eventually on a radio station. there is a role as mandated by congress and a role just mandated by the circumstances. this is using our airwaves. and our airwaves belong to the public. and who's paying to say that that guy should not be elected and that he wants -- was a member of a group that he shouldn't have been a member of, we should know what's paying for that. so i don't have a problem with that kind of disclosure. we disclose a lot personally. we need to do more of that. that's just my two cents. now, republican type question since somebody might say i asked a democrat type question or made a comment. this administration has instructed independent agencies to examine and eliminate unnecessary regulations. how is this effort going at the fcc?

commissioner mcdowell do you see an uptick in this effort given your history at the fcc? >> we've been taken our obligation to review unnecessary rules for elimination very seriously. it was something i talked about on very first day as soon as the president issued executive order asking the ipd pent agencies to join the other agencies in doing reviews of rules we said one we're already doing it and we'll continue to do it. we've elem nated over 200 unnecessary regulations. we've eliminated five data collection obligations. we've identified another dozen data collection oxes for elimination. and we'll continue to do that. we run a regular prosoesz to identify outdated rules for elimination. >> can you give me before you

answer just for example, for the record, one that was eliminated? one that we would be familiar with, perhaps. >> they expend both from eliminating rules like ones that were still on the books that apply to telegraph. the regulations that we eliminated they extend from the why is is that still on the books to there are barriers and burdens to innovation investment that shouldn't be there and we should eliminate them. >> i thank the chairman. we have a very good working relationship. he doesn't take it personally when i dissent. it's worth a lot in this town.

i would love to see a comprehensive list of those 200. i don't have one. so that would be helpful. in some cases we would have to vote on them. in other cases we don't have to vote on them. i take them as worthy. there are o200 requirements that have been removed from the books. it's terrific. let's continue that trend. but at the same time let's make sure we're not taking one step forward, two steps back with more regulation. >> but you don't know of any that have been withdrawn? you say there are 200, but you haven't seen that list? >> i don't have the list. i may have voted on a fraction of those, but i haven't seen a comprehensive list of those 200 that might be helpful to disclose that. >> i'm sure that friendly hearing and the example that we set here will allow you guys to share that information so that we know.

chairman, please tell us about your connect to compete initiative and update us on how this effort to increase internet accessiblity to disadvantaged families is working. you know, this is an issue that continues to trouble many of us and it's really a bipartisan thing. we've grown and we've grown in the internet and all these other gadgets and yet we still manage to leave some folks behind. and that's not right. that's not right anywhere. we're not the best in the world -- we're the best in the word as a country. we're not the best at including everybody in these new technologies. what are we doing. about 1/3 of americans who could have broad band don't. as you indicate in a world where for example job postings have moved almost completely online and job applications are in almost all cases required to be submitted online not having access to broad band is a very

big deal. the percentages that i mentioned are highest in particular communities from rural americans the elderly minority communities, there are a number of different reasons for it. there's no silver bullet to moving the needle on adoption. the connect to compete initiative is something that we have great hope for. one of the issues that people face in signing up for broad band is cost. another issue is digital literatesy. some people don't know how to use the computer. they don't know how to upload documents. the cable industry to their credit announced a program to offer low cost broad band $9.95 a month to families who have kids on school lunch programs. and companies -- other companies joined this initiative to help

on the digital literatesy side. microsoft, for example, is offering more courses to help people understand how to use basic software. best buy is deploying its geek squad to help people understand the basics of the internet. this is a bipartisan issue. it's a broad national challenge. and i look forward to working with the committee and with my colleagues to find ways to improve the broad band adoption metrics. >> thank you so much. >> mr. alexander. >> thank you, ma'am. mr. chairman. we're glad to have you here today. you submitted a budget to the congress about 2% above last year's budget and in washington standards that's good. but if you look at some of the other agencies ftc, for instance, 4% less than last

year. since those that you regulate pay that bill, is there anything in your department that could be trimded back a little bit so we could get down to less than 2%? >> i'm concerned if we can accomplish our mission with the budget. we did a lot of work to develop the budget to save as much money as we can. we received a letter from apple and we heard from other device makers very concerned if we have the resources we need to deal with the proliferation of new devices like that ipad. each of those dices has to be certified by the fcc as compliant with missions obligation. i'm concerned about that. i'm concerned about the growing complexity of our word and some of the increase that you mentioned is directly related to

saving money. for example, we proposed data center con some dags initiatives and cloud computing initiatives that will cost i think the number is about $6 million in 2012. but those we project will save about $2.5 billion on an annual basis once they're completed. it's exactly the kind of thing that every private sector company is doing looking to make targeted investments to save money and lower the baseline. >> a minute ago you said about 1/3 of the public could have but don't have broad band. tell me what that means. >> there are two universal broad band gaps. both presenting very significant issues. but they're somewhat different. one is the broad band deployment gap.

