Skip to main content

tv   Today in Washington  CSPAN  March 27, 2010 2:00am-5:59am EDT

2:00 am
wheaties and betty crocker goods to market but for every mile an hour or their trucks travel below the speed limit it costs them2 llion in overtime charges to their drivers and late delivery fees for their customers. a plumber. we'll be there between 8:00 and noon. plumbing contractors told us that they used to make eight or nine calls a day, now they're doing four. that means their business is less efficient because they can't get through the congestion. we have to make these changes. we have to deliver projects more expeditiously. we have to put people to work faster. we have to get goods moving more efficiently. we do this with freight movement corridors, a whole host of
2:01 am
investments for major mote po metropolitan areas of the country, but we have to have a v proposal. we would direct -- we, the congress, would direct the treasury to deposit $130 billion in bonds, treasury bonds into the highway trust fund to be repaid with revenues from
2:02 am
highway trust fund out into the future. and we would delay the repayment for the first perhaps four years, giving the economy time to recover. at which time we would need to increase the highway user fee, probably by 2014, 2015. and begin repaying the treasury bonds capital and interest at the treasury rate of interest. that would give us, with the baseline of the current revenues into the trust fund, the $450 billion over six years. mr. wright what do you think about that? >> i think it's a wonderful idea. let's get started. >> i'm hitting you cold. you haven't had time to see this or think about it. but, from a -- from your perspective, a contractor, business, operator what do y
2:03 am
think? do you think it's a good, workable idea? >> it sounds workable to me, sir. yes. i would order some equipment. >> thank you. mr. wharton what do you think on the firing line? >> chairman oberstar, i think it is definitely needed. as i mentioned in my testimony, we see a cliff, and unless there's a long-term solution, there's going to be a lot of people looking for work and a lot of businesses closing down. we need to act and we need to act now. >> ms. richardson, you're a practitioner at the state level what do you think? is this workable? can you work within that framework? >> well, chairman oberstar, if you and jack basho say it's workable, i would hate to argue with either of you, the two of you together. it certainly sounds interesting. i have not heard that discussed and haven't thought a lot about
2:04 am
it. the idea of waiting three or four years for the economy to recover would be an appealing part of it. you know, would appeal to some of the dissenters in terms of increasing funding. the question would be is 15 cents or 20 cents going to be enough. you guys have done the math. i think it's very intriguing. very intriguing. >> well this is the first time it's been discussed in an open forum. i tried it out on small groups here and there. >> i like it. >> economists. ms. fisk, mr. luna what do you think about the future of transportation? >> mr. oberstar, chairman, i believe that transportation is the backbone of the united states, the eisenhower system set forth back then really put the plantation down for us. and i think we need to move forward and i think your bill or
2:05 am
proposal there is actually -- could very well work. and i support it. thank you. >> thank you. a and, florentino, mi amigo. [ speaking foreign language ] go ahead, please. you have to push the button on the microphone there. well -- >> do you think we need to make this kind of investment in the future of transportation? >> yeah, it's necessary for everybody, you know? >> and if you had to spend another 10 cents, 15 cents on gasoline every time you filled
2:06 am
up, knowing that it makes it possible to make the investment in a transportation system that will create employment opportunities, do you think it's worth it? >> yes, we have to. we have to. >> thank you. >> jeff freeman, we don't fund the waste water treatment system like we do transportation, just as a consumer of the system, what do you think? >> mr. chairman, i think it sounds like a very innovative idea. and actually that -- that's -- tieing it back to what i know more about, with the clean water revolving fundprogram, is it's an innovative and sort of a different approach to how financing is being done for
2:07 am
municipal waste water treatment, setting up these revolving funds and using, then, the ability to leverage money. you know, and in that way i think your proposal is similar and i'm all for it. >> thank you. you're an economist, i take it. >> yep. yes. >> what do you think? >> i think that the government doesn't have any money, and as you mentioned, each time the government spend money it needs to take it somewhere in the economy. and it makes it very hard to actually measure the return, the true return on investment on the dollars invested by the government. 15 cents, you know, may not seem like a lot to you, to me. this 15 cents is on top of the dramatic increase in gasoline prices that we've seen certainly in the last ten years.
2:08 am
so sure it's a marginal increase. more importantly i really thank that measuring the return on investment that we make is, i mean, just let me give you an example. i mean, measuring the performance of government's action by how much it spends seems to me like the wrong measure of things. like, i can go to the grocery store and spend $100. what matters is not so much that i spent $100 but it is what i've brought with it. whether with this, been able to actually buy enough family to feed my family and not just with junk but with things that are actually good for them. and i feel very often in all the conversation that go on is that unfortunately the performance of the government is measured more by how much it spends than compared to how much it produces. even when we talk about how many jobs were created, not to
2:09 am
mention that it's extremely hard to actually measure, as i've said in my o rrral testimony, b very often these measures are very arbitrary and they don't really look at how much economic growth has been produced. you can spend government dollars to create a job to dig a hole and create another job to fill this hole. has this created economic growth? maybe, maybe not. and i think it would be -- you've talked a lot about accountability. it would be very, very, very important to actually think very, very hard about how we can better measure the return on government dollars, our dollars because, again, for the government to be able to spend money it needs to either tax it, borrow it, or print it and all of these things have consequences for us who live in america. >> in the surface transportation
2:10 am
program, however, as in our aviation program we have an aviation trust fund, we have the highway trust fund. the revenues collected at the gas pump do not go into the general treasury of the federal government. they're deposited into the highway trust fund, and the u.s. treasury pays interest on those revenues deposited in the trust fund, and they are allocated and reserved only for highway and transit funding. according to the formulas set forth by the congress. in 1956 our gross domestic product was $345 billion. today it's $13 trillion. in 1956 there was one car per household. that car drove on average 6,000 miles a year.
2:11 am
today we have on average three cars per household. they're driving 15,000 miles each. we had a million trucks in america in 1956. we have over 7 million trucks on our highways today. our economy depends on mobility. on movement of people and goods. the interstate highway system and the national highway system that in which the interstate is now included have been the fundamental reasons for which our economy has expanded at the rate that it has grown. and we can track these figures with the annual reports of the texas transportation institute that measures the cost of congestion. the 75 major metropolitan areas of this country, congestion last
2:12 am
year cost those metropolitan areas $86 billion. people are spending a week longer in their cars than they would if they could drive at posted highway speeds. they're buying four and five tanks of gasoline more than they would if they could drive at posted highway speeds. they're also experiencing higher maintenance costs on their vehicles because the road surface is in such poor condition that they're buying more shock absorbers and more tires and more other equipment for their vehicles. where we improve the roadway, where we make it more efficient and safer and save lives we're improving our economy. the highway trust fund is different from other government investments. that's what i'm saying. so with the aviation program. >> can i -- >> yes. >> -- add something? i'm not a transportation expert,
2:13 am
but i've read a lot of reports about transportation funding, and i remember in particular a pretty groundbreaking report produced by the urban institute in 2004. i believe. where they actually looked at the economic literature on transportation spending and acknowledged that for very, very long, in fact, economists agreed that investment in transportation was essential to economic growth. for exactly the reason that you've talked about and that it had become not clear, at all, anymore. we seemed to have hit a threshold. however, maybe there are other ways to do everything you want to do, such as actually making consumer pay more of the cost of the roads they're using. for instance, i will give you an example in france. the a-14 highway which is a
2:14 am
privately owned highway in paris that goes out to the west, it's privately funded and it has a fee, and it actually makes a profit and is actually allowed massive deacon jegs of the highway system, in particular on fridays and weekends, sunday, when people want to come in and out of the city. so maybe there is something to be said to actually look at france for this and this is not a government solution. obviously it was facilitated by the government that allowed, but it was privately -- it's privately owned and it's actually working. obviously a choice is given to people to pay that fee which is pretty expensive, but what it does is it actually allows to reduce the congestion on other roads. and that's where my experience ends. >> the same with the bridge in the south of france to spain. >> yeah. >> massive -- i've seen the
2:15 am
video of the building of that beautiful structure. massive structure, but that was funded by tolls. >> so maybe it is to look outside of the way -- >> in fact, we do this in this bill. we provide in our program for metropolitan mobility and access an array of funds for those@@@@á
2:16 am
it's already been built and paid for. >> i was talking about something else. >> yes. new capacity, that is also a need that we have. >> it is also possible that if you allow -- if there's a profit to be made, and i believe that in cities that are very highly congested there's a gigantic profit to be made by private developer, that they would make it independent of government bonds or incentives. and that would save taxpayers money. and that's -- >> the california legislature approved a toll authority for a private contractor under bidding process to build, as they
2:17 am
proposed, two lanes of highway. california 90. the tolling -- the company won the bid. they built 20 miles of this roadway. and set the tolls, but few people have used it. the tolling company was on the verge of bankruptcy. they state, however, with experiencing increasing congestion on the adjoining state highways, with rising fatalities and injuries, so the state proposed to build two additional lanes of freeway in that corridor. the tolling authority sued the state because they had provision in the state legislative authorizing bill for exclusivity in the corridor.
2:18 am
no competition from any other source. the state of california wound up acquiring the tolling authority and building two additional lane miles of roadway. and retired the tolls and continued the roadway. so in not -- not in all situations does tolling succeed, but there is an appropriate place for it in the future transportation, and we provide for it in this legislation. >> maybe the fact that there was this private company was guaranteed no competition had to do -- led to actually this company not to do the best job it could. >> no. the tolls were too high. that's the -- that was the conclusion. mr. miller, for the future of transportation, we provided funding in this bill, mr. cummings asked you the question, what happens when the authority to use capital account moneys
2:19 am
for operating expense. in our legislation we provide authority for up to 10% of your capital account for smaller systems to use in their operating account and only 5% for the larger systems. there's considerable tension within the transit community over that provision. what do you -- what thoughts do you have, not necessarily percentage, but what is the -- what is the balance -- what is the proper balance here between operating account and capital account? >> well, mr. oberstar, it's certainly a challenging question for transit because, as you know, most of this smaller systems who have the ability to use all of their federal funds for operations, at least all of -- most of the smaller systems in iowa under 200,000, do use all of their money to
2:20 am
offset local funding. des moines is an area over 200,000 so we can not use our regular funds for operations. only capital. we are saving jobs. with the great ability to use 10% of our stimulus dollars. again, like the other folks who have testified, there's a cliff, these are one-time funding. we're not sure exactly how we're going to be able to handle it moving forward. we would certainly be supported for limited ability to use some of our federal funds for operation s. in another stimulus bill should that become available or longer term. >> this is part of the tension within our surface transportation system. at the beginning of the end, the first 15 years of the interstate highway program, the federal funds were provided for capital account, for construction.
2:21 am
only in the late -- or only in the mid-'70s did interstate maintenance become a category of funding. the principle was the federal government, with the highway trust fund, would provide 90% of the cost of building this new system of roadways. divided, access controlled, super-highways. and the states would then maintain it. but as the interstate aged, and it's 1% of the highway mileage of the entire united states. it carries 26% of the traffic, of the vehicle miles traveled, go on our interstate. it began to ware down, and reluctantly the congress provided a limited amount of funding for interstate maintenance. that eventually grew to a larger
2:22 am
number. on average 15% of the interstate needs to be re built almost every year in order to keep pace with the growing demands on the system and the deterioration of the bridges. half of the bridges of this country were built in the 1960s with interstate highway funds. so similarly with the transit, the original concept was the federal partnership with transit agencies would be to provide the capital to acquire the equipment and the local entity would maintain it. and generally that was a 50/50 proposition. some cases it's a little bit higher. we're moving in to a -- we're now firmly in the post-interstate era of transportation. we are in an intermodal era. long overdo, but thinking
2:23 am
intermodaly. i think it is appropriate to provide some level of federal funding for transit operations. but we're still -- it's still an open question of how much that should be. we've set some goals in this legislation, but we -- that will be a continuing dialogue, so i urge you and apta to think more about that subject matter and help us move forward. >> yes. as i mentioned in my testimony, when i was out at public meetings the last few months talking about our service reductions we were going to have to make because of the drop in the economy, it was a very tough question to answer. why are you buying buses and spending all this capital money? why can't you save my route? and it is a tough question to answer to anybody to explain that that's how we have to do it. so, yes, as we're moving forward
2:24 am
i think there needs to be a balance. >> exactly. in the stimulus we thought long and hard about this issue, and bev scott, the director of the atlanta system, says it doesn't make sense on the one hand for you to provide us funds to buy new buses and for us on the other hand to lay off drivers of existing buses in our system. so give us some flexibility to keep the existing system operating as well as replace our fleet and and reduce our cost of operation. all of you have been very thoughtful and very contributory in your responses and you've helped shape the view of the stimulus up to this point. my judgment is it's doing what we intended.
