. but there is no evidence that that works. my goodness. in 1993, when we had the deficit reduction package i know probably everyone on this panel remembers this president clinton said let s raise the top two levels. at $180,000, go to 36, at to under $50,000 go to 38.6. every $250,000, go to 38.6. every republican voted against it. they said it would cause a depression. said it would be be the democrat recession. he meant democratic recession. i do not know if republicans do not understand adjectives and things like that, or maybe he was just being rude. phil gramm said this will raise the deficit and kill jobs. john k. 6 said that if john casick said that if this works, i ll have to become a democrat. that is why we now have a democratic governor in ohio. did you know that? [laughter] i m just going by his logic, because we have had because we had the longest period of economic expansion that we have ever had in our country, when we increase the marginal rate on the people on the top. so, it worked. not only that, it turned a record deficit into a record surplus. he took it from one bush a record deficit and turned over to the next bush a record surplus. after george bush became president, five days after george debbie a bush became george w. bush became president, alan greenspan testified to the senate budget committee and said we are in danger of paying off our national debt too fast. we are on a projected we have a projected $five trillion surplus going in over the next 10 years, and we very well may pay off the debt too fast. the federal government is in danger of having too much money. we are just going to have too much money, folks. and he said that what would happen as a result of that is because there would be some people holding onto their bonds and they would not be paid off at the right time we will have to take our excess money and invested in private equities, which will be disruptive of the markets and make them inefficient. because of the united states government having too much money. this is after bush became president. so understand that after bush became president, alan greenspan was warning us about this dire problem. and, you know, now, i do not get their economic theory. here is their economic theory. if you cut taxes, you ll automatically raise revenues. right? you hear that all the time. whenever you cut taxes, it raises revenues. they always say that. you hear that all the time. watch fox sometimes. [laughter] every time we have cut taxes, it has doubled revenues. that is sean hannity saying that as it is a fact. google it. he says it every day. then they also tell us that you have to cut taxes so that the government does not have too much money to spend. in other words, you know, reagan said it in 1981. you can tell your kids all you want that, not to throw away their allowance. the only way to do it is to cut their allowance. he said this. you can look it up. in other words, you had to cut taxes, cut the revenues so that the government would not spend the money. over norquist says it. you cut taxes so that you did grover norquist says it. you cut taxes so that you cut the government revenue. so these are mutually contradictory theories. every time you cut taxes, you increase revenues. and when you cut taxes, you decrease revenues. that is fun to hear. [laughter] and then bush of course came in and said, we are in danger of having too much money. it is your money, so let s cut taxes, because it is your money. we are running a surplus, so let s cut your money, cut to access cut taxes. then we started losing johnson went into a recession. he said well, we re in recess losing jobs and went into a recession. he said, well, we re in a recession, so we need to cut taxes because the economy is bad. so in addition to every time you cut taxes you increase revenue and every time you cut taxes you decrease revenue, there is also every time the economy is good you should cut taxes and every time the economy is bad you should cut taxes. this is the most absurd theory i have ever heard. but it needed one more element to be dangerous, and dick cheney provided that. paul o neill went to him and said, this could hurt the economy. our deficit is exploding. cheney said, do not worry about it. reagan proved that deficits don t matter. bingo. so, what does he do? bush takes the biggest surplus in history and turned into the biggest deficit in history, hands-off a $1.2 trillion debt /projected deficit to obama, and an economy that, here it is. i have done my job. here it is. we are shedding 750,000 jobs a month. i have done my job. i will watch some ranger games. [laughter] i cannot believe these people had actually paid any attention to anything. my colleagues. so now, we have all this money sitting on the sideline. you know, and we have to look. we have to look at what we did. robert reischauer one of these hearings said, what robert reich at one of these hearings said, what country should we model ourselves after? the answer is, the united states of america. [laughter] we did this after world war ii. we invested in the right things. we invested in education, in infrastructure, in science and technology, in innovation, education, science and math education. i was a sputnik kid. in 1957 when sputnik was launched, i was 6 years old. my brother was 11. we were scared to death because the soviets were ahead of us in space now and they had nuclear weapons. my parents took us into our living room in minnesota and said boys, you are going to have to study math and science to beat the soviets. i thought that was kind of a big burden to put on an 11-year-old and a 6-year-old. [laughter] but we were obedient sons, so we studied math and science, and would you not know it, my parents were right, we studied math and science and we beat the soviets, my brother and me. [laughter] and the benefits of the space program are i was watching a debate during the last campaign, and the republican candidate for senator said that the government has never created a job. i noticed, ironically, that the debate was carried on satellite. [laughter] we build the interstate highway system. this is i just you know, so now i know, we re not going to get a big stimulus package. so i m looking for different ways to different models to build jobs. you know, why are we not retrofitting residences, businesses, universities, buildings? in minnesota, we have our people in the building trades are just hurting, hurting, hurting. let s put them to work. we have a company in minnesota that builds huge air conditioning systems. they re building the air- conditioning system for the new world trade center. because they re such a big company, their credit worthy. they re able to borrow money. and what they do is, they just lend it to their customers and say, by our here. we re lending you this with almost no interest. by our air conditioning units, and within three-five years it will pay for itself, and the rest is profit. why aren t we doing that? we know we can pay for our investments in energy efficiency. if we have $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines, let s do it. let s do it. let s think of models like that. the people to work. put people to work. that does not cost any money, it is just win-win-win. they sell their product to industrial manufacturers. they lent a bar of the money barrault borrow the money, lend it back, save it and then they have money. on foreclosures. we have done this foreclosure thing in an idiotic way, i think. we should be helping people. i passed something called the office of the homeowners advocate. if any of us go back to our states, we find people that are in the program and trying to deal with their servicers. you cannot get the same person on the phone twice. you cannot get a person s name. bailey is paperwork. we should have someone they lose the paper work. we should have someone on the treasury in the treasury on your side. what is happening in congress is very frustrating. i feel like i have gone on longer than i should. week its i find the current situation sad. i find it senate leadership, senate republican leadership said right after the election that their number one goal was to make sure president obama was a one-term president. it did not say, it is to put people back to work. they did not say, it is to get our kids educated. they did not even say it was to balance the budget. it was to win an election, to win the next election. this was immediately after the last election. i m sure sandy i know sandy did not come here thinking, you know what i m going to do? i m going to get elected and then work on the next election. that is not what the american people want from us. they want us to work together. they want us to work to improve their lives. they want us to work to make sure their kids are educated. they want to make sure that there are jobs. they want to make sure that we have the american dream. the american dream is to have a good place to live, make sure your kids are educated and have health care. have a secure retirement. that is the american dream. that is all it is. and by the way, during the clinton expansion, median income went up. poverty was diminished. made more millionaires than ever. good for them. we need a totally different approach and we need to not be playing high-stakes games of chicken in which not only is the american economy at stake but the global economy as well. i m sure i have repeated. i m sure bob has told many of the jokes i did. he is famous for that. [laughter] nobody can do that. thank you all for being here. [applause] senator al franken. thank you very much. thank you everybody for coming. it has been great. we really appreciate it. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] today on c-span, live from salt lake city, we will be covering the national governor association summer meeting with remarks from the governor of arizona and the governor of maryland. that starts live at 5:30 p.m. eastern right here on c-span. and our newsmakers guest this week will talk about some of the issues facing states. that is also here on c-span. live coverage of the nga continues tomorrow with the governor of nebraska discussing innovation and competitiveness. you can watch that live tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. eastern. meanwhile, on capitol hill, still no deal on the debt and deficit after last week s talks between president obama and congressional leaders. at a press conference yesterday, the president said he has told members of congress he once he wants a sense of what their plan is over the weekend. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell attempted to give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling while bypassing the need for a congressional vote on the measure. you can check out the upcoming cut cap and balance bill online at c-span.org. tom coburn will lay out his plan to cut the deficit by $9 trillion over the next decade. he was one of the gang of six who left to the bipartisan negotiations. he will lay out his plan later on c-span. up next, the u.s. chamber of commerce held an event focusing on jobs, unemployment and economic growth. we will hear from the ceo of general of electric and a panel discussion about what small business owners think about government regulation. this is two hours and 20 minutes. [applause] i would like to extend my appreciation to stand and the chamber for organizing this event today. to inform our discussion today, the chamber has been holding listening sessions across the country. with small business entrepreneur is and local chambers, and we have also commissioned the study. as he also indicated, there will be an expanded discussion of that in just a little while. why do we do this? we did it in order to find out what our nation s job creators were thinking about the economy, what they want government to do, and most importantly, what is going to take to expand their businesses and hire more people. these main street businesses are telling us plain and simple to start hiring they need faster economic growth, and we need a change in course in washington. that is my message today as well. three years ago, we suffer the worst financial crisis and deepest recession since the great depression. and now, we re caught in the slowest and weakest recovery since the depression. in other recoveries, growth came roaring back, and with it, so did jobs. but that is not happening this time. this reality was brought home to us once again with a very disappointing jobs report released on friday. new job creation is has slowed to a trickle. unemployment is up to 9.2%, and it is up to 16% when you include part-time workers who cannot find full-time work and those who have dropped out of the work force altogether. that is where we stand today. to make matters worse, we have already tried the traditional tools that are commonly used to end a recession and to rev up an economy. the government has spent nearly $800 billion on the stimulus package. pushed interest rates down to near zero. fill the financial system with liquidity and pump primed the economy with new tax breaks and more deficit spending. and still, the recovery is weak. growth is slow and jobs are just not coming back in the numbers we need or as fast as necessary. so where do we go from here? what we do now? ladies and gentlemen, the answers do not rest with bigger government. the answers can be found in the proven principles of the american free enterprise system. we need to grow this economy in a big-time way, stronger and faster in a big-time way. stronger and faster economic growth is the best way to put americans back to work. to generate the growth and create jobs, we must clear away the impediments government has imposed. we must reduce the uncertainty that discourages businesses from expanding and hiring. we must stop wringing our hands and start acting quickly and boldly to solve our problems. we must recapture what america can do, that american can-do spirit, which will install new confidence in consumers and investors. growth will not solve all of our nation s challenges right away, but we can do a heck of a lot more with growth than we can do with out it. businesses will get more customers. government will get more revenue. more importantly, americans will get more jobs if we focus on growth. so, what must we do to get the stronger and faster growth we need to put americans back to work? i would like to suggest a few steps, some that can help create growth and jobs right away, and others that will help over a longer period of time. for a simple reason, there has been plenty of talk about these ideas, but precious little action. if one if there is one thing that we do not need right now in washington, in july, it is a lot more hot air. we need action to spur this economy and create jobs, and we need it now. if i can say something parenthetically, i was sitting at the table here talking to one of our staffers whose husband has a very interesting company in maryland. they were doing very well until they heard last week that four times this year it is a small company they will have to pay $200,000 more for their unemployment insurance. that is almost a million dollars on a compounded basis. these are the challenges when the government is employing people or supporting people. we need to do it in the private sector. how to read about this? what really works? first, let s start with how do we go about this? what really works? first, let s start with trade. immediate jobs are at stake. 380,000 of them. that is how many jobs we will lose to our competitors in a very short period of time, who have already cut deals with south korea and colombia. with these agreements in place, confirmed, we can create tens of thousands of jobs of our own. our negotiators should also reached broad agreement on a trans-pacific partnership by november. asia is the fastest-growing region in the world, and american workers and businesses can supply those markets, so let s get moving. our largest trading partner overall, or customer, it is the european union. we can generate up to about $120 billion in new trade simply by removing tariffs on each other s products, not services, just manufactured products. that would be a down payment on a broader deal we could cut with such an important trading partner. that adds up to serious jobs. the second thing and we do not think about this very much is the subject of travel and tourism. a sector critical to the u.s. economy, to u.s. growth and u.s. jobs. this is a $700 billion industry that provides 7.4 million american jobs, and guess what? when foreigners visit here, they spend their money, and that is our largest export. we have not made that ease the ec easy in recent times. we need to promote american tourism to create jobs right now. we need to put the welcome mat back out. that means vigorously promoting what we have to offer, just like other countries do all the time. it means reducing the hassle factor of visiting the united states without compromising security. we should bring more countries into the visa waiver program, which is a budget neutral way of creating more jobs in the travel and tourism sector. our businesses tell us all the time that before they can hire more people, they need more customers. let s bring the customers here. 95% of the world customers live outside our borders, many in economies that are growing much faster than ours. they like american products. they like american culture. they like americans. and they have a lot of cash. so let s go sell them something over there, and bring them to use united states bring them to the united states as visitors and investors, and then sell them something here. it is a quick way to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country. the next subject, or the third issue, is very hard to address without upsetting people, but it is very important to think about. it is a critical industry on which american growth and jobs have long depended, and that is the housing and construction sector. housing remains very, very weak. low prices have made homes far more affordable than ever before. this is a big drag on economic growth, because families are unwilling to spend as long as their primary asset, their home, is under water and losing value. it is a big drag on jobs. housing and construction work is suffering from double digit unemployment, in some areas of to 30% of people that had those jobs are currently unemployed. there are no easy or nice answers to the housing crisis. banks have moved preemptively to modify loans for at risk are workers and government initiatives have tried to for at risk borrowers, and government initiatives have tried to encourage it. however, even with the assistance, some homeowners will have no choice but to go into foreclosure. we must face that reality, that there will not be housing market improvement until the backlog of foreclosures is cleared and the existing inventory is reduced. for their actions over the last two decades, politicians have already proven they have the ability to really mess up the housing market. still, we need their help right now. they should avoid the temptation to endlessly prop of those who will never be able to afford the homes they now live in. instead of delaying the day of reckoning even further, our policy makers should let the market take its corrective course. the sooner that happens, the faster this key section of our economy will recover and start building and hiring once again. very much related to that is the subject and the fourth issue of infrastructure. one way to put some of these construction workers back on the job is by investing in infrastructure. last year, the chamber released a groundbreaking study proving that investments in infrastructure can be directly linked to stronger economic growth. and i am not talking about wasteful stimulus projects driven by politicians. i am talking about the kind of thoughtful, strategically planned improvements that expand our capacity to grow our economy and compete in the world market. congress should act now to reauthorize the core surface transportation aviation and water resources program. they ll create jobs. with adequate funding so that states, communities and the private sector can execute, plan and hire. they cannot do that with an endless string of short-term extensions of these program. congress, the administration and the states need to address the rules, the disincentives and other impediments that have locked away potentially $190 billion in private capital that could be invested in infrastructure. unleash that many, and you could create a lot of jobs right now. and while i fully understand that high gas prices are a hardship for american families, we must also go boost also boost public infrastructure without adding to the deficit. the gas tax is a user fee. this user fee has not been increased since 1993, 18 years ago. let s not forget the gas mileage for cars and trucks has increased substantially since then. that means that as yuli efficiency increases, we as fuel efficiency increases, receipts to the highway trust fund decreases. let me put it to you in english. a truck that drives all over this country has more than double the miles per gallon it had 18 years ago, and there are more of them, so fundamentally, we are paying about 40% of what we used to pay to repair, upgrade, roads, bridges and transit. it does not sound very sensible, does it? the result, a rapidly crumbling infrastructure with less and less money to rebuild it, and under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we face in a modest increase in the gas tax over time. now, we talked about housing. we talk about infrastructure. these things are related because of jobs. let s talk about domestic energy. we should also produce more energy of all types, use it at home and sell it abroad. we have got plenty of it. people did not think so for a long period of time, but we have a lot of it, allowing american industry but we have a lot of it. allowing american industry to go get it would not cost the government a cent. it would create jobs, enhance our national security, and release us from the grip of some unfriendly governments. recently i wrote a letter to the president outlined outlining simple steps he could take to move us in that direction. i noticed that the u.s. department of energy has estimated that the united states has in excess of one trillion barrels of oil off our shores alone. we also have huge natural gas resources. in fact, we have our experienced and natural gas renaissance in this country. increased domestic production has driven natural gas prices down, and that has brought some manufacturing back to america, and i believe could surely bring most of the chemical companies that moved to the mideast or otherwise to act against natural gas, but to come back to the united states. so let s keep things moving in a positive direction. by some estimates, increasing access to energy resources could create an additional $150 billion in federal and state revenues and add more than 500,000 jobs in this country in a relatively short period of time. we must also continue to build the energy infrastructure in order to deliver affordable and reliable supplies of fuel and power. which will also create a lot of jobs. that is why the administration should allow the construction of the oil pipeline connecting canada and the united states refineries in texas. that one project alone would create 250,000 jobs and involve $20 billion in investment in the united states. this is not a complicated decision. the sixth issue, that i think we should look out for immediate improvement, is the question of regulatory uncertainty and reform. you have heard me mention the need to remove regulatory impediments and address uncertainties and delays in getting projects approved. indeed, i
find it amazing that anyone suggestions self-regulation, isn t it the number one priority that we have regulation that s independent? i like the word independent rather than self. i think self sounds like newspapers regulating themselves rather than someone independent, not reliant on the government. that would be worrying. someone more independent who can take a strong view. mr. speaker, will the inquiry be able to take evidence from mr. lance who used to work and said in 2006 when he worked there, he sometimes felt like rupert murdoch was the 24th member of the cabinet? i m sure that lance will be available. i have to say the book he wrote about the last government is one the most depressing things i ve ever read. if the will of the evening is carried and news international were to withdraw the bid for bskyb what steps would they take to persuade murdoch to do the decent thing? as i ve tried to explain, i think the government has a responsibility to act within the law. we have to deal with each merger, acquisition, and process. that s what my friend has to do. tonight they are going to express an opinion. that opinion will be heated. roughly, the prime minister sated stated and will tell the house whether they have been in contact to express the opinion about views international and whether they are trying to investigate the company for possible breaches? i haven t had any contact with any u.s. politicians about this issue. and, you know, i haven t had that contact. there are thousands of families thrown back to a involved one death. would the prime minister ensure to have conversations to start talking to editors of national newspapers about not rejudge stating stories, and provile them with help and guidance and information about notices so that their trauma can be reduced and not added to their grief? i think she makes a great point. it s not just something for the bbc, about trauma and being sensitive about the issue. does the prime minister agree that one the key weaknesses of the commission is that the public interest defense contained in the code has frankly been used and abused over the years? this is why it is so important that we have independent regulation and those who continue to cling to the idea of self-regulation will rot? i think my honorable friend who did an excellent job as my press secretary for many years before taking the sensible view that he belonged on these benches. there is a problem. the inquiry have to look at. which is you do want the press to take action in the national interest and to have that. but you ve got to have a system where they are not breaking the law. it s an issue that has to be resolved. mistaken will the prime minister explain further the practical difference between self-regulation and independent regulation? i don t want to get into theological debate about this. i think the problem with the word self-regulation is implies the press has been effectively regulating themselves. what we are looking for, although this is for the judge and panel, is something more independent. not statutory with a heavy hand of the state, but independent and able to make sure that proper standards are followed. i gave some examples of how this works elsewhere. i think it can be done. i welcome the statement by the prime minister and the leadership that he has shown on this matter. with regard to the inquiries, can i ask him to clarify this? we have seen in recent months and recent years certain inquiries have held evidence behind closed doors. to ensure that all of the evidence has been caught is in public, so the public can see what s been done and what s been done to connect correct it? this is independent inquiry, led by judge taken under oath and in public. that s the point. if it was decided inquiring the deep national security issues, it might have to a different session. but it s a public inquiry. the prime minister says that he wants the cross party approach. when will he need with the leaders of the parties in the house? in 2006, the information commissioner reported that up to 3,000 breaches of privacy? that was one the wake up calls when they didn t wake up. in terms of taking the view, i can discuss that with my friend and see what the best way forward is. mr. david morris. can i ask the prime minister and the group feeling of this house that we could actually put the full vetting authorities of the government to the asis stance to the leader of the opposition so he can find out more about his director of communications? we all have to answer questions about the people that we employ and the activities they might have under taken. i m sure the leader of the opposition will be doing just that. sheila gillmore. thank you. when they were urging the culture secretary to refer this to the commission, we were given to understand that the reference as it were referred would be very limited. on monday, the culture secretary indicated to this house that clearly terms of reference would be available. are the terms of reference that would be made apparently been sent already this week going to be made available to the house? well, i answered this question perhaps in the debate later. the point is the commission has been asked to look at plurality grants and the issue. we have to do them under the law. we can t invest new grounds, we can only use the legal instruments and test that is are there. mr. charles. mr. speaker, may i welcome the prime minister that sunlight is the best disinfectant. if we are going to sort it outcross party, sure it s not good enough just for government and special advisors, ministers and their special advisors as well in i think that s right. the point about the politicians and press and where it has gone wrong, because we have been courting support rather than confronting problems. i admit that as leader of the opposition, you want to get the newspapers to support you and trying to explain what you are doing for the country. that s not going to stop. we are not going to live in a monastery and never talk to journalists again. as wonder as it seems at the moment, we have to have a healthy relationship where we can have the meetings and discussions. at the same time, we confront what we have. that is what the commission is going to do. mr. speaker, i m not a legal expert, i m concerned about the suggestion there s a nondisclosure agreement between news international and glen at the mcclure. the man at the center of the hacking. the nondisclosure agreements must have taken place between news international and him around 2005 and 2006 at the time that andy coulson was at news of the world. i have a deep concern about who negotiated this and will the prime minister look into this personally and will it be part of the inquiry? it needs to be part. the point is the police inquiry. never mind the inquiry that is about to start. there s a police inquiry now into what went wrong of the news of the world. how much hacking, who was hacked? who knew? all of those questioned answered by the police. full on police inquiry, not the rather thin inquiry that happened before. in terms of transparency and in terms of meetings between politicians and media, can i ask my friends to go further than the leader of the opposition suggested not just back to the last election, but to the government and see what people on both sides of the house have been up to? i think we re going to look at the issue of transparency and how best to put it into the code and consider what is right and fair. i think the inquiry will be able to look at contacts over a period to try and see what went wrong in the relationship. mr. jim? thank you. will the meetings of the inquiry be open to the general public? in other words, will the general public know as well? this is a public inquiry, held in public. does the prime minister believe once a healthier relationship is established between politicians and the media, it will be easier for the government to adopt in relation to drunk community or immigration? that s a lovely idea. i hope no, i think that as i say, this is not going to mean no contact between politicians and the media. there are difficult issues. you mentioned a couple of them where we do need to try to explain and take people with us when we are taking difficult decisions. we cannot do that ourselves. we need a lively and questioning media to help us do that. perhaps this healthy relationship will make what he wants more possible. we listened very carefully to the prime ministers answers. i would like to ask the prime minister would he accept there s a difference between explaining government policy or indeed the opposition s position to the media and courting their support? and that it is that culture of courting the support of the media that needs to be tackled by not by the inquiry, but by the members of the house? i agree, there s nothing wrong with meeting with editors and trying to explain why your vision is the right one for the country. people expect you to do that. where it can go wrong is where politicians start doing things, perhaps influenced by the media companies that they wouldn t do. i remember standing from opposing the 42 day detension. which i don t think most of the people on the front bench believed it. i think they were doing it because of the pressure from the press. profoundly wrong. that s what we have to stop in the future. can i welcome the prime minister statement? does he agree with me that the press that s constituted is clearly not fit and that it would have been most helpful if the reform has been initiatived in 2007 if the phone hacking at that time failed? there are many people on the press complaints commission who have tried to make it work. i would argue it has made improvements in recent years from when it was originally established. when you look at what s happened and when you look at the trail of reports and problems in the rest of it, the pcp didn t do enough. therefore, reform is needed. that is one the starting points for the inquiry. does the prime minister address the inaction over the grave issues over a number of years? and if they ask now to succeed and maintain public support, they need to be above party politics and political opportunities should be shunned and ignored? i think he s right. because we do need to have an all party approach as far as possible. sometimes all party approaches can be become a conspiracy. we have to make sure that s not the case. i think the basis inquiry about the need to change the regulatory system, i think if we can push forward in that way there wouldn t be too much as it were regulatory arbitrage. which is a danger in this position. i propose to keep in close touch about the leader of the labour party. mr. speaker, i wonder if my friend agreed with the senior commentator in the twittersphere who says that people in glass houses should not throw stones? i long again learned my lesson about saying anything about the twittersphere for danger of getting the wrong thing in the wrong place. media regulation goes beyond simple law breaking. how can we be sure it can act in a timely passion on no wrongdoing without waiting for numerous criminal investigations and the prosecution to follow them and have concluded? the honorable gentleman makes a good point. the truth is the element of inquiry, which is, for instance, investigations into allegations of police corrupt or investigating into the hacking at the news of the world. that part of the inquiry, that has to wait for the police investigations to be carried out for prosecutions to be carried out, and indeed as i understand it for any appeals to be launched. that s one the reasons for having o did you ever wonder if you were to read one book a day in this day in this library how long it would take you? well come you ll find lots of answers about this unique library and c-span s original documentary, the library of congress, airing this monday night. will tour the iconic jefferson building, including the great hall in the reading room. push a treasure, sounded my books and special collection, including the original thomas jefferson library and presidential papers from george washington to calvin coolidge, and how the libraries using technology technology to discover hidden secrets in the collection and preserve its holdings for future generations. china says the library of congress this monday night at eight eastern pacific on c-span. and read every book in the slavery, one per day, would take over 60,000 years. in a few moments, unauthorized charges on phone bills come a process known as cramming. americans could eat pena to $2 billion a year in unauthorized charges on phone bills, according to a study by the senate commerce to many. the report is on what is referred to as cramming and looks at phone companies that allow third parties to have churches, many an an authorized to them in them in phone bills. senator jay rockefeller says he s going to introduce legislation to ban or party fees and the fcc estimates that as many as 20 million american households have unauthorized feeds on their month play phone bills every year and said it too is considering new rules to protect consumers. this is about an hour and a half. today s hearing is about a scam that is caused telephone customers billions of dollars. all of you at the witness table are aware of this in various ways. and it is called unauthorized charges. the telephone company could have bought the if you if you want to buy dish tv. that s not the race charge. but a great percentage three charges, but phone companies to let them appear on the bill. what happens is they appear at the bill and the person who doesn t necessarily carefully weeded out, which is often four or five pages long sees this thing and doesn t know what it is. but they didn t ask for it, didn t want it, not upgrades to be fair. legally it should not be fair, but it is there. and it is called cramming. and it refers to what we call mysterious charges that appear in american phone bills for services that people don t want and don t use and did not score and shouldn t have to pay for it. the company is responsible for these cramming charges don t sell legitimate projects. that is the unauthorized one. they don t really sell anything. most of them don t seem to do that. the sole purpose is to place up his charges on your telephone bill and they are very, very good at that. they are very good at that and hope you will pay your bill every month without looking at it too closely, which unfortunately a lot of people do. in the late 1900s come in the congress and media devoted attention to the study of cramming. i remember it well. committees held hearings on cramming an anti-cramming was introduced in the house and the senate the time consumer advocates and federal authorities in the telecommunications industry on the create something needed to be done. the question was, what needed to be done? the industry told a client congress, i guess, that they would fix the problem themselves and that made sense. but they didn t want to have any they did live in a voluntary guidelines for any sort of mandate. as they said, his industry is a powerful self-interest to correct this problem that were working overtime, which is kind of a strong statement. in the congress and the press, i guess everybody went along with it. nobody paid much attention to it. the congress took their word for it, moved onto other important issues because we believe the cramming problem is being addressed, which of course was not. what we know now is the cramming problem with not so, far from it. the minute congress decided to trust the industry, the kramers saw the relaxation in the tray back in. american families and businesses have been paying prices ever since then feared so when this committee, we held a year-long investigation on this. hundreds of thousands of pages, hundreds of witnesses, consumers, businesses, all kinds of crooks. we have a very good idea just how the price has been. here s what we ve learned. more than a decade after telephone companies implemented voluntary guidelines, hundreds of cramming chem names we don t even know how many, we don t even know how many continue to place tens of millions of bogus charges on families and businesses on their land mines. that s an important distinction. not on cell phones, but landmines. they do that every year. the individual charges are usually small amounts between 10 to $30, when you add that up and it becomes an enormous amount from the billions and of dollars. now, there s also a cost of cramming is hard to put a figure on, the agni people ought to go to figure out i didn t order this if they do look at their bill, how to get rid of that? they call their cramming company and nobody answers the phone or maybe somebody does and refers them to the telephone company and they just get lost and give up and get mad and feel even less family about their congress. so it s a problem. one of the questions we ve asked is what have the telephone companies been doing for the past decade to protect their customers from these abusive tactics? i was at a major telephone ceo last night we started talk about that. there was in a great deal said. anyway, the short answer is not enough. well, i ll telephone companies have anti-cramming policies. they haven t made a serious effort to keep the kramers off of their landline phone bills. even when the phone companies kicked a company out the bills, the kramers come right back in. a week to week or so and slid right back in. many integrations crack down on crammers insight make money from cramming. it may make a lot of money? no, but in america money is money. and if you could make money, why not. according to the financial information committee staff has reviewed, telephone companies for a dollar or two every single time they place an unauthorized third party charging the customer s bill. so do the math. that s well over a billion dollars in profit. today my staff released a report detailing how cramming works and how much money it is costing and not just american families and businesses, our businesses in particular people in particular. i ask unanimous consent to enter this report in today s record. hearing no objection? no objection, mr. chairman. thank you. although congress and telephone companies haven t been doing enough to protect consumers from cramming, i m glad to say that some state and federal law enforcement agencies have made on the job. we are going to hear from the attorney general of illinois, lisa madigan who says right there and will tell us our office is filed within 30 last used against crammers and we ll hear about a lot in vermont recently to protect his and against cramming. a lot of other law enforcement authorities including the federal communications filed lawsuits and shut down crammers. but what they need to know is crammers can come right back. they are ubiquitous. they are everywhere, like all the little satellite alien space beings. they just drift around waiting to collect a monthly phone bill. but as we hear today and i m sorry in so long, when they shut down one crammer, new appeared to take their place. it s obvious that voluntary guidelines will not voluntary guidelines will not. it s also clear that case by case law enforcement. it s also clear that case by case law enforcement approach will not work. there are just too many out there ripping off to many consumers. it s time for us to do something more about it. i ll say one word being. there are about 300 million charges, mostly unauthorized entered onto telephone bills each year. 300 million. and that is about worth about $2 billion. you know, that s not a lot of money except if you have to pay it. people living on the edge, 1995, that s a lot of money. and again, all 2 billion were not cramming charges, the most of them are. we estimate there ve been about $10 million on consumer telephone bills. we estimate at&t and qwest and verizon have more than $650 million. those companies from this themselves. that s pretty big money. and so anyway, we ve got a real problem here and we want to do the right thing and we want to protect people and that s the end of me, so i call upon senator i ought. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for holding this important hearing. i know you and your staff with a great deal of time and effort into preparing report the committee released today. i also want to thank those that the federal and state levels was pursued against those perpetrating fraud on consumer satisfaction which recognized the somatic and income attorney general of illinois, with whom i worked with when i was the attorney general of new hampshire and she has been very given this scam an eye out welcome her this morning. from that decade, new hampshire has been responding to the practice commonly known as cramming. when it served as the state s top one person officer ever saw a consumer protection bureau as general madigan does come which included consumer protections were spoken brochures to provide individuals with information about how to protect against cramming, additionally in new hampshire is also authorized billing survey varies to ban them entirely from access to the telephone company billing apparatus to prevent further harm to consumers. as we continue to examine this issue and discuss how to best address it, we must not lose sight of the fact that cramming a fixed regular hard-working americans who are being scammed out of their hard-earned dollars. as a former prosecutor comest my intent to bring together bad actors, but simultaneously recognized there are legitimate businesses providing services to consumers. it is my hope will spend time this morning talking about the prosecution of creamers come out of go after those defrauding consumer, without strict deterrents or fear of richard gershon for the public good we are certainly not full addressing this issue. in addition to witnesses from illinois and law enforcement to a year from today, i appreciate mr. byrd being here as well. .. and the urgent need to find workable solutions that protect the public, i very much appreciate the work that went into this year-long investigation. i am disappointed that the findings were only released right before the hearing because i would have liked to have heard from our witnesses more of an analysis of what their view also is of the report. so going forward i hope all of you will feel free to augment the record with your purpose perspectives on the year-long investigation was conducted by this committee. i appreciate each of the witnesses for sharing their expertise and for helping the committee better understand this issue and as a follow-up to this hearing i also believe it is necessary that we do hear directly from local exchange carriers, aggregators as well as the department of justice who have been prosecuting and imposing fines on those who conducts cramming so that we can hear their perspective on this report and also provide additional information as we address this very important issue on behalf of consumers. i look forward to the hearing today and i want to thank each of you for being here. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. thank you very much, senator. shall we be kind? because we have amy klobuchar here and she has another hearing she has got to go to. and amy might like to say something but then that leaves mark begich so we have to figure out. i will allow senator klobuchar to have as much opportunity or she desires. what a gentleman. thank you mr. chairman and i would concur with what senator ayotte talked about. in fact our state has been taking this on an attorney general madigan knows not just the federal level but the state level with attorney general swanson and last january she and i join together and talked about the consumer fraud lawsuit against a company that fraudulently charged thousands of minnesotans for services that they neither authorized or used. the company which is called t. cheap to dial-up charged consumers in minnesota for long-distance service fees and you know how many people actually use that service mr. chairman? nine people. nine people of the 2567 that were charged. it is just one example of an process that has cost consumers and businesses millions if not aliens of dollars. i will never forget the consumers that were standing there with us and they were i think one was they were a lutheran minister and his wife and of course she had checked the bill every tiny detail and was able to discover that charge which is not something i would do. and so it is very hard for consumers to notice these charges because so often they can be $10, $15, $20, $5, amounts that they would not armor lien notice on a larger bill. that is why when you added up it becomes a big chunk of change. i am one that believes that it shouldn t be up to the consumer to play detective going over their phone bills with a magnifying glass every month. i believe that phone companies and aired party aggregators need to crack down on crooks who are stealing from our citizens and our businesses. we need clear rules of the road that prevent this behavior. there has been good thing about our deregulated market that is lead to innovation but there are also issues we are seeing like this one where crammers have been exploiting this open market. so i applaud the commission for the rulemaking. i look forward to helping in any way i can. i look forward to hearing the testimony. i am chairing a hearing in judiciary on the violence against women act which i know the chairman cares about very much so i may not be here for all the questions but if i m not i will submit my questions for the record. thank you. thank you very much senator klobuchar. my vice chairman, senator ayotte, is not going to make an extra introduction. thank you mr. chairman. it is my privilege to introduce the attorney general from illinois, lisa madigan will provide testimony today who has been very very active going after crammers in her own state and again i have had the privilege of serving with her as attorney general, so i know how to diligent she is in protecting consumers. thank you attorney general madigan. thank you senator ayotte, mr. chairman and distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate this opportunity to testify. today want to stress three points the drama and half years in experience investigating and bringing enforcement actions against phone bill crammers as the attorney general of the state of illinois. number one, most consumers are completely unaware that their phone number can be charged almost like a credit card. many consumers will never discover that there are unauthorized charges buried in their phone bills. number two, my office is yet to see a legitimate third-party charge placed on the consumer s phone bill. three, phone bill cramming is such a persistent and pervasive problem i believe the only effective solution is to enact legislation banning third-party charges on phone bills. to give you an overview, illinois individual businesses, churches and government agencies have been filing complaints with the attorney general s office about phone cramming since 1996. in response illinois as well as other states and the ftc have taken a series of law enforcement actions and when we do that initially, did temporarily quell the problem. however we are seeing a strong resurgence in the number of cramming complaints. initially the scams that we saw were perpetrated primarily through telemarketers, especially in the years prior to the establishment of the national do not call registry. recently however crammers like many other illegitimate scams have moved to the internet. some internet victims tell us that they have done nothing more than submit their name, their address and importantly their phone number in response to on line offers for either a prize drawing, coupons or free recipes. eventually of course they learned that they had an crams. again they did not know that they were buying anything at the time and they did not know by giving their phone number they were authorizing a charge on their phone bill. so they are understandably puzzled and quite frankly angered when sometime later they notice their phone bill contains a charge for a product or a service that they didn t seek out, they didn t authorize paying for and very importantly they never used. that is when some of the victims turn to my office for help. however ftc data indicates that as few as one in 20 consumers that are built for third-party charges on their phone bills are even aware of the billing. my own investigations have revealed a similarly low level of consumer awareness. in fact through our investigations we have learned that many victims have never visited the web site of the vendor whose product or service they are being charged for and worse, some of the victims don t even have access to the internet. additionally victims consistently tell us they have never used the product or service for which they were built. again that is most surprising consumers and everything to every penny they purchased anything in the first place. for example, one case that my office handled, we managed to obtain the data on the more than 3500 illinois consumers we had been built for internet service and extended cell phone warranties. most of the consumers we talked to did not know that they were being billed and none of the 3500 consumers had made a warranty claim or use the internet service. our investigations consistently revealed that most phone crammers rely on deception, however others engage in outright fraud. scams involving deception and a basic marketing strategy has remained the same throughout the years. weather over the phone on the internet the consumer is never clearly told they are making a purchasing decision or they will be billed for the purchase on their phone bill or giving their phone number will authorize a charge on their land line phone bill. in contrast to the scams involving deception in which the victim participates in the transaction albeit unwittingly, scams involving outright fraud don t require them to take action whatsoever. this type of cramming is referred to as for the consumer acceptance of the vendors offer is completely falsified. in a number the telemarketing cases we have investigated we have obtained the recorded phone conversations of consumers reportedly agreeing to an offer. the only problem is the voices on those recordings are not the voices of the consumers who were built. while i m on the subject of billing i should note that and another for cases the county coroner s office a steak and sheikh restaurant in my and my personal favorite the public libraries dial a story phone line, were among the 9800 illinois businesses built for credit repair services that even assuming credit repair services were legitimate can only be used by an individual. obviously not by a business. i would argue to this committee that when an automated children s dial a story phone line supposedly signed up for credit repair services, it is time to stop third-party billing. the bottom line is that from the beginning third-party charges on phone bills is an open invitation to fraud and deceit. it has been a scam where vendors, billing aggregators and carriers make significant money by consumers never noticing the charges on their phone bills. i strongly support decisive legislative action on the state and federal level to ban the practice altogether. again i thank you for the opportunity to testify today and i m happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you very much general madigan. and now we turn to general burg. it is actually assistant attorney general burg but i appreciate the promotion. i very much appreciate the opportunity to testify to the committee today over the past year and a half. our office has been issuing subpoenas to third-party billing aggregators, to vendors. we have been serving consumers and interviewing consumers and that we have reached a number of conclusions about the problem of cramming which i would like to share with you today and then i would like to talk about a potential solution to the problem that has been embraced in vermont. first of all, the incidence of cramming in vermont is extremely high, close to 90% of the people who responded to the survey had absolutely no recollection of ever having given consent to be billed on their local phone bill. secondly, the level of consumer awareness about the possibility that one can be billed for third-party charges on a local phone bill is extremely low. thirdly, we have found any instances of deception being used in marketing third-party charges that then get passed on to a local phone bill. and fourthly, and this is really the major point that i wanted to make and it has to do with consumer expectations. ordinary people do not expect that third-party charges by companies that are unrelated to their local phone company can be placed on their local phone bill. they are simply not aware of that. anymore than people would expect or any of us would expect to have their party charges placed on our monthly mortgage account statements or our electric bill. and without that awareness, people are not going to play the detective that we heard about. they are not going to scrutinize their phone bill to figure out if there s something on there that they should be complaining about. now, vermont has given the potential solution of disclosure a fair shake for the past decade. there has been a statutory requirement in vermont that third-party vendors send a notice through the mail to people who are going to be billed on their local phone bills by that vendor and the fact is that system has not worked and the level of awareness of the possibility of those charges has not increased in the state. so what have we done by way of potential solutions? in january, the attorney general s office proposed to the vermont legislature that adobe introduced that would actually prohibit third-party charges on local phone bills. with some limited exceptions for things like direct dial or dial-around services initiated by the consumer from the consumer s phone or operator assisted or collect calls for companies directly regulated by our public utilities board. the proposal was otherwise to ban such charges and a bill was introduced to do that. it was approved by voice vote in both houses of our legislature. it was signed into law the end of may and became effective immediately. under that law, a claim by a vendor that the consumer somehow consented to the charge is not a basis for allowing the charge. this is an actual prohibition. other forms of payment are allowed so vendors and want to charge people using their credit card or debit card, electronic funds transfer, a check, the kinds of payment mechanisms that people understand and expect, that is all permissible but you can t do it on a phone bill. since may there has been no negative feedback whatsoever about the bill. we think people are pretty happy with it and i would point out that the local phone companies supported us and that initiative in the legislature. we approach them last fall and basically made the pitch to them that these are their customers as well and they came on board. so with that coalition we were able to get that legislation through and i would very modestly suggest that this may be a model for other states and for the nation. thank you. thank you very much mr. burg. now we turn to ms. susan eppley from georgia who has had some experience that i think she would like to share with us about cramming. chairman rockefeller, ranking member hutchison and members of the committee thank you for having me here today. good morning. my name is susan eppley and i m from decatur georgia. i m here today to tell you about my personal experience with cramming. in early 2011 i worked for a successful franchisee of 32 quick service restaurants as the accounts payable representative. this company even in tough times times offers incentives to managers and crews including but not limited to bonuses paid to managers for hitting their numbers based on profit and loss statements. in october, i was entering the at&t invoices. i got curious about how different the bills were from store to store. upon investigation i noticed there were charges for services that were not from at&t our telephone company. i called at&t and spoke with a customer service representative who recognize the problem and she explained that at&t was billing on behalf of a third-party company. when i asked further she said that it was the customers responsibility to block phone bills from such charges. she told me she takes a lot of calls like line. i contacted the third-party company as a phone number provided in spoke to their customer service representative who said that we requested the service. ivan contacted the area manager for the store and he said, you didn t request the service. i went back and forth until i insisted the charges were never requested and only area managers have authorization to make those requests. upon my insistence the representative offered to take three months of the charges often credit the at&t bill for the next month, but i insisted that all $1900 be credited back. the representative then said he couldn t do that and that he had a recording of their core requests for service. i asked to hear. i was in transfer to a supervisor and then credited all of the charges and i never heard the recording. for the next two months it came through every single bill for all of our accounts, set up a block on each account to prevent this and to my best estimation i sense spent 15 hours dedicated to this issue alone. those hours did not include the timer accounting department and airy manners spend on it. in the end six ibra 36 accounts were affected and the estimated amount crammed was about $4200. upon my persistent and assistance that amount was credited back. even though it s each time the third-party company told me they had a recording roofing we requested each service they never play that played the recording for me. it certainly is annoying and a hassle to deal with additional of ministry paperwork making additional phonecalls and keeping information organized especially for services not requested. are r-rated busy accounting apart department to deal with ministry of issues such as readjusting profit and loss statements etc. that being convenience and cost of administrative paperwork on this issue paled in comparison to what was taken away from the managers of our restaurant. these managers work long hours and it is a demanding environment all with a smile on their faces. they have a tremendous job of juggling employee relations customer satisfaction serving safe food and controlling costs. as a mentioned earlier in my statement, rape managers are rewarded with bonuses and some of our managers no matter how hard they work and no matter how much they earned it did not receive their bonuses because of cramming. is infuriating to me that it is legal for help in these without authorization to charge her businesses and view our statements and in effect take money out of the hands of hard-working men and women. i shudder to think that citizens, especially senior citizens who are in a fax fixed budget are falling victim to cramming because they don t have an account payable representative to check her out authorized charges. is my hope that our lawmakers will prevent individuals from being a victim to cramming by making it illegal for at&t and other companies to allow third-party billing. thank you. thank you very much. i wish there were more consumers like you. you are a bulldog. thank you, sir. i guess that is not complementary but i meant it to be. [laughter] our next witness is dave spofford who is the president as i go and what do you have to tell us? chairman rockefeller, other senators and members of the committee thank you for having me today. and the founder and ceo of zygote and expense management company based in manassas virginia. i want to thank you for your commitment to investigating this very important issue of cramming. at as a 20 year background is home communications contracts in billings and i ve never seen cramming as bad as it is today. as we processed tens of thousands of carrier invoices every month or customers and are responsible for moving these third-party charges for many of our clients we are particularly interested in the subject matter. cramming or unauthorized charges by carriers on behalf of third parties has been and remains a major problem to the industry. zygo manages approximately $1 billion per year in total expenses for more than 200 clients. we have built software that helps companies of all sizes manage their medication s expenses and identify areas where they can cut costs. we are member of the telecommunications expense and is meant industry for which i have served as president. our clients span from $50,000 to $10 million per month on a variety of telecommunication services. we monitor their invoices every month which allows us to identify trends recurring problems and the results of our joint efforts to get control of telecom expenses. because of this we have a unique view into tell commissions billington services. after reviewing historical data we found the following information that i hope will help the committee to investigate this problem. we found 40,000 unique instances of cramming during the timeframe. the recurring amount for an average cram is approximately $18 a month. we estimate that over 80% of all businesses experienced cram charges. 