went, this is from what i understand to just under $150,000 to jovt year. but we'll work with you and the committee to provide the underlying factual information. >> at the risk of being hard headed and not satisfied with that particular response, let me say it again. that a member of the discerning public you have to agree would look at that discrepancy 46 in 2008, 431 in 2009 unless there is a general support argument like you've indicated that a change in the pay scale which goes back to what i said a minute ago, if everybody, ifdsf a sudden went from $149,000 to in excess of $150,000 overnight, that would be a logical explanation. that's not what we get back, would you agree that's a hard number to

justify. >> >> i would agree that that number needs to be understood. it appears to have taken place before i got to the fcc. in any event we will provide that information to you and the committee and understand that. >> thank you. question. i'm going to make this a softball generalized question. there's been a lot of talk about rural broad band. i represent an area in arkansas that is very cosmopolitan and home to some great companies in america. but i also represent an area of arkansas that is very rural. i mean very rural. so rural that i've got areas in my district that probably don't get til grand ole opry until tuesday it's that rural. i'll have to explain that to my colleague from kansas.

assure me and help me assure rural america that given the tremendous pressure on our public schools and distance learning programs, health care and theimpact that broad band is having on the delivery of health care services and the whole plethora of of other issues impacted. i would go so far as to argue in some cases adequate broad band is as important if not more important than highways where once upon a time in our nation's history. assure me help assure rural america that we're going to do what it takes to get broad band services of sufficient band wird to the people that need it. >> i agree on the importance of broad band to our basic economy and it's what dref our effort to

reform and modernize the universal service fund. the challenge we face and look forward to working with the committee and congress together. we made the decision driven by fiscal responsibility to fund the connect america fund out of savings from the program. and to respond to some of the concerns from other parts of rural america phase in some of the steps we took to increase efficiency and accountability. so it will be a step by step process to get broad band to rural america. i've argued that the return on investment to our economy and particularly to rural america of a one time capital infusion into the universal service fund would have a very significant payoff. it would allow us to accelerate deployment without turning the dial on the other side so fast that we hear more complaints and

concerns from that side. it was in our national broad band plan that suggestion. i look forward to working on that with you. i think it would have a very positive payoff in terms of increased economic activity as well as improvements to rural education and health care. >> commissioner, last question is for you, last month there was an op-ed i think that you wrote in "the wall street journal" on the internet. it was largely about the united nations potentially having more significant authority over the internet. can you -- this issue hasn't received a great deal of attention. i was hoping you can discuss for this panel just briefly what's happening in this arena? >> this is a very real problem. for the past several years there have been a group of countries throughout the world that have been pushing for internal regulation of the internet. it sounds crazy. but it happens to be true. in years past the united states

or the uk and other allies have been able to use maneuvers to table these actions. but this coming december in dubai there will be a treaty negotiation or renegotiation so back in 1988 about most of the countries in the world got together and negotiated a treaty that set up the trend for the internet to be not regulated by governments but to be regulated from the bottom up in the mull stake holder model, which is the private sector and nonprofits and such with engineers and academics and user groups and all sorts of folks to come and make the sort of bottom up rules for how the internet works and how it's going to work and thrive and succeed. but in the past couple of years in particular there's been a bit of a gathering storm of some countries perhaps led by russia and china let you aren't putin himself i quote him in that "the

wall street journal" op-ed, he wants international control of the internet through the international telecommunication union. which is an arm of the u.n. based in geneva. it does a lot of good things. it helps negotiation and manage international telecom traffic. but up to this point it's been relegated to communications and some aspects of spectrum management but not internet governance. everything from cyber security and priefsy to domain name administration, to engineering which is currently administered by the internet engineering task force, a nongovernmental group and the technical aspects of internet governance through the internet society, another nongovernmental group. as well as arrangements the long haul internet backbone where there are privately negotiated