2:25 am
1,000,200 jobs created. 1,200 bridges restored, replaced, rebuilt. over 10,000 transit vehicles acquired. that has created jobs in the production sector, building those buses, building those rail cars. and we're seeing the effects all reverberate throughout our economy. we need to sustain it. we need to continue it. and i thank all of you who've made your contributions. [ speaking foreign language ] and everyone else, you only get it in english. thank you very much for your testimony. and keep up your great work. each in your respective ways. and for those who are on the
2:26 am
frontlines, miss frist, mr. duna, keep driving. committee is adjourned. .
2:27 am
2:28 am
2:29 am
since then, some terrorists have graduated the program. this is a look at detainee interrogation. this is live coverage on c-span. >> we will post the information on our heritage home page for your reference. qaadmacully stimson is a legal t for legal lot and military lot and has served as secretary of defense -- assistant secretary
2:30 am
of defense where he advise the secretary of defense worldwide in guantanamo bay and iraq and afghanistan. he has served as u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. previous to that, he was a homicide prosecutor in maryland and a domestic violence prosecutor in san diego. he served three active duty tours in the navy and continues to serve as a judge advocate general reservist in the navy. please join me in welcoming my colleague, cully stimson. [applause] >> thank you, john. welcome. this week, i have the opportunity to speak to some distinguished the season and citizens about the u.s. detention policy and in that audience were two vets.
2:31 am
during the question and answer time frame, one of these veterans noted that during world war ii we had over 1000 not see pow's here in custody in the united states -- nazi p.o.w.'s here in custody in the united states and nobody would have ever considered releasing them during war. that is exactly what we are doing today. i am sure a lot of people agree with that gentleman that we should not be rearming the enemy, committed an islamic jihadists, during wartime. of course, that is exactly what we did during the bush administration for a variety of reasons and exactly what the obama administration is intent on doing as well. those detainee's that people
2:32 am
usually focus on are those that were at guantanamo. but this policy also exists -- existed in iraq, afghanistan and the nevertheless, people tend to focus on those at guantanamo. in afghanistan today under the leadership of task leadership435, military commanders are developing disengagement programs that in time will be transitioned to the government of afghanistan for their use of the military and attention operations. and as many of you know, saudi arabia began its d radicalization program in 2004 and when i was in office with several of my colleagues that were here -- are here today, we started sending guantanamo detainees back to the kingdom to attend the deradicalization
2:33 am
program in 2006. according to published reports: the recidivism -- according to published reports, the recidivism rate is around 20% or so. many think that number may be on the low side. three of the men have made their way to yemen and occupy senior leadership positions in the al qaeda organization on the peninsula, most notably, the second-in-command that is believed to be behind the 2008 attack of the u.s. embassy. another who is thought for -- thought to be responsible for approving terrorist attacks and became a field commander. after the christmas day palming ñiattack -- terrorist attack hee in the united states when we discovered the denman connection and after many of us urged the
2:34 am
obama administration to stop transferring the 90 or so gtmo based detainees back to yemen, it was announced that it would be suspended. to many, that was a common sense move. the government of yemen has shown no real ability to deter the threat that they pose and has not as douglas a credible deradicalization program there. indeed, two key bombers in the u.s. has called bombing were committed -- were convicted in yemen courts -- in the u.s. as coas. coal bombingcole bombing d in yemeni course. let's focus on the programs.
2:35 am
do they work? how do they work? what do they have in terms of actual class's, teaching, philosophy, etc.? and hopefully, before the question and answer timeframe, our panelists will offer their opinion about whether we should continue as a matter of policy using these programs. these two panelists are friends of mine and uniquely qualified to discuss these topics. marissa porges is at the council on foreign relations where she is researching efforts to the radicalize -- to deradicalized detainee's in many countries around the world. she has firsthand knowledge of these programs. she did not attend them. [laughter] she has spent time in saudi arabia five times and has been
2:36 am
to yemen this past fall for those countries to seek her opinions on these matters. in 2008, marissa served as an adviser to the detainee affairs. she worked for me and others in that office. her responsibilities included negotiating with foreign governments on detention issues and coordinating u.s. governments to repatriate detainees from guantanamo bay. she moved to the treasury department and office of financing crimes to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and other activities. she also had the privilege of serving on general patraeus' central command assessment team advising on counter-terrorism on the arabian peninsula. like me, she is a commissioned naval officer, although she is a brown shoe. and she received her ba with honors in geophysics from
2:37 am
harvard and a master's with distinction from the london school of economics. daveed gartenstein-ross, why had the pleasure of taking a round- trip to guantanamo with in october, 2006 is the director for terrorism research at the foundation fordham defense of democracy and is a ph.d. -- the foundation for defense of democracy and is a ph.d. candidate. he has done studies in homegrown terrorism, including home grown terrorists in the vote -- in the uk. he has good his academic -- put his academic study of terrorism to prep for use in a variety of consulting work, including work with hostage negotiations, border conditions and law enforcement. he has testified before congress. and his writings on the war and
2:38 am
terror have been published and widely -- published widely and you can see him on tv quite often. he has published four monographs. the one i was most intrigued by is "my you're inside radical islam." with that, i take -- turn it over -- "my your inside radical islam. with that i turn it over to marisa porges, because ladies go first. we will have questions and answers at the end. >> thank you and thanks to everyone for being here today. it is a great honor to talk about an issue which myself and those who have worked closely on the tension topics have looked at for of years now, but which thankfully has become part of the wider terrorism issues. i will start my top by defining some terms.
2:39 am
let's quickly look at what is usually considered the confusing topics of deradicalization and counter radicalization. we are here today to talk about deradicalization, which are our efforts to work with people who have already been picked up or have professed to be part of terrorist organizations, or have shown that they are part of them. when they are in custody, what we are doing with them to try to rehabilitate them, change their minds or their behavior so that when they are released they will not be as significant a threat. this should be thought of differently from counter radicalization, which our efforts to work with vulnerable populations. the of the somali diaspora here in the u.s., or impoverished youth in yemen. these are both very important tools in the broader counter-
2:40 am
terrorism tool kit and the r & r toolkit -- a valuable tools in our tool kit. how you develop a program like this? over the past five or 10 years, people have been trying to develop theories behind the programs and have come up with two camps so that there is a spectrum. on one side we have individuals who think it is an ideological goal, that we should be focusing on changing an individual's ideology, his beliefs, his motivations, and approaching the program from that direction. think religious dialogue, religious debates. and really, a focus on the belief system behind the activities. at the other end of the spectrum are those who think it is about changing behavior. a program that has developed along this path will focus more
2:41 am
on disengagement, trying to change an individual's activities. it looks often like a rehabilitation program in a federal prison. at the end of the day, programs typically fall someplace in between. depending on the country involved, the circumstances of the individuals involved, but it is important to see the spectrum because when we evaluate programs, inherently, we look at which camp is really working and where we should put the program in between. when i look at them, that is how i am assessing them. what are the questions? what do we need to be considering when looking at the programs? i will go over some broad ideas at play and then we will talk about a few programs. first, we have to consider what the goal is. is it a tactical counter- terrorism goal? are we primarily concerned with those that we have in custody and that is it? or is it a broader effort as part of an effort to stabilize
2:42 am
the country involved, or broader counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency campaign? that will play out in how we implement the programs, how we talk about a programs, and how the public is either involved or not involved in the program's activities. another essential question to ask is, what is attainable and pragmatic on the timeline involved for those who are holding the individuals? this is something as a u.s. policymaker we always need to be concerned with when we are trying to figure out how long it takes to change some one month -- someone's mind. are we only effective at changing behavior if we have a deadline in fogh because we know we have to release someone at some point? perhaps they have a sentence and they will be walking out the door one day. what are the capabilities? do we have the resources that we need, whether it is a therapist or interlocutors.
2:43 am
and do we have the clerics, them most, the individuals that understand -- a the most, the individuals like and understand the customs. and of course, this brings us to one of the key factors, who is running the program? is it a government run program solely? is there non-governmental support? are their families involved? and if so, howard? -- how? and is it secular or non- secular? from a u.s. standpoint, i know we are concerned with the fact that we are detaining individuals from other countries. we are an outside authority. we are in non-secular outside authority. if you look in indonesia or singapore, you have a government working with their own citizens. these are the factors that end up making the determination of how a program is developed and
2:44 am
implanted -- implemented. lastly, the most critical factor perhaps, what are the factors of radicalization involved with those we have in custody? how are we to understand those that we are holding and wanting to work with, how did they get there? what path did they follow to join a terrorist organization? this is still a widely contested debate, but factors that are of concern and have interplay to be the sources of radicalization include ideology, economic motivations whether they are joining to get a paycheck -- economic motivations, whether they are joining to get a paycheck. local grievances is another factor. many groups are using local grievances as a way to
2:45 am
radicalize and recruit members. or is it not macro grievances, concern for the u.s. policy in the -- is it macro grievances, concern for the u.s. policy in the region? with that overview of the basic questions involved and the concern we need to@@@irbrb@ @ @u # the country it is a bit curious,
2:46 am
but it was run from 2002 through 2005, to deal with the mujahideen, who had been seen to engage in violent activity possible, but not the same criminal mind set of those already there. it was a heavily religiously focused program. it falls into the camp that thought it was primarily an ideological thing. it was run by supreme court judge who worked with them to engage in an ideological tools, he called it. it was a matter of trying to change the detainee's mines on a few key issues in terms of how they talked ... the detainees' mind on how they understood islam. it is looking at 98% success. did it work? and 90% success is the quoted
2:47 am
effort. -- 98% success is deported effort. digging a little deeper, my estimation is that it was a heart -- it was hardly a success at all. many individuals were seen to return to the fight, either supporting through activities or actually picking up arms. and a few of them returned to iraq and became freedom fighters there and reader picked up or beat -- or were killed there. when you -- and were either picked up or killed there. when you talk to a few people who had gone through the program, i talked to one who had gone through the program and had not really changed his ways. it is interesting to hear him discuss how it was a one note wonder. it was a very cursory program,
2:48 am
not very robust. but it also only touched on the ideological components. it really left out what was needed to help a detainee we integrate into society after the fact. -- reintegrate into society after the fact. in his estimation, as well as mine, it became one of the central falls of the program, which is now defunct. -- one of the central falls of the program, which is now defunct. although, they are trying to restart the program. afghanistan is likely the only program out there. it is -- it was started last fall at the bagram facility for the detainees. it is part of the new effort by general mcchrystal to recast a detention efforts in the country and overall insurgency efforts. we see a program that is being developed more in the camp of focusing on disengagement and rehabilitation. they offer classes to the
2:49 am
detainee's that number in the hundreds right now. in this crisis, they try to teach skills, -- english class is, they try to teach skills, they also teach art therapy to work with the detainees. they also give mvet to the religious point -- component as well -- they also work on the religious component as well. it is too early to tell how it works. it is too early to mark a recidivism rate. and has only been around for six to eight months or so and is still growing. but thus far, if you are thinking in the broader skype -- spectrum with how it plays into what is going on in afghanistan, it is deemed a success. when i was there in december, i spoke to two taliban and they
2:50 am
would say, yes, we still have problems with u.s. engagement in the country, but we appreciate what is going on now and how it has changed. those who are coming out of the prisons now have skills that they bring back to their villages. and they appreciate the fact that those individuals are less likely to return to terrorist activity because of this. this brings me to my overarching conclusion with these programs. that is, how these fit into broader strategies for dealing with terrorists. at in afghanistan in -- in afghanistan is a particular example where the radicalization -- deradicalization and the task force involved is using it as a tool with the broader counterinsurgency effort. it is a tool that supports a
2:51 am
broader strategic effort. the radicalization should be part of a broader strategic counter-terrorism efforts. -- deradicalization should be part of a broader strategic counter-terrorism effort. the saudis are fully committed to worry not just about those they have in custody, but those that are the peers, that friends, brothers, the family of the detainees. they are further concerned with -- they're concerned with further radicalizing those on thathe outside when they have te in custody. i spoke to a man a few years ago who said, i am concerned with what happens with the individuals when they get blood out, but more concerned with the thousands more -- when they get lead out, but more concerned with the thousands more that have a perception of what we're doing with those we have in custody.