there are millions of americans who live in rural areas where there's no broad band infrastructure at all. in our universal service reform that we worked on together commissioner mcdowell and i and our colleagues we sought to reform an outdated program to efficiently drive broad band deployment to rural america where there's no infrastructure at all. and then there's the broad band adoption gap. these are areas where the infrastructure is there, but people haven't signed up. so if you haven't signed up, you can't look for a job online. if your kid is required as part of their school work to be online, they can't do it. we hear from families there's a teenage girl in florida who wrote us to say to do her homework show goes to the library at night and sits outside because the library is closed to get access to their wi-fi because her family doesn't have broad band at home. that's the broad band adoption issue the metric is about 1/3 of americans haven't adopted broad

band. >> one more question. there are few things out there when we're having town hall meetings stir anger anymore than the reports of the cell phones. does the universal service fund buy cell phones for those below poverty? >> there's a program called lifeline that's existed for many years to help low income people have access to basic telecommunication service like a telephone. last month we adopted major reforms to make sure we tackle any waste and inefficiency abuse in those programs. >> i didn't hear an answer. do we buy cell phones for people? >> there's a program that subsidizes communications access and it does subsidize mobile phone use only one per person is

allowed so people can choose under the program between land line access or mobile access. the program is designed to make sure that low income people have access to basic communication service. >> do you have any idea how many phones there are out there that the tax payers have paid for? >> i'd hesitate to guess, but we can get that for you. >> okay. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. thank you chairman and commissioner for being here today. i've got a a couple of questions. i was explaining to the chairman before the hearing began today, i've got a little background in broadcasting in small market radio. i have a couple of questions about that. i know a lot of the discussion has been among public inspection files as it concerns tv broadcasters and what have you. i've got a constituent in my district that owns five radio stations. he also happens to be my father.

when we talk -- it's been a while since i've been in the trade. my relationship to the business now is he interviews me once in a why. but his argument is the onerous recordkeeping that he has to keep specifically in the area of equal opportunity employment. now you have to understand that his business is in an area where there is a pretty significant population of latinos in the area. according to him if i understand his explanation he has to go to great extremes to promote and to try to recruit potential applicants into his operation from a certain ethnic minority or other minorities. and he's finding it increasingly

difficult to do because of the available pool but at the same time the fcc has these requirements for this massive require keeping. i understand this is a small business. we've already eluded to the fact that so many of the things we're talking about, i think the commissioner said it a minute ago, a lot of these businesses are very small businesses. in his case a very, very small business. this is an extraordinary hardship on the company to try to meet these demands. so what gives? >> the, eo obligations are very long standing and serve very worthy purposes. >> i don't dispute that at all. >> i understand that. >> i'm not aware of the specific concerns. i say as a general matter anything that we can do to reduce unnecessary burdens particularly on small burdens we would be very open to looking

at. we do run general proceedings asking for input on how we can reduce unnecessary burdens. i appreciate the question and we will go back and look at any issues in that area and make sure that any recordkeeping requirements are required necessary and efficiently meet the purposes of the rules. >> commissioner? >> well, i'll take a minute to look at that. obviously the requirements are a matter of law and also a good idea. so if they can't be streamlined i would certainly support it as you might have guessed. so we can get working on that. >> fantastic. thank you. i was kind of captivated by the discussion about the inspection file. and i can certainly appreciate the fact that in a kind of digital age we're in right now it shouldn't be a problem to upload a lot of the stuff that would be in a paper file to and john line presence. i guess my question comes down

