<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:95268.wais]
U.S. PREPARATION FOR THE WORLD RADIO CONFERENCES: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 17, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-180
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-268 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------ ------
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Grace Washbourne, Professional Staff Member
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
DAN BURTON, Indiana DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio TOM LANTOS, California
RON LEWIS, Kentucky BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland
------ ------ JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
------ ------
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Clerk
Andrew Su, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 17, 2004................................... 1
Statement of:
Bryant, John, former Congressman and U.S. Ambassador to 1997
World Radio Conference; Gail Schoettler, U.S. Ambassador to
2000 World Radio Conference; and Janice Obuchowski, U.S.
Ambassador to 2003 World Radio Conference.................. 96
Shane, Jeffrey N., Under Secretary for Transportation Policy,
U.S. Department of Transportation; William Readdy,
Associate Administrator for Space Flight, National
Aeronautic and Space Administration; Michael Gallagher,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; Kathleen
Abernathy, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission;
Ambassador David Gross, U.S. Coordinator, International
Communications and Information Policy, U.S. Department of
State; and Lin Wells, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense, Networks and Information Integration, U.S.
Department of State........................................ 6
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Abernathy, Kathleen, Commissioner, Federal Communications
Commission, prepared statement of.......................... 39
Bryant, John, former Congressman and U.S. Ambassador to 1997
World Radio Conference, prepared statement of.............. 99
Gallagher, Michael, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, prepared statement of............................ 27
Gross, Ambassador David, U.S. Coordinator, International
Communications and Information Policy, U.S. Department of
State, prepared statement of............................... 51
Obuchowski, Janice, U.S. Ambassador to 2003 World Radio
Conference, prepared statement of.......................... 108
Readdy, William, Associate Administrator for Space Flight,
National Aeronautic and Space Administration, prepared
statement of............................................... 19
Schoettler, Gail, U.S. Ambassador to 2000 World Radio
Conference, prepared statement of.......................... 104
Shane, Jeffrey N., Under Secretary for Transportation Policy,
U.S. Department of Transportation, prepared statement of... 8
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 3
Wells, Lin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Networks and Information Integration, U.S. Department of
State, prepared statement of............................... 68
U.S. PREPARATION FOR THE WORLD RADIO CONFERENCES: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats
and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Turner
(vice-chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shays, Platts, Duncan,
Ruppersberger, and Watson.
Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and
counsel; R. Nicholas Palarino, senior policy advisor; Thomas
Costa, professional staff member; Robert Briggs, clerk; Grace
Washbourne, professional staff member, full committee; Jean
Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Andrew Su, minority
professional staff member.
Mr. Turner. Good morning. Our hearing this morning,
entitled, ``U.S. Preparation for the World Radio Conferences:
Too Little, Too late,'' is called to order.
Last June, a White House memo to all executive branch
departments and agencies concluded the existing legal and
policy framework for spectrum management has not kept pace with
the dramatic changes in technology and spectrum use.
Today we will discuss one element of that dated policy
apparatus--the internal preparations and external consultations
used by the Department of State and other Federal departments
to prepare for World Radio Conferences, the international
meetings where critical decisions are made that shape worldwide
communication policies and markets.
Spectrum is global. Spectrum is finite. Immutable laws of
physics govern the electromagnetic waves that connect the
world's governments, businesses, and citizens in new ways every
day.
Any nation that cannot articulate clear positions, protect
its vital interests, and work to forge multilateral consensus
on spectrum issues puts its national security and economic
vitality at risk. Unilateralism is not an option. An analog
America would not be safe or prosperous in a digital world.
The World Radio Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, last
year challenged the United States to formulate timely,
technically complex, and politically sensitive positions on a
large number of agenda items. Many Federal agencies, including
the Department of Defense, NASA, and the FAA depend on
exclusive, long-term access to coveted frequencies to
accomplish their missions. They have had substantial equities
at risk in the WRC outcome. A vibrant and growing commercial
sector was eager to capitalize on rapidly expanding markets for
digital telephones, wireless Internet services, substance abuse
transmissions, GPS-based products, and more. Competition and
conflicts among and between governmental and commercial users
seeking to keep or gain access to prime, technically superior
spectrum bands had to be resolved before the U.S. could present
a unified negotiating position to the world.
As we will hear, the process used to involve public and
private stakeholders, resolve inter-agency disputes, vet
proposed positions, solicit international support, and counter
opposing regional coalitions yielded substantial success in
Geneva. Important lessons were learned about the quality and
quantity of preparatory consultations, delegation training, and
international outreach. But WRC 2003 also confirmed some
longstanding institutional weaknesses in U.S. spectrum policy
management.
The United States has no over-arching spectrum strategy to
guide near- and long-term policy on use of this precious finite
resource. Separate responsibility for commercial spectrum
allocation decisions at the Federal Communication Commission
and Federal spectrum policies at the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration make
conflicts between public and private users almost inevitable
and more difficult to resolve. No head of the U.S. delegation
is appointed more than 6 months before the next WRC convenes,
long after other nations have been conducting important
discussions at that level.
The next World Radio Conference is scheduled to convene in
2007. Today we ask our witnesses: will we be ready? Will the
final report of the White House Spectrum Policy Initiative
address management weaknesses that can hobble WRC preparations
and prospects? Will the procedures, policies, resources, and
people we assemble effectively represent the vital interests of
the United States at that crucial international forum?
Our two panels of witnesses bring impressive expertise and
hard-won experience to this discussion, and we are grateful for
their time and talent, and we welcome you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.002
Mr. Turner. I'd like to welcome Mr. Ruppersberger, who has
an opening statement for us.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
calling this hearing on spectrum allocation and the upcoming
World Radio Conference. It is important for us as the
policymakers to understand what role spectrum plays in our
country and the world, and the implications of not having a
unified or negotiated voice when we address spectrum allocation
in an international forum.
The need for appropriate spectrum allocation is vital to
our country. Spectrum is essential for communication, for
Homeland Security, and for commerce. Commercial entities rely
on their spectrum allocation to determine how best to utilize
their spectrum to offer a wide variety of service. Last, law
enforcement relies on spectrum to be able to instruct officers
that they are on the scene of an accident, and it is vital so
that our troops can be commanded and directed appropriately in
battle. But what is the larger question and what is at stake is
American leadership in future telecommunications directions.
Our current process of preparing for the WRC is a multi-
step process that allows all the interested and vested parties
some say in what direction we should move as a country. The FCC
handles commercial, NTIA handles government, and a smaller
working group with the FCC and NTIA and the State Department
meets. Not only do they have very commercial interests, but you
throw in the needs of all of the different agencies and
departments of the Federal Government. With all these competing
interests, do we as a country lose out as a whole? I look
forward to understanding more about the process and how we can
ensure America stays as the telecommunications leader.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.
Now we recognize our chairman, Chairman Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Turner, for chairing this. I am at a Budget Committee bringing
out the budget resolution. I think this is a hugely important
issue, and I recognize that the spectrum is global, and that we
need to be global players. I really want my country to be
working overtime on this issue. And while I believe there needs
to be unilateral action in issues of war and peace at times,
not necessarily the preferred way but sometimes the only way.
On this issue we have to work as closely as we can with others
to resolve our differences and make sure that we optimize what
we believe is in our Nation's best interest. I just wanted to
personally come here to thank all our witnesses and, as well,
to explain my absence.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your
leadership in this issue.
I'd like to recognize Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. I'll pass at the moment.
Mr. Turner. Our panelists today in panel one are: Jeffrey
N. Shane, the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.
Department of Transportation; William Readdy, Associate
Administrator for Space Flight, National Aeronautic and Space
Administration; Michael Gallagher, Acting Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce;
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, Federal Communications
Commission; Ambassador David Gross, U.S. Coordinator,
International Coordinations and Information Policy, U.S.
Department of State; and Dr. Lin Wells, Acting Assistant
Secretary for NII Networks and Information Integration, U.S.
Department of Defense.
If you would all stand to take the oath, we do swear in our
witnesses in this committee.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Turner. Please note for the record that the witnesses
have responded in the affirmative.
I ask unanimous consent that all members of the
subcommittee be permitted to place any opening statement in the
record, and that the record remain open for 3 days for that
purpose. Without objection, so ordered.
I further ask unanimous consent that all witnesses be
permitted to include their written statements in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
We begin our testimony today with Mr. Shane.
STATEMENTS OF JEFFREY N. SHANE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;
WILLIAM READDY, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE FLIGHT,
NATIONAL AERONAUTIC AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; MICHAEL
GALLAGHER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; COMMISSIONER
KATHLEEN ABERNATHY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
AMBASSADOR DAVID GROSS, U.S. COORDINATOR, INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE; AND LIN WELLS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Mr. Shane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We at the Department of
Transportation are very grateful to Chairman Shays and members
of the subcommittee for first holding this very important
hearing and bringing its special perspective to the question of
spectrum allocation and preparation for the WRC, and
particularly we are grateful for your invitation to us, to the
Department of Transportation, to be here.