2:52 am
those are the terrorists of the future. that is my concluding thought, we need to look at the strategy within the broader counter- terrorism efforts. it is a tool that has greater strategic implications, frankly, then how we are doing with the few that we have in custody. i fully support these efforts and i think that they should be expanded where possible, or made more robust in countries where they are needed, but it is neat to look -- we need to look at the broader goal for the future in dealing with the swamp of terrorists that could be coming down the line and how we look at making deradicalization one piece of the broader counter- terrorism tool. with that, perhaps we need to realign our goals when it comes to deradicalization, fully supporting the idea within the broader spectrum of policy
2:53 am
options. thank you. [applause] >> marissa draws a relatively important distinction of the onset of her speech. deradicalization comes at the back end of a process. it is what occurs after someone has been engaged in terrorism and you are trying to get them away from it in some way. i through changing their ideas, or through disengagement. -- scheider through changing your ideas, or toward disengagement. counter terrorism comes up the front end, you. you are trying to prevent the enemy, from being radicalized. the reason i draw this distinction is because it actually goes to the level of risk that you confront. counter-terrorism strategy,
2:54 am
there is very little risk if it fails. for example, obama's speech in cairo. it was serving multiple purposes, but in one way it can be grouped into u.s. counter- terrorism -- counter radicalization efforts. if you fail at counter radicalization programs in general, it is basically a zero risk unless you are so ineffective you create more terrorists. in general, if you fail, you just end up spending money unnecessarily and you end up where you started. whereas with deradicalization you can actually faced concrete risks. that is not the case for all deradicalization programs. for example, you have some that are in formal, or at a mosque level. there was a program recently announced in toronto that was serving a function in between when someone has adopted a radical ideology and actually resorted to violence. in other words, trying to bring
2:55 am
that -- break that linkage between radicalism and acting upon it. the but ultimately, if that fails, the deradicalization program, then you are back where you started without the program. on the other hand, deradicalization programs can pose a certain danger in certain terms it does. if you are taking people who are convicted terrorists -- certain circumstances. if you're taking people were convicted terrorists and putting them into programs together to basically be deradicalizatied, this goes to our policies. i'm not saying i disagree with them. this action goes to what marissa said. deradicalization strategies should be embraced as part of the effort against terrorism. but i think we need to understand the risks associated
2:56 am
with them and in particular the way, these programs are studied and debated i think we have one blind spot. the blind spot is ideology. i will talk about that at some greater length, but first, i want to point out one other important factor in the way that we discussed these programs. that is, researchers faced significant barriers in evaluating these programs. as has been written in a valuable book on this topic, we lack the necessary data and whether the various programs are actually affected, and if so, why and if government organizations are run in such a program, they are only just now releasing the data that they need to make public. we have gotten to see some of the output of these programs in terms of recidivism rates and
2:57 am
the like. some programs also, i should point out, are quite a bit more transparent. singapore's deradicalization program, for example, is highly transparent in that post information almost right away from the ministry of home affairs, which announces releases, changes in status, and renewal of charges, which gives a pretty good sense of at least the output of the singapore program. my own analysis is more on the front end, it is more on how people radicalize. part of what i studied in that regard is the role of ideology and radicalization. marissa and i are on the same page that ideology is not the driving factor of what brings people to terrorism. there is multiple, what researchers call push factors as well as pull factors, that is, things like discrimination, or angers over foreign policy and
2:58 am
the like that might push someone toward joining a radical group. and there are pull factors that might draw someone toward joining terrorist violence. and there is the question over whether ideology plays of some role at all. there are some researchers that argue that it does not. a large study deals with the question by quantitative analysis. basically, looking at things that we can measure externally that link people's radicalization specifically to an ideology. if all of -- quantifies that -- if quantifies that and i think it is far too early to remove audiology from the picture of something that draws people toward -- ideology from the picture as something that draws people toward terrorism. one of the common themes that runs through my work is the need for scholars to take seriously the ideology that drives people
2:59 am
to groups like al qaeda. i think is in general serves as a significant blind spot, something i hope to show. some researchers have a flippant attitude towards understanding ideology, either believing it is dangerous to program or offensive to do so, or in other ways giving it short shrift. but i believe it is possible in some cases to evaluate the majority of these programs without looking at ideology seriously. i think i should stayed there are some exceptions to that. for example, in afghanistan you have more of an insurgency situation. a more broad based approach can actually take ideology out in certain cases because of what we know about the components of the afghan insurgency, as opposed to transnational g. hottie groups like al qaeda were you have a different source of person -- a jihadi groups were you have a
3:00 am
different source of person join in that. i think one's ideas about religion is vital to the success of this program, understanding those ideas. it is going to be these ideological debates that are key to the success or failure of the committee on religious dialogue. committee on religious dialogue. and i shareg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
3:01 am
from "true islam." part of the program is a counseling program that tries to correct misunderstandings by reinforcing the state version of islam in saudi arabia as a means of deradicalizatioing individuas who have gone through the program. individuals are expected to go through the program, denounced their previous believes, and then they are given jobs, cars, apartment and the like. to me, a scholarship shows that they end up ignoring the ideological factor, even though it is so important to these programs. one example comes into the book "leading terrorism behind" in which the chapter on yemen made a very questionable claim to the researchers that they uncritically repeated.
3:02 am
"judge al hitar has made it clear that there is only one versed in the koran that allows believers to fight." anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the koran will know that is not true. there is not one single verse. i can think of a least four verses of the top of my head that do that. this is not a matter of opinion. the verses are either in the koran or not. and the fact that the researcher has been repeating something that is factually incorrect, to me, is indicative of the degree to which they are ignoring ideological elements. his claim was not true. but instead, researchers are simply repeating it because he said so, which shows they are not engaging the religious texts that these people are not -- are supposed to be debating in the first place. likewise, in the saudi arabian program, there were a few quotes from the same book that i
3:03 am
mentioned that turn out to be interesting. one of them in the saudi arabian program, it says -- presumes that the suspects were abused, lied to, and is led by extremists and that the state wants to help prisoners returned to the correct path. it continues, the counseling program seeks to correct this misunderstanding are reintroducing and reinforcing the official state version of islam. the reason these struck me as being a little bit remarkable is that because those who are familiar with the official saudi air -- saudi understanding of islam will understand a couple of things right away. number one, this is one of the most intolerant brand of islam in the entire world, without question, toward other sects, other faiths, and the like. that is something you get at the state level as well as individual. the second thing, when you look
3:04 am
at the ideology of the group like al qaeda, you have bruce widell, who is a known subset -- and was a known expert on the subject and for bin laden he wrote, his quarrel with the saudi leadership is about living up to the principles of the faith they both claim to share. if you look at the history of saudi arabia, the state version of islam that they propound creates an inherent systemic problem to them, which they have dealt with in a peculiar way. that is, they have an austere vision of islam which the monarchy cannot live up to because they live in the real world where you have to engage in diplomacy and compromise on certain things. as a result, they have been trying to channel aggression abroad for decades as opposed to focusing it on the monarchy. in the book "holy war" they use -- the author uses this phrase
3:05 am
about spending a lot of money trying to create of aggression abroad so that is not aggression at home. the one of the things that is an unfortunate outcome in a state with a very few civil liberties and a set of ideals that the state can never live up to. the reason i bring this up is not to say that the saudi rehabilitation program cannot work. perhaps it can, but one question that you get into is the religious debate is about how people have strayed from the official saudi version of islam. that creates the question as to how much people's minds are changing. and moreover, if we're looking productively -- predictably at and what is happening, we have key predictions. in saudi arabia, we have a history of people undertaking jihad outside the kingdom. perhaps, if people are being inculcated in an official saudi
3:06 am
islam, one thing that you can predict is that you will get a high recidivism rate not directed at the kingdom, but directed elsewhere. like say, against u.s. forces in iraq. to that extent, that is where marissa and i part ways on this issue. this is not something that she raised in her speech, but in foreign policy she argued that perhaps the best solution is transferring yemeni detainee's not back to yemen. and i agree with her there. but she says to saudi arabia, and i am not convinced of that. for particular prisoners who are the kind that we would want to release, who are not as radical as some of those we are most concerned about, will inculcating them in the saudi a ideology, which is exactly what the report claims to do, and of
3:07 am
making a safer? -- end up making us safer? the ideas at the heart of these programs, we will have a -- if we do not look at the ideas at the heart of these programs, we will have a blind spot. unless this situation changes, i think we are going in with stories of the deradicalization who are not looking at the big picture. thank you. [applause] >> nawaz the moment you have been waiting for, your opportunity to ask an actual -- now is the moment you have been waiting for, your opportunity to ask an actual question. as the microphone comes to you, tell us your name and affiliation and please ask an actual question. and i would ask you to rephrase
3:08 am
your comments into a question. we will start here. >> i'm debra brice. this question is for daveed. the could you comment a bit about the senate hearings on the deradicalization programs and i have a specific question, which sounds ridiculous to me. they keep asking, how radical is it ok -- give me one second to collect my thoughts. they keep asking at what point is radicalization going to turn into something violent where we have to stop it? that seems to me the wrong question. >> i actually think it is the right question and it is a very difficult question to answer. there is clearly a gap between radical beliefs and terrorism. this is something that our
3:09 am
nation is founded upon. the first amendment is based upon the idea that there is a difference between radical beliefs and actually undertaking violence. that is why you have people advocating communists, islamists, a wide variety of people who get to express their opinions. and you have people who are somewhere along the path. the nypd has studied radicalization, which has been much criticized, as a force that process. beginning with pre radicalization, into a doctor ration -- indoctrination, into ideology, and self identification with it and finally into where you are undertaking violence. the vast majority of people who start down this path toward radicalization and up at some point of turning back. what is the gap between radicalization and violence? that is something that researchers are looking at, and
3:10 am
it is an important question. i do not know that there have been any satisfactory answers, but i do not see a problem with asking it. >> do you want to comment? >> my one comment on it is that you can be radical without being violent. to clarify about when i was talking about the deradicalization programs versus those that are focused on rehabilitation, i would argue that you have to be closer to the rehabilitation focused than the ideology. you can be radical and have radical thoughts without committing to join a terrorist group or committee and terrorism. we have to be most concerned with the action and activities than the ideology. also understanding that there are those that have committed that can have their minds changed. bringing it back to the deradicalization standpoint, that question is very important in determining how to develop a program and what it should look
3:11 am
like from the outset. >> this lady was next. >> i'm terry hart, a private consultant. my question is, would one or both of you please explore in greater detail the use of art therapy as deradicalization or counter radicalization, the pros, the cons, the success rates. thank you. >> the results of complementing a detainee's painting skills when i was there a few times ago is i now have at a painting by one of the saudi detainee's hanging in my living room. but the first instance of a program that i have seen, in looking at a saudi example, it was used as another way to get at the psychological source of the detainee's radicalization or
3:12 am
mental issues that he might have. the way it is played out there is using an art therapist who works with the detainee is to try to get them to paint their emotions. it sounds a bit silly, but you see it over the course of their art work and how they are trying to release some of their emotions because of the radicalization of or the violence. you cannocould doubt it and it s pretty cool, but i think that there is a therapeutic element of it. but there is also the idea of keeping them busy and engaged in something else they can be doing to express themselves when they are in detention. this is the element of it that is being implemented in afghanistan. when i was just there in december, they were starting to
3:13 am
implement programs to give the detainees other options while they were in custody. i spoke to the woman in charge of these efforts. she started bringing in string, the thread that they used to make certain jewelry and beads and things like that in afghanistan. the detainees were given opportunity to make trinkets for their families, their wives, even sometimes the cards when they develop a report. it is interesting -- even the guards when they develop a rapport. the detainees in bagram who have historically been the most violent against the guards, the ones that have been most committed, those that will never change their minds a, when they have been given this opportunity of rehabilitation, suddenly,
3:14 am
there is more report with the guards, less violent activity within their cells -- there is more rapport with the guards, less violent activity within their cells. it may be strategic in how it paints a picture of detention in a counter radicalizing tool, but you also have the side benefit of making detention effort safer for for both -- safer for both the guard and a detainee. it does play to many different elements, depending on how and where it is implemented. >> the saudi arabian, they have unlimited resources, so if they want to throw money at it, whether it works or not, they cannot really waste money. by the way, that is not mockery of your point. i think we're making some good points. but if you have so much money,
3:15 am
you can give them cars, apartments, you might as well give them art as well. >> in the back, and then in the front next. >> a couple of questions, if i may. >> your name? >> [unintelligible] atú"n) d
3:16 am
and there is the spectrum that you run on, basically. should we change the terminology away from deradicalization to what you used now, which is rehabilitation? it is the idea -- is the success just to move away from violent acts, and also -- just to move away from violent acts? or also to move from arlin? and away from -- a move away from violent acts as well as radicalization? >> to go ahead, this is actually one of the points that i wanted to raise. john brennan -- you have john brennan's famous remarks on this where he compared the recidivism rate of 20%, when he was speaking at the islamic
3:17 am
center. he said sometimes people use this percentage and say, oh, my goodness, 20% return to terrorist activities. but in the u.s., something like 50% return to committing crimes, so 20% is not that bad. i completely disagree with that. first of all, to look at what constitutes recidivism, there is a good question about that. a lot of the recidivism evidence, we are basing it upon pentagon figures. from open source information, i cannot get the 20% figure. but the pentagon says, and nobody is seriously challenging this, that the recidivism rate to terrorist activity is about 20%. the reason i have a problem
