11 of 11 DOCUMENTS

Copyright 2007 Federal News Service, Inc.
All Rights Reserved 
Federal News Service

February 1, 2007 Thursday

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING

LENGTH: 21393 words

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE; 
SUBJECT: THE COMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE: A VIEW FROM THE FCC; 
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE (D-HI); 
WITNESSES: KEVIN J. MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; MICHAEL J. COPPS, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; ROBERT M. MCDOWELL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; 
LOCATION: 253 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
 HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SUBJECT: THE COMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE: A VIEW FROM THE FCC CHAIRED BY: SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE (D-HI) WITNESSES: KEVIN J. MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; MICHAEL J. COPPS, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; ROBERT M. MCDOWELL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LOCATION: 253 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. TIME: 10:00 A.M. EST DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2007
SEN. DANIEL K. INOUYE (D-HI):  -- we hear from all five members of the Federal Communications Commission today on the eve of Super Bowl Sunday, sine it was the 2004 Super Bowl, with that extraordinary halftime program that brought us together last time.  A lot has happened since that hearing, and the committee appreciates the willingness of the commission to speak with us today about the state of the industry and what we must do as a nation to ensure that the benefits of the new communications technologies are shared by all Americans, regardless of income or geography.  The commission is charged with acting in the public interest.  It is an important mandate, and we look forward to participating in discussions with the commission as to how we can advance that goal. 
In three years, we have seen the mergers of the two largest Bell companies with the two largest long distance companies.  This was immediately followed by AT&T's acquisition of Bell South.  Meanwhile, technology has fueled(?) change, and simple-purpose networks have given way to new, multi-purpose platforms that can support all measures of applications and services, including voice, video and e- mail services.
But the communications revolution does not come without risk.  As public servants both here in Congress and on the commission, we must be vigilant in our oversight to ensure that the communications industry evolves in a manner that does not harm consumers.  Consumers must have confidence that dialing 911 means getting emergency help whether the call is made over a traditional phone line or a line, or wireless phone, or a voice-over-Internet protocol service.  They must be confident that their private, personal information will be protected from abuse.  Together, further, consumers must be assured of evenhandedness from network operators, so that consumers reap the full benefits of competition.
We must encourage continued innovation in the industry.  I'm troubled that other countries are leapfrogging the United States in the deployment of broadband access.  As policymakers, we must ask ourselves whether companies have the right incentives to invest in this technology and what we can do to keep the United States competitive with the rest of the world.  While private industry has brought us, through the marketplace, many wonderful innovations that improve our lives at work and home, I want to be certain that the FCC has the tools it needs to carry out its mission of protecting the public interest and consumers.
And now it's my privilege to call upon the vice chairman, Senator Stevens.
SEN. TED STEVENS (R-AK):  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In view of the timeframe today - we have several votes starting before noon - I will defer mine until time for questioning.  I appreciate very much your having this hearing, and obviously there's great interest in the community concerning issues pertaining to the FCC.  Thank you.
SEN. INOUYE:  Your statement will be made part of the record.
Senator Sununu?
SEN.  JOHN E. SUNUNU (R-NH):  I'm certainly not going to speak any longer than my ranking member.  I look forward to the testimony of all the commissioners.
SEN. INOUYE: Your statement will be made part of the record.
And Senator Klobuchar?
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN):  Thank you very much, Chairman.  I'd like to hear the testimony as well.  I have some questions and will speak a little after they are done with their comments.
SEN. INOUYE:  Your statement will be part of the record.
Ms. McCaskill?
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO):  I'll have a statement to submit to the record, Mr. Chairman.  I look forward to questioning.   Thank you.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you very much.  It'll be part of the record.
Senator Thune?
SENATOR JOHN THUNE (R-SD):  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to welcome the commissioners before us this morning and look forward to hearing from them.  I will apologize in advance. We have General Casey in front of the Armed Services Committee today, so I probably will be going back and forth.  I look forward to getting a chance to question our panelists today.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg?
SEN. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG (D-NJ):  Yes.  Mr. Chairman, I'll refrain from putting my - (off mike).
(LAUGHTER.)
SEN. INOUYE:  Without objection.
And now it's my privilege to call upon the chairman of the commission, the Honorable Kevin J. Martin.
MR. KEVIN J. MARTIN:  Thank you.  Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens and all the members of the committee.  Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the state of the telecommunications industry.
I do have a brief opening statement, and then I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
I've had the privilege of serving at the Federal Communications Commission for over five years, including almost two years as the agency's chairman.  During this period, my colleagues and I, following the guidance from this committee and from Congress, have overseen a telecommunications industry undergoing rapid and unprecedented change. These changes have seen the telecommunications industry transition from a period of sharp decline to one of significant growth. Companies and consumers alike have finally found the promised land of convergence.  Telephone calls are now being made using Internet and cable systems.  Television programs are increasingly available on the Internet and are watched when and where we want them.  Cell phones are mini computers.  They take pictures, play songs and games, send e- mail, and hopefully soon will send and receive emergency messages. Teens ignore the television and stereo, downloading songs to their MP3 players and posting videos on You Tube.  The Internet has become an invaluable tool for educating our children, treating patients and giving a voice and creative outlet to individuals from all walks of life.
Faced with such fast-paced technological change, the commission has tried to make decisions based on the fundamental belief that a robust, competitive marketplace, not regulation, regulation is ultimately the greatest protector of the public interest.  Competition is the best method of delivering the benefits of choice, innovation and affordability to American consumers.  Competition drives prices down and spurs providers to improve service and create new products.
Government, however, still has an important role to play.  The commission has worked to create a regulatory environment that promotes investment and competition, but we must also act to accept the rules of the road so that players can compete on a level playing field. For instance, shortly after I became chairman, the commission removed legacy regulations, like tariffs and price controls, that discourage providers from investing in broadband networks.  Since then, broadband penetration has increased, while the prices of DSL and cable modem service have decreased.
Government must also act when necessary to achieve broader social goals.  That's why I support eliminating many economic regulations.  I recognize there are issues that the marketplace alone might not fully address.  For instance, the government should ensure that the communication needs of the public safety community are met, and that new and improved services are available to all.
Now, the title of this hearing is "Assessing the Communications Marketplace:  A View from the Commission."  I'm pleased to report that the state of the communications industry today is strong.  When I first came to the commission, the communications sector was in decline.  In 2006, the communications industry experienced record growth.  Last year, the S&P 500 telecommunications sector was the strongest-performing sector.  As displayed here on the first chart, TIA reported that U.S. telecom revenue to 923 billion last year, which is the most growth in a single year since 2000.  And Americans are reaping the rewards of this growth.  As you can see in this slide, in almost all cases, vigorous competition, resulting from free-market deregulatory policies, has provided the consumer with more, better and cheaper services to choose from.  By 2005, the price for long distance services was two thirds what it was I 2000.  Wireless phone service was half of what it was in 2000, and the price for placing an international call was a quarter of what it was.
Now, almost all of today's innovation is enabled by broadband deployment.  Broadband deployment has been our top priority at the commission, and we have begun to see some success as a result of our efforts.  In 2005, the commission created a deregulatory environment that helped fuel private-sector investment.  Since then, companies have begun racing to lay fiber to our homes.  From March of 2005 to the end of September 2006, the number of homes passed by fiber increased from 1.6 million to 6.1 million.  Just as significant for consumers, the average price of broadband has dropped in the past two years.  The Pew Internet in American Life Project found that from February of 2004 to December of 2005, the average price for home broadband access fell from $39 per month to $36 per month, and for DSL, the monthly bills fell from $38 to $32, almost a 20 percent decrease.
Now, the decline in price was accompanied by an increase in the number of Americans subscribing to high-speed connections to the Internet.  Such connections have grown by nearly 600 percent since 2001, and according to the commission's most recent data, high-speed connections increased by 26 percent in just the first half of 2006, and by 52 percent for the full year ending June 30th, 2006.  The independent Pew project has also confirmed this trend, finding that from March of 2005 to March of 2006, overall broadband adoption increased by 40 percent, from 60 to 84 million, twice the growth rate of the year before.  The study found that overall penetration rates in rural areas still lagged behind, but that broadband adoption in rural America had grown at approximately the same rate.
But perhaps most importantly, the Pew study found that significant increases in broadband adoption were widespread and cut across every demographic.  According to their independent research, broadband adoption grew by almost 70 percent among middle-income households, and it grew by more than 120 percent among African- Americans, by 70 percent among those with less than a high school education, and by 60 percent among senior citizens.
Now, today wireless service is becoming increasingly important as another platform to compete with cable and DSL as a provider of broadband.  The demand for wireless service continues to grow at a rapid rate.  In 1986, there were only 500,000 wireless subscribers. Today, there are 219 million subscribers, generating $60 billion in revenue.  Moreover, wireless rates have continued to decrease, falling 82 percent since 1996, and 14 percent just last year.
The commission is making available as much spectrum as possible to put the next generation of advanced wireless devices into the hands and homes of consumers.  In September, the commission closed its largest and most successful spectrum auction, raising almost $14 billion.  The spectrum offered was the largest amount of spectrum suitable for deploying wireless broadband ever made available in a single commission auction.  And we are currently preparing to auction 60 megahertz in the 700-megahertz band.  This spectrum is also particularly well-suited to the provision of data and wireless broadband services.
In sum, the United States is the largest broadband market in the world, with over 56 million broadband subscribers, according to the OECD.  I'm proud of the progress we have made in broadband deployment by creating an environment that better facilitates infrastructure investment.  I also hear, however, the voice of my colleague Dr. Copps spurring us on and reminding us to do better.  And I agree.
This committee explicitly asked how the United States compares with other industrialized nations.  The OECD currently ranks the United States as twelfth in the world in terms of broadband penetration, behind Korea, the United Kingdom and even Belgium.  It's important to note, however, that the OECD does not adjust for factors including density, which puts a country as large as ours with sizable rural areas at a significant disadvantage.  For instance, New Jersey has a similar population density as Korea, which is ranked fourth in the OECD rankings.  Yet, New Jersey has a higher penetration rate, with 30 subscribers per 100 residents versus just 26 for Korea.  And Chairman Stevens, you'll be proud to know that Alaska, with one person per square mile, still has a higher broadband penetration rate than France.
Given the geographic diversity of our nation, the United States is doing well, but nevertheless we all agree that our current standing of twelfth is not good enough, and we must continue to build on our efforts to encourage competition, speed broadband deployment and lower prices for consumers.
As is the case with the telecommunications sector, consumers and companies are benefiting from technological developments and innovation in media.  DVRs, video on demand and HD programming offer more programming to watch at any time than ever before.  Thanks largely to new services like these, cable operators' total revenue grew from $65 billion to approximately $74 billion last year.  And while consumers have enormous choice among channels, they have little control over how many channels they're able to buy.  For those want to receive 100 channels or more, today's most popular cable packages may be a good value.
According to Nielsen, however, most viewers watch fewer than two dozen channels, and for them the deal isn't as good.  The cost of basic cable service has gone up at a disproportionate rate, 38 percent between 2000 and 2005, when compared against other communication sectors.  The average price of the expanded basic cable package, the standard cable package today, almost doubled between 1995 and 2005, increasing by 93 percent.  The increase in cable prices appears even more dramatic when viewed relative to the prices for a number of other communication services, prices for telephone, long distance, international and wireless telephone service, which have all decreased dramatically during the same timeframe.
Ten years ago, the satellite industry was nascent, and today direct-broadcast satellite provides consumers an important competitive choice, and satellite offerings are sometimes the only multi-channel choice option for rural Americans.  But as you can see, the commission and the GAO have found that only in areas where there is a second cable operator did average prices decline.  Between 2000 and 2006, DBS subscribership grew by 100 percent, and average revenue per user grew 32 percent.  And like DBS, satellite radio has experienced significant growth, with subscriptions increasing from 1.6 million in 2003, to 13.6 in 2006.
The transition from analog to digital technology poses both opportunities and challenges for the broadcast sector.  New and better services that digital technology enables are good for consumers, who have access to more news, information and entertainment.  With digital technology, television broadcasters can offer high-definition programming, multiple programming streams, data services and even video-over-mobile devices.  However, many broadcasters' business plans are in their infancy, their revenue streams aren't certain, and the costs of transition are large and immediate.
