>> thanks, madam chair. again, i want to echo the great appreciation -- this difficult problem we are facing. i'm a pediatrician. president of the children's çhealth fund but also directorf national center for disaster preparedness at columbia university and have the honor to serve in the national commission and chaired the subcommittee. by way of background, shortly after hurricane katrina we dispatched severalw3 -- medical health care for a that kiwis. those became permanent programs in the gulf, and ben, filling in with lsu, and other institutions. to date for the record, we have seen over 60,000 health and mental health and counters and children. in addition to that, the national center, by center has conducted long-term periodic interviews with 1000 families,

and i want to summarize a couple of the key points out of many that i think guard jermaine. more than three in five parents have felt over time that their general situation currently is worse or significantly worse than it was since hurricane katrina. suddenly, a third of this place children are one year or older from their misplaced school. more than 2/3 of children displaced by a hurricane experience emotional or behavioral problems as we speak. in a study last fall of our program in baton rouge, 41% of children have the media -- anita, one-third hadçó impaired vision or hearing. as far as the overall situation for children, to give some sense of scale, i believe the number of disaster-related, vulnerable children right now four years

after katrina is not excessively high with some 17,000 at the minimum, to in my opinion, over 30,000 children still in limbo, still at substantial risk. many children who are developing chronic emotional problems, or who are failing in school, will not easily recover. we are undermining not just the current well-being, but their future potential as well. in my opinion, the overall management of the recovery process from the hurricane in the gulf, while less visible than the images seen around the world of people on their rooftops winning for rescue, the extraordinary failures of recovery and the persistence of trauma and percent -- profound disruption to children have been far more insidious and in visible than the acute situation. unfortunately the failures of recovery have lost the attention of the media, for the most part the public, and i am sorry to say, perhaps many in government as well. the basic concept of long-term

recovery is fraught with confusion and lack of leadership on every level. there is a lack of clarity about what we have been meeting by the term recovery. are we talking about rebuilding physical environment or working families reestablishing conditions of normal life as rapidly as possible? although a national disaster recovery strategy was mandated under the posted to the emergency medical reform act of 2006, that strategy has yet to appear. under new and highlyç motivated and capable leadership, now at dhs and -- we are hopeful that we may soon seen the emergence of this critical road map. until very recently there has been no apparent recognition of the needs of children being understood and absorbent all aspects of disaster response planning, mitigation, and recovery, and we think this is changing as well, as mark was just pointing out. perhaps most egregious of all, there is a growing sense, and i consider it a monumental misunderstanding, that recovery from large-scale disasters is a

local problem to be solved and managed by state and local jurisdiction. but the destruction that the level we saw in the gulf coast katrina and rita, and the flooding of new orleans, was and remains a national problem. the well-being of the effective states is highly material to the well-being, the economy, and indeed the security of the united states. i want to conclude with a few general recommendations and a couple of points in just to emphasize what mark was saying about children. in general, i have dozens of these but let me hit three of these. >> take another minute or two. >> first of all, the national disaster recovery strategy must be completed as rapidly as possible, and were i you, i would at the end of this calendar year, there is no reason why this can be delayed any more than that. we will still be flailing around trying to understand who is doing what for whom in the issue of long-term recovery. secondly, i would strongly

recommend a high-level directorate to the president -- oversee all aspects of federal agencies with respect to long- term recovery. revitalizing and protecting the needs of children's families during this terrible, a difficult transition. thirdly, recovery must be seen as responding at every level to these human services needs during the recovery transition. we would like to see how this national recovery strategyok actually addresses that. and then some of the other issues around children which represents to me the most dangerous problem that we are facing right now. as i said before, the problems will not be sometimes at all reversible. children who you lose a year or two at school cannot be recaptured to academic success. emotional problems rooted in four years of -- by the way, and we think it will take another

two years to get everybody house if we have housing available. those children we ignore at their peril at our peril. so i have been thrilled to be on the national commission with mark. here are a couple of things i would point out. the national recovery strategy when it develops should have an explicit emphasis on mental health and academic success of displaced children. it cannot be at hawk. it has to be part of our basic understanding of how we deal with recovery for this disaster and anything else perhaps in the future. maybe a storm in the gulf, it could be terrorism in new york, an earthquake in san francisco. we do not want to be redoing this, and we need that room that. the federal government must ensure that -- we need that road map. the federal government must ensure a case management system. i had to medicate myself in order to absorb the complexity