Radio spectrum decisions made at the World Radio
Conferences have a significant long-term impact on the safety,
efficiency, and effectiveness of our Nation's transportation
system and play a vital role in helping us to plan for and meet
our critical infrastructure needs. Radio spectrum under DOT's
purview essentially serves as an enabler for a wide variety of
land, sea, air, and space transport applications. As we work to
modernize and improve our national transportation system, we
rely on uninterrupted access to clean spectrum to support a
broad range of communications, navigation, and surveillance
systems. In fact, DOT is the second largest user and service
provider of all radio services in the Federal Government.
For example, the Department facilitates the use of spectrum
to support effective communications links between public
transportation agencies and first responders. Our intelligent
transportation system program uses wireless technologies to
reduce accidents, to ease congestion, and alert rescue
vehicles. With our partners in Canada, we operate a state-of-
the-art vessel traffic system on the St. Lawrence Seaway using
automatic identification system technology to provide accurate,
real-time information for navigation, communication, and
security throughout the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great
Lakes.
GPS, of course, is a core technology--the global
positioning system--operated by the Department of Defense, but
it is also one that has critical civilian applications, as
everyone knows. These applications are already providing
tremendous benefits in areas like air and sea navigation,
highway safety, positive train control, and even wireless E911
positioning. That's why DOT attaches such importance to
spectrum issues, both domestically and internationally. That's
also why we have consistently supported our U.S. delegations in
their pursuit of American interests at previous World Radio
Conferences and why we are currently involved in the
preparatory work that has already begun for the 2007
conference.
The Department will play an active role as the U.S.
Government works to determine which items should be addressed
at the 2007 conference. We will work to identify ways in which
aviation can use radio spectrum more efficiently so that
current and future needs can be met through our existing band
allocations. We also hope to use the 2007 conference as an
opportunity to explore ways to stimulate the development of
standardized intelligent transportation systems around the
world.
Last December the FCC completed licensing rules on the 5.9
gigahertz band here in the United States for use by dedicated
short-range communications technologies, the spectrum enabler
for ITS systems. ITS applications will provide tremendous
safety benefits to our Nation's highways through collision
avoidance systems and other technologies, but standardizing
equipment and protocols around the world is simply the single
most important thing we can do to reduce costs and hasten the
delivery of the systems to large numbers of drivers.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting the
Department of Transportation to be here. We look forward to
answering questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shane follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.010
Mr. Turner. Mr. Readdy.
Mr. Readdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. It is an honor for me, as NASA's radio frequency
spectrum manager, an astronaut, and also associate
administrator for Space Flight to be here to talk to you about
the World Radio Communications Conference process and explain
how critically important spectrum allocation is to all of our
NASA missions.
A NASA mission--understand, protect our home planet, to
explore the universe and search for life, and inspire the next
generation of explorers as only NASA can. Importance of
reliable radio communications for NASA's wide array of
scientific and operational missions cannot be overstated. We
depend on it every day, launching spacecraft, sending and
receiving critical information to and from our assets in space,
including spirit and opportunity currently exploring the
Martian surface, for scientific observatories like Hubble,
Chandler and Spitzer, and the constellation of earth-observing
meteorological communications spectrum allocations circling the
globe as we speak. Also circling the globe every 90 minutes as
we speak is international space station, and on board it, its
eight permanent expedition crew, Commander Michael Fole and
Flight Engineer Alexander Clary. They, too, depend on spectrum
for their navigation, telemetry, communications, health
monitoring, and ultimately their safety. And when the shuttle
returns to flight next spring, those crews will also rely on
spectrum for safe and successful execution of their missions.
As a shuttle astronaut, from the unique vantage point of
space, once you've seen the earth from a distance you realize
there is a single atmosphere and single ocean that surround
this magnificent planet of ours. You also realize how
perishable they are, and that they are resources we must share
and conserve. So, too, it is with spectrum. Like the air we
breathe and the water we drink, we take spectrum for granted.
Spectrum is vital for existence in this technologically
advanced 21st century we live in. Lives depend on reliable
communications, and in emergencies lives are also saved by
effective, cooperative use of spectrum.
Just last year I was at a NOAA ceremony over at Department
of State with Ambassador Gross and Vice Admiral Lautenbacher
celebrating the success of the satellite based co-spa SAR-SAT
system which had just surpassed 14,000 lives saved. NASA is
very proud of its contributions to the beacon and locating
technologies used.
As we expand our horizons beyond low earth orbit to explore
space and moon and on to Mars, that lifeline will become even
more important, more critical. We won't leave home without it.
Some of those architectures are already in place right now,
bringing us pictures from the Red Planet. Spirit and
opportunity. And since January there have been over 7 billion
hits on the NASA Web site from over 100 million different web
addresses.
Our only means of communication, control of receiving and
transmitting data to aircraft and spacecraft is via radio.
Because space and spectrum knows no borders, NASA must work
cooperatively with the other U.S. agencies, the private sector,
and other nations, and successful allocation of spectrum for
our missions is absolutely dependent on success of negotiations
within the global community that is conducted at the World
Radio Communications Conferences.
I'm very proud of NASA's excellent track record in
succeeding in the negotiations that achieve our necessary
allocations for these scientific missions, and I'd like to
submit three specifically bulletins that describe the specific
successes at World Radio Telecommunications Conference 2003.
The success was due in no small part to NASA's reputation for
technical excellence in achievement that is respected
worldwide. But to be successful we at NASA also must work very
closely with the NTIA, with our colleagues from other
departments and agencies as part of the Administration, and
with our industry partners as members of the U.S. delegation.
We also hold a rather unique role due to our strong
partnerships with international space agencies around the
world. As you know, the ITU, International Telecommunications
Union, is part of the U.N. system operated on the basis of one
country/one vote. Scientists have learned to speak the same
language, no matter where they are from, and often they speak
with one voice. Scientific research and space exploration have
universal appeal and shared interest.
Since 1958 when the National Aeronautics and Space Act was
signed, NASA has concluded over 3,000 agreements with over 100
countries and international organizations, and in this last
decade nearly 900. We've maintained an active participation in
World Radio Conferences since 1959.
Preparation is the key to success, and NASA is currently
preparing in Geneva right now. The U.S. National Committee
Study Group Seven--Space, Science, and Services--with Mr. Dave
Struba over there with three working groups, and those meetings
will generate the body of technical data that will assist World
Radio Conference 2007 conferees to conduct their business.
That's the key to success is early preparation.
Having attended and participated in the last two
conferences, I believe our successes are also based on
achieving those technically sound bases for the decisions that
are made, and during those conferences we count on the strong
leadership and negotiating skills of the U.S. Ambassador and
the unity and teamwork that the U.S. delegation provides. As a
Presidential appointee, the Ambassador and head of the U.S.
delegation enjoys the confidence of the administration,
possesses the political sensitivities and negotiating skills
required in that critical role. We were extremely well served
by the leadership, technical expertise, and skillful
negotiating talents of Ambassador Janice Obuchowski in 2003 and
Gail Schoettler in 2000.
Ongoing fruitful cooperation partnership with other U.S.
Federal Government agencies, industry, and global
communications community is crucial for providing and defending
critical radio spectrum for accomplishing NASA's scientific
missions and leading the world's civil space program.
The vision for space exploration announced by the President
on January 14th only serves to underscore NASA's need to remain
actively engaged in spectrum management today in order to
preserve spectrum for use in exploration of space now and for
decades to come.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Readdy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.015
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to echo
Under Secretary Shane's appreciation to this committee and to
Chairman Shays for his outstanding leadership on spectrum
issues and spectrum policy matters. It is an honor to be here
this morning. It is also an honor to be here with my colleagues
in the administration who are truly engaged and understand the
importance of spectrum and spectrum policy.
World Radio Conferences are month-long negotiations
involving over 2,000 delegates from nearly 150 countries. World
Radio Conferences bring together politics, economics, and
technical developments on an international stage to determine
the spectrum available and the regulations that will govern
wireless development, scientific investigation, safety, and
security. The United States has but one vote in this
environment, and yet has enjoyed high level of success working
with the world community to bring forth new services while
safeguarding critical operations.
This morning I would focus on four key words that are the
ingredients for success. The first is leadership. Leadership
means providing guidance, vision, and setting priorities and
decisively resolving conflicts. Leadership fundamentally
depends upon people and how they work together. The President
made the World Radio Conference an early priority to senior
White House staff. In 2003, in turn, the Secretary of Commerce
made it a priority for NTIA. We received direction and guidance
from the Secretary and from the National Security Council and
the National Economic Councils to ensure that we stayed on task
and on time.