While we have made significant progress in creating an environment that facilitates investment and ensures the American people realize the full benefits of our world-class communication system, there is more to be done.  I see four other areas that deserve particular attention.  First, we must continue to increase access to communication services.  I will continue to make broadband deployment the commission's top priority, and we will continue to encourage the deployment of broadband from all providers, using a variety of technologies.  For example, the commission is currently considering an order that would classify wireless broadband Internet service as an information service.  This action would eliminate unnecessary regulatory barriers for wireless service providers and is particularly important with the upcoming spectrum auctions.
It is also critical that all Americans stay connected to state- of-the-art communication services.  The Universal Service Fund is the lifeblood of this goal.  Changes in technology and increases in the number of carriers who are receiving universal service support have placed significant pressure on the stability of the fund.  We need to move to a contribution system that is technologically neutral and a distribution system that is more efficient.
Second, we must continue to promote real choice for consumers in all the sectors we regulate.  We need to build on our efforts to create a regulatory environment that encourages entry into the video market and more choice for consumers.  This includes making sure that competitive providers have access to must-have programming and ensuring that consumers living in apartment buildings are not denied a choice of cable operators.  Additionally, we need to continue to ensure that new entrants are able to compete with incumbents for telecommunication services.  New telephone entrants need access to local telephone numbers and the ability to interconnect with the incumbents to deliver those local calls to them.  We also need to ensure that existing service providers are not standing in the way of the innovations currently occurring in the consumer electronics base. Consumers want to be able to walk into a store, buy a new television or TiVo, take it home and plug it in as easily as they do today with a telephone.
Third, we must continue to protect consumers.  The commission intends to strengthen its privacy rules for the handling of call records by requiring providers to adopt additional safeguards to protect this important information from unauthorized access.  And we must make sure that consumers have the benefits of a competitive and diverse media marketplace.
And fourth and finally, we must enhance public safety.  Public safety has been, and will continue to be, one of the commission and my top priorities.  We must make sure that the public has the tools to know when an emergency is coming and how to contact first responders, and we must enable first responders to communicate with each other. Chairman Inouye and cosponsors Senator Stevens, Kerry, Smith and Snow obviously recognize one of the most pressing public safety problems is the need for interoperability within and among public safety systems. I thank the chairman for his efforts in this regard and look forward to any guidance that the Congress may provide for how we can proceed.
As you can see, on the whole, the state of the communications industry is strong and growing stronger.  Innovation in all sections is back, and competition has enabled consumers to get newer and more innovative technologies and communication services at declining prices.
Sadly, though, one service has gone the way of the dinosaur this past year.  2006 marked the end of an era when Western Union discontinued its telegram delivery service, which it had begun in 1856.
Thank you again for your time and attention and for the opportunity to be with you all this morning, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and now may I call upon Commissioner Copps.
MR. MICHAEL J. COPPS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the committee.
I welcome the opportunity always to return to the Senate, which was home to me for so many years.  It was actually a couple more months 37 years ago when I first started walking the halls of the Russell Senate Office Building.  I welcome the chance to share some of my thoughts with you over the state of our communications industries, which are such an important part of our economy and an even more important component of our society and of our culture.
I think we have some serious work to do to ensure that these industries are making their maximum contribution to our nation.  We have a media environment that, while impressive in many ways, is not fully serving American democracy or the American public.  We have a telecommunications marketplace that without some serious thought will never extend the wonders of the Internet to millions of Americans, and despite the lessons of 9-11 and Katrina, we still are not ready for the next manmade or natural disaster.  Perhaps our nation's unreadiness on 9-11 can be explained by ignorance.  If we're not prepared next time, that will be dereliction.
Let me begin with the issue that you know is closest to my heart, the broadcast media.  I know that many local broadcasters strive mightily to serve the public interest, but increasingly, the public- spirited part of the profession is being squeezed out.  Too much of TV and radio today is homogenized, often gratuitously violent programming.  Even worse is what we don't see enough of, the community and civic affairs coverage that is democracy's lifeblood.  I've traveled all over the country to a dozen media hearings just in the last year, and I have seen people's impatience with the status quo. It's time for the FCC to focus not only on avoiding bad, new rules, but to revisit the bad, old rules that got us into this mess in the first place.
I'm very pleased that the chairman is committed to complete our long-dormant localism proceeding before moving forward on media ownership, but going beyond that, we need to find a way to bring public interest standards back to broadcasting and the spirit of public interest to our other media, too.
Turning to telecommunications, I think the FCC and the nation's greatest challenge is to bring the wonders of modern technology to all our people, to the inner city and to our distant farms and ranches, to tribal lands, to our disabled and challenged fellow citizens, to our poor citizens and to our oldest citizens.  We simply cannot afford to leave anyone behind without leaving America behind.  Right now, your country and mine is twenty-first in the world when it comes to broadband digital opportunity, and that's according to the International Telecommunications Union.  How can we expect a generation of students to enter the digital classroom at dial-up speed?  How will they compete as individuals?
But wait a minute.
We're paying a business and a competitive cost here, too.  Fewer Americans with broadband access means a smaller Internet marketplace and a glass ceiling over the productivity of small businesses, especially, and entrepreneurs, in too many places in this country of ours.  But then, again, what did we expect without having a real, national broadband strategy?
I hope this Congress will push the FCC to be a more proactive participant in developing a strategy and developing solutions.  Have us gather better statistics about our country's woeful broadband situation.  Set our nation's talented engineers and policy gurus to work writing reports and teeing up options for you to consider about how we can inject life back into our nation's stagnant broadband market.  Keep our feet to the fire to encourage innovation, competition and the provision of advanced telecommunications to all of our people.  The present situation is far too grave to let the great technological resources of the FCC be anything less than 100 percent engaged in this project.
The FCC also faces a daunting challenge in improving our disaster readiness.  I believe that in the aftermath of 9-11, this agency, which employs the greatest concentration of telecommunication experts in the nation and has statutory responsibility to secure our non- military communications in time of emergency, allowed its expertise and authority to be marginalized.  Chairman Martin has moved to make public safety and homeland security a higher and top priority, even creating a separate bureau this year.
But the job is still far from done, and our role is still not what it should be.  One initiative we have adopted - and I think it's of particular importance - is using the FCC as a clearinghouse for public safety and homeland security ideas.  Small businesses, charities, hospitals, other entities all around the country that lack the resources to develop complex emergency plans should have somebody they can contact - I suggest the FCC - to learn what's worked for others, and what hasn't worked, so they don't go down the road.  They don't have the time, they don't have the resources, they don't have the money to start from square one every time this comes up.  So, it's going to take money.  It's going to take staff time and serious dedication for us to get there, but the safety of the people is always the first obligation of the public servant, and the agency is capable of doing more to keep America safe.  Rightly done, this initiative can save the nation time, save it money, possibly even save it lives.
Turning to one of those smaller issues that doesn't usually get much attention, let me make one minor, but I think important, suggestion.  Modify the closed-meeting rule so that we can talk to each other at the FCC.  I can't think of any recent proceeding that would not have benefited from a full and frank exchange of ideas among the principal decision makers.  Every other institution encourages discussion among its members, whether it's Congress, the courts, or the College of Cardinals.  You know, if it's good enough for Holy Mother Church, of which I am a member, it ought to be good enough for the FCC.
I want to finish by stating my firm conviction that the issues the FCC faces in the next two years are far too important and complex to be reduced to simple debates about regulation versus deregulation, or pro-business versus anti-business.  Our job is to make sure the people's business gets done.  We need to find ways for stakeholders to work together, to combine the genius of our great enterprise system with the things that people expect government to do.  Partnership is how we built this great country of ours; working together; building together; recognizing our interdependence, one upon the other.  Those have been the best moments in our nation's passage to greatness, and therein is the key to our future.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members, thank you, and I look forward to our conversation this morning.
MR. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the committee.
As we're in the middle of what passes for deep winter here in Washington, I'm reminded of what I learned growing up as a fourth- generation South Dakotan.  My great-grandmother homesteaded near the Badlands, an area that Senator Thune knows very well - very rugged country.  And what she learned was that, along with so many other pioneers that were scattered over the long and wide distances there, that we really made it by staying connected with each other and by pulling together.  And today, we have the opportunity, through technology, to connect this country in ways that are more profound than my great-grandmother ever could have imagined.
We need that same spirit, through telecommunications, to provide for all of our neighbors, including those in rural and insular areas, other high-cost areas, Native Americans, residents of our inner cities, minorities, or those with disabilities, non English speakers and low-income consumers.  We should upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure in every corner of this country and make new technologies more widely available and affordable to everyone.  All of our citizens should have access, no matter where they live or what challenges they face.  To better serve everyone in this country, we should focus on improving access to broadband, modernizing universal service and promoting the public interest in our media.
As a commissioner, I've traveled to a lot of unique parts of our country, such as Alaska and Hawaii.  I'll never forget my visit to the Gulf Coast of Mississippi shortly after the devastation of hurricane Katrina.  The enormous damage there reminds us of the needs of our public safety community and our national security communities.  We have to keep those foremost in our minds and in our efforts.
One of our central national priorities is, as my colleagues have said, promoting the widespread deployment of broadband.  Even though we've made strides, we're not keeping pace with our global competitors.  This more than a public relations problem.  Citizens of other countries are simply getting more megabits for less money. That's a productivity problem, and our citizens deserve better.  We must restore our place as the undisputed world leader in telecom.  It warrants a comprehensive national strategy.
As has been mentioned, the IT(?) found that digital opportunity afforded to our citizens is twenty-first in the world.  It's not enough of a national strategy just to fight our way back to twentieth; we have to fight our way back to the top.  We should start by improving our data collection so that we can better ascertain our current problems and develop better responses.  We must increase incentives for investment and promote competition.  We've got to make broadband truly accessible to everyone, even if that means communities tapping their own resources to build broadband systems.  We must also work - as many members of this committee, including Senator Dorgan and Senator Snow and others have done - to preserve the open and neutral character of the Internet that has always been its hallmark.
Some have argued that our low broadband ranking is due to our rural population. Well, if that's the case, we'd better redouble our efforts to make sure that we get rural broadband every bit as efficiently deployed as it is anywhere else in the country.  We can't afford to leave any part of our country behind.
In that sense, it's vital to keep our universal service programs on sound footing.  As voice becomes just one application over broadband networks, we should ensure that universal service evolves to promote advanced services, a priority that this committee in particular made a real priority in the '96 act.
And we've got to more to stay on top of the latest spectrum developments.  Recent years have seen an explosion of new wireless opportunities for consumers, but we have to take creative approaches, both technical, regulatory and economic, to get spectrum into the hands of all types of operators, particularly as we prepare for the critically important 700 megahertz auction that you all made possible.
As for media, let's never forget that the airways belong to the American people.  With our ownership rules, we should take far greater care than in the past before allowing any further concentration.  We need to open our airways to community-based and minority voices, and we need to establish public interest obligations for broadcasters as they enter the Digital Age.
Finally, we're charged by Congress to perform as a law enforcement agency.  We should be rigorous in enforcing all of the laws under our jurisdiction.  We have a lot of issues before us, a lot of complaints before us, including the Do Not Call Registry, the junk fax rules, indecency, payola, video news releases and our sponsorship identification rules, and we should address all of them and enforce all the laws vigorously.
Mr. Chairman, I will carry out Congress' charge to keep the American public well-connected and well-protected, and I thank you for this opportunity to testify and look forward to addressing any concerns or questions you may have.
SEN. INOUYE:  I thank you very much, Mr. Adelstein.
Now may I call upon Commissioner Deborah Tate?  Miss Tate.
MS. DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE:  Thank you.  Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and honored members of the committee.  And welcome to the new members.  I look forward to working with you all in the future.
We are, indeed, implementing many of the acts that you-all passed, the Warren(?) Act and the Call Home Act, and look forward to working on other issues with you-all in the coming year.