3:18 am
with crandon's remark in this regard, is first of all, -- with brennan's remarked, is first of all, it is 20% right now. and over time, more people will be released. but the figure has been climbing consistently and i expect it to continue to do so. there is a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison when you look at a 20% rate, which is not that bad. you're comparing it to the overall rate with everyone in the penal system in the u.s., including both violent and non- violent crime. terrorism is inherently violent activity. if you look at the broad spectrum, some have low recidivism rate, such as singapore that has done quite well. but it is important not just to keep this in the context of islamic terrorist deradicalization. look at columbia, for example --
3:19 am
columbia, for example. the recidivism rate was only 5% for those who collectively demobilize and even less for those who demobilize individually. it seems that the bulk of the programs are not doing that well. that needs to factor in the analysis when we think about where to send the detainees and what our policy is for those who have been arrested on the battlefield. >> can you pick up the other point, which is the choice of language? >> it is a great point. i spent a lot of my time in a research trying to think of exactly how to refrain, and changing the name is part of that. i have not come up with a better name, so if anyone has a suggestion, pass it on. by your right, is it reforming the terrorists? -- but you are right, is it
3:20 am
reforming the terrorist? i do not think it ignores entirely the ideology. is it a part of it? and if so, how much of a park? i do not know if there is the perfect word out there just yet. but it is a good point that we have to rethink how we are doing these programs. but just to follow up on the recidivism issue, not to dispute the numbers or how we are measuring them exactly, but argue would argue -- i would argue that recidivism is not how we should be measuring the program. not just because there are more out there or because the person who does bad things takes more time, but because of political and legal reasons, more hard core individuals may be released from custody. also, because it takes a long time to measure something like this. a program that has been around for a couple of years and has
3:21 am
released a handful of people, there is no way to tell. we need to look at how we are assessing the people in custody and how the program is making impact wider than the individuals in custody. as a side note on the singapore thing, this is where security comes into play. we all need to remember that the security efforts are a tool as part of these programs as well in saudi arabia and in singapore, which is a heavily secured state. they're using that as part of the tool for post release. >> to you all agree that this is an interim question that you can incorporate into this general -- this gentleman's question. the you agree that we are one attack away from departure from these programs if it is proven that a person we have in custody who went through a rehabilitation program
3:22 am
conducts and effectively carries out a large-scale attack in the u.s. and? -- in the u.s.? i'm sure you hear that when you are out on the road. and we will go to this gentleman. >> i am with the center for human rights in saudi arabia. i want to thank heritage foundation for keeping these events going on. keep it on the forefront because it is not going to go away. i have not met your friend yet. i am from saudi arabia. i know a little bit about the country and the way oil is used and i'm very aware from the region that the head of the al
3:23 am
qaeda in yemen went through this rehabilitation process. i am also aware that the rest of these rehabilitated people -- by the way, is reprogramming. they were programmed to kill and to keep killing other people, but not us. that is with is -- what is. i didn't know if you are aware, but most of these people -- not all of them -- in this rehabilitation program are not actually used by the interior ministry to fight, kill, incarcerate or keep the alliances in saudi arabia a line. those go back to where they were before. the rest are being used by the saudi authorities to control minorities. my question is, what is the
3:24 am
difference and the objectives -- and i agree that, one of you had mentioned that there are more reasons for terrorism than just religion. religion is a tool because the saudis, the only thing they know is religion. they have been brainwashed from childhood until they die. in terms of objectives, what is the difference between the objective of the saudi government, religious clerics, and bin laden? the reason i'm asking this, they believe there should be no woman's rights, and the religious right, no religious freedom, no rights for minorities. but what is the difference? what is the difference between the people that we think are going to save us and the people that are going to kill us?
3:25 am
>> first of all, i think you might have been a plant in the audience because you did raise the interesting point of how the saudis use those detainees and better successfully graduate of the program to help with the counter-terrorism efforts. this is a little known fact that counter-terrorism effort -- experts and those in the system would say that there is a good side to this program. sometimes we can flip a detainee to help us with -- after the fact. this becomes more widely known and might actually prohibit them from rejoining the group's if they are -- if it becomes well known that they are working for the government. i'm going to use this as an opening to describe, to go back to the program itself a bit and
3:26 am
appreciate the saudi program. yes, it is publicly proclaimed to be a religious the base program with an ideology of changing the minds of the detainees. however, if you look at what is going on with the program over time, having visited it a number of times in the past four years and looked at what is going on there, i see that over time they give them more rehabilitative efforts, give them something to do when they get out, reintegrate them into society. no, the saudi government is not likely to say that they are changing their approach from the ideology because the legitimacy of the government is predicated on religion, on ideology. but i think that we should recognize that when we are looking at what is most effective, even a program like that over time has actually become more and more inclusive and focused on the rehabilitation efforts. i'm using your question as an
3:27 am
opportunity to explain that and i think it is important to explain this? these programs. >> the question was much more of an argument and is an argument that i agree with. when you look at the official saudi version of islam and people who have been radicalized and what they believe, there is not that much daylight between them. that is an inherent problem. when authors write about this, and i provided a few statements before that were meant to be reassuring, i sat there and thought for a while, what is the difference? the main error that they have made was deciding to attack saudi arabia. understanding what is being taught -- look, i agree. there are rehabilitative efforts that go beyond that. one thing i like about the saudi program is those rehabilitative efforts, drawing in the family,
3:28 am
for example, and the programs that can be described as aftercare with jobs and the like. those will work, but the main way they will work is increasing much more stability for saudi arabia. i am not convinced that the programs and of creating more stability at large. in part, when you look at saudi arabia, they openly allow terrorist finance years to operate, and you can name them. they have been designated by the u.s. my former employer is a major financier of terrorist organizations throughout the world. you can find saudi money going to somalia to go to -- and to groups in iraq and afghanistan. does that make us safer? i know it makes the saudis safer. i am not convinced it makes us safer. in many ways, this comes back to the question of ideology, which need to factor into the analysis.
3:29 am
look, there are many other factors as well. it is not just ideology. everybody agrees on that. but as much as -- if ever one can keep -- if everyone can keep that as a about crown question -- as a background question and not a forefront question, we will not have these programs function in the way that we would like to believe they will. >> ladies and gentleman, thank you for coming and please thank the panelists. we are adjourned. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am
4:01 am
4:02 am
4:03 am
4:04 am
is -- a couple of points. number one, there's nobody on our side that doesn't want to extend the unemployment benefits. the difference is is we want to extend them without hurting her future.
4:05 am
and so there's just -- whether you're a conservative, a liberal, a democrat, a republican, an independent, the consequences of our actions is going to affect everybody. and i use this -- this last year and what this little girl is saying, "i'm already $38,375 in debt and i only own a dollhouse." let me show you what's going to happen this year -- this year alone. she is $45,000 in debt. she moved frd from $39,000 to to $45,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. and that only reflects the outstanding debt that we don't owe ourselves that we have stolen from social security, that we have stolen from other
4:06 am
trust funds that we put an i.o.u. on. now, there's another thing that's happening that america should be aware of. in the past year the average interest rates on the debt obligation that's we are issuing have risen 1%. so we have $12.8 trillion worth of debt. apply that by 1% and in this next year we're going to pay an extra $128 billion in interest. just from that 1%. so for every 1% interest rates go up, we have it costs o of $128 billion. and what will happen, as we continue to project trillion dollar deficits over the next nine years, is that's going to
4:07 am
rise and rise and rise. she's the one that's going to pay for that. and this won't be $45,000 it will be $75,000, then it will be $85,000 and pretty soon -- and, by the way, that only reflects the debt. it has no reflection on the unfunded commitments that we've made to veterans, social security benefits, medicare, none. if you add those in, you've got another $37 trillion that has to be accounted for just over the next four decades. so debt is a big problem for us. i would also make a point -- the senator from michigan mentioned the long-term debt extender that we had. it was 12 months. it's going down each time that
4:08 am
we do it. but we sent that to the house, and you know what? it didn't increase the debt. because we offset it. we paid for it. so the house has a bill that the senate has passed that was paid for and they stole some of the pay-fors for the health care bill, so the house hadn't sent it back because the house refuses to make the hard choices to pay for the things that are really necessary to be done right now. and that's what happened yesterday. the senate came to an agreement. we decided we would pay for two weeks so nobody will have any hitch in their unemployment. no hitch in their cobra. no hitch anywhere. and when it was sent over there, it was rejected. now, i want to pause at something to you. the reason it was rejected is we don't want to create the
4:09 am
precedent that when we spend money that we have to pay for it. where in the world is that a normal-thinking process? in other words, we want to make sure we always have the option to spend money that isn't paid for. there could be nothing more economically unreasonable than that. so -- this -- this isn't the battle about not wanting to help the people that need our help today. this is a battle about helping the people that need our help today without hurting the children of tomorrow. without rescuing them. if you talk about emergencies, the fact that because we can't control our appetite for spending, that our interest costs have gone up anothe another $128 billion this year, that's an emergency. the other thing is that we have
4:10 am
over $300 billion worth of waste, of fraud, of duplication in the federal government every year. and so if you dispute it, you can say that there's only -- let's say it's half that. why wouldn't we get rid of that and pay for this rather than charge this intermediat intermediate $9.2 billion to these little children? i actually had the pleasure of meeting this little girl in my office after seeing this photo. an she's got parents, and they're worried. so what's her future going to be like? is she going to have the same opportunity i had? so what i would pause it for is that we can do both. we can meet the needs of those that are dependent upon us now because of the economic downturn. and we i can protect her and all
4:11 am
those of her generation. to not do so says we're going to take the easy way out. we're not going to act responsibly. we're not going to act like every other family in america acts. they look at what's there, what's the priority, what can we do and what can't we do? and then they make a decision about what's most important. and process that the -- the process the senator from michigan wants us to do, even though she agreed yesterday, is to not put a priority on it that considers both the short term and the long term, that considers both the children as well as the unemployed. that considers both the future of our country and her opportunity for opportunity to
4:12 am
take advantage of the freest nation in the world and her. the -- the real consequence to -- and let me say this. this isn't a republican-democrat thing. republicans have been irresponsible with spending too. you know, it's a whole new era now. everything's changed. it doesn't matter what party you're in. if we don't get ahold of the debt in this country, everyone is going to suffer. and i have spoken on the floor yesterday, and i will reiterate it again, whether you call it filibuster, whether you call it obstruction as a grandfather of five children that is truly
4:13 am
reflective of tons of grandparents out there and tons of grandkids out there, i'm not going to agree on the future to spend money that we don't have until we get rid of the thing that are not a priority, th the $300 billion before we move. somebody has to start saying no to the addiction that we have is that every time we have a problem, we'll just spend money on it. i would like to make a unanimous consent request that the senate now proceed under unanimous consent to h.r. 4915, a revenue measure from the house, provided that the only amendment in order be a substitute amendment, the text of which is the two-week extension that we agreed on yesterday of unemployment benefits that is paid for, that
4:14 am
will not increase the debt with agreed-to offsets from the finance committee that was agreed to yesterday, provided further that the amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed with a motion to reconsider laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there an objection? the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: reserving the right to object. i would just indicate to my colleague that from our perspective this is an emergency, an economic disaster he for families right now. we need to do as we've done three other times here in the congress and extend this emergency spending to help families that are out of work. given that, i will object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. coburn: well, mr. president, i'm sorry that we have an objection. the fact is we agreed to it. and the fact is, as the senator from michigan is having to protect the house of representatives. she knows we're not going to go forward to this unless we pay
4:15 am
for it until we get back. the only way for us to do that is through unanimous consent. the only way we're going to accomplish that is what -- is to agree to what we greed to yesterday and send it -- agreed to yesterday and send it to the house and let them do it by unanimous consent even though they said they won't do it. the fact is we agreed to it in the senate. we came to an agreement. and because the house has said they won't do it, they don't want to -- they want to increase the debt to do it rather than to do it and not increase the debt. i think that really speaks of where we are in the country. is we can't do this. we've agreed on a way to do it in our body. and now we have, after we have an agreement yesterday, that maybe the house didn't like, but it actually solves the problem, and it solves the problem for these little kids as well as those unemployed in michigan and across the country, we now have
4:16 am
the house saying, no, can't do it. i'm sor -- first of all, i -- i'm sorry. first of all i apologize to the senator from michigan for putting her in that position. and i sincerely do. but i think that we have to be recognizable of the fact that what it looks to be happening as both houses recess is it won't get done. and it won't get done because we can't not get it done. it won't get done because the house refuses to take a position to not add to the debt as we solve this problem -- as we meet both priorities, those people that are hurting and the priority of what's to come in the future. i think that's unfortunate for us. i would yield the remaining time i have to the senator from georgia, which is only about two or three minutes. and then i that folks on that side of the aisle knew it. i thank my dear friend from
4:17 am
michigan, my colleague, senator stabenow, for yielding me this time. i know that later on this morning or early this afternoon there's going to be a unanimous consent request that the unemployment benefits be extended and that a bill be adopted. and it is critically important that that unanimous consent request be approved. and i'm going to speak now for a few minutes on that matter. we have thousands of people in our state of michigan who have lost their jobs, thanks to a crisis that was created in mortgage company boiler rooms and wall street boardrooms. and now they're suffering because of the failure of our republican colleagues to understand the emergency situation. and i want to focus on that word "emergency." the emergency situation of those who have lost their jobs because of that crisis.
