tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 12, 2015 8:00am-10:01am EDT
i think consent decrees could go away. what we don't want to see happen is we don't want to destabilize our collective agencies, mine being bmi. it's just too important to we could open to find ways to modify it to give us some really -- some relief but it's crucial to what we do now, and the relationship with the p.r.o.s by and large is good. my wife of 23 years as i was running some of these technicalities by her looking for a little bit of wisdom, she says, i don't know what any of that means but i do know this. the only days i serve on my calendar every year are the four days your bmi check is coming. do whatever you've got to do with that. >> thank you. >> senator i agree that consent decrees have been in place for an unusually long time because these are unusual circumstances. and i would settle think anybody at the table would be happier that i would be if we found the
silver bullet i created a competition in the marketplace and made the consent decrees unnecessary. but that is not the world we're living in right now. so especially given that we've seen increasing consolidation among the publishers some of which was justified because we have the consent decrees as a backstop and we have this federal court case where a judge found that the publishers have the opportunity to compete and to coordinate with each other that sunset in the consent decrees at this time would be unnecessary but we should of course always the reevaluating as we go forward. >> thank you all. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think i would like to start with mr. dowdle in this round. mr. dowdle i think as has been mentioned today a distinction characteristic of any free market system is that two parties negotiating have the ability to walk away from the
negotiation if they can't achieve a mutually agreeable outcome. and yet it's been suggested that music services and broadcasters in particular cannot, they literally cannot walk away from license negotiations with the publisher or the pr of because they don't have total control over what music -- p. r. o. -- what music they public to perform. can a broadcaster removed a specific licensure's catalog from its service? is that possible? >> theoretically possible, not practically possible, and here's why. we have very starts the program that we put out over our airwaves. some of that we produce. without the we produce, we identify the music we are able to do that exactly. but for a very large speed then
you can figure who holds a copyright and whether or not -- >> exactly. if we can't come to an agreement we can cut the music out. the music, the program would produce such as our local news local magazine shows, things like that. for a large portion of our programming we don't have the ability to do that. part of the programming just network programming is cleared to do the do. so we have to worry about that. the networks worried about that but all of our syndicated programming, all of our commercials and a lot of the stuff that comes in between, we don't have that editorial control. we couldn't do if we tried. therefore, we are at the mercy literally of these bureaus to everybody that's going to come to us and say, you don't licensure me, i'm coming after you. we have no way to avoid. >> would any of that change if the broadcasters were provided with the contents updated list of songs in the catalog at
issue? would that change? >> it would change in the sense that the producers of syndicated programming or the commercials they don't identify for us whose music they are using. i don't know that it is within the realm of possibility to every single producer that's going to provide music to us and our programming identify music. if you could do that, it is theoretical possible. it is titled not going to happen. >> you basically have had to go to see the future. if you had a that superpower than a lot of other things would be better, too. >> if we were king it would be a different place. >> ms. griffin i believe much of the pressure on the department justice to make changes to the consent decrees may well stem from the threat of the withdrawal from the publishers which would services threaten the current blanket license scheme that we have in place today. if it is truly at risk of
falling apart what, in your view is the best alternative to the consent decree system when it comes to ensuring robust competition in the marketplace for performing rights licenses? >> in terms of alternative structures other than antitrust consent decree we give statutory licenses for certain copyright law. if we can come up with a statutory license that also protects competition and provides transparency, helps us get paid directly, we would support that. but at the time we don't have that for these kinds of uses. so i be concerned about dismantling the protections in these consent decrees and the revenue structure set up. >> do you think it makes sense to have, you know, quasi-repertory system essentially a regulatory system, administered by a handful of doj regulators and a couple of
judges? you know should congress consider legislation setting up some other type of regulatory structure, and if so what with that legislation look like? >> so we do have other structures come as i think was mentioned earlier we have the copyright royalty board for statutory licenses. but in terms of the consent decrees as they are now i would say that the department of justice has very deep antitrust expertise and expertise evaluating how markets are working, which is very important here. and for the federal judges do what they are impartial they understand the law and they through the discovery process are able to obtain all the facts. i was was i don't do that as a bad system but it's not that we can't consider new ones. >> thank you. my time has expired. senator klobuchar. >> thank you. ms. griffin, one of the things we know is that regardless of the consent decree review you're talking about some other things with senator lee not a
possibility if we didn't have the consent decree i think he said that there would be a problem, from a consumer standpoint. but how about private enforcement of the antitrust law? even if doj isn't pursuing private parties can address the issue from the corporate d.c. downside on relying on private enforcement? >> yes, sir needed to my private enforcement would be that the parties bring the cases could likely be much smaller or at least it would make it relatively easy for a very large company, like it and/or or a large broadcaster to bring a suit, although that itself -- the little guy, it would be near impossible for the because of the expense. and also i would say that transparency plays an issue because part of the problem is it's difficult to bring an antitrust lawsuit against him some of if you don't know that they are coordinating. >> very good.
mr. dowdle, do you want to weigh in on that at all? >> frankly i don't know if there's a construct that we can come up with. certainly it's problematic for a small broadcaster like us we are not very big frankly. for us to be left with a private antitrust enforcement against an entity such as ascap and bmi is not very appealing. talk about expense and that's not an expense spread over an industry. that's our expense i just don't think that we could do it not even talk about the little broadcasters that are much smaller that we are. it's not given a practical possibility for them. i just don't think that is a workable solution. >> i just wonder. i wanted to get your views because that's been thrown out. >> of course. thank you, senator. >> do you see any changes you think would work with the concerns that have been raised here? >> i mentioned transfers but i
think that is a huge comp is been mentioned by everyone editing agreed upon by everyone. transparency in the process has been historically a real problem. i know that because i used to license all of the music used in intel commercials before game two bonneville. finding the songwriter and finding director let that controls the rights was a real problem. without better every ability i just don't think it's workable. >> okay. thank you. mr. pincus, to you want to weigh in on this? >> a couple things. first transparency. i greet like all of the other panelists that that's a very important issue but i think the market is solving that issue. there is more data if it were on music publishing copyrights now than there ever has been and is getting better on almost a daily basis. not only at the independent level but also at other levels.