traffic swapping agreements. all of that their proposal's on the table to be through the itu and give it jurisdiction over that among many others. it's a real concern. the obama administration and i and others are all in agreement on this. there seems to be bipartisan support in this country, but it's becoming a bit of an issue of the developed world versus the developing world. and actually the irony is that should a treaty go the distance and actually become effective, it could undermine economic and political progress in the developing world. the developed nations hopefully our own would opt out of such a treaty in. the rest of the world that might not with the case. they see a tunts to charge some websites or application providers a google or facebook or whomever to charge them on a per click basis and have that

money flow to sometimes state owned telephone companies this their country. there's a lot of issues there. but it is a very real concern and we should all be working hard to make sure it doesn't happen. i'm quite concerned about it. it doesn't just take place in december. there are meetings throughout the globe between now and december where positions around the globe will start to harden. i want to thank the chairman for voicing his concern over this. >> mr. chairman, i'll give you a second to comment. >> preserving internet freedom is of vital importance. it's important to the american economy, it's important to the economy of developing countries, it's important to freedom everywhere. it is important that we work together on countering proposals that some countries have made that would not be consistent with internet freedom and that would have the opposite effect of that claim.

it's very important topic. and it's important that we all work together to preserve free flow of data and internet freedom globally. >> i want to thank both of you gently personally for the service to our kwun tri and being at this hearing to today and answering the questions. >> i think we all echo what he has said about thanking you both for your service. let me just very briefly go back to what mr. womack said to follow up about the salaries. you're absolutely right. there may be a very good explanation for it if there's a whole category of individuals that went up. however, when you look at the change between 2009 and 2010 and 2010 and 2011 there's also a rather lark increase. again, i'm sure there was an explanation. what gives me a little bit of reason to pause is the fact that -- by the way, i for one have no problem if you need qualified people and you have to pay them well, if that's the policy, i don't have a problem

with that, but we should know that's the case. if that is the policy. if it southbound traffic the policy and then again, why are these numbers taking place. in kind of a almost a technical question. in several places in your budget request you indicate that you expect to keep 1900 employees that's keeping it flat. i believe the request is $249.5 million to fund that staffing level. in other places there seems to be an indication that fcc expects to retain only 1776 employees. what is the actual number? >> the number is the lower number. the flexibility is requested so that we can continue to look at more efficiency in the overall budget by for example moving from contractors to ftes.

we don't have any specific plans on the table. but if it will save the government money by doing something in house instead of contracting it out, we should look at that as part of it. but the number in our planning is the lower number which is 1776. >> what would the amount be however, if you were -- if you're requesting the funding for 1776 versus 1917, what are we talking about moneywise? in other words, i know it's not the case. some skeptics say that sounds like a slush fund you're going to have 1776 employees but you're asking funding for 1917 ples. what's the difference in the money? >> it's if i may, it's the opposite. we're asking funding for 1776. if within that funding -- >> you want the flexibility of being able to get to 1900 within the funding of 1700? >> yes, exactly right. >> okay. could you give me the number the difference if it was 1900 and

what -- you're saying you mub able to save money. >> in the past we've reduced the number of contractors at the fcc fairly significantly over the years. i think in general it's a better model if you need someone or they don't. there are some circumstances. the auction may be an example for a limited period of time contracting with an expert makes sense. for tasks that are basic reoccurring tasks as a general rule it's probably more efficient to do it in house. we don't have any specific plans to do that. the team developed the budget with that in mind. thank you. >> i just have one more question and then i'll submit a couple for the record. >> please. without objection. >> chairman, one of the fcc's ongoing goal is to increase broad band adoption. since this is a long-term goal and applications on the internet seem to be consuming more and

more band width, how do you define broad band and does your definition change as people need faster speeds to fully use the internet? >> over time i expect that our basic definition of broad band would go up. i would note without being too theoretical, the challenge of universal broad band is different and harder than challenges of universal telephone or universal electricity. telephone and electricity were binary. you had a dial tone or didn't. broad band you can have different speeds. so in some ways it's the first time the country is wrestling with these issues of how to promote broad band as a universal service everywhere many the country to all people when it can mean different things over time.