Ambassador Obuchowski, Chairman Powell, NTIA leadership,
other Federal agencies, and the private sector embrace the need
for aggressive, early work.
World Radio Conferences run in 2- to 4-year cycles and
senior management needs to be engaged during that period to
support the hard work of the career staff who have the
thankless task of preparing the extremely important details and
analyses that undergird a successful World Radio Conference.
Certainly one of the questions to be answered in reviewing the
work process is how to ensure continuity of leadership in the
future. We recommend establishing a steering group consisting
of senior agency leadership who will take on the responsibility
for guiding World Radio Conference activities and for
identifying and resolving conflicts early to maximize the
opportunity for the United States to achieve success with its
international neighbors.
The second ingredient would be balance. We are called upon
to balance our economic security with our national security,
and as the Secretary of Commerce has informed me, given the
choice between the two, do both.
Spectrum is an indispensable building block for America's
future that fuels economic growth. A constant flow of new
technologies, new services, and products characterize the
global wireless market. New startups such as Vivato and Etheros
join established companies like the Boeing Co., Lockheed
Martin, Intel to contribute growth in our high technology
economic, and they rely on the U.S. Government's ability to
make spectrum available.
In 2003 the United States achieved outstanding successes in
more than doubling the amount of spectrum for wi-fi devices at
five gigahertz and agreeing on the common rules on a global
basis for those devices. These rules are already helping U.S.
industry to market new technologies in countries previously
closed to such devices and services. The Boeing Co.'s
connection service or broad band in the sky using the 14
gigahertz band is another example where the World Radio
Conference results lead directly to economic growth and job
creation.
World Radio Conferences are also key to our national
security and our homeland security, and to scientific
investigation of the earth's resource in outer space.
Negotiations at the World Radio Conference in 2003 safeguarded
spectrum access for the next generation of GPS by overcoming a
challenge to GPS modernization by Europe. Furthermore, as we
provided spectrum for wi-fi devices at five gigahertz, we
ensured that wi-fi devices around the world will protect our
critical radar systems, a perfect example of technical
expertise and cooperation to bring forth a result that meets
balanced priorities.
The third ingredient is execution. Based on past
experiences, we began our preparations for this work earlier
than ever, organizing immediately after the close of the 2000
World Radio Conference. We facilitated interaction of
government and commercial entities to form well-grounded
technical and impactful proposals. We advanced the issues and
concluded our preparations in enough time to impress our
priorities on America's region and to the rest of the world. We
also put forth a delegation team of approximately 150
government and private sector experts. Behind the outstanding
leadership of Ambassador Obuchowski were career staff such as
Jim Vorhees and Alex Royblad who oversaw the NTIA and FCC
preparations. The outstanding success of the five gigahertz
items served as a microcosm of teamwork. Charles Glass at NTIA
teamed effectively with Warren VanWayser of the FCC, Jerry
Connor of the Department of Defense, John Zuzek of NASA.
Industry tirelessly supported this work with the efforts of
Scott Harris, Rob Cubic, Dave Case, and others.
However, execution does not end when the doors close on the
Conference. To take advantage of the successes of the
conference, the results need to be reflected in U.S. national
regulations. While implementation was a recognized problem in
the past, NTIA and the FCC quickly established a plan for
implementing the results of the World Radio Conference. A
number of the items have already moved through FCC rulemakings,
and soon we'll consider an omnibus rulemaking covering most of
the remaining World Radio Conference 2003 results. We recommend
establishment of this arrangement as a permanent part of the
World Radio Conference process.
A final ingredient is improvement. Regardless of past
successes, we must continue to improve our processes and adapt
as the world changes. The United States needs to be prepared to
address the evolving challenges presented by World Radio
Conferences or risk relinquishing its global leadership role in
telecommunications and technology development and deployment.
We have been conducting a review of our processes and will
report on the outcome of that assessment in the near future. We
expect our recommendations to cover senior level engagement,
cooperation and coordination, outreach, delegation preparation,
and World Radio Conference implementation.
So, in conclusion, our experience has taught us the
benefits of early and thorough preparation and the importance
of our staff and senior agency leaders working together to come
to resolutions on difficult issues and of reaching out to other
countries. In particular, we appreciate the efforts of those on
this panel and those that support them and the panel that
follows, the Ambassadors who have lead the previous work
delegations in recent years. We continue to work to improve our
processes and to ensure the continued success of the United
States so essential to our economic and national security. We
thank you again for the leadership of this committee, and I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallagher follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.024
Commissioner Abernathy. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity and the honor to appear today to testify on the
issue of U.S. preparation for the World Radio Conferences.
As was mentioned, the WRC process has become increasingly
important and complex over the past several years as
unprecedented progress in the development of radio
communication services has resulted in an ever-increasing
demand for access to the spectrum resources. Because of the one
country/one vote system at the WRC, successful participation
requires thorough advance preparation by the United States and
then active participation at the conference. WRC 2003 was no
exception. Forty-eight agenda items were considered, and the
primary focus was the deployment, growth, and evolving use of a
broad range of spectrum-based services such as wi-fi and the
provision of broadband services via satellites and airplanes.
In light of such an extensive agenda, the United States
started its preparation process immediately following WRC 2000,
and we sent an expert delegation of public and private sector
participants to the conference. This advanced preparation, as
has been mentioned, was invaluable, and when combined with an
ambitious international outreach effort by the U.S. delegation
led by Ambassador Janice Obuchowski, the United States returned
from WRC 2003 with a long list of accomplishments.
Just to name a few, the U.S. team ensured spectrum remains
available for the introduction of new technologies, incumbent
radio communications services remained protected from
interference, new commercial ventures can be pursued, and we
should see increased global competition and jobs creation. I
was proud to be able to serve on the delegation at this year's
conference, along with Ambassador David Gross, Former Assistant
Secretary of Commerce Nancy Victory, and Associate NASA
Administrator William Readdy, as well as other esteemed
representatives from the Government and the private sector.
I believe that there are several reasons for the successful
outcome of WRC 2003. First and foremost was the extensive
coordination between FCC, NTIA, including all the executive
branch agencies that it acts on behalf of, the Department of
State, and then the private sector. This early effort
solidified U.S. positions which could then be negotiated
internationally. Fortunately, we all shared a common goal: U.S.
success at the Conference.
Second, the high quality and expertise of the U.S.
delegation members enabled substantive participation at the
Conference at all levels. Until you are there, it is hard to
appreciate how significantly the other countries look to the
United States for our technical expertise.
Third, the international outreach effort of the United
States, both before the Conference and at the WRC, allowed the
United States to garner much-needed international support.
Finally, I believe that the able leadership of Ambassador
Obuchowski was crucial to the success of the United States.
The FCC also made a significant contribution to the overall
success of the U.S. delegation. Not only did FCC staff serve as
U.S. spokespersons on nearly half of the items addressed by the
Conference, but the FCC was an integral part of the government
and industry team that developed the successful U.S. strategy
and positions. Moreover, following the conclusion of WRC 2003
the FCC, under the leadership of Chairman Michael Powell, and
in coordination with our friends at NTIA, acted quickly to
implement many of the decisions from the Conference.
Finally, to ensure that the United States is well prepared
for the next Conference, the Commission has initiated
preparation for WRC 2007 by convening an Industry Advisory
Committee which held its first meeting this past January.
Now, the dual challenges of the ever-increasing demand for
spectrum and the WRC's one country/one vote system requires the
United States to work smarter and continually re-evaluate our
preparatory process for the WRC. I know the FCC, the Department
of State, NTIA, NASA, DOD, DOT, and pretty much all the
agencies that are dependent on spectrum, are committed to
improving the effectiveness of the United States at each WRC,
frankly, because there's no other option.
At the FCC we've made process improvements that include
increasing the transparency of the FCC preparatory process,
increasing our coordination with other Government agencies,
enhancing public participation in the development of U.S.
positions, increasing our outreach to other countries, and
implementing the decisions from each WRC quickly.
Last year, the Commission held a public meeting to evaluate
the FCC's efforts at WRC 2003. This meeting confirmed that the
private sector, and State and local public safety communities
embraced the changes that we had made to date, and we're
continuing to work toward additional process improvements so
the United States can be ever more successful at upcoming WRCs.
I see we've got some guests coming in.
[Note.--Group of midle school students entered the hearing
room.]
Commissioner Abernathy. We're talking about the World Radio
Conference. This is a very important Conference. This is where
the United States decides if we are going to have spectrum for
you guys to watch TV, listen to the radio, use your computers,
instant message everyone. So this is all a big cooperative
effort that has to go on with all the countries in the world.