and just quickly to another point about the blanket licensing system. many of the arguments that are being put forth our a very good reason to preserve the blanket licensing system. i agree with mr. dowdle that the television licensing system should operate on a blanket basis. the problem is that it's attached by the court to the digital licensing problem. additional licensing is much easier done on a direct basis than for example, television licensing. that's a good argument for why partial withdrawal of digital rights ought to be allowed to occur. >> well, that's one of the million technical questions that probably is beyond my pay grade. i will say as far as things such as transparency that i think would be relevant to may be part of your question. if i had the hit song 1 million plays on terrestrial radio is kind of a threshold.
they send us a plaque at 1 million plays, okay? if i have one of those every now and then, i'm raising a family and we are doing okay. now we're in a situation where receive these numbers, 50 million 100 million spins and its own? just shaking our heads going, what are you talking about? like we can't even comprehend you know, and understand it's a different medium and we can talk about the internet, we can talk about technology but 1 million plays, we are smiling and taking the kids to movies. 100 million plays is worth a few thousand dollars. now, we get transparency on that, we see those numbers. quite clear. so i think that's what we can't emphasize enough. how is that fair and where is the middle ground? i mean, under those numbers, if you move that ledger around just a little bit, doing what i do is
a very profitable business potentially. but apparently music is more popular than it's ever been and i think everyone will tell you that. >> senator klobuchar, i think it's important as mr. miller talks about 1 million spins on terrestrial radio versus the internet and noted it's a different technology internet delivered as a one-to-one delivery mechanism. it's not a one to many like broadcast. so if you wanted to do a real apples to apples comparison, if you were to take 1 million spins on pandora to reach a million people on for example, lee 100 the largest registration in the city, you would only have to play that song 16 times but if you want to reach that same million person audience in los angeles, you don't need to play that song 21 times but it's important we contextualize what 1 million spins on pandora means relative to spins on a terrestrial radio broadcast. >> thank you.
>> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, senator lee. i have a question for mr. dowdle. in your testimony he talked about i think both the value of the consent decree get a and about the harm that would because if composure than publishers could withdraw from some of the rights without withdrawing all of their rights. you didn't address i don't believe the two changes that ascap and bmi have proposed to the content decrease bundling of additional rights, and arbitration. could you give us your view of those proposals because yes senator blumenthal. thank you. i gave the figure out of the room, i didn't address arbitration. arbitration is a poor is even a second choice, a very poor second choice to the system that we have now for these reasons. with an arbitrator you don't know who you're going to end up
with whether even to know anything about the industry. and what you do know with the rate court that we have is that these courts have deep experience and a lot of history with these consent decrees. they understand the underlying dynamic that is going on. that's first. second, in the federal courts, they have a lot of tools available. mr. harrison talk about this. in discovering information getting the information front of the tribunal, having both sides able to engage in the process freely and openly so that the full panoply of information is in front of the tribunal. as an arbitrator you don't necessarily have that. and i think substituting arbitration for we have now is not really a very good solution, in my opinion. as to other licenses from my standpoint, i mean, i mentioned earlier i'm a member of ascap,
have been for over 20 years owned music companies. and i think there's really something to look out there in allowing these p.r.o.s to administer additional rights. their competitors are certainly doing that. sesac is able to. global rights is able to. ascap and bmi are going to compete going forward we should take a look at that. ..
because they will not have access to millions of copyrights through a blanket license agreement. consumers lose because once the money stops flowing but we are mostly concerned about songwriters because they are simply not going to be capable of licensing 700,000 establishments in the united states and millions of establishments outside of the united states which means they will not get paid and their work will be infringed. >> why do you think -- i think i know the answer but why would eliminating the consent be preferable in a perfect world? >> because i believe the free market works. without regulation we think you get the right results. and as copyright owners, we believe this principle that you
should control your assets whether it is a real property asset or intellectual property asset you should have control of that owner the content takes that away. >> thank you. you made an interesting point about the one-to-one relationship of streamers versus broadcast. in your opinion today mr. miller's concern about being justly compensated in your opinion today when you normalize in that way do you feel like they are just compensated? >> pandora is the highest form of radio that we pay them to satellite radio. i think the best performing song by mr. miller on pandora is country girl which i believe was recorded by tim mcgraw.
last year 2014 pandora would have paid around $7000 to mr. miller, his co- writers and the six publishers listed on that song. candidly they would pay close to 90,002 mr. mcgraw and his record label. i understand the disparity is a motivating factor for mr. miller and ms. matthews to seek to modify the dissent decrees but at the end of the day if pandora is paying 50% of its revenue to the record labels and the solution is to pay 50% of the revenue to the publishers i can't make that up on volume. if there's going to be come if the disparity is going to be sold to custody solved by the copywriters themselves.
>> mr. harrison was talking about this database to increase transparency. in your opinion is that a good idea or a bad idea and what are your concerns or the merits and please run down the line. >> as i stated earlier, they fully support transparency. we most recently made modifications to our own proprietary system that is available -- >> what you have a concern with the concept to mr. harrison has proposed or do you feel like you are already achieving it i am trying to get a sense for this idea. >> my specific concern would be practically how one would require cooperation through the entire sector especially with unregulated actors and competitors. i know that they are willing to
cooperate but i worry that the licensees will never have access to the full picture of the data that is required. >> do you have anything you would like to add in terms of your rationale? >> we know the database exists and that the publishers. it is ingested into the system so that we can understand what songs are controlled by the transparency piece has to go far enough to allow us to understand not just the owner of the song but also the sound recordings that have been made.
>> in terms of the open a and agreed at agree that the market is taking care of that problem. >> the comments not being able to pay 50% in each party that i would also say that i'm not sure that i feel is a small-business owner is my responsibility to subsidize. >> i think it is problematic to get everybody involved. but to control 90%, let's start there. and if you can get the other actors in, that's okay. but let's start with 90% and see where it goes.