and this functionality of what in our country is called case management after a disaster. it is shameful. thirdly, i would say the health, dental, and medical health services for every displaced child should be funded under a comprehensive care model print this is because somebody has got to take responsibility for not permitting children to fall through the cracks. they cannot afford the delays and interruptions in their safety net. i think i am going to leave it at that and be happy to respond to any questions. again, our profound gratitude and to you, senator, for taking in keeping the leadership of this vital issue. >> thank you, dr.. >> ms. fontenot? >> madame chair, it is a privilege to come before you today to talk about credit the care issues and the horrific aftermath of hurricane katrina. our per person for rita, gustav, and ike. the report lessons learned for

medical treatment. when the hospital is 70 miles northwest of new orleans and a two-hour drive from the gulf coast. hospitals are usually a place of refuge rather than the complex evacuation site, so the need to evacuate one or a whole city of hospitals has not been considered. in a catastrophe of katrina, one hospital did that by the back to getting 122 infants in hospitals in four days. working with our heroic colleagues in new orleans other unfathomable conditions, but one transferred mother or baby died. this remarkable achievement was result of dedication and hard work by thousands of people, not because of carefully crafted and effective planning. the chaos was overwhelming. black hawk helicopters brought men, women, and children day and night to our hospital. we transferred many patients to other facilities. but the most critical infants and women, remained at the hospital. we cared for twice the usual number of critically ill and delivered 150 babies from the

affected areas been for several days there were 125 infants and our 82 in the last new dale intensive care units. we received and provided care work with area churches to provide shelter for one of the 10 newly delivered mothers and families because they were rejected at a government run and red cross shelters. what began as a rescue became a response to their overwhelming needs for medical care. the state was successful because of our dedicated staff and expansion to our neonatal intensive care unit that was completed just before weeks -- just weeks before katrina. yielding valuable imminent -- fortunately the rescue was adequate, the court of planning by all agencies involved could have been vastly improved the response. for rita, and each storm since that time, high-risk obstetrical patients were evacuated to women's hospital before the storm, a key lesson learned.

in early 2006, providers of obstetrical and neonatal services produced a plan for the birds in management. we also conducted neighboring states to discuss evacuation, especially bad numbers becoming the site. we took part in research but to lead university to look at the stress of this someone in and out comes, and we provided for infants in indiana -- in louisiana's medical institution evacuation plan. we're committed to anything that would prevent the chaos of katrina. hospitals have strengthened their infrastructure and plan of shelter in place with a notable exception of especially for adequate -- fragile patients such as ill newborns. women's hospital's performance after katrina and the hurricanes cents a health threat because it demonstrates the expert organization with at the palace it -- capacity is critical for the bird is the

management of certain populations of fragile patients. the expert hospital is the coordinated care and has the capacity for care of operation smart move is an initiative to ensure that the destructive self -- the gulf coast have a safe place. a remarkable opportunity exists to further implement these concepts as we build a place in hospitals. search ability was included in the original design but was removed during the -- due to the high interest rates in the medicaid cuts to hospitals. building stand by search capacity is an affordable for us and those hospitals, even though the hospitals in louisiana, and us three times in less than four years to fulfill this need. and as a support the capital and semi costs for hospitals to be ready -- calls for hospitals to be ready at all times. the relocation of all time -- the relocation of our hospital to -- we will present debate in a real-time evacuation drill as

their move from one campus to another. another recommendation is the amendment of the staff for acts of private organizations will compensate for evacuation. are prohibited from directed receiving field of funds. your concern about the impact of disasters on children is a print and important. on behalf of the staff of women's hospital, we are honored to share our experience and knowledge to improve the response and care of our most loyal citizens. i will close with a special thank you for your ongoing support of women's hospital, operation smart move, and the opportunity to speak today. i look forward to answering any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your leadership and you continue to make this senator very proud of the work that you are doing. we only have one question for each of you because of our time limitations. let me, miss fontanne not, start

