international investors will want to invest back here in america, they will trust the integrity of our system. so, colleagues, i encourage all of you, let's come together when we have this next cloture vote and decide that it is time to fight for the people of this country and fight for the economic future of our country by proceeding to the debate of this bill and the passage of this bill and getting it to the president's desk. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator fro minnesota. mr. franken: i rise this evening to talk about how we can take a big step towards holding wall street accountable and stopping it from lining its own pockets at the expense of america's families. last month, as part of the health care reconciliation bill,

the senate also passed a student loan reform that ended a longtime corporate welfare program. our reforms halted the enormous subsidies that the federal government paid to lenders in the student loan market, replacing it with a program called "direct lending" that slashes $61 billion in costs to the taxpayers by cutting out the middle man and lending to students directly. the money saved will go toward pell grants, helping kids from working families go to college. today, as we debate wall street reform, we continue that fight to end the stranglehold that big banks have on our economy and, by extension, on the everyday life of the american people. over the past year and a half,

we have seen stark relief, the devastating impact that wall street can have on our economy when it's left to its own devices. fueled by unbridle bridled greea love of risk, while the love of risking other people's money, and an obsession with profit at all cost, banks bought up toxic mortgages by the thousands, driving the subprime lending market in the process. credit rating agencies conveniently funded by the same institutions they were rating -- that's a bad idea -- they gave the resulting securities their highest triple-a rating and the initial ingredients of the financial crisis were born.

and, incidentally, today paul krugman wrote in "the new york times" that 93% of these triple-a rated subprime mortgage-backed securities have since been downgraded to junk status. 93%. that's hard to do on anything. several bank failures and a $700-plus billion bailout later, the american people were left paying the price. by october 2009, unemployment had jumped to 10.1%, and even today it remains at 9.7%. by contrast, just 10 years ago in october of 2000, the unemployment rate was 3.9%. americans have lost 11.7

trillion -- trillion -- $11.7 trillion in personal wealth since the financial crisis. and housing values have fallening 15% just in the past year. we've seen our retirements -- retirement accounts shrink and our plans for the future delayed, sometimes indefinitely. and all because of wall street's incessant need to rack up enormous profits. over the past few decades, wall street's profits have gone through the roof. in 1987, the financial industry represented only 19% of all domestic corporate profits. by 2009, that number was almost 32%. 32% of all the nation's

corporate profits went to the financial industry. now, the dramatic growth of the financial services industry would be fine if all street were actually adding value, helping to invest in our economy in constructive ways and to create jobs. but instead, they have been making bets on bets on bets on bets. now, it's one thing to have a commodities future market that provides the resources for farmers to put crops in the ground, but it's another thing altogether when wall street is just gambling in areas where they have no real productive interest. let's put wall street back to work investing in america, not gambling with its future.

the bill we're discussing tonight would ensure that wall street can never again bill being the american -- can never again bilk the american people in the same way. it would create a consumer financial protection bureau, a true cornerstone of this bivment the bureau would be an independent watchdog for consumers housed inside the federal reserve. the bureau would force big banks and credit card companies to offer clear terms to families on credit cards, student loans, on retirement, financial products. and just as importantly, it would make sure that mortgage companies can't sell misleading loans and mortgages to consumers so that we avoid the kinds of problems that led to this crisis in the first place. for the first time, the bill would set up a council of

regulators that would oversee the financial system as a whole. this council would monitor risks across the entire system and ensure that industries and companies don't fall through the cracks between regulatory agencies. this bill also includes a tough section on derivatives to ensure greater transparency and tighten their regulation. and it ends taxpayer bailouts by forcing banks to pony up $50 billion to pay for their own funeral if they fail. this is not a taxpayer-funded bailout. and let me tell you why. first, it's not a bailout. the bank would get liquidated. secondly, it's not taxpayer-funded.

because taxpayers don't fund it; the banks do. i really don't know how to make this any clearer to my colleagues across the aisle. yet tonight we find ourselves where we're. let me be clear. we cannot afford not to pass this bill. americans are demanding that we act to hold wall street accountable. without further protections, it would be easy to have another crisis like the one we have just went through. and yet tonight, despite the urgency and importance of this bill, my colleagues across the aisle are filibustering our

attempt to reform wall street. and not just the bill itself. they've blocked us from even starting debate on the bill by filibustering the motion to proceed. they have done this despite the fact that many of them actually agree with substantial portions of the bill. they're doing this because they want to stop government from actually being able to accomplish anything. i've said it before, and i'll say it again. this is a perversion of the filibuster and a perversion of the senate. let's turn our attention back to legislating, which is the reason voters put us here in this august body in the first place. i urge my colleagues to support the wall street reform bill. we often talk on the senate

floor about wanting to make sure american families are protected. now we have a chance to actually do something about it. america can't afford another financial crisis. that's now in our hands in this body, and it's one of our greatest responsibilities. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. msmccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. ms. mccaskill: i have a favorite president, and it's not president obama. it's in fact president harry truman. i still can't quite get over the fact that i am sitting at harry truman's desk here on the senate floor and that i hold the seat in the senate that harry truman

held. and tomorrow when i attend the permanent subcommittee on investigations -- and as we see a parade of wall street executives justifying their behavior -- i will be asking questions that the committee that harry truman made famous when he took war profiteers to task many years ago. harry truman said, "if you can't convince them, confuse them." well, i'm confused. i read today that the ranking member of the republican party of the banking committee said the following at a meeting of community bankers today: i'm quoting exactly what he said. "i think we basically know what went wrong. we've had a lot of hearings.

we've been working on it 15-16 months now." now, that's not chairman dodd that said, "i think we basically know what went wrong." it's not chairman dodd saying "we've had a lot of hearings." it's not chairman dodd saying, "we've been working on it for 15 or 16 months." it's the republican ranking on the banking committee. i'm confused. is it that they don't realize it's a huge problem? well, of course they realize it's a huge problem. is it that they're not prepared, that they don't have enough information? well, of course not. senator shelby said today, we basically know what went wrong. we've had a lot of hearings. we've been working on it for 15 or 16 months.

senator dodd has sat here this evening, as many members of my class and the freshman class have come to the floor, to express regret and confusion about why we can't debate this bill. it is admirable that he has sat and listened to all of these speeches tonight. he didn't have to. he could have gone home. he is invested in this legislation for all the right reasons, because he cares deeply about this country. he understands we have an obligation, as senators, to address this problem. and he sees it as his duty to see this through. so why -- why did this happen today? why didn't we move forward to debate? it's just politics.

raw, bare-knuckled politics. the kind of stuff that americans are so sick of it, they want to throw up. they are so sick of this game-playing, they want to throw everybody out of this place. and, frankly, right about now, i don't blame them. what in the lord's name are we doing delaying the debate on this bill? i do believe the leader of the republican party thinks his success as a leader can only be defined by my party's failure. it's like it's a football game. i was confused when 41 people signed the letter saying they didn't want to go forward. all 41 republicans signed this letter. then i really got confused because senator mcconnell came to the floor and said black is white.

he literally said that. he said, we can't be for this bill because we want to stop bailouts. well, of course this bill is about stopping bailouts. that's why we're doing the bill. to make sure that we don't have anymore taxpayer bailouts. he knows that. but he honestly, i don't think, believed that the american people would pay close enough attention. then we had the announcement that the s.e.c. had come out after coma and was going to do something about goldman sachs. and what had happened. and then, as senator dodd said so well on the floor the other day, it's like the rooster taking credit for the morning. he said, we wrote that letter and now we're back at the negotiating table. what hogwash. what hogwash. the negotiating table has always been open. the door has always been open.

senator dodd has been out working the floor of this building and every building within a mile trying to find republicans to sit down and negotiate and find what is the problem that we need to solve to make sure we never have this kind of financial meltdown again in america. now here's another thing that's very confusing. it's time for the markup in the banking committee. 400 -- i believe the number is over 400 amendments were filed by the republicans for the markup. the friday before the markup, all these amendments were on file. many people worked all weekend long getting ready for the markup on monday for the mark up of this bill. the chairman of the committee assuming like anybody who has spent as many hours working in this august body as he has that,

on monday republicans were going to offer amendments. in fact the democrats worked all through the weekend trying to figure out how many amendments had the republican filed that they could easily accept without debate or contention. so what happens when the committee starts? the ranking member on the republican side says they don't want tow offer -- don't want to offer any amendments. huh? now i'm really confused. they don't even want to try to change the bill in committee. they make no effort to offer any substantive changes. the american people don't realize that a game is being played here. they just need to pause for a minute and think about that. why on earth would the members of the banking committee in the republican party fail to offer

one amendment to this legislation? unless there was some kind of plan, political plan -- don't participate, don't vote for it, stop it, obstructionism, say the democrats are doing something they're not trying to do, taxpayer bailouts. you know, it would be so easy to stand here and say that there is ulterior motives about helping big bankers or helping wall street and campaign finance issues. i don't know. i just know i'm confused. i'm confused why the republicans would march lock step away from a debate on an issue that is of paramount importance to this country. i'm confused why the republicans would fail to offer one amendment at the committee level. i'm confused why debating this bill is a problem for them

politically. i'm confused. ronald reagan is cited with this quote often, but it wasn't ronald reagan who first said it. it was harry truman. it's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit. man, oh man, did some people need that advice in this body. we need to quit worrying about whether democrats are getting credit or republicans are getting credit and realize all the american people want to us do is get to work, get this thing done, quit fooling around with this game that's being played. tomorrow i think the leader may have a motion to reconsider. i would implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, reconsider what you're doing. many of my colleagues are such fine, upstanding people who also

care deeply about their country. they're just wrapped up. they have been convinced this is a political tic tac toe match and if they hang on they'll be able to draw the line through a series of squares. this is about a serious problem. i am a big fan of how hard senator dodd has worked on this. i think he's trying with every bit of intellect and passion he has to get this across the finish line because he knows we need to do it for the american people. the games need to stop. the american people need to pay attention and realize that they have a very good reason to be confused. let's debate this bill. let's debate it beginning tomorrow. let's debate our differences. let's try to amend it. let's vote on amendments. let's agree to disagree on some of it and decide who has the most votes to move forward a piece of legislation the way our