>> they can speak to that much better than me on the technicalities. i will clarify the comment is called southern girl, not country girl. that would be $7000 split six ways i have a six to $7,000 but there's that is a number one song in the united states. >> it's how to out to get as much information as possible. there are a lot of details and other factors have been talking about including the copyright office. if you look at the licensors you might be able to download a list of the songs in the catalog.
at some point to this of this was our catalog that we will not promise you that is in it on the day you license which brings up liability concerns for somebody to that tried to enter the market. >> we are approximating the data as practical. one of the majors has all of the information. >> thank you for testifying. >> i don't have any additional questions. thank you. >> we have two different types of royalties paid in some circumstances.
one established under the dissent decrees and another established under the copyright royalty board. of those established under the latter are substantially higher than those that were established under the former. we have a set of royalties they go to those that wrote the song and another set to that go to those that recorded the song. why should there be a substantial difference between the two rates? >> i don't believe pandora is in the best value to -- position to value the recording. i think that it's probably better left to publishers and songwriters and artists and labels. having said that if you go back to the copyright royalty board
proceedings what you have is executives of companies that own the record labels and publishers that should be paid to perform a sound recording should be higher than the rate that was paid to the record labels invest significantly more than bringing the music to market. as i said i am not in a good position to make those relative value judgments. at the end of the day the copyright owners themselves have made those arguments. >> if the department decides to allow the partial withdrawal it will likely impose other requirements including increased transparency changes to board membership into some of these things that have been mentioned earlier in the hearing. in your opinion will additional
safeguards be sufficient to ensure a competitive market and publishers can partially withdraw flex >> without seeing the details of all love not just the suggestions but actually the language that's intended to be used, it's hard to judge prospectively but i remain confident the department isn't going to do things that result in less competition in the market. >> i certainly hope but do you think those things would be sufficient? >> without seeing a full list of what the department would propose and then actually read what language is used to implement them it's tough to have an informed opinion. >> the potential increases in the market it's important to
consider its potential effect on the related markets. >> we believe this event and see the rest on c-span video library. c-span.org. apply y. now for the former texas governor rick. who just entered the room and will be addressing the college of new hampshire institute of politics are part of a trip. he competed for the republican presidential nomination in 2012. this is why on c-span2. >> we left right before another one of the snowstorms.
[inaudible conversations] >> were you in the military? >> yes. >> thank you for your service. it's a beautiful city. it has really grown. they have their own personality. >> they are all fascinating places. they all have their own little personality and i'm sure there are people that could point out some not so good things.
>> thank you for coming. >> you're welcome. >> alan glassman. >> you were going to come out of the harvest and then you had the whole ebola. thank you for the phone call. >> we had to go back and address that. >> ebola came twice when mr. duncan was first diagnosed on that second i think the first time is when i was supposed to come up here and when the first one came then i don't know if it
was two or three weeks later we had been to london to speak to the uniform and there was no organization to get the services institute i think that maybe the correct name. but anyway, we gave a major speech on radical islam and the anti-semitism. then we went over to warsaw. we were going to give a speech at the university that we were in the road to give which i wish we could have been able to
>> it would make some of my naval academy so happy. >> governor from the institute. >> my son sat next to you at the pizza place when he came through the last time and he spoke to you about his biomedical engineering and all that stuff. congratulations. >> what is he doing now? >> he is used in pharmaceuticals and process engineering. >> biomedical. >> each of the coasts have some extraordinary daters, but there are some fascinating -- lee
became this last year in january january 2014 texas became the number one high-tech exporting site so people always thought it is just an oil and gas state and everything and we are proud of the legal and gas industry and it plays an important role. i'm not going to say stagnant but it makes up 14% of the state product and the rest of the state is incredibly diversified manufacturing and high-tech and the texas medical center has more doctors and nurses coming in there every day than any other place in the world. and -- >> i just wanted to say congratulations and we look forward to seeing you more.
>> he said this is my idea. >> not one big issue. we have to get this passed this talking past each other and it's one of the things i'm critical of the president on is that he has really divided this country. he's divided us by gender and race and by economic strata and we have to get over that. i grew up in the house and i had
>> it was better in florida to be honest with you. >> ie have been very fortunate in missing some of the bad weather. i've been here a number of times but i missed a lot of the bad weather. >> tell me again where you grew up. >> i grew up in atlanta georgia. >> the university in montana. >> one of my classmates from texas a a. and m. lived on the hill. his name is tommy hewitt. they've been there about six or eight years now and i don't know what she teaches that she tells
glorifies -- >> at the college thanks for the purpose of introduction i would like to introduce the president of st. anslem. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. we have to get governor perry perry took to come out of his shell. [laughter] we are pleased to cosponsor today. welcome, governor. come in collaboration with our partners at the new england council. st. anslem college and the institute of politics and political library is a premier for him and frequently the first stop for those interested in our story primary and new hampshire 's political process. with the election on the verizon, st. anslem college will once again take a leading role in hosting town hall conversations, nationally broadcast debate and gatherings like this one where new
hampshire citizens, the media and our students can reap the benefits of being first in the nation. you may have met one of our 104 student ambassadors this morning. welcoming you as you walked into the building. our students are the backbone of this institute. i want to thank them for their service here and governor perry had a chance this morning to speak to them and answer some questions. so we think them for all of their hard work helping out in today's event. we also want to thank the council for our continued partnership with the institute of politics so on behalf of our students faculty staff and our community at the college thank you for being with us today. and it is my pleasure to now introduce the president and ceo of the council. [applause]
a particular president [inaudible] if i could give you a quick update on the new england council event and a few people here that are not members of the council as many of you know we've been very busy in the last couple of weeks and a few days from now march 16 we will be back here at the institute.
march 24 we will hear from the ohio governor. >> we have the secretary of labor and the commissioners from different agencies and what have you. we have the three new members of congress from new england just be great. march 27 will be speaking in the new england council and march 31 people have the former governor martin o'malley and we did we go to new england to have a
luncheon and on april 1 and on april 2 we are back here we have former senator greg speaking on the budget and the deficit and then on april 6 is a special program in the 114 congress to speed up an agenda and congressman barney frank and former senator john governor will be speaking. and then finally on april 10 jim mcgovern and they will have the keynote remarks from the fbi director.