Now, more specifically, we need to improve our further
international outreach. We're hampered by two things that many
of us are hampered with in our daily lives. We're hampered by a
lack of time and a lack of money. In an ideal world, the United
States would have all of its positions for an upcoming
Conference determined and agreed upon months in advance of a
Conference, and we would have a budget that would then allow us
to meet with as many countries as possible to ensure that we
would be successful. But, given the real world, I do believe
there are some solutions out there that allow us to work within
these constraints.
First, the FCC should continue to foster close working
relationships with other regulatory administrations and
regional organizations. This means opening our doors to
visiting delegations and building relationships with regulators
from around the world, and working with my colleague Ambassador
Gross to ensure that we have these relationships in advance of
the meetings. As part of this effort, I have agreed to chair
the next ITU Global Regulators Symposium.
Second, the FCC should continue its work with the
Department of State and the other Government agencies in
expanding U.S. participation in the WRC preparatory efforts in
the developing countries and build on all of our global
relationships through private entities or organizations that
have them already developed.
Overall, I've found that each WRC cycle brings additional
refinements to the process, and the FCC is committed to working
with Congress and its colleagues across the Government and the
private sector to ensure that the United States can continue
its leadership position. That's why I remain optimistic about
our ability to navigate the complex ITU processes and ensure
continued success for the United States.
So thank you for your time. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Commissioner Abernathy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.034
Mr. Turner. Ambassador Gross.
Ambassador Gross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to everyone. I don't think I have ever been to a more
well-attended hearing than the one we have today, which
underscores the importance and the reason for having the
hearing today, not just about what we've done in the past but
really what it means for the future and looking forward. The
issues, as Commissioner Abernathy just talked about, for
everyone just joined, has to do with spectrum, has to do with
the international aspects of spectrum and making sure you all
have enough spectrum for your future, for your cell phones, for
TVs, for radios, for a whole host of things, as well as to
ensure that your national security, your future is well
protected. It is the responsibility of the people at this
table, who are all Government officials, senior Government
officials, to ensure that happens.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, especially for the
interest that you have shown and the other members of the
committee have shown, and particularly the staff of the
committee have shown. It meant a tremendous amount to the
delegation at WRC 2003 and to me in particular that staff
members came and spent time with us at the WRC to see firsthand
what was going on. That was important to underscore the
importance of the activities that the delegation was
undertaking, as well as the ongoing work. So I want to thank
them in particular for taking time out and for helping us in
that process.
Let me just spend a moment, if you would allow me to talk a
little bit about my position. I am an ambassador for the United
States and my job is to coordinate and lead all international
telecommunications activities on behalf of the United States.
It is my ongoing responsibility to make sure that the process,
whether it is the WRC process or other processes, runs smoothly
and that our work is done effectively and efficiently. The
reason why that job is in the U.S. State Department and not
another agency is because of the decision that was made some
time ago that it is extraordinarily important that the work
that we do with regard to telecommunications be done in
complete harmony with our foreign policy--that is, to make sure
that we get the maximum impact and that we are well informed,
both from a foreign policy perspective as well as from a
technical perspective, in these activities.
I, as many of the people up here on the panel, come
originally from the private sector, and so the concept of
process improvement is one that is near and dear to our hearts,
and so this process of looking back and then looking forward is
particularly important. There is no pride of practices, and we
constantly attempt and look very carefully trying to do process
improvement so we can continue to do a better job for the
American people.
One of those aspects is the team approach, and one of the
things that I was most proud about as we went through this
process after the WRC 2000 was a recommitment to the team. Each
of the agencies here at the table, as well as other agencies,
came together both personally and organizationally to act as
one team to work for the American people's best interest. That
process was ongoing, extraordinarily important, and I am very
thankful to all the members for that process.
That process included one of the most important pieces, and
that was the recommendation to the President of a WRC
Ambassador. Because of the nature of the Ambassadorial position
only lasts for approximately 6 months, it is incumbent upon the
people at this table and our staffs and others to work
continuously on the process, as well as the issues that are
going on.
As was mentioned earlier, the process for the WRC 2007
began with the very end of WRC 2003. It is a continuing
process. That is well understood. What is perhaps not as well
understood is that process is continuous throughout our
outreach on international telecommunications. We have an
ongoing series of bilats independent of the WRC process, but
yet each of those bilats is educated by and works in harmony
with our upcoming WRC agenda, so we're dealing with China,
Russia, India on an ongoing basis about a number of issues, WRC
is always a part of that process, even well before the WRC
Ambassador is appointed. Similarly, as we have U.N. summits the
WRC process is always a part of our thinking. The ITU has many
meetings, many conferences, large and small. The WRC process is
always a part of that proceeding.
It is also important to remember that the WRC is a treaty-
writing, and the ITU--the International Telecommunications
Union, of which the WRC is one of the most important meetings,
is also a treaty-based organization, and we treat it as such.
Ultimately, however, what this is all about is doing the best
job for the American people, bringing jobs to the American
people, ensuring our national security. It requires all of us
to work together. It requires all of us to be nimble,
opportunistic, and optimistic.
I am very pleased about the results that Ambassador
Obuchowski was able to get for us, as well as the almost 170
members of the delegation representing both the private sector
and the public sector. They did an extraordinarily good job, as
I note that other WRC's Ambassadors have been able to do. In
going back through the record, I believe virtually every one,
if not all, have, in fact, brought back and achieved all of
their objectives. If the test of the work that we have done is
whether or not we were effective in getting that which the
American people wanted, our process has always been effective.
Our job collectively and individually is to ensure that's true
going forward, and you have my assurance that will be the case
from the State Department.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Ambassador.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Gross follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.049
Mr. Turner. We want to take this opportunity also to
acknowledge that the students who have joined us are from the
Kelman Academy from Cherry Hill, NJ. They are eighth graders.
We welcome you.
Dr. Wells.
Dr. Wells. Thank you very much. Let me also echo the other
speakers here today to thank the committee for its leadership
and its interest in this.
From the standpoint of the Department of Defense, the World
Radio Conferences are strategically crucial for our country
because spectrum has become the bedrock of the communications
flows that are literally today the lifeblood of our modern
national security systems. In addition to their importance for
the commercial development of new technologies, a dynamic
process that DOD supports, the WRCs affect what spectrum is
available for military operations. This is not just true here
but, of course, around the world.
In an era of asymmetric warfare in which the greatest
threats are often the most decentralized and the hardest to pin
down, United States and allied forces require this kind of
global access to spectrum to go wherever the enemy goes with
greater stealth and access to firepower than the enemy can
employ.
WRCs then are integral to our strategic approach to network
centric warfare and information superiority, and failure to
prepare properly for and execute the strategies to ensure the
spectrum access will literally have life or death consequences.
Because of its extensive responsibilities for defending not
only the United States but also coalition partners and allies,
DOD has interests and equities concerning multiple spectrum
bands. These responsibilities and interests are often not
shared or understood by other countries, even those who may
themselves be protected by the global umbrella of wireless
links maintained by the United States for itself and its
allies.
In this complex world, DOD must ensure that it prepares for
each World Radio Conference and communicates its obligations
within the U.S. Government to the broader U.S. spectrum
community, to allies, and ultimately to the WRC, itself.
WRC 2003 underlined the growing importance of spectrum-
dependent technologies in the Nation's defense. The conference
was convened just weeks after the liberation of Iraq. It was
the first global spectrum conference held after the terrorist
attacks of September 11 and the resulting War on Terror. The
timing served to underscore the high stakes for the U.S.
delegation in Geneva working to preserve a businesslike and
cooperative environment for multinational diplomacy.
The Department of Defense identified at least 30 items on
the agenda for WRC 2003, out of a record-breaking total of 48
agenda items that touched on national security interest and
Department equities. Because of this, advanced preparation was
vital to a successful outcome. Throughout the preparation phase
and during the conference, itself, DOD devoted substantial
human capital and financial resources. As a result, we feel we
contributed to the successful advancement of national security
interests that occurred during the conference.
The U.S. approach to WRCs can function well, provided
adequate preparation is followed by experienced and effective
management at each conference--a point that I think all my
colleagues have made very well. Among the many facets of this
process are comprehensive technical preparation, effective and
consistent outreach and regional coordination, and selection of
dedicated delegation leadership. To a commendable extent, this
is, in fact, just what happened for WRC 2003.
The greatest contribution to WRC preparation and success
that should be incorporated now is the creation of a national
level spectrum priorities. As contemplated in the President's
current spectrum initiative, establishing clearly articulated
policy will lead to more informed preparations for WRCs at
early stages of each preparation phase; therefore, we are
committed to furthering the goals of the President's
initiative.
In addition, the organization of the U.S. WRC effort could
be streamlined in some areas, including the training of
participants and more involvement by senior leadership in the
preparation phase.