founding fathers intended. i guarantee you they didn't intend this. they did not intend this, a refusal to even debate. so let the debate begin. and if the republican party wants to lock step say we don't even get to debate it, then the american people are going to have to draw their own conclusions, and i have a feeling it will not be a good one. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: mr. president, let me, first of all, begin by, if harry truman were here tonight, he would be very proud of his successor in which a chair sitting -- in that chair sitting in the back of this chamber. i want to thank the senator from missouri for her passion, eloquence and common sense. my father actually seconded the nomination of harry truman in 1948 and i cherish hanging in

the wall of my home a wonderful personal letter thanking my father for that nomination. he didn't have many people in 1948. my father wasn't elected to o. he couldn't find elected officials to stand up for him in 1948. my father had a great relationship with president truman and was always proud of it. he had a wonderful, direct, some would call it blunt, but frankly moments like this, i think that's what's needed. because as the senator from missouri articulated, this is not a complicated moment. maybe there are those who don't appreciate how an institution like this -- it is not always a pretty process when we engage in debate with 100 people in this chamber with different ideologies, interests. we try to come together as a committee system we have chosen years ago in order to try to be

efficient about our work. so we split up into various groups, consider various matters under certain headings. we sit as democrats and as republicans, independence and try -- independents and try to work our way through a hearing process, listening to experts, talk to go one another, doing the kind of reading and educating ourselves about whether it's agriculture or defense or in this case banking, over a period of weeks and months, particularly after a moment in a time in our history that nearly brought us to the brink of financial collapse, and then through our collective judgments try and frame our answers to the nagging questions: why did we get into this mess? what was missing? what did we do wrong? what can we do right? how can we make this better so we don't go through this again, if we don't strangle the system so we lack the imagination that

hauled us through this financial sector and harmonize rules in a global economy today so we don't end wup racing to the bottom -- end up with racing to the bottom, various nation who is offer the least resistance. that's basically what we engaged in the last 38 months or 39 months since i've been chairman this have committee. we didn't say that yes we agreed on everything, but we tried to fashion the best we could. i introduced a proposal in november. my colleagues said that's a good beginning but we ought to get different ideas. so between november and this april, i divided up the committee labors, asked democrats and republicans to take on subject matters because it was a highly complex area of the law, dealing with

derivatives, systemic risks, corporate governance. anything we broke it up into groups, democrats and republicans became knowledgeable about the subject matter, we could then frame a proposal that would enjoy the bipartisan support needed to advance the cause. i want to compliment my colleagues. many of them worked very, very hard. while we didn't achieve complete understanding in all of those matters, i think the bill reflects that labor, such to the agree that the proposal we tried to move to today. i thank my colleague from missouri for identifying what occurred two weeks ago. that is of course the committee markup. again, my colleagues on the committee made a judgment. they thought maybe it might be better, there were an awful lot of conflicting amendments, some of which didn't make a lot of sense on the other side, i say

that respectfully. but it was their determination they would decide to go further in the process without engaging in the process. mr. president, we just need to get to this. i've listened very patiently this evening to some wonderful remarks. i want to begin with mark warner who spoke earlier this afternoon on the bill and has been a remarkable contribution to this body and a remarkable contribution to the banking committee. he spent about 20 years in the financial services area. he bob be menendez as well was eloquent in his comments. senator klobuchar, jeanne shaheen of new hampshire as well; i thank her. and senator burris of illinois. the presiding officer, sheldon whitehouse, a good friend who's been invaluable in these debates and worked together on the health care matters in weeks and months over last year.

mark udall of colorado, senator merkley of oregon, al franken and of course senator mccaskill i talked about as well. quite a group here, these new members. their first or second terms in the united states senate. i hope my other colleagues were listening this evening. it wasn't just eloquence. it was common sense. people who -- while we all may t agree, i can't say every amendment is one that i supported. but i fundamentally believe every united states senator has equal status in this chamber, whether you're a chairman or a new member, you're a united states senator and you deserve, you deserve the courtesies of this institution. you deserve the history of this institution, to be heard and respected for your ideas and to be given the time to present them, to debate them and to have

an up-or-down vote on your proposals that's how this institution is supposed to operate. i've been here for three decades, and all my three decades here i've never gone through a period like we have over the last number of months where we can't even get to debate some of these critical matters. now i'm still optimistic massachusetts explains why i've been -- i'm still optimism. i want to believe this is going to work, that all we've been through is not for naught. i have great respect for my colleagues in this chamber, democrats and republicans, and i have over the years, even with people i've had basic and fundamental disagreements with. and i'm convinced that the majority of us here, an overwhelming majority want to be associated with passing legislation that we believe will make a significant difference in the economic life of our nation by at least limiting or

prohibiting the kind of activities that led us to the problems and economic difficulties we're in. and i hope in the coming days that we'll have a chance to move to this bill. i hope sooner rather than later. maybe a matter not well known by many, but we only have, by my count, about 45 or 50 legislative days left in this session. we're working about three and a half days a week. we're here for about another 14 or 15 weeks when you exclude the august break, the break for memorial day, the 4th of july. of course our departure sometime i presume in early october for the elections. that does not give us a lot of time. last week we spent the entire week on five nominations, nominations that as i recall -- and i'll be corrected -- overwhelmingly when the votes finally occurred. so five days on five people who were filibustered, delayed.

all we did last week -- that was it -- five nominations who were ultimately agreed to. not controversial nominations. just ones that were designed to slow the process down. i don't think the american people want us to leave our work in this congress not having addressed the issue. i'll end on this particular note. if for some reason, lord forbid, a major financial institution were to fail this evening, we were in no better shape than we were in the fall of 2008. there is an implicit guarantee that such an institution would receive the backing of the american taxpayer to stablize them in our economy despite what i perceive to be overwhelming -- overwhelming objections to that kind of a bailout occuring. that's one issue on which there seems to be unanimity. and, yet, if tonight a problem began to emerge, we would be in

a similar situation as we were 18 months ago. i don't know of a single member here who would want that to occur. that issue alone ought to cause every one of us to move to get to this debate because that is a principled part of this legislation. there are other features of it as well. but that alone ought to be motivation to begin this debate, to listen to each other's thoughts and ideas, and to conclude that discussion and debate by passing this legislation or at least a version that's been amended of this legislation to go forward. so, mr. president, this evening i want to thank these 12 to 13 of our colleagues, including the presiding officer for for your -- for your patience, eloquence and conviction as i get ready to leave this chamber in the coming months, i leave with a high degree of confidence that this chamber will be in good hands listening tonight to your words, advice, your counsel

and your determination and, again, with a sense of optimism that we'll get this bill done. i'm confident as i stand before you with that this evening as well. and, with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i'm going to now move to some concluding business. mr. president, i ask consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 500 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: without objection,e clk will report. the clerk: s. res. 500 expressing the sincere condolences of the senate to the family arrived ones united steel workers fellow workers and anna cortez community at the refinery in anna cortez in washington. mr. dodd: unanimous consent resolution be agreed to, the

preamble be agreed to the preamble be agreed to and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if retd. the presiding officer: without objection -- as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, april 27. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day, and there be a period of morning business for one hour with the senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. that following morning business, the senate resume the motion to proceed to s. 3217, the wall street reform legislation. and, finally, i ask that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tsday, april

>> at the fcc. so we recognize that. there is a, especially as relates to regulatory agencies, there is this tendency to have regulatory lag. meaning that, how you do business today. sometimes is hard to keep up with, the way the markets are evolving. but you've got a commission. you've got an agency, you've got a chairman, who is up to the task, who is forward-looking and think nation and communications industry is better for it. >> well, just to take one regulation, this is just recently, that the federal communications commission in fact just yesterday, unanimously proposed shifting the goal of the universal service fund, to, include, broadband services. so that it is provided and subsidized all around

>> guest: 26% of the nation don't use land line as primary communications device. so there is recognition of that. there is recognition, with, companies like skype, that in terms of how they're communicating, is not just even on their mobile phones. so, because of that, we recognize that there is a need for us shift. there's a need for persons to be connected, especially if they will save money to provide them with more options. this is another example which you brought up at the top. there is a need and we have an obligation to keep up, retrofit ourselves, retool as we say, at fcc, reboot.

>> host: see cecilia. >> i love the word red fit. what is the reclassification specifically, would you support reclassification of broadband services to title two. >> guest: i will say at this point i have not conclusively come up with, i can not say yes or not at this time. i can say to you we have certain goals that we have put for forth. that are clear in the plan. that are, that are clear with in terms of the net neutrality proceedings, that we're passionate about. we're passionate about having an open network. we're passion not about consumer when they buy a product, they know exactly what they are getting. they know what speed they are getting. they know what the terms are. we're passion gnat about those things. -- passionate. how we do that, how we execute cute that, how we regulate that.

we're in negotiations with the american public and with the, with the companies that, that we regulate as it relates to that. >> host: what is the process at fcc. are you having conversations with the chairman's office, with other commissioners, republican commissioners on this issue? how are you going through your thought process on how you will conclusively decide what to do with, with classification of broadband? >> guest: the answers are yes, yes, and yes. we are having conversations. we have a series of notices that you know. the one thing about this agency that at first on the outside as a state commissioner, which i was for 11 years, that from our perspective, seemed a bit slow, but now that i sit in this chair, seems quite logical, is that we have these exchanges. we have relatively long period of time with a series of notices. whether inquiries or rule making that allow for interactions of ideas, exchanges of ideas.

so in order for us to make the proper decisions. so i have not come in with saying that, conclusively saying that we should refi or not. but what i will say is, the goals, that i put forth in terms of having an open platform, all of those, you know transparency, those things, those are non-negotiatable for me. so however we get there, be it through congressional action. because that's a possibility or be it through negotiation or reclassification, however we get there, i think we keep consumers, american public, front and center that will come up with the right decision and right path. >> do you think, do you have any timeline when you might come up with a decision? the chairman yesterday in the open meeting, didn't release, really expose anymore detail what any sort of timeline.