71% of our customers have experienced cram charges in the last three years. since the average charge is small and the time investment required to eliminate the charge is high, many customers simply pay the charge. xipo has identified major third-party billing consolidators who are responsible for the majority of these charges. in addition we have identified approximately 600 third-party biller names that are used to build nearly 3000 different line item charges. the large quantity of ill or names that are used by much smaller numbers of actual billers may be a strategy to avoid automated detection by systems like ours. these charges often have descriptions such as voicemail, e-mail, directory services, web hosting and other names that appear to be normal services to the customer. as it turns out more than 99% of these charges are an authorized by the customer and are for services they are not receiving. decentralize multilocation companies seem to have more exposure than other businesses so large retail chains for example are particularly hard hit. the more imports as a business receives the heart of cramming it is to detect since it may be simply remote location may have ordered one of the these services they are being built. so they provided committee staff of details and the names of the third-party billers commonly used for these charges. communications industry both fixed and mobile is already complex and growing quickly. stopped the practice of cramming would be a welcome commercially to all communications customers. chairman rockefeller at thank you for your time. xigo is committed to serving efforts and we look or were too working with you and putting a stop to this problem. thank you mr. subi very much in our final witness will be mr. walter mccormick who is the president of the telecom association here in washington. thank you mr. chairman. chairman rockefeller and members of the committee thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the telecom association and i might add it is a personal pleasure for me to be back before this committee that i had the honor of serving for many years as general counsel to the majority and chief counsel to the minority. mr. chairman of our industry accepted your invitation to appear here today for three reasons. first, to acknowledge the existence of a continuing problem, one that impacts consumers, one that is continued for many years despite the remedial measures undertaken by our industry and by the federal communications commission. second we appear here today to honor and cooperate in your efforts to draw attention to cramming and eliminate it. and third we appear to pledge our industry s good faith commitment to work with you, to work with the committee and with the appropriate federal regulatory agencies to work for further reforms. mr. chairman our positions simply put is that consumers should not be charged for services they did not purchase. for our industry third-party billing had its genesis in a well-intentioned proconsumer initiative by the federal government. in the wake of the at&t divestiture the fcc required telephone companies that have been part of the bell system to bill and collect charges we have with competing long-distance carriers and enhanced services providers. federal regulators believe that the convenience of having all communications related services on a single bill was an important pro-competition, proconsumer policy. although no longer required, third party billing continues to be valued by many legitimate businesses and by some consumers as a convenience. three interrelated measures form the foundation of the basic consumer protection framework that is in place today. they are the industry s anti-cramming best practices guideline, the truth in billing order and agency enforcement. pursuant to these measures, the steps that phone companies are taking to protect their customers fall into four distinct categories. the first level of protection seeks to prevent bad actors from getting access to the telephone bill in the first place. contractual commitments with billing aggregators require active oversight of all service providers. the second level of protection seeks to make charges on the customer a customer s bill clear and transparent. example third-party charges are aggregated in a separate section of the bill along with notification that such charges may be without risking phone service. the third level of protection is to provide an instant credit to any customer that notifies the company that a charge on their bill is not authorized. the policy of leading companies in the industry is to eliminate the charge, no questions asked. the goal of this first call approach is to provide the consumer with full relief without further hassle including an offer to block further charges from that service provider and to review prior bills to see if similar charges previously went unnoticed and need to be removed as well. finally, many companies offer the customer the option of leasing a block on all third-party charges. the fourth level of protection involves monitoring and audit and suspension of service to problem providers. these measures taken together can have dramatic results. one of our companies achieved an 89% reduction in cramming complaints in january 2010. nevertheless mr. chairman, as his hearing in your investigation demonstrates, the problem of cramming process. so mr. chairman chairman because our testimony as we began, by balloting the existence of a continuing problem and by committing ourselves to working with you and the committee in addressing it. alright i thank you very much for that. i need to point out that our two votes of the morning, think it is two votes, have started so what i would like to do is to first, nobody panic. we will be back. what we will do is let amy klobuchar, who has got to go got to go. so do you want to ask a question because we have time for one or two questions and then we can go vote and then on the second vote we vote immediately and come right back. it should be no more than 15 minutes. can you live with that? alright. attorney general madigan, the word was used by mr. mccormack, the were convenience, and i m very fond of that word because i have been trying as a student of oriental languages and even zen buddhism, and tried to figure out what the word convenience means because it is free probably use by telephone companies. you. 30 lawsuits against companies. one of your recent cases last september you filed against the california company called i.d. lifeguards, and this company charged more than 5002 illinois citizens. 12,004 so-called identity protection service. but when your office contacted these consumers they told me that they didn t know the charges had gotten on their phone bills, didn t know how and that is correct, is it not? that is correct mr. chairman. you know we have had hundreds of companies like this. and where does the word convenience that telephone companies use the word convenience. they used it when they were talking about, we will fix it ourselves. they use it now. how has this become a convenience? .. we found when consumers have tried to remove the charges by contacting their carrier they are given the runaround, told they can t do anything about it. they have to contact the vendor. if they had nothing to do with a surface and the charge put there in the first place and then the experience that she went through is very similar to that of, the consumers that we ve talked to. so just a little more detail in terms of our case against lifeguard. there was a 56% refund rate, 56%. so in other words of the 5,000 plus consumers in the state of illinois will cram a 56% of them had the wherewithal to find this and have it removed from their bill. that is a clear indication that is outright fraud being engaged in. i think part of the protection service i recall as they were supposed to be receiving a copy of the credit report. no individuals we talked to had ever received a copy of their credit report. so understand there is no convenience. it is a terrible inconvenience. that s just the reality. i think you re right. let me call a 15 minute recess and we will be right back. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] general madigan, let me just finish up my question with you. i m fascinated and what mr. mccormick to answer this, too, is why all we did was the eighth largest telephone companies. that s our search. imagine if we started going elsewhere how much we would find, state governments, federal government. why do they why do they do that? these are huge companies. they make some money from it, yeah, but hopefully they are going to get a lot of bad publicity and embarrassment about it. they made us a promise and broke that promise. i don t know whether the ceo that i had in my office yesterday whether he knew about it or not. i don t think he did. so that s the big corporate structure and always the middle people that eventually everything is money and it s on an account and company is responsible for what they do. why do they do this? mr. chairman, obviously the of responsive this will be mr. chairman, obviously the of responsive this will be enlightening. we wouldn t disagree with you from the perspective of what we have seen with consumers. there is an obvious financial opportunity for the carriers because they are receiving a portion of the charges that ultimately end up on inspecting the consumers phone bills. but not that much. not that much this has been going on for 15 years and so over that period of time it obviously adds up to some money. in other words, you need to look at the fact that lee and linus service is a declining service, and many people are now relying on the white airless carriers to provide them with their phone service. in so it may be looked at as here s one of our last opportunities to earn some money. i don t think that s the proper way to look at it from a business perspective, but that s really all that we can come up with in terms of why they allowed this to go on because consumers are absolutely furious. as i stated and i think others have as well on the panel, people are completely unaware of the fact their phone number can be used as a credit card. i was talking to my husband last night, the attorneys general who led medically is not a lawyer, doesn t delve into this, and i explained to him what we were talking about today and he said i had no idea that could be done. so the attorney general doesn t realize that your phone number can be used recently as a credit card? i would argue very few to nobody understands that in this country. the senator and i were talking going over to vote and coming back that i don t remember a previous example of when a telephone number becomes the same as a credit card. it can be used as a credit card. do you know of such instance? we don t know of any other instances and clearly consumers to realize that which is why the vast majority of them never even find these unauthorized charges. here is one of the typical, at&t, i think it is five pages long and it s got a very small print, and in fact even with my recently corrected glasses i have to look hard to find down here to cram that is u.s. the night. they don t say what they were doing. they have a telephone number. i have no idea what the other numbers will get you, but we ve to pay the 1995 every month. and then there s more stuff after page five who goes through this? you do because you are an american hero and an accountant, but here s some more at the end. who goes through this? almost nobody. isn t the point that they shouldn t have to go through. they shouldn t be that out, the suspicion i am about to be had a slim going to go through every single line on this telephone bill particularly from a huge companies like that that make hundreds of millions of dollars. how do you answer? you promised that he would take care of the problem on a voluntary basis in such strong language that unfortunately for us to our embarrassment accepted that and now we are in the mess we are in and nothing has changed. why do companies to this? mr. triet, i m aware of the commitment that was made in the late 1990 s, and as i began my testimony today, we agree that this is a continuing problem and that it needs to be addressed and we want to work with you on it and even asked about that s not the question i asked her, is it? we want to continue to work with you. that s what you said ten years ago in stronger language. what i have said is why do they do it? why does a company as large as at&t and pepsico, there s a whole lot of people on that list that do this and that get this money. why do they do it? i don t understand it. it s bad publicity. its scanning. it s called craming but it s really scanning. it s called artist stuff. it can t be good for telephone companies that have a better reputation which were going to paint right on them. mr. chairman, i can share with you with what my companies have told them ask the same question which is the system began with a federal requirement that it was coupled with state requirements in various states around the country. that is even unclear today whether or not the industry has the devotee in every state to no longer engage in this business and i believe the staff report released this morning indicates there is uncertainty in that area. let s say there s some uncertainty. why would the i am not willing to stipulate that at this point, but why would the telephone company take the chance? i mean, to most it doesn t seem to be a lot of question. it s illegal. it s wrong. it s scamming. so why would they take that chance? they don t make that much from it. correct. so why haven t you cleaned up your act? why haven t they just said stop it from the ceo right on down about 40 mid level people, stop it, stop doing it except for the authorized purchase? i don t know the answer to that question other than to reinforce what i mentioned a moment ago about the fact it began as a federal requirement. and again, you know, the industry has taken significant steps even to the report issued today indicates there has been improvement but it remains a very significant very pervasive problem and a real challenge as you indicate once you identify a scammer they quickly come back in another disguise so it s a very significant challenge. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i wanted to follow-up with attorney general madigan. could you help me a little bit in terms of what are the current laws and penalties in place to address cramming, and what is it that has been difficult in addressing this through the prosecution route? i think when someone steals from a convenience store we generally shut down the store, we go after the thief and so when you say to ban all third-party i just want to understand with the difficulties are and why the should be the root versus some other routes. sure. we want to ban third-party charges on the phone bills because we have yet to see anything legitimate in terms of the products or services. people are obviously unaware and it shouldn t be the responsibility of the law enforcement to essentially play whack-a-mole with these organizations. you heard people testify this morning there might be an action that ultimately results in that vendor being kicked off the carriers billing platform, but they reappear with another and engaging the same activities so much so that there is to follow lawsuit twice because we got rid of them once and they appear doing almost exactly the same thing and so it is unreasonable i would argue that it requires states law enforcement, federal level law enforcement to constantly be going after something that is clearly deception and fraud. we in the and you asked the question which laws we use on our act to go after these vendors, and again, when we in the coming after folks, recognize these are the people that have the wherewithal to eventually contact the attorney general s office and ask the majority of people if they ever become aware of these churches we will call their carrier. few of them make it to us and so it s the end of the day you have to say if we are getting five complaints about one company by the time we start the investigation, they ve moved on because we know they are engaged in fraud and if there s a significantly higher refund rate there s a chance they will be thrown off the platform. so they are clever in the sense they are constantly reconstituting changing their name and the type of service they are providing, hiding and under different lines on the phone bills. so, whack-a-mole, you ve obviously heard that analogy before but this is a serious situation that is costing individuals and businesses and government agencies significant amounts of money every single year. as a follow-up on the federal you said you ve been working with the ftc. they have had workshops and have been engaged in this over the years and to pursue them under the federal law. i don t know the details of the losses but i know that they have had significant actions. because one of the issues we would be interested in looking at is making sure that tools of the law enforcement that they have the tools they need to go after the bad actors. i wanted to follow-up with mr. burg to ascii set from the originally had a notice statute in place that was ineffective and why wasn t the notice how did that work when the notice why didn t feel in your view verses the ban on the third party? senator, i think the notice requirement field because of extremely low level of understanding in the public about how local phone bills can be used as a way of charging people for an related could this and services. so, you re not going to open the letter that comes from the vendors that looks like junk mail because why would you? you re not going to scrutinize your phone bill because it s your phone bill and you are being charged for your phone service, isn t that correct? but there may be something on there that s unrelated to your phone bill. we have been working for decades to get people to scrutinize their credit card account statements where you can t be charged for lots of unrelated things come and that has even been difficult as this committee knows from the data passed discussions of the last year and the year before, hear the phone bill is so far a field of the normal payment mechanisms for general goods and services people are not looking and so this is one of the reasons why if you have a huge disparity between the number of complaints filed and the number of victims that you have which is sort of to have the complaint base is a prerequisite to the good law enforcement action we find very few complaints and a huge number of victims again, not surprising in light of still low level of consumer understanding. when the notices were said, assuming that these were there s many bad actors participate in. i assume under your prayer hall and they would have to send these notices to the consumers, the third party billing, that s one thing i m not clear on. if you re a bad actor do they even sent the notice this? in our experience in many vendors that have the veneer of legitimacy who will respond to the subpoenas that we send out say yes without consent from everybody that we charged, but in fact there s no way of determining that if it is an online sign up for example no way of telling whether the data that was used to charge somebody on their phone bill came from the consumer or came from a data file that was obtained and some other way without any involvement of the consumer so the prior law required them to send a freestanding notice through the mail to consumers. many of the vendors said we didn t send a letter through the mail but we have clear notice on the web site, so when the consumers lined up, the consumer knew that he or she was going to be built on the local phone bill and there s no way telling if the consumer signed up and when we did our survey, and this was coupled with any promise of refund this or anything, i think people in our state tend to be pretty straightforward when the responding to this kind of inquiry. we had just the vast majority of people saying i don t know what you re talking about. i didn t give consent. i should not have been built. 64. mr. mccormick, i want to follow-up to ask you you ve had to sit in your testimony that with respect to third party billing that it was valuable to some businesses and consumers. can you provide us further information of how what is valuable and what if we were to ban the practice what are your concerns about the consequences of it because general madigan says she hasn t had an experience where there had been legitimate charges, trying to understand if you can help me with your perspective is on any value to the consumer. we would absolutely agree that it s not convenient to have an unauthorized charge put on your phone bill. in the case of vermont, mr. burg testified that although vermont moved to ban third party billing, even their there were certain exceptions believed to be convenient for the consumer to be able to have certain services segregated on a certain bill. so that any kind of examination in this area - would require some broad understanding of what legitimate businesses do you rely upon this third party billing as both a competitive opportunity and a consumer convenience. so we could try to provide more information for the record. i would appreciate it because it think it s important to understand if there is some legitimate purpose what the quinby and with the examples of our given the experience we ve heard about from here. senator mccaskill. thank you for being here and welcome. i would like to place in the record, mr. chairman, a letter the committee received from a company that is based in my state o reilly autoparts and it is quite a tale for ten years when they began realizing that they were being victimized by extensive cramming and began hiring people full-time to do nothing but my mentor their building they now have three full-time employees that do nothing but monitor building and the experiences they ve had with at&t and others frankly are outrageous and have difficulty to spend for them to curb the practice. the estimate the ten years they ve been tracking it over $200,000 of billings hasn t tried in the attempted against their company. the acquire another company just a few years ago and they ve done the work on that company. they think they ve lost 300 shells and so $550,000 worth of cramming a free ten year period and particularly they are victimized because the open new stores all the time and the numbers are available to the public and if those businesses and the various numbers where the companies obviously are just feasting fraudulently on small businesses and it is the they spent $400,000 on their stuff to do this over the tenure period, but the of 150 grand or so as they look at what they ve tried to do. now most companies don t do this. most just try to beat it out if they can they try to do their best so let me turn to you, mr. mccormick, and i know to or in an awkward position because unfortunately my wrath is probably going to be directed at you what we know each other and i did you know i manas person and i don t mean to pick on you today but i need to know how much money the phone companies are making on this because they are clearly making a boatload of money or they wouldn t put up with this allowing people to use their platforms to build because they are getting a piece of the pike. i need to know how much did they make last year on cramming? senator, i ve been told that the revenues related to third party billing or about one-tenth of 1% of the overall industry. i believe that doesn t tell me how much it was. i know how much at&t is making. i would have to provide the same to care for the record but i believe based upon a letter from at&t the revenues from the third party billing amount to 50 million a year. the total industry is seeking 50 million a year off of it? that would be at&t. that sounds like money to me to the estimate 50 million for third party billing. i m not saying phoenix $50 million off of cramming but off the performing third party billing service. and overall the industry is somewhat less than an estimated 200 million, and the overall that would represent about one-tenth of 1% of the industry. it sounds like to me if they re going to take the position and the good reputation of the companies are being maligned in a way that i would think they would consider to be inappropriate for significant monday and they are willing to bear the burden of this practice going on. let me ask you this my credit card is used there is a lot of hopes to jump through to use my credit cards online i have to have the billing address to match up with their or not it is correct there is a pin number all my credit card we have to use that tells the company i have the credit card in my possession. but on the phone companies require years of third-party bill is to get that kind of identification from these people? senator, the companies have contracts with of third party had irrigators that require the aggregate your lonely to authenticate the service provider but require the service provider provide authentication of the actual authorization of the charge so those contractual commitments are in place to read the telephone company s audit those third-party agra gators but nevertheless, this remains a very significant problem as the committee staff report itself found after 3 million pages of evidence it s difficult to tell what are and are not authorized charges. estimate there s not a requirement to give the company that wants to build you get a self identifying number there s nothing for that. if somebody calls my house and migrant child answers the phone and the city want to spend $2 a month to get tv listings in your area delivered to your internet account or wherever and my grandson hangs up the phone. they could start doing that because somehow they got off a modest that s what they re doing. some don t even bother to call. why don t these phone companies say you have to produce from the person that authorizes the services they have to produce to you a pin number that has to match. that may be a good idea. the way in which they require authentication today is through three specific methods. one is through the actual recording of the individual when they are called and that they authorize the surface. number two, on the internet for the double click methods and number three, through the delivery of the welcome packages that are then accepted. they do not use the numbers like they do with credit cards, but they do have industry standards with regards to the authentication. i think that if two of the three are very easy to do fraudulently and frankly the o reilly folks tell me they ve listened to some of the recordings and found it as legitimate as some of the rhetoric flying around the capitol right now. i don t think the recordings are even a foolproof and seems to me if there s a simple way obviously it s worked for credit cards and when you would do this when you got a phone line to get a pin number with it and before someone could be charging your phone number they would have to be able to produce that pin number and i know i m not giving my pen number out on anything unless it is something i want. seems like to meet with cleaning up quickly and you all could do that on your own without the government getting involved. would you mind taking it to your association finding out what the problem would be providing the numbers and numbers so that number would have to be used if somebody were in third party building? i absolutely will. that s great. how many third party vendors have been disqualified from this will be my last question. how many third party vendors are you aware of the disqualified from using their customers phone numbers? i don t have a specific number. the would be great to find out. i would like to know how many total vendors the of a contract with and thinking on at&t because the of the most resources to shut this kind of stuff down, and according to o reilly they ve been difficult in some parts of the country they still can t block with at&t, so i would like to find of from at&t how many third party vendors they have and have disqualified the last years. thank you very much, mr. tran. thank you, senator. senator boozman. i will defer to senator udall with your permission. you sure go ahead. thank you, senator and chairman rockefeller, thank you very much once again. you are steering us in the right direction in terms of consumer protection focusing on this hearing and i very much appreciate it and the fact that you have a attorney general and assistant attorney general. i know that the senator was aggressive and her state and the both of you are aggressive in terms of stopping these kind of scams and we appreciate your presence today because you bring a very important perspective in mind as and from your testimony that almost all consumers who were crammed were unaware of the charges and did not want or use the advertised services and i think you both recommend the prohibition of third party charges to land line phones. the other concern that all i have, and i when we get the innovation and the new uses and we have the cellphone going it s looking at the cell phones and what s happening there. and i wondered do you have any recommendations on how to prevent a problem of this scale which we are talking about a loss of land line $2 billion or more what can we do as far as cell phones affecting third party billing on cell phones. let me give a perspective, senator, the overall complaints according to the sec data it appears 82% of the complaints regarding the land - 16% of them are wireless lines. in the state of philadelphia to the attorney general s office we ve seen very few complaints regarding wireless lines. our belief is that the warrior class carriers are much more vigilant and intolerant of third party billing and they ve been very aggressive in ensuring they are clean and they maintain their good reputation. and so, again, i would pose that if you ban that opportunity you would prevent that from migrating from the land mine bills to the wireless bills. many people with this point are starting to rely exclusively on the wireless service as opposed to plant land so you re concerned is a good one but i will tell you we haven t seen the problem at this point at the level that exists but it certainly has that opportunity if we don t cut off entirely senator, the one thought i have is it is important once again to look at the issue of the consumer expectations and whether in terms of how you can be built and for what and to see if the expectations are the same in the wireless environment as the landline environment. it may be because of the availability of the various why your loveless services, applications and rent homes and those things can be built to your wireless account in that way an outright prohibition wouldn t be the right way to go. there are other options you could have a blocking system that could be an automatic block when you open the account and opt out of that which would protect the broad public and the was people who want to be billed for a range of things on their cell phone account. they can do that. do any other of the panelists have any thoughts on this issue raised here? our company has a service out now which allows people to apply and a phone bill and protect against third-party charges and we are seeing an increase on the wireless side. it s nowhere near as bad a problem yet, but due to the legitimacy of many third-party charges on wireless bills, applications, movies, songs, etc., for smart devices it s going to be a tough challenge to determine what s legitimate and illegitimate. we do that based on actual hard research of every line item charge so we can then catalog the bad loans and inform customers about it, but a broad prohibition would be difficult but it s going to get much worse on the wireless and i don t think any legislation on the wider line side is going to affect wireless. mr. speed? i would ask consent to put my opening statement into the record. absolutely. thank you. senator boozman. i don t have any questions mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding the hearing and the ranking member being here and participating. this is a problem i think is going to continue to grow and it s not just this area. my daughter was telling me the other day she s a realtor and she had somebody call and say what you like to increase your sales and visibility throughout the country and she said yes, i would very much like to do that. they took that yes i would very much like to do that and use that as a justification to and about $100 a night. was a very substantial. so i think that there is just all of these areas and certainly wireless is important. in arkansas we are 70% wireless at this point, something like that, something very dramatic and as you see that especially with young people, they just don t have landlines, so it really does go to get rid of a think it s important that we discuss it and we have a lot of differences of opinion from the panel and the panel is excellent and we appreciate you being here and sharing your insight and all of you being on the front lines fighting the battle in your own way and they don t want to see it happen. the key is how do you do it any reasonable way? thanks again, mr. chairman. thank you, senator. it s interesting we have to wind up it s interesting to me that at&t itself has been crammed some 80 times and i guess my question to you, mr. mccormick, i think there is total agreement on this panel except for you if you re trying to slide off as happens but if at&t is being cramped 80 times and they probably don t know about the of the area and how can they not know because the of good auditors and counters and are bound to find that. why don t we just take a simple thing and put all of our agony and try to somehow protect often biased charges authorized charges but get rid of the rest. why wouldn t we do that? millions of sleepless hours. why go through all the tomfooleries hedging bets or is it really clear? what is clear ought to be a monumental blunder as much through the telephone companies that we ve done. and we are going to persist on this one because that s what we do, we protect consumers. why would we be in that so you wouldn t have to compromise yourself so much as a witness? mr. chairman, from you know with some limited exceptions, the industry supported that legislation. this third party billing represents as i said less than one-tenth of 1%. you said blank know how misleading deduce? it does it to eppley and hundreds of thousands of other citizens all across the united states every single year for years and years and years so don t give me this. that s the corporate point of view. so why do you use it? why don t you think about one-half of 1% which don t necessarily agree with? why not ban it? than the unauthorized billings. give them accurate reason to wake up with a smile. as long as the others we are going to be investigating, too. why not? mr. chairman we do ban on authorized billings with regard to banning all third-party billings whatsoever something as a policy i will explore with the industry to see if that is something the industry would like to support. turning to the center in the final question and then i will have a closing statement the last 15 seconds. thank you, mr. chairman and as a follow-up i certainly appreciate mr. mccormick he will speak with the industry and i look forward to your supplement and asked so we can have a full understanding that if we were to go that policy direction what would be the full consequence of doing so for consumers as well as businesses. i appreciate that. attorney general madigan, i wanted to ask as they understand illinois passed a law in 2,009 which doesn t have a ban on third party billing. so can you help us understand you re asking us to do a complete ban on third party billing. what hasn t worked in your law and what brought you to this position today? as mentioned, when we brought our lawsuits we used our consumer fraud act even though the new act has been passed, we have yet to use it. reason we re here is we would like to be more like vermont because vermont has been successful being able to pass an outright ban, and it is in san we have to spend countless hours in a slightly similar way to what is eppley does. we take in hundreds of complaints and file a lawsuit after we do a thorough investigation, and then we get restitution for many of those consumers but not nearly all of the consumers. what we have seen repeatedly and what you have heard every one testify today is consumers don t know their phone bill can be used like a credit card account and the end up with things they never asked for and because they never asked for then they never knew they were paying for them or used them. the litchi limit that without having to go through the efforts of most people of the panel is to simply van fees third party charges and yes, there are some exceptions. operators assistance, certain things everybody knows what those exceptions are. those are things that individual consumers or businesses if they want a firm that if they ask to be put on their bill. it s not a secret mystery that ends up crammed onto their bill when all they have done is their name and their telephone number into an online solicitation to get coupons, and that seems to be the way that many people on the internet into being charged for these things if they were on the internet at all if it wasn t outright fraud. so the level of the fraud and deception that i would say is the entire industry here should be banned outright. as a final follow-up to mr. mccormick, if you were having as an industry to basically follow a whole host of different state laws in this area, so you ve got to follow the law that illinois passed i assume this is what you re dealing with come to don t have prevention in this area. but if we are looking at a solution here, would whatever our solution would be that this committee comes up to what is the industry s view in terms of having a federal one federal standard whether it is the banning of third party or some other solution. senator mccaskill raised one here. what is your perspective on that? cementer this is primarily in national business, and as these issues have come up we have been looking to the fcc as the principal regulatory agency so it is a great benefit to the industry to have a single nationwide standard. i have to ask the attorney general here if you have any preemption concerns if we come up with a solution. we always have preemption concerns of the state level, and i think there was somebody that mentioned the fact you would want to make sure that while the federal regulators had authority to do whatever they needed to do against cramming the states are not stripped of that authority because too frequently unfortunately we find when the solution is that the federal level and the states are preempted it oftentimes isn t strong enough to contend with the problems we have in the state s. thank you all of you very much for being here. i think it is a classic american problem. we are not talking about the war in afghanistan or raising the debt ceiling i grant that. but we are talking about something which is profoundly troubling and disturbing to millions of americans and it is also on necessary. i thought what we were meant to do is try to clear up problems here, and ten years ago they came to us and said we will clear of the problems because they make us look bad if we don t and therefore you could trust us to do it and they did so all i m saying is we are going to stick with this. the sec stated yesterday it is seeking comment on whether a band third party billing appreciate that and they settle things, the have settlements and the ftc and that is stuff that is already done and is the mission of guilt. general madigan i want you to know that that s the way i read at the rate in the near future i plan to introduce working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. the legislation that would put a stop to this because i simply cannot find any grain of sense to us having to have a hearing like this and have i m sorry you haven t got any enough of the spotlight but has [inaudible] better looking than you are. [laughter] why put her to that and the millions of others, why put people through that? it doesn t make any sense. it isn t going to change the future of the nation but it s going to change a whole lot of household functioning and ability to survive in horrible economic times which are going to be with us for quite some time would be my guess. so i don t think we should mess around with this. let s not worry about whether something is convenient or not or a quarter of 1% or not. let s say if there are certain of the oddest things that should be done let s work on that and figure that out and then take the rest. with that neutral statement, this hearing is adjourned. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] this is the great hall here at the library of congress, the largest library in the world. did you ever wonder if you were to read one book a day in this library how long it would take you? you will find lots of answers about this unique library in c-span s original documentary, the library of congress. airing this monday night. we will tour the iconic jefferson building including the great hall in the reading will. we will show treasures found in the rare books and special collections including the original thomas jefferson library and presidential papers from george washington to cut off and coolidge, and learn how the library is using technology to discover hidden secrets in the collection and to preserve its holdings for future generations. join us for the library of congress this monday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span. oh, to read every book in this library, one per day, it would take over 60,000 years. the chairman of the house oversight subcommittee on national security says that despite spending billions to enhance security, airports are still vulnerable to terrorist attacks. those comments came during a hearing on securing airports parameters. witnesses include the former security director of vv international airport in israel. this is a little less than two hours. [inaudible conversations] good morning. the committee will come to order. i appreciate dewaal been here for this oversight hearing part number to regarding the tsa airport perimeter screening. i d like to welcome a ranking member tierney and members of the subcommittee and the audience here participating with us and those of you that are watching on television. today s proceedings are the second to evaluate the status of u.s. airport security and the policies employed by the department of homeland security. there are a number of concerns that have been highlighted and drawn-out here today. first and foremost, we have learned that there have been 25,000 security breaches at u.s. airports since november, a 2001, and i appreciate the tsa trucking and providing the data but obviously those are the ones we know about the concern is what about the ones we don t know about and the creativity and things that can happen in the future. we are also deeply concerned about the failing to contact threat vulnerability assessments in order to identify gaps and reverse screening. to thousands lined the gao concluded there were 87% of the airports that have not had the threat assessments done and that number really has not changed. tsa also lacks the national strategy to secure commercial airports and access controls. this again coming from a gao report that says the nation s 457 commercial airports have not been guided by unifying national strategy, and of quote pick also concerned about more than 900,000 900,000 security badges of the 457 airports and the danger that can lead to and the challenges that presents. also concerned at what is happening at some of the nation s airports for instance at jfk investigative reports show what least a quarter mile of the perimeter fence is done leaving a gaping hole along a major jfk from way. this project is four years behind schedule. also concerned about what happened at the dallas love field the defense has been briefed almost 20 times in less than five years. in fact air traffic control shows pilots on the ground were not sure what to do when a pickup truck crashed in drug under the terms of august 19th, 2010. one of the pilots inquired what the protocol for something like this? if he s coming at us can we move? airport control position bhatia. also concerned what s happening at l.a.x.. the 8 miles of the cents in the stages in the decade and yet no one consistent standard has happened. we have spent nearly we will have spent nearly $500 million on a i.t. machines, called the whole body imaging machines. by the time we get to the year 2013 coming into these machines, they re parts of the gaps in the security that don t work. i happen to believe that there is a better and smarter way to do this that is more secure, less invasive, and we are going to hear testimony today talking about the canine units and what they are able to do and i look forward to hearing that testimony. we are also concerned that these machines are whole body imaging machines wouldn t count some of the weapons that were attempted to be used on december in december 2009 incident. and the list goes on. tsa spent millions and millions of dollars on technology that hasn t worked and remember 5207 covered machines after spending $200 million having those deployed, those were put back on the shelf. the challenge before us is grave, it s real. we have to deal with that threat and security of a threat to the nation. it s not going to go away. there is no end to the creativity of terrorists. and while i have heard the press account say let s remember that the 25,000 security breaches are 1% or less than 1%, unfortunately we have to be right all the time. terrorists only have to be lucky ones. a lot of what we have been participating in my personal opinion has been security theater and hasn t done the job to secure the airport to the degree that we need to. i think one of the personal challenges we have as a nation is how to become more secure and get less invasive that we don t give up every liberty in the name of security. and we have to find the proper balance. it s difficult knowing that the threat is real. i look forward to the hearing today. we are going to also rather than by exxon i would love to hear from the panel but at this time would love to recognize their drinking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from massachusetts for his opening statement. thank you mr. chairman and witnesses for being here as well. the understand you re going to address important issues and one of them for instance is the screening of passengers observation techniques of the program. our general accountability office has criticized that s.p.o.t. program saying that it lacks the proper scientific validation. the part of homeland security as we used to study shows more effective than random screening but it does acknowledge it didn t address whether behavioral analysis is actually an effective way to detect potential terrorists. there s been $750 million on or off the asking for another 250 million. i think it s critical that with that significant investment would take a good look and scrutinize whether or not this program actually is effective at identifying the potential threats to security. we will also discuss the screening of the check the baggage using the explosive detection technology. congress mandated this checked bags by the transportation security agency but it s been slow to implement the data across the country. the general accountability office said despite the regulations being in effect in 2005, the detection technology requirements were put in place in 2009 turning the issue of perimeter security there is the high-profile breaches we are all aware not. specifically we are here about an incident that occurred on outside of boston s the airport where a young man fell from a plane as an approach for landing. according to news reports, he likely gained access to the plan after breaching airport from the security in charlotte. this is not a unique incident unfortunately. we ve also heard about the security breaches by mr. ronald wong was somehow able to make a entrée plane leaving jfk from new york to san francisco with a stolen boarding pass. general accountability office also raised concern about preminger security in the nation s airports. into this in mind and found that the field to implement a national strategy to address the perimeter security and also a small percentage of the airports completed the joint portability assessments to read this again raises a serious question that has to be addressed. as we evaluate incidents and the challenges it s important for us to take the time to understand what security functions the transportation security administration is not directly responsible for. and one of those is the perimeter area. they are not principally responsible for the perimeter security at airports, that perimeter security is primarily responsible in the airport operators while tsa s laws to insure they are adhering to an appropriate security plan that meets federal standards. so as i said at the last hearing on tsa, the agency has a difficult and enviable task but it s our responsibility to provide constructive criticism with which tsa can strike the balance between security convenience and cost hopefully have lee on the security aspect. i hope the hearing today can help tsa to that and i thank the chairman for bringing us together. before. i recognize the chairman of the subcommittee and also the subcommittee, the gentleman from florida, mr. micha. estimates before mr. germany and mr. tierney for your leadership and also pursuing very important issues relating to transportation security and holding a very important agency accountable. having been involved in the tsa and actually take the name for the agency and helped craft the enabling legislation some ten years ago i had a chance to monitor its activities closely, and unfortunately i become more and more concerned with the billions of dollars that are being expended some of it just astounds me. .. and the airport is located on about a 16-foot embankment that actually is an embankment across the entire length of the airport. here s the front of the airport and here s the embankment, 16 feet high. and just to show you we are talking about airport security and reminders, how idiotically could idiotic we could be in implementation of any requirements like this, but this is the parking space for rental cars. this is the 16-foot embankment. you can see up here where cars go through the entrance of the airport. now there is a new airport administrator. he wasn t familiar with all the details but we are going to do a thorough investigation of this. this is just one instance again of the nonthinking agent. i don t know of any explosive device that could possibly penetrate 16 feet here except maybe a nuclear weapon. i don t know how much it costs them but these barriers here. again, forcing a small airport or it tsa paid for it, and idiotic expense, not to mention the cost to the taxpayer or the airport but then of course they would never consider the economic loss to the car rental firm or to the revenue of the airport. but, everywhere i turn, i see a disregard for the taxpayer. this is just one instance and one small community. again, just an unthinking agency. there ve budget is what? and a 8 billion-dollar range? then i opened the paper a week or two ago when i return to returned to washington and i look at this ad. of course, the humane society is looking for a vice president of federal affairs and they have a little, i would say it is about a six booklet page but a four-color half page ad for deputy assistant administrator for legislative affairs and this and other capitol hill publications, halfpage. the only total disregard for taxpayers resources could you expand money on whether it is a venture like this by state capital airports capital airports or in a capitol hill publication. i m going to request too and accounting for expenditure of this. let me just tell tsa too that if you refuse to cooperate with my committee, the transportation and infrastructure committee, i have had and will continue to have the cooperation of both this up committee on which i serve in the full committee, mr. issa and the chairman here who have agreed to cooperate to get this information and they will get the data, whether it is this or other activities such as you have refused to provide information to us on. regarding your expenditure of your national deployment force where you can t hire people or people leave their jobs and you have to fly the men, put them up at hotels, pay their expenses and pay them a per diem. whether it is that issue or more than a dozen pending items. we look at the information. we will investigate. we will protect the taxpayers who are paying the bulk of the expenses for this fiasco. so thank you for holding this hearing and we will get to some issues and questions in a few minutes and i yield back. thank you. i will now recognize the children from massachusetts, gentleman from massachusetts mr. lynch. thank you mr. chairman. very briefly, obviously the interest of airport security is a tremendous one for all of us. i know that we have spent enormously on the safety and security of the processes within our airports but this is something that the security of our perimeters of these airports have become much more of a concern since they fairly recent incidents that involved my district. the young man who was apparently stowed away above on an aircraft recently from i believe it was south carolina to logan airport in boston, actually was found he ceased in my district in the sum town of milton and my district. so i was able to see up close the tremendous concern generated by this, the hardship on the family, theforcement involved ts well, and obviously the concern within the aviation community. so i think it is worthwhile to spend some time to redouble our efforts, to focus our resources on an area that we believe has been neglected. and i want to thank the witnesses here for their willingness to come before us, to help us with this task, to help the committee, to make sure that we are being thorough in our examination, that we are not overlooking anything and as a result of this incident, and some others, that at the end of this process the american flying public will be safer and our communities will be safer. and our airports will be more secure. that is the goal here for both democrats and republicans. that is our intent here, and again i want to thank the witnesses for coming before this committee to help us with our work. i yield back. thank you. i would like to now introduce our panel so they can be prepared for their opening statements. mr. john sammon is the assistant administrator for the security administration and we appreciate you being here. mr. stephen lord is the director of the government accountability office. mr. jerry orr is the aviation director at the charlotte douglas international airport. mr. rafi ron is a president new age security solutions and the former director of securities tel aviv in carrion airport and inspector william parker is the commander of amtrak police department k-9 unit and we appreciate you being here as well. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. please rise if you will and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or from the testimony you are about to get this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion we would appreciate if you would limit your verbal testimony to five minutes or less. your entire written statement will be entered into the record. so with that we will start with mr. sammon and you are recognized for five minutes. good morning chairman chaffetz, ranking member tierney and his spinning dish members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss transportation security administrations responsibility regarding her matter security and u.s. commercial airports. i would like to emphasize three points. first, every airport has individualized security plans up with security, perimeter security is an important piece. two, airport authorities are responsible for executing the plan. three, tsa is responsible for approving the plan and inspecting airport compliance of the plan. unlike checkpoint security airport authority people and investments play the lead role in carrying out airport for a matter security. tsa conducts airport inspections to enhance security and mitigate risks associated with her matter and take ready including joint vulnerability assessments, special emphasis inspections and the testing of access control processes at airports. tsa analyze the results of these inspections and assessments to develop mitigation strategies that enhance airport security posture and to determine if any changes are required. parameter related airport compliance has been inspected 27,031 times over the past months. every commercial airport receives an annual security assessment to include an assessment of grandmother and access controls. earlier this year tsa s office of security operations initiated a special emphasis assessment and special emphasis inspection of all airports evaluating perimeter security and including sensing, man-made barriers, natural barriers, closed-circuit television, electronic intrusion, and motion detection devices. assessments are complete for the largest airports with the smaller airports expected to be complete by september 30 of 2011. the results of the inspection more collaborative improvements and also violations which may result in civil penalties. going beyond compliance, we work collaboratively with airport operators and airport associations and in that collaboration tsa issued a dated and improved security guidelines for airport design and construction as well as an innovative measures report which highlights best practices from airports of all sizes across the united states. the innovative measures report effort was the first of its kind in working closely with airports across the nation on baselining the best practices in the airport perimeter access control, terminal frontage is another key areas. over 700 measures and practices from over 100 airports were assessed as far as this groundbreaking initiative. because of that effort airports now have self-assessment modules and a resource allocation tool. the tool incorporates the attack scenarios, vulnerability scores, consequence scores and countermeasures success probabilities. it allows airports to baseline their security programs against other airports in innovative measures that will directly informed decisions about improvements to provide the greatest risk reduction for their money at their location. tsa s goal is to work with airport authorities to stay ahead of the threats while protecting passengers privacy and facilitating the efficient travelers and legitimate commerce. tsa airport grandmother security and s are one part of that conference of deferred. i want to thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss this important issue and i m pleased to answer any questions you may have. thank you. we will now recognize mr. lord from the government accountability office. we recognize you for five minutes. thank you members of the subcommittee. thanks for inviting me here today to discuss aviation security issues. the attempt to thousand nine christmas day attack or bite of a bitter civil aviation remains an attractive terrorist target and the scores they imports at today s of today s hearing. securing commercial aviation operations is difficult given the hundreds of airports, thousands of daily flights with millions of passengers and pieces of checked baggage. the tsa spend several billion dollars each year to help secured the system however risks remain. today i would like to discuss three layers of the system. first tsa s behavior detection program also called spot, airport or matter and access controls and finally tsa s check tag screening system. first regarding regarding tsa s behavior detection program, dhs has taken actions to validate the underlying science of the program at based on our past reporting more actions are needed. as we reported in may of 2010, tsa deployed its program on a nationwide aces without first demonstrating it was based on valid science. according to tsa s.p.o.t. was deployed before a validation was completed to help address potential threats such as those posed by suicide homers. the good news is dhs completed an initial validation study earlier this year and found that the program was more effective than random screenings in identifying so-called high-risk passengers. however as noted in the study, the assessment is just a first step. additional research is needed to fully validate the program. some recommendations made in the latest dhs study mirrored those we made in our may 2000 report. in some it is still an open question whether behavior detection principles can be successfully applied on large-scale for counterterrorism purposes and the airport environment. i would now like to discuss some of the key findings from our 2000 report on airport perimeter security. in terms of progress we noted various steps tsa had made including implementing random worker screening programs, expanding requirements for name-based background checks and developing new biometric security standards. however we found that tsa had not at the time completed a comprehensive risk assessment as called for by dhs. tsa subsequently completed such an assessment in july 2010. however the date of the assessment did not include an assessment of the so-called insiders thread which tsa views as a significant threat. the risks posed by insider threats will be included in the next update due later this year. we also recommended that tsa consider making greater use of joint vulnerability assessments. these are a key tool in the tsa toolbox and are completed in conjunction with the fbi. the latest data showed tsa has complained it joint vulnerability assessments on about 17% tsa supervised airport and 83% of these airports are on ss. the last one i would like to discuss is tsa s evers to deployed checked baggage screening equipment. this program is one of the largest acquisition programs within dhs. it is highlighted in the report we released representative mica yesterday. tsa has upgraded the explosive detection requirements for this equipment but faces challenges in meeting these requirements. the explosive detection requirements for checked baggage machines were established in 1998 and subsequently revised in 2005 and 2010 to better address current threats. however, tsa s current checked baggage screening systems to not make the 2010 requirements. some of the machines are operating at the level established in 2005 and the remainder operated at levels established in 1998. are report describes some of the challenge is tsa faces in procuring this very confiscated technology. example diaz jays and tsa encountered challenges safely collecting data on the explosives, physical and chemical properties per car report contains six recommendations for improving tsa s process for acquiring the sophisticated systems. the good news is that tsa has agreed to take action to implement all six of these recommendations. mr. chairman and other distinguished members of the committee this concludes my statement i look over to answering your questions. thank you. we will now recognize mr. orr the operator of the charlotte international airport. we appreciate you being here sir and we are recognized for five minutes. please turn on the mic and maybe move it closer to you. that would be great. thank you. mr. chairman and members of the sick subcommittee on the aviation director for the city of charlotte as charlotte airport. i have worked for 36 years and airport management and was a small-business owner for 13 years before that. i m here today to testify a on airport perimeter security. i have been critical of the performance of the tsa since its inception. i am not critical of its nation. i m critical of its measures. in my judgment the effectiveness of the tsa is compromised by a rigid attitude of arrogance and europe are see. in november of last year the body of a young man was discovered in else in massachusetts and thought to have fallen from an aircraft. i learned about a possible connection to charlotte in the media and therefore reached out to our federal security director. he did not want tsa to take the lead and instead recommended municipal police department to head up an investigation and tsa would assist them. ultimately be invaluable evidence could neither prove nor disprove that a security breach had actually occurred in charlotte. the police and tsa theorize how the young man may have accessed an aircraft. they came up with a reasonable assumption about what might have happened that excludes entry through a checkpoint. but the report fails to acknowledge that they could not conclusively rule out this possibility because tsa had failed to preserve their surveillance video of the checkpoints and some of it was lost. i m not saying that the young man came through a tsa checkpoint that what i am saying is that tsa failed to even admit the possibility and collective attention elsewhere. this mentality serves to protect the agency at the cost of real security needs. the investigation focused national attention on airport premature security and charlotte we have 19 miles at six-foot high chain link fence with three strands of art wire and enclosing the airport. this fence meets all federal requirements. we spend spent a half million dollars annually on maintaining the fence all from the airport budget. we spend an additional $3 million on personnel with perimeter security responsibilities. the fence is a deterrent. it says keep out. however, the final security is the eyes and ears of the 20,000 people who work inside the fence. tsa seems to believe that airports are automatically in violation of the regulations, even when they did everything they were obligated to do and it simply didn t work. to me that is like saying the customs and border protection itself is violating the law each time a new illegal alien crisis since the united states. other examples of tsa s lack of partnership. recently we asked tsa to explain their legal authority for attracting us to do something. ts failed or refused to respond or even acknowledge our questions. tsa has conflicting roles in operational and regulatory capacities that are not kept separate and when an agency interprets the rules and implements actions lends itself to the possibility of abuse. i am confident that i m not the only airport operator was significant concerns about the effectiveness of tsa. an adversarial relationship between airports and the very agency entrusted to safeguard them is clearly detrimental to the goal of safety and security. what can be done to improve our policy to focus on the real needs of our nations airports? congress should continue to support allowing airports to opt out of using tsa and ensure that the bureaucracy does not throw up arbitrary roadblocks to discourage us from pursuing this alternative. any entity working with airports and airlines to achieve security must do just that, work with them. tsa s current culture does not foster respect. i also believe congress should redirect some of the available funding for airport security from tsa directly to airports. the operators most familiar with airports vulnerabilities end strength and as well as quick to make effective enhancements. safety and security are always our number one piracy. there can always be more security but the challenge is to provide that are security. we need to spend money where it counts on things that matter. it needs to be reasonable and collaborative. with airports are given the resources we need and picture partner for security the traveling public will be. thank you mr. orr. we will now recognize mr. rafi ron at ben-gurion airport. you are recognized for five minutes. see. thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee for inviting me to testify today. i would like to draw the committee s attention to the three factors that i believe are playing a key role in many of the shortcomings and airport security. the first one is the imbalance that was created shortly after 9/11 when tsa had the overwhelming task of recruiting training and installing technology in airports around the country, something that is the backbone of tsa s operation and influence of security at the airports. at the same time the airport facility security has received much less attention, and not only a screening of passengers where most of the attention and the funding went into, but it was also executed by a tsa why the rest of it was left for the local authorities to take care of. something was relatively short and the standards for performance of the security task on the local level are not very clear and in many cases they did not even exist, and the point or the issue of perimeter security is a very good example for them. i think that traveling around the country, one can easily notice that worst of all there that there is very little consistency in our airports as far as security is concerned. secondly, most of the airports today are still not protected by an operating perimeter intrusion detection system. and other terms, we don t know when a breach occurs. we get to know that only when it is addressed by somebody or when we end up with a stowaway making his way to the rear well and certainly enough losing his life. this is not a reasonable standard compared to those on the passenger screening operation. the other aspect of that is that the issue of jurisdiction is not very clear. when it comes to the security operations, security facility of an operation at the airport, by law it is local enforcement agency or department that is responsible to do this, but yet most or many of the police departments that provide service in airports bear role is more of an agent and there is a major difference between the two. once again if you look at premature is a reflection of this problem, you can see that the role that the local police department is taking on perimeter security at airports is minimum and usually based on responding to cause rather than an early detection prevention. so, i think there are two areas that have received much more attention. one is the role and the funding of the local authorities as far as the airport facility security is concerned and secondly the need for standards that would create persistent, high-level performance that will characterize the security in airports around the country. a thank you very much. thank you mr. ron. a little bit of explanation here as we introduce inspector parker. you may be curious as to why we might invite someone from amtrak. amtrak police to be here at a hearing regarding airport security. one of the questions i think that is a legitimate one that this committee would like to explore is while the tsa has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in whole body imaging machines and technology, there are those pretty ailing at the pentagon who have come to the conclusion that dogs are the single best way to find explosive devices. i would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record there was a press conference by lieutenant lieutenant general michael owes that says quote dogs are the best detectors and i would point to this. i know all good americans get this magazine, airmen. and there made gin 2011 edition says there s no technology proven more effective than the detection of explosives in the k-9. there are questions as to are we investing enough in technology that we know that work in canines according to the pentagon having spent literally tens of billions of dollars? again without waxing on to much more we do truly appreciate inspector parker being here and it is a good of explanation. is going to give a bit of testimony then we are going we are going to have a demonstration. i will let him explain how we are going to conduct this. we would ask anybody here in the audience they put if you have some sort of something. we are glad that you are here inspector parker. we are going to do a bit of a demonstration. we ask that you hang tight what we do this demonstration appreciate the leeway here is we do this demonstration. inspector parker we will give you great leeway. good morning mr. chairman and ranking member tyranny. my name is william parker and i m the inspector commander of the k-9 unit. i m honored to be here and i appreciate the opportunity to explain. well-trained dog is more capable, useful reliable and effective. dogs and not to urge depreciate like machinery. dogs are trained properly and their training is consistent their skill level will increase with expense. perimeter security is a great concern to airport and transportation administration. many airports rely on surveillance being the cameras to protect their primers. the problem as if nothing appears on the camera after the alarm goes off you can t just assume it is there. someone had to respond to make sure no one is from the camera and well-trained law enforcement officers with the well-trained patrol that can find a thread immediately without waiting for backup. after september 11, 2001 we use dogs intensively to sweep airport terminals. the dogs were used to sweep for explosives in the morning before the terminal opening in the evening when the terminal closed. i saw a real surge in interest in k-9 capability after 9/11. as people realize realized god for effective and crowded them garments where there is closer screening abilities were better in crowds and technology. amtrak trains the explosives for forwarding keeping a closer team president the boarding gates to provide a capability and immediate response. egg think a dog on on owner jetway on a jet whiteboarding wedding through security at non-convenience of travelers and would provide an elevated sense of security. dogs are very effective not only into texting explosives but as a deterrent and many of in bright any remnants when deployed properly. amtrak has many challenges particularly the need to secure open space areas. we have been able to implement some new procedures that could be used in airports. i have helped pioneer new applications of canines called vapor waits. vapor wages of trained dogs to smell the wake of explosive material in the air after person passes by the area. amtrak is working with agencies to develop this application and other agencies such as tsa are starting to use the paperweight k-9 method. in closing i would like to reiterate my position that they could k-9 or graham is an excellent investment for any agency that needs to secure high-traffic areas or facility parameters provided the program is properly funded and supported with a strong infrastructure. to this point i i ve brought two teams with me to give a brief demonstration. after we conclude that the mom i would be happy to answer any questions you might have an thank you again for this opportunity. what you are going to see in this demo sir is that i explained to you about vaporware technology. the dog will be a will to detect people that walk by. it is not intrusive and they will not stop anybody s path. you are going to see two, or am i right in her less. we are going to people come to the door and as you see the dog is pretending she is at a checkpoint. people will come in and the dog will be able to detect who came in with something on them. we are just waiting on the crowd. as you see the dog is not interestedly hurting anybody. as you see that person walked by, did doc is walking, walking. as you see this is the response the dog will give and that is a person. this individual has ankle weights on that has explosives on his ankle so you can look at him physically not see see anything that he has about five pounds of explosives on his ankle. could you show the committee, sir? and that is smokeless powder. the second demonstration we are going to give okay you can move. the second magician we will give is like i said when that person passes through the area [laughter] as a person passes through an area you see a person walking through the room right there. over there tier so she is going to walk and sit down. we are going to have a dog come through the same area and that person has already sat down. the dog is going to come in and follow the scent where the dog person walked two and determined where she is located at. they are trying to give them a little bit of time because in theory someone. [inaudible] and that is a scientific fact that has already been noted. he good girl. let s give the dog a hand of applause. [applause] thank you for this opportunity and any questions you may have. very impressive. appreciated. i m going to recognize myself for five minutes as we move to questioning and we will go from there. i want to start with mr. sammon here and the gao. the gao in a report released out today dated today, on page 12 and 13 it says our analysis of tsa data show that from fiscal year 2004 through july 1, 2011 tsa conducted joint vulnerability assessments at about 70% of tsa regulated airports that existed at the time thus leading about 83% of airports on assessed. how can that be? in 2009, september 2009 there was a warrant issued but said 87% of airports have been over that timeframe we have gotten that number to 17% assessment. the joint vulnerability assessments are done in concert with the ei. they are done through extensive assessments and done in a limited number of it locations but every single commercial airport receives an annual security assessment. wait, wait, why aren t they are 100% jda s done? is the goal not to get to 100%? tsa does complete a security assessment including the permit of all airports year including we have done 27,000 inspections. i m asking about the joint. there are different assessments. what is your goal? do you have the goal of getting to 100%, yes or no? we have 450 airports with the fbi every year, no. is not even every year. it is some point. i mean mr. lord you have looked into this. what were your findings in this particular area? when we first looked at it the number was actually 13%. that was from the 2004/2008 timeframe and we as tsa for updated analysis but the numbers have actually gone up. is now 17%. these are very intensive examinations focused on high-risk airports and tsa considers them for gold standard. they obviously conduct a conducted whole host of other activities and inspections and testing. i mean there are quite a few things they do but you know we thought this was a worthwhile to single out given the significance. we do recognize it is difficult to do quickly and you have to get the fbi fbi involve. what i don t understand is given big imperative, given the knowledge and understanding that we are only as strong as the weakest link in a maybe that small airport as we saw on 9/11 when a person got on a plane. not one of the major airports initially and got behind the security lines. why is the tsa not demanding and working towards getting to 100%? there are 457 airports. why aren t 457 airports getting this jv a done? this level of assessment will be done in a limited number of airports. mattair port not all airports will be done. i absolutely don t understand that. i think it is unacceptable. let me move on. mr. mr. orr in your testimony said the tsa is yet to approve this airport security program. i think you said in your testimony quote we have been trying to get revisions to our approval for about a year now. can you explain a little bit more, please? yes, sir. we are required to man our security plan anytime there s a change in our security procedures and we submitted an amendment to the local federal security director over a year ago. heard nothing for six or seven months. comments, address that comment. it again lay idle for a couple of months. then our system security director that we have been working with disappeared and a new one appeared and in the process started all over. mr. sammon do you care to respond to that? as i understand the request to change the security plan was initiated about a year ago. there was a joint vulnerability assessment with the fbi conducted in the fall of 2010. it is my understanding and i don t know this personally but it is my understanding the parties at reed to a let s hold off completing the rewriting the airport security plan until they understand the results of the joint vulnerability assessment. now the joint vulnerability assessment in terms of its analysis of premature security was not particularly flattering. in terms of where the amendment is, in terms of rewriting it i think the parties have a great. it sounds like it has been waiting for a year. do you dispute that? both parties agree to wait until something you brought up last time is the joint vulnerability assessment and i should be very insightful in terms of what you do if your security plan. mr. orr? we have had to joint vulnerability assessments, one in 2007 and one in 2010. and at the conclusion of each one we asked for additional information to help us understand what you are talking about here. and in both cases have not received that. we submitted our plan and our amendment. we heard nothing. we checked on it a couple of times. they said it was in the works. this is the frustration. you are telling me that you have no goal to give 100% of joint vulnerability assessment on the 450 airports? you made improvement from 13% to 17% of them we have an airport where you have done to jda joint vulnerability assessment and you are not getting the responses. you have people all across the country and you are supposed to be the expert in the middle of this. that is the concern. my time is expired and now i recognize the gentleman mr. tierney for five minutes. mr. lord, this joint vulnerability assessment, what is your analysis of how likely it is that 100% of the airports could undergo that particular scrutiny every year? we don t think it would be appropriate to do it every year but perhaps on a rolling basis. that is how they do it now. they have a target within a three-year timeframe. they try to focus complete jda s on airport. obviously they are expensive and you need to get the fbi s cooperation. currently there is a three-year ruling planet to 100% of airports within that timeframe? that would be difficult to achieve under our current process. i would defer to mr. sammon on that. he would know more about that. but it is your understanding that is the plan? is not the plan. it is mr. sammon stated the current goal is not to do 100%. my point is they do them on a rolling three-year base is. mr. sammon how many things i risk assessments would be done on a three-year base is? i would have to back get back to our british and people and i would be happy to respond to the committee on that. would be 50%? 25%? i would have to check with the fbi. we need it the i cooperation? review the project, sign off and so on and so forth. is not a tsa we don t run this thing by ourselves. mr. sammon we talked about the screening passenger observation techniques programs, the spot that are graham. can you differentiate that from the usual type of random searches? yes. essentially i think the earlier witness on the panel mr. ron is an expert on this but what you are looking for our mike or facial anomalies. in terms the way people are behaving particularly the facial movements they have as they approached a checkpoint. the s.p.o.t. programs result in more than 2000 arrests since 2006 and for people who have had her hats criminal and other kinds of fraudulent or illegal activities they were engaged and at the science is based upon microfacial anomalies and the way people look and that is what they are trained for so it is more than randa. you are looking for people and looking at the crowd, looking for people in that context to have some somewhat aberrant looks. we are about three-quarters of billion dollars into that and every quarter we asked for it. is that worth the money? i think that the investment in the behavior certainly make sense. all the rest they are doing is related to detection of items and i think 10 years after 9/11 with the attempted attacks that we have had during this period of time, we reach the conclusion that we need to spend more attention on the people rather than just on the items. observing the behavior is one of the basic tools that can be used at the airport but obviously it is only one single tool and a much wider and more complex strategy. what kind of technologies involved in the s.p.o.t. or graham? it depends on the way you define technology. if we are looking at technology from the point of view of the machines that are involved or computers that are involved in the process, this is not a highly technological process. this is more human-based process but there are certainly broom to extend that into the technological area by use of surveillance technology and not just cameras out there but those that can identify certain types of events or behavior and respond to it. at the granular level it could be done with train human trained human beings exercising the process that is involved? wow right now it is mostly training human beings. i would imagine you would start getting remote possibilities in their and the cost could be enormously talk about all the airports that are around. that is correct. i want to quickly come he talked about having a local entity being able to opt out of tsa on that. if your organization to that which you be willing to take full responsibility and liability force failures to proceed? yes, sir. i have that anyway. i yield back. now i recognize the chairman of the transportation committee, mr. mica of florida. thank you. mr. sammon, as of last week my figures are you had 3905 people in washington supposedly working for tsa and 27% of them were in a supervisory administrative capacity making an average all of them over $104,000. how many of those folks were dedicated to doing things vulnerability assessments we have been talking about here? in terms of the vulnerability assessment i was would say limited number. a ed doesn t come at the dozen? i would like to give you a truthful answer. could you provide that to the committee? next to have 9656 administrative personnel out in the field. how many of those folks are involved in the owner ability assessment? those are administrative people, not screen screeners. i would have to. they are having trouble getting back with people like mr. orr i see because the vi and other agencies don t cooperate. that is your explanation today? no, sir. in terms of the asp i will look to it. couldn t possibly have some of the people making over $100,000 maybe they get for the record the number of people making over $100,000 at the airport. none of those people could check off on a security plan to protect the perimeter of the charlotte airport. if you set the protocols and standards in washington? the plan is worked out locally with airport director and the fst and it has improved. but it took six months to even get a response? can t you understand that frustration? the other thing mr. orr if anyone contacts you and there is any intimidation after your testifying here today or any indication that they are giving you a hard time in and anyway i want you to let this committee know immediately. i have seen the way these people operate, the intimidation and you are pretty brave to be with us today. what is the current most serious risk that we face? i think right now in terms of nonmetallic explosives on airplanes coming in from overseas. that is a good point. actually, mr. pistole he said way back in november of 2010 that we were in risk management business, being a risk-based intelligence organization. that is what he is trying to achieve and i support that old. do we have a plan from tsa you could share with us to move towards that? i don t have a plan today but i would recommend the committee work with representative pistole. can you write us with an update rum roman emperor you go or where you are going without plan? i will tell you he is working on a number of alternatives and he hopes to announce something soon, this summer. we are looking forward to that and you mentioned most of the risk is coming in from out of the united states. for example the shoe bomber, mr. reagan amsterdam the christmas day bomber, the london liquid, the yemen toner. the last count we had under 100 tsa personnel overseas. it was really 54 when i checked. do you know what the number is now? i don t know off the top of my head. can you get in contact with the secretary of state or others in trying to increase the presence of tsa overseas? we work with overseas countries. could you provide the latest context with the department of state and others to the committee because he said the threats coming from there. whole body imaging equipment which we spent a half a billion dollars on and the deployment. i mean we are probably in in the billion-dollar range. at the smart 16 hearing i asked the question, we know that terrorists are moving to body cavity answers and surgical implants. does the whole body imaging equipment direct this kind of can it detect this kind of threat? the answer from all of them, the experts was that it does not work as the eye can t discuss it in the setting but i would happy to have a. they said it did not. we have known since this ebc news repeat release from 2009, september 2009 that terrorists were now moving. in fact they used a bomb on a terrorist implanted and it lieu up in front of a saudi prince who killed himself. i mentioned this back end, what was the date? march. that appears to be a threat, the death obviously they have gone from shoes to diapers to liquid to cartridges. wouldn t you say that it looks like the audience plan might be the way to go? i dispute the bbc report again i can t discuss it here. there is no dispute. the out of the guy. sir, i will be happy to discuss there. in any event and i mentioned the senate was also mentioned that the equipment we spend a billion dollars on, can t do anything about it and tsa finally gets july 6, get saved recently reefed intercarrier to provide greater insight into a intelligence indicating terrorists to target aviation. and the name specifically the threat of a body implant as a threat. is that something you issued? i would be happy to discuss the specifics of that i classified setting, sir. you can t tell me? we have spoken to their lands and talked talk about security. particularly in july did you tell them that might pose a threat before then? we have been working on nonmetallic threats for a considerable period of time in a specific threat was based on specific intelligence. the testing of that equipment both by this committee and directed by gao has been unsuccessful both in reports that it been published and also gao reports that also look at your backup system, which is the s.p.o.t. program which they termed almost a total failure. i think mr. ron. in addressing this risk. i totally disagree with you in terms of what you are looking for other alternatives to get around technology is people tend to try to design and. are you aware of the hearing conducted by the science and technology committee where mr. brown from georgia, the chairman, questioned the current application of the standoff a hager detection which you employ now versus the act gives questioning which is done under the israeli system of? i think they re both very good. everyone he testified, every expert said that the tsa s current procedures a total failure and they further validated the findings of gao. and again i had that two weeks ago to be in tel aviv at ben gurion airport to see how it was done and they can be done on an interactive basis even with a large population if we go to risk-based rather than hassling innocent americans or veterans, military, children and people who pose absolutely no risk and i yield back the balance of my time. i would encourage you to speak with administrator pistole. we try to get the senior most people to come before this committee and they refuse. that is one of the great frustrations. no surprise to tsa. i would love to work with them, love to work with them but that doesn t happen and that is that frustration to the committee. mr. chairman let me continue a point of procedure. i would be willing i will advocate that we do subpoena the appropriate verse and out. they send is people like this you cannot provide us with the information. this is the chief investigative committee of the united states house of representatives. they are going to appear one way or the other or corporate one way or the other and put them on notice again today. i now recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. thank you very much. i appreciate it and sitting on committees that have the most jurisdiction of the tsa, said on this committee and mr. mica s transportation and infrastructure committee and homeland security committee. these are issues that deeply concerns me and my work with congress and i m happy all are here and happy to be able to discuss this again. i am probably the i ve got more tsa pat-down since i ve been in congress that i ve gotten pat-downs from my wife. since the topic of this is perimeter security wanted to start with that mr. sammon. to what degree does the tsa coordinates with the faa for its is on spending on airport security? i know in corpus christi we recently got $5 million from the faa to improve security but have there have been any action with tsa in determining for the multiple dollars are best spent? i think since the gao reports you have seen come out of number of things we have been working for several years to address the specific issue you are talking about. first of all we worked with the airport community to come up with recommended design guidelines for airport planning and construction. a lot of the money the airports use for planning and construction comes from the faa. next, we worked with the homeland security institute to develop a best practices from all the airports. i am sorry. i ve are real short amount of time. you are saying you are working regularly with other agencies to make sure the right hand knows what the left hand is doing? the government is working with the airports. they have a tool, specific computer program that they can run through their system. the ideas to work with the airport to come up with the optical optical spending. we talk about high-risk airports. what is not a high risk airport where i can get on a commuter jet at any airport in the country and end up in a hub airport and be on the biggest airliner in the world? what would not constitute a? i ve re-100% in terms of the 700 innovative measures came from airports as small as asheville from the airport such as delta county, minot, big airports in small airports have got into best practices in terms of what are the kinds of things that are appropriate for each airport? again let me go to mr. lloyd. mr. lord. you were talking about spending on prisons begging screening equipment. i will speak from experience. we have three airlines american continental with 50 regional
especially in pennsylvania. could you tell us how this water is disposed of in your two respect escape? kind of briefly. certainly. in colorado, a majority of water resistor circuit overuse. we talk about the disposal, final disposal, 60% is deep underground. 20% of the evacuated. about 20% is just charged a surface water understate water quality permit that do contain environmental health-based standards. in oklahoma, we recycle most of the phrack water come up when it s used if we have 10,500 injection cells be put the watertown, fluid sound. so it s roughly the same as they re doing in colorado. how do your agencies responded investigate groundwater complaints? director neslin, and we tell us how you did it quite certainly, this is event that led to the hearing last february. a couple things were important. we got in an inspector on spending having 16 hours collect mean samples for analysis. this inspector is a phd in chemistry and 25 years experience. he spent over four hours investigating the alleged intimidation of work with other members of our staff, including their engineering staff is already 30 page report on the documents in his investigation into various types of analysis were used as part of the exercise. when the landover was dissatisfied with the conclusions that had drawn, which was very been no impact from hydraulic fracting, he received a half-day hearing from her commission within 60 days. then her commission unanimously affirmed this pathfinding. i think in terms of the rigor of the analysis, timeliness work and transparency of the process, this compares very well. about the same in oklahoma quite it is about the same, senator. given extensive field staff better over the state monitoring the boats as well as dvd. and then i only have about to be second class. i like to have you talked about new technologies coming along. is there a procedure they can find to commissioner cloud, where you investigate these new technologies and what dangers, and what to do to mitigate these? as i said, our staff is i m top of it all the time. if anybody has a complaint in colorado, we are 24 hours accessible and we try to stay on top of every single instance. thank you very much. dr. volz, there s a very negative article in the pittsburgh tribune review yesterday that i m sure that you have read it now. i d like to ask that be made a part of the record. that objectionable be included in the record. thank you, mr. chairman. sunder merkley. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. neslin, to listen to your testimony so that there s never been any problem in colorado and we found no verified incident of hydraulic fracting, harming groundwater. how do we square that with the documentary are referred to earlier where mike marcum takes and pours water out of his kitchen phosphate, holds a cigarette lighter to it and after a few seconds, i quote, a ball of fire erupts out of the sink, almost enveloping marcum s head. the source for flammable water in a process called hydraulic fracting. how is escorted no incentive fracting or water. we investigated that very well. the fact that the willis completed in a cold beer information that contains what is called biogenic methane, unrelated to oil and gas development. there are published papers that the u.s. geological survey in colorado geological survey dating back within 30 years, verifying that fact that many foreign nations there is naturally occurring biogenic methane, not attributable to oil and gas development, not released by oil and gas development. the allegations were thoroughly investigated. laboratory analyses were done. the conclusion was done this is biogenic methane ability to oil and gas development. it is based on not just the work of art status, but scientific papers from the geological surveys dating back decades. so basically if he had been learned is what are 30 years ago you would ve had the same problem? yes, sir. interesting. thank you for addressing. and dr. volz, in your paper you refer to a long list of chemicals that are coming out of the grind treatment facility. were these brave variants, pro-mine, benzene, glycol ether, clorox and so forth, with this developed specifically to try to basically address the challenges these slovak fluids and clean them up? senator, this is an older fluid treatment facility that s been in operation for about 25 years and up until about five years ago, only took care of conventional oil and gas fluid. nowadays dealing with these marsalis fluids. so the technology in the facility is completely inappropriate or ineffective in terms of the fullback fluids now been sent to a? that s right, sir. if we were looking at a newer facility in pennsylvania designed specifically in mind, we would find all these problems have been addressed? i m not sure of that, sir. i think there needs to be a very definitive review of all the processes that are used by treatment facilities, not only in the state of pennsylvania because wastewater from the state of pennsylvania is actually being treated by these plants and sewage treatment plants in new york, new jersey, maryland, ohio and west virginia as well as pennsylvania. so i may have misinterpreted pictures that were presented in your sides, but it looks like pipes coming out of the running treatment facility into a creek and just dumping all of this and effectively treated, highly contaminated dangerous stuff right into the creek on a surface in pennsylvania. is that actually was happening? that is exactly what is happening, sir. there is very little treatment done at that plant except to remove some of the barium. it is precipitated with a sulfate solution in the barium is lower, still high, but much lower than in the flow backwater, but there is many other contaminants that are not treated by the facility at all. ways pennsylvania s department allowing this to be put right into the creek? i don t know, sir. thank you. senator sessions is the regular public good member of the wildlife committee. i don t know who is the next thank you. mr. ubinger, the federal government regulates discharge and the strings in pennsylvania regulates. maybe you d like to answer the question on mr. volz s commented pennsylvania with discharges against alpine safety of the people in the water. senator, the department of environmental protection in 2010 are you familiar with this incident? only from news reports about that facility. but what i was going to save the department of environmental protection formulated a statewide discharge limit for tps for strontium that became effective late last year and early this year. that standard is now in place. that standard, i think, would require newly issued permit to include that standard. it s a very stringent 500 million parts standard. one of the issues is that the permit cycle, which is typically five years is running its cars send us far, as far as i am aware, the department does not ask anyone to accelerate revision of those events to fit the standard in place. at the import of the standard is that a number of the responsibility leaders in the industry have begun to recycle their flow backwater by reinject tenet into new marsalis while development. very developing statistics, i m not sure which one is accurate, but anywhere from 50% to 90% of flow backwater in ages past ask, does it violate the clean water act and the clean water act would apply to the discharge, would it not? the federal clean water act? with it, yes or no? someone should stop it if it is a violation, should it not? yes or no. he has made a complaint. he s trying to get around doing it instead of stuff being hydraulic fracting around the country. we are in a serious financial problem in america. i am worried about our economy. surging gas prices make a difference. natural gas absolutely can be an alternative to the liquid fuel we import, the gasoline. it burns cleaner. it is all-american. it is a lot cheaper. engines that use that will pay for themselves over a period of time. the president, i think, indicated recently that he was interested in expanding natural gas for vehicles. i think it has tremendous potential. too often we see in washington is the american people are suffering under high energy prices about a year from washington is a distraction that makes those prices go up instead of down. and people are worried about it. not just i would have to say we need clean, lower-cost energy and i believe that is what natural gas is. i d like to introduce, mr. chairman, into the record, a statement from dr. boland, director of the state of alabama, water and gas port, a large natural gas component and probably the leading producer of coal bed methane in the country, with dozens of wells over 20 or 30 years. we have never had a problem according to dr. boland has supervised. he went further in to media reports of leaking in the groundwater allocations around the country. he called his colleagues around the country in those days and he is concluded that he has found no incidents in which groundwater has been polluted. you know him, mr. cloud, dr. boland? i do not. he has done this since 1982 when he joined the board. he has a masters degree and doctorate in water hydrology, not petroleum engineering. but i would just offer that for the record. just to paraphrase senator cornyn and follow up on it, i think we ve got to watch the regulations in the lawsuit don t become a 5000 cut. mr. cloud, how many fracturing wells have been 100,000. 100,000? i think it s five or 10,000 in alabama. i believe the numbers i got a million. it is just huge numbers and we just got to be careful this time and we desperately need cleaner natural gas, all american natural gas, keeping her wealth at home that we don t create a greater bureaucracy duplicate is the regulations that make it more difficult for us to fight back against high energy costs. thank you, mr. chairman. very much. i am honored to be on the subcommittee. you re a strong leader, an experienced member of congress. the house and senate are glad you re here. thank you very much. i look forward to working with you, senator sessions. senator whitehouse. i wanted to ask mr. cloud and mr. neslin when deputy administrator perciasepe is your use diesel fracting under the same drinking water act. are you aware of what used this day aliment of the fracting fluid? senator, as i mentioned in my testimony we are currently investigating the issue. it is not complete yet. would it be let me ask you and give mr. cloud a chance to answer. i just want to emphasize that we do not allow correct fluids and clean through facilities through difference through were thoroughly through cycle through your so it doesn t reach your water supply. is that you of no concern that the deployment of the fracting fluid in the world could ever reach your water supply? we always have that concern, but we are shared by our practices that doesn t happen. between the first s., it is submitted 200 feet of out there producing so, so it can t reach and we have filled the inspectors that witness that process and what it s undergone. why isn t it helpful to simply know what is being used as the fracting fluid you don t have to investigate that the company would ve reported already since it s been injected into publicly and basically? well, some have discussed today, there isn t prior gcc and groundwater protection council initiative that is voluntary right now, where companies then it s just in its infancy but we had a great response has been outlined a little bit today for people to divulge her companies divulge the type of fluid are using. is there i them new to this issue is too much we don t do a lot of this in rhode island. but i have seen stories on the news about families whose water, for instance, is suddenly compromised and did time as association it associated with fracting having taken place nearby. are there different geological differences that explain why this might be happening in other places or is there less well-developed technique or do you think this is actually not related to fracting and as a matter of coincidence. if i answer that on behalf of colorado, we get dozens of allegations here that water wells have been contaminated. we inspect and investigate all of those rigorously. in some cases, we have found that contamination has occurred and that it is attributable to oil and gas development, not hydraulic fracting. typically this bill, a week, might ve been a failure of the cement job. in most instances are in many instances we find there s been no contamination, that the conditions being complained of our bacterial contamination, a problem with maintaining the water well. another invention in response to another question, there may be an impact of natural gas, but it s biogenic natural gas,, not attributable to oil and gas development. speaking for oklahoma, we been doing this process for a long time and there s not been one single documented incident of contamination to groundwater drinking wonders as a result of this process. your time is expired. thank you for your patient. you re recognized. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all of you being here. i think you heard about some of the potential problems with the process, but also the solar shades. one of the things that mr. cloud and mr. neslin mentioned was the stronger review process. but i d like you to do is very briefly, if you could talk about the makeup of their review teams , the observers, of valuations and follow the procedures of stronger and also i believe that sometimes the epa is involved in d.o.e. you can talk a little bit about that. if i might begin, stronger is a unique group with one third regulators, one third environmental representatives and therefore on a study in stronger review, one third of the review team of the observers will be frowned each of those troops. it is a collaborative process. rather than a group of issues of majority and minority positions be participants to work collaboratively to reach a common assessment and a common conclusion and then it is a transparent process in which these reports are issued typically within 60 days after the reveal is computed and posted on the website publicly available. mr. neslin did a good job of the makeup of the board. in one third of the people that started the review in oklahoma, the regulatory commissioner and then a critic of the domestic and gas industry in the independent petroleum association of america. the observers to the process for the sierra club and the epa and the stronger is funded partially by epa and d.o.e. thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank all of our witnesses. this panel is been extremely helpful. there s still a lot of questions i think we need to deal with. as i was listening to testify, i was curious and i might be submitting questions on this as to what precautions are taken in regards to abandon drilling sites, to make sure that they are not only safely sealed, but the impact that the vacated cavity could have on geological activities? i m not again a geologist, but i d be interested as to whether we are at least mindful of these types of issues as the drill more and more wells with the amount of natural gas that we have. so i think there are questions that need to be answered and i do want to complement the states of colorado in the states of oklahoma who have taken aggressive action to protect their public health of their citizens. they think we need to learn from the best practices and we ve seen some of that sort of catch on in other states. we do have a framework year between the federal government in the state government. our committee will investigate to see whether that is strong enough under existing law or whether new laws are needed. it looks like they are progressively dealing with some of the open issues on public health. you will be following up on the questions they may be asked that it s done. to respond in a timely way. the joint hearing of the subcommittee will be adjourned. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] a few months ago i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties were your differences and found common ground. now, the same cooperation is made possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. the chairman of the house subcommittee that oversees the federal communications commission spoke today at a forum on possible changes to the fcc s regulatory authority. florida republican, cliff stearns cosponsored a mesh of the passed last week, which rejects recent fcc net neutrality rules. those regulations prevent internet access providers from blocking or slowing certain traffic on their networks. he is followed by a panel discuss and which will include major internet service providers in the sec chairman s chief of staff. this is just under two hours. check your watches. boy, that s very nice. usually takes two or three of those announcements. we will start in just a moment. lets to get started. my name is randy may, president of the free state foundation, a nonpartisan free market-oriented think tank that specializes in communications, law and policy issues as well as internet issues. i especially want to welcome our c-span audience again to a free state foundation event and thank c-span for being here. our topic today is regulatory performed at the fcc, why not now. we are fortunate to have not only a distinguished panel of experts, but also a distinguished representative and chairman of the pertinent house committee. i m going to introduce representative cliff stearns formally in just a moment. but i think this question regulatory reform at the fcc, why not now, has been pertinent for many, many years. but as time goes by with all the development of marketplace competition driven by rapid technological change, the question is more pertinent and may submit more urgent than ever. since the agency was created in 1927 as the federal radio commission and reincarnated in 1934 is federal communications commission, the sec has undergone little fundamental institutional change. to be sure, there ve been changes that impact the way the fcc a hurry and regulates. for example, in 1882, the number of commissioners was reduced from seven to five. the enactment of the sunshine act in 1976 affected the way the commission operates in the way that commissioners interact or perhaps more accurately failed to interact with each other. and compared with its preferred mode of regulating during this first decade from almost the last half-century the sec is regulated primarily through conduct team rulemaking proceedings rather than post hawked adjudications. for the most part, it is fair to say in fundamental respects the fcc functions to regulate much the same way today as it has for the past half-century. this has remained true in the 15 years since the passage of the telecommunications act of 1996 which was explicitly built by congress by deregulatory and truly revolutionary close quote by president clinton. it has remained true despite the fact, as i have said that there ve been unprecedented marketplace changes result in an increase in all market segments. some of you have heard me say this before but it is too relevant not to repeat. then fcc chairman william kennard, bill clinton s fcc chairman released a strategic plan which he called a new sec for the 21st century. the first two sentences read quote come in five years, we expect u.s. communication markets to be predominant figure is competition that will greatly reduce the need for direct regulation. the advent of internet-based another new technology driven communication services will continue to erode the traditional regulatory dissensions between the different sect or said the communications industry. this prediction, of course, was correct. so as a result, phil kinard continued quote, the sec as we notice today will be very different in structure mission. he called for turning the commission into quotes a model agency for the digital age close quote. since then there ve been some rearrangement renaming it the boxes on the agencies through an office organizational chart. here is the most recent example. this was just two weeks ago from the fcc. there was an announcement that the wireless bureau renames a division. the announcement read, the fcc s wireless telecommunications bureau announced today that the spectra management resources and technologies division is changing its name to the technology systems and innovation division to better reflect its duties. there ve been quite a few of those types of box moving types of organizations. but the fundamental fact is while the fcc has moved a few offices here, the agency remains in place. many of the regulations adopted decades ago. and the agency s annual budget has continued to grow, even as competition continues to develop for around 200 million in 2000 to 354 million requested in fy 2012. without saying anymore at this point, it is my view that it would be a stretch to claim today s fcc as quote, very different in structure and mission in the fcc that bill and art spoke about in 1999. so what we re going to do today is talk about regulatory reforms and institutional changes that are to be adopted or perhaps in the view of some not to be adopted to make the fcc into the model agency for the digital age of which bill kinard spoke back in the turn of the last century. now, i m going to introduce our principal speaker. all of you have hopefully have the bios that we printed up. and so, as our usual this, i m not going to give what the congressman s provision is absolute full biography, but i m going to even give him more than the other panelists which i know. they ll understand. representative cliff stearns was the lack did in 1988 to the u.s. house of representatives. his only elected office his bio says. does that include student government and everything? okay. for the 112 congress, representative stearns is chairman of the oversight and investigations committee in the energy and commerce committee. and of course, for our purposes here today, that is most relevant. i wanted to steal any of his thunder from his remarks, but his bio says and i m quoting is chairman i will act to rein in excessive regulations to hold all federal agencies accountable to the american public and increase transparency in the air. so that is obviously key to the hand today. in addition, chairman stearns served on the commerce committee s subcommittee on communications and technology and the subcommittee on commerce manufacturing and trade. the previous congress, representative stearns was the republican leader on the communications subcommittee and obviously a leader in the types of subjects that will be discussing today. chairman stearns was born in washington d.c., one of those rare people even among our audience here today, intended george washington university, graduated with a degree in electrical engineering. he participated in the u.s. air force rotc program on scholarship and was honored as air force rotc distinguished military graduate. following graduation come he served four years in the u.s. air force as an aerospace engineer and satellite reconnaissance during the vietnam war. so with that, please join me in welcoming chairman stearns. [applause] brandy, thank you very much. i appreciate the nice introduction. i prefer central florida which runs for linda to jacksonville and i have some wonderful indian sounding names in ocala, where is my hometown we have a small town called okahumpka and another small town called mcindoe p. some of the farmers introducing a little different way, randy. they start out by that stearns was born in a very early age in a hospital to be near his mother. so that s the kind of introductions. i went to thank you for the free state foundation for holding this event today and it s a deeply appreciate this opportunity to give a speech to you and share my thoughts on reforming the federal communications commission. obviously this weekend we averted a government shutdown and reset the stage for the think all of us believe much-needed spending reductions. as jay leno said the night after we did this come is that a lot of people wonder what the government shutdown would be too bad, but i think a lot of other people wonder what a government running properly with the light to them. and in this age of technology and information, new products are coming on the market. new services. we need a government, as randy mentioned that runs smoothly and properly, one that does not hamper innovation, that leads to economic growth. it is clear that we now know today perhaps love little impact on the future because it will change. the internet and community technology has transformed our age of information. these forces have introduced dynamic changes in how we communicate, to business and educate and entertain ourselves. and these remarkable changes have occurred very rapidly. the one thing we can share is that we don t know today what the future will be in the information age. the fact is that our market dynamics have changed dramatically and we know it simply a convergence in the marketplace where labels really don t matter anymore. where there was a separate phone, a separate cable, wireless and other industries providing distinct very distinct clear services. we are now seeing a simple player. providers all compete against each other for consumers, offering broad and, video services and often times altogether. so here we are 15 years after the telecommunications act of 1996 as one of the conferees on the senate of this bill. check deals with the chairman at that time and technology simply has advanced far beyond what anyone could imagine when we served on the conference. yet my friends, the simple laws that govern in these industries have lagged far, far behind and many are no longer relevant to the new services and the new technologies that have arisen over the past few years. so attempts to classify these new services into outmoded regulations. cycles of innovation and simply creates uncertainty in the marketplace and diminishes the increase in productivity that is directly attributable to such innovations. of course contributing, in my opinion to the problem in the fcc byzantine regulatory processes as the pace of competition and technological change occur, increase communication submarkets and sound decision-making at the fcc and faith, simple faith and how it makes those decisions become all the more important to all of us. not only are the issues far more complex, they affect far more americans and american businesses than ever before in our history. we need to improve the quality of the fcc s decisions and request in the countries agency itself. one of the first changes could be in its adoption and early seven order. the sec often adopts orders after a comment. and issues press releases with the summary of the orders weeks or even months prior to releasing the order itself. this is again to congress announcing that will cut $30 billion from the budget, but not saying specifically where the cuts are coming from. for example, they try annual review has so with controversial issues relating to competition in the local telecommunication market was released six months after it was officially adopted by the commission. the sec should let the public proposed rules before it adopts them and should provide everyone with a realistic amount of times to comment. if the fcc expects the american people and the regulated community to respect its decision, i don t think it is fast too much of the fcc to show some respects for the rest of them in return. not only will this improve everyone s confidence in the fcc s decisions, it will improve decisions themselves, both because the agency will then be forced to exert more rigor in developing policy and because the public and matriculated community can often be the source of the best ideas, the secrecy breeds both inefficiency and distressed and of course the fcc in my opinion rdf does. we also need to reform the sunshine rules under which the fcc operates. under the current sunshine laws, only two commissioners may meet outside the construct of an official at the meeting. now in theory, such a requirement promotes open discussion of issues under consideration. to my friends in reality, most commission business is conducted like circulating drafts of orders for comment to get around the simple sunshine requirements. the result is less transparency, not more and this requirement actually hinders discussion among the commissioners, especially in cases where disagreement on the draft is very significant, reviewing and reforming the fcc sunshine laws they think would be a great place for congress to get involved. the issue of reforming the sunshine rule is bipartisan. the commissioner copps has taken and talked about this on numerous occasions and recently communication subcommittee ranking member, and sco has simply introduced legislation which would amend the sunshine act to allow more than two fcc commissioners to meet privately to discuss agency business as long as they commissioner of each political party is present in the content of the meeting is publicly disclosed. the bill would require that the meeting summary be published within five days. official actions such as voting would be prohibited and discussions would be limited to fcc commissioners that her staff. but though i think would go a long way to solving some of the structural problems without sacrificing transparency. another one of the biggest problems with the sec is the timeliness in their decisions. some of the basic work of the fcc affects every day function of the telecommunications industry. these processes simply take too long to complete. it is not unreasonable for those that are waiting for a position to know what resolution will occur and when and whether it s in their favor or against. licensing applications have been sitting at the fcc for years with no action. there is a multiyear backlog at the bureau level, where hundreds of applications have been sitting there for years to simply gather dust. furthermore, the fcc s internal shock but to act on merger or license transfer is six months. yet the xm sirius merger took over 16 months. and a rapidly evolving market, particularly in a difficult economic times, uncertainty itself can be one of the greatest obstacles to investment and business long-term business planning. we need to set deadlines for actions in the various types of decision that the fcc intends to make. such timeless what provide further operational certainty within the industry. and when the commission adopted a decision, and the text of that decision should quickly become public. the longer it takes for the orders language to become public, the more it appears like a decision was not really made when the fcc said it was, but rather ironed out later through last-minute backroom deals, guilty or not come in the fcc widely suspect did the changing its mind between decision and regulation. one suggestion would be gave the fcc s strict timeline of days from adoption of a policy to release the actual tax of the decision. as chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee on energy and commerce, i plan to engage in vigorous oversight on all agencies under jurisdiction including the fcc. one of my main goals as chairman is to increase transparency and accountability across the federal government. the fcc s regulatory process is a major need of reform. the bottom line is that the agency s processes do not fit with today s communication and techno logical environment. transparency and good management should not be a partisan issue. this is an issue members on both sides of the aisle should be able to get behind and support. i hope to continue to work with my colleagues within the industry, within the congress towards public interest in the community and with the fcc to make commission decisions as well crafted an unassailable as possible. i think that is a goal that we all share in this room. so i appreciate your listening to my comments and invite to take a good liking to you, but not too soon. [applause] chairman stearns, thank you very much. there were some terrific ideas and that s exactly what i was hoping for to get us started on our discussion today. i think the chairman has agreed to take some questions, so i d like you to do is we have a make in the audience and raise your hand and all calling you. and please if you would just announce your name into your root for purposes of identification. again, keep in mind we have our c-span audience with us today. we want to get a number of questions, so let s ask a question and not make a statement. okay, who would like to ask the first question? that s a good point. chairman stearns said we ought to ask whether you have suggestions for reform herself for ideas and that s good or we want to carry that through actually the whole program, so thanks for reminding me. okay, don t be bashful. i know we ve got from a lot of previous events that would be lying if i said we didn t have some aggressive questioners out there in the audience who might know. yes and i think that is dan brenner, but stand out. grandee, you are correct. this is very important. one thing that comes up at the fcc is the role and what role they should play in the process of the condition. how do you think members of congress should participate in rules of the fcc? well, we have here is that we bring all the commissioners that. we have an opportunity to talk with net neutrality where we talk to the chairman and all the commissioners and of course all these commissioners come into her office on a regular basis that we had an opportunity to convey our decision. i think that in a way is very good way to do it. it is an open process at the hearings and when they come. china chows give the chairman has issues dealing with spectrum that told ideas of getting to act in an influential way to convince the commissioners that some of my ideas and asking them inside to include them as a priority when they set their agenda. so i think that member of congress can interface that way. if you re not a telecommunication technology subcommittee or you re not in the energy and commerce committee and you have a constituent that indeed has a problem than the fcc will be a little harder. but then again, every member of congress can call a commissioner to his office and most likely it will come even if you served on armed services or transportation because as a member of congress, you have that authority. i find it s easy to talk to them and it s also helpful in an open hearing to hear all sides of the commissioners talk about an issue, whether it s inspection or net neutrality were deeper, all the issues you can ask them being good to get outside to tell you in the room. i think in a way that s a nice way for us to influence the same time have transparency. we ll use the moderators prerogative. last week i threw out this idea and i want to reaction to it. and you were serving at the time the 96 act was adopted. in my view that there were two provisions put in the 96 act that are not in the land of enabling statues for other agencies, which made the 96 act somewhat unique. i think were prepared to further the deregulatory sword is pressed or orientation. one was of programs division given the fcc regulation when it made certain findings in the otherwise the provision for periodic regulatory reviews and in fact i was regulatory reform that provision. so in my view, those provisions have been underutilized without going in today with all the reasons that i d be so. so i suggested that congress before it gets to a comprehensive rewrite of the communications act that it might rather surgically amend those two provisions by bleeping the criteria the same but just establishing an evidentiary presumption more or less in favor of deregulation. i don t want to put you on the spot. you have a reaction to this type of way to achieve some reform? randy, those are two great provisions in the telecom act. be prepared fact with community banks across this country and the fdic and i think other federal agencies would have the cause and particularly one with oversight and regulation than to make amends if it turns out it s highly regulatory that would influence the development of jobs. i.d. hearing with cat sensed danger was bizarre that josaphat regulation in this country. and i asked him about his criteria for regulation and all the criteria and not one thing was all dealing with distributive income, which is distribution of income, self-esteem, dealing with environment in a whole host of things. i think what you are pointing out is the success of the telecom act and 96 was an away presumptive on the fact that were going to let this thing go without high amount of regulations and government involvement. but those two causes. the tall, but the confluence of the broadband and high definition television, i think there should be a new telecom act that would allow us to have the forbearance and less technology and regulation minutes in there so many ways that will bring in more competition with this confluence to make sure it can happen in such a magical way that we don t face barriers from large corporations that can prevent it. thank you. mr. chairman, making the issue, is there certain pieces of reform that are useful or more easily move than others in a huge package. could something like the sunshine act that seems to be generally bipartisan agreement. what is the prospect of moving dialogue rather than having perhaps more controversial reform? since you got commissioner copps in favor and anna e. hsu. i ll mention that to him. that would be a great tearing in which we can pass the bill. we re looking for things on the republican side that, shall we say, keep the agenda going in a bipartisan fashion. as you can see with the possible shutdown take a partisan and we still have many people who say they are not going to vote for the cr. several people have said that on the republican side and that has to be passed and of course we have the debt ceiling increase in after that we have the budget. so we are looking for issues that show biters partisanship. this is a good example. but the great agility back to greg walden and see if i can push that. in the back. chairman stearns, i appreciate your remarks about reforming the sunshine act. the results of the congressional review was also the rule for congress to repeal any government regulation. however, there is exception of the statute of the health communications act and now there have been several resolutions of net neutrality. would you be in favor of amending the statute to limit and only exception in that provision they are in the telecommunication act? i don t know if i want to make any broad statements this morning, but i think the point is well-made. i have my legislative director your that s going to take down that. i think it s worthwhile. tell me in your opinion if that was amended, what would be the impact immediate impact? the impact would be anything serious a rule pending right now. i don t know whether it s congressman shadegg or some other paths that, but elisa would clarify whether that was a resolution. by repealing not in the fcc rules or anyone who wanted it, just like the epa or the fcc would be subject to a resolution by the house and the senate. on the senate side you can t filibuster on the republic for and as a public tool on the house side to start doing now. i think it makes sense to regulate with one exception in the statute to the telecommunications apples. i think all of the people and the federal trade commission or wherever would all like that exception. and that s why at least philosophically that would be good because it brings jurisdictions back to congress and you don t have these executives and stars running off. disapproving the bush administration a gal who was in the bush administration said mr. sun steamed during 4000 new regulations. that is what she said. obvious to regulations have an impact whether they come from epa, department of transportation, wherever. i think you mentioned shadegg congressman shadegg john shattuck is no longer here. john shattuck also i ll go look at his bill. john shattuck and i are friends. he is retired from arizonans who is retired to arizona so i m going to look at that. i think certainly that would be worthwhile to talk to the speaker about to make that part of some of these other bills. if we build a strong about net neutrality in the sense we are doing there, certainly will apply elsewhere to prevent the administration from doing things on their own which we see a lot of today and this would be true for any industry shen, just democrats or republicans do. there were some technical language added under the bush administration after bills passed, so i think it s a good idea and what to thank you for bringing it to my attention. were going to have just one more question. this ll be the last one. a couple of questions. utah devout the shock block for market approval. i think the problem is the hold up and confessions out of it. the pages and pages of confessions that said the net neutrality provisions regardless of what happens to the net neutrality order. i think that again will be more performed in the shop talk. excuse me the transparency. to vote on data roaming which will overreach the net neutrality. they are going to have to chase them around with 9 million review act resolutions. i just like to hear your comments on the sessions and the foe. well, the shot clock is very important and intimidating if you re a small company. time is money. if you re larger company with so so much in reserve that just answered capital, the people and lawyers. it s hard to intimidate the big guys, but all the small guys coming and have to answer questions and technicalities that make its mind and mindbending and intimidating. a good example is in the permitting and the golf corp. remains after the moratorium the president asked in the courts in february and i was supposed to issue permits based on the sheets experiment. the president has only issued six and he still aided by doing a process asking more and more questions going around and around. the shot clock is extremely important it will create jobs, innovation and wish to love shot clock to be terminated so they can. as far as the roaming is another example that could affect the smaller companies. .. please join me once again in thinking chairman stearns. [applause] col d aspin atingua to start the program we appreciate it. we look forward to seeing you whether these things can happen and be brought about in this congress. thank you very much. i m going to ask the panel members to come right at what now were. while they are doing that and getting settled in, were is the event coordinator were what and i will try to get some good speakers here and think about what we are going to do in terms of intellectual content, but she does all the rest so can you just to join me in thanking kathy baker, the event coordinator, too? [applause] okay with. we are going to dive right into our panel will come and as i alluded to earlier we are fortunate to have such a distinguished group of fellow panelists and of course they are such a distinguished group i m not going to waste much time trying to reset the topic. i.t. we all have in mind, or to spend an enormous amount of time of introducing these panelists. again, you have your biographies and what i want to do is just say a sentence or two about each one-woman war. and if they will listen carefully, i think what we will do is just in the order i introduce them i m just calling to then ask them to seek could speak and i asked them to speak for just five minutes and quote will some of these guys have been on the three state panel events before and know as distinguished as they are that i will cut them off. that s just the way it is. okay. we are going to start with james assey. and james walk is executive vice president of the national cable and telecommunications association will. as most of you know, he s been acting as we speak still filling in a believe were worth between dorworth, keisler and michael whole s joining the association as president would. james began his tenure as executive vice president on february 1st what, 2008, and as the second most senior executive at the association he s involved in all aspects of the world ncta merkel the cable industry. james wood is a white graduate of georgetown university law school and an adjunct faculty member at georgetown university law school what. i think next we will have steve largent speak. steve is president and ceo of course of ctia wireless association. steve became president and ceo of ctia in november, 2003. and prior to joining ctia, steve represented oklahoma s first congressional district in the u.s. house of representatives from 94 to 2,001. his biography doesn t mention this, but i m going to do it. i think most of you know he s in the nfl hall of fame as one of the nfl s all-time great receivers for the seattle seahawks. i think next to were we are gwen to hear from and that is obviously not gigi sohn. i think the card may still sees beagle sohn, that gigi is serving on a jury today. when i invite her she knew she had jury duty but she told me there was a 90% chance the way things work in the district that she would actually not have to serve on the second day but there s always that 10%, so gigi couldn t be with us and sends her regret but she also sent michael weinberg to fill in and he is a full-time staff attorney at public knowledge when what. he also served what two years as a clerk and student intern of public knowledge and received his jb from george washington university law school will. okay. after michael we are going to hear from walter mccormick, president and ceo. notice we have a lot of presidents and ceos were were. anyone that isn t equally distinguished, don t worry about that. so, walter is president of the united states could telecom association representing broadband service providers, manufacturers and suppliers. prior to joining the u.s. ta as we still call it in 2001, walter served as president and ceo of the american association have also served on the general counsel of the united states, excuse me, u.s. senate commerce committee, and since i said that i should point out also that of james served at a distinguished with the senate commerce committee as well. last as we say and absolutely mean that in this case we are fortunate we edward lazarus, chief of staff of the federal communications commission will city was named chief of staff at the fcc in june, 2009, previously the kuhl leader of the litigation practice, a member of the committee s management what committee. what with 800 lawyers, can you imagine a committee with 800 lawyers? without would be herding cats as they say. so i have to pick out one thing what but he also was a law clerk for the supreme court justice harry blackmun as well. so, with that, i m going to ask, we are going to start, as i said, with james and go right on that line, and each one of these distinguished gentlemen will offer their ideas about regulatory reform and institutional change and then we will have a good discussion were, and also get your ideas as well. but james? sure. thank you, randy wood and for hosting this forum on the topic that is one very important and someone that spent 14 years in the government service not at the agency but at least in the halls of congress, that s near and dear to my heart as well. i was struck again of this morning listening to radio and they announced and that it s i guess the centennial, a south carolinian native but the centennial of the shot fired at fort sumter reminded me of my wonderful when can quotes all of us probably learned at one point or another, and in particular of the one that goes something like the bulk of the past and for the what president cases who were so we must think anew and act anew we must disenthrall ourselves and the civil war has absolutely nothing to do with regulatory reform. [laughter] for a television audience to say that, but at least one job decrease the connection in my brain were one that i think goes to the point of how difficult the regulatory reform is we are in some way if she or for form creatures of habit and fall prey i think to doing what things are planning to do things in the future and the way were we will is a man in the past whether or not that is the greatest good or the most benefit for consumers will watch such a tinkling ken s charge we must figure out what it means to disenthrall ourselves with the ways things have always been done when it makes sense to do so so that is at least myograph where we start. the other pacific we start is it s important from the outset we recognize the regulatory reform is really what and in the previous agency or any new non-communications agency were put in for stance is an opportunity to recognize i think that the world that we live in is very different from the boat with that was created when various regulations or in many cases the statutes themselves were enacted and in many ways regulatory reform is a celebration of the fact that we no longer have to rely on the government to set the norms because the marketplace and the social norms have graduated to the point in which they are able to guide the market place in a way that maximizes consumer benefits. and if we look at that and we look at the regulations we live under and the statute we live under and by any measure, and we can go back just to the 1996 act, but if we are true to our word, much of which still stands in the statute even predates the 96 act going back to 1992 and 1994, and i just kind of looked up statistics at least in our industry where we ve been. we have 565 cable networks today. in 1984i think we had 49. in 1996, we had very few, if any, telephone companies to the customers and today serves 24 million customers. 1996 most people if they knew with the internet was, the new it just by virtue the sound the modem made when they picked up the phone if they were connecting on dial-up, and today we are talking over 40 million cable broadband customers with speeds meeting or exceeding 100 megabits in many cases, so we are in the presence of a new agent it important for us to disenthrall ourselves and think a new to how we approach that new age. and to its credit i think the fcc has started this with a very ambitious task that the chairman along with blair levin lead in constructing the national broadband plan in an effort to a very high levels to melt and look at where our nation was and where it needs to be and to try to chart a course to reach that future. that s certainly not an easy task and i think any of us who ve spent any time reading that national broadband plan at least whether we agree with parts of it or disagree with parts of it have to tip our cap to the effort that was made, and i think was particularly important in that plan the emphasis on how critical private capital was going to be to achieving our goals and recognition that we were at a time where command and control regulation really needs to receive from the foreground into the background so that we could unleash and continue unleashing of the dynamic investment that s made such a difference made and continue to do so in the future. and it s also t. dividing some critical issues, one that i would be remiss if i didn t mention a universal service and compensation reform where the doherty and knott has been tied so tightly teamed up for the actual action i think is one of the most important parts of the plan. that s not to say everything is perfect from the perspective of the industry and that there s not more that can be done. obviously, has weakened not only about the regulations that are on the books, but also regulations we may face in the future it really is incumbent and difficult to ask because whether it s consumer interest groups or the industry we are buying for the time and the regulators to in one way shape or form, but it s important i think to have a strong regulatory screen that counsels against regulatory intervention and in particular where we see areas of rapid development in the marketplace we need to be very careful before we decide to jump in because of the costs imposed by the false positives and the fact that the marketplace often will sort this stuff out and there s actually in the lumpkin is in the bomb of the progress innovation tremendous consumer benefits that we don t want to stall. so why don t i talk for a long time how was close. that will work out and we will both be able not to get in a fight about that. steve commodores next. thank you for having me this afternoon, too. it s been a pleasure to be here at the foundation and both of you have been consistent voices for the free markets of government for a long time to revisit this is a perfect setting to talk about president obama s recent exceeded order designed to remove or prevent unnecessary regulation. and what we say, ctia strongly supports the president s initiative. and some of you may know, on january 18th, 2011, the president issued an executive order entitled improving regulation and the regulatory review process. the order directed federal agencies to review existing rules and to consider whether the new proposals to create barriers that unnecessarily burden businesses and the economy. specifically the exit of order in the relevant part requires each agency to, and i quote, propose or about a regulation only upon a visa noeth determination that its benefits justify its costs, recognizing some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify. and tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account among other things and to the extent practicable the costs of the cumulative regulations. this is exactly the right approach. it is one that will allow private companies like those in the competitive wireless industry theme and innovating new products and services for consumers. we also strongly support chairman julius genachowski s directed to the commission to follow the executive order. we applaud this choice. chairman julius genachowski stressed and i quote, one thing the government all levels can do is ensure efficient and effective regulation. we need rules that serve legitimate public needs without creating or barriers to the national broadband plan has red tape as a significant obstacle to broadband deployment. let me read that in the national broadband plan identifies red tape as a sycophant obstacle to the broad and deployment. burdensome rules and regulations can slow down the planet and raise costs and also can limit business ability to invest in the new technologies and how your new workers. we interpret the to directives to mean two things. first, do no harm. second, identify areas where there is current harm and work to remove those regulations. as for the first, do no harm, we believe the commission measure needed several proceedings including the shell shock proceeding, the transparency requirements and benet neutrality item and a few other areas that cause harm and we are working with the commission to address these potential harms. as for the second, identifying areas where there is current par and this is important area as well. one area the commission can reduce government barriers of innovation is in the area of spectrum policy. the chairman and folks at the commission have been leaders in this area. working hard to free of the spectrum for other flexible use of it can be used for mobile broadband services and that is a central pretty flexible controls limit the use of the spectrum in the broadcast television and to provide over the air broadcast television services. this despite the overwhelming demand for additional spectrum for mobile broadband services and dwindling consumer demand for broadcast television services that is why the fcc efforts to create a more flexible framework that could ultimately accommodate the reallocation of the portions of the underutilized tv man that is so important. the government has a key role in coordinating spectrum lights up the wireless industry also has a tremendous record of investing, innovating and leading the consumer demand. it s delivered on parallel benefits to consumers and businesses across the country with consistently lower prices and new and improved services. there s also no extending those benefits to new sectors with a potential to improve our ability to meet the key national priorities such as education, energy efficiency, healthcare and smart transportation. as we are looking forward to working with eddy, chairman genachowski and other commissioners to create a business friendly environment that will allow the many players in the wireless ecosystem to continue to meet the consumer demand and innovate. thank you very much, steve. michael, your up next. skill mick i apologize to everyone i polis to everyone who can expect in gigi since her regret and as you said she is an injury to the not necessarily excited but pleased to be doing her duty. i want to focus on a couple of things and this is a very good opportunity. two years ago with public knowledge just as the new president came in before the current chairman was appointed we also took a moment and held a conference to discuss ways to refresh in the sec and we think the fcc structurally and some sort of regulatory reform general principles and it s always important after having an event like that to be about to come back and look at what you were thinking then and see what looks now and the great strides the fcc has taken since then and some of the places the concerns that existed now two years ago are still there. and i d like to focus on two of those things in the opening remarks. the first is in the s fecund fcc s decision making progress. one of the greatest challenges that face is the fcc especially since the united states act was passed was that the way that the information age and the internet has changed what happens at the fcc is many more small companies who are not used to dealing with the fcc playing in washington and may not have often do not have a washington presence and don t spend a lot of time thinking about what is happening in washington that are significantly impacted by the decisions made by the fcc. when we think about reforming the regulatory process, one of the primary goals and primary questions that need to be asked is not does this work for the people that we know. but does it work for those companies, those people, doesn t it was and communities that we don t know that weren t used to coming in and filing comments and monitoring dockets and using for many of those companies they think that filing comments is a huge step for them in those communities, filing the comment to the huge debt for them and what they don t realize necessarily is that there is a whole nother level of meetings come face-to-face meetings and of the things going on. and so, what we hope and we hope now is the fcc did recently announced some changes to the process. we hope they would consider going further because a lot of the time the meeting is incredibly beneficial for everyone to have their conversations and flush out ideas and other times it is an opportunity to just repeat arguments over and over and give a structural advantage to those used to dealing with the fcc and understand that process and not necessarily an opening for the new communities and the new companies, the innovators we talk about to influence the policy and make their voices heard. the other thing is sometimes the fcc seems to see its role as a mediator, reradiation commission. to line up every one needs and concerns and try and it s commendable. a lot of the time that is a very intelligent and reasonable way to go forward with policy. but sometimes that s not. sometimes the right answer isn t the answer that pleases everyone or another as everyone the same amount. instead, the right answer is one where having listened to the argument and taking an independent analysis and investigation of the issue you come forward to and know as an agency that this is something some people are going to like and some people aren t going to like but at least you are confident that having analyzed the issue it seems that the time to you your best and analysis is the best way forward. and so, getting away sometimes from that balancing of interests and more towards sort of independent affirmative decision making is something that as someone in the public interest sometimes there will be horrible for us and sometimes a will be great for us but it will be it will help us understand what the guiding principles of our at the commission what s important and what s not important, what to focus on and what not to focus on. the last thing and i will try to stay to the five minute limit, i don t want to be cut off my first line is the issue of the revolving door. and the revolving door i think that people were outside of washington they think of the revolving door in this incredibly pejorative way. it s true but i think that inside washington many people have a much more nuanced understanding. the revolving door, the agency capture isn t something where people with cigars and back rooms with boxes and money being passed around and plotting the demise of the public interest. it simply is not that. it said it is just a natural result of the fact that the fcc and any agency isn t that big of an agency. the communications are is not that big of a bar. the larger communications policy world is not that big of a world. and so over time you will develop personal relationships because you are a civil human being. one of the things you need to be aware of is that can influence decision making in a way that is not necessarily directly connected to policy. so one of the things we had proposed in our original meeting ban on lobbying coming and going from the fcc if you leave the fcc or banned for five years from lobbying the fcc on issues for your company. if you come to the fcc you have to recuse yourself for five years and i understand it is a long time and it s a lot of discussion that benefits but i think also that will inevitably screen people and reduce some people s ability to come into government there are enough people out there who are very talented and passionate about these issues that on balance it will benefit both the agency and the public to feel like there are people at the commission who are not mrs. allin what do they are or are not an appearance in been tied to a specific agenda. thank you. thank you very much. when you talked about the communications are - to suggested that maybe it s not that large. just to show you the gap i hate to do this but between the ages you and i when i started in the communications policy i.e. alluded to this in the paper last week the fcba you ve probably been to one of those that are held a fan of some stadium in d.c. when i started and went to the fcba they fit in a room just about this size have a communications far has grown but i guess more importantly, when i started in the mid 70 s doing communications on policy one thing i m sure of is the landscape in the marketplace of course was dramatically different than it is today it is difficult for you to imagine, but walter mccormick isn t, thankfully for him is as old as i am but he s been doing the communications for a long time in the policy on the hill and with the u.s. ta said he s probably witnessed a lot of those changes and an interested in hearing how they might suggest the reforms and regulatory reforms. i just changed those comments about the civil war and got your a reminiscing. [laughter] i really want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and i think the question that you asked, regulatory reform, why not now, presupposes the question of whether or not give the jury reform is important and i would submit regulatory reform is not important unless it has a core purpose that regulatory reform is only important if it is aimed at helping to achieve some significant public interest, societal benefit. and so in this regard, we think that the fcc has gotten it exactly right. the goal of the commission clearly articulate it has been to expand broadband, broadband investment from abroad and deployment, broadband adoption and regulatory reform is being viewed in the context of those that help contribute as a mean of the broadband expansion. we applaud chairman genachowski for the focus on broadband. the national broadband plan articulated the importance of broadband to the national competitiveness, job creation and quality-of-life. in the chairman s the five recent broadband exploration initiative is in our view right on the market terms of establishing the three key priorities to broadband expansion being spectrum, and your carrier, and regulatory reform. we believe there is nothing more important right now and reform of universal service center carrier compensation. these are the financial fundamentals of the industry. they are critical to the broadband deployment of the rural areas. we commend the commission for recognizing this and taking it on. with regard to regulatory reform, we believe that the reason the recent commission actions have been very promising. we applaud the commission for facilitating access to the polls and assuring just and reasonable rates. this is going to have a direct impact on broadband investment, on deployment and cost to consumers. for the commission resisting calls to regulate and dynamic markets as it has done in the case appearing to the speech and usage pricing models for paying attention to the importance of gathering the relevant facts before acting as it is doing regarding the competition to serve our some businesses with high-capacity services and for reaching out and for inviting everyone in the industry to the broad index of the region initiative to share new ideas colin could the commission s goal list of advanced broadband, but the statute under which it derives its authority is a narrow statute and the commission s internal structure largely mirrors the statute. a policy-making structure that is built upon distinct and a lot narrow band technology better than the comfort digital platform of today. for our industry as many of you know the commissions with the statute and the structure is built upon a framework that treats from the standpoint of being dominant providers of voice service. never mind that james told us a minute ago the cable industry now serves 20 more telephone services, you can get your service in your cable company from a wireless phone, you can get it over the top from magic check or vonage or skype or google voice. they said it now accounts for about 25% of the voice market. ours is the lawyer line competition bureau as distinct from the wireless bureau and as distinct from the cable media bureau. as a result we have a host of the requirements that apply only to us as a police service providers. equal access long distance requirements, think in cia. our companies we sign up for services we have to read a litany of choices you have with regard to long-distance providers never mind the fact that by choosing any one of them you have to pay more money. cost allocation rules, again, he eliminated four the operating companies, cable companies but not for the midsized small companies. open network architecture on bundling requirements, tariffs and continuing property records reports the state carrier last resort requirements even the idea of title too but not similar services offered by. and what comes to the merger to refuse, the fcc is in a situation where it s been told review mergers and determined whether it is in the public interest that is a pretty open-ended question. this is not something that applies to other industries when google recently did a merger on the travel software the justice department looks of the competition and asked is this consistent with transportation policy, is this consistent with travel policy, is this consistent with the internet policy and with what we think of is in the public interest? those were not asked and as a result when those are asked in our industry it leads to greater business on 70 and greater delay that provides the fcc with no guidance as to what the questions are that it s poised to answer. and it slows the kind of move towards broadband deployment and the scale that we should have. these are remnants of economic regulation and the need to be reformed now because if you look at a recent report which is a leading standard setting organization its observation i think is sobering. i will quote the u.s. government goal of universal access to broadband may not be met in a timely or efficient manner of the providers are forced to continue to provide pots in compliance with legacy regimes. as with regard to the question why not now, i would suggest to you now is very important in this critically related to the reform of the statute as well. thank you very much, walter. i m not in to take his the debt of the civil war mike and my experience. [laughter] it s too early except to note this, it is that a the war started, i think it is the day that the shot was fired at fort sumter, and having nothing to do with it in the fcc regulatory reform, but when i was growing up in wilmington, north carolina as a kid come up periodically there were notices in the newspaper that another civil war veteran had died, there were still a few of those that as i think back on that now it makes me realize, you know, because i m not that old pal young this country is that at that time and there were civil war veterans are not. okay there was a to get a little more time. i m not going to ask you this question to tell us how much time and effort went into this decision to change the name in the wireless telecommunications bureau from the spectrum management resources and technology division to the technology system and innovation decision i m not going to ask you that what. i think there is a record in my office. [laughter] kidding aside, you use that as an example of the status quo at the fcc and actually in the viet cong and grateful to my fellow panelist who fairly dramatically indicated that it isn t the status quo with the fcc. it s remotely focused on the things it was focused on in 1999 when the chairman made his remarks we also focused on the issues of broadband