Let me address two points. We need to improve the quality
of U.S. document submissions and delegate training. There is a
shortfall in the proper use of regulatory procedures and
language in some cases in the preparation of U.S. submissions
to the ITUR study groups. This carries over into the work
process, itself. Joint NTIA, FCC, State Department training
could be targeted at improving the quality of the U.S.
submissions, increasing the effectiveness of the U.S.
preparations for the study groups and the work, themselves, and
we are working with our colleagues to bring this into fruition.
The second point is I think that we should establish senior
leadership structure during the preparation periods. This was
done to some extent in the run up to WRC 2003. The preparation
phase, which constitutes much of the interim between the
conferences, should be guided by a senior leadership group that
is composed of top-level officials representing all of the
relevant departments and agencies, meeting frequently to
define. In effect, this group could obviate the need to create
a permanent Ambassador to the WRC, which, of course, has time
constraints in the appointments. So we have suggested a meeting
be called among the senior leadership to initiate this process
and look forward to going forward.
To summarize, Mr. Chairman, as the largest user of spectrum
resources in the United States, DOD has made a profound
commitment to shepherd its spectrum resources as effectively as
technology will allow. That commitment extends fully to the
preparations for the WRC conferences, also.
We look forward to working with this subcommittee,
providing any assistance it can and to enhance the U.S. role at
future WRCs.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Dr. Wells.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wells follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.068
Mr. Turner. I appreciate all of your perspective and
testimony and the information that you have given to us. Thanks
for being here.
There is no question that each of you, in describing the
accomplishments that you have had, can cite specific results
that have been important or have been achieved and that benefit
both the U.S. national security and also our economy. We hear
the words ``cooperation'' and ``teamwork,'' and that is, of
course, important with the way this is structured.
We know from the testimony and from the structure that we
have here that we do have a diffusion of authority and
interest. We note that the Federal Communications Commission
and the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunication
Information Administration share domestic spectrum management
and policymaking responsibility, NTIA manages all Federal
Government use of the spectrum, and also serves as the
President's advisor in telecommunications matters. The FCC
regulates and manages all commercial and private sector use of
the spectrum, as well as State, local, and government use. And
in international spectrum negotiation and conferences the
Department of State exercises primary authority. So that
diffusion of authority and responsibility, knowledge base,
experience certainly requires the level of cooperation and
teamwork that you need for the success level that you've had.
But, nonetheless, that structure begs the question of what
did not go well at WRC 2003 as we look to how we can improve
it. What are some of the things that you would cite where we
could have accomplished more? Mr. Shane, we'd start with you.
Mr. Shane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the vantage point
of the Department of Transportation, the process actually
worked very well. We have, as I explained in my remarks, a lot
of equities in spectrum, and we participated pretty thoroughly
and quite prominently, I would say, in the preparations for the
WRC of 2003. Ambassador Obuchowski was in my office a number of
times in anticipation of that. She didn't require any prompting
from me. She came on her own motion to chat about the things
that we were concerned about. So I felt that it worked well.
There were some issues that came up suddenly that couldn't
have been the subject of preparations. Those had to be
discussed very much on the fly. I think that is in the nature
of the process, and there's just no way you can anticipate
everything. In fact, I would fault some of our trading partners
for not doing a better job of coordinating with us in advance
so that we might have been better prepared for some of the
things that we would have possibly supported had we known about
them in advance. But I can't fault the internal U.S. Government
process for those lost opportunities; I think our trading
partners could have done a better job. So I am not here to
complain about the preparation for WRC 2003.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Readdy.
Mr. Readdy. Well, I have to say from the NASA perspective
we achieved all our aims at WRC 2003. I'd go back to some
points made by the other panelist. It comes down to, I think,
continuity of the effort, and we are engaged continuously in
establishing the technical bases for our positions and helping
our colleagues in the other agencies and departments do that.
Ambassador does have a term of only 6 months because of
limitations of the appointment process. Perhaps continuity is
the place where we could make the most progress.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. From NTIA's perspective, we share
and reinforce the statements that Under Secretary Shane and Mr.
Readdy have made that the early preparation was critical, and
that is by far the biggest focal point of whether we are going
to succeed or not in the World Radio Conference. We did it
here.
I also would say that it was particularly important, having
lived through this, that it was having a timely CPM submission
to CITEL was also critical. That is a cleavage point in the
process was important, and that was a stressful exercise, but I
think it is stressful under any circumstances. I don't think
there's anything you can do in particular to make it better
than it was.
I would point to resource issues perhaps. There were a
number of discussions where it was unclear how gaps were going
to be filled from a resource perspective. Again, it underscores
the commitment of the team to accomplish the mission that we
found them, and the Department of Defense I think is to be
credited with stepping in and filling that void in a
substantial way.
Those would be the responses to the question for
improvement.
Commissioner Abernathy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The good
news is that there were no failures. Were we on the edge
sometimes? I mean, was this tough? Yes. And so I think the
question is: how do we ensure that there's more stability, more
reliability going forward, because, as was mentioned, it's only
going to get harder. You're only going to have more countries
having disagreements about how to allocate spectrum and you're
only going to have more internal, local U.S. disputes about
where should the spectrum go. We see it all the time at the
FCC. We then go to NTIA because there's disputes between the
different departments and between the private sector, and we
end up having to pick and choose and try and make best guesses.
And so when you're going to a global conference where you may
be tying your hands for years to come on some of this spectrum,
I think it becomes critical that we have the kind of
coordination that we had in this instance. But one thing that
was very important is that once Ambassador Obuchowski came
onboard she had such expertise that she could jump in
immediately. What if we hadn't had someone like that? So I
think, looking at making sure the Ambassador gets appointed as
soon as possible, continuing to ensure that there is
coordination between these groups--because all these groups
need to be represented anyway, regardless of how you do it.
Every single entity that was at the table from the private to
the government all had very real issues. They need to be there.
We need to solicit their input. And then, once we finally land
on a place for the United States, we need to go around and make
sure we've got international allies, many times with countries
that lack sophistication when it comes to telecommunications
issues. So we are doing education at the same time we are
trying to bring them on to our side.
Resources and funding--always critical, always stressful,
because none of us have a specific budget just for this. But I
think the good news is, because it is so important to every
agency, at the end of the day they do come forward and work
together and provide what funding they can.
Ambassador Gross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
underscore and agree with all that has been said before.
Looking ahead, what we learned from WRC 2003, which there were
many things we learned, was the extraordinary importance of
outreach and coalition building. As a number of people have
testified this morning, we have only one vote amongst
approximately 189. We cannot go it alone. We have no need and
desire to go it alone. Rather, we need to build on a continuing
basis coalitions. We do not and we cannot wait until the
conference to build such coalitions. And so this is an ongoing
process. It is ongoing now for WRC 2007. As Secretary Wells
pointed out, this WRC 2003 was held right after the liberation
of Iraq, an extraordinarily complex and difficult time in the
international community. Yet, the work that had been done over
the years of building coalitions, of building trust, of
building information flows allowed us to go forward and to
build coalitions at the meeting so that all U.S. objectives,
both economic and national security related, were able to be
achieved.
What we've learned in 2003 underscores that which we knew
before, which is: coalition building is always key in these
international approaches.
Thank you.
Dr. Wells. Mr. Chairman, I think most everything important
here has been said. I would just reiterate the two points I
made earlier about the value of training for members of the
delegation--I think we can do better on that--and establishing
continuity by the senior leadership coordination that we're
working even now to establish for WRC 2007. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. My next question, I'm really interested in the
structure issue again. We talk about cooperation, but the issue
of authority is one that I think may not be very well defined
here.
The Department of State, as we know, has the statutory
responsibility to provide the leadership on the U.S.
international spectrum positions. So with the Department of
State, how do you go about exercising this responsibility? Do
you have authority for setting timelines and schedules for the
other agencies? What is your oversight of the other agencies'
participation? What if there's disagreement between the
agencies? What if you get to the WRC and there's a policy shift
that you want to make with the other agencies not being
supportive?
Another one that I find interesting, in listening to each
of the testimony, almost every one of the agencies talked about
their international partners, so you have each agency having
international partners that affect their ability to be
successful, when in the end it is the State that is going to be
the liaison internationally on this matter. And I'd like to
couple that with the reaction of the other agencies as to the
appropriateness of the State in doing this, where obviously the
technical expertise lies elsewhere.
Thank you.
Ambassador Gross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
With regard to the timeline, certain of the timelines are
established by the International Telecommunications Union,
itself. As a number of people have mentioned, there are dates
that are established for the CPM meetings. One is held
immediately after the WRC, one is held 6 months ahead of time.
There are timeframes for getting our national submission in.
There are similarly timeframes for getting our submissions in
for some of the regional activities such as we've mentioned
with CITEL and the like.