the whole telecom community is waiting with bated breath thinking when will we come up with an answer? >> guest: i can not give you a date certain. can tell you we are not dragging our feet. i can tell you all the things i brought forth in terms of interactions, they take time. want to hear from the public. we want to hear from congress. we want to hear from the companies and so however long it takes, not trying to be flippant but however long it takes to get a real docket, row exchange, then and only then after that we'll come up with, i like to call the proper regulatory gumbo in order to come up with a decision that is pal atable for us all. >> host: commissioner clyburn, two questions follow up from your answers to cecelia's questions, the public, --. >> guest: service commission. >> host: in south carolina. >> guest: regulator. >> host: could you speak a

little bit more about the difference between serving on the state level and the federal level and what you've experienced so far? >> guest: i will say to you that the state level we're closer to the people that we serve. that they were front and center. we had evidentiary hearings. that is the biggest difference, so when we had, an issue, docket or rate hearing or what have you, we had an actual hearing where we took witnesses, including public witnesses, and, so you got, right then and there about what people were feeling. you know what they were sensing. what direction they wanted you to go. how they were condensing you. it wasn't just a filing a paper filing. sometimes from our perspective because i was at it for 11 years can sometimes be a little cold. it is exact from cold. we got to hear from the public. that is major difference how the two agencies interacted. that was kind of a culture shock for me to be honest with you. >> host: do you feel a little isolated as fcc

commissioner? is that a fair word? >> guest: first couple months i did confess i feel like i was this big 8th floor eye. it was definitely an adjustment for me. but you know, it is okay. you find a way. one of the way we think we distinguished ourselves was, the first, we didn't take any meetings for the first month when i was here because i wanted to speak to the bureaus, kind of get myself, you know, to retooled as possible, speaking with the internally, speaking with the bureaus, speaking with officers and to, learn this new universe was going to look like for. when we took meetings, we took meetings with consumer groups. we took meetings with grassroots organizations. we took meetings with persons from the disabilities communities. we wanted to hear from them first to say, tell me, in terms of the decisions we're making, in terms of this agency, tell me, how we can

do things better. tell me what we're doing, what we're not doing, how we're listening how we're not listening. we thought that was important. i wanted to hear from them first, because i thought that would give me purest, evaluation of you, what this new universe i was about to embark on to look like. >> host: second question i wanted to ask, you talked about your position on open access being non-negativeable. what are your thoughts on the recent federal appeals court case regarding comcast and bittorrent? >> guest: that is a decision i'm not depressed about. let me tell you why. there are certain journalists, not to me, certain journalist pointed out decision was relatively narrow. it talked about our, we sanctioned, we sanctioned and that is a word we used in 2008, for those who might

not know, comcast for them slowing down traffic for what we call a file-sharing ent, which is an entity that provides, computer generation or digitally generated services be it video, audio, what have you. this is user, aggressive user of bandwidth. so comcast said, we have a right to regulate our network, and we were going to slow down this traffic because they are a heavy user. the court told the fcc, that we could not in terms of, comcast, regulate their management practices. that is what they told us. i'm not an attorney but it is a narrow decision from my perspective. it does not deter me as it relates to what i brought forth but just affirms to us we can not regulate the management practices of a company. that is how i interpreted

it. that is i interpreted, subject to check, what you put forth, and so that narrow interpretation gives me hope. for what i put forth. >> host: so, commissioner clyburn, you've been a big advocate for consumers. that is something you and i talked about for a long time. how does that decision, that federal appeals court decision impact or affect consumer protection going forward? because, if indeed this narrow interpretationx relates to network management and ability to network management how does that impact the fcc's ability to going forward on net neutrality? is sort of opened this pandora's box. >> host:. >> guest: is has. the wagesy looking at that and evaluating the decision and act accordingly under the confines. one of the things, and sometimes, you know, when some people might say, you lose the battle, don't

necessarily lose the war, that practice has ceased, and there are other instances where practices of that nature have been negotiated, have ceased. so there has been a positive effect i think for consumers because, increasingly there is incentives for these companies to work things out. so while, we're still interpreting what it means, from how we conduct ourselves and while it was a decision against the agency, i don't think in practice, as it relates to the public, that it closed the door as it relates to their interactions with these companies. i just don't think that. >> host: do you think that the companies are able to regulate themselves when it comes to consumer protection? i will mention a meet we had with bob quinn, the, who is in charge of regulatory affairs for at&t. and he said that there are numerous examples where the

industry has changed its practices as a response to how consumers react. and not to say that consumers, onus is on consumers, but i mean he is saying, this is sort of on the companies and the consumers. so do you think that's enough maybe not a need for more regulation from the fcc when it comes to consumer protection and net neutrality and rates and those sorts of issues? >> guest: one of the things hear and go back to, i can't quote it chapter and first verse, reason why regulatory entities are here in the place. they're here as protective tool to the public in terms of companies, as much as they want to serve as much as they want to provide services to the public, that sometimes, the principle of

making making profits doesn't necessarily work in favor the public. you have got regulatory agencies there as protection for to the public. i'm not type of regulator who is looking, behind every door to regulate every single practice. that is not why, that is not why i signed up for the job. i am here to protect the public, where the markets are imperfect. i am here as a sort of substitute for competition where there is not competition because, especially as it relates to broadband availability, high speed broadband availability, most people do not have more than one provider in their market, providing truly high speed broad band internet. if you have that type of scenario, i think, part of my mission is to be there as, an entity to ensure that you

are treated fairly with that, in that case, monopoly for high-speed internet provisions. so that's why we're here. not to be this regulator with, you know, big, big arms and saying you know, what we will do but to be there as a protection. as those companies know, if things get totally out of whack, that there is a entity with some teeth that will take the necessary actions, if things get out of whack. if it is working, properly, is the consumers, are happy, if the companies are making the money they want to make, if there is, a widespread deemployment of goods and services that will make our lives better, i will sit back and smile. if not, i'm there. >> host: commissioner clyburn, is the snags broadband plan, in your view

moving forward in spite of this court case? and does it increase the competition that you call for? >> guest: i think it is, i don't know if your viewers, could see this. but, this, is what the next, looks like just it relates to the national broadband plan. we put forth a set of national priorities, national principles, that are reflected in that grid that is, i will need my, got my glasses to the side. i will need my glasses to read. i will not do that to you. but, what this, ambitious we've got an ambitious next, six or eight months, ahead of us. that will, i think, benefit the public going forward. the things that i mentioned, in terms of competition, in terms of openness, terms, i did not mention this, in terms of national security interests. those things are important.

cybersecurity, those things, are enumerated here. >> host: all part of the broadband plan? >> guest: those are all a part of the plan. this plan, which has gotten praise and criticism, really looks at this nation in total this really looks how we provision almost everything. because just think about the communications backbone. the communications, the agency in which i am employed, and i consider myself an employee, steward of this nation, the, entities we regulate are responsible for, about, 1/6 of this nation's economy. i mean it helps fuel, just think about, you know the airwaves. the people who are listening to us, when they pick up a telephone, you know, when they, watch cable, when they communicate, this agency has a hand in some form or fashion in that we recognize awesome responsibility and we recognize in the

broadband plan that there are certain things that need to be delivered differently. there are certain challenges, be it universal service. because that is enumerated here. there needs to be reformed. the way we communicate is different as i mentioned the way we conduct ourselves, in terms of telemedicine, health, all of the things that will help improve our lives, it is to me at the foundation of this plan. and, it is important and vital and we're going to be very busy over the next or so months. >> host: this is c-span's "the communicators" program. our guest is mignon clyburn. federal communications commissioner, commissioner. cecelia kang is our guest reporter. >> what are non-nextable in your mind. they must be accomplished for fcc be performed. >> guest: contribution factor is over 15% that is

unsustainable the way which we communicate is changing. we have to have 21st century solutions. we have a 20th century infrastructure as it relates to the current usf regime. that has to change. public safety, non-negotiable. 9/11 showed us, i'm from hurricane ally, i'm from charleston, south carolina, and the season starts pretty soon, got to have a network an interoperable network, we've got to have, our first-responders able to communicate with each other, regardless, without regard for distance, without regard for jurisdiction. those two things are non-negotiable to me. they're at the core of what make this is nation function and in terms of communications and in terms of public safety. those are non-negotiable. we've got to find a way.

yesterday's meeting, teed those up. we're going to begin proceeding on usf reform and we have, notice of inquiry that talks about cybersecurity. so we knew how those things were. and those were teed up in our meeting on yesterday. >> host: commissioner, was there any discussion about the allocations from usf. what should go to broadband and what should go to telephone land lines. >> guest: as to what i like the most about this entity is that we're going to have ongoing discussions about that. however that mix is, that the weight factor. one thing that we did bring forth, is that, the plan that we have in place, whatever the plan, whatever the particulars of the plan in place, there will not be an increase, we're going to work within the framework, the existing financial framework. we will not cause that contribution factor to go up.

that is non-nextable. >> host: some people in land lines could see increase with broadband with usf contribution? >> guest: there is probability of shifting in materials of factors, especially as relates to rural characters. those are types of conversations we must have. rural carriers in particular are concerned about the migration of their land line support to this new infrastructure or this system that we're putting forth. those are the types of details that we're going to have to work out. they're going to be some significant changes as it relates to contribution factors. as it relates to reimbursement and we're going to have to make some difficult decisions. >> host: regarding land line, century telephone-qwest merger yesterday what does that say about the future of land line services? >> guest: that says there are changes. there are pushes for scale economies. there is a recognition that, that it'spáb expensive to

support that infrastructure. so you're going to see more of that. i am sometimes weary of consolidations in certain spaces i was a business major and i do recognize that, sometimes it really does make sense to consolidate. >> i'm going to go at it again because i think i --. >> guest: ow oh. >> try a different tact. what is your opinion on the fcc's ability to, to, regulate broadband services? what is your opinion at this point of what the fcc should do? >> guest: again i will -- i understand. >> because i mean, there is awful lot of discussion going on as you say. so if you can give some texture as to what, do you think under title one you can achieve what you want to achieve? >> guest: i am hopeful that under the current framework we can achieve, be object tiff to that put forth.