to what -- do we have mission creep as we call it in the military between fec, fcc. how do we decide and disearn between the two federal agencies who's responsible for what. it appears to me that whef the fcc involved in something that is clearly the matter of the fec. help me understand that. >> to the extent the fec is involved in this area it goes back many, many years part of the public trustee obligations of broadcasters as i mentioned congress codified this in 2002. >> does it -- sorry to interrupt, does it proceed the fec? the -- these rules that go back? >> i'm not sure. i think it might. the basic obligations of broadcasters to make disclosures when it comes to elections and candidates goes back many, many years and has been implemented by administrations of both

parties. in this proeding the question isn't should we change those, add to those, subtract to those, but rather should they move from physical public file to online? you mentioned small businesses and commissioner mcdowell mentioned that as well. one of the suggestions that came in in the record was to look at ways to exempt small businesses from this move or give them more time to make the transition. in general even small broadcasters are engaging with the fcc online and a renewal application haves to be online. they are after all broadcasting and -- but to the extent that there are burden issues that can be addressed those are issues that have been raised on the record and we will look at them. >> commissioner. >> i want to clarify that broadcasters came to us and wanted us to move a lot of these file requirements to be online. but they wanted the political

file component carved out because of the proposed costs. so that's really i think what's at issue here. it's not transparency. it is the cost to broadcasters first of all uploading the old files and maintaining in realtime. i don't think anyone's against disclosure. it's a good point for congress to consider is the fcc is best equipped agency to be in the federal election law business or is is that the rule of the fec. we should keep all that in mind. >> the chairman mentioned earlier today in discussions about the regulatory burdens that have been dropped over time you mentioned specifically fairness. what are the requirements today? help me out understand what in regard to the fairness doctrine what is a requirement today and whether or not there is any initiative underway or thought

process underway to bring back shall we say this fairness doctrine? >> just the opposite. i feel very strongly about the first amendmentfairss doctrine w was a bad first amendment idea from the start and i was pleased to work with my colleagues to eliminate the last vestiges on the books. >> so about a year ago i was giving a speech we were going through i had to ask my legal team to go through the fcc rules to get rid of rules. everyone thought the fairness doctrine died in 1987 and heart of soul of it remained on the books. the fcc decided not to enforce it back in 1987. the chairman i think very graciously took that cue and then got rid of it from our

books. the bilger issue can be when you say fairness doctrine all the phones at radio stations light up and the blogosphere starts to light up as well. there are other ways the fcc can regulate speech through broadcast license renewals. as we go through the media ownership rules which could determine what the licensing term is, eight years, three years, what would be the criteria for getting your license renewed et cetera. it is always important to look at these rules as well. anything that could be the fairness doctrine. mark my words it won't be called the fairness doctrine. we need to keep in mind always. >> i have some questions about broad band to come up later. is the fcc the -- the proponent

agency on -- i won't get this term right, i can explain it the royalty fees paid, artists? it's not under an fcc umbrella. is that correct? >> correct. >> and who's umbrella is that under? >> i don't know. but it's not us. that's all i know. >> that's a good thing. that will save a couple of minutes of my round of questioning. for that i'll yield back. >> and mr. deess ballard. >> thank you very much. good to see you. let me first start by madam chairman, telling you that the commissioner, the chairman and staff have been exceedingly open to myself and to my staff, and i thank you for that. to have the opportunity to nome speak with you but meet with you. i want to thank you for that. we spent a lot of time talking about transparency any a number of different areas. when we were preparing for this meeting and then the issue of light square kind of came back

and we were kind of -- i was kind of ---because since you've been so open to me, i was a little shocked at some of the things i've read about light square. the fact had you a member of the international in essence saying you couldn't get the information. the fcc told him that, the information of that sort is only given to members of relevant committees, which obviously this one would be included in that, but because of that i sort of kind of started digging in a little bit because i was frankly shocked because of the fact you have been open to me and to my staff, but one of the things obviously that, it would be said that was something reportedly contributors, the administration kind of smelled that. but since i don't buy that, we did a little bit of our own digging. what i came up with. something that frankly kind of shocked us a little bit. speaking of transparency. and that's the issue of freedom of information act requests. now, if you look -- if you look

at -- i'll tell you what the source is -- it's the u.s. government website. it's .gov website and look at the freedom of information act request and denials, and according to that website, the fcc is denying more requests freedom of information act requests under this new fcc. than in the past. as a matter of fact, significantly a greater percentage of denials compared to other government agencies. for example, in 2010, the fcc denied 48% of freedom of information act requests while the rest of the government denied only 7.3%. that's a pretty good, darn difference. let me put it in perspective. some of that data, on that