we are here to welcome back to the state many of your number now the governor came to new hampshire a few years ago and one of the first stops was the politics and eggs and we always appreciate it. he just stepped down as the longest serving chief executive elected as the lieutenant governor in 1998 and she sold the position of the governor and december when his predecessor george w. bush resigned to become president of the united states. throughout his tenure from our guest speaker, the governor
focused on careful discipline to the state. he is the only texas governor since world war ii to sign a budget that reduced general revenue spending in the education and security. he's also worked to create a business climate that promote economic growth and job creation and committed to keeping taxes very low, regulations predictable. it's hard to implement reforms in the legal system to prevent the burden so many businesses. as a result of this effort, texas hosts a strong economy and one of the lowest unemployment rates in our nation.
the governor decided not to run for another term in the next year and is now considering his next steps including a possible second run for the president of the united states. as he does so we are pleased to see him visit us to share his vision for the future of the country. i believe in 2011 you announced your intentions in south carolina and the only thing i ask here is that we come back to the april may, june, and if you are going to make an announcement, please join me in welcoming a governor perry. [applause]
>> thank you very much. mr. president, it is an honor to be here and in this university again to all of you good morning. i have found that on my numerous visits you appreciate as well as any place in this country and you want to hear some very plain talk about the challenges that we have in this country. and that is the spirit by which i come today to share with you this vision of mine and on three points i want to be very clear first or country entered a
time of testing in and the political leadership and its failing that test. the american people see a president who is in denial about the threats that we face making grave miscalculations that make the world less safe. isis fills the void of a failed policy in iraq and syria. in the american tanks with american weapons isis began taking cities that just a few years ago had been free by the blood of american soldiers and these highly orchestrated videos we are seeing broadcast to the
world beheading, we're seeing a young jordanian pilot burned alive. these people have filled mass graves with muslims and christians alike. the terrorist women -- terrorize women over an area as large as the united kingdom in that part of the world. let's be clear about who isis is and who they represent. they are a government that seeks to take the world back to the seventh century. the aim is apocalyptic to cleanse the world not just of christians and jews of muslims who do but of muslims who do not agree with their extreme ideology. and it is their stated bow to
kill as many americans as they can. and it's time that the american people heard the truth. the president declared in the state of the union address that they had been stopped. it is simply not true. he says isis is not a religious movement. again he's simply wrong. to deny the fundamental religious nature of the threat and downplay the seriousness is naïve dangerous and misguided. if the leaders of egypt and jordan, if they recognize we are at war with radical islam is a time our president admitted the same. the fact is we didn't start this war, we didn't choose it but we need to have the will to finish.
with the state another obvious facts about the middle east. it is not in the interest of peace and security in the free world that iran would be allowed nuclear weapon. wed to develop a nuclear weapon. here's another country where our president has naïvely miss calculated the intentions of a brutal regime. i believe it is fundamentally dangerous to prevent the ambitions diplomatic cover. they should be governed by the non- negotiable principles. number one iran should not be allowed to become in possession of a nuclear weapon, period. and second, israel should be allowed to develop or they
should have the right to exist the jewish state. watching all of this unfold in front of us is the president of russia. he's been watching as our president drew a red wine in serious that was crossed without consequence and when he canceled plans to deploy the missile systems in poland and the czech republic and it was against this backdrop of weakness and empty words. it was in those conditions that allowed him to negotiate a
one-sided cease-fire with no real consequences. it was a sight to see the leaders rushed to sign a second cease-fire. here is the simple truth. our ally and enemy's adversaries are all too willing to testify the week contest and we offer agreements from the position of weakness rather than of strength. my point is this. they've been in many areas in the region including saudi arabia.
for 15 years, we have tried a steady diet of military solutions to solve ancient religious differences in the middle east. and i think the impact. i've seen the impact of the policies on the warriors and families. as my time as governor from over three code 2010 there was hardly a week that went by that i didn't write a letter that i didn't go to hospitals expressing my appreciation might regret for the loss of a
life, the sacrifices our heroes have made and that their loved ones have to deal with. the war must always be the last resort. after all other options are exhausted. it is the strength and resolve of the face of the threats that we face that guarantees peace for the children and future generations. it's weakness and wishful thinking regarding the dictators and to tell us. and adversaries that in danger the peace of the world and that drive global chaos.
for the world to be safer i believe with all my heart america must be stronger and in the same thought process if you will a long that same line for america to be stronger the border must be secure. drug cartels and transnational games for smuggling drugs and weapons and people across the border today they are a clear and present danger to the health and safety of america. they have the comprehensive immigration reform and must begin with comprehensive border security. and that is exactly why.
last summer when i met with president obama and we discussed this issue of border security i told him if he would end his tour. could -- if he wasn't secure the border, then he would. here is the second point i want to be clear about. the american people know that the united states economy can be vibrant again. ..
one in 10 american workers are unemployed, underemployed, or just given up hope of trying to find a job at all. one in five children live in families that are on food stamps. and when you look them in the face and ask them come is that the best that america can do? the president may be satisfied with 2% economic growth. i'm not. for the first time in american history a generation of leaders are on the verge of breaking the social compact if you will come with next generation. that is, that we leave a better country for them than what we found for ourselves. fewer of us believe in the american dream now than in the last 20 years. for middle-class americans, opportunity and security have been replaced by worry and anxiety. out of pocket health costs
thousands, college tuition to all of them have gone up faster than wages. student at is at all-time high. and this has to change. it's time to restore hope and opportunity to middle-class americans. we can start with our tax code. we've got the highest corporate tax rates in the western world. and that isn't just for company -- doesn't just hurt companies. it also hurts the american worker. economist will tell you that if you cut the corporate tax rate by just 10% it will lift wages for the the middle-class workers by between five and 10%. that's what we need to be focused on helping raise those workers' wages. we need more than just corporate
tax reform to help the workers. we also need to simplify the tax code so that you reduce the tax burden on all individuals. we also need to tackle the inequities that are caused i this dodd-frank regulation. -- caused by. dodd-frank didn't eliminate too big to fail. as a matter-of-fact it codified it. it gives preferential treatment to these large institutions on wall street were restricting access to funds for main street. you see the cost of legal compliance is now overwhelming our community banks. and those who do come from small communities know that those community banks may be the only institution, particularly and our rural areas to fund will economic development. they happen to provide half of
all the small business loans in this country. and this contributes to the perception thatcome and i would argue, the reality that the big institutions and big government can take care of their own while main street you kind of get the crumbs. we need to stop this excessive regulation that comes out of washington that kills jobs. they harm small businesses. they cost every american family these regulations almost $18,000 every year. that's the cost of this overregulation. we need to repeal every perverse incentive that keeps people from looking to work. one of the many flaws of obamacare is that it causes employers to move people from full-time work two part-time work just to avoid this massive new insurance cost.