i'm open, however if we see in our evaluations that, that there is deficiencies there or that we're being, there are too many challenges there, we need a different set of compensations. i will not prejudge, but i will say that, this decision was narrow. i think it was narrow. it talked again about management, how they managed their networks. i am hopeful, i see light behind that door that people say was all the way shut. i don't think it was all the way shut. how is that for maybe not answering your question? >> you showed a little bit more angle. i will, one thing that i found fascinating watching you, commissioner, since you've taken your position, is how you have used fcc as sort of a bully pulpit to send letters when you see bad behavior.

wireless industry, for example. with early termination fees. where does that stand? do you think you have achieved what you want to achieve? i don't think there has been much change. there's been a lot of letters. >> guest: i don't know if i agree with that wholeheartedly, as it relates to those advanced, offerings in terms of those, some people call smartphones. you know, there has been some slowdown. a couple of companies who have actually lowered their, etfs. and so, i think there has been some ripple, positive effects of that. i will do my best to not maybe change the world but influence it. i think we have. i think the proper signals have been sent. i'm upbeat. i'm positive. >> host: commissioner clyburn, you mentioned public safety sale of the d

block should be devoted to public safety? have you seen representative peter king's new bill on with regard to public safety with regard to telecommunications? >> guest: i have not seen the representative's bill. as it relates to that space, that is, very, you've got two very entities some people don't like trade associations but we hear of persons in public safety who are advocates for, public safety, but, do not see it in the same way as the whether or not there should be some private infusion, those again are the types of conversations snead to have. we want a network that viable, however that is achieved, whether it is solely dedicated. whether it is shared. however that is achieved is what i think the commission wants and i think what the

public needs. >> host: to take this a little further, do you think about the fcc and relationship with congress? we should note your father is majority whip with the house of representatives. >> guest: i have a good relationship him. we've had a few hearings. i think we're dealing with some difficult issues. so you're going to see some friction which i think is natural. but i think all, in all, total, has improved immensely past eight or nine months, it really has. the exchanges have been relatively friendly. and we are challenged more so on, on the positions, not necessarily on, you know, how we run the agency or the agency interacts with congress. those are positives. and we're going to see more of that. we are faced with some difficult decisions ahead. we have to do more with less. with that, these, things

before us, that, the nation needs, the nation wants, the public has spoken. they want these, mobile devices to do almost everything. you know, aside from cook, or maybe some instances cook. and so, you've got the public that is clamoring for more. they want efficiencies. you've got an environment we think, that again, is constantly rebooting themselves to provide that. congress recognizes that. we recognize that. we recognize that how we get there, you know, subject, to the debate. but at end of the day, when all of those opinions, all those variables are being considered we think we will come up with the best decision. i'm committed to that. you've got four other persons at the agency who lead the agency, who are also. >> great. what would you like your

legacy to be? what would you want to be known for after your term? it is early on still, but what are themes and issues that you want to own? >> guest: i would like it to be said when i say good-bye as it relates to my service at sec that i was a fierce advocate for consumers. every decision i made puts consumers first. what sim pact on consumers. persons often without a voice or without the means to come into my office every day. i want, those voices to be as loud and as clear as those entities who have millions and millions of dollars who are able to have offices in this nation's capitol. i think that were said about me more often, then other things might be said i could sleep well and transition,

and say, job well-done. >> host: we've got about two minutes left, commissioner clyburn. what else is on your agenda that we have not talked about? >> telemedicine is important to me. i don't think we talked about it. i might have slipped it in a little bit. i come from an area, particular area in south carolina that is the, i call it the, it is the everything belt. the stroke belt, heart attack belt, the diabetes belt. so telemedicine, and what we're putting forth from health initiative standpoint in national broadband plan, i am passionate about it. i am running away from my doctor right now, and, but i am constantly, trying to monitor, and improve my own health via, the internet. i think if we empower persons to augment their out comes doing just that. we've done a good job. of course that relates to education too.

so those things i am passionate about. and, we didn't mention. >> host: final question. >> when you talk about consumers are what do you think, where are consumers is what area, what issue are hurting consumers the most? >> guest: i think we hear about the challenges and complaints, boils down to disclosure. often times they don't know what signed. they go into a, an office and, they are enamored about a device. and they sign up for it, with an exchange. they sign a bunch of forms with dozens of pages. and when there's an issue, paragaffe as subparagraph so-and-so, they discover they have no resource. it is important to me, that the public clearly understands what they're getting, the speeds, the should be what the are. if they're advertised, they should be what they are, and what you expect from your service should be clearly

enumerated. you should know what you're getting when you sign a contract. that's important. >> host: commissioner mignon clyburn, first time at "the communicators" table, thank you. >> guest: hopefully not last. >> host: and see see ya kang of "the washington post.". >> coming up a senate hearing on the federal communications commission's national broadband plan with fcc chairman, julius genachowski. also chairman and chief executive of medco health solutions dave snow on health care reform. following that, a house hearing on the national flood insurance program. tomorrow a senate hearing on wall street and the role of investment banks. this hearing is the fourth in a series of subcommittee hearings examining some of the causes and consequences of the recent financial crisis. you will hear remarks from several executives from goldman sachs including chairman and ceo, lloyd blankfein.

that's live, 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> on april 7th, a federal appeals court restricted the fcc's ability to regulate the internet. now a senate hearing on the commission's national broadband plan and the impact of the recent court decision. the fcc wants to 100 million households lacking broadband today. the agency's plan is part of the $787 billion economic stimulus package that passed last february. this is a little over two hours. >> this hearing will come to order.

and we welcome all our guests. most particularly julius genachowski, chairman of the federal communications commission which is a, seminal in washington, d.c.. broadband is more thanatology. it is a platform for social and economic opportunity. with broadband networks we can change the way we approach job creation, education, health care. >> entertainment, and other things. we can change the way we connect with our communities around the world. that's why i fought last year to make sure that the recovery act included programs designed to bring broadband to everybody in this country no matter who they are, and no matter where they live. it is an operating principle. the recovery act included

two major initiatives. one, a grant program to spur the adoption and deployment of broadband. and secondly, a broadband plan for the nation developed by the fcc. it's the broadband plan that we are here to discuss today. that's why we're here. who gets what, when, how long, all of that. the fcc released the national broadband plan last month, and like many of my colleagues, i join the chorus singing praises for this effort. i think the document is a great start but i have concerns, real concerns. back in october when we held a hearing to discuss the broadband grant programs, i spoke about the prospects for the broadband plan. i said i wanted to see

concrete action on the day that the plan is delivered. because i believe we need real broadband solutions for real people. and we need them now, a mere menu of options for the fcc and the congress with far off time frames is to this senator, not good enough. i believe that in october, and i believe it now. the report has over 200 recommendations. but it takes no action and suggests no action. it is long on vision, but it is short on tactics. so i'm going to challenge the fc. i'm going to challenge the fcc to make the hard choices, for them, as a commission to make the hard choices, within, regardless of anything else on.

that will help bring broadband to every corner of our country. i mentioned to, the chairman outside, that i spent much of the last week at a mine disaster in a rural part of west virginia. amongst all of the horrible things that come out after experience like that, one of the most disturbing was the fact that not one person there, the rescue people trying to get inside mine officials, miners families, most importantly, trying to call people in detroit or akron or wherever they might be, couldn't do that. there is no cell phone service in that part of the state. and it is not the most rural

part of the state. that made me angry. putting ideas on paper is just not enough. just seeking comment on a slew of issues is not enough. to me, 10 years after 9/11, it is action that counts. let me tell you why. in west virginia, one in five households lack access to broadband service. as this plan notes,ly 71% of the state's population has access to 3g wireless service. every day that goes by, communities without broadband in west virginia and every state in the country, and no state doesn't have remote, rural parts to it, risks falling father behind. in this new century, broadband is promise of economic opportunity.

it is exactly that. it is promise of educational equality and affordable health care. it opens the door to participate in our democratic dialogue people helpfully or unhelpfully talk to each other and do with dignity and where we are, where you live. economic, geography, nothing has anything to do with this. before i con my remarks, let me take a minute to mention last week's disheartening decision by the circuit court of appease of the district of columbia. no doubt the messy situation that comcast has so generously put us in adds to the complexity of your task, mr. chairman. question about it. but for me, two things are

clear in the near term i want agency to use all existing authority i don't care how many lawyers you have or don't have, i want, i want you to exercise the authority that you do have. comcast and others want to take that away. they love deregulation so they just can't even express it. and in that there are a lot of other folks who represent companies have the same way but at least they didn't take it court. now that it has been taken to court and now that it has been shot down, it puts the whole national broadband plan at risk and the chairman of the fcc ought to be pretty upset about that. i know i am. and secondly in the long term, if there is a need to rewrite the law, to provide consumers and the fcc and industry, with a new

framework, i, as chairman, will take that task on. that's the option where i think we're probably going to end. a lot of people sitting in this room who represent companies, who, love deregulation will do anything to get out of anything do with government. we have had a history in the recent fcc of a lot of non-action on issues where action was needed. and, i just want to say, mr. chairman, to you, that this is a committee at least so long as i'm chairman, that is here to protect people, to protect consumers. most of the of the world can< take care of itself. consumers can't. people without cell phone service can't make that

phone call to the mother of a deceased miner. they can't do it. so that's the way i look at my responsibilities here, and i think a lot of us feel that way. so in closing, i appreciate the challenges the fcc. i understand they're much more complicated now. don't let that discourage you at all. bend the curve if you have to. i look forward to the chairman as testimony about how he is going to move ahead and how we're all going to do it in fact together and bring the wonders of broadband to every community in this country. that has to be the end result. i call upon the distinguished ranking mem from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, first i want to extend what i know is everyone of us concern about