website, indicates that the fcc started denying an unusually number of information requests because of this things called not reasonably described. now, under your watch, fcc denied about . requests based on records that were not, "recently described." not only that is that a huge increase from previous fcc years, only 3% denial, based on that, but much higher n eer tha the cia which i thought was a big deal. the cia denies 0.7% denial rate, the same year on that same issue. so why is the fcc all of a sudden more secrets than the cia when you're dealing with foyer requests? >> i'm not familiar with the numbers and hadn't heard them before. would be happy to look at them

together with you and try to understand the trend. certainly we recognize obligations under foyer and those who request foyer requests and understand their obligation to comply and meet them under law. >> the reason i was taken aback because of the relations i have had and my staff have had and we seem to get information. it seems outside of me, or us, or congress, and even with some members of congress, it seem there's may about difference. because, again, if you look at, for example, those denied for not reasonably described, look at, 16.4% for the fcc. the cia, 0.7%. the nsa, 0.5%. the hs, homeland security, 0.2%. there seems to be a problem here. and that's a huge increase. because just previously it was about 3%.

it was still high. higher than these other agencies, i'm sure there's a reason for it but there seems to be a huge increase in denials of information, particularly on this category, not reasonably described that i don't think shows transparency and it clearly does not reflect the president's call, at least public call, for transparency. so that's, again, because of the relationship, i would like to maybe spend some time with you all and see what's going on there. i think there's a serious issue there and i'm sure a good explanation, but i don't understand what it would be. that's number one. another issue that i also thought i ran into. you were talking about, we were talking about the budgetary issue. about, i guess, your personnel, requests or bas s are basically. is that correct? >> correct. >> one of the things that struck me rather large was, too small i

apologize. complain to my staff about that. particularly within, you know, after, half and half and half, my eyes aren't so good, but it's salaries. the increase on the fcc of employees earning $150,000 or above. so even thoua number of employe may be flat, those making $150,000 or above increased rather dramatically. that's what this chart reflects. >> submit that for the record that would be great if i could. thank you. it's a huge increase of individuals that are now earning over 150% -- $150,000 in salary. so -- let me see if i can get you some of those numbers. in -- jumped from 46 individuals in 2008 to 431 in 2009. to 535 in 2011. that's the pretty substantial

increase. so what changed between 208 and 209 for invees in pay? difference of individuals? i'm not sure what that actually shows us other than the numbers are pretty astonishing. >> circumstance i'm not familiar wit reason for that particular increase. in general the work of the fcc reichs highly skilled engineers, economists, others with advanced degrees to do our work. over time the employee base at fcc has become more and more focused on that as we move from paper to digital and there have been consequences for the employee base in that regard. and so that is part of the reason for the trend. a second is the, and i'm proud of this. the retention at the fcc has been reasonably high and that's affected those numbers as well, but i'd certainly offertory work

with you on understanding the numbers. the work that the fcc does in terms of generating auction revenue, unleashing investment innovation in the space. i am convinced based on my time at the agency absolutely requires first-rate talent, engineering talent. economists, lawyers, and we certainly lose many, many perspective, potential employees, because we can't come close to competing with other offers that they have and that's just life in government and i understand that. >> no, i understand. and, again, because i'm not being accusatory, but when you look at the numbers in 2006. 38 employees if this is totally accurate, and this somewhat we found. by the way, this is from a website, also, federal government website. all this is public, and i do commend you for that. 2006. 3 were 38 employees in your agency running $150,000 or

above. small increase. 2008, 46. basically flat a little, a few less. from 2008, 46 to 431 in 2009. 517 in 2010 and 535. i don't -- you know, i'm not great at math. that's a pretty substantial increase no matter what and we're not dealing with people that went from $75,000 to $85,000 or from $50,000 to $70,000. people making over $150,000. so, again, those are astonishing numbers. i thank you for being open, but you understand that these raise serious questions to mr. alexander who mentioned about maybe you could look at ways to reduce that 2% increase. when you have these increases in salaries, a number of individuals making this much money, these large increases that right there may be where that 2% say loan, and i'd like to sit down with you and further explore this.