4:18 am
this should not hard to deliver much-needed aid to people who are facing an emergency crisis. we have an unemployment rate in this country that is approximating 10%. we have an unemployment rate in our state of michigan that is over 14%. people need us to do the right thing and to extend these benefits. and here we are up against the wall of obstructionism again while thousands of our constituents, people in every state, wonder, what is it exactly that we're doing here that will deny the extension of unemployment benefits when we have a deep recession. we may be hopefully coming out. there's some evidence we may be coming out. but not for this record number of people who are going to lose their unemployment benefits if we don't act. this is not an abstract policy debate here. these are real lives that are
4:19 am
hanging in the balance. we've got more than 500,000 michiganians receiving unemployment benefits. we have 125,000 michiganians who will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of april if we do not act. so unemployed breadwinners now will continue to receive benefits only if we can find the will and the decency to act on their behalf. real people, real families coping with enormous problems. and denying this extension is simply inhumane. it's more than the families. we can talk about that. we can talk about the economy, which also benefits from these unemployment benefits. in fact, the economists tell us -- and this has been extensively documented -- that government payments such as unemployment benefits are among the most effective form of economic stimulus. not providing that stimulus, in
4:20 am
other words, has a negative effect on the entire economy. that's not the point that i want to reinforce this morning. it's the fact that we have an emergency in millions of homes, and that emergency needs to be recognized as an emergency. if it is, and i would hope our republican colleagues would agree it's an emergency, we then do not have to have the offsets which we 0 would if it's not designated as an emergency. our republican colleagues tell us that they're in favor of an extension, but they argue that it should be offset with cuts in other programs. in fact, one of the programs that they look for an offset in is the american recovery and reinvestment act, their stimulus package. it's a pretty ironic flies look since that stimulus package is a job creator. in order to do the right thing and extend unemployment benefits, some of our republican
4:21 am
colleagues attempted, and i guess continue to believe in that we should take funds from a stimulus package which most economists say is creating jobs, in order to pay for the extension of jobless benefits. if there's any wrong place to look for offsets, that would be it. but the main point here is not that it's the wrong offset. the main point here is that every single time we have extended benefits, we have seen in this body that it is an emergency out there. we have -- on june 30, 2008, in the 2008 supplement appropriations act, we deemed the extension of unemployment benefits an emergency. it was designated as an emergency on be june 30, 2008. then when we funded unemployment benefits on february 17, 2009, we designated that extension
4:22 am
cost as an emergency. december 19, 2009, when we extended benefits, this time it was in a defense appropriations act, it was designated as an emergency. on march 2 -- just a few weeks ago -- it was designated as an emergency. is the emergency over? is this recession over? is that what republican objections are suggesting? it's no longer an emergency? it's been an emergency since 2008, but it's actually all over now. -l i don't think the american people see it that way. i think the american people see what is happening in their families, in their homes, the crisis that continues to exist with record levels of unemployment. and so i would hope that we would be able today to persuade
4:23 am
our republican colleagues that they should not object to the extension of benefits and to continue to declare the situation in which we find ourselves as an emergency since stabenow. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, we are here to attempt to extend unemployment benefits for a brief period of time so that americans don't get caught up in the expiration on april 5th of these benefits. this is a repeated struggle. we have had many, many incidents over the last several months where we've had to come down here and at the last moment attempt to project these benefits further. i hope we do not fail again today. in 2009, when president obama walked into office, we were losing 700,000 jobs per month. this is a crisis of epic proportions, rivalling in some
4:24 am
respects and some regions of the country the great depression. my home state of rhode island, 12.7% unemployment rate. it has been persistent now two years. we are seeing a long-term record of unemployment the we have to help our colleagues, neighbors and friends, and we have to do in a way that does not deny them the basic necessities to just hang on in a difficult economy. but this is not just a -- a result of the last several months or last several years. if you look back across the year -- a decade, really, 2000 to 2010, it's been an extraordinarily unproductive one for working americans. zero net job creation since december 1999. we've had no decade since 1940 with job growth less than 20%. so this is the culmination of a decade in which people could not find the kind of work that they
4:25 am
typically found in america. we saw middle-income houses, the earning power decline. they were making less in 2008 than they were, excuse me, in 1999. and two-thirds of the nation's total income from 2002 to 2010 flow to the top 1%. two-thirds to the top 1%. middle-income families have been losing out persistently and now they've really hit the skids. so -- because so many now are seeing their jobs go, seeing their house threatened with foreclosure. seeing the dream of accepting their children to -- sending their children to college evaporate. and at least the minimum of what we can do is provide the kind of assistance they need. now, we routinely, when there is a natural disaster, provide assistance. in the last 20 years there's an estimated 33 -- $336 billion in disaster assistance.
4:26 am
$61.8 billion agricultural assistance has flowed to the states. this is a disaster in the same respect. it's a disaster to individual families who have lost their employment. the irony here is that if a flood had washed through a state in the union and destroyed the work of 12% of the population, we'd be here with disaster to get the funds to give us loans, to give us support, et cetera. well, this is the disaster. we must move. and in that respect seeing that my time is coming to a close in the time we have -- mr. coburn: we'll roll the time off of your later time if you would like the time now, senator reed. mr. reed: i thank the gentleman from oklahoma and let me take 1 or two more minutes. that's extremely thoughtful, thank you. we have an opportunity, i think, to act today, and we should.
4:27 am
and the proposal really is to go ahead and to extend through the next several days the existing benefits so we have a time to come back. we have already sent to the house an extension of unemployment benefits that will carry through to the end of this year, calendar year. it also includes fmap provisions, which are extremely important to the states that includes other provisions. and i think just in the spirit really of letting us continue to support these americans while we debate and finally conclude, i hope successfully, a longer-term solution is, i think, the fairest and best thing to do. my colleague, senator stabenow, just an hour ago asked unanimous consent only to receive an objection. and i will once again ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate
4:28 am
consideration of calendar 323, h.r. 4851 to provide a temporary extension of certain programs and that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. coburn: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: again i would note this is the fourth time i've done this. regrettably because we had an agreement yesterday that the house would not go along with, i have to object because we will be adding to the debt. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reed: i appreciate the senator's objection. additionally, i appreciate his consideration in allowing me to speak. let me just conclude that we have a huge debt at the moment. i think if you look at the major contributing factors to that debt, it is tax cuts that were unpaid for supported strongly by the republicans, which accrued dramatically to the richest americans; two wars that have been unpaid for. i think in a few days, a few
4:29 am
weeks we're going to have to consider another supplement defense budget which i at this point do not believe is paid for, which i do not feel will engender any objection by the republican side, which will include, given the nature of counterinsurgency operations, moneys that we use ironically to help develop productive jobs and build clinics and do the things that our soldiers must do to secure the peace in afghanistan and iraq. at the same time we can't find that kind of money here without an offset to help americans. so there is a question of priorities. there is a question of the deficit. again, repeating something that my colleague said, i too recall when we had a surplus. that was under the leadership of president clinton. tough votes by my colleague and myself. that surplus has been dissipated. we are now in a severe situation
4:30 am
with a deficit. but i think the priorities, the compelling priorities of americans who need to work and can't find it yet are extremely persuasive and should be responded to by the success of this amendment. i again thank the gentleman from oklahoma. he was extraordinarily kind. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: first of all, let me thank my colleague from oklahoma for just highlighting this issue of reaching a point where the american people have wanted us to be for some time, and that is to simply look at the spending that is going on in washington and say enough is enough, and that if we're going to continue down the road of increasing federal spending, then we have got to offset that additional federal spending that is over and above the amount of revenues coming in by federal
4:31 am
spending that is in place today. i also want to say to my friend from michigan, the chairman of the armed services committee who made the request on the approval of the promotion of a general, that as he knows, i have already voted in favor of doing that one time within the committee. i regret that we're having to stand up and object. but as he well knows, that's part of the process here, is that senator coburn had to object on behalf of another member of the senate. mr. president, i can't help but note that as we're talking about spending here, an article that appeared in this morning's ""washington times"." and the caption in the article is "c.b.o. report: debt will rise to 90% of g.d.p." and the article reads, "president obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget
4:32 am
deficits over the next ten years. $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected. and raise the federal debt to 90% of the nation's economic output by 2020, according to the congressional budget office. in its 2011 budget, which the white house office of management and budget released february 1, the administration projected a ten-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. after looking it over, c.b.o. said in its final analysis released thursday that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade." mr. president, this is exactly why with the leadership of the senator from oklahoma that we have got to address this issue of spending and why we have got to get this issue of spending under control. and no time is better suited to do this than now. i mean, we're looking at a
4:33 am
deficit, according to the independent office of the congressional budget office, of $10 trillion over ten years. and here the majority is saying we can't find $9 billion to offset this particular bill that everybody agrees is needed, that everybody on both sides of the aisle would like to see enacted? but very simply stated, the minority -- the republicans -- just want to see the bill paid for. and if we can't find $9 billion in federal spending that's out there today to offset this bill, how in the world are we going to be able to do anything other than under the current leadership go down this road of seeing nearly $10 trillion in budget deficits accumulate over the next ten years?
4:34 am
we're -- congress has an obligation to serve as custodians of the american taxpayer dollar. and when we engage in unchecked deficit spending it, has a long-lasting negative impact on all americans. i understand times are tough across the country. as i said earlier, in my home state of georgia, the unemployment rate announced last month was 10.4%. there's a new number coming out today. i suspect it's going to be at least that high. georgians are hurting, and i'm concerned about that. and that's why i would like to make sure that we can extend this unemployment insurance. but to do so without paying for it, in my opinion, is reckless at this point in time, and it would not be in the best interest of all americans to extend it without paying for it. and the fact is, again, as i said earlier, i voted to extend it without paying for it back in the early part of march. and the reason i did was because
4:35 am
it was with the understanding that the majority had 30 days to work with the minority to try to find the offsets. and when did the discussions on what those offsets would be begin? they began last night at about two hours before we finally decided it was time to go home. and to the credit of the presiding officer as well as others on the majority side in the leadership role, they agreed with the republican party that the republican members of this senate that we should offset it and we could offset it. and that was objected to by speaker pelosi. and unfortunately, here we are today in a situation where we're arguing about $9 billion versus looking at a proposed deficit from this administration of $10 trillion over the next ten years. the american people are just as upset as they can be with congress, and rightfully so.