and that needs to be repealed. the next president should look at all of the regulations all the regulations out there that harm full-time jobs harm full-time work, and that needs to be that needs to be a straight up work of the next president of the united states. our nation we've got an $18 trillion debt. every department every agency needs to be required to look at every time they spend and justify that. you know liberals in washington, they have spent 30 years criticizing reaganomics while at the same time delivering trickle-down liberalism. their view is clear. if you give more power and federal -- -- take care of their pet causes and you leave an ever
shrinking pie for the middle-class americans. their answer to jobs is spent close to $1 trillion in stimulus, washed the money through this huge bureaucracy and hope that somewhere along the way that a few jobs get created. it's no wonder that washington is now the richest metropolitan area in america. not because they create wealth, but because they redistribute it. but redistribution is not a strategy for wealth creation. own economic growth is and that only happens i will suggest to you in the private sector. and let me tell you where the economic revival is a dream. one of the place of its occurring in an extraordinary way, and that's in my home state. and instead of expanding the welfare state we built the
freedom state. our formula was simple. you control taxes and spending. you provide smart regulations. you develop an educated workforce, and to stop lawsuit abuse at the courthouse. that's it those four simple principles. they will work anywhere. in my 14 years as governor, we helped create nearly one-third of all the new private sector jobs created in the united states. in the last seven years, from 2007-2014, we created 1.4 million jobs in that state. minus those jobs from the total jobs created in america that number would be 250 those in jobs in the red.
--250000. >> under my leadership at 14 years of balanced budget. never skipped a debt payment, never raise taxes. in fact, i signed the largest tax cut in texas history. for more than a decade we have led the nation in international exports, and just last january of 2014, texas became the number one high-tech exporting state in the nation by passing california. in 2013 we had the second highest high school graduation rates in america. we had a 118% increase in hispanic participation in our higher education. i might add on that second highest high school graduation rate. that is in the state that's got
this very large population of english as a second language. a really challenging group of people to teach, but they are getting the job done. i happen to think it's time to bring that type of economic revival to every state in the nation with policies that limit government instead of expanding it. now, here's the third point. i have never been more certain than him today that the best years are ahead of us in this country. i am optimistic about the future because i know that weakness and incompetence of our government should not be confused with the strength and ingenuity and the idealism of the american people. our experiment in the republican form of government is to durable to be sidetracked by one confused administration. we have, we have survived worse.
we survived the civil war. we survived two world wars. we survived the great depression. we even survived jimmy carter. and we will survive the obama years as well. there is nothing wrong, there is nothing wrong with america that cannot be fixed with a change of leadership. i see an america where middle-class workers can find a job, or wages are on the way up where freedom is on the march and america where opportunity is the birthright of all. it is not just dispense but if you out of washington, d.c. to a select few of their cronies. an america that leads the world that stands with our allies again, we're our citizens can dream began and america worthy of our founding fathers ideals and our children's dreams. thank you. god bless you. [applause]
>> governor -- >> what he said was that i have agreed to do a couple of questions, just introduce yourselves. i'm sorry. >> i paid for this mic governor. [laughter] >> question ?-que?-que x maybe i can ask the first question. the young lady -- >> okay, sorry. thank you for allowing me to ask my question. i am from new hampshire and they teach at a committee co-chair. my question to you governor is what would you do to change how campaigns are financed? and please address how money
corrupts and controls our lyrical system, what you can do to change that. >> yeah, i come from a state that has no limits on campaign contributions, and we are all about disclosure. and i'm a big fan of disclosure. i happen to think that you disclose where you get the dollars. you do it almost immediately. and the world we live in today with the technology that is available, you can require that were those dollars come from who those individuals are, and i think the mayor can people are smart enough to know whether or not they think that is too much for whether that would corrupt the process by i do think that limiting of dollars is not the issue. i think the transparency of where the dollars come from is the real issue and we need to be substantially involved with making a be a more transparent
process. >> thank you so much for being with us, governor. great presentation. thank you for your time. i am bob volunteer with aarp new hampshire after 226,000 members, i have had to get that plug in. my question is it's about medicare. we recently took a survey aarp took a survey and it was a survey of those residents of new hampshire. not an essential to members but just residents of new hampshire 50 years of age and older. at a point i made was there concerned about health care and the insurance that goes hopes to save us from heavy bills but in particular the medicare. will it be there for them as it was, therefore us, will it be there for the next generation? icu hold the novel. i bet i know where it is going.
>> that is my medicare registration. and i spent an inordinate amount of time on the telephone and got a really nice capable lady helping me as i worked my way through this. obviously the challenge that we have in this country is that these entitlement programs in the out years are not sustainable. and that we all need to be honest about that. and not honest about it for me or for you, that honest about the next generation that is going, that is paying into these programs that expect for them to be there and for them to have that safety net in place as they mature and become senior citizens, and we need to be honest about how we'd we going to deal with that and come up with the solutions, whether it's adding some years to when you get that. and i think most thoughtful
people would say that's one of the alternatives that is out there. but should we think about this $18 trillion of debt that we have, doesn't take into account these numbers. and i think for us and for the next president of the united states and the next congress, not to legitimately touch that and find a solution for that is going to be unacceptable. i think we have to get commitments from all the candidates who are wanting to be, or i should say all the individuals were wanting to be candidates, and our members of congress to work together to find the solutions to these programs. >> don't raise your hands all at once. >> that wasn't a setup, was it?