I'd like to first commend Kevin Martin for his effective and strong leadership as chairman of the FCC and do appreciate all my fellow commissioners this past year.  As we've tried to work cooperatively to build consensus on complicated, complex and challenging issues, and I agree with Commissioner Copps that it would make it a lot easier if all five of us could work together and meet together.
This is the first opportunity that I've had to appear before the committee since my confirmation, and as you've already heard, what a year it has been.  Incredibly advanced technologies, new consumer products, services and bundles that we read about on the front page almost daily.  As the Internet and the Digital Age affect all of us, the foundations of the old order are challenged not only for the industry, but for government, policymakers and consumers alike. Converging technologies are blurring platforms.  Such dynamic technological changes create both opportunities and challenges not only for the industry, but also for us.  And while my philosophy has encouraged commercial negotiations and a light regulatory touch so that we can provide more incentives to continued investment and growth, while encouraging extraordinary innovations.
At the same time, we do need to be careful of social policies and especially public safety concerns, which are paramount to protecting consumers and, indeed, our entire nation.  One significant challenge that my other commissioners have noted is our remand broadcast ownership rules and the review.  As you know, we've held two of the six hearings that we've committed to.  One was, appropriately, I think, in my hometown of Nashville, Tennessee.  Given the important role that the broadcast media play in our society's marketplace, I am committed to ensuring the touchstone goals of competition, localism and diversity.  As we do review the rules, however, we do have to be mindful of the ongoing, dramatic changes in the way that we all do receive our news and information and entertainment, taking into consideration the explosion of new sources - especially, for instance, the way that my children receive their information, "generation I's" I call them, the ones that were raised with the Internet, where they access all types of information and content over the Internet.
As many of you all know, most of my professional life has been spent working on children and family issues of significance to them, and that didn't change when I came to the FCC.  Although most of the visibility does surround our enforcement of congressional restrictions on the broadcast of indecent programming, I'm also pleased that we're taking a leadership role in addressing the national epidemic of childhood obesity, the effect of increasingly violent programming through our study soon to be released, and the manner in which children's programming rules will be applied as we move to the new digital, multicast world.
I join you also, and all of m colleagues, in working to ensure that broadband is indeed available to all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, is my time up?
Ms. TATE:  Thank you.
The exciting news is that we're seeing continued increased take rates, over 50 percent from a year ago.
My work both as a state commissioner, and also now as chairman of the Federal-State Joint Board on USF, has made it clear that the growth has become so untenable that we must begin to take action to reform the fund in order to save it.  And, therefore, we began to look at reforms on both the contribution and the distribution side.  Next month, we will have an  en banc with many of our state colleagues, and of course I welcome your input at that, or at any time, to discuss any ideas that you may have about ways to reform.
Like you-all, I've witnessed firsthand how incredible the possibilities and the innovations from the E-Rate Fund Tennessee was the first state to connect all of our schools and libraries.  And then, of course, my visit to Alaska - how important it is to connect to healthcare back on the mainland.  It's essential, though, that we utilize technology-neutral fare and understandable systems to both sustain and stabilize the USF fund.
The commission, like Congress, has also been active in helping to increase the protection of confidential and delicate consumer information.  Thank you for your pretexting legislation, and we will be acting shortly to guard against unauthorized access to customer phone and call detail information.
Last, but of course most importantly, I'd like to touch on and also say that we were pleased to launch the Homeland Security Bureau at the FCC and, like my colleagues, after attending our Katrina hearings in Mississippi, heard firsthand how important the words "redundancy" and "interoperability" are during disasters.
I continue to want to work with you-all as we move forward on those issues.  Again, I appreciate the invitation and will be glad to take questions.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you very much, Commissioner Tate.
And now may I call upon Commissioner Robert McDowell?
MR. ROBERT MCDOWELL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens and distinguished members of the committee.  Thank you so much for having us hear this morning.
Eight months ago today, I was sworn in as an FCC commissioner, and my short tenure here has exceeded all of my expectations.  It has been a great honor to serve the American people in this way.  I'm also immensely fortunate to work under Chairman Martin's leadership and with such a talented team of commissioners.
This is an exciting time to be at the FCC.  Revolutionary technological developments are yielding new opportunities for consumers to improve the quality of their lives and for businesses to improve their efficiency.  This dynamic disruption transcends traditional regulatory boundaries.  The issues addressed by the FCC touch the lives of every American, from broadband availability to the incredible proliferation of wireless technologies, from universal service to localism and diversity in broadcasting, from wireless medical devices that improve thousands of lives each day to the greatest entrepreneurial explosion in history known as the Internet.
I endeavor to approach each issue with a consistent regulatory philosophy, one that has served our nation well since its inception, one that trusts competitive free enterprise to serve consumers best. I trust free people acting within free markets to make better decisions for themselves than those of us in government.  As we commemorate the four hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Jamestown settlement in Virginia this year, we should remind ourselves that free markets and free ideas are the essence of our free society, and promoting freedom is the FCC's core mission.
The commission is adopting policies to encourage increased broadband deployment for all Americans.  While America's rate of broadband deployment has more than doubled during the Martin chairmanship, from 20 percent growth in penetration per year to over 40 percent growth, no one at the commission is resting on those laurels.  In fact, we are making it easier for entrepreneurs to construct new delivery platforms more quickly.  The resulting new surge in capital investment will stimulate our economy and will give American consumers new tools to strengthen their freedom by enhancing their ability to choose.  All of us will benefit as a result.
Among the highlights of my first eight months was our advanced wireless services auction last summer. It was phenomenally successful and brought in nearly $14 billion to the U.S. Treasury.  New uses in this spectrum will yield untold benefits. Our video franchising order, adopted in December, will enhance video competition and accelerate broadband deployment.  And much more lies ahead, including the 700 megahertz auction, white spaces management, adoption of a digital audio broadcast standard for HD radio, universal service reform and much, much more.
In sum, from my new perspective at the FCC, America's future has never looked more promising.  Consumers have never been more empowered or more savvy.  The marketplace is teaming with more brilliant entrepreneurial ideas than ever before, and the FCC is working hard to create an environment where private enterprise can meet an ever more sophisticated consumer demand as quickly as possible, thus promoting more freedom.
I look forward to meeting these challenges in partnership with Chairman Martin and my colleagues on the commission, and I look forward to your continued direction and to your questions this morning.  Thank you very much.
SEN. INOUYE:  I thank you very much, Commissioner McDowell.
Because of the limitation of time imposed upon us by the pending votes, I will have to insist that we follow the five-minute rule.  I will be submitting my questions for the record, but I have one question.
Mr. Chairman, late last year after considerable negotiation, the commission reached an agreement on the AT&T-Bell South merger.  At that time, Chairman Martineau and Commissioner Tate both state that, had the decision been yours to make, you might not have adopted some of the conditions.  I understand that independent commissioners have independent views.  That's to be understood, but what I find difficult to understand is that you also included language in a separate statement, and you said that you do not intend to stand by the deal that was reached.  If you felt so strongly about this condition, do you think you had an obligation to withhold your vote and continue further negotiations?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, thank you for the question and the opportunity to clarify our positions.  The commission - I don't believe that either Commissioner Tate or I said that we wouldn't stand by the deal, so to speak.
What we actually indicated was that the company had voluntarily agreed to certain kinds of commitments and that the commission would enforce their commitments, but that those commitments couldn't change commission policy or commission rules or regulations.  So, for example, AT&T had voluntarily agreed to abide by certain net neutrality requirements that they were going to impose upon themselves.  And since they volunteered to do that, we would enforce that, but that did not mean we were changing our policies and we were going to enforce those same kinds of net neutrality requirements on others.
In addition to that, the company had agreed that they would offer to lower some of their special access prices, but only to some companies.  And the commission has had a long-standing practice that in that area you're not allow to discriminate among the different companies in terms of who you're going to offer discounted prices to. And what I said at the time, and what I believe Commissioner Tate said, and we said in our joint statement, was that the commission wasn't altering the law here, and that if the policies that they were going to try to implement would be invalid, the commission wouldn't approve them to the extent that they require subsequent commission approval. And we made that clear at the time, so I don't think that we weren't saying we wouldn't stand by the deal.  The company would have to continue to offer the services that they said that they would do in their voluntary conditions, but to the extent any of those conditions required subsequent government action where the commission was going to have to affirmatively take action to enforce those across the board on someone else, we said no.  We would have hesitation about doing that, because we weren't changing our underlying policies or rules.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thanks very much, Chairman, but Commissioner Copps and Commissioner Adelstein, the record shows that you both fought very hard for this condition.  Why was this condition necessary and consistent with the law?
MR. COPPS:  Well, I think this whole special access area has been identified as very problematic.  I think it has been identified as an area where a few companies have tremendous market power over this whole range of services.  We recently had a GAO report which pointed out the high cost of these services.  We also had a report saying that competition was virtually nonexistent.  Most of the businesses in this country get their special access from a couple of firms, and AT&T, of course, is a huge provider of that.  So, there was a problem, and I think the commitment that AT&T made was, indeed, one that was much to be desired; is in the interest of small business; was in the interest of consumers; was in the interest of the country, generally, dealing with a serious problem.
I think the approach we took was, indeed, a legal approach. Section 202 prohibits any unreasonable discrimination in prices.  I think our case law and the courts and all kinds of authoritative legal treatises over the years make clear that 202 permits different prices for similarly situated consumers if there's a good reason for the distinction.  Is it really unreasonable to say to Verizon that, for example, to get this they must use price caps in their own territory? The choice is theirs.  It's a choice that they can make.  This is parity.  Is it really unreasonable to differentiate here when sea links aren't under price caps.  It's a differently regulated classification entirely, and I think we have long noted at the Federal Communications Commission differences between dominant incumbents and new entrants.
So, I'm comfortable with the commitment that the company made here.  This was all part of a larger package.  We can talk later about the large package, and I think it was a modest victory, en balance, for American consumers, not something that I would have leaped at to support in the first instance and certainly not as it came to us, as a condition-less merger with no Department of Justice conditions, no conditions at all in the order that we were first given; but I think the end result is a modest victory for consumers, a modest victory for those of us who believe in the freedom of the Internet and net neutrality.  And I think there were several other benefits for it, too, but with regard to your question on special access, I think it was necessary.  I think it dealt with a specific problem that was costing businesses, especially small businesses too much, and I think the outcome was generally positive.
SEN. INOUYE:  All right.  Thank you very much, Commissioner.  I'm sorry my time is up.  I wanted to hear Mr. Adelstein, but -
(Off mike.)
SEN. INOUYE:  Do you have any views?
MR. ADELSTEIN:  Well, just in response to your initial question, I swore to this commission when I was confirmed that I would always try to uphold the law, and I have never voted, and will never vote for any item that I consider to be unlawful.  I thought that was highly unusual.
There are a not of concerns about competition and loss of it due to the size of the new, merged entity.  Already the GAO had indicated that special access was not a particularly competitive market, and we tried to tailor all of the special access conditions to that particular concern.  The issue that was raised about the legality of the reciprocal provision - that was something that was suggested by AT&T - I think that it's perfectly lawful, as Commissioner Copps has laid out.  AT&T's lawyers assured us of that.  We have done our own study and asked our own questions about it.  We believe that it is reasonable and not unreasonable, and there's sufficient case law to support that.
Certainly, if there are concerns raised - and I didn't hear about any concerns until after I had voted the item, which was disappointing - but if there are concerns that have been raised, I think they're very easy to resolve.  There's a very - there are a number of ways we can easily address any legal concerns that might be raised.  Even if I don't agree with them, I would be happy to work with the chairman and my colleagues to address the item, to address those concerns.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you, Commissioner.
Chairman Stevens?
SEN. STEVENS:  Thank you very much.  I'll have some questions I'd like to submit for the record also.  Time is limited, so I would hope that you would respond, you know, very short in your responses.  But we've introduced a new universal service bill this year, but it seems to me that there's more that the commission can do to protect the universal service concept, despite some of the limitations in the law that prohibit you from dealing with some of the communications entities as far as universal service is concerned.