that horrible disaster that happened in your state and i know that your being there was very comforting for the victims families but also, i know that it was probably very difficult personally to meet with people who had experienced such a loss. so all of us relate to what you have done and said and we hope that there can be mine safety measures that will protect the people who work in those mines in the future. i do want to also address both the broadband issue, which of course is the subject of this hearing. but there's no question that we're going to discuss the recent court case that has been decided that is going to also have a huge impact

on, i think, internet surviveability for the future. let me first say that there are some good parts of the broadband plan that the commission has brought to us today. and, certainly the series of recommendations on the reform of universal service fund is because it provides support for low income americans to have access to tell communications capabilities. lower the cost of building infrastructure in areas. also i think the focus that the commission has on make sure that anchor institutions such as library is, schools and universities, and hospitals and have priority is also very good. i also believe there are concerns raised in this report. i will start with the,

broadcaster voluntary effort to give back some of the spectrum. we've just complete pleated digital television transition.ñi it was very expensive for broad taskers-- broadcasters but we've got enthrough it. some of the spectrum was reclaimed from broadcasters. asking them for more is probably not fair but what concerns me even more is the agency reference to involuntary measures that might require more from the broad cast terse after already gone through expensive transition in compliance with the requirements of congress. so, i know many of us will

be monitoring the commission's activities in this area very closely. and i hope there will not be heavy hand of involuntary requirements. further, i'm disappointed there are not enough incentives for investment, for, private investment as was suggested in a bill i introduced last year that i think would provide volunteer, truly volunteer incentive for broadcasters to invest in underserved or rural areas. and i think that would allow broadcasters and other providers to be creative and innovative and have an incentive to do it. my bill also would provide a review of the large number of federal programs that support broadband, to see if we can streamline some of

them. that too was not adequately addressed in your report. so i think, taking some of the broadband that is available, perhaps, excess, using it, in a better way, to streamline and investment incentives should be a part of any plan going forward in the future. the really big concern i want to address is the fcc's growing regulatory policy. you just heard of the other side of the argument from the chairman and i am very concerned that the commission is going to overstep its congressional authority and by means of bending the curve, perhaps to do it. i think that if you look at the history of the regulatory, really, soft touch, that, we have had on the internet, that that has

been a positive. it has promoted innovation and we have seen, really, a good consumer out come, more consumers choices, at a better price because we have opened the doors, rather than having the heavy hand of regulation that would begin to restrict private companies, that build and maintain a core communications network and to be able to manage their own facilities. i'm concerned there are more and more calls from the heavy footprint even though we've seen success of light footprint, which is or has been the fcc's policy starting in about 2002. now we have the comcast case, which, i think comcast certainly had the right to appeal. that the fcc did not have

the congressional authority in the law to say that they could not manage their own networks and the court ruled in comcast's favor. now, we hear that there is a, an effort to now, go into the band area and, really go back to, the old kind of regulation that i think is going to stifle the evolution that we have seen in the internet. companies that didn't exist 10 years ago are now titans of the industry. and, i think that, we have seen the good effects that. the proclamations last week that the decision left the

band market without any consume protection agency, ignore the fact that the most robust consumer protection regulation industry the federal communications commission, had broad jurisdiction. the fcc removed common carrier regimes from these technologies and would be eliminated if the fcc reverses that decision and i think thereby, would harm the consumers by reducing their available protections. in my judgment if the fcc that chairman genachowski appear to be reconsidering, reclassify broadband as common carrier service and without a directive from congress and thorough analysis of and potential consequences to investment the legitimacy of the agency would be seriously compromised. i hope, and i am asking you today, to step back, and consider the consequences of

such a decision, and whether there are alternatives that we can work to clarify the authority of the fcc while preserving the environment that encourages up investment, and creativity is the unique quality of american technology. i hope we can find mon ground. the as the chairman he is willing to dive into this as he believes that, that he briefs you don't have statutory authority or not able to get it. this will be a vigorous debate, mr. chairman and, i look forward to having it. i hope that we can do something in a way that will achieve the goal that i think all of us have which is more choices at a better price for consumers. and, also, make sure that we don't stifle innovation. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you very much, senator. and now senator ensign. senator kerry i'm told is on way. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and also thank you, mr. chairman for being here today. the plan that you put forth is an ambitious, thought provoking document, that aims high, doesn't sidestep the difficult politically charged issue. the dedication and tireless effort of the fcc staff is on display throughout the 376s and mr. chairman, you and your staff are to be commended for all their hard work. despite all that effort however, i'm somewhat pointed with how the plan has turned out. the plan begins by saying the government should play a limited role in the broadband ecosystem but then it follows up with dozens and dozens of recommendations to do exactly the sit. as i learn more about the national broadband plan i

see a lot more federal spending, a lot more fcc regulation and a lot more government involvement in broadband. there's billions of dollars for broadband subsidies, a brand new digital lit a core, mandates for cable tv boxes and broadband digital labels and suggestion that heavy-handed regulations like net neutrality unbundling are needed. what i don't see many recommendations to get the government out of the way of one of our nation's most innovative, successful and competitive industries. the number of americans who have broadband at home has grown from eight million, in 2000, to nearly 200 million last year. even in the worst of times the private sector, wall street, continued to put money deploying and improving country's broadband networks. by the fcc's own data broadband providers invested well over $100 billion in their own networks over the last two years in spite of the recession. i simply do not see any

signs of growth, market failure that might warrant the government spending tens of billions of dollars to sunsy dies broad or using heavier hand to regulate the marketplace. i'm not only one who can see the fcc's justification for all this intervention. "the washington post" editorial board agrees with me, saying quote, such an assessment is premature at best. before it makes a single recommendation, the national broadband plan admits that technologies costs an consumer recognizes are changing too quickly in a dynamic part of the economy to make accurate predictions. that is a direct quote. and i completely agree with it. but then the plan spends next 300 plus pages making predictions about technology costs and consumer preferences in order to justify its 200 or more recommendations. while i do have concerns with many of the

recommendations of the plan, i do want to give, don't want to give the impression that there's nothing of value in the report. in particular, i applaud the plan to place, places so much importance on finding more spectrum for wireless broadband. congress and fcc need to develop a comprehensive, long-term trump policy and the national broadband plan helps to start that critical log. i look forward to work my colleagues and with the fcc in a bipartisan manner, to engage all spectrum stakeholders to assure america keeps pace with the coming mobile revolution. the plan would stop universal service fund from subsidizing multiple competitors. would reform, inner carrier compensation, would increase spectrum flexibility and have some interesting ideas on maximizing infrastructure utilization. i look forward to learning more about these recommendations and many other contained in the national broadband plan during this hearing and coming weeks an months.

just one last comment on the comcast versus fcc decision. this is clearly had a major impact on the future of our country's broadband policy. the d.c. circuit correctly, in my view upheld the view that the fcc does not have the unfettered power to regulate the internet. i hope that the commission will continue its successful light touch approach as was described by my colleague senator hutchison. to the internet and will now abandon what i believe was a mis-hit guided pursuit of net neutrality regulations. so i look forward to hearing from the chairman how he think the decision will affect other parts of the national broadband plan. one last comment, to you, mr. chairman, is that nevada is the most urbanized state in the country. what that means is, we have the most distance in our rural areas and probably, even though it might not affect a huge pop, we have a lot of people out there that have tremendous places, that,

don't have coverage. having said that i do believe that the private sector is more the answer than the government in, in trying to reach those last parts of our population who are currently underserved. and i think through the right incentives the private sector will more than meet the challenge. i thank you for holding this hearing. . .

at no broadband at all, studies place the u.s. 18th when it comes to important attributes of broadband adaption and speed record showed roughly 65% adoption in the u.s. compares to much higher percentages over 90% in other countries in europe. one study links the u.s. a of innovative competitiveness and the 40 if all of the 40 countries surveyed in the latest change of innovative capacity.

that is unacceptable. second, certain communities within the u.s. are lagging. for all americans, low-income americans, minority seniors, tribal communities, americans with disabilities, for these groups adoption rates are lower than 65% which is itself not good enough. altogether 93 million americans are not connected to broadband at, including 13 million children and 40 million americans don't have access to broadband even if they bought it. again, and acceptable. our plan is a plan of action, a plan that is that strong as it is not a logical and nonpartisan. it to plan such imposition goals including access for every american to robust and affordable broadband service and to the skills it subscribed broadband speed of of least one gigabyte to at least one a library, school or other public institution of the country and affordable 100 megabits per second to 100 million households

the real world leading renovation for the fast most extensive wireless networks of any nation access for every first responder to a nationwide interoperable broadband public safety network. in addition to these and other bulls the pleas of the most sensible and efficient action plan for achieving them. it proposes a once in a generation transformation of the universal service fund from yesterday's technology to tomorrow. it proposes recovering and unleashing a license and on license spectrum's we can lead the world and mobile. it proposes ways to cut red tape, were the cost of private investment and exarate deployment of lawyer and wireless networks. it proposes initiatives to foster a migrant and content of markets and in power consumers and proposes a road map to tackle high level inclusion challenges so that everyone everywhere can enjoy the benefits of broadband and propose ways of which brought and can be deployed to solve many of the nation's major challenges including education, health care, energy and public safety.

public safety designed to finally deliver on the recommendations of the 9/11 commission that reason are operable, indications for first responders and i am pleased the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 commission as well as of the bipartisan members endorsed the plan, the national world and the families of. against this backdrop, last week we announced a broadband action plan to implement a broadband plan. i would like to note that we started to act even before we did the plan. we adopted rules several months ago to give more flexibility to schools, to have schools under the program be available for broadband and we adopted rules to lower the cost of investments by speeding up for mobile broadband so we've been acting already. in the plan be released last week which is an unprecedented step in the agency planning and transparency we propose a more than robust scheduled issues to consider and actions to take in the period ahead.