with you. if you could just restate two points for the record. one, despite the fact that your hospital did such extraordinary work in the storm, could you say again for the record what the current law allows you to get in terms of reimbursement? i understand that you are the practice facility, so therefore you are basically out of, while the government depended on you to help in some many ways, that you are not in line for any reimbursement. could you explain that? >> my understanding is because we are not a government agency, we are not able to receive funds directly from fema. we have to have a contract with the state for any type of service we provide, and it goes to the fiscal intermediary. >> and could you talk a minute about the surge capacity issue? because as we debate the health care and reshape the health care delivery system for the country,

i think this would be important. if you could just comment about the lack of search capacity. , most hospitals the faced with cuts because of inadequate reimbursement, particularly medicaid, which is the primary payer for children and particularly infants breathe 60% of babies in i see you are covered by medicaid. half of the deliveries are covered by medicaid, 2/3 covered in our state by medicaid. whenever there are medicaid cuts, as there have been announced just this week in louisiana -- of course, that is being repeated around the country -- hospitals are unable to provide the financial support for additional beds to be on standby or equipment, supplies, planning, any of those things. any reimbursements they receive has to go directly for the core medical services, and that is taking care of those babies in the hospital that day without being able to have anything on the side, so to speak, so that we can be expert hospitals, so

-- because it is very expensive to have the planning and the drills and that sort of thing. >> mr. shriver, let me ask you, if you could sum up, besides your excellent recommendation, that the strategy be enacted by the end of the year, a requirement but down to receive that strategy, and that -- put down to receive that strategy, and that the child block grants not be reinstated with the requirement that states -- without the requirement that states step up to have evacuation reunification and special needs for disaster planning. are there one or two other specifics suggestions you like to mention that you think from your study and review should be really at the top of our list to address in the next few weeks and months? >> i think, as dr. redlener mentioned, coming up with the national framework for recovery is critically important. honestly, senator, if you look at the child care development

block grant and put those requirements in there, you, with a recovery from work within the next five and a half months and you have all child care facilities in this country looking at the issue of reunification, evacuation plan, making sure that the children with special needs are incorporated into their planning and that is tied in with the local emergency management community, i would consider that a hugely successful five and a half months. i think that would be fantastic. i think the issue that the minister fugate talked about regarding the stafford act and having those child care facilities being reimbursed, i know there are intricacies involved in that, but i think if you can dress that issue and come up with -- if you can address that issue and come up with funding for that, that would be hugely successful. frankly, if you could have another hearing to make sure we are all doing what we are supposed to be doing, that would

make the next five and a half months very successful. mr. fugate, to his credit, the first meeting we had, what do you mean? we rattled off a couple of the recommendations we put here, and he and the secretary are aggressively working on that. he sets up every 30 days to gauge progress or lack thereof. if you on this subcommittee to look at and have another hearing and hold our feet to the fire in the executive branch's feet to the fire, that would make the next 5.5 to six months successful as well. >> thank you very much, and we will do so. doctor, you said that the case management -- i think you would say, you would hardly call it case management. we are not really managing much of anything, it is so fragmented and unable to deliver in a timely and appropriate way.

what we think about creating a new kind of system, i have read in some of your testimony and other recommendations that part of the delivery system might be done through schools as they start up in terms of school- based counseling services. do you want to comment about the preference for that, or should there be opportune the community why? what is it about school-based counseling that is particularly desirable? >> well, first of all, we have to have a system that makes sure that every child school-age is in school, and kids that are preschool age are inappropriate day care facilities and after- school programs. the school in the related institutions can be the basis of stability for lots of families, especially lots of children. from that point of view, if we could have this emanating out of that model -- so every child is in school, with a family, and it is possible to think about a system that would mandate not only the kids being in school

but that an appropriate safety net programs and assistance for the families would be generated by that relationship as well. i want to say one other word about the case management issues. there were lots of very good people doing case management in the gulf. there still are. the other organizations that are down there that our us that our government and non-government. the problem is it is so fragmented and disorganized that many families are slipping through the cracks. so i just want to clarify that lots of good work was done. it is just that -- in fact, we do not even known how many children. getting the number right, 17,000 to 30,000, was one of the difficult challenges i have had in research in 20 years because there is not a single agency that feels itself responsible for tracking these families who have been displaced. if we start with that, you have