deployment adoption and bringing those benefits of growth and to all americans so walter i think you for recognizing we have an agenda that is forward-looking focus on creating the right environment for innovation for economic growth and foster the kind of conversion you are seeing and that is true that the organization and chart at the fcc is antiquated. it doesn t recognize fully the conversion that we see. but inside of the fcc and the way that we do business it has changed a lot notwithstanding the categories we see from the outside. we all kind of task forces that work precisely to reflect the comfort nature of the environment in which we operate. for the presentations on the open meetings the ones on poles and data roaming just this month, they wouldn t represent from one bureau or even to bureaus but usually three or four bureaus because they all work together collaborating with in the agency to reflect the fact that when it comes to broadband. i d also like to thank steve for recognizing that we are in line with the obama executive order and the principles in that order are very important. the one thing i will say is while the executive order came this year, the chairman has been focused on what i think we would call the regulatory reform from the very first day that he got into the agency. from that day it was a philosophical matter and based on his experience in the private sector he s been focused on having open, fair david church in process these and whenever we are considering any new obligations on the industry we have to be clear why we are doing it and what the relative costs for doing it are and that s how we approach everything we do. there are going to be disagreement to the agency and other german and industry about how that calculus comes out. that s the nature of what we do. those are the dates that are important to be had, but we are focused on doing that in a furrow and fact based open and fair way, and i know because i ve been enacted with at least three or four of the table and gigi on many occasions that we have those discussions in the most constructive possible way and i think you frankly for being our partners in trying to get this right but i d like to go through some of the things we ve done to give you a feeling for one do with the processes are getting better? when i listen to congressman stearns who gave a very important and provocative talk this one and i think to myself well, aren t we doing that? and i think we are. we do as a general matter publish all of our proposed rules when we initiate in noticed proposed rulemaking. we do allow ample time for comments in reply comments and when necessary we grant extensions so the parties can participate. we get all of the commissioners ample time to review and discuss the draft orders within the agency. we ve radically improved the opportunity to the public comment by both small and large by holding dozens of public workshops on important rulemakings and using a host of media tools to reach the public and allow them to interact. these include most recently the complete revamping of the web site which is now on the trajectory from the one of the worst in the government to be the absolute best. we increase the transparency of the interaction by revamping our rules in order to provide a greater disclosure of the meetings that occurred at the agency. we ve also taken a real concrete steps to start lowering the burdens are imposed. take data collections which is a traditional source of consternation in the industry. we are in the process of eliminating 20 data collections we ve identified as not being data that we really need and simply the influx of the past and we are open to further suggestions. we are engaged in a retrospective review of the regulations to look at the ones that may be outmoded. and it turns out there are easy pickings when it comes to that. i think we discovered we still have regulations related to the telegraph services which i don t actually think exist anymore but we are actively working on this and welcome the ideas and we ve been over to u.s. telecom to talk about this and we have this initiative that is high on the chairman s priority list for reducing the barriers to broadband deployment and bill out and as with the pool item that we just adopted, we are going to be looking for good ideas in that area every day. so, i guess what i would say is when it comes to reform we are open for business. we want to get this right. it s not returned to the perfect and i want to pretend it is but we shouldn t kid when we talk about the reform sometimes it is the code for disagreement over issues of policy and law. disagreement over whether a particular segment of the industry is as competitive as the industrial players would like us to think. but regardless of whether the market is competitive, consumers are getting the protection they need. whether the statute under which we operate which i agree with walter is one where congress could be looking to update letter the statute provides the authority we think it does. these are good faith disagreements and important disagreements but not the same as regulatory reform and we shouldn t mistake to. thank you very much and for being here. it obviously enhances the discussions to someone of your statute on the condition here so we appreciate that. very much. now we want to have questions from the audience. we ve got people here that will listen to you. i m going to again ask a first question possibly two quick ones while you are thinking. the first one is only part of the one i asked the chairman stearns. again, it s my view people can have different views of but i think the forbearance provision put into the communications act has been underutilized and i think that it was intended to be a tool that could be used to achieve the reduced regulation and frankly i m familiar with institutes where it has been but i think it s been an underutilization and unless we have someone from question their front row of say a central link, absolutely. one of the mergers we did approve timely for the party. but what i have in mind is the forbearance proceedings. here is my question though. because - perhaps without changing the criteria that there be competition that exists that consumers not be harmed and the public interest to be served richard the substantive prongs of the provision that would be useful if the congress could amend the statute to just establish some sort of an evidentiary presumption that would shift the burden of proof for the burden of going forward to different ways to do it but that s not unique in american law and i think it might make a difference and the devotee to use that statute so i m going to ask mabey i am completely off base but i m going to ask mabey of alaska walter first what he thinks of that because he is familiar with a lot of the proceedings and then maybe eddy if he wishes could react to my suggestion. walter? yes, i think melissa would be a good one to talk to on this, too but when the conference enacted the law we with the forbearance provision it was meant to be taken advantage of streamlining. there was the understanding is going to be a lot of reform in the 96 act, a lot of proceedings are going to be implemented, and i think that it was sort of intended to give the commissioner the option to either run on to the institutions feingold and you can make a decision on that issue or if it didn t really worries to the level of having making the decision you just sort of let it go. it was also on the commissions of things wouldn t flee their for a long time. the problem is that in recent years it was viewed as a way of trying to get around having the commission make a decision and i think that, you know, there is sort of a basic american feeling when you go to really get free agency to get approval that you are paying those officials to make the decision. one way or the other to make the decisions as a result that is tended to kind of emasculate the purpose of the forbearance section. i think that it s made the agency and fairness it s made the agency a little that reluctant to not go ahead and grab on to these things and actually come to the conclusion to do a full proceeding because of the fear of being criticized if they don t actually review it. so to me this is another area where it really is important for the congress to kind of redefine the mission because a lot of these things we saw forbearance on are areas where in our view it is clear. does the congress continue to want to have one provider of the voice telephone service regulated pervasively and not have the other providers regulated? that was the issue and unfortunately the commission s have given this little area to look at, the wide airline competition bureau is the why airline competition but it s up to the congress to say if there is competition over the top from the lawyer less and cable providers come from the incumbent, let s get out of the business of regulating that particular offer. some of this does come back to the congress. i guess in nomani view and then on and will step back, a lot of things come back the the congress just doesn t do with that was intended to take the case of these decisions that you referred to with than request. they have to do with how you evaluate evidence to some extent and weigh evidence and wireless and that s what i mean when i talk about evidentiary resumptions the night shift the burden in a way the would need for parents and for the c-span audience when we refer to the forbearance, the fcc has the authority not to apply a regulatory provision for if it makes certain findings. but anyway, the want to add anything on this particular for parents subject. the only question i put prospect he was on the issue of a resumption. they ought to decide on the evidence, it ought to be a jump ball but i ve also say based on my years as a litigator that after the jury presumptions are pretty easy to get around if that is the result you want to reach. and what really matters is having a fair and impartial decision makers more than it is sitting at a particular set of in the cheery presumptions. if people are calling on the facts you re going to generally speaking get good decisions and if they re calling on the predisposed notions of where they want to come out regardless of the facts crop and to get as good of a decision and so, in theory i anderson to the point you re trying to make and wonder what impact this it would make a difference. okay let chollet i appreciate that you understand it and finally i would just say to wrap up it is one of the fury of the types of things is that if things are very close the evidence and you sort of our getting close to the jump ball where things can go either way in light of everything that s happened in the marketplace and the developments in the cases that the presumption sort of shift into the ring dillinger direction. but that s just not you. i want to pose this question to you and then we are going to the audience because both chairman stearns and myself mentioned the sunshine act and of course the sunshine act requires no more than two members of the commission of the five member commission can meet together in private to discuss issues so when the commissioners do want to communicate there s a lot of circular meetings around them and their staff and we are familiar with that. i know commissioner copps has for many years advocate changing the sunshine act, and i did a report on that for the conference about 15 years ago suggesting some changes, and i know michael powell did and other commissioners, but i thought the i might be wrong but chairman genachowski has spoken to this issue what is if he has a few media can tell us what it is or if not what your view is for changing the sunshine act. he s not on the subject and is happy to be a resource to congress if they want to take that up. i would say this is entirely based on my own personal experience. i ve been into institutions as a staffer that involve group decision making. the fcc and the supreme court where i was a clerk. the supreme court doesn t have the restriction on how the justices can communicate with each other. i wouldn t say based on my personal observation that having the rule against more than two people meeting or not having the rule has ultimately net one institution has better internal deliberations and the other. they both have advantages and disadvantages but a lot of it is just who the personalities are, how hard they are willing to work at it, with the chairman does is he lives of frequency that the other commissioners to make sure they have the opportunity to talk about these issues and the others arranged through meetings with each other that is a cumbersome system, but i m not sure that it s preventing effective deliberation and discussion within the commission. and i seen situations where not him having the rule doesn t miss a silly foster great collegiality. sometimes creating clicks or other things that might not actually foster good decision making. so there s one way a good discussion on both sides and as i said speaking for myself the chairman hasn t expressed the view and i m sure he would welcome the opportunity to talk to chairman stearns or others about the proposal. okay do any other panel members on either of these two subjects we just discussed or anything else until panelist said before we turned to any of you have any reactions you want to state? i would add one thing to the forbearance and the question you posed as a good one and it s responsive to win the war years of litigation that we have lived under and i think it s entirely appropriate for congress to consider whether as a result of that litigation way the statute operates is in conformance with with the intent was i would add one other point which used for some reason we focused a lot on the outdated regulations it makes little sense to me that it be restricted to one particular type of service or another. we have a number of provisions in title vi of the act whether it s access or her obligations that date back when the internet was just the song ends project, so we have a chance i think should congress want to address that directly or through ensuring that the tools available through the forbearance process declared we shouldn t pick and choose between services when we are talking about regulations. that s a great point and as you know we come here is another example of which will i guess and how without perhaps the tide of presumptions i m talking about if things go the other way in section 229 the navigation device authority and now has a proceeding in which it is proposing to do that, again, even as we describe the competitive environment in the video with. the point i would make is there is a sunset act provision right in the statute fairly unique. he don t find it in the other place in the act or other statutes so that was obviously put there as a tool. there s been no sunset of the authority also arguably there has been competitive developments mitigated the me for the commission to be designing devices but maybe the point i would like to leave you to think about is that is another example where you have to accompany those tools perhaps with just the type of evidenciary presumption that isn t it can be a rebuttal and you can show that you don t have a sufficient competition or public interest is and served, but when things are close it shift said one way. i just want to get back to the idea about the sunshine law weaver second because i think that is the 96 act. that s the 76 act. just to be clear about it s just not only applicable to the fcc but it is a government wide requirement. i would just say that i think it s something the fcc needs to look at, and i think it goes to the fact of the kind of commissioner that you would see nominated to those positions. if you were able to meet with, even commissioners appointed under government under republican or democrat presidency and i just think that we if it doesn t work then they don t have to meet, but if it does work the have the opportunity to meet that commissioner copps idea of having if it is a bipartisan group that s leading. at the end of the day with a would do is what we would find commissioners will who are more in tune with a policy that the fcc s has responsibility for as opposed to politics, and i think at the end of today because i know working in the wireless communications aspect it really is not a partisan issue. we don t talk about partisan ideas. this is about moving businesses forward and competing operating services so we can talk to democrats about it and republicans. we don t care. we want good policy, and i think just making it available they have to meet but making it available maybe what reshaped the tide of candidates that would be looked at for the fcc commissioners. that s an excellent point. i want to make one point which is on the bipartisanship. i think it s important for the audience to know that well over 90% of the orders that we ve adopted the commission are adopted unanimously and i think it is one of the great things about the telecom was base is that most of what we do is something you can build consensus around. now of course there are hot-button issues where that s not true or just very strong disagreement between the industry segments and things like that, but i do think when you talk about this collaboration with in the commission that it s important to note more than 90% of what we do as well as eddy s commissioner copps wrote when, three weeks ago perhaps after there is a bill that s been introduced on the hill hits and i and others one to change the sunshine act provision along the lines that steve mentioned if you had a bipartisan group and commissioner copps were right out of the gate issued a statement praising that we and praising commissioner with copps and the fact he jump on this issue and to be honest with you i don t have a chance to praise the commissioner copps that much we don t agree 100 per cent of the time or considerably less than a commissioner, called me later that day as he does on the rare occasions when i raised him, but no the sunshine act is important in his view and we ve got to try to keep, figure out a way to get it done, and i assured him i wanted to do that as well. .. the. is the merger review process. and then go there are different views about it but my own view is it is an area ripe for reform and for no reason that there is quite a bit of duplication of. it operates under the public interest and the sec nevertheless ms. everyone knows with today s environment that that might to be eliminated is worth looking at. and i think there are a lot of people the process that leads to the voluntary concessions are late in the day of the yearlong process that coming so late even the commission operating under the broad interest which means whatever three commissioners means that it is essentially no condition perhaps of the three commissioners but there seems to be growing momentum and for a very thoughtful speech of the shot clock anybody what to talk over to reform? i strongly supported. if you look historical a at the communications model and the transportation model of historical a head at close jurisdiction with the justice department over at airline verges but not any more and probably our industry or the communication this year the only too better left where the inquiry is not competitive harm. it this is something else whereas we find no competitive car but hong was that consistent with communications policy? what is that? we don t really know going forward with these things will be. and now they re very good. but the increase should be narrow and read to competitive arms and frankly i don t think there should be duplicative merger reviews. and i think the scenario where i hope the fcc would exercise restraint but we also need to clarify the rules of the agency we don t need industrial policy calls upon the breakaway to engage with industrial policy. as a representative of the organization i would defend the public interest and available that. what i would say reviewing the mergers under the public interests standard that is enough there is room for self restraint maybe there will be more self restraint they and used in the past. with the statutory think tank, it appears to be the statutory mandate talk about these decisions but what probes the fcc to determine with the consulting did and and we should do this because the market dictates it is necessary as time would not allow a full answer to that question by will refer you to our website where they have page after page of data and analysis to support what are basically the status quo to amount to one pages of rules and basically with a wide swath of the industry as well as tech and with data roaming, think about it if you look at the record today, you will find everyone with the largest incumbent s asked to do the data roaming for the justification. i would welcome attention to those themselves they have the justifications. but with the position last year how they determine that again? and also explaining the legal authority and expecting the data roaming at the same time. we are challenged on authority almost every time we issue the order and the agency is the vast majority of the times. one more question because the panel has been indulgent if there is a question. so to put together my hope the start to the extent it has been started we carry on and provoke further discussion on regulatory reform with the fcc so with that hope i could say it too was with votes the expectations i want to think c-span for being here and i hope you will join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] because both parties were to their differences and found common ground. now the same cooperation move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. watched the debate about next year s budget from capitol hill and the house and the senate floor on line with the video library. since 1987 it is what you 12 win new want. hi everybody here we go again federal election debate among the four leaders of the party the leader of the conservative party stephen harper and beside him jack clayton and the leader of the liberal party and also from bloc quebecois we have giles duceppe the leaders know the rules they have agreed to follow the rules and agree that i should enforce the rules so it is a one-on-one debate followed by the four man debate on each of six questions. the questions came from you and to send more than 6,000 demand questions to the cbc and global television and producers went through the mall to pick which ones will be asked. we were given a broad themes but not the specific questions. they will see them at the same time you will. the first two debaters will be mr. harper and giles duceppe and mr. harper goes first. the first is on the economy. my name is robert from ontario. how can the conservative party justify the $6 billion tax-cut to corporations when families are struggling to make ends meet? is this policy not putting more money into the pockets of wealthy corporations to fail to share their wealth in the past? mr. harper we don t you for the first response. there is no corporate tax reductions we cut taxes several years ago across the board not just for businesses big and small but consumers, individuals and families. but the question is whether taxes should be raised back up. our position is clear the canadian economy is performing well, coming not of the rat recession stronger and faster than others and if you raise taxes you will just put the economy costing jobs we do not be in favor of raising taxes. first i d like to congratulate mr. harper from his question but having said that we have to know all the facts and figures and there is something we still don t know what happened to this g8 and g20 summits. but the $50 billion what is it allocated incorrectly. we all agree to release the reports. read that report. will you release the report? first of all, i don t have the report the auditor general did say the document that was released today should not be relied on. but i can tell canadians this. all the projects in that fund were all in advance by municipalities, approved by the government and every single dollars accounted for and all those projects have been publicly disclosed and will serve those communities for many years to come. that is so we have with the economic action plan across the country creating jobs to build good legacies for our community. said during the election use a new recession was coming and the economy statement on november 14. it was not the economy statement the theology statement was no plan at at all. if we had followed you you would cover a lot of expenses during a recession. force you to cut. and not enough but do you realize that with the plan the helper that you gave ontario giving $10 million during the same time you give only only 70 million for the pharmacies sector that is a double standard. people have nothing against that but why help the people of the pharmacy sector? the reality is quite different. november 2008 to be met and we all agreed we would have stimulus plans that we rolled out across the world. canada was among the the largest and most quickly rolled out and successfully executed which is why we have superior job creation in this country. in terms of support for the automobile sector i make no apologies we have provided billions of dollars also to the forestry sector in terms of helping businesses modernize with new technology in terms of opening markets and financial services and billions of dollars for this industry all across the country and it begins to turn the corner but we have more work to do. are you telling me tonight in a statement made on november 142008? are you telling me that? this statement from november was of fiscal and economic updated is not the budget. there was a stimulus plan . we said that all g20 countries had agreed. but. hours came out faster and rolled out more quickly. you were forced to do that because there is no stimulus plan at all. unfortunately you and the other parties decided to oppose the measures over the past couple of years that they have been good for the canadian community and the economy we are proud of that. is not good for those people working in the private sector. people will tell you instead of refusing to answer the question. recently weaver and quebec with a major investment in the paper industry and that part of quebec and it was very well received. these are programs that was decided to be voted against in the house of commons. recognize there are major challenges but we will continue to work with the industry to advance their interests and continue to make them strong competitive in the future because it is a sector that canadians depend on. and now unionists me and unanimously support giving how many billions of dollars to build electricity although not one single penny from ottawa but now you cut. [inaudible] we have said we re prepared to support the project for this has the capacity to radically reducing greenhouse gases and climate change with a major shift to clean energy in that part of the country. we re clear real treat all provinces equitably with the budget and you can handzus gaston we ll continue to support projects that are good for that. host: that is the end of the one on one now to the floor of view. back to the question about why you too possibly make sense of $6 billion of corporate tax breaks in the middle of the largest deficit in canadian history. high spending government in the history of the country and some of it has been sheer waste that is what the auditor general report is all about. this was a stimulus but scattering money around to build gazebos and fake flakes sam the canadians don t have confidence in your management of the economy because you waste public money that is why the auditor general s report not only that he wasted money but did not tell the truth. it was supposed to be spent on the border but it was spent 300 kilometers away. that deception undermines confidence in your leadership. you re sightseeing a report the general s office said should not be relied upon. we re clear these projects were supported by the local community just as the other 26,000 projects across the country. look at the issue of taxes they were reduced four years ago. the question is not reducing them now. there is no corporate tax cuts proposed but what is proposed is to raise taxes on 100,000 canadian businesses. they will not a bad. they will pass that on to consumers and employees. one expert says that that that kind of policy will cost the canadian economy $40 billion of investment. robert ast a very straightforward question. why would you be reducing corporate taxes come with the biggest and most profitable companies right now when so many people are suffering? you try to claim there is no corporate tax cuts going on right now with that is not true. you know, it is not true you did get it through with support from those that oppose they now do not support a but those cuts are coming and they are very costly. i remember stephen harper wants upon a time to would stick up for the of the divide the you have become what you used to oppose did you have changed for use to care about the environment now where we are back of the pack and to clean of scandals now we have the most close to secretive government we ever had with the scandals and people in the senate and charged with fraud and the health care system and now people with no family doctor. mr. leighton, there are no corporate tax cuts right now. we can continue to create jobs but we do this for ordinary canadian families that is why in the most recent budget we maintained transfers for health care why we want to eliminate the cap on medical expenses for ordinary people and why we want incentives for doctors and nurses. these are the things that the old jack clayton would have supported these instead of the election nobody wanted. i hope the old jack clayton will come back to focus. i may be a grant by. [laughter] he said he has to commit enough dollars to certain programs and says that very clearly. so the population comment what is on the list? first of all, be clear. our plan to reduce the deficit does not depend on and program cuts brokerages very clear the imf says it is a realistic plan. but we said we believe we can continue to find the efficiencies and we look at trying to find 5% savings over the next three years. you cannot find those deficiencies. mr. harper we re having an election because you could not tell the truth to the parliament of canada about the money would spend on jets come a jlo s, a corporate tax giveaways but of that is what this viewer cannot understand. we re under the biggest deficit of canadian history your the first prime minister found in contempt now you tried to persuade canadians are not cutting corporate tax. it goes from 16.five and nobody can understand why that make sense of we are in the middle of the deficit because of your mismanagement some effect contempt motion that you voted against us. i do not agree with better think it is based on realistic facts the urie determined to have an election whether the public wanted did not. what we think they should be focused on is the economy. we are creating jobs that is working and are far superior to any other advanced country in making investments in training to make sure canadians can participate in the economy of the future and these are fundamental things to keep the country strong to make sure we can deliver . this is the economy you have to tell the truth. why are you spending $30 billion on fighter jets and 6 billion of corporate tax giveaways in the middle of a serious deficit? the numbers don t add up. you cannot pay for health care or tell the truth. and is about the economy and telling the truth. let s tell the truth and the current chance that we have won t reach their life at the end of this decade all the other parties say they replace those jets and we will not be spending one dime on the jets and then buy them for a period of over 20 years. the leaders want you to believe that somehow by canceling the jeht purchase five years of the road they can finance the election cost today. you cannot do that. you don t know what the jets will cost for you have no idea. what we know mr. harper is the billions of dollars you want to spend on the jets down the road have to come from health care and education and child care and the things that people need today. but is where the money will have to come from broker you may reject it if i may finish my point please. we cannot speak the over each other s deny the conservative government is the problem with the right wing proposals of deregulation and the approach to reckless policies that got us into this mess and white people cannot make ends meet and retirement security up in the air and 200,000 jobs lost that you have not recovered and your policies don t address them. reject the choices mr. leavitt paisley to try to present saying we have to make a choice between men and women in uniform and health care or east and west lowered employees or employers berkeley have balanced policies to move us lowered together. of that is why canada is the emerging from a global recession. that is why we are e merging faster than others because we have a balanced approach that makes investments in people when we can afford a by keeping taxes low. but how much time? he said $75 million. american expert said $150 million. could you come with baxter figures to make the population that we will stand on that and for what? we have been very clear of the budget numbers but remember, these are five or 10 years down the road why do they make the opposition of that now? they need money today to pay for promises they cannot afford. if we pay good corporate tax rate we can invest in canadian learning give every single person who wants to attend university a learning passport that is $1 billion less tricky spend that and 72 hours and said she h photo often as with the dealer can understand with poor economic management. you do not do that by raising taxes but growing the economy. that is fully competitive and the tax rates to evade not by liberal conformance to make sure they have the they sent and negative signal. costing 200,000 jobs at a time when we create jobs costing $40 billion of investment when it comes into this country. rather than the big corporate tax cut to the bank for the royal companies to give away with bonuses what we should do is follow the plan giving $4,500 to any company that creates a new job right now. reduce small business tax rate from 11% down at 9%. that is what used to be about is helping the small business and we would create jobs all across this country right now. we cut rates for business is big and small that is why the canadian chamber of commerce does not support the tax hike. i beg your pardon read your press release mr. harper. i will bring good gaveled down. this is about candidate and the world stage mr. layton you get the second chance this is one on one between the two of view. i would like to know what is your vision for canada on the world stage? do you believe our country should have a more prominent an active role internationally? if so what will you if elected prime minister do to regain canada s positive influence on the international arena? restart this with one-on-one. canada lost the seat on the security council of united nations. we made a fiasco of the gh and g27 so we have lost prestige and of the things that we need to do janet 10 days to stand for great values abroad and a particular democracy and you cannot do that abroad unless it is at home. mr. harper has betrayed our democracy and homing cannot stand up for free them of fraud. raising a very important question committee is just reason you watch the conservative dominated senate blocked off a bill to get affordable drug medication to africa from canada. can you believe that? no wonder the rest of the world looks that canada to say what the heck is going on? we have two parties running in this election who have fought lined hour foreign aid budget. that is wrong for quote we re doing so well economically as a clay animation redoing something about the poorest parts of the world to bring our troops home from afghanistan and canadians were expecting that to happen this summer but instead with aid deal cooked up we will be there another three years. brave men and women fought and died in afghanistan. you cannot have it both ways we will bring the combat troops home this summer perkin-elmer combat four canadian soldiers but the one thing that the afghans need is security so it is right to stay in a training mission to help them defend themselves. you say you want to engage and stay there for humanitarian reasons but what they needed security and i want to make sure they can stand on their own feet to defend their own country, women get to school that you cannot do that unless you have helped them to defend themselves. these are the arguments mr. harper makes. i don t agree i do not believe this is the way forward. canada s voice for peace and aid and development is being lost with the focus of the military aspect. of course, we support our troops and i wish the conservatives would provide more to our veterans but i have another issue. before you do, what are you saying mr. layton? the brave men and women gave their lives that we walk away to pretend that it didn t happen? we are where we are. responsible leadership needs to say help the afghans defense themselves off for three more years. that is the possibility for us to do any humanitarian could then we need to focus on other parts but you cannot walk away and pretend it didn t have been spent medicis same argument over years recalled for the troops to be called back for a new approach in greece still think a new approach is needed. what do say to our allies? i have been listening to proposals in this campaign and i ask myself how can people trust what you say today when your actions are so contrary to what you offer canadians? there you were supporting mr. herbert on the massive program of tax cuts now suddenly you are against them? in the bill other session you help him ram through on the backs of the people of british columbia and ontario the worst thing you could have done and then you support him 100 times about getting anything in return? you are mr. harper s best friend you of yourself as an alternative? it causes people to wonder can we trust him? i am thinking why they wonder why you change the subject we re talking about canada s place in the world. we have lost our years establishing in china because mr. harper missed his opportunities. i might ask you that. if we sustain our international engagement, mr. harper walked away from africa i want to deal with the hiv/aids crisis. last friday this is the canada i love. i get on my bus i said would you doing fort easter? she said i m going to teach school this is the internationalism if we do 150 hours of service overseas we will knock off $1,500 of the student debt. unfortunately your priority and causes our reputation to be in trouble because of the massive increases of greenhouse gas emissions and then five more years from mr. harper where the rest of the robo executive to say in terms of climate change grace s come a one of the most important issues we re a pariah and to know where we re not seen as contributors are moving the agenda ahead because of these two it ministrations of place far too long. reopen the discussion to all four of view. what canada is doing in world obviously this training mission in afghanistan is important to build on the sacrifices are uniforms have made. also haiti needs our hope and canada and the president of tanzania and cheer the who panel on maternal house where we get billions of dollars invested toward helping the health of the most needy people on this planet. canadians leading the united nations mission in libya. the copenhagen accord and canada said all had to be included now have one moving in that direction. issue after issue candidate is engaged, all parties should support a strong role for canada of. although the policy in the past we had to listen and it covers to their principal the of the quebec society. when i look at the foreign policy it has links with the organization and to the financing because they are not responding to your straight and narrow ideology. could you realize? what we do with child and maternal health is to make sure foreign aid dollars go to actual services to the poor people of the world. not just a conference that is why we make changes to foreign aid to make it more effective. if you talk about our values, let me just say right now in libya we have the international force protecting the civilian population that is being commanded by a canadian they are as good as as you are. remember you want to go to iraq? the fact remains you are the first prime minister in the history of canada to lose the seat we were eligible to occupy on the security council on the teetwenty summit in we had an opportunity to lead with $1 billion of 72 hours there s anybody who could remember and talking about the ad agencies, and muzzle them and shot them down and anything you cannot control you want to shut down. that is no way to build international prestige percolates church organizations working africa 30 years, for ideological reasons you shut them down. when one independent organization represented human rights the neutral we basically destroyed the organization. you cannot read if you show so little respect for democracy you have to let the different voices flourish. recently i was at an international meeting of ngos dealing with foreign aid. that is what the government of canada does. coming of time and time again a recession came to the country no fault of their own because of the global economy. to a global response to make sure we do not have a global depression now we come out of the recovery we set important goals in this day and age in a global economy have to be a part of a global conference is and you have to the those and the world thinks canada it is leading global recovery spirit but they also ask what happened to canada? why is the government side to with contempt and why can t we have opened debate about foreign policy decisions like wheat to go through the list. that is the most closed and administration but will you support my suggestion that we meet and arranger the auditor general to be released now it has been made to various versions? will you go along with that? would be happy to see their real report. bring that out. what are you afraid of? we encourage the auditor general to release the report the auditor general herself it says it cannot be relied on. imagine to get a government document. but how the world was looking at the situation right now, it has the strongest recovery and then plunged into the fourth selection in seven years and canadians do not know why but i tell you what we do have to do we have to get parliament back to work we can afford a that raising taxes. to know why we have the election? because you did not tell parliament the truth about your budget coster any of the numbers. ave became unbelievable including on the international aid, the minister inserted into a document and falsified its misled the house of commons and eventually that was lost. you do not tell canadians the truth you abuse democracy that is the rehab the election. the members of the budget have been verified by private sector experts and have not been challenged. and some opportunity i don t think 88 days canadians agree on parliamentary squabbling we should be focused on the economy. that is what we re doing. we have good things in the budget to help families, pensions, unemploy ed workers, a manufacturing sector, this is what parliament should be dealing with the. use a credit to times that s a prime minister especially of the government should always respect those from the house of commons? it was tomorrow not to respect the house of commons. how come now since you are president every single time? you don t remember where you are preaching at the time? i d like an explanation. we have run the longest minority government in canadian history and got a lot of things done we don t always agree. that is the reality. the government attempts to listen and a recent budget had elements that they ask for what will we all agree? and no. with the deaf man has to take responsibility for the decisions to be accountable that is what we re running on with the strong economic record. you do not walk the talk on medical. we have so many instances where the house of commons put forward ideas that you have turned around and rejected and sometimes thinking particularly of the climate change bill went to the house of commons twice but you use the senate which you packed with your friends and defeated candidates and fund-raisers some of whom are up on fraud charges now and use the senate to defeat the bill that calls for accountability no matter which party so that we could have a climate change pratt to move a sword this disrespect is not acceptable. we have been strongly opposed to the bill and it has no measures to achieve the objectives you can medicis of them by setting a target just declaring it to be 2% the has call working internationally with the framework we are working with the obama administration on a continental approach this is something the opposition asked for and continuing to invest billions of dollars in grain energy and energy efficiency that is what the canadians wanted us to do. you will never there you don t want a strong stance on climate change you prefer to subsidize your friends with the big oil companies you have to be fair with the times. your vision, you fail to win a seat on the security council and achieve nothing at the g20 and shut down every independent organization trying to do good enough for cut if it disagrees with your ideology. if we have a foreign policy ask to be based on democratic values and respect for canadians when they go overseas what they tried to do and not shut people down. let some flowers bloom and let democracy breathe. if you promote it abroad you have to respect it at home. you are a man who will shut down anything you cannot control the core of your vision of government and hostile to the values of democracy in which this country is based. this is simply not true. canada was one of the most forceful promoters of the rollout lot at home and abroad and human rights but with foreign aid is delivered largely through private organization and international partners. that is largely how we do it. the a.d. we re shutting down is simply not based on any fact. [inaudible] we have attracted billions of dollars with the health problems of the most vulnerable on the planet and international organizations working with us. that is what canada is really doing in the world although we are bickering back and forth we are making a difference. looking at the budget of 2008 to 6,000 now 14 billion what is the explanation price. i am not sure what figures you are quoting but i can tell you this that canada was the first country to fulfill its commitments to double aid to africa and we have made sure during this recession we have not reduced foreign aid. you are wrong with the explanation that is the 6.$6 billion check to detroit. we now going to question number 3-d broad scheme is covered is this is where the one on one has stephen harper. i am sam diamond whoever wins the next election hide you turn the minority parliaments into the institution we can be proud of? i hope that canadians do elective maturity government but this election after election is starting to put the country s interest in serious jeopardy but we will do what we have done we have been elected twice as the minority government if you look at the platform in the programs reflect the ideas coming from outside our party but in the end the government must take responsibility and be accountable and that is what we will continue to do. we re having an election because mr. harper did not tell the truth about his economic policies $30 billion on jets and 13 billion on prisons on the and affordable tax cut. the speaker of the house of commons held and the governor and 10 time to shutting down part of it twice come of we need to rebuild our democracy after mr. harper he cannot be trusted with the institutions of our country. it is as simple as that and this is a man who was shut down anything he cannot control and shut down parliament choice. how do we rebuild democracy? working with other parties and listening to other ideas and letting democracy flourish making sure we listen to the canadians and instead of replacing the system of continuous and constant control. you can go at it. they appreciate the opportunity. the contempt motion is not a ruling of the court or a speaker but the other is three parties. we do not agree that is what parliament should be focused it had a budget that contained the next phase ssese action plan outlining important benefits for seniors, workers and entrepreneurs and that budget was well received. and even in the canadian labour progress it is unfortunate we re at that stage but that is where we re at today if we have the minority government my fear is the go through a fifth and sixth election and we believe we re on the right track and asking canadians for a clear majority so we can give on with the nation s business to focus on the economy. you have not earned the majority. when you earn the trust of the canadian people. you have not done that because you don t trust the canadian people. two weeks ago in london users somebody out because you did not like what was on the facebook page. there is a veteran who wanted to get in and do kicked him out because you thought he might ask you a difficult question. this is not strong leadership mr. harper it is weak leadership. where you afraid of wire you afraid of the canadian people? we need a leader who respects the people and will use canadian democracy answer tough questions when put to it. what are you afraid of why do display this resistance controlling what you cannot shut down? i have gone across the country not just with the campaigns to me was canadians from all walks of life that is one of the reasons we can stay in office because we stay connected with the real challenges and their needs. i don t think this kind of political bickering and personal attacks back-and-forth will do anything for canadians we need to layout where we take the economy that is what this government has done so let s move forward. i trust the canadian people they elect us twice if they do not electives i accept that but we ask them to take a look to say are a could these things affordable to want to stay on the low tax track or the high tax track? if you trust them so little when you do not like something on somebody s facebook you toss them out of the meeting when a veteran was to ask a question you make sure he does not get into the hall what type of respect is that? you have to walk the walk can-do shut down parliament joyce and have been found in contempt twice by the iowa queue jouquin out parliament as it is a middle debating society that is a pesky interference it is the parliament of the people of canada and they found you in contempt the first prime minister in the history for that to happen. you explain that would you? provide that is why we have the election they will make a judgment if that action was valid or what we should have been doing was focusing on the economy. the fact is this government has had more consultations with canadians than any other governmental in history.