not withholding a decision and the comcast case im constant the commission has the authority it needs to implement a broadband plan. whatever flaws may have existed in the special actions to believe the communications act amended in 1996 enables the commission before universal service to connect everyone to broadband communications including rural areas and native american communities to take steps to ensure we lead the world of mobile for most competition and innovation on broadband networks, protect and in power all consumers of broadband communications, support a robust use of broadband to drive business expansion and job creation and safeguard public security in safeguard public safety homeland security. i believe it is vitally important of the commission acts on the broadband plan's road back to protect americans global competitiveness and helped deliver the extraordinary benefits of broadband to all americans. i believe it is essential

consistent with communications act and i can assure the kennedy actions will be rooted in sound legal foundation designed to promote investment, innovation, competition, and the interest of consumers. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will start with senator hutchinson and senator jordan and senator john heinz and go on from there in order of arrival. as i noted at the outset, mr. chairman the national broadband plan has more than 200 recommendations and whatever it is, 371 pages. it had recommendations for the department of defense, recommendations in the department of transportation can't afford a vacation, department of labor, a department of justice, national institute of standards and technology, academy of sciences, fruit and drug administration

and is for mothers. in fact, it says bayh towns i got help on congress should 159 times. now, this just simply begs the question and effort of this magnitude, what are your priorities for the fcc coming out of this plan? >> the priorities i think are clearly articulated in the plan. one is reform and update the universal service fund so broadband communications can reach every american including oral areas, respond to the issues you made in your opening statement with respect to those wired and wireless broadband. second, making sure we lead the world in mobile by having enough spectrum available to take advantage of the huge opportunity for investment innovation, job creation that we have. third, making sure we deliver on the 9/11 commission

recommendations with respect to a public safety network and that the communications networks and data networks are protected against a tax. fourth, that we promote a vibrant competition on our broadband communications networks and fifth that we protect and in power consumers with respect to broadband communications wherever they live. >> what i am interested in is at tool decisions and plans and things ready to go as i indicated at the meeting hearing we had some time ago when the plan came to us that there would be -- we would be off and running. i don't get that impression from this. what i want to see is real change and i want to see that happening for the real consumers wherever they live. on the fcc's legal authorities

of the comcast, as you acknowledge in your testimony last week the district columbia issued the decision that creates new complexities for you, for all of us. to better understand this let's go back to the beginning the case before the court began with comcast customers discovering the company was interfering with their use of certain internet applications. the fcc then found comcast had a, quote, significantly impeded consumers' ability to access internet content and applications of their choice. so my question is simple as a result of the court changes and the court decision what happens if comcast engages in the same practices today? >> mr. chairman the first in the case reminds us is that requirements to preserve free and open interest have been in place for quite some time. they were adopted by partisan

commission several years ago before i got there. what we have been seeking to do at the fcc is make sure that there is a sound legal foundation under it. there were process issues and the decision and i think we see some of those the consequences of that. we need in my opinion to make sure the free and open architect of the internet, the understanding that participants in broadband have that walking degrading taking advantage of consumers as unacceptable that we continue that. these are policies that have promoted not only consumer interest but investment, innovation, competition, and i think it is essential the freedom, the openness in the internet for consumers, speakers, entrepreneurs continue. >> that is impressive almost a one diet. what are the results? >> with respect to broadband --

>> when are we going to see things happening? it's a wonderful report and it has all kind of wonderful visions of life that i don't see how it helps any of my people when west virginia accept as a vision as a purpose. i don't see action plans. >> mr. chairman, if i could, we've released last week something that's been on president for the commission. detailed plans for over 50 real actions by the commission that will help ordinary americans and if i may even before we release the broadband plan when we found a good ideas we could act on we took them so we identified a problem with of the program. where the schools could not use their facilities to support people in the community and rather than waiting for the broadband planned to be released, we said this is an idea that's right, let's do it. before we issued broadband plan we took that action and schools are now able to use the eve rate funding for a broader purpose is to help their communities. similarly with respect to mobile

we identified over the course of the plan obstacles to mobile companies in some cases building of their networks to rule america and we adopted rules that are speeding up the towers that are necessary for mobile broadband to rule out. as we've already taken actions and the stuff of the commission is hard at work every day to continue to act for consumers to promote investment to promote innovation and to extend the opportunity of broadband to all americans. >> sounds good mr. chairman. my time is up. >> senator hutchins. >> when you say that you are adopting so many different ways to improved the capability for more consumers to have internet access of broadband, why didn't you also include a

recommendation to have an incentive for a private company to make these types of investments, wouldn't that vastly expand the opportunity for more consumers and couldn't it be a born of the very many recommendations that you made? >> senter if i made the plan remains the because competition to incentivize greater investment. it takes a look at right of we issues, other obstacles to investment will bring the cost of investment to incentivize faster investment greater investment, broader deployment is a core objective of the plan and there's a number of recommendations in the plan designed to do that. i hope we call them. if there are any that we missed we would be happy to work with you because there is no question that private investment will drive the build of and deployment of broadband networks that incentivizing that making sure there is competition is

essential. >> so you would look at another type which would be an incentive for private companies to make the investment so that the government wouldn't be the only source? >> we would be happy to work with you on that. >> on the issue of the net new trouble before making let me just add i sent you a letter a while back saying is they're basically the need for this, are there a lot of complaints? is their something in the records that show that there is a need to start to being heavy in the regulatory area. my question is has the commission conducted an economic analysis that would indicate that there is the need for more regulation when the sort of later regulatory hand has produced so many good results in the last ten years?

>> senator, the bipartisan commission several years ago adopted open internet rules and since then i think there's been large compliance with them. i agree in a light touch approach but i think the commission had already concluded that these kinds of steps are essentials. we launched a proceeding that was designed to address a number of the procedural issues that existed and clarify it to bring a greater certainty and predictability to this area and to make sure that we preserve the freedom and openness of the internet for competitors, entrepreneur, innovators and speakers. i'm confident we can do that and i'm confident we can do that in a way that's consistent with a light touch approach to adopting rules in this area. >> i would agree with you that the commission policy that was bipartisan was to open it and basically have the light touch

but i think the comcast decision by the court should be at least a warning flag to the fcc that it is a heavy hand that the commission doesn't have the authority from congress to actually use and that it overstepped its bounds and what is your interpretation of the court opinion if you differ from mine? >> my focus has been on polis principles in this area like promoting investment in addition, promoting competition, taking seriously the need of consumers everyday and we've developed through the broadband plan and otherwise a set of concrete action steps to get their reforming universal service making sure that we unleash mobile promoting competition promoting the interest of small businesses, the engine of job creation and

economic growth in our economy. there is a series of areas we've been working very hard to identify the policies that still will promote the global competitiveness of the united states and the interest of all consumers. that is what i am focused on. we inherited a landscape that had more unpredictability and stability than i would have liked. the court decision rewinds us of that we have an obligation to make sure as we protect and in power consumers and promote innovation and investment that our decisions are on solid legal foundation and there are lawyers obviously hard at work on this. i'm convinced we can find a way consistent with a light touch in this area but consistent with being serious about promoting innovation protecting consumers and promoting investment that we can get to a place that works for the country and promotes the global competitiveness of the united states. >> i would just say that many of the commentators are concerned

that all of this process is going to mean we are going to send dee dee to spend a lot of money on lawyers and not so much on innovation and it's been to cause more confusion and instability and investment than what i think you're stating and i agree with the goal is to have more investment, more openness, more competition and more availability for consumers so i just hope you will keep the light touch as much a part of your thinking as all of the process and by trying to define so much maybe having more money spent on lawyers and innovation. thank you. >> thank you, senator hutchison. senator dorgan. >> thank you. mr. genachowski, first from abroad and plan i want you to make things happen and make good things happen, so i support what you're trying to do and i know that the devil is in the details

but i want you to implement an aggressive broadband plan and i want to talk about this issue of net neutrality what i call internet freedom. i'm not a big if in of the light touch as a matter of fact and i don't want overregulation for sure but a decade ago we had regulators come to town boasting about a day with a light touch and at the end of the decade we discovered six, eight, ten years of willful blindness by referees is not the way to deal with a free marketplace. the free marketplace is a wonderful place where the markets are important and you need a referee with a whistle to call fouls and the fcc is a referee and i want you to have a touch that is to protect the interest of the people and citizens to use the internet. this is an unbelievable innovation in our lives, unbelievable. let me ask a couple of questions. isn't it the case the internet was built, developed and began to flourish under the rules that existed in the rules, quote come

on discriminations. the nondiscrimination requirement represented the way that the internet was created and the purpose of it was to make sure the marketplace would pick winners and losers not some gatekeeper or not some tollbooth that had the money and the size they would pick winners and losers is that correct? >> that is correct. spread without nondiscrimination rules perhaps in a dorm room someplace ten years later they would become google might never have access to north dakota who wishes to access the web site because they perhaps couldn't afford to pay the tolls someone wanted to expect and let me quote mr. whiteaker the famous quote going back to at&t saying these are my pipes i don't want someone using my pipes free of charge and so it goes and so the question is who with her new idea has access to get on the

internet or to present their idea to everyone in the world without discrimination so now we have a circumstance where the nondiscrimination rules are gone because the fcc determined that the internet was a communications service rather than telephone service and used i believe title i. but even when they did that, even that difference fcc said we are going to establish for principles attached to it but forgot and left out the principal of nondiscrimination which is persuaded olympia snowe and myself and others to fight a very hard to say you can't possibly go down the road here and say that we are against a nondiscrimination policy with respect to the internet. the opposition is to say no we are for discrimination policies. the policy piece we choose and so but me ask the question about what does this court case mean and what are your alternatives to respond to it because i when you to respond to it

aggressively to the end stage of which were able to develop the principles to recreate the nondiscrimination rules with all these existing we are buying these days as consumers bundled products internet, telecom service all in a big bundle of and now we are told welcome this internet, this unbelievable innovation and the lifetime should be over here and not subject to the nondiscrimination rules under which the internet started and enforced. what are your options? >> i agree with your description of history and the description of what we are trying to do as preserving openness of freedom that has existed for a very long time that was made binding by the prior condition and that needs to continue. to me that is the focus. there are legal issues now that we have to address in view of the decision and lawyers.