what we've done at the fcc is two different things. we set goals for where the country should trial try to strive to on broad band. for example, we set a goal of 100 megabits to 100 million people by 2020. one gig bit access of every community many the country. at the same time for universal service fund we have to decide what we're actually going to pay for, it doesn't make sense to say we're going to pay for 100 megabits for every everyone in the country based on current uses. we defined that level as four megabits with an ongoing obligation to look at the uses that are essential for participation in our economy, for small businesses, for looking for a job, for education and making adjustments to that over time as is appropriate. >> you know, let me close by saying that something that you both know already, but i think it merits repeating in public.

you have one of the most important responsibilities in our society in our government. i mean that. because a lot of people who work in government and who head agencies who sit on boards, they affect certain segments of the population and they don't affect others. but the most important person in corporate america is touched by your decisions. and the poorest child in a classroom in a rural area in the inner city is touched, too. your challenge is certainly what i think should be your mission is to make sure that while we don't interfere with those up here's ability to use the internet, to use technology, to move ahead that we leave no one behind and we're running the risk already of leaving a lot of people behind. you should always keep that in mind. also, something you're not allowed to comment on, i know. you have one of the greatest jobs around, you know before we

know what's being tested out there. and we all would love to know what's next. but i know you can't tell us there will be a rush on the market tomorrow. i want to thank you for your testimony. thank you for your work. we disagree at times on some issues. in general we approve of the work you're doing and just keep doing it and remember that it's broad band for all folks. it's broad. not just for some. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. se ranno. he is probably one of the most tech savvy member of congress. you might be responsible on your ipad. you're probably consuming half the band witd in the congress. >> there's baseball and then there's the yankees.

>> let me thank both of you for -- on that note, let me thank both of you for your service. i echo the wortds of our colleagues. i want to finish as i started. i want to thank you for being accessible to me and my staff. i think with that this meeting is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> primaries underway today in wisconsin, maryland, and the district of columbia, 95

delegates at stake. you can see live coverage of the primaries and results this evening. 95 delegates at stake in the three primaries today. our coverage gets underway this evening at 7:00 eastern. that will be on c-span. you'll hear reaction from the candidates. we'll hear your reaction by phone, facebook and twitter. we'll simulcast politico's coverage tonight at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> the budget proposal and the recent denial of the keystone xl pipeline seemed to insanuate that this administration is not serious about responsibility and responsibly diversifying our energy portfolio. instead this budget request for doe coupled with the budgets of interior and the epa seem merely a continuance of this administration's political posturing and diversion of scars federal dollars to favored sectors at the expense of the

others. in particular coal so important to many region of southern and eastern kentucky. and our country's most abundant energy resource has remained squarely -- >> the u.s. general in charge of cyber defense told a senate committee recently that china instigated a cyber attack against rsa, an internet security firm. during the hearing several senators asked about a recent conversation overheard between president obama and russian president on missile defense. this the just under three hours.

>> good morning, everybody. today's hearing continues postu the armed services committee's conducting on our combatant commands within the context of the fiscal year 2013 budget request and the president's new strategic guidance. today we received testimony from u.s. strategic command and the u.s. cyber command a subunified command of the u.s. strategic command. let me first welcome general robert kaehler, commander of the u.s. strategic command and general keith alexander, the commander of the u.s. cyber command and thank them both for their service to our nation. we also want to thank the fine men and women who serve in these commands for their dedication and service to our nation and a special thanks to their families. strategic command manages nine

missions across the department of defense. these missions range from satellite and space situational awareness, missile defense, and electronic warfare to combatting weapons of mass destruction. stratcom coordinates the activities of the u.s. cyber command across the department of defense, unlike combatant commands, which are regionally focused, stratcom missions are global. that capability needs to be preserved as we continue to reduce the size of these forces and modernize the infrastructure at the department of energy that supports this mission. general kehler, here are some of the issues that i hope that you'll address this morning.