thankingrime minister for his recent visit t wt cbria and c he give me a personal assunce that he wouldo everything in power to help thople in west cumbriaho ffered so ievously in re times? thank you, mr. speaker. i can certainly give the right honorable gentleman that assurae. ani know how har hseen rkin and other mp in cumbria have bn working to bri people together after this palling tragy. they are as someoaid a very tougpeople inesumbria so verycompasone, very ring a very much a strong community. th ve shownhat in how they sponded to theadl events. as iaid in answe tthe right honorabllady we re going to me after question time discuss at will be donxt. i thinth s impornt and i think s important to recognize this is a part oe countrthat canomimes feel ite cut off. and i think specifically with ect to the amazing workne by theest cumbria hospital which really proved itself facing the most appling tredy d terrible difficulties of so many people with such awful injuries coming tohat hospital at on. a hospital tha sometim people e inclined toay w it s a bit too small to cope with these things. it coped magnificently and i ink it proved that big is not always beautif. gin barwell. mr. speaker, the previs government changed the rules so everyone cing asylum have to do irsmy constituency. es the prime minister agr th it s wrong to ask one local authory to shoulder what shoulde a national reonsibility i m certainly hpyo look at this. i remember ts ha been an issue in the past with heathrow airport and thereere mechan to try analleviate some of thburden. so what i will do is make sure thatome office ministers are in tou wit my right horable frnd to make sure we can deal wi this proble the european commission has recently rorted that european fish docksre beiished at unsustainable leveland 30% are close to collae. willhe pme minister no negotiate with european coeagues to seek the andonment t common fisheriepolicy. and if ty don t agro give noticewithdraw frothe cf tt s a question i m rather used to antipating on side. i think everyone with even the mosthusiastic supports of e euan union would recoize that the common fishers licy has n been a success ther in supportin o fishermeor in ving fis docks. think there are goodessons to be lened om other countries who have de beer inoing this. i have to say,though tt does somemes me some very, ver drastic action iteof closg some fishi are a together. but other countries haveanaged to do that andenerate their fishing stocksso, yes, we ll keward thoseegiations and i m re on a coalition-wide clae rry. thank you, mr. speaker. would the prime minister agree with me that we ve heard a lot from fairness from the bench opposite thimorning but there s nothin fair theegacy has ft us. there s 75 bilon pnds of debt interest that we will have to pay onheir debt that we could he spent on public servicesn my constitueof devices and all the constituencin this hou. tha you, thank you, mr. speaker. e horable lady kean which is ife don well, if d take action to deal with thi deficit, we are going be payingver 7 billion pounds not repaying thet b ju on debt ierest in five yes me you a ofhe revenue gleaned from cortion tax, that is all the tax on ery company in profit in our country. at doesn t eveay f barely half of the de intest bill. that stheess we ve been left in, but this government has coure to do it. the prime minteras giv me the cross-border that important fo assurces that it will contie to stop the blow and there will be an increase in waste services? i m very grafu t the right honorab gentleman for raising that issuend i will certainly look at it. aughter] and i cannot prose to arrangall e stops on the east coa main line. th i was a power i don t think sadly i ha. but i ll certainly dmy bt. thank y, mr. speaker. right honorable friend will note that i follow my beloved englan team. i ask im to do a gat thing theople of eland and cu through tearacy and nonsense and flyhe flag of end er downing st for the duraon of the world cup. hank you, mr. spea m pleaseto tel myonorable friend that i ve had those conversation ere wasome quen that this was going to ha a cost impact, but i manag to cut through that and i can say a no additial st to the taxpar the flag of sireorge wll fly aboveowni street during the worldup a i think they would like nd i incorhe purpes of this, m looking at all the benches here. i sure everyone in this house no matter what part oe unitedingd thecome from, they will be cheerinengland. can i thaim for his kind rds. can he y in his forthcoming reew wheth he thinks i s still wort t risk of gun use for spor. will this be condered? ell, the horable member is right. everythi ho be considered an therere tssues ofhe state of mental health of peop. there are e issues of police visitstheir hos. have because of previous tragedies, vy, very sict rules in terms of wteople who keeps at home have to do in tms overy, ve strict security. and i remeer sitting on e home affrs select committee and king the representative responsible for thisow much leakage w there fm legly ld guns into thellegal and the black markets. and the answeras virtually none. i tnk in terms of ifre looking for wt the problem is, the problem is clearly we have hugeumr of guns in r society we neeto get r of and clearly tre was an appalling pblem each week the house of commons is in session, we air this live at 7 a.m. easttrn on c-span2. and at cspan.org you can find video archifes of the prime minister. you have been watching live questions of the british prime minister, david cameron. up next, an encore presentation of our documentary the supreme court. at 2:15 a.m., the future of the tea party movement. two views from the computer industry association katherine sloan and walter mccormick on the communicateors on c-span2. something different is going on here, and you need to appreciate how different it is to our system of government. the framers created it after studying the great law givers in history. the government concedes that the destruction of documents in anticipation of a proceeding these cases are very important. we don t sit here to make the law. we decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. if there are 4-9 of us that want to hear any of these cases, we ll hear it. we cannot have a decision of this court. why is it that we have an elegant imposing, impressive structure? it is to remind us that we have an important function and to remind the public of the importance of the knew tralt of the law. the nutrality of the law. it amazes me and gives me faith in our country to know hoo much people trust the courts. i think the danger is that sometimes people come into a building like this and think it important. that is something that i don t think works well for this job. outside, almost daily protests take place. inside, the law dominates. all around there are public faces continuing the symbolism of the law and artwork reminding us of those that have served on the court before. as well as beautiful private rooms that are seen by those privileged few. the justices appointed for life terms have always defined the legal but very real institutions and the buildings in which they do their work. i think it ii the prettyest building in washington, and it is distinctive. it is a different type of marble, to start with. much brighter and lighter than the typical government building, which i think is wonderful. you see it and immediately know this is something different. you understand the court is a different branch of government. and it is more monumental. it looks more like the jefferson memorial or the lon lincoln memorial. you can view ii as something of a temple of justice, i think that is entirely appropriate. when you first come up the steps there are two candle abra and they have one of your first symbols, which is a blind folded justice holding the scales of justice. it is a symbolic identification that this has something to do with the law. as you travel up, you see symbols of law and knowledge indicating that the buildings have a purpose, which is the supreme court and the law. in couldn t place of justice, in her right hand, she holds blind folded justice. the blindfolded justice is a symbol of impartiality. on the right side of the stair case, the other statue is the authority of law. his left arm rests on a book with the latin term meaning law. lex. it is important foo the public to always want to come up these steps because we are doing the job the right way. not a day goes by when we ask ourselves, are we doing this job right. i think the supreme ourt is the most experienced branch to the public. they do their work in a marble building where cameras aren t allowed. they are not recognizable generally to the average perron on the street, and then they speak to the public through their opinions. so in some ways they are very public. everything they do that will matter in your life will be down in black and white in a court opinion, but yet they themselves will not publicly athat to a camera. so there is a the idea is to give a fair interpretation to the meanings people have adopted. the people, when they gratify the constitution. simple as that, no more, no less. i think it is time that americans wake up to what it is the framers had in mind when they tried to create an independent federal judicial branch. they had a clear vision in mind, and that was the federal courts would be decidiig issues of federal law, constitutional and statutory. and that those judgments would be binding on all courts, state and federal. i remember explaining to one congressman some of the difficulties that i saw in that case. he answered, we ll let the judges figure that one out. so it is a cooperative venture that congress expects the judges to help fill in the holes and statutes, and it goes on realizing that it is not just trying to read words on a sterile piece of paper. what the public will see eventually is the discipline that a judge follows and what makes judges unlike legislatures. i vote a certain way. you think about every decision you make. whhn you go in for a big case where the stakes are really large, where you can feel the constitution actually be beginning or potentially beginning to shift, then you would be brewedish if you didn t have awareness or a high level of sensitivity to the importance of that moment. the court is very much aware of history. there have only been 110 that have ever served on the supreme court. the place is one where continuity is very important. history really does influence the way the court works. if fs it is cllmbing the west stairs or entering the building through its symbolic doors, one recognizes the history of the law and this court. it is an impressive marble hall that separates the front door of the building from the doors that lead into the courtroom. that marble hall is called the great hall. it is characterized by marble columns. often when i go home at night, the building is vacant, and i walk through the great hall, and i look around at the pillars and it really impresses upon me the importance of the work that we re doing.. as mr. times as i ve walked through that hall, it never ceases to have that impression on me. between the columns, as you walk from the beginning, you can see john marshall you can see busts of the justices. john marshall, and at present, there are busts of all the chief justices up and and including chief justice burger. the bust of chief justice rehnquist has not yet been added. in a century, one thing sg true, the oral history of the court. the ssory of the court was designed not only by its chiefs overtime but also with the addition of new associate justices to the bench. the white house operator tells you that the president is on the line. i have any cell phone in my ripet hand and i had my left hand over my chest trying to calm my beating heart literally. and the president got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the uniied states supreme court. and i said to him, i caught and i said, thank you, mr. , %- president. judge sotomayor, are you ready to take the oath? i am. raiseeyour hand and repeat after me. justice white always used to say when the court gets a new member, it changes everything, it changes everybody. i think it causes them to take a fresh look at how things are decided. a new member will have a particular view about how issues should be addressed. it may be very different than what we have been following for some time. so it is an exciting part of life with the court. the institution doesn t change at all. the relationships change. you lose a friend, nd hopefully gain another one. i miss all my friends on the court. that s the process. they go, new people come on. it is different. it is different today than it was when i first got here. i have to admit, you grow very fond of the court that you spent a long time on. there was a period there with chief justice rehnquist and justice o connor that when we had gone, we had a long run together, and you get comfortable with that. and then it changes. now it s changing again. it is a new court. when i have tried jjry cases, jushly 12, if a juror had to be replaced because one was ill or something, it was just a different dynamic. it was a differenn jury. the same like this. this will be a very different court. and it is stressful. because we so admire our colleagues. we wonder, oh, will it ever be the same. but i have great admiration for the system. i think it is healthy for the court to have members with different back grounds. i think after this, i saw a television program recently when somebody said there should always be someone who served in the armed forces. i think there always be someone who has had practical experience in litigation and i think spence in other branches of the government such as the legislatures would be very, very helpful. all of my colleagues, all of the justices, have been extraordinarily warm and welcoming. each one of hem has offered advice. each one of them has invited me to call them with questions. and i don t know if i can identify any one particular that i ve been turning to. actually, it depends a great deal on whether i m in the hall. there is always a question on my mind, and when i meet them in the hall, i go up to them and say, can you or would you? and they each p have been delightfuuly generous in giving me time to walk me through about. so not just one person yet, but they have been all wonderful. the court continues to take cases that impact the lives of all americans. 8,000 ask us each year to hear the case. that means about 150 a week. 150 what? 150 requests to hear the case. well, here they are for this week. i think to my mind the most onerous and interesting part of the job is our rolling all of the circuit issues that have come to the court. they have increased norm lussly enormously since i ve been here. look at the cases we think are long. we don t look at the cases we think have a lot at stake. our job is to make sure feeeral country. all the cases are hard. the only reason we take them, as some of my cclleagues may tell you, is that other courts are in disagrremenn. most of the time. and that means that other judges and other actors in the legal system have come to differing conclusions. every case is that way. most people think they have a right to come to the court. for the most part, you don t. not this court. maybe the court of appeals, you normally do, maybe the state courts of appeal and finally the courts that don t have discretionary jurisdiction. courts of last resort maybe they have a right to gg to those, bu3 discretionary. in other words, we decide if you come. you can tell if there is a case on a particular hot-button issue that people are going to give it a lot of a, but i have to say that doesn t enter into our process of deciding. a lot of our dock et is very mundane. you go through and decide 90 cases. probably a half dozen are ones that will make it to the front page of the newspaper. all the others, bankruptcy dax case, and federal arbitration acttcase, pension plan case, those are actually a big plan of our dock et. all vitally important but not one that s going to attract any interest. even a case on a subject that you think is kind of boring can turn out to be norm dwrussly challenging at the end of the day. it could be anything. so i don t think subject maater determines the extent of your interest in it. it is the challenge of developing this particular question of law and making it work. it could be on any subject. eamp one gets a vote just like anything else on what cases we should hear, but it only takes four votes top decide whether we are going to hear a case. the court used to have a lot more mandatory jurisdiction. they got congress to pass a law saying we didn t have to hear all the cases. the deal we made was that we didn t need five votes to hear a case. four would be enough. these are the cases in justice steven breyer s office. hyped the scenes each justice has their own suite of offices. here they work with a staff of four law clerks and several office assistants. but it within their own chambers where their personalities and work habits come through. i like to be in a quiet place. i like to have my law clerks close at hand. in my regular team, all of the law clerks were inside chambers. now i have two in that office and two down hall. i like a quiet place. i m glad to be overlooking the court yard and not in front of the building. this is made here at the court. all of the chambers have similar desks. the variation in these chambers is that i have put a granite top on the desk. i like this office. to tell you the truth, i ve become a home body. if you look at the bow window, you will see the capital. i was very lucky to have this office. it was harry blackmon s office. it was a lovely office. everyone moves because you obtain offices by seniority. i was the most junior, but when i was appointed, no one wanted to me. i said, that s fine with me. i waa lucky. i come in a lot and learn about the law from them. i have been in four different chambers since i came. i started down the hall a ways in the chambers referred to as the retired chief justices chambers. i was there for three or four years and then i moved into the chambers that justice o connor is now occupying. that had been lewis louis then i moved into the chambers that justice scleia occupies now which had scalia occupies now and before that time justice black had been in those chamber s. so there had om been three justices in those chambers. now they are they are on the other corner of the building. it is this view from justice stevens chambers that provides a window into the past of the supreme court. meeting in the bafmente of the 3 their time between 1810 and 1860, john marshall oversaw the court from here. later, roger tawney ruled over this chamber as well until the court moved upstairs in a space vacated by the senate where they would meet until 1935. but with very little space available in the building for justices to do their work and with even less for attorneys to find a place to prepare for oral argument, one chief justice determined it was time the court have a building of its own. i don t think it is an understatement that this building would not be here if it had not been for the persistence of chief justice taft. taft believed that they needed a builddng of his own. he believed that as president and when he became chief justice it became almost an obsession. there was some opposition in congress, but ultimately taft became the chairman of the committee that was going to build the building. tass gilbert was one of the best-known a. techs of his time, so it was the perfect match of a. tech and employer architect and employer. their idea was to have a building that would com important to jennnfer would comport to jefferson s complex. the task was less than $10 million. during the national depression there was actually a deflation so they were able to build the building and furnish it and still turn money back to the treasury of the united states. so it came in under budget. maybe the only governmmnt building in history that came in under budget. . and an authority, really, to work for what is right. supreme court justices are not shy, and some of the justices felt that the new building was too grand, was too grandiose. chief justice stone is alleged to have said that justice is more like nine black beetles and the temple of karnak, and maybe they should ride in each morning on elephants. setting a record with 75 million pounds of marble used in its construction, when it opened in 1935, seven of the nine sitting justices refused to move into their chambers into the new supreme court building. one of the justices did not want to leave the former chambers, which were in the basement of the senate. and he said, if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will ever hear of us again, but he was wrong. the reason another would not, is that he said the building was so a labyrinth, it would go to their heads, and maybe he is right. the building was so elaborate, it would go to their heads. the interesting thing is that nnither tass nor gilbert lived to see the building completed. dilberr died only a few months before the building actually opened gilbert died. you not only see the vision of taft and his architect, but to also see the work of the successor, who oversaw its completion. and on its eastside is a less often used part of the building in a pediment above. the eastport co and plaza of the building has the east pennant sculpture from herman mcneil. he was given a lot of rain by the architect to design his own ideas for the sculpture, and he chose, since he was on the eastern side of the building, to look at the traditions to choose some of his figures. the central figure is moses, and then on either side are confucius and the greek lawgiver. to either side of those are some allegorical figures to protect various aspects of the law and authority. in the corners on either end is the allegory of the tortoise and the hair, and that is that the slow justice carries through and will win the day over the fast pace of the era. there is justice, the guardian of liberty, and that is a phrase that was written on a memo when they were asked to approve the two inscriptions that were to be put on the building, and he said he would rather that one than tte one the architectural firm suggested. on the opposite side of the supreme court. many express their feelings about the court and the constitution. so much that gilbert intended it to be a convenient place for -pprotests, and taft, who was heavily involvee, did not intended for that purpose either. i understand people having strong feelings for some of the things that we do and are involved in, but it is not a situation where our decisions should be guided by popular pressure. and so, the protests to some extent are there as a way for people to express their feelings but not directed, should not be directed at us. you would not want us deciding what the constitution means based on what the popular feeling is. qqite often, most of our famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular, and the idea that we should yield to what the public protests is as quiet foreign to what it means to of a country under rule of law. as you look up from the west plaza, you see anooher symbolic pediment. this one plays tribute to both the history of law and to some of those into oil in the building s construction. some of the central in the building s construction. order and authority on either side. the other figures that are -prepresented in the pennant are those who participated in the construction of the building and also the history of the court. the architect is represented, the chief justice taft is represented as a youth, while he attended yale. we also have john marshall represented as a young man. chief justice hughes is represented. even the sculpture is represented in that frieze the sculptor. there was a phrase that was approved by chief justice hughes, but the words have taken on a larger meeting since then. equal justice under law is really a statement that judges are to be independent, that the law should be blind in certain respects, and this is not based upon their race or their, or their religion or their background, and the sense that communicates is that one can stand before the court and expected to be treated fairly. i do not want legalism. i just want the conclusion. p> in a moment, the justices in what could potentially sway them in cases that come before the court. this can alter how you view it right on the spot. actually 8%? your honor. persuasive council can make the difference. [captions copyright national cableesatellite corp. 2000] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] for more information, good to c-span.org/supremecourt. there is a photo gallery on the construction of the supreme court building an interactive timeline of the court s history. get your copy of this program, part of the three-disc dvd set. this is $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order it at c-span.org/store. we have got three new c-span books for you. abraham lincoln, the supreme court, and who is buried in grant s tomb? lincoln, the nation s highest court, and the gravesides and lives. good to c-spaa.org/books. each one also a great gift idea for father s day. and now, a return to air feature documentary.+ the supreme court. this was envisioned by taft. it was adorned with red drapes and special columns, made from marble imported from italy and spain. but taft s wish called for more than just a new courtroom. there were rooms added to help justices and attorneys prepare for oral argument. in the lawyers lounge, they come in, and they give practical pointers. they try hard to put people at ease before going into the courtroom, because there is a lot of camaraderie, in is good to meet your opponent. there is a lot of nervous energy in there, of course. it is designed to calm lawyers down, to make sure that there are not faux pas, to make sure they do not attempt to tell jokes or to refer to their familiarity with one of the justices and that they will succeed, and they can make their best case, and the court will hear them, and they will get a straight decision. we want them to enter the court prepared and ready, and both sides have an equal chance of winning the case. the attorneys are instructed to be there at 9:15 in the morning, and sometimes, you do not know this is a national court. it is not just a bunch of attorneys to go around the ccurthouse. it is a little different. they exchanged greetings. they take their seats and go over the events that are going to occur that day, let them know if there are opinions coming down, the absences of any justices who may be recused, answer any questions they might have, and offer them cough drops, aspirin, anything that they might need to make them feel more comfortable, and the attorney feedback i have gotten over the years is that they like it very much. as the attorneys get their last-minute instructions, the justices are preppring for the experience in their own way. first of all, on days of oral argument, a belt or a buzzer is sounded in each chamber of the justice, about 10 minutes ahead, reminding you that in 10 minutes, you are supposed to be on the bench. at that time, you need to go down to the robing room to get your robe on. chief justices do not like to be late, as you can imagine, into the room. and it has a narrower section where the justices robes are hung, and if you have a colar, it can be on the shelf. it is made for a man. sandra day o connor and i thought it would be appropriate if we included as part of our robes something typical of a woman, so i had many, many colars. i am sure we could do our work without the robes or this glorious building. but what it in part to the people that come here is the significance, the importance of what goes on here. it is a symbol that we are all in the business of impartial judge iing, ging, and that thine pattern was set by chief justice john marshall. they should not wear royal robes, they should not wear red robes. they should wear plain black. a process ggeater than ourselves. they remind us that the world we are playing is not a personal role and not a role that should have a personal agenda but one that has an institutional importance aad that that institutional importance is bigger than us. the first thing we do is go around the room. each justice shaking hands with every other, and that is a symbol of the work that we do. you may be temporarilymiffed because you received a spicy opinion from a colleague, but we look at each other, shake hands, and it is a way of saying that we are all in this together. when all nine are there and accounted for, the chief justice says, it is time to go, and so, we line up in order of seniority, across the hallway to enter the back of the court room, and there are ttree justices on the left, three in the middle, and three on the right. the honorable justices and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. oh, yay, oh, yah, oh, yah, all persons who have business before the supreme court are to draw close and pay attention. god save the united states and this honorable court. one of the amazing things about that courtroom, despite its splendor, is the intimacy of it. on the one hand, it is not that big of a room, but thh real intimacy comes in the relationship between a lawyer who is arguing at the podium and the court that he is arguing to, and if you stop to think of it when you go in there, you will see that if one of us leaned over the bench as far as we could lean, and the lawyer toward us, we could almost shake hands, and that is a very important thing, because it means that when the arguments take place, you are physically and psychologically close enough to ach other so that there is a possibility for real engagement. we are not just a bunch of people talking in microphones with a big space between us, so there is a happy paradox of that room that it is a grand room in which a process takes place that is intimate, and it is the kernal of a very grand building that has a very intimate results for every american. the honor of the place is always present. this is the chamber where brown vs. the board of education was decided. there was the most important in our history about presidential power that was decided in that room by human beings sitting on the bench after having listened to arguments from other human beings. when you tell it to people, they think, is that all? but a lot of it has been laid out in writing. they will not have a chance to get up and give a speech. you are seated right next to the podium, and the first thing you have to say under court etiquette is, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. they correctly held in that they could not share in the award given by the jury unless have a few sentences. usually, you have chosen to deliver them to the court, but you start getting questions usually within the first minute or two. each of the justices has their own unique style about questioning. there are some people who like the rapid-fire style. others like to spin out long hypotheticals. i do not want legalism. i just want a conclusion. a minute has passed since he has said yes. does that become the unlawful? why it is irrelevant whether the gun was operable or not? what if the government came along and said, you have got to disclose certain facts about your hospital, or we re going to shut it down? we do not sit down before argument and say, this is what we think, or this is how i view the case. through the questioning, we are learning for the first time with the other justices how they view the case, and that can alter it how you view it right on the spot, and if they are raising issues that you did not think was important, you can start raising questions, so it is a very dynamic and very exciting part of the job. there, and i am with them, and we are talking. this is a conversation. i have no awareness of the courtroom, the people in the courtroom, any physical movements that may be goinggon. it is really quite remarkable. my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer might hell me of a group in deciding the case. i do not view the participation of a justice as an opportunity por the justice to advocate one point of view. to sit on the supreme court and listened to the questions of your colleagues is somewhat humbling. this is probabll the moment i will most intensely remember, because their lawyers to i have known for years sitting at the table in front of us, ready to argue, but then, watching the intensity of everyone space, i had forgotten how much people believe and know that they are decisions. every question i asked has a purpose. it has some importance to something thht is troubling me and i am curious about. as an attorney, i welcome questions from the bench. the speech that are preparing to make. but an advocate wants to know what is on the mind of a judge, because he will welcome questions as a way of satisfying the judge on a matter that you might not resolved as well without counsel s response. it is all about fielding those questions and using the time strategically so that you respond to the questions. it is central to answer the questions. you cannot persuade a justice if you do not answer what they ask. they are very demanding, as they should be. that is their job. it is very challenging in that respect. 4%? no, your honor. pixar number. eight? 8%? does it stop being a quota because it is somewhere between 8% and 12%, but it is a quota if it is 10%? a lot of people think it is just a dog and ony show. what can somebody tell me in half an hour that is going to make a difference? and the answer is, it is probably quite rare, although not unheard of, that oral arguments could change my mind. but it is quite common that i go in with my mind not made up. i mean, a lot of these cases are very close, and you go in on aknife s edge. persuasive argument can make the difference. i had over 50 questions once. the interrupt each other. it had been my practice on until some of the end of the lawyers their breath before interrupting, and here, i learned that if you do that, or in a hot case, if you wait until the end of a sentence, you will not get a question in. you have to interrupt to makee your voice heard. i guess i d you oral argument a little bit differently. i think it is an opportunity that there is an advocate to fill in the blanks. it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening. i think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thoughts and to continue their conversation. p find that that coherence hat to get from a conversation is far more helpful than the rapid fire, and i do not see how you can learn a lot when there are 50 questions in one hour. one of the bad signs of an oral argument is when the question stop. it means that you have either not persuaded them, or they figured it out already, and there is nothing ore that you can add. a light will go on when you have five minutes remaining, aad when your time has expired, a red light goes on, and when that comes on, you are just supposed a case that i ve been studying for a very long time, i will hear what the lawyers have to say. it is such an exciting day. sometimes, i say to myself, really their? there is a reference that this is an important space. people look up and see around the top of the court room. there is sculptural friezes. there are four panels, and in the back is the battle of good versus evil, and in the center of this is justice, and she is leaning on her sword, but she is ready for action, if needed. among the forces of evil are despotic power, corruption. the forces on good on the other side of the defense of virtue and charity and peace. behind justices, a figure of divine inspiration, which iss holding the scales of justice in her hand. out of that, you have this perception. it starts with an egyptian thought to be the earliest blogger ever known the and he is followed by many others. and then on the other side, you come into more modern times, and you have justinian, known for the justinian code. you have the magna carta, and then, finally, the most recent one, napoleon. many do not think of napoleon about the law, but there is the napoleonic code which is used in many european countries. there is the power a lot in governments sitting on the throne with the 10 amendments to the constitution, the bill of rights right in the center, with american eagle s spreading its wings behind there, and he is holding a book of laws. on the other side, you have another group of citizens, and those. there is the authority of the law, but then you need to have the strength to back up that the law needs to be enforced by. it is amazing when you walked in, and even the two american flags that flank the mahogany bench that they all sit back. they hang perfectly still. the supreme court is in viewed in a great tradition. in fact, we sometimes joke that the quills that are given to the justices are how they write their opinions, and there are some that still write them up longhand on a legal pad, as opposed to a computer, the way most would do today. the supreme court, which with traditions, is also a very uman institution. in a private room, a newark custom takes place following oral arguments, one inspired by its fiist female justice. it is a beautiful room, very well furnished. the ood is not exactly haute cuisine. it comes from the cafeteria. the justices eat the same thing that any visitors to tte court might choose for lunch. you d be surprised bb the high level of our collegiality here. one justice once commented that there was no justice within the disagreed more often than justice brennan, and yet, justice scalia consider justice brennan his best friend at that time. and the feeling was reciprocated. it was done by justice o connor on the court, and it stuck. now, declarants, you should come to lunch. she is very sweet but very persistent. it is hard to be angry or bitter at someone and to break bread and look them in the eye. it is a fine lunch. very did work it s down there. it is just nine people, eight people, whoever shows up, having a wonderful lunch together. it s wonderful. i try to not make a post argument lunch, because you never know what my colleagues will be talking about. it is a world there that we do not talk about the cases. the collins will go to the opera and talk about the opera. some f us will talk about a baseball game or a ball tournament or a good movie we have seen or a good book we ever read. something particular interesting, our families, the kinds of things that everyone will talk about when having lunch with colleagues. off of the main justices dining room, there is a smaller dining room. chief justice warren burger decided he wanted to make that the theme of the room, and so the court had donated a portrait of the famous litigant in the case of marbury vs. madison back in 18 03. chief justice burger said, we need to get a companion portrait for that , said they literally are on the wall. that was probably the most famous case this court ever decided. the idea of judicial review. john marshall made it explicit in the case of marbury vs. madison. there is no one case that says as much to a justice about what it is like to be a justice, because marbury vs. madison is the embodiment of judicial reviee. there is no quotation in all of the history of supreme court writing that justices more prefer to repeat then the phrase which says it is emphatically the power and the duty of the judiciary to say what the lot is. that quote from john marshall in marbury vs. madison. we call him the great chief. he was really the first person who took the job seriously. he established the court s position as one of the three coequal branches of the government. i get to initiate a discussion and have some responsibility to make sure that all the issues are adequately aired. there is a change when a new chief justice is presenting. each chief justice has his own way, method of presiding at the conference, and the present chief justice is doing an excellent job. he has some virtues that others did not have, but that pretty much follows the tradition. there is not much that a chief justice can do. the eight associate justices have a lifetime job. they have a duty to uphold the law. he cannot fire them. they have to get along. we have decisions that will outlast any chief justice, said the chief justice comes to a court where there are these and we have our tradition. on the other hand, the chief justice who presides and who steers us through the mechanics of communications, by his personality and his warmth and his decisiveness and his understanding of the law and of the institution of his colleagues, it can do a great deal to affect the tone. when i got here, my colleagues were very helpful and filling me in on how things work, often in contradictory ways, but you do get some sense of what is expected in the process, and then you go in and do it and hold your breath and hope they all do not say at once, well, what are you talking about? why are you doing that? my eight colleagues were extraordinary in making me feel comfortable. it is not just that i was coming in as chief anddthe youngest among the bunch, but they had been together for 11 years without any change. you can easily imagine that that would be difficult, but i think everyone went out of their way to make me feel comfortable in the process, which i ve always been very appreciative. in a moment, go behind the scenes to perhaps the most private and important room in the building, where the decisions of the court begin to take shape. no one goes into the room who is not a justice, no secretary, no locklear, not even a message there. i can remember the first time i set foot in the room, and the doors close. it is pretty daunting, because that is where the actual work, the decision making takes place. get your copy of the supreme court. it is part of he three-disc set along with our docuuentaries on the capitol and the white house, called american icons. it is $24.95, plus shipping and handling. order is at c-span.org/store. for more information on this documentary and the nation s highest court, go to c-span.org /supremecourt. there is a virtual tour of the building, conversations with the justices, if of a gallery on the construction of the supreme court building, and an interactive timeline of the court s history. we have got three new c-span books for you. abraham lincoln, the supreme court, and who is buried in grant s tomb? perhaps, something new to you about lincoln, the nation s highest court, and the gravesides and lives of american presidents. go to it. each one a great idea for father s daa. and now, we return to our feature documentary, the supreme court , to america s highest court. in the most private and perhaps important place inside the supreme court, justices, and table in the justices r around - conference room. they discuss the cases heard in oral argument and begin the process of reaching the decision of the court. we said at the conference table at the same places every day. i sit at one end. justice stevens, who is the most senior, sits at anotherrand, and that wraps around in order of seniority. i remember the first time i set foot in that room, and the doors closed. it is pretty daunting the first few times. because that is where the actual worked and the decision making takes place. we do not have any observers in the conference room. there is nobody who is not a justice, no secretaries, no locklear, not evee a message there. fair, and each of my colleagues feel the same way, so there is a little bit of tension in the room, but we loved it. this job is no good if you cannot argue. for a argued case, i will say, this case is about this. the arguments are so and so. i think we should reverse or a firm. sometimes, it will take a minute. in a hard case, it can take a lot longer, and then it goes with seniority, so justice stevens will go next. he might say, i agree with everything, chief, which is nice, or he coold say, i disagree. i think it should come out the other way, and this is why. now, one of the best roles, and i think it is true, the will of that conference is that no one speaks twice until everyone has spoken ones. p think it is a very good role. it produces very good feelings, and everyone thinks they have been heard. first to make a statement about what you think of the case, but when you are on the end of that, you do have a know what the others think. it is not really an exercise in persuading each other. ittis an exercise in stating reviews, and the rest of us take notes, and you take notes so if you get assign the opinion, you know how to write it in a way that would get at least four other votes aside from your own. i was the junior ember of this court for 11 years, and always when we had our conferences, and there was no one else in the room, i had the special job of opening the door if somebody knocked. usually somebody forgot a paper. i would say that i had been doing this for 10 years and i hhve gotten pretty good at it. we get on very well. the nine of us get on very well. everyone is congenial, and there is a certain amount of conversation, but mostly, it is business. the justices are actually very thoughtful about what they are doing, and each one is very thoughtful about giving their reasons for their vote. i just finished my 18th term, and i still have not heard the first unkind word in that room. when you think that we decide life and death, abortion, execution, war, peace, financial ruin, government relationship with citizens, you name it, we have decided it. those discussions lead did justice to affirm or not in any particular case. now, that vote is not cast in concrete. you are not walking on wet concrete yet. you can change your mind. it is just not win or lose, win or a firm. it isswhat rationale you use, what principles you used to teach, and if the case is close, 5-4, and let s say you are on the side to prevail with the majority, there are not a lot of hi-igh-fives. if i am in the majority, i get to determine whom rights the opinion in that case, and that is a very important responsibility, because you want to make sure that is given to the justice use of you has the most support. some are a little slower than others. get heavier assignments earlier+ on. some cases are harder than you want to make sure that is fairly distributed. you ve got all sorts of different issues, and you want to make sure that each justice gets a nice mix. you do not want one justice to do just criminal cases. this is a very important part of it. p> may be a sweet roll or a cookie or something. as opinion writing assignments are handed out at the end of conference, a route exists upstairs in the supreme court which helps the justices and their staff consult president through the words written in the kalas legal volumes house here. a room filled with not onll books but the symbolism of the great lawgivers and admired by those few who enter into its mahogany grandeur. if they want to see the most beautiful room in washington, the optical of to the library on the third floor, which nobody hardly sees today. that is not so much roman classiiism, but it is just a breathtakinnly beautiful roma. the library is probably one the most special places in the building. the archways and the library. science, law, industry there are shields directly above the archways, and those represent various symbols. when i was clerking, i spent a lot of time in the library, and it is a gorgeous library. i would not go there to read the those would be in our own chambers, but hen looking for secondary material of different kinds, we would go to the library, and it was a wonderful place to work. the library is one of the special rings in the building. unfortunately, it does not get used as much as it was when the building was opened, and that goes back to the way things have changed. they would literally call the dockee each day in court, said he would not know necessarily which case would e argued that day. you had an idea, but a lot of attorneys had to be on site, because if it came up, they had to be ready to go argue. that is why you have the lawyers lounge, where they waited to find out which cases would be heard, and that is why you have a beautiful library. this is reserved for members of the bar and court staff only. there have been a number of times when i had to use material from a number of cases, that we occupy and number of the tables, and we would go up and sit in their reading room and actually revert to all those passages in the preparation of an opinion. with presidents and research done, justices go about the process of writing the opinion, both majority and dissenting that eventually made their way to the public as the final decisions of the court. it is an ongoing process. you write a first draft. the figure at you need to learn a little bit more. you re always going back and looking at the breeze, always bringing the law clerks in and bouncing ideas off of them. it is sort of a continuation of the orallargument process. it is terribly challenging. -psome of the issues are really tough. some are not. some are clear-cut, but some are enormously challenging, and some cause you to want to wake yourself until you see other views being expressed before you are firm in your own view, and it is a help to see it in writing, and it is a help when you have to write to help put it down in words rather than just think it through. it is a real challenge. we have to convince ourselves. the first and i have to do when i sit down to write in opinion is convince myself. then you have to convince others. so, again, the court remind you of the fact that you have this job to try to write something out. sometimes learn things about the case that you did not fully appreciate or understand before, and there have been more than one case in which i had changed my views when i was writing the opinion. as i have often put it, i do not enjoy writing. i enjoy having written. it is a difficult process. ice went over it. i write and write again. before the opinion goes out, the law clerk will say, it is going out. do you want to read it one last time? and i will say, yes, i want to read it one last time. and it is always been changed. up until i send it down to the printer. i have to do several drafts before i am reasonably satisfied, and then we edit them back and forth, and once they are edited back and forth, i circulate it, and i hope four other judges joined. if four other judges join, i have the court. we realize that one of us is going to have to write out a decision which teaches and gives peasons for what we do the point of writing an opinion is to command some allegiance to the results, and we have no army. we have no budget. we do not have prees conferences, and we do not give speeches saying how wonderful my dissent was or how bad the majority. we do not do that. we are judged on what we write, and we have to write something that shows we are following the rules and that we are open and honest and that we give reasons for you to believe that what we did was right. i welcome the views of my colleagues. i share with my colleagues might use of wayssin which to ensure that each issue we are addressing and each draft that we are issuing is addressing the important points that thh parties were making, and so, i guess what they can expect from the is a very interactive colleague, both in welcoming their suggestions and incorporating them into drabs and sharing with them my own views, as well. sometimes, you do eight more pages than people think you should, and i use footnotes, because i think footnotes are optional reading. if there is something that should be in the opinion the thing people might gain from, but they do not always have to read it to understand argument and the opinions.3 opinion circulates a draft, then the other eight have a chance to weigh in, and normally, they start asking within a day or two. and then they will say, dear sandra. i will join. or, dear sandra, i want toogive a little bit more time. or, dear sandra, if you would change the following, i would be willing to join. there is something like that that happens. now, if there is a dissenting opinion, often people will wait and look at the dissent before casting their votes. now, once the descent circulates, it could be so powerful that it causes someone to tentatively to have been with the majority to change their view to some extent. so all of this, tte details, are worked out, not around the conference table. it is in the riding of the opinion that the persuasion let s say i would go the same direction, but i would go 80 yards, but the majority only ones to go 60, and 60 would decide this case, too. so i would write the opinion to go 60 and not say anything about it i would also go the other 20. now, if i were writing a concurrence or a dissent on my own, i would write the opinion in a way that reflects going 80, so we are going the same way. i could not write an opinion that when in a direction that is different from what i actually thought we should go. the dissent s here are rigorous. and they do not pull punches, so i think it ultimately improves the quality of the majooity opinion. bbt it is something you have to anticipate. dissents are more fun to write, because when you have the dissent, it is yours, you say what you want, and if somebody does not want to join, who this is my descent. this is what i want to write. when you are writing in the majority, you do not have that. you have to crafted in a way that at least four other people can jump on, and yoo try to crafted in a way that as many people as possible could jump on, which means sit accepting some suggestions styler other style or other. you have got eight votes, and the ninth one comes in and says, change this or that, use a not quite, typical fought a kite, but your fifth vote is more critical and you are more susceptible to making changes than the 90 votes. ninth vote. we are here to decide things. we are here to six to decide. honorable court. justice alito has the opinion of the court. this is our moment. grab the copies of the opinions and go rushing. the guy from ridereuter s is als rushing to get in on the wire service, so you have to get out of the way. the supreme court public information office simply says, and here is the material. make of it what you will. but we will make sure that you have the material, and that is an enormously valuable thing. it is also good to not have the sense that someone is trying to spin you. i like to hear the justice himself or herself announce what is in the opinion. then, i raced down the tairs to the court press area, where we all have our laptops set up now, and i write a first version of that story so it can get on our internet site. readers really want to know as soon as possible what the court ruled and what potentially that miggt mean. a lot of people say it is a very secret institution. no, it is not. it is an institution that does most of its work in the open, and as they say, the worker goes in the front door and goes out the front door. near the courtroom, there are two rooms used by the justices to occasionally speak to the public, as well, from the retirement of thurgooo marshall on, one can get a glimpse at the working of the court. but it is a private view of the ornately decorated east and west conference rooms and their portraits of the past chief justice s that helps one understand the history of the court. in the east conference room, we have the first eight justices portis is, you can talk about john jay, and how we got to the court, appointed by george washington, and then hh gets to be elected to the governor of new york, and the decides that is best. and then you have a beautiful portraits of the chief justice in a grand portrait, very similar to the one of george washington in the capitol building, and there is your chance to talk about that. that carries over into the west conference room with the more modern justices. there are the two instrumental justices in this building, william howard taft on one wall and charles evans hughes above the fireplace, looking at each other through time. i like to go sometimes on a quiet night to the connerence rooms, because the portraits on the walls are all of my predecessors as chief justice. to some extent, you look up at them onnthe walls with a degree of a lot and an appreciation of what they did. they are eager looking down on me with either bemusement or amazement. each of them has the story to tell, not even personally but the institution of the court. you look up at marshall and appreciate the court functioning as a court, moving the court from a situation where each justice wrote his own opinion. instead of saying, no, we are going to have an opinion of the court, which was crucial in having it in its present form, write to the most unfortunate of my predecessors, the author of the dread scott decision, and you have to understand that he thought he was going to e