on identifying the way to move forward based on the legal foundation. i'm convinced we have that authority under the communications act and i trust our lawyers working with all the lawyers negative interest here to have an legal foundation for preserving the freedom and openness of the internet and make sure the next generation of the entrepreneur is have a better chance and consumers of internet services are protected. >> i think there are two ways ahead. one is using your existing authority it was after all the fcc was decided to take internet out of title to it and put it in title i and thereby abolish the nondiscrimination rules so if you have that opportunity, a couple of other opportunities and of course the congress has an opportunity to address that but between now and the end of the year is likely that congress is when to be addressing it so i think we are going to have to look to the fcc to do it because the fcc unraveled in the first place. you have the capability using

existing authority in different ways to address it but again i did want to just say that there's a lot of language are around network neutrality, internet freedom, all these things. really comes down to the plight of the head here that we have always had a nondiscrimination requirement saying that the big interest that now can begin with a lot of this can not discriminate. and so that is the basis of the debate that senator snowe and i have worked on this for a long while and i hope the end stage of this is on behalf of american consumers to restore the nondiscrimination rules. i don't want to in any way injure innovation, the growth of the internet but the fact is it was created and grew under the very rules we are trying to reestablish so listen, i hope that you will not shy away from

taking positions here and making tough choices of doing what you need to do on behalf of the american consumer as a regulator. that is the rule of the fcc. thank you for being there and for taking my advice. >> thank you, senator dorgan. senator johan stifel goodbye -- >> i thought i was next. i was here when you baffled. >> well i'm not going to get into a fight. i am going to call on senator johanns and then senator john ensign and senator isaacson and senator begich. >> mr. chairman, thank you. chairman rockefeller i appreciate the fact that you take on these tough issues and this is a tough policy issue. mr. sherman with me if i might focus on a statement you made a couple of times and it's in your written testimony, and the

statement is you believe that you have the power and the authority within the communications act to implement a broadband plan. now i read a part of that plan to talk about net neutrality and that is on page 58 in a plan. now here's where i'm coming from on that. i look at the comcast case and there's something in this case in the very first paragraph that tells me a lot the courses in this case who must decide whether the federal communications has the authority to regulate an internet service providers network management practices and goes on to say in the second sentence of this very lengthy opinion and it has no

express statutory authority over such practices the commission and the commission goes on to put forth this argument that you've got this incidental authority. now here is where i site us to that as i start my questioning today. as a former cabinet member there were many things i felt were just in a fair and would be well received the first question i always asked legal counsel was to have the authority to do this. senator dorgan and i agreed on payment limits. we might have a different approach but i didn't have the authority to do that on my own and my first question to you is the commission has already conceded that you don't have that expressed authority to

implement net neutrality under title one. isn't that the case? >> i don't agree with that, sir -- >> where is the authority? blight of the comcast courts find that authority? >> the comcast corporation found a series of problems with the process and reasoning by the commission and the comcast case which is clearly spelled out in the opinion. let me say that there is a series of very important public policy objectives extending broadband to rural america protecting and in powering consumers making sure the business, but these boat together and it is the essential for our competitiveness, for the economy, for all americans that we to get rich to the conditions act that's consistent with the purpose of the connections act and stitch for language to your point of legal counsel completely agree we will not do anything that isn't supported by council where we can't make the decision and this is with a

number of 40 of the statute. >> under comcast you've already been told. this case is very specific saying you don't have the authority to do this. even some of your own commissioners got to look commissioners are acknowledging it would not have the authority here we will go under title ii; is in that case? >> you have to ask my colleagues but i can assure you that anything else we do in the areas concerning communication will have a solid legal foundation. that is our goal that that is our responsibility. islamic the second piece of me zeroth if i might on title, not to because one of the commissioners set looks good on the title ii route. here's my problem with that. i've reviewed the order of the commission, 2002, cable modem order, 2005, wireline broadband order. 2007, wireless brought an order and 2005 brand x case that again

makes it very clear to me that there is no way legally the you could go under title ii to try to regulate here in a way that would get you see authority. would you agree with that? >> our council is in the process of evaluating working with all of the outside counsels who are interested and i understand there are a number of different options and possibilities and prior decisions have closed the doors on a solid bases and communications act to proceed on universal service and small businesses consumers on promoting competition innovation here's the difficulty already i've run out of time and my hope is to have another round here but it is fundamental stuff but here is where you are at i think. i think even-handed the cat in

your hand by the comcast case. i think under your own prior ruling and commission's rulings and under the brand x case you can't go to title ii. it would be like remaking the world a bottom line is this if you want to make policies would you need to do is pay the filing fee do a lot of parades', raise money and start at this end of the table. it's just a situation where congress isn't giving you the power you are attempting to a search under portions of the broadband plan and we and congress should tell you that and so any court that the review this record i want them to understand that as a senator i don't believe you have the power and i think the courts are telling you that and the only solution to that is there for a come back and work for us to try

to work through these differences of policy implications. does that make sense to you? >> i would look forward to working with you and the committee on a pass for word that accomplishes what i think our broad goals around that we've been discussing suggests. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. now senator isaacson. >> you spooked me. it says that right here. >> i think it's important to drill down on this a little further title i versus title ii. are you currently considering switching from title xii title ii? >> i've constructed our lawyers to take the recent decisions to raise logical decisions seriously and to evaluate what our options are so it instructed them to look at the policies i think the congress and the commission have been clear about

and determined solid legal foundation in the past to move forward. >> would be my hope obviously i disagree with senator dorgan on this. he wants you to go to title: to because he doesn't think we have the time here and i would agree with that we don't have the time i hope once again is legislatively to enact net neutrality but if you take it down that track i think it is a very dangerous thing to do. my personal belief is this is regulation looking for a problem. this is as senator hutchinson mentioned as far as the studies there's the economic studies to determine the this is a problem out there. i would ask -- let's just to get hypothetical the other direction. what if you had a large user of the pipes to the point where that large user actually degraded somebodies chance for getting on the pipes.

under that scenario the person who is without having to come to the sec -- fcc to ask permission to regulate that and so that we are not degrading the person who is a smaller user shouldn't the person that owns the pipes people to manage those pipes in a way that makes sense that keeps the internet free >> senter we try to be clear that reasonable network management is appropriate is consistent with principles of preserving free and open internet. it is a situation though what can happen in the world of networked a truck body that's been proposed out there is that you can end up with the situation of an unintended consequences to where networks can get jammed up.

the more and more technology that comes out there the more and more users on the internet and sometimes these are large companies that can use the internet they make for a feasibility of others to have their services degraded to perhaps even the will to knock them off of it at various times of the internet and so the point that i am making is i disagree with senator dorgan. i think the internet has been fabulously successful even since the case where it was taken from title ii to title i has been successful in fact we have had exponential growth and i think we are going to continue to have that with a light touch. if we get into heavy touch if there was a problem out there that was specifically of the studies and was showing economic harm to the country, you know, it might be a different story but we are certainly not seeing the kinds of widespread problems or hardly even isolated problems

to address a major policy change such as network in trouble the. i hope you're cautious as we move forward and i agree with senator johanns this is something the congress should deal with with multiple hearings and make it the policy makers at your instead of taking it at the fcc so i appreciate all the work you all are doing. i know you have a difficult job in this technical area. is to make is that it? okay. senter isaacson >> would you classify internet from number one to number two? >> we haven't settled on a path forward we are focused on the policy objectives abroad for america and consumers and small businesses that we have been specific. >> would have used the term we do you think it ought to be changed from classification one to two?

>> i haven't made any decisions yet. we are evaluating the court decision and my focus has been on policies to promote economic growth, job creation and the issues we've talked about. >> and this is often difficult question. spaghetti with internet access from one to two would you to be consistent want to move reclassified internet services and other applications as well? >> i'm not sure i ever stand the question but because we are in the process my focus has been how do we make sure that all consumers and small businesses and investors can have a claim that we maximize the benefits to all americans and there are issues included here make sure rural america had a fair chance and broadband small business is how consumers and these are central issues for us every day in central issues of the communications act commend the condition that makes it clear

which of the conservative rural america and about consumers and small businesses and investment innovation and in a changing world these are difficult challenges and i acknowledge that. >> this is just an opinion question. when we went to through to the telecommunications questions we wrote the deregulation just to the kids or -- two decades. among the new products and innovations in the company's common businesses that exist because of it. do you think too much regulation is an and had better to getting the benefits of technology like broadband and like the internet. i think it's important to make sure any rules and regulations in this area are narrowly tailored and designed to promote innovation and address economic issues as the ephemeral america and other aspects of broadband

communications to have the tools necessary but no more >> i appreciate all of the words in that answer but particularly the word promote the one word of the internet is what we're looking to for the future but to the wireless broadband to get to the areas where the information has never been before but why would call -- i've been reading your report and there is a variant on page 73 recommendations 136i will read the recommendation because it think the commission is saying to the recommendation but i am trying to say it says congress should consider eliminating tax and regulatory barriers to to work. this is a section where you promote a telecommunications, tell working is something maximizing the environmental and that and everything else but most of our labour laws overtime laws and many regulations that come under the department of labor are from the congress

today actually are inhibitors and the work and the use of the wireless broadband or broadband technology. so in your own free part you reference the restraints that regulation can bring to restrict the expansion and the use of a benet at flake internet access and broadband so full that a long as you go through the decisions that you made >> thank you mr. chairman. a >> center begich. >> i'm not going to get into them and a majority or freedom. i don't intend to be dated. as a bunch of my friends are and lawyers and i don't intend to be one either. i will leave that to the process you are going through. i want to be very frank with you in a very parochial and then i have a couple of questions i want to put on since i've heard some debate here but i know as you move forward on universal

service fund and that is your first stage i know i have harassed you before but i hope that you can be in alaska prior to that because the use of the u.s. fund is pretty critical for us and i would hope that you can make that commitment again and you are working on it in your offices and we are badgering you every week so to us that is important that you lived on the path aggressively on the u.s. fund and if you have a comment i would appreciate that. >> the other is with regards to as you world outdoor plan one of the things you had is the office of tribal affairs and tribal seats on the board was your timetable for that? >> let me get back with a specific timetable but it's very important to us to identify in the plan the incredible shortcomings on the tribal