Similarly, there are timeframes through the study group
process where the hard, technical work is done in between the
WRCs, and so that drives a lot of the timing, as well.
Our job is to make sure that things are done in a timely
fashion. Of course, part of the balance is also to make sure
that it is done in an open and transparent way, both within and
amongst the various agencies, but also with regard to the
public participants, as well. We work very hard. We have a
process, a Federal advisory process called the ITAC process
that allows for that to happen, and I'm very pleased that, of
course, all of the time commitments and needs have been met.
With regard to oversight, we believe very strongly in a
team oriented approach, and I cannot be more pleased with the
responsiveness and the work that has been done by all of the
agencies and also by the private sector as part of that team.
Our oversight responsibilities are extraordinarily important,
and we work very closely with the staffs, as well as with the
appointed officials of each of the agencies, to make sure that
all of the needs of the country are met. We meet periodically.
I see everyone at this table on a fairly regular basis, if not
a very regular basis, and these are issues that we talk about
at that time.
Also in the WRC 2003 process we had very few disagreements.
There is an advisory process that the FCC is responsible for.
There's an advisory process that NTIA heads up. Those processes
then result in recommendations to us. But for a few important
exceptions, there was harmony in that process. When there was
not harmony, it was my job, because it was before the WRC
Ambassador was appointed, to bring all the parties together, to
make sure that everyone understood what the issues were, and to
ensure that positions were reached. That happened with regard
to the important 5 gigahertz issue, for example, and that was
successfully resolved.
So our ability to enforce and to promote harmony in those
issues where it may not be easy to achieve is an
extraordinarily important part of my responsibilities. Once the
WRC Ambassador is appointed by the President, it becomes his or
her responsibility as head of delegation, and I hand those
responsibilities off.
It is important to note that my role continues throughout
this process. My job is to ensure that the WRC Ambassador has
the resources necessary to achieve the goals and the missions,
as is, in fact, as result of the work done by other people up
here testifying and their agencies to ensure that happens, as
well.
Mr. Turner. Let's go to Mr. Shane with his comment on the
process.
Mr. Shane. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little compromised
in responding to this question because I am an alumnus of the
Department of State. I spent 4 years there conducting aviation
negotiations at a time when, as now, the Department of
Transportation retained the technical expertise for
international aviation.
The truth is that if you look at these agencies which have
all this technical expertise, I think you'll find that each one
of us is unbelievably parochial. You would not want to vest the
leadership for a process like this in any of us. I'm not going
to speak for my sister agencies, but I'm going to speak for the
Department of Transportation. We support the Department of
State in this role. It conducts this role in a whole host of
other economic areas where the stakes are very high and
national interest is very high. It is terribly important that
there be a facilitator, an arbiter of what the Nation requires,
sorting out a whole variety of competing claims as we formulate
a position for the WRC.
I think the process works well. I must say I am attracted
to the suggestions we've heard from Mr. Gallagher and Dr.
Wells, for a senior leadership council, a group, a steering
committee of some kind. I think that would enhance our
preparatory process. But I am in favor of leaving the State
Department in charge.
I don't think you can overstate the value we get from the
Foreign Service, from the array of embassies around the world
that provide intelligence to the process, who are beating the
bushes facilitating that essential outreach that makes the
preparatory process successful and that ultimately makes our
performance at the WRC successful.
Mr. Turner. Well, before we go on, why don't we just ask
blanketly, are there any other parochial members of the team
that would like to argue contrary? [Laughter.]
Dr. Wells.
Dr. Wells. And I will yield to the Department of State for
the coordination. But, you know, Mr. Chairman, we have been
blessed with a Government of checks and balances and a
distributed system of power and it has served us so well in so
many areas. It served us here well, as well, but ultimately we
understand when the position gets together and we have our
national position, we have to turn to one leader, and I think
there is no dispute from any of us that State has that role.
It helps, as you mentioned, the bilateral links. It helps
us to be able to get our national positions together as early
as possible so that we can all go forward with one voice to
participate and build the support for this one country/one vote
through our bilateral channels, but I think we all understand
at the end of the day we come back to support them.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. While turning to Mr. Ruppersberger
for his questions, I also want to recognize that Mr. Duncan of
Tennessee has joined us, has been with us. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK. First I want to get back to the WRC.
Probably to Ambassador Gross, but really the whole panel, if
you'd like--the panel is very talkative, so that's great. You
have good opinions.
At the WRC, who is our largest competitor? Did we reach out
to them? Do our competitors have a more formalized structure
that deals with the WRC, and how do we compare to them? That
will be an interesting answer. And what can we learn from them
and how they work? Why don't we start with you, Ambassador
Gross, and then anyone else who has a comment.
Ambassador Gross. Certainly. Actually, the questions you
raise are very similar to the questions I raised when I first
took this job.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Good. That's why I asked them.
Ambassador Gross. Our largest competitors are, not
surprisingly, some of the largest countries and regions that
economically compete with us and militarily compete with us.
Spectrum, of course, equates into both of those categories very
strongly. Having said that, there's also, and somewhat
surprisingly, great commonality amongst those interests, and so
what we have done is to work very aggressively to find those
common areas that meet our needs and the legitimate needs of
others.
The economic piece is often the most difficult, and I would
say that, for example, Europe often has a very different
approach and some very different views, and it takes a lot of
creativity and a lot of hard work to make sure that our views
are found to be the consensus views.
How others are organized----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, what countries would it be, then?
Can you answer that specifically?
Ambassador Gross. Actually, for many of these purposes
Europe speaks with a common voice. They work very hard--and
this is one of the lessons that we have learned. This came up
particularly in WRC 2000, where there was a lot of issues, and
before that, having to do with mobile telephones and things of
that nature.
Mr. Ruppersberger. How about China?
Ambassador Gross. China is extraordinarily important and
takes this process extraordinarily seriously, because they both
have the economic and the military aspects, as well. They
recognize that.
But let me just go back to Europe for a moment because
China, of course, has the same situation that we naturally come
from, which is it is a large, single country. One of the
lessons that we have learned and one of the plays that we have
taken out of someone else's playbook is the necessity of
building coalitions in your back yard. So, for example, just as
Europe has tried to work collectively and because they have so
many votes by having common positions, we, too, have reached
out in a very successful manner to our countries in our region
through the CITEL process. I notice that there's a chart here
and there's one up on the screens, as well, that shows CITEL.
I'm a little concerned because it shows CITEL above the State
Department, and I'm not sure that's really quite accurate. But,
nevertheless, I think the purpose of that was really to show
that we work very closely with the other administrations in
CITEL, which include all of the Americas. That came to be a
very important piece of the puzzle. So what we try to do is
both do it bilaterally but also build these regional coalitions
as Europe has.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK. Are they a more formalized structure
than we have?
Ambassador Gross. They have a more formalized structure,
although I need to be careful here. We have a formal structure
through CITEL. I think the question is whether or not we feel
freer than some European countries to establish our own
positions when our national security, our national economic
interests demand that we reserve the right to do.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I know my time isn't up, but we have a
vote that has just been called.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Duncan, you also have questions?
Mr. Duncan. Yes. I'll try to be very quick, because I know
we have some votes going on. I apologize. I've got three
subcommittee hearings going on at the same time, so I have been
in and out and I haven't heard all of the testimony. You've
gone into this some on the last question, but I assume, from
the bits and pieces I've heard, that, Ambassador Gross, you are
the coordinator for the whole Government? Is that correct?
Ambassador Gross. On international.
Mr. Duncan. Because you've got so many different
departments and agencies involved in this.
Ambassador Gross. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. And, just so I can learn a little bit about
this, I know I've read Ambassador Bryant's testimony, and he
has said somebody should be in charge of this for a couple of
years at least instead of the 6-months. Do each of the
departments and agencies have people who are working on this
full time?
Ambassador Gross. Let me first address--my job, as a
statutory matter, is to lead the U.S. international
telecommunications work that is done. That's an ongoing
process. It's a 24/7 process. It is independent of the WRC
process.
Mr. Duncan. Right. So you are involved in many other things
other than the WRC.
Ambassador Gross. Precisely. Then, as we get closer to a
WRC, we have traditionally over the past good number of years
had appointed--actually, for a long period of time we have
appointed someone to lead and head that delegation, in large
part, a reflection of the intense time commitment that
requires, which is somewhat different than many of the other
international telecommunications activities that we do. But we
also have many others, IT related, U.N. related, bilaterally
related, and otherwise.
Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you this. I don't know enough about
this conference, and I've got to kind of be quick because we've
got these votes, but how many people attend from all the
countries to this conference?
Ambassador Gross. Over 2,000.
Mr. Duncan. And how big was the U.S. delegation?
Ambassador Gross. About 170.