congress is back in session this week and the president makes his fourth visit to the gulf coast. this is the front page of the washington post an obama pleading for the aid package. we will get to it in a few minuues, but first to the situation on the gulf coast. here is this story of the administration giving bp a deadline. in a 20-minute telephone call with theebritish prime minister, the president said his unequivocal will view is that bp was a multinational global company and the frustrations about the oil spill had nothing to do with national identity. carl writing for a pensacola newspaper joins us on the phone this morning. when the president travels to your region, this is his fourth to the gulf coast, but first time since the oil spill to florida, alabama, and mississippi. what will he see? lots of anxiety. many people hoping we have beautiful beaches here, easily among the most beautiful and well. it is pure, white sand. the picture of the oil coming ashore is very ugly. you have pretty much a beach economy here that will be brought to an abrupt standstill. host: we saw some of the pictures over the weekend as the oil now in the form of large balls, once it hits the sand begins to melt on the white sand you just referred to. guest: yes, we have heard various things, including that once it hits the sand is fairly easy to clean up. the problem is that once the weather hits, it just keeps coming. once you are inside the bay have been active in oyster fishery, on the east bay on the northern part, and we have a lot of mullet shrimp in the bay, so we re very concerned if it gets inside itbay. host: what will be the long-term economic impact? guest: we had just been recovering from hurricane ivan in 2004. many people were looking to the beginning of the tourist season, as the first season that would really turnout. we were having some new hotels open, and everyone seemed to be having a good spring with hotels and restaurants up, and this brings it to a halt. it is hard to overstate it. ittjust kills everything. tourists don t come to the beach to see the oil on it. you cannot swim.. the charter fishing is gone. it is really bad. host: in one of the editorials you took aim at ken salazar what kind of job do think has been doing? and more specifically, mms which is gone through its on transformation as a result of the april 20 spill? guest: obviously, mms has done a terrible job. at this time i don t know how much we can expect the federal government to do. certainly, there is no expertise to stop this well from leaking. it will have to be bp. we would like to see it is hard to understand bp s response gutted by the coast guard and pushed by the federal government. it seems to be so strange, lacking. the oil is appearing close to here and we would like to see a whole fleet out there hitting the edges of it before it hits, but they keep telling us that there are skimmers out there. we do not see many. we are expecting to see an overwhelming response. we want to see bp i do like this is their own backyard and we re not sure that we are seeing that. host: yet we do see a new advertising campaign wiih the ceo tony nayward saying that they will get this right, essentially. do you dobp? guest: they clearly understand it is a mess. the problem is, going back to the story last week with the peacbp s plan they essentialy did not even think that the oil would give to the beaches because they claimed their plan was so effective i have come nowhere near that. they have come nowhere near that. the numbers were wrong, the websites were wrong. m.m.s. was supposed to be in charge of vetting that. bp clue realizes that they have messed up in every day that goes on they have done worse and worse. i don t think they re purposely trying to do a bad job, but there were not prepared. host: first of all, the president is traveling to the gulf coast tomorrow. it will be his first-ever night visit since the oil spill on april 20. then on wednesday, bp executives are summoned to the white house to meet with the president. as a result of the next three days, the think that anything will change? guest: no, because again, i just don t know if this were just a matter of someone and the white house saying okay, you have to do this and that will solve the problem, then yes. at this time, i assume that bp is doing everything technologically that they can. i guess they can hire more people on the beaches. there have been suggestions they put up anywhere from $1 billion up to $10 billion in escrow and give it to states and let them control it. i do think that would be a good idea. if we did tell obama to do anything, it would be that. it to tell bp to turn the money over to local cities and states and let them do things. but other than that, i don t believe there are any magic bullets. host: joining us from pensacola, florida, thanks for being with us, carl. here is the website. we will have coverage as the president travels to that region of the next two days. a letter released yesterday asking members of the congress to spend another $150 billion to offset the sluggish economy. he is part of what he wrote. we have lost 84,000 jobs in state and local governments. he went on to say that if additional action is not taking, hundreds of thousands of additional jobs could be lost. the letter was sent to the house and senate leadership. in the washington post the house last month stripped obama s request for $24 billion in state aid to extend emergency benefits for jobless workers. harry reid hopes to restore the funding, but what debate is set to resume this week, he has a knowledge that he has yet to assemble the votes for final passage. mitch mcconnell is calling the letter full of contradiction. he said he is calling on congress to pass a jobless bill that will add about $80 billion total to the deficit, then calls for fiical discipline. we want your reaction to this. our phone numbers will be on the bottom of the screen. you can also join the conversation online at twitter. fred joined us from ocean city, maryland. caller: yes, that mitch mcconnell comment just about says it all. the president has been talking out of both sides of his mouth for most of his presidency. he makes a summit the sky is falling when it is not makes it sound like the sky is falling when it is not. i cannot believe that people are falling for it. he cannot run this country. he is doing a terrible job. host: edward joins us from maryland. caller: good brain. i have a solution to the oil spill problem. i am a scientist. what you have there is a column of oil and a pipe that goes below the ocean floor for nearly 3.4 miles. that is a considerable amount of moving mass. it is approximately one ton moving nearry 10 meters per second. that is a lot of mass like a moving locomotive. you can design a propeller- driven torpedo it can be designed easily. host: ok, we will focus now on the situation again on the gulf coast. concerning this letter that the president has sent asking for $150 million. joining us next is paul from louisiana. caller: good morning. as far as what congress will do with the letter, i have very little faith in the leadership of congress. these people are in my opinion evil. mr. obama has some huge, huge problems. it seems like he can i get a grasp of the economy and how to fix it. he was going to focus like a laser on jobs. we re losing more and more jobs every month. the jobs gain is so minimal, and they are all government jobs. his approval ratings are dipping down to the 30 s now, if you believe it is even that high. but i do not think this guy has any clue. if anybody can tell me any company, any person, it anything that he led anywhere, i would love to hear. as far as what is going on in the gulf, this guy has no clue. host: this is a piece this morning it focuses on education. a fair amount of the money the president is asking for woull be used for teacher. according to the annual gallup poll conducted from 2004 until 2007, americans think insufficient funding is the top problem with the public schools in their communities. kevin is joining us from charleston, south carolina, on the independent line. good morning? caller: good morning. i was wondering host: more from the letter, while robust economic growth is essential for achieviig deficit reduction, we must also take additional steps to establish a fiscally sustainable budget passed over the long term. the new york times has its editorial directly focusing on deficit spending. susan joins us from jackson, tenn., on the democrats line. caller: good morning. down here anddthe south the policeman, teachers and dollar getting laid off. the state s down here in the south are broke. we give tax cuts to all the rich people. the republicans have never believed in public schools. when we were going up back in the mountains there were no public schools. you went to school to learn to be a lady. drugs are flowing, kids are being destroyed. they re building more and more jails. i have had my say, i guess. host: the conversation is also taking place online on the twitter page. philip is joining us from san francisco. caller: thank you all for the great job you do on c-span. lamb i think is very proud of you. as far as the letter goes, it seems the same idea as priming the pump as during the roosevelt era. most important to me, if the money is released for the teachers and unemployment benefits, etc., it has a multiplier effect. each dollar spent is worth something like $1.64. if nothing else, people are desperate. i don t think it will last all that long. maybe we will need to change our host: john boehner, harry reid, and mitch mcconnell, among others are quoted in this letter. we are at a critical juncture. on the twitter page, carrie asking when it will stop. gary is joining us from sterling, virginia. your reaction? caller: thank you. i believe the best way the money could be spent as if it were put into energy because having lived for the last 40 years on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, the biggest hitch by dick has been in the price of fuel. you would not believe how much 35 cents per gallon makes a difference to you when you rr only making $4 or $5 per hour. one other thing, mr. scully, i have a problem with you because the last time i heard you interviewing senator gorton from texas you let him go on and on about propagating at the risk that co2 is a harmless gas. if you have a heart attack or such, they do not give you co2. they give you oxygen. it is a simple experiment you can do to prove that co2 is harmful. a the corner of a slice of bread and put it into a jar and close it, and take another piece of those slots and put it into your hand and blow on it two or three times and then put it into the jar, in 1214 weeks the one that you blew on will have five different colors of fund is going on it, and the other one of bell two weeks later might have a little bit of blue, grey fuzz. host: thanks for the call and the physics lesson. this is what the letter look like from the white house. it was e-mail to reporters last night. it was a three-page letter. good morning, helen. caller: i have listened to the complaints about the president and some about what he is not doing in the gulf here at alabama and the other states, and i am wondering what they expect him to do? to? snorkels on and go down and plugged the hole? things happen and we have to be3 sometimes let things run their course. host: next, a viewer from deerfield, beach, fla. richard? caller: good morning. obama is calling to throw $50 billion? it seems like he is spending money without a plan. the more that heespins, the mark hurts our economy because we re going further into debt. one other thing, hh wants to close down all these oilwells out in the gulf. that will affect 40,000 jobs. by closing these wells down, the added pressure they re putting on the valves, pipes all this equipment when they shut down, it has the potential to create more of a hazard. host: on the front page this morning, the usa wins 1-1. the relationship with our great britain is the subject. obama had a conversation with the new prime minister, david cameron. president obama s says that we like the u.k., but do not like bp. the president is asking the congress to vote on monday before july 4. he says the deficit will take care of itself, but we need the multiplier effect spawned by sitting upon the that is a message from twitter concerning the president s request for money from congress. caller: i am from connecticut, so-called, one of the richest states in the country. there have been so many teachers in schools closed i don t understand why these people don t understand what the president is doing. as teachers are laid off the students are crowded with up to 40 students in a class. is this how we won the country to go? education is very important for the future. i don t know what people say they don t know what the president is doing. he is trying to help states continue to educate children. host: from the tallahassee democrat a preview of the president s trip tomorrow. he will meet with local lawmakers. of houston chronicle more headlines about the oil spill. this message from twitter. we re joined from cincinnati on the democrats line. caller: i just got out of the hospital with us light heart problem and i have a pretty good insurance. i am retired. in hamilton county we have a wonderful county hospital, but what really surprised me was the number of people of all races and colors desperately needing medical help. i think what president obama is asking is quite reasonable from what i have seen and what i just left yesterday. there are certain things in society we cannot cut off, that are not subject to the deficit knife. no matter how hawkish one might want to be. one more thing about the moratorium when i heard that the gas pipe had exploded a day or two ago in proximity to the rig, frrnkly, in my working life i would have done anything needed to take care of myself and my family also, but i would also have expected my employer horizon or whoever they were, i would expect them to provide a place safe for me to work. i think the president and i agree 100% to least find out what is going on with these companies. why these things are happening? if this one gas pipe blew, what is to say that others will not do the same thing? host: yesterday, to congressional leaders asking congress to move ahead on an additional $50 billion that could be as high as $80 billion when you include the tax credits. a cool reception from members of the senate republican leadership including center mitch mcconnell. he says it is another $50 billion for him to pay back union state voters this message from twitter. our guest on newsmakers as those begin work on the financial regulatory reform bill, here is his take on were legislation stands now. in 2008 when i voted for the first tarp bill, and i voted against the other ones, people in my district were saying 99-1, i m opposed to this. i voted for it because i felt like it was necessary, but it was a near-death experience. i can tell you that it is a gift that keeps on giving. you know, i just about past my primary, with 76% of the vote. i think senator shelby who did not vote for and said it was a terrible mistake, ran side-by- side, and we ran with him four percentage points. i had a candidate who spend money and ran ads, and he did not. i think the american people said maybe it was necessary that time, but never again. and that is what i think. host: senator bachus is our guest on newsmakers. this is from the front page and a jump page of the washington post as obama makes his case for the aid package. it is what we are focusing on this morning. again, this ww read earlier from the republican side, john stewart who sent an e-mail, the spokesperson for senator mitch mcconnell, saying the president called for targeted and temporary spending measures, but then called for a stimulus program. joe joins us on the republican line from boston. caller: you can google what i m about to say to verify it.3 the article it is part o a cen amount of money for black farmers. also, there was money for historically black colleges and a prior bill. that is $3.70 billion of obama bucks we just do not have. host: doug says that america needs a conservative congress that will say no to the nutty professor and the white house. consolidating her power, a look at nancy pelosi. this book is by two authors, one of which is ron peters. the conclusion concerning nancy pelosi s gender their conclusion is that she is different from her predecessors and her path to power. she has amassed in used power for political and policy in some ways that clearly parallel those used by the most powerful speakers before her. next is steve from boston. caller: good morning. i want to remind people that these are real families they are talking about who are unemployed. these are mothers and children who will not have an income if they take away the unemployment. peopll lose sight of that. if our our financial situation would be better if they re not 18,000 financial companies in the cayman islands that were getting away tax-free. exxon paid not one red cent in federal taxes last year. to make it worse, not that they did not pay, but they also got $156 million tax free, the largest company in the world! and that is only one out of 18,000 companies. there is plenty of money and out there, but we re not going after the corporations and making them pay their fair share. we re so concerned about the making their profits for their shareholders that we re forgetting about the people in the country, 300 million who are paying the price. this idea that we cannot afford it we can afford it if we go and get the money from the people who haven t. host: thank you. are you listening on xm? caller: no, on sirius. host: the cover story of the new york times the sunday magazine, the democrat and chief? it is not that clear that obama cares that much about leading his party, but the real wild card in the midterm elections is president obama. by twitter, i don t care what anyone says about nancy pelosi, she gets the job done. inside national journal a look gun program of the republicans, taking aim at some of the most honorable house democrats including the 11th district of pennsylvania, a new york, new mexico, north dakota, and another in colorado as seen on this is graphic. deb third is joining us from philadelphia. $50 billion the president says that we need to create jobs to help communities throughout the country your reaction? caller: i m a little surprised about all the complaining about the money being spent. no one seems to except the fact that what happened during the bush years cannot be fixed overnight. they did not give money to anyone but the rich. the republicans are crying about don t see one complaint about- money being spent. john boehner wants us to pay for bp. everything is supposed to go to the wealthy. the people working to hold up the wealthy they want us to forget about them. we re going to be a third world country in a matter of years if we don t get it together. we need to stand behind the president and the democrats who are trying to bring this country out of the ditch that bush got this in. host: thank you, kevin, from south carolina. caller: i would like to remind people that thee$50 billion aid package is completely ridiculous, in my opinion. we have no money. all we re doing is borrowing money from china. it takes about a sixth grader to know that when tax revenues are not going up and spending is skyrocketing a ridiculous level , it will not work. host: norman solomon will join us in about 15 minutes. kathleen wright says, can we declare bankruptcy? we get 60% of the revenues from oil leases. james, from detroit, good morning. caller: the president is trying everything he can to clean this mess up. the banks are not lending. they re not lending money to banks. even when we bail out these companies they re not hiring people because in the stock market news that they say the banks are afraid, or the corporations are afraid, or the businesses are afraid to invest in new inventory, or to hire new people. that is not the president s fault. the president is doing everything he can to stimulate the economy it is the corporations. people need to understand that if you want to talk about patriotism, we need to go after the corporations and ask them where is your patriotism, corporate america? you have takkn all the money from the bush years, you have plenty of capital. why aren t you taking that and investing back in our country, our people, who have supported you all of these years? host: thanks for the call. here it is a story inside the paper, all but one state and local government most local governments are required by law to balance their annual budgets. they continue to struggle. the debt clock is keeping track of for all the spending is going. this is what it looks like. we went from $12.90 trillion into an excess of $13 joining for the overall debt. joining us on the phone from baton rouge. caller: i hear all these democrats yelling about the corporation s. where do you think you get all your cars, everything you are using? just stop and think. if you stop buying what they re making, you would not be doing anything, not driving your car. you are always hollering about the oil companies. well, stop buying gas. don t use any more oil. then you will be satisfied. [laughter] but that is not what i really called about. those people that s running the oil spill deal do not have a clue of what they re doing, not one clue. host: we are asking you to respond to the president s letter and will show you excerpts, asking house and senate leaders to move on the bill before the july 4 recess. this is your says the gop wanted general motors liquidated in december 2008. we are joined again from san francisco. caller: i have been listening to people say that we do not want to spend more money becauseewe are in debt. i have also heard that back in the depression one mistake made was that there was not stimulus added to the economy. i m under the impression if the government does not put money into the economy, things will get orse, and go down hill. it is necessary to spend the money even if we are in debt at this time to prevent the economy from going further in the wrong direction. host: thank you, and that is the editorial this morning in the new york times. america needs to know that the president coldness that can seem like detachment, is engaged. we cringed when he told the today show that he spent imported time figuring now whose ass to kick about the spill. the president needs to use his power to keep his administration and congressional democrats focused on what the economy needs, jobs and stimulus. next is weighing from upstate new york, good morning. caller: good morning. ultimately believe it would be in the best interest of the country that congress approve the $50 billion. i also believe the federal government cannot spend their way out of the mess we are in, but need to show themselves as trying to do the right things to me the president in the middle of the road, and get the ball rolling. government cannot spend its way out of these problems. i would not trade places with the president for all the tea in china. host: the president urging quick reaction on his proposal to expand tax breaks for small businesses and to create a $30 billion lending facility because many banks remain reluctant to lend to small businesses. the conversation is also going on line on twitter. vincent joins uu from for washington, maryland. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i support the president and what he is doong. most people who got money do not want to see him make get. if the poor man rises, then what do they get? they don t like for their taxes to get larger and hours to get smaller. if we re healthy, it means we can work and have money in our pockets to take care of the kids. weecan make schools better. kids can learn more and everyone rises. i understand why they would have a problem with that when it is getting their pockets full when the kids to learn. c mon, it is just greed. host: ok, if the obama theory is spending more will solve the debt, then should we all just go on a spending spree? north carolina, good morning. caller: i support the president. i think that the republicans need to think about this one if consumers do not buy these corporations products, then where would the corporationn be? i did not hear them complaining about taxpayer dollars paying for the iraq war so that the bush family could have their own little oil field in iraq. if the cut all the spending, then there will not be any revenues coming in for taxes, so i say vote rich and live poor. host: john boehner has more on the oil spill in another piece of legislation being debated, all the questionable how far will go in the house and senate. the oil spill may spur action on energy, probably not on climate. images of the gushing oil and dine pelicans and the gulf of mexico have stirred anger and aaony in washington, but are they enough to prod the senate to act on the long-delayed clean energy and climate change legislation? in the words of senator lindsey graham who worked closely with senator kerrey on the initial climate change energy legislation, he said republicans to work on the bill for months, there is no where near the 60 votes to save the polar bear to get from the new orleans newspaper, what about the local seafood? the headline, as the local seafood supplies dwindle, restaurants are forced to get credit. the coast guard is telling bp, a little too slow. bp officials are expected to come back with alternatives today. the president will meet with executives on wednesday. if you go to a certain website, uppight citizens brigade this is their take on the situation of the oil spill. calm down. it will destroy all the fish. look at that. it is encouraging on my map . of map laptop. wait, i have a brilliant -pidea. ok, you have to hurry up. i think the public is getting suspicious. didn t workk oh my god, we are really screwed now. now there s coffee and garbage. wait, i have an idea. damn, i really thought that would work. well, maybe it does not work right away. if you want more, you can log on to the website that is about one minute, 10 seconds that nearly three-minute spoof of on abp and its response. you can log on to watch the entire program. coming up in a few minutes, norman solomon will be joining us, and later, more on the sentence but 12-2 by the u.n. security council concerning iran. it is sunday, june 13, and we will be back in a moment.%- with the confirmation hearing for elena kagan with this month, today c-span tissue inside to see the public places and rarely seen spouses. here insight about the court and the building. the home to america s highest court, today at 6:30 p.m. eastern. the democrats have run the congress for 40 years. there was a certain level of corruption that had taken hold. we are rallying against that. it is so ironic that years later i would be a face of a similar type of corruption to a whole different group of people. director alex gibney talks about corruption on capitol hill in his new documentary. tonight on. on should the federal communications commission regulate the internet? two views with caty sloan and walter mccormick, head of u.s. telecom. that is on monday, on c-span2. host: welcome back, this is norman solomon, a national board member of the progressive democrats of america. guest: it is a pleasure host: how is the president doing? guest: i m afraid he is undermining the two goals that are overarching for millions of americans who call themselves progressives. probably tens of millions very consciously are disappointed. the first goal is to maximize chances of keeppng republicans out of the speaker s office and majority senate office, and out of the oval office after 2012. the other goal is to move policy in a progressive direction. unfortunately, on both counts administration has undermined those two goals. i m with a group that this coming wednesday will hold will recall brown bag vigils at more than 100 congressional offices around the country. we realize that whether you talk about war, jobs, the informant, civil liberties, we have a huge problem with ttis administration. host: a couple of things that have happened in the past week. let me get your reaction. big labor arkansas bust. today, in politics as in sports, success is measured by wins and losses. moral victories are usually claimed by those on the wrong end of the score. $10 million spent in the arkansas senate runoff. blanche lincoln received 52% of the vote and won. guest: yys, the white house official said it was a pointless expenditure by organized labor. i wonder what we would say about $1 billion in afghanistan, more than pointless and terribly destructive. it seemed to be a message from the white house to organized labor, just let us run the show from pennsylvania avenue. after 16 months, the results are clear. it was supposed to be a priority of this and ministers in. i commend a group called bold progressives, and other such groups those that worked very hard to put up a fight against a blue dog corporate democrat named blanche lincoln in arkansas. the advice coming from the white house for progressives including organized labor to just say ok, tell us what to do, that does not comport with history if you look back fdr from the 1930 s, john kennedy and others from the 1960 s. all the great moveeents came as a result of the base mobilizing. to the extent, the press has made a mistake of deferring to the white house for the last 16 months. we have de-mobilized and de- energized our own progressive base. host: here is a summary is not clear that obama cares so deeply about leading his party. guest: it is a fair question. in 1994 the republicans took over the congress with the democrats and the white house whh had shafted human rights, organized labor, environmentalists to push through nafta. by any other name it appears the obama administration with the and was different from so many progressive groups and individuals in the last year or more has basically engaged in a triangulation. to continue to placate the republican right wing which cannot be placated, and will never offer anything but opposition and hatred, to try to placate them is a huge mistake. we will not win many of these closely contested the elections in november as democrats unless we can mobilize the base. we cannot mobilize with a bunch of rhetoric or belated $50 billion. another thing, jobs are crucial. the republicans claim that hey will create jobs by funneling tax breaks to business puts to shame which should be a legacy of the new deal. jobs programs that create jobs. host: with a $13 trillion looming deficit, how you spend additional money? guest: with fiscal austerity we could start with blowing these hundreds of billions in afghanistan. this war is catastrophic. one year ago many progressives were saying in private but they re beginning to say more openly. this war is death, not only for so many americans as reported on the front page today, but of course afghans. the fiscal implications are huge. we need the money at home for job creation, education, housing, green jobs. host: this weekend the white house says to expect an increase in casualties in afghanistan. they write the military s intelligence network in afghanistan is designed for tracking terrorists and insurgents and it is increasingly focused on uncovering corruption that is rampant across afghanistan s government. further into the story, they re looking into how to conduct aa widespread perversion of authority by afghan power brokers or senior officials. it is a plague on the american- backed effort to win support of the afghan people. guest: that story was response to administration makes and is laughable. i was in the capital of afghanistan last summer and the corruption of those karzai government is clearly extreme. we hear in the paper today about how the u.s. military will now carry out corruption it is not a mystery. go to the brother of the presiient of the country, to kandahhr and you find karzai a massive drug dealer, grabs massive amounts of land to call a corruption is an understatement. that is the u.s. proxy government in afghanistan. the policy will not work by any measure. unfortunately, one of the defining characteristics of the obama administration has been that the president maps out as he did in his west point speech about afghanistan last december a very clear, shrewd analysis of history. then he proceeds to announce a policy which is often nearly a 180-degree departure. many people looked at his language and say this is a smart guy making a ot of sense, then at the policy and it is very different. i have gotten to know the pentagon papers whistleblower and he talks about afghanistan in similar terms to the vieenam war. some very smart people in the pdministration can do very stupid things. that is a good summary of this escalation of the afghanistan war. host: why do you think the policies have continued? some say they re similar to the bush policies. is it because of robert gates has stayed on in his role? guest: the president hooses all these people. it is not hyperbolic to say some policies have been pursued by this administration. the executive director of the aclu said a few days ago that the obama administration policies, in terms of civil liberties disgusted him. i think that tells us how far removed from the hopes of turning around this country from the bush administration things have gotten. host: yet this comment by twitter says that progressives have to grin and bear it. guest: well, two bowls we as progressives, and there are so many of us around the country, can do the equivalent of walk and chew gum at the same ime. . . these are battles that have to be fought around the country, including in the primaries. nesting nasty comments are going to come from the white house, including a few days ago, saying that this $10 million in arkansas was flushed down the toilet. i think that we will push back, for a reason. we will do what robert kennedy and eugene mccarthy did. we will speak out. host: another comment from twitter, the elephant in the room is the military-industrial complex. andy, the morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i had one question and i will wait for the answer. in connecticut we fund local schools with property taxes. if someone in new jersey does not want to use theirs, why is it my responsibility to pay more federal taxes so that they can pay less? guest: thank you for your call. whether it is highways, public transportation, clean air, we i think that that is what fdr was talking about in terms of the century of the common man. we are in this together. elevating our site and quality of life for all americans. every child has the right to a quality education in the right to make that decision. basing the decision on where they are born, i think that would be a mistake. the reality is that there is a huge elephant in the room. we have huge spending now. adding an all-out, we are edging up around $1 trillion each year on military spending. we are way above $2 billion every day spent on the military. by some accounts, bp is the biggest supplier, at least one of the biggest suppliers, of oil and gasoline to the u.s. military. these issues tend to weave together. the priorities that we have, about in terms of guided missiles and misguided men, we have the technology to wage war. the access to give money to some and not others depending on where their children are born, but ultimately a more egalitarian society will be a stronger society. host: how many books have you authored or coauthored? guest: 24. host: i am one of your most mainstream media.attacked the%- what is your criticism? guest: too much stenography, not enough scrutiny. the government should have a regulatory function that is vigorous. we need watchdogs in the press in terms of the most powerful in washington and corporate circles. instead we have too much difference. sometimes putting a short leash on what we need from journalism. the body politic needs a wide range of ideas and debate and get blockage. i would argue that we get blockage in terms of bailout for wall street when we are desperate for jobs. the war in afghanistan and this horrific continuing oil catastrophe in the gulf of mexico that is both a corporate destructive criminal activity against nature and the planet in a profound regulatory failure coming out of washington. the press needs to be vigorous in scrutinizing, not just after the fact, but ongoing. host: the press reports that there are upwards of 94,000 troops in afghanistan. the number is dropping in iraq. next i will go to steve in florida. good morning. caller: i agree with you in terms of the war and everything in afghanistan and that i am surprised more people are not screaming about why we are over there and spending all that money. does that have something to do with war with oil? is there a pipeline coming through the north into afghanistan and pakistan? i never heard about it in the news. i am wondering, is that the truth? is that true? guest: wars happen for a lot of reason. in 1980 there was a great deal of interest from the u.s. in terms of securing u.s. oil interests pipelines from the central asian republics to a water port in pakistan. a factor that i would not put too fine a point on. right now this is a war that keeps going and is much more difficult to stop a war and start one. wwen you think about the amount of money being spent on all of these military contractors, let me just remind you that we are now organizing around the country to block this supplemental being moved through the house. you might remember last year we were told that it was the last supplemental. that war spending would be on the books. now that has apparently been forgotten or we are encouraged to forget it. those in the house that say that they are now enthusiastic about because we will be watching how they vote on this measure. host: you have some fans and critics on our twitter page. can you run for president? so many solutiins, save us. guest: no one is going to save us. i think that obama himself is someone that we need to look at realistically. he is a person. as cornell westtsaid, he is a corporate politician. we have our own responsibility as citizens and people that can affect the future. as critical as i am of their politicking in many areas, i am more so, on the people who have quieted their voices, but they know better. we need to demand the political atmosphere where we can force the white house to move. host: still glad that obama is president? agree or not? think we should give him the time line in the way he proposed? guest: is a high jump over low standards to say i am glad. certainly i am glad that he is not bush or mccain. but this could go on for a very long time, like in the vietnam war. we are going over a cliff with a bigger chance to compound moral felony. host: when the president went to afghanistan you compared it to the lyndon johnson visit to south vieenam. guest: it was chilling to read an article about that day regarding lyndon johnson and howl of be the soldiers were to hear the president s energy. he said something like we re going to nail the cap to the wall. there was his own rhetoric, putting on his jacket and so forth. but it does not do us any good because the reality is that this war is still going on. it is clear in the new york times. yes, they are different countries, but the psychological mechanisms and the process along pennsylvania avenue and in washington to try to justify what cannot be justified, the failure of leadership to justify constitutional responsibillty to use the power of the first to respond to public opinion, we have a poll from days ago, 53% of this country saying that this war is not worth that, and yet the war goes on and continues to escalate. host: the other story on the front page of the new york times comes from march and is about southern afghanistan and saving injured troops. let me bring it back to your column. you seem to indicate that president obama could, in your words, becoming president that would have the war that consumed johnson, nixonn and bush. guest: we are on the way. in combination with the jobless rate and reliance on the republican mechanism the economy and the war, which are related. this quandary of this money, many people have been brought into the military because they cannot find jobs as young people. we are in that situation. the nile does not help us at all. leadership should not come from congress right now. it has to come from the base. we have to organize and raise hell to stop this war. host: one of the few general progressives, meaning he is a communist hiding behind a fake name. guest: of course in the 1960 s, and i did visit as a teenager to speak against the war, senators ostracized as prophetic. host: democratic line, rita, good morning. caller: thank you. mr. solomon, i am a good example of someone who is a working- class democrats and not a liberal democrat. you are feeding into the terrible bashing that president obama is getting as a communist. you are absolutely losing all independent moderates for the democratic party. you are an example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. visa support the president. i wanted to vote for hillary, how about that. but i do not think that you have to the alternative, are you kidding me? you have to be a realist to be the president. you are also one of these people that remind me of the people being out of office. guest: i do know if you got my point. president obama with his policies is enabling and empowering right-wing populism because the white house has aligned itself so closely with wall street. when democrats but people like timothy geithner in top positions they become accessories to wall street, and labeling and strengthening the right-wing populist for electoral gains, i would say that the situation is the one lady from what you describe. these moderate policies from the administration are strengthening and not weakening the white right-wing backlash. when we get on the correct side of this divide it is going to be progress of populism the challenges a weak economic force and is in close, clear solidarity with people. host: do you listen to blend back at all? guest: not if i can help it, i will read the transcripts. host: putting americans he is telling radio listeners that progressives are preparing to put americans into concentration camps. guest: unfortunately this kind of rhetoric continues today. i was on his program once. i understand i am not to be invited back again. host: why? guest: he invited me on the television show to attack general electric, buu i also challenge the owners of his show and i do not think he was happy with the segment. crazy things are being said by glenn beck s and rush limbaugh s, but that does not mean that the enemy of our enemy is not a matter of the perfect being the enemy of the good. it is a question of whether the policies right now are ones that will move this country in a progressive direction. the regulatory failure in the gulf of mexico, the military ppending that is out of control, the failure to protect civil liberties, the failure to burn create jobs where they could be created life with fdr caused new deal program, the opportunity to have organized labor as part of the solution rather than polarizing its, this administration needs to save itself from itself. not only in terms of policy but also in terms upper winning this november election. progressives will stay home if they do not feel bound to the administration. host: could he be challenged in a primary? guest: in terms of 2012? it is instructive to look at what happened in 1967 when the democrat in the white house turned a deaf ear to a base that was opposed to an escalating war. the polls tell us that about two-thirds of obama voters in 2008 are very much opposed to the war in the bandstand. does jobe the nomination of elena kagan will go up host: the nomination of elena kagan will go up in two weeks. what is your reaction to her pick? guest: a painful irony that the stevens seek as filled by elena katelynn will move to the right. very few legal analysts will disagree with the clear analysis that see it stevens has been a stronger civil liberties of order than elena kagan. it is a sad day when a democrat in the white house makes a nomination to the supreme court to move an overly conservative, right-wing court further to the right. host: is the presiient of box in? if you put someone in too far to the left, he could face a republican filibuster? guest of the president fox himself in. he needs to decide what is worth fighting for. he has been willing to fight for certain things and not for others. a few moments ago we heard about how the campaign to send more troops to afghanistan. he has broken a good campaign promises. i think that the president is in excess of apologist. he can fight on capitol hill. he could fight for a general libertarian to go the supreme court but instead he nominated someone who, best evidence, is not a strong backer of civil liberties. it is possible the face down the senate. many presidents have done it. i am regretful that this president has chosen not to throw down the column throw down the gauntlet for civil liberties. host: our conversation this morning is with norman solomon. jim is joining us from tampa, florida. caller: wishing you both a good morning.3 while, i apologize if i ask something that was similar to someone else. host: the floor is yours. go ahead. caller: i am a republican. first of all, in may it american. i am intendinn to go i am a american. i am intending to go to a more moderate american view. i am interested on your view on the david stockman book, triumph and politics. he was the supply side economics guru. in the book i read that president reagan, i am not young but not old either, ronald reagan was my first election. -preading about history, i am learning that he quadrupled our deficit. he cut taxes and increase military spending and eventually but to of a lot quadrupled our budget deficct. bush jr. was handed a surplus and they have us in a rat hole. i am not saying that obama is doing everything right but i do know that the republican house, senate, and administration drove the car into 1 d ass deep ass ditch. why are you railing against obama when we should be trying to come together? it feeds the republicans and it turns the democrats away. as a republican who is kind of seeing the light, i am trying to understand where you are coming from. guest: fair enough question. coming together is good. but not bind policies that are escalating a war in afghanistan, costing us a tremendous amount of national treasure in the lives of young people, including enormous suffering and making us less secure around the world. coming the other is not a great policy when it is a failure of basic regulatory function that leads to allowing have it s like bp to do more or less what they want. coming the other is not good when we have a sky high unemployment rate. we have these nickel and dime approaches. how can we move this country forward in a way that sustains the quality of life and provides real security? looking at it in a narrow and partisan electorate lands, it is fairly clear that when the president of the united states bonds with wall street and franklin delano roosevelt did iwhen he denounced what was called the economic royalists, when our president could be leading with help from the grass roots or social progress of change, when our president bonds with wall street rather than challenges it, that is a deficit for democrats going into the nov. midterms. we need progress of populism. if we do not engage the right- wing populism will take over and it will be worse for emocrats on the election day. host: better to take a twitter that allow republicans to talk for 10 minutes. begging the question, can you be a moderate republican? can you be a conservative democrat? guest: even the term moderate this sort of a media created label. host: but it does talk about you being pro-choice in a republican party porkpie fiscally conservative in a democratic republican party for this conservative in a democratic party. or fiscally conservative in the democratic party. guest: no matter how tolerance the mass is towards destructive pollution, as long as he or she is pro-choice they get called a moderate. we must ask ourselves what that the means. host: good morning, independent line. caller: good morning. why is everyone micromanaging the president? guest: it is called democracy. we are supposed to all participating in speak up. caller: i think he is doing a wonderful job and i love that he said that he is the president, not the messiah. the president cannot do everything but he is a good leader. guest: the question is not his policy as an individual. he is in the ring and uplifting. the question is we have tremendous problems that continue in this country as they have been unfolding for a long time. for us to sit back and say that he is doing a decent job so we should quiet down, i think that that is a mistake closing of our real opportunity at the grassroots. in which we shape the future without simply turning in. in a way i would underscore what you said. it is up to us to change it to create a different political atmosphere, meaning we need to organize and make our voices heard. host: in the washington post there are a wide variety of opinions. sarah palin s take, the criteria for supporting reagan politicians is simple, can they live within their means and realize that there is a sacred trust in spending other people s money. did the incumbent himself or herself against state officials with a debt ridden strings attached package? guest: we have written a lot about the republicans the dug us into debt, but as with the case of the great depression it was deficit spending that began to focus us on job creation and lift this country out of this tremendous horror of mass unemployment and poverty. some might argue we are still in a great recession now. my view on foreclosing government spending and becoming a deficit hawk is not only counterintuitive but againstt basic economics as paul krugman has pointed out repeatedly. we have got to spend to create jobs and the most efficient way to do that is not the tax rate tax breaks for businesses, it is job creation. host: where is home for you these days? guest: san francisco area. host: wellington, ky. caller: good morning. i would like ask this gentleman exactly what is a progressive democrat. half it seems to be it seems to be as far left as you can get. why not leave the democratic party. uuion members are not that part of the left. it left me. guest: if you would like to see an expressive program of democratic progressive democrats, though the website for the progressive democrats of america organization. there is historical content. in the 1930 s they struggled for the right to unionize, for unemployment insurance. in the 1960 s they were for civil rights and women s equality as a trend that needed to be accelerated. they organized against the war in vietnam, of what martin luther king called the madness of militarism. equal rights for gays, lesbians, african americans, and latinos. there is a long tradition of being a social democrat through social equity. finding alternatives to the kind oo purely suicidal policies that have often been pursued out of washington. host: joe says the republicans dug us into the debt, what has president obama done to get us out ? guest: official unemployment of nine with 7% nationwide, and he used that standard of that means that the entire new deal was a bad idea, which it was not. it helps to save this country in many respects. a narrow view in terms of talking about narrow policies, we are in this place now where we have deficit hawks in the military talks. it is a terrible combination because more and more money is being squandered in afghanistan but we re being told that we have to reduce the deficit. it will comm out of your hide if you are watthing at home. maybe you want better green jobs or some sort of infrastructure. maybe what library is open and bridges that do not fall down. maybe you want libraries open and bridges that do not fall down. to simply look at the ledger sheet is a big mistake. host: the guest tomorrow will be the editor of the guardian in london. larry joins us from cameron, idaho. caller: i am enjoying this very much, but i do think that this gentleman is very articulate and unfortunately is speaking somewhat over my head. i am not a very learned man. i served in vietnam and i tried to stay abreast of what is happening in this country. when i went to vietnam my attitude was my country, right, wrong, or indifferent. unfortunately that was a very stupid outlook. not seeing the overall picture of what was going on in washington with the economy and with spending, with the reasoos we have gone into vietnam in iraq, the reason we went into afghanistan, i do not see the big picture of what is going on behind the scenes and causing all of this. frankly, i do not really care. i am just concerned about myself and my family. i am concerned about others in this country that are struggling trying to make it. i believe that it is because so many of the people are not considering the people like me who are not very learned. we are to can and others to represent us in a way that is beneficial to was into the rest of the world. host: thank you for phoning in so early on a sunday morning in idaho. guest: i do not think it is a question of being learned or not, it is a question of people using their values to determine where we are. the so-called best and brightest in harvard in yell came to washington in the johnson the aaministration. much of the latest generation of the best and brightest is dragging us into the war in afghanistan. breaks my heart to see young people coming home from this war to suffer the consequences. as woody guthrie said, any fool can be complicated. it is not about being learned, it is about bbinging to the square of our debate and decision making as human beings. our values must be front and center in the debate. host: a robust debate on our twitter page, twitter.com/c- spanwj. kevin, of south carollna. good morning. caller: the democratic and progressive, are they not the same people that tricked everyone into accepting the federal reserve in 1913 when everyone went home for christmas? the same federal reserve that has us in this almost a freshman? also, you were talking about jobs and respecting immigrants. have respect for u.s. citizens who are out of work. they do not respect us, waving flags from countries in the streets. unemployment could be solved quickly the same way that hoover and eisenhower solve it. guest: a big fork in the road around immigration is whether we are going to affirm the human rights of everyone and acknowledge that we are all immigrants with the exception of americans. i will not swear like grandparents and ellis island always had their papprs by an order. the reality is that there is a strong temptation to scapegoat immigrants for what are structural problems in the economy. the problem is not unemployment along the rio grande, is along profiteering and of the lack of priorities in washington. ultimately it is a national+ debate and there has to be a way to not scapegoat the powerless and look at those that have tremendous wealth and power while there is less unemployment in our country. host: the president through everything that he could at the growth curve, but it was called not good enough. guest: i am not happy with the composition of that mission. again, the progressive economic populism that is very positive in terms of potential in this country to affirm the rights of everyone to a job, education, and housing, that will not come from the top down in terms of figuring out managing this economy. if we come from the bottom up not hold our breath. i think you will need to come from us. host: thank you for being with us on this sunday. guest: thank you. host: come back any time. an expert on iran will be joining us in a couple of minutes with reaction to the sanctions voted by the security council this past week as the president intends to put pressure on the iranian government becoming one year+ after the election of mahmoud3 next we would like to share with you and sides into the war room, the command center in the vienna. share with you insights into the war room, the command center in louisiana. we call this our situation status map. we have numerous layers of strategy and defense. the red line is where we have spotted oil. we have flights to go over and every day to figure out where the oil is. we want to get rid of as much as possible. at the source we have our most capable vessels. we are now pulling down from the atlantic and pacific, reaching across the ocean to get there. these skimmers, we are bringing new things online every day. id is the most effective way to deal with the oil as it is fresh and able to e recovered. looking at what we would ultimately call response technology and controlled burning has been very successful for us. we also have room for aerial disbursement. when we have permission to use those we will use dispersants as well. washington journal continues. cuff host: we want to welcome back to c-span the carnegie endowment for peace, this expert on iran. welcome to the program. brazil and turkey sided with the iranian government, what does it mean? guest: un sanctions, everyone knew that it would be a starting point and not a finishing line. it is difficult to pass sanctions at the u. n. this is not going to severely harm the iranian economy. but sanctions are busily a precursor to further unilateral measures. host: let me focus on some of the news of the day. one year after the questionable re-election of the iranian president a big rally was called off yesterdaa with protesters freturning to the street. what is the sentiment in this country? guest: out of the streets but not out of mind. that force people into thend%- streets, i think the protesters recognize yesterday that they would be overwhelmed by government forces. moving forward this is one of the challenges of the green opposition movement, going above and beyond the strategy of street protests. when those are the only plays in your playbook, what percentage of your supporters are willing to go out and sacrificc their lives for your craws. there are far fewer supporters willing to do that as opposed to government supporters, who have a monopoly of coercion. host: can the people of iran protests without fear of repercussion? guest: absolutely not. there is no right to free assembly in iran and as we saw last year from that incredibly hair wearing imagery, men, women, and children who go out to peacefully protest often face the risk of death. host: let me try to summarize what is in the resolution. nuclear materials are being shipped into ran. what is not in othe resolution is a comprehensiveearms embargo. resolutions that allow iran to+ purchase weapons and conclude the purchase of service to air missiles from russia. there is no comprehensive ban on financial dealings from the revolutionary guard. guest: true, un sanctions were always going to be more political rather than economic consequence. it is difficult to get countries like russia and china who has strategic relationships with iran to sacrifice those interests with an issue that we feel less strongly about than the united states. moving forward you will see stronger measures coming out of the united states and the european union. the big question is if these measures will alter their nuclear calculations. we have three decadds of empirical evidence that sanctions have not really altered it is because this regime has a long history of having shown itself willing to subject its population to economic hardship rather than compromise. host: president ahmadinejad referred to the resolution as nothing more than a used tissue. no amount of pressure and mischief will be able to break our determination to pursue and defend our legal and inalienable rights. host: officially joining iran in support is brazil and turkey. why? guest: somewhat unexpected in the sense that brazil and tuukey, eeks before this resolution was passed, made a diplomatic gambit to tehran. they tried to resuscitate a deal that had been offered last october. i think that there was certainly some kind of disagreement or miscommunication between the united states, turkey, and brazil. personally i do not think of the united states bought the this? it would succeed. certainly the iranians would sign off on this deal. having to honor the efforts of its some leadership to make a good-faith gesture. host: this is a news analysis from the new york times this morning. why have the two countries been openly defying the united states by voting against new sanctions? for the united states it was a slap in the face from a close ally prompting some soul- searching about turkey. robert gates made a note that turkey was moving eastward, a shiff that he attributed to their turned down response to join. turkey the east-west bridge, siding with the east because it lost its path on becoming more like the west. is that fair? guest: most people in turkey rejected that conventional wisdom. whether or not it is true, it is safe to say that this particular turkish government, the government of the akp, they certainly have a much more religious and islamic hue than previous governments. they certainly are more focused on building relationships and coaxing investment from the arab world. iran has invested tremendous amounts in trying to be the vanguard of the islamic world. they have supported organizations like hezbollah and hamas, but they have gotten two tangible benefits from that. there s not a lot of arab investment in iran. many of them are concerned about the nuclear ambitions. turkey has taken a much more sophisticated approach. they had the support of government in the region and businesses in the arab world. host: our phone lines are open. even join the conversation on quitter as well, twitter.com/c- spanwj, or send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. caller: i am sort of an expert on this deal of money. your guess s talking, do he know why we went to iraq? or why we are in afghanistan? it has nothing to do with weapons or what ever. it has to do with money and who controls it. who do you think controls the united states? host: how would you answer that question, john? caller: the united states, the people do not own anything anymore. corporations, aig, all of it. who owns it? guest: an interesting question. certainly in the 1970 s in iran this was the overwhelming popular narrative. the united states was an the backs of the third world. why the iranian revolution went in the direction that it did, there was an overwhelming torrent of anti-imperialism. three decades later after being poverned by a government that shares your opinion, the younger generation of iranians have recognized that today s world is not the world anti-imperialism -pwith a simple policy that opposes the united states. it does not create jobs or economic dignity. i think the overwhelming undercurrent today is one of globalization and partnership. not only with the united states, but also with the arab world and having a foreign policy that is not a zero sum game. it tries to have positive relations and improve the state of the economy. host: turkey is in the neighborhood of iran and supplies them with about one- fifth of their natural gas. is that a big political factor behind ttrkey and brazil joining in? guest: i think it is certainly a factor. in turkey the price of gasoline is very expensive. several years back oil prices reached $140 per barrel, p the throughout the world was the second most expensive in the world. $74 per barrel at that time. iran was the cheapest place in the world. turkey has certainly seen about one-quarter of it coming from iran, a factor and not the only factor. host: band, republican line. caller: thank you for having me on. your question on what is good for iran, what is next is that israel will attack it and take3 iran is also chomping at the bit to blow up israel. guest: however would respond to that is thattthe iranian government is not suicidal. it is paramount to stay in power. they recognize that if they made an aggressive mmlitary move for israel it would be the end of the islamic republic. moving forward in the terms that i have, israeli officials, the underlying problem that we have as much more to do with the character of the regime than the nuclear program. if you attack iran to delay its nuclear ambitions, you are going to prolong the regime indefinitely. perhaps another decade or generation. the problem of the character of the regime is that bombing iran is not going to solve the problem, it will exacerbate it. host: if they achieve an atomic weapon, will they really give it to a terrorist to use on the u.s. and israel and ensure their own demise ? guest: i did partially answer it. they recognize that to do that it would be the end of the is locked republic itself. but if you were an israeli and you had a government where the president denies the holocaust, it would be a concern. if you are a mother of two new not parse the statements of ahmadinejad. you take it seriously. israeli officials have the right to take this rhetoric. but bombing iran will only intrench the worst of the reggme. host: travis, boston, good morning. caller: gentlemen, thank you for accepting my call. the indicators that he stayed stated in istanbul last week, apparently he stayed in hotels and incurred expenses. where does this money come from? who is running his efforts? i am a historian and have tracked the occupation in iraq. the cheerleaders for the regime change in 1992 were dual citizens. looking at iian, it is always iranians. issthere some sort of a marriage between iranian interests for regime change and israel? one that moved to israel if you love a that montana guest: i did not understand the question about moving to israel. that much? guest: i did not understand the question about moving to israel. of course, change has to come indigenously from the people themselves. should it be a priority for the u.s. government to support democracc in iran? the united states has to be on the right side of this. 3 million people rising up against authoritarian regimes without any looting, that is to be supported whether we are talking about iran, egypt, or elsewhere. the challenges the the obama administration faces is hhw do you support democracy in iran without changing its independence? you are misinterpreting things if you are comparing iran to iraq. i do not know that anyone is calling for a military led regime change. as i said, they are opposed to the idea of even service strikes. host: talking about a run on a number of different stripes. a number of different fronts. about one year since the re- election of mahmoud ahmadinejad. new sanctions have been confirmed. david is join yes from south carolina. good morning. are you with us? we will try it one more time. ahead, please. david? caller: good morning. what is next for iran does they are on the verge of being a superpower is that they are on the verge of being a superpower and taking over corporate america at this time. americans can talk about sanctions all of that one. host: would you call it run a superpower? guest: i certainly would you call it ran a superpower? guest: i certainly would not wwuld you call iran a superpower? guest: i certainly would not. most of its citizens live below the poverty line. unemployment hovers around 40%. i think the caller were to set foot in a run he would be immediately disabused of his assessment as iran being a superpower. host: london, england, go ahead. we re glad that you. good afternoon. obviously there has been a lot of cautionary questioning when i really do think that turkey in the next four years, they have a strong possibility of becoming a european bloc member. what i would like to ask is do you not think it might be time for the united states to actually start working to try to help the people of iran peacefully? to force a regime change their? outside spending two weeks there on a package holiday, should the u.s. not be more positive in educating its people towards iran and the graham and the greater released as a whole rather than the anti-turkish rhetoric that seems to be coming out? something in a country that supports america throughout the cold war? host: hazmat you was asking his question, we got this letter, obama should do what? start another unfunded war with iran ? guest: there is an interesting draft from 1978 where you compare the turkish economy to the iranian academy the economy, the turkish economy has taken off and the iranian economy has remained stagnant. certainly they have not exploited their resources as much, but i am less optimistic than the caller that they will achieve membership in the next few years within the united nations. the united states has certainly supported the entry, but it looks much less likely now than it was a few years ago. what was the second question? host: basically it is what shoull president obama do, start another unfunded war with iran? guest: of course not. i do not know of anyone, certainly, who is trying to advocate the cause of democracy in iran who supports military action in ran. . . caller: i wanted to get the gentleman s view on that. d.c. a full wrote rick in a full war between saudi arabia -pand iran? guest: you look at some of the hotspots. lebanon, syria, israel, palestine. if you want to include afghanistan as part of the middle east. it looks to be like a proxy war between iran and saudi arabia. iran is a predominantly shiite country. this has also been the case in the non in lebanon. i thought that was a very perceptive question by the collar. this is something of great concern about growing religious tension. one could argue that the religious tension has been somewhat curtailed in the age of obama, maybe it had reached its peak during the iraq war of 2006. now things arm somewhat stabilized now things are somewhat stabilized. host: joining us from shobi town, michigan. caller: i have called in saying thhs before. saudi arabia contributes more to terrorism. our troops are being killed in afghanistan because of saudi arabian money. 