i just happened to have this in my pocket, seriously. [inaudible] [laughter] >> what he gave me was an aarp membership registration. [laughter] >> governor, you talk about the next president, something do with entitlement reform financial services. how realistic would it be if you were president that you could work with a congress -- >> i think americans are so sick of the gridlock in washington d.c. people talking past each other, not getting anything done. walking on the floor of the united states senate or the u.s. house and then walking away and taking your toys and leaving. and that's not acceptable. one of the reasons that i do think that our nominee, i think
and i'm obviously biased about this but i think the executive experience of having to get things done governors don't have the luxury of just having a conversation, giving the speech and walking away. there was not one big thing that occurred in the state of texas not toward reform, not education reform not those major budget issues that we have to deal with that was done with just republicans. there were democratic chairs, there were democratic leaders that we had to work with. and i think that the next president of the united states and i am critical of the president and the divisiveness that we have seen hitting individual against individual gender against gender paving economic groups against economic groups, and we need to be working to bring this country
together to reach across the aisle, find those places. we pass some of the most sweeping prison reforms, judicial reforms in america in the state of texas. it was a democrats idea. we created drug courts in 2001. texas is not known as being soft on crime. of what we're doing is we're putting kids in jail for long period of time because of nonviolent drug-related events. they broke the law. they did something bad, but don't ruin their lives forever. don't throw them in prison where they learn to become really first rate criminals. give them some options. get those judges some options. and that's what we did. in the early part of the 21st century, we put those into place, given those judges a flexible tube able to give shock probation, to the treatment rather than send them to prison.
you want me to tell you what the result was? the result is that we shut down three prisons in the state of texas. we saved $2 billion. that's real conservatism in my book. and that's open to to be looking at in washington, d.c., to find those serious places. maybe it's medicare reform. maybe it's our other entitlement reform but we sit down and find like-minded democrats that no we've got to deal with this. we used to do that. we saw tip o'neill working with ronald reagan. i'm looking for the next ronald reagan and tip o'neill to come forward and find the solutions that challenge us in this country. and they're out there. you've just got to have the will. and we can do it. i am abundantly optimistic. i shared with you the best days of this country are in front of us. economically, foreign policy
wise, and it will require men and women who put aside some of their differences and find the things that they care about that they can work together on and deliver that for the american people. [inaudible] >> i appreciate what you're saying relative to bipartisanship and working. yesterday, over the weekend i letter was sent by republican colleagues that was highly criticized by senator kerrey or secretary kerry when he testified yesterday. my question is kind of hypothetically and to the point you just made relative to the spirit of doing business in these these days. if you are a u.s. vendor would you have signed on to that letter that many republican senators signed on to? and if not what would a better
approach, kind of in the spirit of tip o'neill and ronald reagan have been to try to get the republican sends message across to the president of the united states? >> i'm not a united states senator, but i signed that letter because i happen to believe that there are some things that are too important not to frankly find compromise on. allowing iran to get its hands on a nuclear weapon is nonnegotiable, in my opinion. i think the president is making an error. now, i think that's a really bad example of finding a place we can work together because there are places out there and things that are so important that we cannot compromise our principles. and allowing this country still if not the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world, when you see iran funding hezbollah to the north of israel and hamas to the south both
sunnis and shiites you know, i mean, they are kind of equal equal opportunity finder where they will find the sunnis and shiites to wipe issue off the face of the earth. i'm sorry but i cannot accept that as a place where i'm going to compromise. now, you work with fqhc and i know we are shifting tears here but the point is that's where we can find places to work together because we have expanded those health care delivery systems and other private sector and i private sector public sector ways to deliver health care. and getting that type of compromise, that type of negotiation, i will sit at the table and work with people from now on. because those are places where democrats and republicans, where liberals and conservatives can
indeed agree. i think it makes sense to quit building prisons. i think that's where liberals and conservatives can agree that those are some good things to work together on. and we can find those and we can find ways to prioritize our spending in this country. but to use what's going on in iran, and i just happen to think those senators, and senator cotton in particular, he basically could've just clipped out the united states constitution and sent it to iran because that's basically what he was telling him. he said, you know, basically there's a number of ways we do business and we negotiate. we do treaties which require the united states center, two-thirds of them to sign that. we do another level which
requires the house and the senate and we do just an agreement, which is what this is. this is just an agreement between the president of united states and the ayatollah. and that's what this letter sent. nothing more nothing less. here's how the united states works. i support that, but more importantly i support the clear message that the united states as a body and certainly the next president of the united states is not going to be held accountable by this president signing an agreement that they don't think is in the united states best interest, and it's certain not in israel's best interest. [inaudible] >> i know your philosophy is on education, k-12 and higher education, how you would see it to the future of our nation. >> i'm pretty simple about the
k-12 as a potential candidate for the united states. that needs to be left to the states. i don't think there's much of a role at all for the federal government. i think your governor, your legislature working with your school administrators, your teachers and your parents substantially better place or a curriculum to be developed that a one size fits all out of washington, d.c. you know if the department of education needs to be a repository of good practices, that might be a good final state for it. by they don't think that washington needs to be this one size fits all this place where health care for transportation infrastructure, for education reform needs to come from. louis brandeis, was not exactly a well-known conservative former member of the united
states supreme court said that the states were laboratories of democracy. that the states needed to experiment and try different ideas out there. from time to time they will file a. i will suggest to you from my perspective, colorado is making an error in legalizing marijuana. i think that bad, but it's exactly what louis brandeis said. i don't agree with it, but i respect their right to find out that they're making a mistake. and the same is true about education policy. i just think that people closer to the schools closer to state closer to understanding what the people of new hampshire are all about, you will come up with the best curriculum. you will find the ways to educate your children substantially better than this one size fits all that all too often comes out of washington, d.c.