What can you do without further legislation?  Mr. Martin?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, I think that we've taken several steps to try to help stabilize the fund within our current authority, and I think that we can continue to try to look at ways to potentially try to assess carriers on a more technology-neutral basis, such as telephone numbers, today.  But as I understand it, the bill that you've introduced would give the commission some additional tools so that we could look at  some other options, as well, like potentially either intrastate authority, or clarify that we do have the authority to impose some other kinds of contribution mechanism.  So, I think it would give the commission some additional tools, but I think the commission can take some steps today with its current authority.
SEN. STEVENS:  Mr. Copps, you mentioned, a strategy for broadband.  Does that strategy envision any change in universal service?
MR. COPPS:  Yes, sir, it does.  I think we have to make crystal clear that broadband is integral to the system of universal service. This is the great infrastructure challenge of our time, I think, to get this technology, to get these services out to all of our people. It's very difficult to get them out to some places, as in your states, Alaska and Hawaii, and many of the other states represented by senators in this room today.  So, "reasonably comparable services at comparable prices" is the mantra of universal service for all of our citizens. Broadband is going to be the driver of so much of our economy in the next few years.  We've got to make sure everybody understands it's part of universal service.
SEN. STEVENS:  We all speak of telecommunications, but, actually, what we're dealing with is the whole concept of communications now, and I worry that some of the impediments that exist in legislation will prevent you from going forward and having a level playing field, having equal treatment for all the communications providers.  One of the things I've come across recently is Internet2, which we thought was just going to be for the universities and a tool for education. It seems to be now expanding throughout the economy.
What are you going to do about Internet2?  Mr. Martin?
MR. MARTIN:  We have tried to develop a pilot program on the rural healthcare side, where we've allowed some of the companies to come forward and apply for some additional funds to develop statewide networks to deliver healthcare services and connect explicitly into Internet2 and some of the other advanced backbones that are developing.  So, that's the one that we've most directly made changes to our current universal service program, to try to take advantage of that.
SEN. STEVENS:  But it seems Internet2 will not be equally available to all Americans.  Is that your feeling?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, I think that we're constantly struggling to try to make sure that all of the services that are available to consumers in urban areas are going to be available to those in rural areas, as well.  And I do think the current telecommunications act does give us the authority to do that, but I think that our problem in many ways is how will we make sure and have sufficient funds to pay for that kind of support that Commissioner Copps, I think, will be referencing in terms of expanding on the Universal Service Fund to pay for broadband connections would be a significant increase.  And we already have a very large Universal Service Fund.
SEN. STEVENS:  And that's the other thing about this right now. And I don't want to go into it too much, but we have not revised the schedule for the fees and payments that should be made by elements of the communications industries that do utilize the majority of your services.  Have you looked at the equality of charges and fees that are out there?  Until this committee involved, we had no income at all from the new spectrum.  We used to have a lottery system, as everyone knows.  Now we have this bid system for a new spectrum that's available, but are there other areas where we should look to changing the fee schedule and have a payment due to the commission for those activities that take so much of your time?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, I would say just first that the money that the commission raises through its spectrum auctions actually goes directly to the Treasury.  It doesn't go to any of our universal service funds. But the commission does periodically adjust its fees that it just pays to the commission, but as far as universal service payments, we have looked at trying to stabilize the fund in terms of reaching out and broadening it, to try to make sure that everyone who is utilizing the underlying telecommunications network is paying into it.  And I continue to believe that trying to move it to a system something like a numbers or connections-based system would make it a broader pool of supporters, and it would allow for that to be done on a technologically neutral basis, as opposed to the voice services that contribute in today, and only the interstate services that contribute today.  So, I think there are some steps that we can do to try to both broaden it and make it more fair, so to speak - the contributions to the system.
SEN. STEVENS:   I've only got a minute left here, but me ask this:  do any of the commissioners disagree with our Universal Service Fund bill that we introduced last year, reintroduced this year?  I understood that the commission generally supported it.  Is there any opposition from the commission to the universal service bill that Jim and I introduced last year?
SEN. STEVENS:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. INOUYE:  Senator Sununu?
SEN. SUNUNU:  Can we go to the other side?  Do we want to go to Senator Dorgan first?  Do we want to go to Senator Dorgan first, or whoever the next person is on the Democratic side?
SEN. INOUYE:  Well, we're just going by who came in first.
SEN. SUNUNU:  Well, once again, I feel like I've been put in an odd position.  Most of the people here don't realize I was asked to speak before Senator Inouye at an event recently, and I was quick to point out that it was highly inappropriate.  So, I apologize to my Democratic colleagues if they think that I'm cutting into line.
I want to apologize to the commissioners in that my staff and I have drawn up a list of highly confrontational questions, but I misplaced them this morning.
(LAUGHTER.)
SEN. SUNUNU:  So, if you or your staff feel somehow shortchanged by the wonkish or technical nature of the inquiries I have, I promise I'll make it up to you the next time, or invite you into my office for an argument - whatever you may find to be most entertaining.
I want to begin with white spaces.  In the bill we had last year, that were some provisions to deal with the white space issue, to better us spectrum that has already been issued, licensed or somehow already being used, but underutilized in certain places in the country.  One of the charts that Chairman Martin distributed showed the enormous growth in broadband access through wireless and, of course, white space spectrum that's been discussed would be extremely useful for continuing that growth.
I've introduced legislation on this and worked with Senator Allen and others last year in crafting our proposal.  The question I have deals with the issuance of white space spectrum.
One, you could just make it available for unlicensed use, but we could also certainly auction off some of that.  My question is, what values or tradeoffs might we unlock, or have to deal with, depending on whether we choose to issue it as a licensed spectrum or through an auction?  Why don't we start with the chairman, and if you want to keep your answers reasonably brief, I'd like to hear from at least a couple of the other commissioners, as well.  Chairman Martin?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, generally trying to use the white spaces is trying to use, as you've said, the underutilized spectrum in between other license holders.  While the commission could try to identify exactly what the full extent of those would be and license it, most of the focus of the approach has actually been trying to develop an unlicensed approach to use this spectrum, in large part because many of the uses would be secondary to the primary users there, and it would be more difficult and potentially actually even delay a little bit the full utilization of the white spaces to try to actually license off the white spaces, because it would first require us, from a technical standpoint, to identify exactly what all the white space was.  Whereas, if we could adopt general rules which said, "We think you can operate under these parameters without causing interference, and then you can do so as long as you're not causing interference," it would be more easily able to allow the technological innovations that are occurring in unlicensed(?) to more fully utilize that spectrum.
SEN. SUNUNU:  Commissioner Copps?
MR. COPPS:  I think there really is amazing potential here.  We have a proceeding on this matter to try to balance some of those questions you just asked, and I really think it is a matter of balance between the licensed and the unlicensed.  And license is obviously important.  We've just done a lot of licensing in the AWS band.  We've had licenses in the 3G band.  We'll have the 700 megahertz license, so we'll look and see if these white spaces - if we should have a presumption in favor of unlicensed.  And I think that really personally strikes me as not a bad idea, but we certainly need to look carefully at the suggestion being made for how much licensing we should do in this particular band.
SEN. SUNUNU:  Let me move to a second question, and that deals with universal service and one of the proposals that was put out for discussion and comment by Chairman Martin, and that is the concept of a reverse auction.  I'm pleased to hear people talk about the need for reform on distribution as well as revenue collection.  I have spoken time and again about the importance that the program be focused on rural areas and those at an economic disadvantage.  That's what the program is for.  That's where we should spend all of our time ensuring better performance.
Chairman Martin, could you talk about how a reverse auction might improve, in your opinion, the operation and the efficiency, especially where those two goals are concerned?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, one of the concerns that I have is we've seen extraordinary growth in other companies coming into rural areas and trying to provide what we may call "competitive, eligible telecommunications services."  And when I arrived at these commission, these other companies were receiving about a million dollars' worth of universal service support.  In this past year, they will have received just under a billion dollars of universal service support.  That is in addition to the universal service support that has already been going out, the $2.2 billion to schools and libraries, the rural healthcare program and the incumbent wire line carriers.  The problem is that I don't think that that kind of continued growth is sustainable.
I think instead what we need to do is identify rural areas that are high-cost and then try to move forward into a mechanism where we say, "Who wants to provide that service, and how little universal service subsidy can you do that for?" as opposed to how much you can do that for, and allow for multiple kinds of technologies to come forward and say, "I think I can provide service in this rural area more efficiently with wireless technology," for example, "than wire line," which would allow for us to decrease our Universal Service Fund instead of continuing to increase it at the current rate.
And as I said, I'm very concerned that at the current rate of growth, it won't be sustainable for very much longer, the kind of revenues that we've got going into those rural areas.  So, I think that we've got to find some other, more efficient means of distributing that universal service money.
SEN. SUNUNU:  I know my time is up.  Would any one of the other commissioners like to comment on this just so - (cross talk)?
MR. COPPS:  I'd like to make a brief comment, if I could.  This is something that the Universal Service Joint Board that Commissioner Tate chairs and that I'm a member of is looking at.  We'll be having an en banc, as she mentioned, soon.
I always worry a little bit about the law of unintended consequences and what might be involved in this.  I think it's an interesting idea.  I agree with what the chairman says.  We have to look at the sustainability of the fund.  It's also true that the commission looked at this back in the 1990s and rejected it.
I think some people maybe see it too much as a silver-bullet approach:  "this is going to solve all problems."  Some of the comments tat have come in already seem to indicate that there are some real concerns here.  You might have to have a very active FCC to administer this program.  What are the standards going to be?  What happens to carrier-of-last-resort obligations if the person who wins the auction is not there?  So, we're going to be looking at all those things.  I know Commissioner Tate wants to look at all of those things.  Meanwhile, though, I think our joint board has lots of other items that it needs to report back on also.
SEN. INOUYE:  (Off mike.)
SEN. KLOBUCHAR:  Thank you, Chairman.  Thank you for being here today, commissioners.
A little-known fact is that before I was elected prosecutor, I spent 13 years practicing in the telecommunications area.  I mostly represented competitive carriers getting into the market, and for the most part, we were on the side of consumer groups and attorneys generals' offices, and I was proud of the results with the rates going down for consumers in the long distance and local market, but it also gave me a sense of the need for strong government regulation to foster that competition and to make sure that the interests of consumers were always paramount.
And along those lines, I wanted to ask about the digital divide and the need to make sure that we have broadband service throughout our country.  You know, I always believed that kids who grow up in rural America should be able to live in rural America.  Yet, in recent reports, we've seen in May of 2006, the GAO reported that 70 percent more suburban and urban homes than rural homes have broadband. Roughly 25 percent of rural Minnesota households report connecting to the Internet.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt brought us rural electrification, Eisenhower brought us the interstate highway system, and I believe it's now our job to help deliver fast and fair access to the information highway to every American home.
And I do have some concerns about the effort so far.  As you know, in September 2004, the FCC released its fourth report on the deployment of telecommunications capability.  Like the previous three reports, this report stated that broadband deployment was reasonable and timely.  Two of you, Commissioner Copps and Adelstein, dissented from the conclusion that broadband deployment is going well.  You two have talked about the low global ranking of the U.S. in this regard, as you mentioned today, as well as problems with defining and measuring broadband service.  It's my understanding that if there's one customer with broadband in a certain zip code - say, in a zip code in, say,  Kandiyohi County, Minnesota - that one customer - it's counted as that zip code has broadband.
And so my questions are along the lines of what Congress and the FCC can do, if anything, I guess starting with the two of you, to help bridge the digital divide and to make sure that all Americans, including those in our rural areas, get this service as soon as possible?
MR. ADELSTEIN:  Senator, I couldn't agree with you more.  I'm from next door, in South Dakota, and I really think we need to take a more aggressive approach that other countries have taken to leapfrog us, essentially.  They get more megabits for less dollars, and we have rural areas that are left behind.  And that's the excuse we use, but it's not acceptable to make that an excuse anymore.  We need to actually undertake a multi-pronged approach to make sure that we get broadband out there.