4:36 am
and the main reason they're upset with us is because of this very issue. when i'm back home, where i go every weekend, and i visit with folks, whether it's in the grocery store, whether it's at church or within the business community, every constituent at some point in the conversation about what's happening in washington will bring up the issue of federal spending and why in the world you members of congress don't take some action to get this spending under control. there's never been a better time to do it than with this particular bill, and there's never been an easier time to do it. we're not talking about $1 trillion. we're talking about $9 billion in offsets, in reductions in federal spending and waste, fraud, and abuse that we all know is out there. whatever area we can agree on that the money would come from. and as we know, we've already
4:37 am
identified some areas that we can reduce federal spending to pay this. now is the time to do it, and i would simply say to my colleague from oklahoma, i commend him for being firm. i commend him for being in a leadership role on this issue. and i'm very pleased to stand with him to say that now is the time to do it. and i think we should find >> the subcommittee will come to
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
order. subcommittee will come to good morning, everyone. in the economic recovery act of 2009, we directed the commission to prepare a plan to expand abroad and access to and increase broadband adoption among those who have access to
4:41 am
it. today, the united states stands 16th among developed nations in broadband usage. for the benefit of our national economy and our quality of life, which simply must do better. the commission has done a soup -- has done a superb job developing the plan. i want to thank the members of the commission and the staff who have devoted a year and thousands of hours to listening to public comments and carefully constructing the blueprint before us. i think you have truly done a superb job. i am going to comment this morning on several core recommendations of the plan and then recognize other members. first, i was pleased to observe your proposal to transition the high cost find in the federal universities -- the federal
4:42 am
universal service fund from supporting solely telephone service to also supporting broadband deployment. the commission's recommendation closely tracks the provision in the comprehensive universal service reform legislation that for the last four years i have been working with our committee colleague in order to vance. we've been preparing discussion draft, the most recent of which was the subject of a legislative hearing in the subcommittee. today, universal service monies may not be spent for broadband. our legislation will immediately allow carriers to use their usf monies for broadcast and -- for broadband deployment. those receiving universal service money must provide broadband throughout their service territories within five years of the measure becoming law. the carriers could no longer receive usf monies if they
4:43 am
failed to meet this broadband build out mandate. the commission's recommendation also targets using the high cost fund for broadband, and i commend the compatibility of the broadband plan and the legislation we have placed before the committee. secondly, i was pleased to note that the plan incorporates the recommendation that we set a high goal for future broadband speeds. today, the typical broadband service to the home here in the united states is between three and five megabits per second. in countries like south america -- like south korea and japan, the rates are far higher, often reaching between 5100 megabits per second. the plan explicitly sets a goal of delivering to 100 million homes in the united states
4:44 am
broadband speeds of at least 100 megabits per second. i commend you for that. the commission's proposal for auctioning to commercial bidders at the d block of the 700 mhz spectrum without conditions is commendable. the proceeds from the auction could be applied to helping first responders purchase and install the equipment that is necessary to bring to fire, police, and rescue agencies nationwide a truly interoperable communications capability. it is essential when they converge from different localities on the scene of a disaster that fire, police, and rescue be able to communicate with one another. we are 10 years beyond 9/11. that capability does not exist on a nationwide basis today. i offer my support for obtaining the appropriations that will be necessary in addition to the proceeds from the d block
4:45 am
auction in order to complete the buildup of first responder communications equipment. i think that on a matter so fundamental to the nation's security will have bipartisan support for the provisions of the money necessary for the purchase of public safety equipment. f%nal&y@ @ g clear path for the next steps in
4:46 am
making available adequate wireless spectrum. the spectrum will be necessary to meet our nation's rising demand for wireless services. you've done an outstanding job in preparing the plan, and we want to thank you for joining us here this morning in order to discuss your recommendations. that concludes my statement. i am pleased to recognize the ranking republican member of our subcommittee and our partner in so many telecommunications initiatives, the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns. >> we appreciate you taking your time to come here. this is an important hearing. we do this regularly, but this is important considering we just got the broadband plan from all of you. i have a lot of ideas. i have not been to the whole plan. my staff has been through it. we have marked up and done an analysis. i think all of us agree
4:47 am
broadband is critical to our economic growth, and the goals outlined in the plan are encouraging. on page 10, it mentions goal number four, which i think is really exciting -- to think that every american community should have access to at least 1 gigabyte per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and government buildings. i think all of us in america would not even comprehend what would happen in this country to its productivity and to the innovation of technology if we had 1 gigabyte. as you mentioned, often we get less than 5 mb through our broadband today. i think this goal is outstanding. it is important for the commission to recognize that much about our broadband market is working well. that perhaps is my theme this morning. that the plan should complement
4:48 am
what is working rather than scrapping it. key findings, according to the report, that 290 million americans, 95% of the population, today have access to at least 4 megabytes per second and two-thirds of adults subscribe. approximately 200 million subscribers have broadband at home, representing a 25 fold increase in the last 10 years, up from 8 million. by comparison, i ask the staff to look at this. it took 90 years to go from 8 million voice subscribers to 200 million under the old title to commentary regulations. that should tell you something. this confirms that the private investment plan we have in place for broadband has worked, considering how quickly we have moved. all the fcc need do is remain focused on the 5% of households that otherwise may be uneconomic for the private sector to serve.
4:49 am
what congress and the fcc must not do is refer to failed regulatory ideas that were designed for all technologies in a monopoly era marketplace, such as opposing network neutrality for access to facilities and regulating rates as a way to deter investment we need to reach the goal of 1 gigabyte here in america. if we do not oppose regulation of broadband providers, we can meet the fcc's goal of making service available to 100 million households by the year 2020. we must avoid any investment killing government interventions and avoid any attempt to reclassify broadband as a title two service. i think the plan obviously has some good points. i want to thank the chairman for entering my letter i sent to
4:50 am
him. it was nice to get the letter before the hearing. we appreciate his response. as he pointed out, the plan costs $20 million to create. i am concerned that we had to spend $20 million to confirm what a lot of us knew, but i think it is worthwhile to get this perspective in this report. it could end up saving us more money as we move forward. our approach investment approach must continue and we should refrain from putting burden this regulations in place. this does not mean the government has no role. two approaches in the plan show particular promise. the plan proposes to cut the waste in the universal service program and refocus on the 5% of the program that does not have access to at least 4 megabytes per second broadband. if we are going to subsidize broadband, concentrating on the 7 million homes that are uneconomic for the private sector to serve makes sense.
4:51 am
second, the plan seeks to make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for wireless broadband within 10 years. that is good, so long as the fcc does not give the spectrum away or rig options with conditions. we will generate needed federal revenue. i hope the broadband spectrum, on the part of the broadcasters, will be looked at carefully. if the have to relinquish anything, it will be on a voluntary basis. mr. chairman, i think you for this hearing. i look forward to the testimony of our commissioners. >> thank you very much. the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for scheduling this important hearing. the release of the national broadband plan was eagerly anticipated or the last several months, and i am pleased that the committee is examining its recommendations today.
4:52 am
the national broadband plan is the most significant and ambitious infrastructure program for america since the interstate highway system. our competitiveness and prosperity depend on meeting its core objectives. america cannot settle for the second best in the digital age. writing this detailed blueprint was a massive undertaking, and i commend chairman genachowski, the broadband team, the sec staff -- the fcc staff, and the transparent process they used in preparing this report. the real test of the plan's success will be in its implementation. congress, the fcc, and the administration all have a role to play. one aspect of the plan is the recommendation to enhance public safety by building a new interoperable broadband network. according to the chairs of the
4:53 am
9/11 commission, "the plan offers a realistic framework to move forward, and we hope that all stakeholders will work with the commission to refine the plan as needed and make it a reality." i have asked my staff to begin drafting legislation to implement the public safety recommendations. we will work in close consultation with subcommittee chairman boucher, ranking members barton and stearns, and other members of the committee. we need to realize the concepts outlined in the plan. we must find a way to move forward on a bipartisan basis to meet the needs of the public safety community. the plan identifies a looming shortage of spectrum as a major problem facing the expansion of wireless broadband. members of the committee will have different ideas about how to address this issue. as we will hear today, the
4:54 am
broadband plan makes a series of recommendations for freeing up spectrum. these deserve our serious consideration. as the plan recognizes, there is a pending legal challenge to the commission's ability to regulate broadband networks. the outcome of that issue could have serious implications for the commission's ability to protect consumers and implement the plan. whatever the court rules, the commission should take the steps it deems necessary to assure it can implement the plan and to assure that broadband consumers are protected. there are other key recommendations in this plan. we need to take steps to safeguard consumer privacy, ensure transparent and accurate billing, provide access for disabled americans, and reform the universal service fund. i hope today's hearing will be only the first in a series of hearings on the future of broadband.
4:55 am
we can benefit from additional hearings that will focus on individual aspects of the plan, including creating a public safety broadband network, reforming universal service, improving spectrum policy, providing better access to persons with disabilities, eliminating barriers to deployment, and promoting broadband adoption throughout the country. i look forward to working with chairman voucher and other members of the subcommittee as we move forward. i think our distinguished panel for being here today and appearing before the committee. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, chairman waxman. mr. barton, ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, is recognized for five minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i am going to summarize because we want to hear from you folks on the fcc,
4:56 am
first of all, if you have to have a federal broadband policy plan, you done about as good as can be done. but it is kind of like the old movie -- "the good, the bad, and the ugly." you say some things that need to be said. you try to reform the universal service fund. you try to free up some spectrum, as chairman waxman just alluded to. the bad -- the worst idea i have heard in years is reclassification. i do not know about anybody else on this committee, but i do not want to regulate broadband likely regulated telephone services in the 1930's. i do not want to do it. i do not think the country wants to do it. as far as the ugly part of its -- just generically, mr. waxman
4:57 am
talk about the internet -- the interstate highway structure. if the federal government had not decided to do the internet highway system, we would not have had that type of a system. but 95% of america has broadband. the federal government has not had to spend a dime. this is not a have and have not program. this is a find something for the up fcc to do that makes sense in the 21st century program. some of their components are things i think we can work together on, but overall, as everybody knows, if it is not broke, don't fix it. you try to fix something that in most cases is not broke. i would yield back. again, i want to commend the commission for working really hard, but you have produced a product we can use as a road map, but we do not need to
4:58 am
reinvent the wheel. >> the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, mr. dingell, is recognized. >> i commend you for holding today's hearing. i want to also commend the federal communications commission chairman genachowski and his team. they have completed a road map to insure broad and reaches every corner of the united states. there are two elements that should be the core of this effort. first, it should focus on promoting broadband adoption. second, it should establish and address a support mechanism for broad bands expansion into high- cost in underserved areas of the country. i am pleased that the national broadband plan includes chapters on these issues. nonetheless, i have great concerns about several of the plan's recommendations about spectrum reallocation. there are competition based
4:59 am
issues. at best, these matters are ancillary to the congress's intent to expand national broadbent access. at worst, they would institute the old policy fights long said satisfactorily sceptred. -- satisfactorily settled. i wrote to address my misgivings about reallocating spectrum from broadcasters to mobile communications providers. over the air broadcasters surrendered nearly a third of their spectrum to facilitate the recent transition from analog to digital signal transmission. further loss of spectrum can have a very serious adverse affect -- effect on the public by limiting consumer choice. this potential outcome would also reflect a marked weakening of the long cherished principles of diversity and localism.
5:00 am
since the commission's establishment in 1934, before considering with -- if or how to reallocate frequencies used for television, it behooves the commission to work with ntia to complete a comprehensive ng
5:01 am
requirements with respect to carriers' investment in broadband facilities. the senate, as it is unfortunately often to do, did not pass this eminently sensible legislation, but eventually adopted the bills essence in its triannual review of 2003. the result has been enormous investments by carriers in broadband, both in my state of michigan and across much of the nation. chapter 4 of the national broadband plan signals the commission's intention to revisit the unbundling statute. this, i think, is to reopen an old fight, and it gives me great concern. it could very well serve as a disincentive to necessary investments in broadband
5:02 am
facilities. in conclusion, i would like to remind the witnesses today that the congress is the sole progenitor of the commission's authorities. to "sam rayburn, if the commission remembers it works for us, everything will turn out fine. in keeping with the sentiment i have just articulated, i respectfully suggest the commission stay focused on the congress's simple goal of assuring that broadband is accessible and affordable to all americans rather than to seek to rehash old and unproductive policy debates and to start counter-productive fights which are quite unnecessary. mr. chairman, i think you for your courtesy. i ask unanimous consent to submit letters to the commission to finish out the questions we need to ask today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much.
5:03 am
the record of this hearing will remain open for members to submit additional questions in writing to members of the fcc. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> i will yield my time to mr. upton. >> welcome, commissioners. it is good to see you. the trend in the telecommunications sector is for development of advanced technologies and increased competition. deregulation has successfully promoted investment, innovation, and more competition, benefiting consumers. 95% of americans now have broadband and more than one choice of carrier. that statistic, along with more than $100 billion recently invested in infrastructure, speaks for itself. as mr. barton said, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. if it works, let's not break it.