Mr. Duncan. And what would you say was the No. 1 or main
accomplishment of the U.S. delegation at the 2003 conference?
Ambassador Gross. Well, I think the main accomplishment is
that we had a whole series of accomplishments, and every single
one of them----
Mr. Duncan. Could you give me an example of one or two of
those?
Ambassador Gross. Certainly. On the economic side, it was
getting spectrum for 5 gigahertz for the wireless LANS. Those
are wi-fi related, a substantial economic development and one
that really is very, very helpful for U.S. industry. I'll leave
it to Dr. Wells perhaps on the Defense, but were a number of
very important Defense-related successes that we had to help
national security and to protect national security from certain
threats that had gone otherwise. We had a whole series of these
types of issues and balancing issues. We had some very
important--on the space side, some very important developments
that we were able to accomplish for----
Mr. Duncan. Do you think that you speeded up the process of
warning about terrorist activities in that conference, or did
you get much into that?
Ambassador Gross. I would say that behind much of the
activity was the recognition of the need for national security,
whether it is terrorist or other threats; that because the WRC
was held right after the Iraq invasion and, of course, after
September 11, it was close to all of our hearts and minds. And
I will say not only for ours, but also for many other
delegations, as well.
Mr. Duncan. Can you give me--since you are the lead man
here, can you give me some wild, rough guess as to how much it
costs the taxpayers or the U.S. Government in preparation and
actual attendance for one of these conferences, because we
prepare for it for several years.
Ambassador Gross. There are a couple pieces to that. With
regard to the State Department, there are the costs for many of
the 30-some people who work for me and in my group, many of
whom are devoted full time to the WRC process. In addition, we
have out of pocket expenses, something in the order--I think
the allocation is something in the order of between $300,000
and $400,000. But, of course, all of the agencies at this table
and many other Federal agencies spend a tremendous amount of
their resources, and I would leave it to them to determine
whether----
Mr. Duncan. So you can't give me a wild guess then?
Ambassador Gross. Wild guess? I could give you probably a
helpful guess. I would rather be able to look to my colleagues
for more----
Mr. Duncan. Since we don't have time, I would appreciate it
if you would contact these other agencies and see if you can
come up with some sort of a reasonable estimate.
Have you set any preparatory deadlines for developing the
U.S. positions for the 2007 conference?
Ambassador Gross. Yes. There are deadlines established by
the International Telecommunications Union. We need to get ours
in for about 6 months in advance of the WRC 2007. In addition,
we have deadlines for CITEL, which is our regional group that
drives a lot of it. But we also have our self-imposed
deadlines, and we are working on that now. Part of the tension,
I should quickly add, though, is we have to balance very
carefully our strong desire to have our firm positions early
enough to be effective in our international outreach, but not
so early as to lock us into positions that we will want to
change as world events and economics and technology changes.
Mr. Duncan. So if we don't----
Ambassador Gross. It's a continuing balancing.
Mr. Duncan. If we don't change this Ambassador's position,
then we basically have to have all our positions developed
before someone is even appointed as Ambassador?
Ambassador Gross. That's right. And we don't wait for that.
Mr. Duncan. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Real quick?
Mr. Turner. Real quick, go ahead.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I'll probably throw it out and have to
leave you, and I won't be coming back. We talked about
coordination, pulling together, and it is difficult when you
have a lot of different groups, but you need to have one boss,
and by statutory that's the Department of State. Now I want to
throw this out because I think that in management you have to
put your goals out, your mission. You have to be held
accountable for what you do and you have to have a structure
and you have to have a plan, so these questions really I would
ask and I'm probably not going to be able to listen to the
answers. How does the Department of State exercise the
responsibility of leadership? Are you responsible for setting
timelines and schedules of the U.S. WRC preparatory process at
the FCC and NTIA? How does the State Department provide
oversight of the WRC preparatory process? And how do you
determine the effectiveness and success of the U.S. delegation
at WRC?
I think these are relevant. We talked about working
together and what our plan is, but this gets into the specifics
of management, and that's your role. So if you could answer
those. How much time do we have; 5 minutes. We're going to have
to leave. Maybe you could get those back to us in writing.
Mr. Turner. Sorry. We have 5 minutes to get to the vote,
but I do want to give you the real quick opportunity, if anyone
wants to add anything in closing, comments that they've thought
of that they want to add to the record. Obviously, you can do
that also in writing, but if there are any closing comments you
would like to make at this point--anyone? Yes, Ambassador?
Ambassador Gross. If I may, let me just underscore one
extraordinarily important thing that was touched on but can't
be overstated, and that is the extraordinary dedication and
work that the staffs do of each of our departments in working
together. They are extraordinarily dedicated and
extraordinarily good, and you find tremendous continuity. If
you look around at other delegations around, nobody does a
better job. No other administration, no other country does a
better job than the United States year in, year out, in
accomplishing these goals.
Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Ambassador, we appreciate your comments. I
would appreciate your patience as we run. We didn't want to
have you to be held, because it looks like it might be as much
as 45 minutes before we return, so we did want to be able to
dismiss this panel. Thank you for participating.
[Recess.]
Mr. Turner. For the record, let's just note that I
introduced all of our panel members and that they responded in
the affirmative to the oath. We'll begin with Mr. Bryant.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN BRYANT, FORMER CONGRESSMAN AND U.S.
AMBASSADOR TO 1997 WORLD RADIO CONFERENCE; GAIL SCHOETTLER,
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO 2000 WORLD RADIO CONFERENCE; AND JANICE
OBUCHOWSKI, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO 2003 WORLD RADIO CONFERENCE
Ambassador Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
inviting me to offer observations on the World Radio
Conferences and also thank the committee now as a private
citizen for taking time to get into this arcane area. It is
very complicated and very time consuming, and you're not going
to be asked any questions about it at a town meeting, I assure
you, but it is very, very important.
I was the 1997 WRC Ambassador. I had been on the
Telecommunications Subcommittee here for 14 years, and I assume
I was chosen because of a presumption that I knew something
about telecommunications and perhaps had some skills that might
lend itself to the job. The fact is, though, that I was, as I
learned, the latest in a long line of WRC Ambassadors, very few
of whom possessed any significant knowledge about the very
complicated technical substance of international spectrum
allocation, and I don't think any of them, like me at the time,
had any knowledge of the institutional history or the dominant
personalities in the World Radio Conference.
As a result, I was suddenly in charge of the delegation
that was being formed, I was in charge of the process of
forming our agenda for the conference, responsible to see that
we succeeded at the conference, yet I knew less about the
process probably literally than any other participant in the
entire process. The conference was only months away, as I was
chosen in about February, as I recall, and I believe we had
that conference in the fall, probably in October. It has been a
while, but I think I am correct about that.
I rose to the occasion, I believe. Our delegation did a
great job. We had terrific people. But I think that the process
does not serve our critical national interest unless it has
changed a lot since I did it, and from listening to the
previous panel it doesn't sound like it has changed
fundamentally. I think that our interests were placed at risk
by a process that begins too late, that lacks year-round
management for long-term objectives, and is under-funded. And I
don't want to suggest it totally lacks year-round management.
It does not totally lack that. But I do not think that we have
year-round management for the outcome of the WRC.
I offer the following four recommendations to support my
position.
First of all, the responsibility for the World Radio
Conference, as well as the rank of Ambassador, should be given
to either a Presidential appointee or a career Foreign Service
professional who works year round in the International
Telecommunications Union process. I think that our tradition of
on-the-job training should be discontinued in favor of the same
type of professional management of spectrum allocation that is
employed by other countries, including our most important
rivals in this process.
Between radio conferences, there are a huge number of
conferences, decisions, study groups, and other activities of
the International Telecommunications Union. They have a bearing
on the relations between the participating nations, they have a
bearing on the relations between the dominant individuals and
their long-term policy decisions, and unless the leader of our
effort is able to actually participate in the process, it's not
going to be managed with an eye to maximizing the effectiveness
and the ability of our delegation to fulfill our objectives at
the subsequent conference.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an analogy that I think
is quite apt, and that is this: appointing a delegation head
for 6 months is about like a congressional district electing
somebody to serve the last 6 months of a 2-year cycle and
expecting them to be able to come up here and understand the
institutional history, who the people are, and match wits with
Henry Hyde and John Dingle. It's about the same thing. That's
what we did while I was there in 1997. I think that's still
what's going on, based upon what the last panel has said in its
testimony.
Second, if the WRC Ambassador is to continue to be a
Presidential appointee, that person should be appointed at
least 2 years before the next scheduled World Radio Conference
and it should be a full-time job. Preparation for this process
is critical. I don't think it is possible to describe the
complexity of trying to master everything from ship-to-shore
radio to the most complicated satellite systems, much of the
substance of which has a lot to do not only with our critical
economic interests, but with our intelligence operations, our
military operations, and a whole variety of other aspects.