The first step is better data.  We have, as you mentioned, just a terrible report saying one person in a zip code has broadband, so everybody has it.  Some states have done a much better job.  Like, Kentucky has shown that far fewer people have it than our data would indicate.  I think that we need to have a national broadband strategy with benchmarks, deployment timetables and measurable thresholds.  The private sector, of course, is going to be the primary engine of deployment.  I think we need to create incentives for investment and promote healthy competition.  As you know from your experience, there's nothing like competition to drive broadband, and one of the best ways to do that now is through the wireless options that we're making available through additional spectrum that's coming online.  We need to make sure that those license blocks are made available in such a way that real competition can result, that small and local community-based providers can get access to it.  And we need to commit to connectivity through the Universal Service Fund, as well.  It was clear that Congress envisioned that it would be an evolving standard of universal service.  Five times, advanced services are mentioned in Section 254 of the act, and so we have the authority now to try to move this towards a broadband system, as you discussed, and use the existing Universal Service System to really build that highway system, as you indicated.
SEN. KLOBUCHAR:  Commissioner Copps? MR. COPPS:  I'm so happy that you brought the subject of the digital divide up, because it doesn't get as much discussion as it formerly did.
I am really worried that we could go into the twenty-first century and have a bigger digital divide in this country between rural and urban America, between rich and poor America, with all those wonderful technology services and so forth in the twenty-first century, than we had back in the days of plain, old telephone service in the twentieth century.  We cannot  allow that to happen.  And this just isn't about feel-good, liberal theory or something like that. We're talking about the competitiveness of the United States of America.  If we don't get that broadband out everywhere, yes, it's the young kid out there.  Maybe he has no access to broadband or dial-up. I wouldn't want my kids competing against the kid in the city, or the kid in Japan or Western Europe who's got really advanced speed, but it's got a business application, too.  Suppose you're trying to start a small business out in Missouri, or Minnesota, or South Dakota - anywhere; in rural America - and you don't have access to that, and all your competitors do.  This is costing our country billions and billions of dollars right now.  I'm absolutely convinced of that.
And just to put what this means in perspective, somebody told me something the other day.  If you wanted to download a movie from the Internet, go you to Japan, where 50 megabits is common, you can download that movie in four minutes - four minutes.  If you want to download that movie in the United States at what we call broadband, 200 kilobits up and down, you know how long it would take?  Seventeen and-a-half hours.  So, this has real-world application.
SEN. KLOBUCHAR:  Well, thank you.  I think my time is up. Hopefully, in the future we can talk again.  Despite my newness to the committee, I might be able to match you with knowing telecommunications acronyms.  So - (chuckles) - thank you.
SEN. STEVENS:  Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt?
I've got to go to another meeting, but I do want to indicate we will introduce that sunshine bill again, the chairman and I.  I do think we ought to have greater dialogue between those on this committee and the full FCC as we try to go into this new era, because there are lots of things we could do to foul up your system if we're not careful.  I think we have to have greater communication between you and between us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. INOUYE:  We thank you.
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Mr. Martin, one of the things that troubles us in my state of New Jersey is that we have one commercial VHF station -- it's WOR Channel 9 - that calls itself "My 9 New York."  And in September, you told me that, as we reviewed WWOR's renewal application - we reviewed its service obligations to northern New Jersey.  Now, in terms of staffing and local news coverage, what can you tell me about how the FCC will analyze the problems for New Jersey?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, as you know, WWOR has some special obligations because of the concern that people in New Jersey have raised before. So, the commission has some unique obligations on that station saying they've got to demonstrate that they actually are serving the interests of northern New Jersey.
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  How do you measure that?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, as I said, we will measure in that license renewal process.  Actually, their application for renewal is due today, so what we'll have to see is how much service have they provided, specifically to northern New Jersey about northern Jew Jersey issues, separate and apart from where else they're providing service just in general.  And I mean that's one of their unique obligations, unlike other broadcasters, where they have this particular obligation that they have to demonstrate that they are covering issues of concern to people in that area - and even over and above the way we normally go through that license process.  They'll -
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  In order to -
MR. MARTIN:  -- have to demonstrate that they do that.
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  -- forgive me, but in order to move the process, can the FCC make these provisions explicit to the license renewal in New Jersey?
MR. MARTIN:  Oh, yes.  And, actually, we've said in the past, both in my letters back and forth with you and with all -- I know and Chairman Powell also indicated that that's exactly the framework that we would use in reviewing their license renewal.
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Then FCC Chairman Powell said it would be useful, in a review of localism, to advise the commission on steps it can take and, if warranted, make legislative recommendations to Congress that would strengthen localism in broadcasting.  Now, what kind of regulatory legislative changes might the FCC consider in order to accomplish this broader exposure to local needs?
MR. MARTIN:  To local news?
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Localism, yeah.
MR. MARTIN:  Oh, localism.  Well, you know, the commission hasn't finished undergoing its localism review.  That's what we're going to be doing.  The commission did not complete that.  As you said -
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  But it start -
MR. MARTIN:  -- Chairman Powell had - (cross talk) -
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  -- it started in 2006.
MR. MARTIN:  -- it started, and then that localism review had been dropped and not completed.  Indeed, the final hearings hadn't been done on it.
I have committed that the commission will go back and finish. We've got to localism hearings that we need to complete, one of which we've committed to do in Maine.  And we've been working on trying to do that along with the other media ownership hearings that we've committed to doing. And after those hearings are done, then we will put forth a report that says what we found from -
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Well, not -
MR. MARTIN:  -- concerns that were raised and recommendations that we can make on improvement.
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  -- I know the intent is there, but since 2003, the pledge was made to do that.  What do we have to do now to say to give us a date certain that says that this will be done?  Is there a specific timetable for this?
MR. MARTIN:  Oh, we've been - we started the ownership hearings last fall.  Just since I've become chairman, we started the ownership hearings last fall.  We had two last fall, and then, frankly, I think I worked hard, but had to urge my commissioners to make sure we were clearing time to make sure we could end up - (cross talk) --
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Anybody - (cross talk) -
MR. MARTIN:  -- the hearings.
(CROSS TALK.)
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  -- I'm interested.
MR. MARTIN:  Oh, no, no.  I think that we should be trying to do hearings on the timeframe of about every other month.  I mean I think that we've got about six hearings that we need to be trying to do this year, when you include the four, remaining media ownership hearings and the two on localism.  And I think that means that we've got to be doing one about every other month this year.  And so I would be saying that we want to be completing these hearings.  Our attempt would be trying to do that this year, which would put us in the position to be making reports to Congress on localism.
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Mr. Copps, you look like you're anxious to answer.  I don't know whether I'm reading your expression.
MR. COPPS:  No, I am.  I appreciate that.  And I'll try to be brief, but I think there're three areas.  Number one, we have to really tackle this consolidation issue, and it's not just about beating back harmful new rules, but it's revisiting some of the old rules that got us in this mess in the first place.
Specifically, you talked about the explicit expectations - localism.  We don't have a viable license renewal procedure at the Federal Communications Commission anymore.  It used to be back in the sixties, the seventies, a broadcaster had to come in every three years, and we had a list of 12 or 14 rather explicit guidelines, and we would make the determination if they were going to get their license renewed, that they were actually doing it.  Were they going out and talking to members of the community?  Well, certainly - (inaudible).  We used to require that when the broadcaster lived in the town that he served, when he went to the barbershop and the church and the bakery.  Now, he may live 3,000 miles away.  Do we require that?  No.  We don't require that.  And then - other than getting a good license renewal, where the commission affirmatively responds not once every eight years to a postcard, but once every three years, or five years and compares it to some specific obligations.
Then we have to really get serious about determining what those public interest obligations are going to be.  We're going into the Digital Age now.  We're giving the right to use that spectrum to broadcast six - or, if you have a duopoly, 12 - program streams in the community.  And we've done well on the mechanics of that, but the big question is, what do the American people have a right to expect from them?  Can't they get more community affairs, local affairs and the things you're talking about?
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Mr. Chairman, can we revert back to a more thorough system in terms of these license applications and the obligations they have for service to the community?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, you know, I guess I would say I'm hesitant to actually put specific requirements on the type of programming that they've got to put on.  There have been a lot of proposals that have been put forth - for example, that we should be requiring individual broadcasters to put free airtime - a specific amount of free airtime available to political candidates.  And there've been those who have come forward with this repeatedly in the context of the digital transition, saying we should make digital television broadcasters provide free airtime to political candidates.  And I'm hesitant about saying that we're going to require broadcasters to provide that kind of free airtime.
So, I do think that we can do some more on gathering the information, though.  I actually have been supportive of saying that we should increase -
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Chairman, I don't want -
MR. MARTIN:  -- the reporting requirement.
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  -- forgive me.  I don't want to extend my time too far, but we have a problem here, obviously, and I would simply ask, do you have the people and the resources to do these things, if we get more thorough, more detailed about this?  Yes or no?
MR. MARTIN:  Yes.
SEN. LAUTENBERG:  Then let's do it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you.
Senator Dorgan?
SEN. BYRON L. DORGAN (D-ND):  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important hearings we will have, and there's barely time to scratch the surface in five minutes, and I understand your point; we have three votes starting soon.  But I want to simply mention three things and then ask a question.
Number one, I heard a lot about free markets.  I love the free market, but the fact is more concentration means less competition, and these markets are less free than they should be.  And this commission is about regulation - regulators.  I always worry a little when I hear regulators shy away from regulation talk.  The market from time to time needs a referee.  It's the job of the FCC, in my judgment.
Second, a spectacular failure on the last opportunity to do media ownership rules - a spectacular failure.  The commission decided that in the largest cities of the country, it was okay to have one owner own eight radio stations, three televisions, the dominant newspaper and the cable system.  That was a spectacular failure!  And Senator Lott and I led the fight in the Senate, and we did a rule veto by the majority of the Senate.  And I don't see how you can do ownership issues again before you finish localism.  You shouldn't even start ownership issues until you've finished the localism proceeding. That's the second part.
Third part:  in a city with six radio stations all owned by the same company, when owned by local folks having at least three newsmen and women gathering news for that community, and then when purchased by one company thousands of miles away, they go from three news people to one newsperson, I'm wondering how that relates to the issue of localism and pubic interest.  And I'm wondering whether there's any attention to those issues at the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, having said all those things, let me ask you about the issue of public interest standards.  It seems to me the public interest standards have been nearly completely emasculated, and I'm hoping that you will start a notice of proposed rulemaking on public interest standards.  I would ask, Mr. Chairman, would you intend to do that? And I would ask others.  I can't have all of you answer.  Mr. Chairman, would you be interested and would you be willing to start a notice of proposed rulemaking on public interest standards?  And do you believe it's necessary?
MR. MARTIN:  Listen, I'm never afraid of starting any kind of a proceeding, so that if people want to end up having a notice of proposed rulemaking on public interest standards, and they think that's important, I'm never opposed to starting any kind of proceeding.
(Cross talk) -
SEN. DORGAN:  Do you believe there's a need for additional public interest standards?
MR. MARTIN:  I'm not convinced yet that we need to have the kind of requirements that some people put forth when they say that.  When some people have urged us to adopt specific requirements about explicit kinds of programming that(?) we should be expecting where programmers would have an obligation to put on certain kinds of programming, I'm hesitant.  I do think it's important, and I have been supportive of adopting more explicit reporting requirements on them, because the broadcasters are claiming that they're already doing a lot of these kinds of public interest programming, and I've said if they are, then they shouldn't be opposed to reporting it -
SEN. DORGAN:  Well, let me - (cross talk) -
MR. MARTIN:  -- which I think is different from mandating it. So, I'm supportive of, and have been, of reporting requirements.
SEN. DORGAN:  -- you're talking about programming.  I hate to interrupt.  You're talking about programming.  Let me ask you about the six stations that go from three news people from one because one owner bought all six of them.  Is that in the public interest?
MR. MARTIN:  No, I wasn't just talking about programming.  I was talking about the reporting requirements on what they're doing on these localism issues on the local news that they're providing.  I'm willing to on reporting.  I said that I'm hesitant about adopting explicit requirements on what they should end up doing.
SEN. DORGAN:  Let me say this:  I think it is urgent that this commission sink their teeth into the issue of public interest standards sooner rather than later, and I hope you will do that.