homeland native americans with respect to communications and we to get very seriously and we look for to working with you on moving forward quickly. >> please let us know the timetable, and again, coming to alaska yes, no? >> yes, as soon as i can. looking forward to it. >> before you go too far down the road on universal fund reform. >> i will do everything i can to get to alaska as soon as i can and i am looking forward to it. >> we will be on the phone every three days. laughter could let me ask again, your plan is much broader than that and you have great stuff on education, health care which again for ballistic like negative 20 doggett balk hi, expansions and efforts there. but i want to go to the original question that the chairman asked and i know when we do plans when i was the mayor we we said the plan and then the workflow with specific details. i know you've laid out several things that you are aggressive about to get to you have a

workflow scheduled that can say for example item a, b, c, just as you laid out in your release like last weekend the week before these are milestones. that is where i think the chairman was going to play and has a lot of stuff in there and there will be complaints and considerations that we want to get and put on but when we set these out on specific timetables so we can be honest with you and hold the view accountable for what you said you would do. would you have something like that available? >> i think the bureau chief and office cheeps the fcc either have or are working very hard on specific work flows to implement what you saw on the implementation plan but i'm very proud of the implementation plan we've released last week on president in the history of the fcc to produce a transparent plan with a schedule over the

course of the year and a significant volume of factions that was a breakthrough in the sec and i appreciate work of the stuff that went into that. >> i don't disagree i just want to get dates and times that go with it. for example i loved one of the examples you gave which was the utilization of the services that are in schools and that was in alaska xm did plan. thank you for taking the example of using it nationally we thought the rules would be very blunt with you and we are foolish when they first were established. you've discovered that to the new role and need that national program to be appreciated. that is what i want to see and that is important i have to keep glancing at mr. google's clock because i do not have one. to see where i am at one of the concerns i have not only with yours but many others departments to allow the plants

do you have a financial match meaning of the state's resources and as we all know for the years gone by of a lot of this we're in a world of hurt when it comes to the budget of this country do you have something that corresponds with this that says this plan will take this many years and by the way here is what it will cost for the agency to implement this in here is the resources we hope to tap into and if you don't i want to give you the answer if you don't i would highly encourage you to do it because i don't care if it is in this committee or where a trillion plus and that this year in deficit, plans are great but if you don't have the money or the resources to based on the shelf we will be back at it again so give me your approximate and i think my time is up. >> with respect to the resources of the fcc this is an issue that comes up when i speak with the bureau chief about doing more

and faster one of the challenges that they each have in doing their work are the resources at the fcc themself, so it is obviously something we pay for a close attention to, we have a budget cycle at the fcc also with respect to congress with respect to the funding like universal service fund is in a different area and of course we take the series with issues there but you're point is well taken and i would like to follow-up with you on that. estimate the of a point, mr. chairman thank you very much for your presentation today. >> are you finished, senator begich? >> yes only because my clock is out of time. mr. udall moved his cup. i would keep going. >> which is a pity. [laughter] cynics senator pryor, senator mccaskill, senator brownback, senator soon and klobuchar. -- before mr. chairman and chairman genachowski good to

have to be for the committee again and also want to thank you for coming to arkansas. it was a great trip and i appreciate you getting a sense of the lay of the land there. let me start with the universal service fund. i support the reform that you're talking about i'm concerned about the impact it may have on our small companies to offer land mine service because they do depend on the u.s. funding in order to provide the quality and affordable service that they do. can you walk me through quickly how the fcc plans to ensure the local carriers still get with the small local carriers get with the need to provide service in rural areas and still accomplish the goals for trying to play out speed there was an extraordinary team that worked on these issues as part of the plan to find a way where broadband communications, high-speed data communications can be supported in fogle

arkansas and other parts of the country to move from where we are now aware of the fund is supporting yesterday's technology to a world it is supporting today's technology but to do it with certainty without flash kutz that create more problems. it's a challenge and the plan lays out from beginning to end starting right away but over ten years doing the conversion and i believe we can start making progress immediately to the offer companies but finding a way to shift the program to the new communications services the people really need without having slash cuts that would disrupt existing the alliances and dependencies on the program. >> do you anticipate having an increase to do this? >> the plan is to not increase the rate of growth of the fund that would be the easy thing to

do to say we have this fund now let's add to it with broadband and we didn't think that is fiscally prudent. we also want to avoid flash kutz. and the design of the plan is to have the shift over a period of time without increasing the growth of a fund but without cutting it back. >> and can you tell the committee a little bit about the mobility fund and halvey are targeted and how many states are considered below the national standard? >> this gets to a pitcher man started without the beginning. we want to make sure that as we are focusing on the next generation broadband communications that we are not leaving behind basic mobile services where i have an 18 year old driving and i absolutely want them to have brought and access where he lives in the country but if he gets into an accident how to make sure wherever he is we can call 911 on his mobile phone or me or whoever he needs of the plan sets out a path to tackle both

of these challenges. not easy of course, not easy in a time where fiscal restraint is important. i think it will be an ongoing topic to talk about and work on together. but these are both very important goals i personally feel very strongly about. >> and this may be my last question because i may run out of time that the old issue of the enter carrier compensation, i know that as you go through the reform process your note to me that is one of the things that has to be solved through the whole process with the trigger compensation and you don't want the carriers providing the services all the way for the system like you're supposed to and you are not being compensated for it so do you as you're working for the transition and changes to you feel like the fcc has a plan and a commitment to keep in tricare your compensation for the way it should? >> we have a plan and a direction that recognizes the

multiple interdependency is and the complexities and i can't tell you that we have already solved every complex detail problem that's in here we will need help from all of the companies involved all of the stakeholders but we have focused staff understands us very well and it's very focused on the goals laid out in the broadband plan to achieve this and that recognizes that we will need to rely on private companies in rural america to continue to deliver the services to people who were there. but we also are on a track as you with the universal service fund if we don't start to reform it, we face the danger of the thing itself collapses. so we want to get out ahead of that and we have had three good conversations with local phone companies who are coming in with different ideas and approaches to work on a transition and they are at the point now we

acknowledge the importance of transitioning so they can offer all of their customers modern bride and communication. sprick before i relinquish the microphone here i want to thank the chairman and rest of the commissioners and the fcc staff for the hundreds maybe thousands of hours we put into reading this document. a zillion different meetings and details worked through the thank you for doing that. >> thank you, senator. senator mccaskill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to talk about the spectrum. i see how my life has changed over the last ten years as it relates to the usage of broadband and recently got jury recently my husband got a.m. ipad for his birthday and i have

had my hands on it more than he has, and i will tell you i am confident that there will be massive changes in the way that we are entertained and where we are entertained in how we are entertained by products coming over broadband and i looked out a few minutes ago and almost every head was down because they were all typing. the entire audience is transcribing this hearing and sending it to whoever they work for and whoever the company is interested and clearly this is finite. now if we have time we can talk about where this 300 are coming from and how we accept the tv stations are about the idea some of it is when to come from them. but at the end of the rainbow,

we are all being used and when there is no more left what happens? to poor people get squeezed out and rich people who can afford to do with my family does, the big old hogs when it comes to bandwidth? much less small businesses that have seven servers in their basement and are not paying any more than my mom who plays bridge and checks your e-mail once a month? while the plan is great i don't see you getting to that ultimate pressure point what do we do in this country when we've run out of spectrum? >> solving this problem is important for the economy, small businesses, consumers, and i don't think there is any single solution. recovering spectrum is necessary but it's not sufficient and i think that is the point of the question. we need to encourage and incentivize the new technologies

that process information over the spectrum more efficiently. we need to find ways to do that near-term and also look at the longer term are and c-span and think about whether there is enough spending going into that long-term to solve this because it is an important challenge for the country. we have to look at all of our spectrum policies to make sure they are promoting the most efficient use of spectrum and secondary markets and we have to make sure we have the climate and set of policies promoting business models and that have the right incentives so that a combination of smart policies in the market and technologies can solve this. if we solve it we can lead the world and in mobile and have it be an extraordinary engine for job creation and innovation for the united states for years to come. if we don't solve it we will be looking back in a number of years singing why do the other countries job ahead of us? right now we know that we can have the best mobile innovation and we are happy here in the united states. i believe we have to tackle the problems so that is true in five

years and ten years as well. >> i know i just cd in the coming and i hope the technology is difficult that allows us to get more out of the spectrum we have without having to cross people out of it and that is touched on before but i am fearful and i think it is something the fcc really needs to focus on as you move towards the future of the economy in this country and your role in it more importantly the role of the private sector developing the technology that would do that. let me quickly because i don't have much time left i know that you were talking about a voluntary giving up of the spectrum and we -- i may have questions in writing on that as it relates to the subject of grabbing more spectrum, but adoption, low-income adoption, 95% of households in america have access to broadband but only 45% of low-income households have at so there are

some things in here could you briefly talk about what you see as the best things in here that are going to help us -- is that really in so many ways the keefer economic strengths and economic advancement by many people in this country is that the ability to cross the great digital divide to the world of the internet in the low-income households, can you speak to that briefly? >> very important topic. our work shows there were different reasons for the adoption gap. in some cases affordability and in some cases it is relevant in digital literacy. so the plan that response to the actual cause needs to tackle all of the above. reforming the good of russell service fund would be a lifelong program that tackles for what it. competition policies will help with affordability by incentivizing lower prices. there is a series of other recommendations in the plan that go to relevancy and digital

literacy and digital literacy corps thinking in a very smart we about government services, accelerating the rates at very high percentage of the community that are not the doctors are involved with a dry programs and so the faster that we move to electronic government services we not only save money for the government but we actually can make a dent in the options so i would be happy to follow with you on this. there are a lot of great ideas and we need to pursue all of them and take us from 65% to the goal of 90% in ten years. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. now senator brownback who is not here. senator klobuchar. >> thank you for a much. chairman, i want to thank you for the planet and what you're doing. it's important like everyone else and who mentioned