5:04 am
it is clear that as the level of competition increases the amount of regulation should decrease. i hope we all can agree that markets have done a better job of protecting consumers than the regulators do. in a competitive market, which should permit market forces to work and not interpose government regulations between providers and consumers. all that does is impede the competition we all want to see. i applaud your goal of providing 100 million homes with access to 100 megabytes per second broadband by 2020. i believe we can do that without regulation. the level of deployment will only come with a continued robust investment by the private sector. i would agree with the chairman dingell that the fcc requirement on carriers to unbundle their
5:05 am
fiber will not be met by this legislative body. do not change the rules after investments have been made. do not put up roadblocks to new investment. finally, i have concerns about spectrum proposals that could cause harm to consumers and broadcasters as a result of the digital transmission. broadcasters return over 100 megahertz to the government and at the same time increase their services. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much. congratulations to the federal communications commission. when i put the language in the stimulus package mandating that the federal communications commission had to return this as a report back to the american people on the future of broadband, just 30 months ago, i can tell you right now that you
5:06 am
met the highest expectations i had when i answer to that language into the law. the table of contents is just an indication of how thoroughly you have examined this subject -- health care, education, energy, the environment, economic opportunity, government performance, civic engagement, public safety. this is as thorough a compendium of the issues that we have to work on in order to make sure that america once again regains its position as no. 1 in the world in broadband as could ever be asked to be put together. we have dropped from second to 15th in the world, behind luxembourg, behind canada, finland, over the last eight years. with the company's going to court, going to the fcc,
5:07 am
chipping away at the competitive rules we had put on the books. as that happened, we saw the united states slipped step-by- step into a position where the rest of the world looks at us over their shoulder. this gives us the opportunity with this plan to once again regain that leadership. google, ebay, amazon, hulu -- we have been slowly slipping behind. this is an incredible plan. if it is fully implemented, both investment and consumer protection will be unleashed in a way which will guarantee that the american people will be the country that the rest of the world looks to with envy. we thank you for that. we want to work with you to insure that it is fully implemented so that we can regain a competitive edge that gave us that incredible position
5:08 am
that we enjoyed and that has slipped from our grasp. we thank you for holding this meeting. >> the gentleman from illinois is recommended -- is recognized. >> i am glad i followed my friends from massachusetts. as far as i know, this is a product of the chairman, not a product of the commission. there was no vote on this plan. i think we're going to hear that through the questions today, not that the chairman did not put a lot of time and effort into this. i want to debunk this 16th place. you have to be joking me. lichtenstein, monaco bahrain, south korea, iceland, singapore, st. kitts? everyone in the top 20 -- we can fit the 25 in the continental united states. we have to get off comparing as -- comparing apples to oranges.
5:09 am
it is like saying the city of new york has it and so we are fine. we have 95% of our people on broadband. 5% do not. they are in my district. the stimulus fund is not going to them. that is what works people up. 95% of us have it. it is the private sector that throws it out. we want to take over another sixth of the economy through moving this whole information age from title i to title ii? we're not going to get a surprise from the chairman this time because it is here. some commentators have suggested a second approach in which the fcc would implement certain plan recommendations under its title ii authority. let us have this hearing. let us have this debate. the system is working.
5:10 am
what is not working is in rural america. we spend billions of dollars and the money is not going there. we have the stimulus rollout. we are overbuilding places that have broadband right now with our tax dollars, and it is not going where it is needed. i yield back. >> the lady from california is recommended -- is recognized. >> thank you for moving so quickly to schedule this hearing, and welcome to the entire federal communications commission. i have read the plan. i want to congratulate you. i think it is a bold one. i think it is what our country needs. on this issue of where the united states is ranked in the world, according to the international telecommunications union, they have measured the united states. they say that we have slipped from 11th to 17th between 2002 and 2007.
5:11 am
we know that our standing in the world is not a source of pride to us. pure than 27 out of every 100 americans have broadband service, compared with much better numbers in other countries. today, we are going to hear the plan. we're going to ask questions about it. i am very pleased that many of the priorities that i have kind of pounded away on over the years are contained in the plan. it really reflects my own legislative agenda. i hope will move expeditiously on the broadband conduit bill, which will ensure that federally funded transportation projects require laying the broadband infrastructure so we do not have to dig up what we have already built in order to lay down what we know we need. i also look forward to the subcommittee fast tracking consideration of the next generation 911 builill that my
5:12 am
colleague, in his fright about where we are or are not -- he would have mentioned this. we introduced the bill two weeks ago. i am ready to vote on a thorough and complete reconstruction of the universal service fund and its programs so that we essentially can leapfrog into the 21st century. america has always led the world in countless ways. that is what i find so exciting about the plan. it is a road map, a plan of how we can get there. we also need to decide the future of telecommunications services and their individual classification so that we can ensure that consumers are properly protected and that competitiveness is encouraged. no matter who i me with, they are always for competition unless it cuts into the competition that they have a
5:13 am
total hold on. we need an aggressive agenda because the united states lags badly. i look forward to hearing from each one of the commissioners. this is going to be a lively debate. at the end of it, i think what we all are -- our common goal must be competition, that every person in the country is reached by 2020 with high speeds, not this lagging speed that somehow people have a source of pride about. i do not. i do not think it is good enough for our country. i look forward to working with everyone to accomplish this for our country. thank you for a job well done. it is broad, it is a visionary, and it is bold. i think it is exactly what we need to be talking about. >> the lady from california is recognized. >> good morning.
5:14 am
i also would like to thank the sec for its hard work on the national broadband plan. it is clear that a great deal of effort and thought went into this effort. i see opportunities for the committee and commission to work together to increase investment and opportunity. in a general sense, i think the approach to universal service is promising. further, i believe most of us agree the goals of the plan are admirable. who among us does not want to facilitate capital investment and increase constituent access to broadband? however, like the broadband plan, members of congress also have goals. was there at high unemployment rates in our district. i plan to create jobs for my constituents. i have to question portions of the plan that require a heavier governor -- heavier government plan. i am unconvinced that a sector of our economy that continues to attract investment is in need of
5:15 am
more government interference. as a matter of principle, i believe broadband and the high- tech sector are best served if we enact policies which incentivize capital investment and promote greater economic freedom. additionally, i strongly believe we need to take great steps@@@@h
5:16 am
>> thank you for convening the hearing. welcome to the commission. the national broadband plan hits a number of important issues such as public safety interlock ability, transitioning the usf for broadband, and freeing of spectrum for commercial use. i want to focus on recommendations for the interoperable public safety broadband network. the plan's recommendation identifies an issue of and highlighting for years -- the need for a funding plan for an interoperable public safety net work. the plan calls on congress to establish a grant program to establish the network and create a funding mechanism. if the fcc is moving forward with auctioning be d block spectrum, we should use 100% of the funds to build this not
5:17 am
work. . . >> needless to say, we have all been following what you have been doing with the national
5:18 am
broadband plan and we are anxious to have the discussion. a couple of quick points among -- about my specific concerns and how these recommendations will affect job creation and because of this, i am anxious to drill down a little bit deeper with you all. you know that my district and its creative community and their expression of concern with the availability of broadband. in this vein, chairman genachowski, i agree with chairman barton on this. i was hoping for stronger language on this. instead, i have found the language to be in big u.s. -- to be ambiguous and i am hopeful
5:19 am
that we will see some changes. investment is a concern that i have. we all know that reclassification is nothing more than a stepping stone for implementing that neutrality which i believe would be detrimental to a thriving telecommunication industry. before i yield back, i also want to flag a concern over what i think is a toothless effort in the plan to curb copyright infringement. i applaud your knowledge in -- your acknowledgment of illegal distribution of copyrighted content being a problem. i am anxious to get your thoughts on how we can put a little bit more heft behind that in continuing to protect the innovations of those who are burned in next generation
5:20 am
technologies and uses and our creative community. >> thank you. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, is recognized. >> thank you. i will be brief. i always thought that if you failed to plan, you plan to fail. looking over the broad baband p lan, congratulations. you have passed. it is a bold plan of action and it gives us a few things to do. i will not run down a laundry list but i think the plan to promote competition is much needed and well received. competitors need access in order to deliver more affordable or innovative services. additionally, the plan for universal service fund reform is well thought out. i hope the commission takes this up as soon as possible even without a bill out of congress.
5:21 am
chairman genachowski, you have a lot to be proud of. i want to congratulate you and your team. >> thank you. the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent to submit my opening statement for the record. >> without objection. >> just a few comments. i never thought i would ever see the fcc commission. i found an fm frequency and put it up for public notice in seven years later we got it on air. you can see that i am not pro- regulation. i do believe that the report is done with a good heart and with the american people in mind. i recognize that the competition that exists in the marketplace has accomplished a great deal and i hope that as we go through these hearings, i am sure the
5:22 am
debate will be spirited, i hope we have in mind that there is not a lot that we can do to improve what has been done or in the spirit of what has been accomplished by private industry. i appreciate your being here and look forward to the discussion. thank you. >> thank you. the gentle lady from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. thank you for calling the hearing. i also would like to think chairman genachowski for being with us and for the work on the national broadband plan. they crafted a bold and visionary plan. no plan of this magnitude is perfect, this plan demonstrates american leadership and will serve as a blueprint for the world to follow. i am pleased that it aims to
5:23 am
close the digital divide by recognizing the fact that millions of americans, particularly in such tough economic times, cannot afford the high cost of broadband. i introduced the broadband affordability act that would expand a program for universal broadband adoption. this would ensure that all americans living in urban and rural and suburban areas have access to affordable boucher services. i applaud the fcc for adopting these suggestions. this is a major step toward closing the digital to buy it. a look forward to working with the fcc and my colleagues. this recognizes the importance of introducing more competition into the marketplace.
5:24 am
this promotes competition in our economy. and the plan recognizes the critical role that brought a band placed in moving our nation today greater path of efficiency and energy independence. i plan to introduce legislation in the coming week that will complement many of the sec recommendations on smart grids this nation can promote a smarter electric grid that allows consumers to make choices that can save energy and can save them money. i am looking forward to working with my colleagues and the commission on overseeing and implemented many of the important initiatives recommended in the national broadband plan. thank you for holding these important hearings. >> thank you. the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. >> thank you. thank you for being here.
5:25 am
i appreciate your input. i felt the plan lays a good overview. it brought it from a nebulous 50,000 foot level down to a 10,000 foot level without getting into the granular activities or details which i think is good in the sense that it may signal that we actually have a role in congress. you have done a good job in inc. different entities. congress needs to take your plan and use that as the recommendation but we need to do our job in congress. frankly, i am uncomfortable with just saying you take the lead on all of this stuff and we are not going to deal with that. i think the role as for us to do it and we take your plan as a recommendation. on the republican side, we have heard a lot about private sector involvement and i want to make
5:26 am
sure that when i read the plan, there are some regulatory types of policies outlined in that we will have great debate within this committee on. let us not short the private sector. $60 billion per year by the private sector rolling out broadband should not be lost faugh. . government spending and subsid ies are a small percentage. if we think government is going to be the answer, we are not going to get this plan adopted. with that, i will yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes.
5:27 am
>> i want to thank you note, mr. chairman, for having discontinued and timely hearing. i want to commend the commission for your hard work. this is a comprehensive plan. you have worked hard. if the plan clearly includes many important issues but i am only going to be able to focus on a couple of them. a large part of my district has been severely hit by the economic downturn and promoting job creation is my highest priority. it is significant that many of the company's in the telecommunications industry are still expanding even during the economic downturn. i am very excited by the job growth potential that implementing this plan can produce and a vigorous investments by the private sector couple by sensible policy will clearly benefit our entire nation.
5:28 am
finally, i would like to ask the commissioners to discuss briefly the issues pertaining to the spectrum allocation and special access. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. but the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope we get to some result of where we are going. i think title ii reclassification is dangerous, at best. this has put a shiver of cold into the investment community about where we are going with broadband development. we want to talk about what has made america great. it was not the u.s. congress or the executive branch. it was private entrepreneurs putting capital at risk and making things happen. the reason that we have 27% is because the private market will
5:29 am
pursue a plan that allows ever turn on the investment so they can go to the next phase of that investment. any time that we seek to stand in the way of that, we are going to get a horrible outcome. the notion that we are talking about going to net neutrality and more regulation, if you look at why it took so long for wireless to get where it is in for phones to get where they are, if it is because they based the original rules and regulations on the common carrier act for railroads in 1897. we applied that to telephones. this is exactly that same kind of iron horse regulatory idea on that industry that is changing so fast that we cannot keep up with it. satellites are getting ready to go to4g pretty soon. we should get out of their way and let competition rule the day. other countries did it the way they did because they do not
5:30 am
have the economies like the u.s. or the kind of investment that we have. there is a marketplace here that is attracting money. my fear is if we continue down this path, we will stop that investment and i think we will do far more harm than@@rrrr) structure that we need to make
5:31 am
sure that the type of robust capital investment we know will build out our broadband system is done and the most fair means possible. i like to associate myself with remarks made with respect to the issue of online piracy. i understand in the rule making, the chairman has stated very clearly that the internet should not be a shield for violations of the lot and copyright infringement. there is a little bit of dissatisfaction on both sides of the aisle about the focus in this report on that issue. is this country is losing billions of dollars every year to internet piracy and the trend is going only up. as much as we can ask content providers, the solution largely lies in the hands of those distribution networks that are going to take advantage of what
5:32 am
is now partially federally funded network. i think you are hearing from a number of people on that. but like to hear how we revised that plan or -- i would like to hear how we revised that plan or work and that further. this is a product of great labor and of great importance for the rollout. >> thank you. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. >> the why, mr. chairman. in addition to my remarks for the record, i would like to say the comments that i made and others made at our hearing on this last year about on served and underserved areas continue to trouble me.