Like every diplomatic effort, the mix of international
interests, personalities, and, in this case, technical issues,
is extremely complicated. I think it is disconcerting to think
that the newly appointed head of the U.S. delegation starts off
presiding over U.S. stakeholders, all of whom know more than he
or she does and all of whom, at the international level, are
familiar with each other from having worked with each other for
many years, but the U.S. head of delegation does not have those
relationships.
Third, I know that everybody who comes here says the same
thing, but funding for this operation ought to match its
critical importance. At the very least, the WRC Ambassador, if
we continue the current system that I'm advocating should
change, but if we continued it they ought to have a staff and
office--it doesn't need to be very large, because they are well
supported by the allied agencies that testified in the first
panel, but they need at least that.
Fourth, they need the ability to travel. I was hindered in
my efforts by the inability to make some trips that I thought
were critical in order to deal face to face with the principal
people that we were going to be dealing with at the conference,
either to convince them of our position or to try to understand
their position so we could craft a compromise. The WRC
Ambassador ought to be able to do one-on-one communication in
the same way that a Member of Congress needs to do that with
other Members of Congress.
Finally, I believe the State Department should continue to
have principal responsibility for the WRC process. Ultimately
these issues are geopolitical in nature. They are not technical
issues. It is easy to obscure the geopolitical nature of this
whole process by becoming wound up in the complex technical
substance of it. We had the situation while I was the
Ambassador, for example, of Israel and Palestine not wanting to
do certain things together. The way in which we dealt with them
had some ramifications that were totally different than
anything involving the substance of WRC. I had to have
instructions about how to deal with that. We had at that time
the former Yugoslavia. I think one of the countries was
attempting to take the place of the former Yugoslavia, or
something like that. The State Department needs to be able to
give instructions with ease with regard to how those matters
are handled.
Additionally, in that year we had our major rivals trying
very hard to intervene and to change some things that were
extremely important to us at the very highest level, not the
smallest of which was to change the way in which we handled
global positioning systems. I had to call upon higher-ups in
the State Department to deal with this matter at higher
diplomatic levels than the position that I held. That needs to
be able to happen with ease if the public interest is to be
served. So I think the State Department has done a good job in
this area. I do think that this person, though, that heads this
delegation ought to be picked earlier, given resources, and
supported in the fashion that I have described.
Thank you for letting me testify.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Bryant follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.071
Mr. Turner. Ambassador Schoettler, I'm going to give you
the choice as to whether or not you proceed. You'd have about 7
minutes for all of your comments, or we could wait until after
the vote. Would you like to proceed?
Ambassador Schoettler. I'll proceed, yes. I'll do it in
less than 7 minutes.
Thank you. I appreciate the chance to be here today,
because the World Radio Communication Conference is so
important to our national security and our economic
competitiveness, so I'm going to, because of the time--and you
have my testimony--I'll just summarize the recommendations that
our whole delegation made. Grace, I'll leave with you a copy of
all of the recommendations.
We had 162 members, about half each from government and
industry, and I think the large delegation made our job much
easier because we were able to cover a huge number of meetings,
unlike any other delegation there. We had people with high
technical skills who were able to cover all of the various
negotiations every day. And, quite honestly, our success was
due to the excellence of our delegation. They were superb.
Second, I had terrific people assigned to me by the Defense
Department. NASA, Badri Younes, who is here today, is now at
DOD, and the FCC, and they worked closely with me for 6 months
managing the entire process. I can't tell you how important
that was to the success of our delegation to have their
expertise and their ability to manage.
The State Department was outstanding. They provided me and
for all of us office space. They enabled me to travel to
important meetings around the world prior to the WRC, which was
very, very important in setting up our negotiations. So one of
my major recommendations is that they have sufficient funding
to do that job.
Other recommendations--engage in an extensive and vigorous
outreach program with other countries before the WRC, both
within our region and elsewhere. The politics of the WRC
determine whether we win our positions or not. Commitments are
made early. And developing countries, in particular, responded
very positively to our reaching out to them, and their votes
often ensured our success, again in a one country/one vote
environment. I can't over-estimate the value of reaching out to
and respecting the needs of other countries when you are the
world's powerhouse. In Istanbul in 2000, each one of our
delegation members also was assigned to a country who was
there, and they maintained coordination with them, pushed our
positions, and it was invaluable.
I think the Ambassador should have suitable facilities,
preferably a suite, for hosting other delegations, both for
negotiations and social events. Again, it is because the
delegates to the WRC think it is a huge honor to be invited to
the U.S. Ambassador's suite. It is just so important and it was
very critical to our success.
I think the State Department should continue to be the lead
Government agency for the WRC preparation for all of the
reasons that you've heard. I believe it is very important for
the WRC Ambassador to be a Presidential appointee and to report
to a key White House official. It gives you the chance to
convene warring parties and to solve internal problems, but it
also provides great stature nationally and internationally.
The WRC Ambassador should be appointed more than 6 months
before the next WRC, and I think there is a technical problem
there, but that I would urge Congress to overcome because
leadership is so important.
I think the delegation should be whatever size is needed to
provide Government's unique expertise and to meet the needs of
both industry and national security. As you've heard before, I
believe a senior executive coordinating committee in Government
under the leadership of the White House would be very helpful
in overseeing WRC preparation.
I also believe that Government and industry should
negotiate directly to resolve differences on key issues; that
it isn't a good idea to work only through government
intermediaries. That's cumbersome and less effective. And our
direct negotiations in 2000 helped our delegation to go to the
WRC committed, completely committed to our proposals.
A couple of other things I will just touch on very briefly,
and that is establish a media strategy, because the Ambassador
needs to be the spokesperson and it avoids rumors.
So I'll just leave a copy of our delegation report, and I
am going to let Janice now go, because we've probably got 3
minutes.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Schoettler follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.192
Mr. Turner. Ambassador Obuchowski, if you are able in about
3 minutes to conclude your comments, we'll adjourn the hearing.
Ambassador Obuchowski. Perfect.
You've heard of the three Tenors. We have the three
Ambassadors. You can see we represent about a decade of
experience and both political parties. I'm very happy to see
the continuity in commitment to the country among us. In fact,
Ambassador Schoettler made some excellent recommendations and
passed them along to me, and I hope that our delegation was
able to implement them.
I also want to recognize this committee and thank you so
much for your interest and for enabling three of your senior
staff people represented today to come to Geneva. That
communicated to everyone from around the world that this wasn't
about one party or one agency; this was a unified national
effort. It had a profound impact.
Most of the good points have already been covered. I
subscribe to almost everything I've heard. Every WRC takes on
the coloring of its time in history. Given that our WRC was
convened after September 11th and after the liberation of Iraq,
this was certainly a WRC that was strongly influenced by
national security considerations. At the same time, we were
very proud that we had a very strong private sector. We had
many commercial accomplishments, the most visible of which was
Wi-Fi which you've already heard about.
In talking about WRCs, this particular conference had 48
agenda items and it reflected the complexity of these and the
depth with which spectrum permeates our economy. So there's
tremendous strategic importance that agenda reflected. We've
had great leadership over the years and great organization,
even though we use a very distributed process. But, you can
always perfect things, and so I'd like to quickly touch on a
couple of recommendations that I have in my testimony, which I
will also leave, as well as our final report--a nice, colored
copy.
First, I'd like to subscribe to what CSIS said in its
report. I commend that to you. They comment about the fact that
this Conference represents major geopolitical and economic
stakes wrapped in technical language, and so the strategic
importance of WRCs should be emphasized.
No. 2, we need a dedicated budget arrived at in consensus
with all the agencies and then presented to the Ambassador. At
that point you can work based on a much more tighter framed
organization than sort of passing the cup. It works. It seems
to always work but it is a drain of energy at the end of the
day.
We also need a blueprint. A lot of the institutional
history that drives us resides in the hands of the Ambassadors
and very dedicated staff. So I would suggest that we commit to
either paper or CD-ROM the things that inevitably have to
happen to knit together the delegation.
My final recommendation goes to the President's spectrum
initiative. I know that this committee has had other hearings
and will have hearings about the importance of a national
spectrum policy. We have very complicated issues on the table,
and in order to drive them in a timely fashion we do need that
top-down vision. That will, in turn, enable us to prepare our
recommendations more quickly and to drive them up through the
various stove pipes of regional preparations around the world.
For example, we can then use military bilaterals to drive some
of our security recommendations, such as in Europe before there
is a unified position. That would be my final recommendation.
I do want to thank you for the honor of testifying. We'll
respond to questions when they come in writing so you can get
on to your other work.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Obuchowski follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.086
Mr. Turner. We want to thank all of you for your service
and the importance of this issue and also for your
participation today.
With that, we'll be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5268.190
<all>