>> we just hope you all will come back. >> i will be back. i will be back. [applause] >> i will be back. take care of yourself. have some water there. i will be back. >> we look forward to seeing you again, for sure. good message. and you know what? your personality will put extra and will in the state. it really well spent yes, sir. i want to come back and spend time with the kids some day. i find for my perspective it's one of -- let me find -- is that lindsay? and rob portman. i'm going to go there by lindsay. lindsay is my buddy. i am a big lindsey graham than. i think it's probably one of the
-- i think one of the most knowledgeable people that we have on foreign policy, and we need to listen to him. he is a very very bright united states senator who has come to become he has carved out his niche and his foreign policy. [inaudible] he came up to me and said lindsey graham has run every one of these issues. >> i would agree. i think lindsey, i talked to him the night before last and just you know, picking his brain a little bit about what's going on, and ukraine in particular. putin is a dangerous guy. and this strategy of kind of strategic patience with them, i don't think is wise. because the theory is that well with oil prices being in the tank and he's got all of
these economic problems, he's not going to be able we will just outlast him and he will collapse, you've got to remember the '90s and how bad it got in russia, and it's come as a matter fact -- no, no no it's not. it's not anywhere near as bad now. is got $386 billion of reserves. all of this oil and gas money, he put aside. some people think about what was going on in the '90s and it's actually a lot better now, and so trying to weighted -- trying to wait him out is not good strategy. i think you have to fund the legal weapons to the ukrainians military. you take the swiss banking ability away from him. him. >> listening in on some the conversation of former governor rick perry, potential 2016 presidential candidate. he is at saint anselm's college, politics and eggs rights as. this will repair tonight.
that will were false and lindsey graham who was at the same event, same group on monday and we will show that at 8:00 eastern. this conversation continues as this live coverage continues. you can follow it online at c-span.org. on c-span2 we will break away. the senate is coming and. they will start their session with work continuing on a bill that would fine and then was persons convicted of human trafficking. live coverage here on c-span2. the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, most high thank you for being light in our darkness, food for our hunger, peace for our pressures joy for our
sorrow forgiveness for our failures strength for our weakness, guidance for our confusion and health for our sickness. may our senators labor today with the knowledge that you are everything they need. when they feel uncertain about the next step to take, supply their needs from your bountiful riches. lord keep them from stumbling or slipping, as they strive to live lives that will honor you. may they ever do justly, love
mercy, and walk humbly with you. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the justice for victims of trafficking act is one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation you could possibly imagine. ever since this bipartisan human rights bill was introduced by a democrat and a republican in january and made publicly available for any person to read, members of both parties have sung its praises repeatedly. this bipartisan bill has gained the support of 13 democratic cosponsors. recently democrats voted unanimously to approve it in committee. this week democrats consented unanimously to advance it on the floor. even the democratic leader himself said he, underscored appreciated and agreed with my call to pass this bipartisan bill overwhelmingly. i doubt there will be problems on my side, he said. if there are, we will work to clear them. that was monday.
by tuesday democrats seemed to be threatening to filibuster human rights legislation for abused and neglected victims and children. so let me repeat that. democrats are now threatening to filibuster human rights legislation for abused and neglected victims and children. so why? democrats now say they don't like language that has been in the bill since it was introduced months ago and does nothing more than reaffirm the bipartisan law of the land. that's all that language does. and this bipartisan provision was on page 4 of this modest-sized bill so democrats obviously knew it was there to begin with. democrats obviously wouldn't have cosponsored the bill or voted for it in committee or called for its passage on the floor if they hadn't read the bill first. these democrats surely don't want to see more quotes like this one from an official with the coalition against
trafficking in women. here's what she said: senate democrats are choosing a phantom problem -- a phantom problem -- over real victims. so if these democrats keep their word to the victims of human trafficking, then a partisan filibuster attempt will fail overwhelmingly. if these democrats keep their word to the vulnerable and the oppressed, then this bill will pass -- this senate will pass a bipartisan human rights bill. but if these democrats truly are having second thoughts about supporting such important human rights legislation they're free to offer an amendment. but let's not filibuster bipartisan help for vulnerable victims just to make a point for left-wing special interest groups. our democratic friends have to resist the sirens song of their pollsters to tell them that the path to vict lies to -- victory lies in turning bipartisan bills
into fights over cultural issues. americans are looking for statesmen on the democratic side to stand up, stand up and help us emancipate victims of modern slavery, not score another empty political point. so i'm calling on these democrats to help us do that. help is almost there for the vulnerable victims of these awful, awful crimes. surely no left-wing special interest group is more important than fighting modern-day slavery. so the democratic cosponsors and declared supporters of this bill need to keep working with us in a bipartisan way to ensure that help comes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mcclatchyness --
mcclatchy news has a story that i think is worth talking about. editorial pages around the country have not been kind to senate republicans this week. the collective is a reaction to an open letter that republicans penned to the iranian leadership which seemed designed to undercut its talks with the iranian leadership. here's what they said. senators who signed this letter should be ashamed said the pittsburgh post gazette. some of sounded embarrassed. another quote: cringe-worthy buffoonry. others seem worried about capitol hill's continued dysfunction. quote, has congress gone crazy wondered one. senator mark kirk of illinois has not been one of the crazies in congress particularly on foreign policy matters but he
joined them here. noting their signature endorsing letter the concord monitor that's in new hampshire, -- quote -- "it's not every day that a united states senator attempts to undermine u.s. foreign policy and weaken the nation in one cursive sweep. in phoenix arizona the editorial board concluded republican senators are -- quote -- "effectively declaring a congressional right to conduct subversive foreign policy proxy wars with the president with the threats to blow up agreements negotiated as weapons of choice ." mr. president, on another subject, in the last congress legislation to combat human trafficking was a bipartisan matter. senators klobuchar leahy have long been leaders on this issue. but this year, and we can talk about how it got in the bill, many believe it was a sleight of hand but it's in the bill.
there is an abortion provision in this bill that's now before this body. for well more than 25 years i've had the pleasure of serving with henry hyde in the house of representatives who was famous for a number of reasons but one is he has penned the hyde language which deals with abortion. in all these 25-plus years that matter has been put over a year at a time. now we've never chosen to make that permanent law. this year republicans have sought to inject in this legislation one of the most controversial issues, a woman's right to choose. don't take my word for it. yesterday senator john cornyn said -- quote -- "this bill is being hijacked and being used in debate for something it doesn't have much to do about and that is the subject of abortion."