first, are you satisfied with the direction that we are taking in our nuclear force posture and with the department of energy's role in maintaining our nuclear stockpile so that we can continue to reduce its size without testing while ensuring the stockpile remains safe and meets military requirements? second, do you believe we are on a sustainable path to protect our space assets and to reconstitute them if necessary given the congested and contested nature of space? third, the department of defense has allocated a block of the electromagnetic spectrum that connects our space, cyber and electronic warfare assets to our forces. stratcom is the lead combatant command for synchronizing spectrum operations. how concerned are you about the

prospect of losing spectrum and what are you doing to preserve the department's access to it? fourth, with the cancellation of the operationally responsive space program, are you worried about our ability to field low-cost but rapidly deployable satellites that can fill capability gaps between large national intelligence satellite collection systems and the department's airborne surveillance platforms? fifth, what is your strategic vision for the combined use of space and cyber? these two domains are integrally linked but we have not seen a plan for integrating capabilities and operations. let me now turn to cyber command for a moment. there's much for us to examine in this increasingly important and complex but still new mission area. not only as it affects the department of defense but the

government and economy as a whole. general alexander has stated that the relentless industrial espionage being waged against u.s. industry and government chiefly been china constitute, quote, the largest transfer of wealth in history, close quote. the committee needs to understand the dimensions of this technology theft and its impact on our national security and prosperity. the armed services committee has focused for some time on the need to develop comprehensive policies and frameworks to govern planning and operations in cyberspace. what are the rules of engagement if we are attacked by another nation? what is the doctrine for operations and deterrence in war fighting strategies? the administration has made progress in these areas, is reflected in recent strategies statements and in the development of comprehensive

legislation to improve cyber security, but much more needs to be done. as a still developing subunified combatant command, the committee needs to understand the current and planned relationships between cyber command and stratcom and the other combatant commands. the defense department is considering the establishment of component cyber commands at the combatant commands. we need to know what command arrangements would apply to these potential components as well as the authorities and the missions that stratcom has delegated to cyber command and those that it plans to retain. general alexander has stated publicly that he believes he needs additional authorities to defend the networks and information systems of the rest of the federal government and those of critic's infrastructure. the committee needs clarity on

exactly what authorities general alexander might be seeking and whether they go beyond what the administration has requested in its legislative proposal to congress. general alexander has also often stated that the department of defense does not in fact have a unified network but rather 15,000 separate networks or enclaves into which cyber command has little visibility. the committee needs to understand what can and should be done to correct what seemed to be an urgent and critical problem. the department of defense has conducted a pilot program with a number of major companies in the defense industrial base, or d.i.b., as it is called, and multiple internet service provides, or isps, like at&t and verizon. under that pilot program, the nsa provides signatures of known cyber penetration tools and

methods directly to the d.i.b. companies, or to the isps that provide the d.i.b. companies their communications services. the companies then use these signatures to detect and block intrusion attempts. carnegie mellon conducted an independent assessment of the dib pilot for dod and concluded that nsa provided few signatures that were not already known to the companies themselves and in many cases the dib companies by themselves detected advanced threats with their own nonsignature-based detection methods that probably is not known to the nsa. and so we need to hear from general alexander on his view of those issues as well. we thank you both again for your service, for your being here this morning and we call on senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank our distinguished witnesses for joining us this

morning and their many years of service to our nation. u.s. strategic command is in the midst of pivotal change has we proceed with the modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and nuclear triad and further imbred cyber defense and cyber attack and the core mission competencies of 21st century warfare. nuclear modernization i'm encouraged even with the unprecedented level of defense spending uncertainty, the department has maintained its commitment of modernizing the triad of nuclear delivery vehicles. unfortunately the same cannot be said for the national nuclear security administration and their proposal to abandon or delay key elements of their plan. modernization is universally recognized as essential to the future viability of the nuclear weapons complex and a

modernization is universally recognized to the future viability of the nuclear weapons complex and a pre-requisite for future reductions. it's now been over a year since the treaty entered into force and we don't see any sign of the administration keeping those commitments. the core of the strategic command mission is deterrence, however as frequency, sophistication and intensity of cyber related incidents continues to increase, it's apparent that this administration's cyber deterrent policies have failed to curb those malicious actions. the current deterrence framework, which is overly reliant on the development of defensive capabilities has been unsuccessful in dissuading cyber-related aggression. whether it's a nation state actively probes our national security networks, a terrorist organization seeking to obtain destructive cyber capabilities,