15 of 19 hijackers were from saudi arabia. bin laden came from saudi arabia. you have the circle of death. was george bush going to group going to do a meet and greet with the monarchies from saudi arabia and give them a big wet kiss? i cannot understand why ww are going after i ran when all of this is from saudi arabia i cannot understand why we re going after miron. guest: if you talk to terrorism experts and are in agreement with them that the main threat in terms of terror is not state terror from countries like iran that non-state terror from militant organizations like al qaeda and others. in this predominantly funded by saudi arabia. so many organizations are not funded by saudi policy but coming from citizens. several of the hijackers were predominantly at the saudi citizens. host: we re talking about the situation is going in iran. the president traveled to the diplomatic room in the white house and had this to say. these are the most comprehensive sanctions they have faced. they will impose restrictions on their nuclear activities, ballistics program, and its conventional military. they will put a new free market in place to stop iranian smuggling and crack down on iranian banks and financial transactions. they target individuals, entities, and institutions including those associated with the revolutionary guard that have supported their nuclear program and prosper from illicit activities at the expense of the iranian people. we will insure that these sancttons are vigorously enforced just as we continue to refine and enforce our own sanctions on iran alongside our friends and allies. -phost: are these resolutions comprehensive? guest: they re not that comprehensive. they recognize that u.n. sanctions are the lowest common dennminator sanctions. take back a step to the obama administration and their policy. when he came into office january 2009, one priority was to engage the world and a run to change the adversarial tension, the town and context of the u.s.- iran relationship. he has made more of an effort to reach up to run zero to reach out to iran than any other president in theelast three decades. they believe that enmity towards the united states was an important pillar of the revolution. in the aftermath of the election, there was so much internal dissent in i ran they could not come to a decision. for whatever reason, it has not that relationship. one year and a half later, the president has no other choice than to move forward with sanctions. from a vantage point, congress has been agitating for the sanctions for over a year now. when president obama talks about sanctions with miron, this is not his foreign policy vision when he was coming into office when president obama talks about sanctions with tirana iran. these are not the tried and failed policies of the past. the need to go with the least bad options. host: good morning to you, san francisco. caller: i have a question about the fact that we trust the united nations after when they did with iraq. with the theme money for the children. many of these representatives in the united states took money instead of giving the oil to the money for children in iraq. it is very difficult for me to trust the fact that they keep saying they are right to put in sanctions. we have two communist nations, russia and china, say in know. i have two questions. what is the safety of the people in iran when they hear the speeches saying that many countries throughout the world quietly and privately believe and agree with him telling him to keep on trying to get his nuclear weapons? what do the people think when they hear him say he wants to bring in the imams literally? >guest: ok d inamed data he has been in office and has little credibility with the iranian people. when he makes these grand u.s. claims, he once said that the u.n. that there was a halo appearing around his head and the audience did not blink for an entire hour. people take what he says with a chunk of salt. with regards to the united nations, one distinction which people are trying to make this time the sanctions on iran against the ones that were placed on saddam hussein and iraq were blanket sanctions which really hurting the iraqi people. there was the oil and food scandal within the united nations. sanctions against tehran, they are trying to make that has targeted as possible. the want to target the leadership instead of the people. it is very difficult to carry out. that is the goal. that was a lesson learned from the failed iraq sanctions host: we are joined from redmond, ore.. caller: think you for taking my call. i was wondering if the gentleman could please address iran s hard tower in regards to brazil, turkey, bahrain, yemen, sunoco se n senegal, and i could go on. they have an incredible uranium supply being placed on rivers that ave ports to go to the atlantic. i would also be interested in having him go in a little more detail between the relationship of a russia and china in regards to miron. in regards to iran. by the green party and has been so ignored by this administration because that is why we re going to get change. host: can you define mean between soft and hard hours? caller: we use soft ppwer in order not to have to use are hard power. they use soft power in tandem with heart host: power. thaak you for the call in tandem with hard power. guest: they use soft and hard in tandem. hezbollah has won popular support with its hard exploits in south lebanon and its social services, its soft power. this has been an approach of a run threat the region. this has been an approach of the iran throughout the region. he has far more supporters, i would argue, in a lot of places like lebanon and places in the arab and moslem world that deal disgruntled by the u.s. and israeli olicies. a long as the sense of alienation exists in the arab and moslem m uslim world, it will exist. the sparks a lot of antipathies towards israel. iran s anti-world view will resonate. the relationship between iran, russia, and china. the relationships with china is a straightforward commercial relationship in the sense that china needs tremendous amounts of energy. as much as the united states tries to sanction a run, i think the relationship between china and iran will remain. russia, in the past, as you did their relations in the context of u.s.-russia relations. it has been a thorn in the side that russia has been able to exploit. since the arrival of the obama administration and the improvement in russian-u.s. relations, moscow has veered closer to washington than pteron. washington than tehran. host: mike can middle eastern nations find common ground to help solve some of the defers conflict and issues? guest: that is a sentiment i share. to address the call s email, when i look at the younger generation in the middle east there is a much more powerful trend of globalization then i think of their parents generation had. the dominant trend was anti imperialism. the internet of the facebook, the internet, and satellite television, people want to be connected with one another. they do not want to continue the fighting of the previous generation. host: our focus is iran. you can log on at c arnegieendowment.com. caller: whose payroll are you on? to support your efforts? are you being paid by israel and other war mongering countries who are trying to ratchet up a war so that my president will then have to attack iran? i want to know why i continue to bring up the act that your president has denied the holocaust. that is merely just his opinion that it did not happen here. by 8 being a human being, he is entitled to his opinion. please, do not cut me off. i would like to know you feel as though your country should always remain in a subservient position, that iran should not be able to have a nuclear weapon. personally, i think all nations should have on.+ that way no one will be pushing another nation around because all nations have the same thing and are able to protect themselves. maybe then we will learn to come to the table and talk instead of thinking because you have a bigger gun and more bonds than you can force someone into a subservient position to go along with your ideology. host: reports on the table. guest: we are a nonprofit organization that does not get any money from fooeign agencies or governments. if you have been listening, i am unequivocally opposed to any kind of military action against tehran. against ran. the second question about denying the hooocaust, from your vantage point that he is entitled to his opinion. from my point in washington, he is entitled to his opinion. if you are an israeli citizen and have ancestors who died in the holocaust and you have a president denying the holocaust and is flirting with nuclear weapons capabilities, i think it is not simply an intellectual exercise which you can easily dismissed. my only point was if i were an israeli or a leader, that would be something i would take seriously. the third point about do i want to run to be subservient iran to be subservient. they are subservient because of their floundering economy. it is not a modern country. it is a country with enormous natural resources, but of of all that has enormous he missed human resources that are not be exploited. there is an enormous potential of its people. sitting in philadelphia it is easy to cheer them on from afar. when you go there and see the tremendous heartbreak, the tremendous unfulfilled potential of three generations. when you see a beautiful young woman who was simply walking along the street protesting shot in the heart at point-blank, that is something fundamentally on just about that, to president obama iranians having lived under a government which has made its opposition to the united states and israel has put the economic dittany he economic dignity as a tertiary concern. they are tired of that world view. it derecognize it has not borne fruit. host: our next caller s from the independent line. caller: the last caller hit this on the head. the problem in the area is not iran. it s israel. do not cut me off, c-span. every time someone says something negative about israel, this country has a big- time problem with that. israel has been the problem in that region every since day one. we hear these people always talking about taxing this and that. that is where all of our tax dollars are going, to help israel. host: how would you resolve what has been a longstanding situation in the middle east pating back to world war ii? caller: [inaudible] host: how do you respond? caller: search? sir? host: how the use of the situation in the middle east. caller: aa long as israelis are on occupied pplestinian lands, do not get me wrong, i voted for president obama. i campaigned for him. this is in israel. my president should not [inaudible] host: yourself and is breaking up of. with both sides, the have called for a two state solution, both countries living side by side. is that feasible? guest: increasingly, as time passes and the demographics of the region change, i think it is increasingly looking more and mooe feasible because the palestinians are starting to outnumber the israelis. i went to be clear that i have tremendous sympathy for the plight of the palestinians. you can be ambidextrous and support justice for the palestinians and also just as for iranians. one thing that people oftentimes misunderstand is they lump all the coontries in the middle east into one. they think arabs are iranians and people making up in pteron tehran and think if only the palestinians were able to achieve justice today. why would iranians one more for the palestinians than they want for themselves? certainly they want justice for the palestinians, but they also want to see democracy and self- determination for themselves, as well. this applies to countries throughout the region, iranians, egyptians, etc. on your host: on the republican line. caller: itunes in a little bit late. i requently watch the program on saturday and sunday s. a question for your guest is that it seems to me that in 2003, whenever iraq was liberated by the united states, i was very optimistic that democracy would of taken off immediately, there would have been a rush to freedom with the same kind of the divisions of power with a checks and balance that we have in our country. i am curious, in your opinion, why it did not happen that way. does this mean it cannot happen? host: it said they expected what happened back in 2003, 2004. do you want to respond? guest: great question. when you compare them to a lot of countries in the region, including iraq, you have the islamic revolution in 1979. the had experienced rule for several decades. major additional glasses, including clerics, they realized it was a dirty game. when you mix religion and politics together, you change the name of religion. in the arab world, they have not had the same experience with religious government whether it is iraq, egypt, or elsewhere. i think this is something that is going to have to run its course. a lot of these parties as we are seeing in turkey, as they evolve towards a more democratic system, i think we will see the increasing influence of islamist parties. host: our guest testified before the senate foreign relations committee. he is a lecturer at a numbee of leading universities including princeton, stanford, and harvard. he graduated from the university of michigan and johns hopkins. a quick question from a viewer wondering if most of the people in iran is under the age of 25. guest: two-thirds are under the age of 32. on the 70% of the population was born after the 1979 revolution. we have no remembrance for enmity towards the shah government. there is no loyalty to a theocracy that has not been able to deliver to them the economic dignity and social and political freedoms. host: miles from georgia. go ahead. caller: the only way iran can keep itself from being invaded is to get the ball. they will get invaded just like iraq. american soldiers will never leave iraq. if they do not want that to happen to them, they will get the bomb. they will get blackwater coming in killing people at will. iran should get the bomb. guest: it is a fair point that is widelyyshared by many including many of the iranian leadership as they look back to 2003. one lesson they grew was that a country like north korea is immune to a u.s. invasion because they have a nuclear weapon and the country like iraq was not immune. there are several ways of looking at this. by continuing to pursue this path of nuclear weapons capabilities, they are inviting more pressure on them. it is the chicken and the egg. as the pressure on iran because of nuclear ambitions or because the powers want to keep iran down? i think that the concern, which many people now have, is one lesson that thee may drop. it is the lesson of pakistan. that as a country which after in achieve a nuclear weapon, tested a nuclear weapon, after one week of outrage the world was so concerned that they engaged pakistan. they got a lot of incentive after they achieved and across the the nuclear threshold. there is this double standard that when you actually have a nuclear weapon, you are part of the club, and you are given incentive, they would rather achieve that. host: let me ask you to take the longer term view on the government. will he be term limited? guest: assuming he lasts the be 2013, he would then have told step down. there is increasing intrigue about someone who has become so enamored with power that they will try to find a way to keep him in power. after putin came down, he has became a prime minister of sorts, who is arguably controlling president medvedev. host: with the iranian people support that? guest: certainly not. they have an enormous opposition to him. i do not think it is something that is terribly likely, but i think they are thinking about it. host: as always we appreciate do you have a pension? how is it doing? what happens if you work for state or local government and they could not the fault? what is the equity in those of funds? we will be addressing that in a few minutes as washington journal continues. we will be back in a moment. the confirmation hearing is coming for lena kagan in this month. c-span takes you inside the supreme court to see the public places and rarely seen spaces. hear from the justices as they provide insight on the building and its history. supreme court, to america s highest court, today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. the democrats had run the congress for 40 years. there was a certain level of corruption that had taken hold. we are rallying against that. it is so ironic that years later i would be a face of a similar type of corruption to a different group f people. director alex gibney talks about his new documentary, should the federalght on c-span- communications commission regulates the internet? two years with caffeine cathy sloan and walter mccormick. that will be on c-span [applause] host: we want to focus on pensions. we are joined by the former executive director of the pension benefit guarantee organization. let me more broadly ask you about how many people in this country currently receive pensions and what impact the economy is having on state and local budgets in cut in pain for government pensions?+ guest: 20% of the private sector purges. in a traditional defined payment plans. many of them have been frozen and are no longer accruing benefits. in public sector, it is much greater.. we have closer to 90% penetration which has caused a lot of heartburn, a lot of pressure, on state and local governments. we see this in california, illinois, new jersey, and other states and localities. host: that we sell let me separate private and public. what are the chances you ll get a pension if you stay with the cut still with the company for 25 or 30 yyars? guest: less than half of the fortunate hundred companies offer a traditional defined benefit plan. about 300 of the forttne 500 do. new workers do not have access to traditional defined benefits plan. the question is to whether or not if you do have access whether it be around another 25 years or not is uncertain. we are taking over responsibility for 4000 corporate pension plans were the have defaulted onntheir obligations. host: the president is asking for $50 billion in stimulus money to help governments offset their own budget deficits. omb used in part to create work force. one of the reasons why governments and municipalities are struggling is because they have to pay a high percentage in pensions. guest: the statistics are staggering in some communities. the percent of the budget that goes to satisfy pension obligations, in los angeles county is 20% of the budget. host: that is money off the top before being spent on anything else. the trade-off is continuing to pay the pension benefits. the people are owed that money. state constitutions require those accounts be honored. you see pressures on the other side. school budgets, teachers laid off, libraries and parks closing. something has to give host:. what is the pension benefit guaranty corp. do? guest: these plans are back stopped by thepbgc up to certain limits. there have been some calls to extend our research coverage to the public sector. that has not gotten traction host: we will take your phone calls in just a few minutes. listed on your screen. we also have a line for independence. you can send us an e-mail or join us on twitter @cspanwj. as you look at the stock market, the last two years have been a wild ride. up 284 points monday, down 350 points earlier in the month. what does that do for pensions? guest: it has significantly adversely affected pension plans in the public and private sectors just as they affect -p401k s. we do not learn from the lessons of history. we went through this earlier this decade. private-sector pension plans to about a $500 billion hit from a surplus to a significant deficit over about a 2.5 here. in 2000 is significant deficit over a 2.5 year period. it came up to buy them in detail again in this most recent market downturn where you have the same magnitude of funding but in a much shorter period of time. host: this is from the new york times. gov. patterson and the legislative leaders have agreed to that the state and municipalities to borrow $6 billion to make required annual payments to the new york state pension fund. under the plan, and what you to respond to this, stadium and his policies would borrow the money to reduce their contributions for the next three years in exchange for higher payments over the following decade. basically they are passing this on to another governor, mayor, local leader. guest: in both the public and the private sector, unfortunately the preferred policy solution for dealing with these deficits have been to pick the can down the road. but the obligations on future sets of tax payers,3 premium payers. host: you manage about 40 million americans through the agency. guest: am a little more than 40 million americans are covered by the insurance program. we are now diiectly responsible for the pensions of about 1.3 million people. caller: good morning. i agreed that they use the money without discretion. they borrowed money for the pensions to balance the budget. every governor after that never paid the money back.. now we are in a big hole. christie wants to put this on the back of the taxpayers. host: thank you. guest: there are no easy answers or silver bullets. we have these losses. they have to be filled. the question is how they are filled. is it from taxpayers, many of, who do not have access to defined benefit plans and are not the ones benefiting from these promises? they may be the ones were called upon to make good on these promises. is it the beneficiaries who thought they had a deal that may have to have a cutback in their promises because they can no longer be afforded? is it the state and local governments, the companies, that employee these individuals that the not put in enough money along the way? unfortunately, there is no money tree or a silver bullet. someone will have to pay. the question is, ultimately, too? host: our guest is the former executive director of the pension benefit guaranty corp. barbara joins us from california. good morning. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: you are actually getting into the area that i was going to speak to. when i was in graduate school in horrible problem. no one was funding the pension funds across the country. there were a few states doing that for their employees. we investigated it. we saw that the legislature s were typically, as mr. bell said, kicking this down the road. this has been going on for a long time. having been in policy in washington and doing some work for a ccngressman, in the field of education, i just suggest we start watching our legislatures3 attention, but it is our legislatures that are really and they are really messing up the work. host: thank you. guest: she is absolutely right. one understands the tendency to kick the can down the road. the problem is, and this is true of households, individuals, as well as the government s, no one wants to pay the true cost. i will put aside enough today for the promises of tomorrow. that is behavior that obviously has to change a. it is difficult to change that behavior in the current economic environment because that means a saving more and consuming less right now. given the fragile state of the economy, that could curtail economic growth over the in tehran. over the interim. host: market joins us from boston with bradley belt. caller: good morning. i have a difficult time understanding the logic of why we are supporting the public unions, the police, the fire, the teachers, all of these pensions whhch are really generous compared to the private sector which receives none of this. the city of boston, we just gave pay raises to the fire department, part of a which was 3.2 5 cents just to agree to arrive on the jobs over. to arrive on the job sober. these cops get pensions paid on the this. it seems like we are backwards. we are supporting a structure of corruption. why can they not just be like us in the private sector? why do they get a better deal? host: you work in the private sector? caller: yes. i have a 401k. switch them to the same syssem as the private sector. why did they get a better deal? we are taxpayers supporting it is ridiculous. host: here is a comment along his point. the stockton city fire, police department, government salary packages can be in excess of how is it possible to sustain the legacy costs ? guest: the issues both raised by mark and the sweet, they are not sustainable. they have not set aside enoogh resources in the past to make good on that side of obligation. one thing we need to clarify is thattthere is no federal backstop and of the public sector pension plans, those sponsored by state governments and communities. there are no federal rules. those are governed, again, by state and local government rules. we just need to make sure we understand that the federal regulatory scheme governs private sector plans and not the public. that is ultimately an issue between the legislature hours in -pthe state and local government and the taxpayers in their jurisdictions. host: is not it time to increase the retirement age for state employees? good morning with bradley belt. caller: i am a federal employee who is currently eligible to retire. host: how long have you worked? caller: 32 years with the usda. i think it is that the rest of the the rest of america cannot have such a planned host:. what is your plan? how oll are you? caller: i am 56. host: are you still working or are getting ready to retire? caller: with my wife being laid off, i am not ready to retire. i will get 64% of my current salarr. host: what is that? caller: about $91,000. host: ida s wanted to get those numbers on the table. i just wanted to get those numbers on the table. caller: it is insolvent but there are some issues with its ability to keep going. i was wondering if there was a system to make sure that the corporations that are being guaranteed are paying inappropriate amounted to the be guaranteed? it is almost like the fdic because of the number of banks because i do think have been collecting enough for watching the parameters of how these companies are finding themselves in order to keep from having these guarantee corporations giving our tax dollars to the private sector. the last caller was concerned about that. i am concerned, as a taxpayer, that these corporations that are not being fiscally responsible will rely on the guarantee corporations. host: first, guest: first, congratulations. it sounds like you are set with your income security in retirement. good for you. with respect to the issues you raised about the pbgc, part of the problem with the guaranty corp. is that it is almost designed to operate in a chronic deficit. it only takes over pension plans that are underfunded. the premiums that the agency collects from the company s companies are like the fdic. it is insufficient to cover the deficits. the bush should ministration and congress back in 2006 the bush administration and congress passed a bill intended to improve the status of pension plans. they wanted to make sure they got to fully funded status over seven years so if there were distresses with the corporate parent that there were negative implicationn on pensions or burdens on taxpayers. the problem is we have the more recent economic doonturn in the markets. they have deteriorated substantially. companies have come back to congress and said they cannot this environment. otherwise we will have to close plants, cut jobs, etc. please allow was some more latitude to not make those more stringen obligations.3 down the road. the economy turns around and trust us to make good. host: we have an e-mail rom san diego. our e-mail is journal@cspan.org. the entire narrative of how this happened it is a cautionary tale of nearly epic proportions. guest: it really is. another way to look at this is if you go to an insurance company and get an annuity, it is essentially the same thing that the pension is promising, a fixed income stream down the road. the way we regulate insurance companies is you have to have more assets in the trust than of there are liabilities and promises at any point in time. there needs to be a capital surplus. there are severe penalties if the insurance companies takes on new risks with regards to the investment of his assets. not that pertain to pension plans whether in the private or public sector. we allow the annuity provider to operate in what would be an insurance context insolvent status. host: there are more union members in the public sector versus the private sector and thus more pensions. guest: there is a higher level of penetration of pension plans in the public sector. it is closer to 90% in he public works 4 spender public workforce. they no longer have quite the penetration. if you add the public sector in, a little bit over 10% union. that is an issue with respect to teachers, police, and fire in the public sector. it is less of an issue on the private sector. host: he is the former director of the pension benefit guaranty corp. joining us from fort myers, florida. good morning. caller: i am 100% disabled veteran and i have a very small pension. if they ake that away from us, what will happen to this country? we will not put up with that. my generation is a generation that made this country free. not korea, vietnam, not afghanistan. we made this country free. people like bill gates and others have made this money in this country. they said everything over to china. these are the kind of people that we should try to get together and make them do something for this country. i am at a point where if they ever take attention away from me, i have no alternative. i think you for listening to me. i am very disgusted with the way that things are. i did not vote for obama. i think the people should back him so he can try to get this country straightened out. he is not the one who put us into the war. it was george bush that put us afghanistan. now he gets the blame. host: thhnk you. guest: the good thing is that his pension promises is an obligation of the federal government. the united states treasury and all taxpayers collectively, and no one has suggested that pensions be taken away from military personnel. my father is a military veteran as well. he gets a pension from the federal government. no one suggests there is a risk to this pension promises. the good news is americans are living longer. host: because we are living longer, we are draining the system. guest: that is correct. you can take that to the absurd extreme. it is a good news, bad news scenario. someone rushes in to say they found a cure for cancer. wonderful. that also means that the life spans are going to go up fairly significantly and that will have a negative economic impact on anyone making profits to pay benefits for someone s lifetime. whether it is in social security, we modestly extended the normal retirement age for social security being phased in. host: but only by a couple of years. guest: it will now be 67. when i was executive director, back in the mid-1990s s, we had a bipartisan commission with a unanimous set of recommendations. one recommendation must to further extend the normal retirement age. there was a crr against that particularly by the aarp. the one caveat to that is that not everyone can work longer. you and i are in the service business. it is easier for us to work longer. someone in manual labor job, they might not have it so easy. we need to take into consideration those kinds of issues, disability rules that may have to be revised. there s no question that we should not be subbidizing people to take retirement at early ages when they are fully capable of working longer. this is more true in european countries where you work for 20 or 30 years and you expect to collect pension benefits for 40 or 50 years. that does not work economically. host: or you work for the governments and are able to double that. double dip. you have created an overcapacity on our twitter page. we will continue the conversation. our web address at twitter is @cspanwj. we go to seattle, washington. good morning. caller: think you for your program. i enjoyed it very much. i have a couple of issues. first of all, i am a goveenment retiree from the department of defense, 33 years. i worked in nuclear submarines. it used to be that we worked at 20% below benchmark wages and in return for that we got a good retirement system, health benefits, and we had good vacation times. since the 1960 s, that has gradually gone up until the federal government employees receive benchmark wages across the board. that has increased the pension liabilities for the government considerably. you notice over a period of time that the government has recognized this as well. when the outfalls of this has been the privatization of the federal aviation administration and gone to contract in. they can do the job cheaper than paying federal employees. the government has gradually raised the wages of federal employees to levels that cannot be supported in the retirement system. host: thank you, seattle, washingttn. guest: he makes a very good point. the traditional view was that if you worked in the public sector, you gave up some way to benefits in exchange for better deferred benefits and greater job sscurity. some of the more recent data i have seen makes his point pretty compelling. there are a lot oo job categories where the public sector salaries are higher than private sector salaries. it is not an issue across the board, but we need to be cognizant of this. if you work for a regulatory agency, you actually do not for dissipate in a defined plan anymore. you are more in a 401k type of system. many companies in the private sector have gone that direction. some state and local government3 which begins to control the costs from the standpoint of the sponsor whether it is the federal government, private company, or state or local government. that shifts the risks to the individuals. as we have seen given this most recent market experience, they re not the ones best positioned to manage those risks. the traditional 401k system as we know it today, steve, sub- optimal. what really need is to come up with new, innovative structures that will combine the best elements of both defined benefit plans and define conjuration. that is where we need to go. we need to fight the entrenched interests to maintain the status quo because that is what they benefit from. host: he says hey, remember the riots in greece? they were government pensioners. guest: i do not believe we will get to a point like that in the united states. you can certainly see in ceetain communities where you are either facing an increasingly significant taxes at the state level or property taxes at the local level or if there is not a significant tax increase and there is schools closing, teachers laid off, parks closing. something has to give. the question is how does that manifest itself? we do nottknow, but some level of protest which we have seen already a little bit in some communities. see a greece-like situation.eve- host: john joins us from california.+ he is the last caller caller:. hi. how are you. i am a vietnam veteran. i can no longer walk. i am on a pension from the va. i get less than $1,000 per month. month.
sharon and golf now faces senate majority leader sharon angle now faces senate majority leader, harry reid. a look now at his new campaign ad. mr. president, on primary night, i was up very late expressing my gratitude to my supporters in nevada. i congratulated my opponent on the campaign that she ran. she actually came from nowhere to win this election. i extended my appreciation to her in that regard. a few months ago i did not have a job. now all of that has changed. it was like a ton of bricks lifted off my shoulders. what you see your are hundreds of jobs. these solar jobs would not be here with out harry reid. is that simple. i am harry reid, and i approve this message. coming up on the the communicators, a perspective on theesec s effort to regulate fcc s to regulate broadband services. [captioning erformed by national captiining institute] [captions copyright natiooal cable satellite ccrp. 2010] tomorrow morning, a discussion of president obama s relationships with the progressive and liberal wings of the democratic party. then, what the recent sanctions against iran in for that country s nuclear program and its relations with the rest of the world. after that, the director of the pension benefit guaranty corp. will discuss the federal government s ability to offer federal protection for private plans. that is a 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. with the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee an elena kagan coming up later this month, this sunday, c-span takes you inside the supreme courr to see public spaces and rarely seen places. hear from the justices as they describe the court, the building and its history. that is this sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern, on c-span. thursday, bp ceo tunny hayward is scceddled to testify on capitol hill. testify on capitol hill. that will be live at 10:00 a.m. perspectives on an effort by the fcc to regulate broadband services. our guests are walter mccormick and kathy sloan. well, as the federal communications commission moves closer to reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service, we are joined by two guests who will be discussing hat. walter mccormick is the presideet andcaeo and ceo of the telecommunications group. we represent the nation puts a broadband service providers. we provide service in urban areas nation s broadband service providers. areas and urban areas.rural is broadband is reclassified as title ii, what time do you perceive to your member companies? broadbent basically has been zoned for enterprise. it has been zoned for development, and what we have seen our inside ordinary investment in innovation and jobs. what we have seen our extraordinary investment in innovation and jobs. this will create a pervasive, economic regulation type of structure that has never been designed in the united states. this was designnd for a monopoly era. it was applied to the old telephone industry when there provider. in return for that, the government per basically pervasively regulated the industry. but again, what is the harm to your industry? it impacts our ability to be able to move quickly and to innovate, and to be able to what t does is create great regulatory uncertainty, and uncertainty for investors. we have seen that analysts on wall street have cautioned about investor resistance, because they are unsure of what services and businesses the industry will be able to offer or not offer going forward. cathy s loan is vice president of the computer information industry association. whattare the benefits in re- regulating broadband services to title ii? we represent a diverse array of companies in the cooputer communications industry. microsoft, yahoo.com, oracle, into it, t mobil, facebook. what are the benefits that your member companies would seek broadband is reclassified? well, first of all, let me clarify that we are not looking for regulation. our association has been around for 40 years, as long as the internet itself, since before it the breakup of at&t. our members are all business members. they re not nonprofits. they want us to support open systems, open markets, open networks, and competition. i did not mention that we do have smaller companies like data foondry. what we want to see is protection for consummrs and small businesses and nonprofit. that way they have nondiscriminatory access to the internet for their daily personal business activity. in the way that broadband is currentlyyregulated, is there harm to your member companies? it is not currently regulated our view is ttat the internet policy statement of 2005, which the former fcc put in place as a consensus move to replace title to let this legislation title ii legislation, is what needs to be maintained. used devices of the user s hoenig choosing. a very substantial consensus using devices of the user s own choosing. a very substantial consensus was built around that. we view the telecommunications network that carries the traffi+ on a two weight basis, but the telephone company and the internet s cable companies offer two way access, yes, we do that as a common carrier. when mr. mccormick says that the structure is built from the 1930 s and monopoly era, do you+ agree that it is outdated for world? title ii completely survived the massive update that was the communications act of 1996. at the signing, president clinton and vice president gore talked about the information superhighway. everybody knew, the legislators knew, thaa advanced services was the way things were going. they were hoping that they would get more local competition. they were replacing anti-trust restrictions on the bell ccmpanies with regulatory provisions that would promote competition. the fact remains todayy that in most markets around the u.s., we monopoly, although some are, for march typically a duopoly but more typically a duopoly for wireless internet access. in 1934 the government decided to regulate the telephone industry. it said to the telephone industry, you shall have a monopoly. in return for that, you shall not have competition, but you shall have regulation. later, congress said, you shall no longer have a monopoly, but you will be freed froo regulation since there will be competition. that has resulted in enormous consumer choice. 95% is covered in america with broadband ccess. no company in the industry has 3 our entire industry has only a 43% share internet access market. typically, antitrust standards are when companies reached 70%- 80% share, they are a monopoly. our whole industry has share. microsoft, one company, has over 90% internet share. google has a 7% share of search the most competitive part of the eco system, the place where the consumer has the greatest joys is with regard to internet access. greatest choice is with regard to internet access. what we are suggesting is that there is no problem that requires a kind of pervasive regulation that was aimed at a time when our industry was insulated from competition, because what we have our statistics showing that 91% of consumers are satisfied with their internet access. the consumers have 80% of consumers can choose between six providers, and 90% can choose from among five wireless providers. at this time we think, do not oppose stifling regulations on an area of the economy that ii creating jobs and providing innovation for the united states economy. fcc chairman has says that he only wants to use six of the regulations under title ii. that is all he is proposing to impose on broadband providers. the first of those regulations in 201 section, that says first of those regulations is section 201, which is the most pervasive grant of economic regulatory authority that has ever been granted in the united states, monopoly environment. do you see broadband as a common carrier? know. no. why? because broadband is designed as a competittve business. a broad band offering involves a combination of the transmission components, the address abilitt function, and a variety of other services such as fire walls and protection frommviruses. this is a different animal than the kind of components that were available for voice telephone services. most consumers and small businesses today look to their cable or telephone internet access provider for connection to the internet. once online, we can select forum we can select from a multitude of services. it is true that the cable and telephone companies provide some of theirs of their own, which is another competitive auction, but we cannot get to all of the other application services and content except by using a cable or telephone internet access provider. with the exception of wireless. but even though a lot of american households have dumped their wireline and telephones, nobody has dumped their wireline internet connections in favor of mobile. in fact, in the future that may be the case. the thing about section 201, in fact, many of the smaller rural telephone companies operate under title ii today, even though they also offer broadband. many cellular providers are title ii carriers. back to your question, what ii the big problem? we are not opposed to anyone choosing to operate under whatever regulatory environment they want to. in a competitive market, people should be able to choose their wireless service offering. but what we have here is a lack of any ssstem that requires this kind of government intervention. we have a variety of interest saying that the fcc is pursuing the wrong approach. theemajority of the congress has said nottto do it. the opinion on wall street is not to do this. as the washington post, the chicago tribune and, and the wall street journal, are saying that this is a bad idea. we are driving the kind of gdp growth that the nation needs, and we now have the fcc coming forward with a proposal to create such uncertainty, that it throws a chill over a lot of economic activity. the comcast case ruled that the fcc approach to enforcing policy does not fly from a legal standpoint. we are in a situation now where consumers are without recourse if their internet access provider should slow, block or degrade their service or intrude on their privacy, or charged double what their neighbor pays for the same service, even cuts of their service entirely. they are without any basic rules of the road over provisioning that telecommunications link on a nondiscriminatory basis. internet users have no with title i, and part of tttled ii, so the consumers have some reassurance that they can continue their online activity without regard to the preferencee of their provider. does your association think that broadband services should be priced reeulated? and no, we do not. there are some public service organizations that believe there should be rate regulation as well as wholesale internet requirement like they have in france and the united kingdom. we are an open system with open government, free competition and a little red nd as little regulation as possible, but we believe that title ii of-light would be the best solution. i have described the problem of consumers aving absoluteey no recourses under current law. the internet policy statement is unenforceable, and there is -pnothing else. , the oneof wall street area where the telephone companies have the greatest certainty is that there is no their massive market dominance. now, it is true, they do not have nationwide market shares, carved up. at&t do at&t and a rise and do not challenge each other in their wireline services and at&t and verizon do not challenge each other in their wireline serviceeareas. companies like t mobil and sprint have to rely on networks from their largest competitors for a lot of their transport. mark my words, no third network is going to be built. it has not happened anywhere in+ the world because of economics. i would say that there is no problem at this time there reqqires government intervention. we believe peopll should continue to have the freedom to access and the website, run any application, run any lawful device. there is no complaint today that would bar any of that. the only real complaints relate to google, facebooo, the dominant market shares that those companies enjoy in the market, and under this proposal, there is absolutely no authority being granted to regulate the prrvacy concerns of the consumers have bout those kind3 we hhve been supportiie of congress updating the law, taking a look at this air net ecosystem, making sure that the fcc has the authority to guarantee consumers the freedom that they want to use, but to do it in a way that empowers the consumer. make sure the consumer is safe when he or she loses the internet uses the internet, and that the consumer has the ability to decide what information will be shared with our guest represents the telecom corp. our other guest represents companies such as google, facebook, microsoft. you mentioned congress. do you see a vacuum right now in telecommunications law or regulation, and do you think it is time to update the 1996 telecommunications act, the 1930 s telecommunications act for the current environment? yes, we support an updating of the law. the internet was not really the subject of the 1996 act. that was largely about competition in voice communications. as i said before, to use the internet, you need to have an operating system, a processor, a browser, a search engine. the concerned consumers today have a really relate to their freedoms on the internet, their safety in using the internet, and the protection of their privacy rights with regard to the internet. the fcc does not have authority in those areas. they have not been approaching the internet as an ecosystem. their authority relates commletely to communication by radio or wire. it does not relate to these larger issues that are now involved. communications by wire or radial includes regulation on such things, historically, as customer proprietary network information. those are rules having to do with what information about the customer, a telephone customer s conversations or whatever, could be used by the telephone companies. it issa fallacy to say that only website like google and facebook it is a fallacy to say that those are the only businesses about which consumers are concerned about their privacy. it is the fact that%internet access providers, be they telephone or cable, have access to information about every activity that a consumer pursues on line, whether it is their e-mail or if they re searching or whatever. the fcc does have the jurisdiction over network-level privacy.. there are all kinds of other rules that apply to what privacy rights users have, and how much government has access to that information. in fact, in your brief to the ftc, you said that the commission should require that all two-way communications services must be made available on a stand-alone basis. why do you include that? because the dominant market position that the internet access providers have, which affects individual geographic markets when you re choosing your cable company or your telephone company for your wireless internet access, because of that duopoly market power, it is too likely that a company well bart video moreau video content with their own internet access, and difficult to reach competing access. if your internet access provider is comcast, there is no law preventing them from prioritizing nbc programming and making it difficult for you to access other content. dooyou think there is a vacuum in telecommunications regulation, and should congress a step in at this point? yes, there is a vacuum, caused by the comcast case. and yes, the f c s. c needs to deal with at the fcc needs to deal with that, because consumers and small businesses have no recourse. but congress should update the telecommunications act again. we know from experience that does not happen overnight. it doesn t happen in two years. so, they need to get going, because right now there are no legislative proposals out there that would comprehensively%+ -pupdate the policy. how does a net neutrality play into this scheme? network neutrality is a different animal with different people. in europe, it sometimes has a little bit more to do with whether the monopoly telecom s want to let the government get into the act of regulating content. but our overarching principle and belief, both for the united states and internationallyy is that no government or private company should be a gatekeeper for its citizens or its customers, in terms of their online activity.3 anybody having the ability to be a gatekeeper. i think the solution basically is regulate you, but do not regulate me. we believe, that as the fcc