orrin hatch said -- quote -- "i can't believe the senate has become so political that we would raise that issue at this time on this bill." the solution is so simple. take the abortion language out of the bill. the bill dealing with human trafficking is going to pass. if we don't do it now we'll do it. it's something that is imperative that we get done. but it should not be dealt with in relation to abortion. take the abortion language out of the bill. republican senators have a choice to legislate or hijack the debate. they want to get something done; they just need to take abortion politics out of this bill. they want to leave abortion politics in the bill, the republicans will only continue this session's record of dysfunction. now, mr. president, this is the second day that my friend, the republican leader, has come to the floor and quoted something i said a few days ago. every word that he quotes is perfect. that's what i said. but here's the context in which i said it.
i'm an expert on motions to proceed. during the last six years i've had to file cloture as a leader here hundreds and hundreds of times. in the last congress more than 200 times. virtually all of the cloture petitions were filed because republicans wouldn't let us get on a bill. they simply wouldn't let us get on a bill. every bill. even bills they favored we'd have to spend a couple of days getting it ripe for a vote on cloture. once that was done, then we had to wait 30 hours. what i said the other day is true. human trafficking is something that needs to get done. and we democrats are not going to ask you, republican leadership to file abortion. get on the bill, and we're on the bill. and we can finish this bill in 20 minutes. the only thing that needs to be done is the language relating to
abortion should come out of this bill. abortion and human trafficking have nothing to do with each other. so my friend, the republican leader can come here and quote me any time he wants and i know he will quote my correctly. but it should be put in the proper context and that context, mr. president, is this, we have proven during the first few months of this congress that on issues that we believe should be debated, we will allow -- we will allow the senate to get on the bill. we are not going to be stalling as has been done for the last six years why you have the -- last six years just to kill time. we're on human trafficking because it is something that needs to be completed finished. and one way at this stage it is going to happen is the abortion language should go out of the bill. mr. president, would you announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak
therein for up to ten minutes each and with the time equally divided with the majority controlling the first half. mr. reid: mr. president it's my opinion understanding there are votes scheduled at 2:00 today. is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: in that we the democrats have the first block of time; is that right? the presiding officer: no. the majority does control the first half. mr. reid: okay. then i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president i rise today to speak about my amendment to the justice for victims of trafficking bill that would make a miner but nevertheless very important
update to current telecommunications law to provide law enforcement with access to information that should and could help locate individuals in life-or-death situations. my amendment eye dent identical to stand-alone legislation that i've introduced -- that i will introduce again is aptly named after the young kansan whose life was cut short by a senseless act of violence and who case is the inspiration for why we need to desperately need to update this law. eight years ago on june 2 2007, 18-year-old kansan kelsey smith a lovely girl, was abducted in broad daylight from an overland park kansas parking lot.
kelsey's abduction was captured on the store's closed-circuit security camera, there are leaving little doubt of the emergency nature of the situation. here is the tragedy: four days after kell did kelsey disappeared, authorities were finally able to locate her provider after her wireless provider released the ping location from their cell phone. four days. four days. providing this information as fast as possible is absolutely critical to ensure law enforcement officials can rescue victims in immediate danger of death or serious physical harm and hopefully prevent future cases similar to kelsey's. this amendment is a culmination of years of work between legislators at both the state and federal level privacy
advocates and most importantly kelsey's brave parents who spearheaded this initiative and have advocated to create commonsense reforms that properly balance the needs of law enforcement with the fourth amendment protection of all citizens. through their advocacy and tireless efforts missy and gregg smith have helped enact laws in 17 states, including my home state of kansas, to provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to rescue individuals in emergency situations where the threat of death or serious bodily injury is eminent and the impact of this law at the state level has been real and measurable. for example in may of 2012, one month after the enactment of the state's version of the kelsey smith act local authorities in tennessee were successful in saving the life of a child who
had been abducted by a suspected child rapist. because the child was believed to be in eminent danger, police were able to successfully receive the location of the suspect's cell phone in a window of time that led to the safe recovery of the child alive and before she was assaulted. now, according to the national center for missing and exploited children the first three hours are critical to recovering a child alive. this is why it is necessary that in these few isolated instances where a person's very life is at stake, an exemption should be made to release the whereabouts of that individual. understanding this, my amendment would provide law enforcement with the ability to recover the location of children and other missing individuals in only very specific emergency situations;
namely when there is risk of death or serious bodily injury. but in order to obtain the location, law enforcement must first provide a sworn written statement to the telecommunications providers stating the facts that support probable cause to believe that disclosure of the location is required to prevent death or serious bodily injury. furthermore 48 hours after the location is disclosed to law enforcement, they must request a court order stating whether such agency had probable cause to believe the facts surrounding the reserve could you or warranty were warranted. the privacy of every person is warranted. i believe my amendment strikes
the appropriate balance between the ability for law enforcement to help individuals in grave danger while also ensuring the proper checks are in place to guard against any overreach by the government. kelsey was never given the opportunity to attend college or get married or have children and experience the american dream that many of us take for granted every day. but what she did do was inspire her mother and father to make it their mission in life to help educate and empower communities and children to help prevent another case like this from happening again. kelsey's father gregg a former law enforcement officer himself and a kansas state senator representing parts of johnson county said it best when he quoted abraham lincoln to describe what kelsey had accomplished. "in the end it's not the years
in your life that counts; it's the life in your years." mr. president, i thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on the floor today and i would have liked to have offered my commonsense amendment that would help prevent tragedies like kelsey's. so i ask every colleague in this body to consider one question: if it was your child your grandchild your spouse, would you not want law enforcement to have immediate access to this information? mr. president, let's honor kelsey's memory by passing this legislation whether stand-alone or in amendment form. i had every intention to ask for a vote on my amendment. i believe i would have had my colleagues' support on both sides of the aisle. this legislation is long overdue and so is the trafficking bill.
mr. president, at this time, we are grateful for those who use their abilities and skills in ways that promote justice and good will in our land and who give leadership and authority to promoting the good of every citizen. that's not happening with this bill. that's not happening at this time. we find objections from the minority over a provision that has been in law for 36 years. this is delay -- delay again for kelsey kelsey smith and amendments like line that i think have bipartisan support. in this regard, i am frustrated, and i think it's shameful. i yield the floor. it would appear to the senator from kansas that there is not a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.