I'll ask someone else to comment in a moment, but let me also get to net neutrality, or what I call Internet freedom and the issue of nondiscrimination.  If the description of the Federal Communications Commission is to decide that the Internet issue does not relate to nondiscrimination rules because of the common carrier judgment that's been made, if you eliminate the nondiscrimination requirement, does that mean you favor discrimination?  And if not, then how do you make certain there is no discrimination by eliminating the standard? Chairman Martin, would you answer that?  Then I'm going to ask Mr. Copps and Mr. Adelstein.
MR. MARTIN:  Sure.  I think that there's been a lot of emphasis placed upon  a nondiscrimination requirement.  I think it's important to talk about what we mean by "nondiscrimination."  Traditionally, the commission has meant by "nondiscrimination" that if you offer a service to one, you have to offer that same service to all, so that if I am a carrier and I offer a deal to Dr. Copps, then I have to offer the same deal on the same terms and conditions to Jonathan Adelstein. And I actually think that there're some benefits in that, and I've talked about that that kind of an approach might be important, and I actually proposed that that be how we address nondiscrimination in the context of the recent mergers.
What others have put forth is a requirement that prohibits any carrier who owns an underlying infrastructure from charging any content provider, and that's what they mean by "nondiscrimination." And I've said that I'm concerned about that, because that actually could deter some investment in underlying infrastructure.
So, when you say am I in favor of a nondiscrimination requirement, it depends exactly what "nondiscrimination" means.
SEN. DORGAN:  Right.  Might I ask Mr. Copps and Mr. Adelstein to comment on the issue of a notice of proposed rulemaking on the public interest standards and also on nondiscrimination?
MR. COPPS:  I share, certainly, your sense of urgency on the public interest standards.  We ought to, for example, be looking at licensing.  We ought to put that out for comment, and let's get serious on relicensing.  We ought to complete the proceedings that have already been begun.  We've had, since 1999, pending a proceeding on the public interest obligations of D-TV broadcasters.  And we've done the children's programming out of that, but all the other things are lying fallow, so we really need to tee that up and get done with that.  So, I absolutely share your sense of urgency.  There's no higher priority, I think, that the commission has.
MR. ADELSTEIN:  On public interest obligations, I agree with Commissioner Copps.  It's been pending on television since 1999, and we still don't have an NPR out there.  On radio right now before us, is an item pending where we're trying to get a notice of proposed rulemaking just to ask the question "should we apply any additional public-interest obligations to broadcasters as they get additional spectrum to broadcast on the radio?"  With that additional spectrum and the opportunity to take one channel and turn it into three or four channels, are there any public interest obligations that go with that? And so far, we don't have a majority to support even notice of proposed rulemaking, even asking the question "should we do a rule"? So, I think, yes, it's urgent, and I would support that.
In terms of nondiscrimination, I'm not aware of any current FCC rule that prevents discrimination of Internet content, services or applications.  In fact, the FCC has ruled that the act's long-standing nondiscrimination safeguards under Title II no longer apply to broadband services, which I think underscores the need for us to address this.
SEN. DORGAN:  Mr. Chairman, telecommunications is such a significant part of our challenge in this congress, and because we really only scratching surface in being able to superficially question here, and we have three votes.  I understand all that.  I'm wondering if at least we could have a discussion at some point of finding another venue, or another time, or some other circumstance in which we can continue this discussion.  I think it would be helpful for the commission.  I know it would be enormously helpful for this congress, and -
SEN. INOUYE:  I can assure you -
SEN. DORGAN:  -- this committee.
SEN. INOUYE:  -- it's now under progress.
SEN. DORGAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. INOUYE:  Senator Boxer?
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA):  Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to associate myself with the comments of Senator Dorgan.  You know, the sense of urgency that he brings, I share.  I don't know if I could be as articulate as he is, but I'm going to focus in on the issue of localism.
It's been almost two years since we last had the full panel of commissioners here to discuss the FCC's work in regulating interstate communications and implementing the laws Congress has passed, so I want to welcome you all back.  And I just want to say this as straight from the heart as I can, because I see your responsibility as protecting the public interest, period - period.  That's what you're supposed to do.  And I hope that before you make any decisions, that that's what runs through your mind.  It's certainly what I try to do every time an issue comes before me, because that's why I was elected.
And so when a big business comes to me with an issue - they often do - I always say to them, "I understand your position from your pocketbook, but how does that serve the public interest?"  And if they convince me it does, I'm willing to listen.
Now, I think communication companies sometimes forget they're not the owners of the spectrum, that they have obligations to the public, and it's your duty to ensure that the public is protected.
So, I'd ask unanimous consent that my full statement be put in the record, Mr. Chairman.  I'm sorry to interrupt you.  Mr. Chairman, may I put my full statement in the record, please?
SEN. INOUYE:  Without objection.
SEN. BOXER:  I thank you very much.
And I want to talk to you, Chairman Martin, and then ask others.
It was only four months ago that you sat before the committee during your confirmation hearing, although it seems like longer somehow. As I'm sure you remember, I presented you with a copy of a news media localism study prepared by the FCC staff at taxpayer expense, that was shoved in a drawer because its conclusions apparently ran counter to some interests who want to allow more media consolidation and who believe that such consolidation leads to more, and not less, local news - or, at least that's what they say.
I was further troubled when I learned of the suppression of a second FCC study, this one related to radio stations only days later. You and I talked about it publicly, privately, and as a result of this, I, along with Senators Dorgan and Wyden, called for the inspector general to investigate the suppression of these studies, and I'm anxiously awaiting this report, that's due in the spring.
Now, I had hoped that the revelation of these suppressed studies would have led to greater transparency and openness at the FCC. Unfortunately, published news reports and even comments by some of the commissioners here today indicate that a culture of secrecy is still pervasive at the FCC.  It is sadly ironic that an agency dedicated to promoting free and open communications would operate in the dark.  For example, the Associated Press recently published a story about the investigation of the suppressed media ownership studies.  According to the AP report, the inspector general has not interviewed two, key witnesses, and I trust he will do so before he completes his report. And I really think this is important.
Also, it's reported that during a bar association dinner recently, Chairman Martin, you joked that the KGB-like atmosphere of the FCC grows on the staff.  This is your words:  "the KGB-like atmosphere."
Now, I do believe many times truth is often said in jest.  So, Chairman Martin, for the sake of the staff and the public, I hope we're going to see some changes that are long overdue.  Now, Chairman Martin, I know you can't comment on the ongoing inspector general investigation, but when these two reports came to light, you told me - and I quote - "I want to assure you that I, too, am concerned about what happened to these two draft reports."  So, I'm asking you, after learning of the suppressed studies, did you perform your own internal investigation to determine why these studies were not disclosed, why they were shoved in a drawer, why shoved them in the drawer?  Did you do anything internally?
MR. MARTIN:  Yes.
SEN. BOXER:  What did you do?
MR. MARTIN:  First, I just wanted to clarify one thing you said I said recently - the statement about the "KGB-like atmosphere."  That was actually over 18 months ago, but I did joke about that at the FCBA dinner.
SEN. BOXER:  Well, let it stand that you did say that, the "KGB- like" --
MR. MARTIN:  Yes, I did. -
SEN. BOXER:  -- "atmosphere."  And -
MR. MARTIN:  -- I did say that.
SEN. BOXER:  -- everybody knows what the "KGB-like atmosphere" is, if we want to go into it.  You know?
MR. MARTIN:  I did, at the FCC chairman's dinner.
SEN. BOXER:  It's kind of a sick thing to say, but that's your choice of joke.  I -
MR. MARTIN:  It was in jest in talking about the complaints about the fact that I had been too, actually, hands-on and controlling of the commission's policies versus the staff, but I don't think it was meant in terms of the suppression of the study.  And the reason I wanted to clarify when is because it was done prior to any of the issues that you raised.
SEN. BOXER:  I know, but it gets to -
MR. MARTIN:  That was before -
SEN. BOXER:  -- an atmosphere over there.  I'm trying to get to that.  But if you could just tell me, what exactly did you do -
MR. MARTIN:  I know.  Sure.
SEN. BOXER:  -- after you said, and you said, "I'm going to get to the bottom of this."  What have you done?  Because I haven't heard of anything that you've done.  Tell me what you've done.
MR. MARTIN:  I'm sorry.  Well, the very first thing that we did is - and I promised you that I would make sure that I uncovered any other studies that anybody had claimed they had done that had not been released to the public.  So, I had every bureau chief in the agency go forward and say to all of the staff members who had worked on anything related to media ownership or localism to provide copies of anything they had done that they thought was a study that had not been provided.
We then made copies of all of that.  I shared that with all of the commissioners.  Our general counsel's office had gone through them and identified that there were a few that were e-mails that weren't even studies.  And we provided copies of all of those to Congress -
SEN. BOXER:  Okay.
MR. MARTIN:  -- to the committees - including the ones that the General Counsel's Office didn't want to be released to the public because they were e-mails - and then we released all of that to the public and put it on the website.
SEN. BOXER:  Well, I have just one more question.  Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I want to follow up.
It's my understanding that, in fact, you did look back, that the FCC has withheld 1400 pages.  Why have these pages been withheld?  And I would like to ask if, after you answer, Commissioner Adelstein and Copps to respond.
MR. MARTIN:  In relation to the request that I made after your inquiry at my confirmation hearing, that everything anybody had ever done in relation to any studies that had been produced related to media ownership, or any concerns they had, to provide them.  We provided all of them to Congress already.
There was a separate FOIA request -
SEN. BOXER:  Right.
MR. MARTIN:  -- that was made by some outside groups that asked for things were much beyond the other studies, including any information and anything that the commission had on ownership, which involved e-mails, draft documents that had been produced.  And that was handled by the General Counsel's Office, as all FOIAs are, where they say that there's deliberative privilege that the commission has about internal documents and internal drafts before they're released.
But anything that anybody has produced that claims it was any kind of study -
SEN. BOXER:  Okay.
MR. MARTIN:  -- addressing media ownership, we provided.
SEN. BOXER:  Okay.  I want -
MR. MARTIN:  The -
SEN. BOXER:  -- to get to this 1400 pages, though.
MR. MARTIN:  -- 1400 pages - many documents were produced in that FOIA production, but it was a standard FOIA production that the commission always -
SEN. BOXER:  Okay.  I just want to ask the commissioners if they agree - Commissioners Copps and Adelstein - if they know about the 1400 pages, and if you agree with that, because it's important to me. If you do, that would be one thing.  If you don't, it would be another.
MR. COPPS:  I have heard about the 1400 pages.  I have not seen the 1400 pages, and I don't know what they contain.  I think Chairman Martin is correct in retelling what he just said about sharing the information and trying to uncover additional studies.
The final comment I would make is because that research, which took place under the previous regime, not only what was suppressed, but the studies that were done and which weren't very good, really puts the onus on us now doing new studies to make sure that they're done really well - that they're peer-reviewed and that they're put out for public comment at the end of the day, because this is terribly important stuff we're dealing with.  It's the whole future of our media, and before we vote next time, I want to make sure the benefit of a lot better --
SEN. BOXER:  Right.  No, I --
MR. COPPS:  -- material.
SEN. BOXER:  -- appreciate your - but you haven't seen the 1400 pages.  The reason I raise it is I'm a believer in openness, and when an outside group - I mean they're paying the taxes that pay all of our salaries.  I think, unless it's national security, they have a right to see it.
Commissioner Adelstein, do you know anything more about the 1400 pages?
MR. ADELSTEIN:  Well, I would agree we should always err on the side of disclosure, that openness is better - particularly in an area of such concern to the public.  And I was concerned, as was Commissioner Copps, with the way that the studies were commissioned. I did not have any input into how they were structured, or who was selected to do the studies.  I think that very important now is that they be done right and that there be adequate peer review, and so, going forward, we have really an open process and a process that tries to get to the truth.
SEN. BOXER:  Thank you.
SEN. INOUYE:  Senator Smith?