5:33 am
as we go into how we define it unserved areas, we run the risk of making that service untenable because you create a competitor in a marketplace that and barely handle one provider. i am concerned by that and concerned by what net of neutrality might lead to with needless rhythm -- with needless regulation. i do think that the universal service reform and the spectrum of the new plan probably keep us away from that regulation if we focus on them instead of the other things. thank you for holding this hearing. i hope that we become vigorous partners with the commission as you now look at the product you -- as we now look at the product to put before us.
5:34 am
>> thank you. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank you for convening this hearing and for the commissioners coming to have this conversation that all of us. i have a copy of the plan. i have not read every word of it but i certainly plan to. it is a very comprehensive plan and i want to thank you for your work. from what i can understand, 95% of households do indeed have access while 5% do not. my district is home to many of those households who are without very basic access to broadbent. there are everyday tasks moving on line and those who cannot
5:35 am
access broadband third losing and i look forward to achieving a productive meeting. it is important that efforts are made to connect the unconnected first so that students, teachers, job-seekers and others have the opportunity to play on equal footing. and my district is in no less need of high-speed internet and certainly no less deserving. the national broadband plan in the emirate's six long-term goals -- illustrates six long- term goals. they are achievable if the government proceeds responsibly and quickly. i would like to note the extraordinary private investments made to building the networks will use every day.
5:36 am
as congress and the fcc move forward, it is important that we take that into account when drafting its policy around the goals of the plan. between 2006 and 2008, at&t invested more than $1.20 billion in my state of north carolina and an effort to enhance and improve our networks. increased regulations on companies that build these network with -- networks with a profit daughters -- private dollars may not be the best way to implement this plan. we need to work in concert with private industry when drafting those policies. thank you for your indulgence. >> the gentle lady from colorado is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i will put my full statement in the record. i just want to mention a couple of things. i agree with my colleagues that
5:37 am
this national broadband plan is a comprehensive and forward- looking document and i strongly share the goal. i want to raise just a couple of issues. the first one is cities like denver, which is my district, are often the first to get access to communication technologies but access alone is not alone. we have to remember as we go forward that broad band also has to be affordable for low-income americans, many of whom live in urban areas like mine and have seen a real divide even though broadband is accessible. the second issue is the conflict with existing uses that we are going to have to resolve. the plan recommends allocating new spectrum to satisfy consumer demand for networks. this could provide important benefits but it also raises the question about how the
5:38 am
significant transfer of spectrum can be accomplished in the most fair way. and this is one of the questions i hope we can explore today. i want to mention two other aspects of this plan that i am pleased to see. the first one is the emphasis on i.t. which will be important as we move forward. we have seen this in my district with denver health how much health i.t. can help with patient efficiency. and i am pleased to see mention of expanding a national smart energy grid. i think that will be very important as we become independent from foreign oil and develop alternative energy. >> thank you. in the gentle lady from florida is ready -- is recognized for
5:39 am
two minutes. >> thank you. you have given us a lot to consider and there are many competing interests. i think our overarching goal is to ensure that all americans have access to broadband and the many benefits the technology has to offer. whether we live in big cities and urban areas or small rural towns, rich or poor, black or white, broadband holds so much promise. it appears that the national broadbent plan is a commitment -- the national broadband plan is getting everybody on board and we are united by the most important technology since the invention of the telephone. we must continue to modernize and innovate. i would like to point out a couple issues that are important
5:40 am
to the families in my state. the universal service fund. florida historically has paid a lot into it and has not gotten much back i would like to hear how the national broadband plan will correct this past discrepancy. did you have a commitment to the use of spectrum -- do you have a commitment for the use of spectrum? there are a lot of students and teachers and older people who will need our help accessing this vital technology. the e-rate program should be robustly funded to make sure that schools and libraries have access to affordable broadband, including wireless connectivity. the universal service fee must address this going forward. the public said the network is indispensable to the functioning
5:41 am
of our communities. hurricane season is just around the corner and florida. our first responders will be on high alert. there is a lot of debate as to whether it dedicated blocks of spectrum would serve our first responders better than a shared network and i would like to hear more about that proposal. i am supportive of the recommendations and the plan. it struck a good balance between innovation and incorporating practical mechanisms to bridge the digital divide. congratulations. >> thank you. the gentle lady from the virgin islands is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. thank you for holding this hearing so we can go home better informed about the national broadband plan. although the number of people connected to broadband in this country has gone up to almost 200 million, to many families
5:42 am
are not connected. this plan is a solid blue print and i look forward to implementing changes to close the gap. it cannot be that because they are not connected, children cannot do their homework, individuals cannot access jobs, small businesses cannot be competitive, health care cannot reach those who need it and our public safety agencies cannot communicate well enough to protect us in an emergency. this plant has to ensure all of this while stimulating competitiveness. this is quite a challenge that you and we have ahead of us. to have several concerns, one being that the territories be fully included. -- i have several concerns, one
5:43 am
being that the territories are fully included. welcome all of you back to the subcommittee. >> thank you. the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. " thank you. i want to welcome members of the commission and express the gratitude of our committee for the work that went and to this report. but i want to associate my self with remarks that were made and i want to make brief mention of my good friend remarks -- good friend's remarks. it is important to know that having a conversation about broadband without looking about what we are doing or not to win and how we are slipping is folly. we have learned with our history
5:44 am
with the internet and technology that it is a great job producer. it is a way we keep our competitive advantage. it would be akin to opening a shoe store in a neighborhood and say i am not going to look at any of the shoe stores in the neighboring towns to see what they're doing right or wrong. we have to think that way. too often, we think until the next budget or the next fiscal year or appropriations bill. this document that was produced by the fcc takes that and turned it os it on its head and says we have to look for the next 50 years. that is exactly the type of thinking we of should want to do. we have to remember as we look at this that we are looking for opportunities in this document to produce thousands and
5:45 am
thousands of jobs. we are not going to know exactly what it are going to look like. that is the way technology operates. we are at our best when we are laying the groundwork for innovation. the fcc has done that and i want @ú"'::z::::zzj℠5 there are a lot of exciting and
5:46 am
forward thinking aspects to national broadband plan that you have prepared. but like to highlight two areas of interest -- i would like to highlight two areas of interest to me. i am delighted to see the plan proposes to transform the existing high-cost universal service fund into the connect america fund. it will support broadband networks. the testimony before us, 95% of americans have access to broadband. that is impressive but we still have a lot of work to do to cover that 5%, many of whom live in rural districts and have no options. many of those people are my constituents. transitioning the high cost fund to explicitly support broadband deployment to rural areas will be a tremendous help to
5:47 am
residents of appalachia. in 2007, an ohio health network was successful in building a fiber-optic network across 12 countries to collect health care facilities -- to connect health care facilities. we are attempting to leverage this previous deployment to more counties. many places have no options. success breeds success. we must strengthen the role of world broadband to make it -- by making it permanent. i stand ready to assist on this front and i reiterate my
5:48 am
support for the plan. i very much looked over to working with the commission, my colleagues in congress and industry partners to realize our potential. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for conducting this hearing and abel, chairman genachowski -- hearing and welcome, genachowski. we have seen far more of our fair share of plants before us that promised us the sun, moon, stars, and celestial bodies seen and unseen.
5:49 am
this plan promises to enhance america possibility to improve life choices of people. i may sound skeptical but i am not. much of this sounds good on paper and certainly makes for a good and polished sound bite. i understand the power of new communication technologies and the importance of innovation. [inaudible] the promise of widespread access is important to our nation. the unique opportunity we are presented with at this moment is unprecedented and i want to ensure that congress and the fcc step up to the plate to serve the best interests of the
5:50 am
american people. we will not get too many bites at this apple. if we did not exit k -- to execute this thoughtfully, we will miss out on a huge opportunity while setting back the short-term and long-term technology needs of the american people. i am keenly interested in hearing the commission's perspectives, especially on the adoption of the broadband plan helping to stimulate new jobs and small business. [inaudible]
5:51 am
mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. two points. the work you are doing is absolutely critical to the future of economic growth in this country but of what you have presented is a solid plan that increases competition and knowledge as if we have competition, we have to have access to the wires and we have to have universal service so that it can reach the most remote parts of our country. tremendous. you have done this on a bipartisan basis. i have to tell you, that is pretty unique around here and i want to thank you for that. this is my observation. you have taken a very difficult topic, presented a solid plan
5:52 am
and the net on a bipartisan basis. it is so effective it might embarrass us. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i just want to note the work you are doing is helpful to improve our health reform efforts which are new and still building. one instance where broadband can help the city of republic, washington, you have to turn all the computers off to have an extra red. -- to have an x-ray read. that is unacceptable. i want to commend you on freeing spectrum. i am pleased that you support
5:53 am
the direction we're moving in the spectrum allocation. we passed a bill to get that done and you join us in that effort. we hope that is a lot before we get the next version of the report out. -- that is a law before we get the next version of the report out. you have some ideas about how to move forward. it is festering -- frustrating for us to not have an interoperable system with law enforcement and firefighters not having systems. we have to get that done and we are on the right track. >> thank you. you have heard from us. now we get to hear from you. we would like to welcome the members of the federal communications commission. the chairman, julius genachowski, commissioner michael copps, commissioner
5:54 am
clyburn, and commissioner and baker. we ask you keep your oral opening statements to approximately five minutes so we have at full-time -- ample time to question you. >> thank you. thank you for the chance to testify on the national broadband plan. and this addresses the opportunities and challenges of high-speed internet in a way that reflects the strong conviction that as our nation rebuilds the economy, broadband can and must serve -- >> if i could get you to pull that microphone a bit closer. >> how is that? >> much better. >> ongoing investment and enduring job creation. multiple studies tell us the
5:55 am
same thing. even modest increases and adoption can yield hundreds of dozens of new jobs. a broad array of people throughout the economy agree if we have world leading networks, there will be a powerful new wave of innovation and job creation. the title of one recent op-ed said it all, "fix the bridges but did not forget broadband." the status quo is not good enough. notwithstanding the positive developments in the u.s., our country is not where it should be or needs to be to maintain our global competitiveness in this rapidly changing world. the u.s. is lagging globally, as low as 17th in one survey. 40th out of 40 among countries survey and the rate of change of
5:56 am
innovative capacity. other countries are improving faster than us. certain communities within the country are lacking. for these groups, adoption rates are much lower than the 65% national average which itself is much lower than other countries and a lower than what we would tolerate for electricity or telephones. altogether, 93 million americans are not connected to broadband, including 13 million children and 14 million americans cannot have access with a live even if they want it. that is too many. the costs grow higher every day. not having broadbenand had been an inconvenience a few years ago but now is a real hindrance
5:57 am
in many areas. the plant will submit it is a call to action but the times require. the to reckitt staff have produced a plan that as strong as it is non-partisan. it does the outcome of a process that has been unprecedented and so many respects. it is open and transparent and the public has participated and it is focused on data and analytics. this will provide or bus service to every american. -- this will provide broadband service to every american. access for every first responder to a nationwide interoperable public seeking network. in addition to this and other goals, it rolls -- it gives a
5:58 am
robust road map for achieving them. it proposes a transformation of the universal service fund from yesterday's technology to tomorrows. it proposes unleashing spectrum so we can head off the looming spectrum crisis. it proposes ways to cut red tape, or the cost of private investment, and accelerate wireless networks. everybody will be able to enjoy the benefits of broadband. i am heartened that it brought zero array of companies have voiced strong support for the -- a broad array of companies have voiced strong support for the plan. one wrote that this is a platform for social innovation.
5:59 am
it is time to overcome our broadbent complaisance it. the national broadband plan is critical to our national security. without this plan, we cannot compete. i believe it will to live for fiscal and economic benefits over time. i believe the plan is fiscally prudent and identifies opportunities for billions of dollars of spectrum auctions. i look forward to working with the members of the committee on the plan and on all ideas to unleash the power of broadband. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner copps. >> good morning.

240 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on