SEN. GORDON H. SMITH (R-OR):  Chairman Martin and Commissioner Copps, as I try to understand this emerging public interest standard that we may be working on, and that you may be working on, I want to ask you two briefly, does that mean content, or does that mean ownership - or both?
MR. MARTIN:  I think that when you're talking about the public interest standards that apply, that they were - in the context of the public interest for broadcasting, we've tried to look at trying to foster both competition and diversity.  And in the context of having diversity, we would mean viewpoint, which would involve content, but we've tried to make sure that there's an emphasis on both competition and diversity, so I think in that sense it's ownership and content, I think.
SEN. SMITH:  Mr. Copps?
MR. COPPS:  I would agree.  It's ownership, and it's content. Obviously, when you say the word "content," that's kind of a charged thing, because it's not our business to regulate content, but is it really regulating content if at re-license time you say, "Have you teed up programs that are of interest to minority communities here?" Or, "Have you afforded an opportunity for the clash of antagonistic opinions on public issues?"  So, we're not regulating what's said, or what the specific content is, but you're making sure the kind of content the American people need to see is coming on the American people's airwaves.
SEN. SMITH:  I regularly listen to talk radio, when I drive to and from work, and I hear my colleagues regularly excoriated from the right and the left.  Just a hypothetical:  I recently, for a Republican, took an unusual position on the war in Iraq.  I was driving home and heard a conservative commentator taking my hide off, and I thought, "Well, I'll switch to a liberal station and see what they say."  And they just said, "Well, he's just doing that for politics."
I don't think either of those views is in the public interest, but - (chuckles) -
(LAUGHTER.)
SEN. SMITH:  -- they have the right to say that.  So, I'm troubled as we get into this if - you know, one was owned by a conservative man - or, a corporation.  The other was owned by a very liberal organization.  And I just want to say that, as you get into content, it really does trouble me, because they have the right to say what they say, as I have the right to say what I say and let the public decide.
MR. COPPS:  But maybe the answer there was "let a thousand flowers blossom," and let's have diversity of ownership, and let's have a number of people who have various viewpoints that would reflect what you're talking about more accurately.
SEN. SMITH:  And one of the concerns I have, living in a very rural part of Oregon, is that media outlets struggle to make any money or to survive, and they often get gobbled up by bigger companies just as a matter of pure economics.  Does that enter into this decision of(?) the public interest?
MR. SMITH:  Sure.  I think it's critical that we make sure that - as the technologies are changing and there's increasing from an economic standpoint, we want to make sure that some of the smaller ones are able to survive, as well.  And that's one of the balances that we try to find in how our ownership rules should work, and we have also been trying to move forward in making sure that our rules don't inadvertently suppress the opportunity to put forth different viewpoints, as well.  That was one of the justifications previously when the commission eliminated, for example, its fairness doctrine, when it used to say if you put one particular view out, you had to put the other out.  The commission eliminated that rule in part to try to foster people being more willing to put out their views on radio, for example.
SEN. SMITH:  Well, I'm glad to hear you say that economics is a factor in the public interest, because if a rural area has all of their media go broke because they don't have any advertising to sell, it doesn't much serve the public interest.  And sometimes they don't have a choice.
But my other question - and I apologize.  This is the third committee I've had to be to this morning, according to my staff, and so some of this may - and this is a particularly important one, and I grant that.  I know people have been waiting a long time to be in here for this.  But Chairman Martin, one of the concerns I have as a rural Oregonian - and some of my other colleagues have spoken to this in rural states - is just simply broadband deployment.  I know you've probably already ploughed this field, but for my sake, I wonder if you can speak to really specific things that you are doing, or specific examples of how we could help you to increase broadband penetration, to increase broadband speeds, to lower consumer pricing for broadband, and to promote deployment in rural areas; because I think as I heard Commissioner Copps say when I came in, you know, we're losing a lot of money because it isn't deployed.  What specific things can we do, that we can get through this Congress?  This committee operates on a fairly bipartisan basis - at least on most issues.  Not net neutrality, apparently, but on many issues we do.  What can you tell me to be for in this Congress to make progress on deployment?  Because according to the OECD, we're twelfth among nations - right in the middle.
MR. MARTIN:  Well, I think there're some things the commission has done, but there're some things that Congress could end up helping further with on broadband deployment.  The commission has certainly tried to remove regulatory barriers and encourage competition among companies, and I think that's the most important thing that we can try to do to foster further broadband deployment.  And we've also tried to remove barriers to getting into the video services for additional video competition.
One of the things that is important to remember is that as this broadband infrastructure is deployed, one of the important avenues to be able to recoup the significant financial resources would be able to be offering video services, as well.  And that's the reason why trying to lower the barriers to getting in to providing video alternatives is critical not only for increasing video competition, but for broadband deployment.
Congress last year had legislation that they were trying to lower those barriers to allow other companies to get in and provide video service, and I think that would be important for broadband.  What Congress can do on that is beyond what the commission can do.  We have limitations on our current authority for franchising reform.  I think we've done what we can end up doing, but I think Congress could do more in that regard.
SEN. SMITH:  Okay.
MR. MARTIN:  The commission also needs to make sure that, in terms of wireless services, we are auctioning off, I think, smaller wireless areas to make sure that rural areas are getting the kind of attention they deserve, and we have stronger build-out requirements on the wireless side.  I think that will help on the wireless front.  And on the wire line front, I think that what we can do to try to facilitate further video deployment will be important.
SEN. SMITH:  Anybody else have a comment?
MR. ADELSTEIN:  Well, just in terms of competition, I'm not so sure there's a lot of competition in rural areas.  I'm not sure there's a lot of these big companies that are itching to deploy video services or put files into a Bend, Oregon.
SEN. SMITH:  Well, maybe the free market, as good as it is, may not help rural folks.
MR. ADELSTEIN:  Right.  That's why this committee has been so effective over the years in implementing universal service and in directing the FCC to ensure that universal service has an evolving definition, that it evolves to cover advanced services at the appropriate time.  And I think it's not a question of if, but when, you know, we get to that.  And we're going to get to that very, very soon.  We need to think about how we evolve our universal service as voice becomes just one application over broadband services towards a broadband-type application.  And finding the will to have it broadly supported through all the different connections that feed into the system and make sure the system is as ubiquitous as possible, including in rural areas; because as you said, I think it's critical to the future economic development and the ability of people to stay and learn, thrive in rural parts of Oregon and around the country.
SEN. SMITH:  Well, thank you, gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I think my time is up, but let me just say I would love at some point in the near future to visit with you-all.  One of the issues I've struggled mightily over is net neutrality as it affects this issue, and how it affects deployment, and I'd love to get your views.  I have a feeling that maybe the fears on both sides of that issue may be overstated, and I keep looking for some commonsense ground that we can find some way to understand the values that are in competition here.
SEN. INOUYE:  I can assure you that we'll have those meetings.
Senator Rockefeller?
SEN. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER (D-WV):  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pick up on a previous point, and that is the public interest test, because it's my view that the FCC over the years has kind of wandered away from concern about that, and that particularly cable and satellite television really can have anything they want. The FCC has been very friendly to them, and I find that regrettable. I think television is in the worst state that I've ever seen it. Commercial television is in the worst state that I've ever seen it.  I barely watch it.  I hope my children don't.  They couldn't when they were growing up.  You know about my indecency and my violence bill. You may or may not like it.  I like it, and I've introduced it, and we'll have more to talk about.
But on this business of public interest, I mean commercial broadcasters do, after all, use what belongs to the American people for free.  So, we used to have a test, when the renewal came up, and 14 different points, which I won't go into, were asked.  They were very, very pertinent, as Commissioner Copps has said.  Now, it's very different, and the process of renewal is so pro forma, that it's known as "postcard renewal."  That's the term of art.  It just sort of - boom - you have it.  So, broadcasters are given - commercial, that is - access to the public airwaves.  It's for free, and in return, I have a very strong feeling that they have to live up to their obligations. And I think that's going to be the change of this last election. There's going to be a lot more attention on the Federal Communications Commission and what they are or are not doing about critical areas in broadcasting.
I don't really believe, as I said, that the FCC is conducting appropriate oversight of public interest obligations of commercial broadcasters.  Again, in an effort to minimize government regulation, the FCC so reduced the commercial broadcast license renewal process, I believe the agency has, in effect, abandoned its core responsibility to the public interest.  That's a pretty strong thing to say, and I say it without any hesitation whatsoever.  We live in such complicated times, people have to know what's going on.  Nobody watches news anymore, because there really isn't any news.  Cable is just who can kill who quicker, verbally; junk; sex; scandals.  It's just totally different from when I grew up.  So, as America, can I allow for that? No, I don't have to on something which is publicly owned and called "broadcasting."
Also, I want to point out - and I won't cite the statistics; you all know them.  And some people criticize this group, but I don't because nobody's challenged their statistics, the Parent Television Council:  a 167 percent increase in violence since 1998.  Prime-time slots:  ABC, a 309 percent increase in violent content overall since 1998.  For each hour of prime time, CBS has the highest percentage of deaths depicted at various levels, and that's gone up by 68 percent.
Now, the commercial broadcasters love to talk about their voluntary efforts, and they raise money.  Actually, they didn't raise money.  They just took a little less advertising and said, "Well, we'll get people to do this voluntarily."
Chairman Martin, can you honestly say to me that you think that is working, or could work?
MR. MARTIN:  They're self-regulation implementation, their proposal you're talking about?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER:  Correct.
MR. MARTIN:  No, I've continued to say that I think that there're a lot of problems with the content that's on not only broadcast, but on cable television, as well, and that I think that a lot of these education efforts that they've funded have been insufficient to fully address those issues.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER:  Commissioner Copps?
MR. COPPS:  I think any voluntary codes that survive in this day and are a pale, shallow representation of what the industry used to have.  You know, from the 1920s to the 1980s for radio, and from the fifties to the '80s for television, we had voluntary codes of broadcaster conduct, and they subscribed to them, and while it may not have been a golden age, it was a serious effort at self-discipline. And I've been begging them to get back to meaningful, voluntary codes, and it seems to me that would be the best way for them to go if they wanted to avoid some of the more stringent actions you talk about. So, that's my reaction on that.
On the previous subject, how did we get away from these public- interest obligations, you're right.  Your statement was strong, but I agree with it.  We had a chairman of the FCC one time who made a strong statement, too.  His wasn't right; it was wrong.  He said, you know, "Television is nothing but a toaster with pictures."  And that's how we started treating the people's airwaves and the television, and then we sit around and wonder what happened to public-interest obligations.  That began in the eighties, and it hasn't abated.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER:  I have four more questions to ask.  I'll submit them by writing, because I don't want to get in the way of Claire McCaskill.
SEN. MCCASKILL:  (Laughs.)
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you very much.  Senator Pryor?  Oh, no. Senator McCaskill.  I'm sorry.
SEN. MCCASKILL:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, a simple question for Chairman Martin.  Will you issue new media ownership rules without seeking comment on regulatory language?
MR. MARTIN:  I'm sorry.  What was that?
SEN. MCCASKILL:  Your new media ownership rules -
MR. MARTIN:  Yes.
SEN. MCCASKILL:   -- that you've announced that you're going to be changing, will you issue those without seeking comment on the regulatory language?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, we haven't announced any new rules.  What we've started is the proceeding, and -
SEN. MCCASKILL:  Right.
MR. MARTIN:  -- we've actually already sought comment on the proceeding.
SEN. MCCASKILL:  So, will the -
MR. MARTIN:  We've begun the process of saying, "Should we make any changes to the rules?"  And, indeed, the courts have actually instructed us that we have to make some changes to the rules.
SEN. MCCASKILL:  Correct, but what my question is, as this process goes along, will you be seeking comment on the regulatory language that you may propose?
MR. MARTIN:  We already are seeking comment on how we should be reforming those rules.  The commission doesn't always, and some have proposed, that we should actually seek again comment on a specific rule before we adopt it, or somehow release it to the public so that people can see what that is.
SEN. MCCASKILL:  That's my question.
MR. MARTIN:  Right.  And since we've just begun the process, I don't even know what we would change, if so.  I don't think I can commit to how we will undergo that process, and until we get further to know if we're going to make any changes, I'm not sure that I can comment on what we're going to do, going forward.
SEN.  MCCASKILL:   Commissioner?
MR. COPPS:  You can count me as one of those who so proposed, and I understand that in all cases we don't put out the final, proposed rule for public comment, but this is so profound and so important and involves the whole future of our radio and our television and our media, that I think it's absolutely imperative that we put it out before the final vote is called.
SEN. MCCASKILL:  I agree with you.  Yes, Commissioner Adelstein.
MR. ADELSTEIN:  I also agree.  I think the public has a right to see the rules before they're finalized.  All we've put out so far is a broad, general statement of, "What do you think of our media ownership rules?" but the public has no idea what we're going to do.  And if we decide to make changes, I think the public has a right to see them before we finalize them, not after.
SEN. MCCASKILL:  Well, I agree.  I think this is incredibly important, what you are embarking upon, as it relates to the future of broadcasting, and I think it's incredibly important that before any rules are adopted, that there is public comment on the rules that are being proposed.  And I wanted to speak to that first.
I also wanted to ask - I was interested in the process of the merger decisions, and I know that you-all were stalled at a 2-2 tie, and that, Commissioner McDowell, you had recused yourself because of potential appearance of conflict because of your previous job.  And then when it got to a stalemate, there was actually an opinion by your counsel that, at that point, had you wanted to weigh in on the decision, you could have; that the counsel said you weren't barred.  I found that ironic, that you would have been originally recused, and then when it was really close and tied - (inaudible) - that, "You can come on back in now and make a decision."
I appreciate the decision you made in terms of not participating, because you did not have enough confidence in the opinion that it was clear.  I guess my question to the panel is, do you need a law to clarify the situation in those instances, so that there aren't future commissioners who are faced with the difficult decision, and the pressure-filled decision that you faced, Commissioner McDowell?
SEN. MCDOWELL:  Thank you, Senator.  And, obviously, that was a difficult time for everyone involved.
Actually, you know, the system worked in that regard.  The way the system works, there are a number of layers of sort of ethical protection, if you will, one of which was my ethics agreement with the Office of Government Ethics that was filed with this committee actually February 14th of last year.  There's the Code of Federal Regulations.  There, of course, are the ethics rules under my home state bar, the Virginia State Bar, and many other levels of protection there.
The Chairman, I think, exercised his prerogative to ask the general counsel of the FCC for his legal opinion, given that there may have been a compelling governmental interest.  The system, I think, actually worked.  At the end of the day, it became my decision, which is what Mr. Feder's memo said - that this was my decision to make.  He surveyed the landscape.  He wrote a thorough memo, for the most part, and at the end of the day, I disagreed that in an ethical close call, or an "ethical coin toss," as I called it at the time, that I should venture into the gray area; that I should stay on the white side of gray.  But I don't think we need additional legislation.
SEN. MCCASKILL:  But do you understand my concern?  I mean if you had decided to not stay on that side of the ethical grayness of the situation, we would have had a situation where there could have potentially - or, there was going to be a 3-2 vote, where the deciding vote was cast by someone who had originally recused himself.  And that's my concern - is that if this were to happen again, I think we're going to see potentially more situations, because the people who join your commission have background in the field.  And if any of you have - my time is up, and I don't want to go over, but if any of you have specific ideas about that, I would appreciate you directing them to my office so I could look at them.
And, finally, I just want to make one comment, with the permission of the chairman.  There's a lot of talk about public participation in our democracy by the airwaves, and in my state, broadcast media and cable received over $20 million in political advertising between the months of August and November.  An incredible amount of money was spent.  I think we had, you know, maybe three hours of debates that were aired on those same - they had a great deal.  They made a lot of money, and there wasn't a lot - now, there was a lot of news coverage.  In fairness, there was a lot of news coverage of the race.  But for the person who challenges me - and I'm sure there will be someone - I want to make sure they have a fair shot.  I want to make sure that the system is not so overloaded towards my benefit that someone can't effectively challenge me.  And I would ask you all to look at the requirements of viewing debates and political campaigns during prime time on broadcast media.  If you-all did a chart of the income that has gone to broadcast media from political advertising over the last two cycles, it would be jaw- dropping.  And I think that in light of that, I think it's really important that we continue to put pressure on broadcast media and cable to air political debates.
Thank you very much.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you.  Senator Pryor?
SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR):  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We're about midway through a roll call vote on the floor.
I'm going to try to be quick with my questions, and I'd appreciate quick responses, because at some point we're going to have to run over there and vote.
Chairman Martin, let me ask you about the 700 megahertz auction.
MR. MARTIN:  Yes.
SEN. PRYOR:  A couple of basic questions:  is the geographical size of the blocks that are being auctioned - I guess you call them blocks.  I don't know what you call them, but the geographical areas that are being auctioned and the timing of the auctions - exactly when those will take place.  So, on the geographical size, as I understand it, they're fairly large geographical areas.  Is there any consideration - is the FCC considering shrinking those and making those smaller?  My concern there would be if they're smaller, more companies would be able to make bids, especially smaller and local phone companies.
MR. MARTIN:  There is.  We do have a proposal to make them significantly smaller in the upcoming auction, compared to what we've done in the past.  IN the past, the commission had actually had very large geographic areas.  We made them somewhat smaller just in the auction we just completed this past fall, and then we have proposals to make the geographic areas even smaller - in large part to try to help smaller companies be able to get in, and also because if you make the geographic area smaller, it's more likely that people will be able to focus on providing rural service in smaller, rural areas - that people are really interested in providing that service, as opposed to just buying a larger block that has rural areas encompassed in it. So, that is actually one of the things I think we'll do.
SEN. PRYOR:  Bingo.  That's one of the things.  Did you have a comment on that?
MR. ADELSTEIN:  I agree with the Chairman.  I think it's very important that we offer different sizes of auction areas so that large and small companies can get engaged - particularly companies that want to serve on the local level.  So, as we look at the band plan, it's critical.  It's not a free market.  We establish what the market is. We fit so that there can be really new opportunities for both small companies -
SEN. PRYOR:  Right.
MR. ADELSTEIN:  -- and designated entities - small, new businesses.
SEN. PRYOR:  And, Mr. Chairman, I guess this is best for you. What's your timeframe on making a decision about how large these markets will be?
MR. MARTIN:  Well, we need to do that fairly soon.  We have an obligation that we have to conduct the auctions by the beginning of next year, and we have to turn over the proceeds in the middle of next year.  So, we need to be trying to conduct the auction sometime this fall, so we need to get those rules in place sometime this spring.
SEN. PRYOR:  Okay.  So, your plan is to conduct the auction this fall.  Another concern I might have is if you make it too near in time to the auction that we just had, for capital reasons, et cetera, I just wonder if you could put that off a few months, or if that matters, or -
MR. MARTIN:  Well, we have to have it completed by the beginning of next year, and then we have to actually have the proceeds delivered to the Treasury by the middle of next year.  So, our staff would like to be able to start it sometime in fall to make sure that we've got enough time to complete it and meet those statutory requirements, because we're required by law to meet certain deadlines.
SEN. PRYOR:  Okay great.  Let me change direction completely here.  The V-Chip - in the last that passed back in 1996, there's Section 551, the V-Chip law, which basically directs the commission to take action on alternative blocking technology as it is developed.  Do you have any ongoing matters now where you're looking at alternative, sort of next-generation V-Chip?
MR. MARTIN:  Not anything in particular right now.  I mean there have been advances in some of the blocking technologies in the V-Chip. Part of the difficulties that we determined in the effectiveness of it is because it also needs to be - because of the ratings that are required for the content of all of the programs.  For the V-Chip, or any blocking technology to be effective, you have to have very effective rating systems, and we've found that that's been somewhat problematic.
SEN. PRYOR:  Well, I would encourage the commission just to consider putting something on the agenda, because you do have Section 551, which basically says you need to continually look at new technology - next-generation V-Chip.
Also, with regard to adult domains, I know that ICANN has been looking at a .XXX domain. Just a very brief question for the chairman on this, and that is, are y'all taking a position on adult domains, or trying to have a porn-free Internet?
MR. MARTIN:  NTIA is the agency that ends up having responsibility over ICANN, so they've been the ones who've been more involved in that.
SEN. PRYOR:  And lastly - and this is maybe a sore subject with some, and I know our time is very limited.  We have to run over and vote, so maybe I may get you to submit at least a longer answer for the record.  But I note here in the AT&T-Bell South merger, we all know there were a lot of events throughout that merger as it related to the commission, but one thing I'm concerned about is after the conditions were put on and the merger was approved by the FCC, apparently, Mr. Chairman, you and I believe it was Commissioner Tate - you-all basically indicated that you may not enforce some of the provisions of what was just done.  And the question I would have fundamentally is, what is your legal authority as chairman or as the commission to not enforce something that you just did.
MR. MARTIN:  It's not that we wouldn't enforce; we actually would enforce the conditions that were proposed.  One of those conditions was AT&T would have to put forth a tariff to be subsequently approved by the commission, and that tariff actually has some components that I believe are actually illegal under the commission precedent.  And I said at the time that, "They can file it, but I'm not committing to approving something that would be in violation of our precedent.  And, indeed, several companies have already gone to court and said that that condition is illegal for the very reasons that I identified.
Our tariffing rules require AT&T, when they file a tariff, to allow anybody to take from that tariff.  And the condition that was imposed actually restricted several companies from being able to participate in that option, and we don't allow for that kind of discrimination.
SEN. PRYOR:  Okay.  Did anybody else have any comment on that?
MR. ADELSTEIN:  I just say that the order was adopted unanimously.  It was a 4-0 vote.  So, it's hard for me to understand why we can't implement something that was adopted unanimously.  If it wasn't something that was considered to be legal, I don't understand why there wasn't dissent in negotiation to deal with that issue up front.  Personally, I think the item is completely legal.  I don't see any problem with it.  The AT&T lawyers feel that way.  A lot of others do.  But if there is a legal concern about it, it's very easy to address.
Now, this wasn't raised to my attention before the vote was finalized, but I'm willing, nevertheless - even though I think it's reasonable and legal - to address those concerns and ensure that the provisions be completely nondiscriminatory under any definition.  I think we should be able to work that out before we finalize the order and get that done in short order.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you very much.  Cantwell?
SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA):  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'll be quick because we are out of time.  And if I could just get "yes" or "no" answers or something as succinct as that.
On this cross-ownership analysis and the work that's being done by the contractors in the context(?), should that complete study be subject to public comment so that we're not caught off guard?  I should preface by thanking you for coming to Seattle for the second time.  I'm sure you get an earful every time you visit our state.
But should this information be subject to public comment - yes or no?
MR. COPPS:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  We've already committed, saying all of the studies will be put out for public comment.
SEN. CANTWELL:  Okay.  And secondly, on the 900 megahertz rules, you know, we're having all these other discussions here in the United States Congress about energy security and dealing with global warming. There're a lot of devices that will be part of our energy efficiency strategy, that use that 900 megahertz.  So, can we get some consultation with this committee, or are we going to precipitously see those rules come out without dialogue?
MR. MARTIN:  We'll be happy to, and have always consulted with the committee.
SEN. CANTWELL:  Great.  Thank you. And then the last question.  I know we had some comments on white space, but when can we expect a decision as it relates to portable devices?
MR. MARTIN:  On the white space, Senator?
SEN. CANTWELL:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  We actually have equipment that is actually being tested in our labs that we can end up approving.  The main thing that we have to determine is whether it should be unlicensed or licensed, and that should be a decision that we need to make, again, sometime this spring or early summer, so that the devices that are being tested can be put out in the marketplace.
SEN. CANTWELL:  Okay.  Again, a very important decision.
But thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. INOUYE:  Thank you very much.
The record will remain open for one week for submission of questions, and I hope that the commissioners will be able to respond within two weeks of receipt.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.
SEN. INOUYE:  And I'd like to announce that the next hearing is on Wednesday, February 6th, at 10 a.m., and the subject will be "Climate Change Research and Scientific Integrity."
The hearing is adjourned.

LOAD-DATE: February 7, 2007