an inability to figure out how many or where they are. we begged them -- fema and the state -- to make sure that no families were discharged from those horrendous trailer parks before we knew who they were and where they were going so we to provide services to them. all sorts of bureaucratic snafus between the federal government, the state government, and the -- not one dime out of the original $33 million was spent, i guess, until very recently. secondly, we could not attract families. i do not know where all those kids are that you said that were part of the evacuees. i would challenge the federal government to try to figure out where are they. how many are in mobile, alabama, and how many are still struggling in limbo, in displacement conditions that are really hurting these children

and their opportunity for success. >> thank you so much. i would like to close of the above, spread one, a louisiana family corporation recovery corp., i understand, delivered some very good work. unfortunately, their contract was not able to be renewed, and i hope that they can be called in for comments as we try to come up with a better system. my final comment is, my own personal experience, not only in my own family experience recovering from the disaster -- as you all know, i am one of nine siblings, and four of my brothers and sisters lost their homes and their children were displaced. watching it up close and personal with in my own family, and then expanding that to our own neighborhood, brought more, which was destroyed, and then on to the community. i have concluded one thing that i know without reading one

report. schools became the center of life when those neighborhoods were starving to come back. whether it was st. dominic's, holy cross, wilson public school that is getting ready to open, it became the only stable place, building, in the neighborhood that is completely destroyed. and the government at its own peril fails to recognize the importance of these schools. it brought stability, to the life of parents that had no stability otherwise. they turned to community centers that provide counseling, medical support, particularly when the hospitals are closed. getting your schools open, getting children back in touch with their teachers, which is a familiar face at that moment, is very significant to children that had such trauma. i cannot over estimate and

overstate how important this is. the federal government that does not recognize the importance of schools, be they public, private, catholic, and independent, in the ability of schools to be sort of step in the gap to the rest of the committee comes back, i think that this kind of the model that i see. the celebration of joy that when a school would open a neighborhood, what it meant to the community, cannot be overestimated. i would like to end with that. we have a great deal of challenge before us. this committee record will stay open for two weeks, 15 days. please, anyone can submit to the record, and we will, mr. shriver, take you up on your strong recommendation to hold people accountable for the outcomes we have indicated today. thank you so much, and the meeting is adjourned.

>> on saturday, more about mental health issues with dr. david shern, on "washington journal." "washington journal" is like every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. american journal -- american university, with the vice- president of the gay and lesbian victory fund, live coverage of c-span2. >> all this week, get a rare glimpse into america's highest

court threw unprecedented conversations with 10 supreme court justices. >> anyway, once we hear the oral argument, we go to the conference room and we sat around the table and we talk about it. no one else is in the room. then we vote. >> tonight our interviews with associate justices stephen briar and clarence thomas. interviews with supreme court justices, 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3 in the your own copy of our original documentary on the supreme court on dvd. part of c-span's "american icons" collection. one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. >> tonight on c-span2 -- notable books of 2009. book tv looks at the best books of the year as listed by a number of publications. tonight, david plouffe sa on his

book, the audacity to win. michelle malkin on her book, culture of corruption." that is at 8:00 eastern. you can see the various lists at.org. >> c-span thursday, it looked back at tributes paid to world leaders, including the dalai lama, ted kennedy, robert -- ronald reagan, walter cronkite, colin powell, and robert byrd. newsday, a look ahead to the new year. russian prime minister vladimir putin discusses his future from his annual call-in program. as an advisor ostend ghouls tha. plus, the art of political cartooning. >> new year's day, new that murphy's of molly ivins and i unmanned -- and ayn rand.

the collins talks about women in history. and michelle malkin takes your call sunday on "in depth." >> now available, c-span's book "de ibraham lincoln -- "abraham lincoln there is a unique and temporary -- and contemporary perspective on lincoln, from his early years to the life and the white house, his relevance today. "abraham lincoln," in harbor cover -- in hard cover at your favorite bookstore. available where the deal -- were audio downloads are sold. >> this is a hearing on improving the use and capacity of the broadcast spectrum for wireless and other services. rick boucher chairs the subcommittee.

from earlier this month, this is about two hours, 15 minutes. >> subcommittee will come to order. this morning, the subcommittee convenes a legislative hearing on two measures related to the availability of the wireless spectrum, which is essential to meeting our future needs for mobile communications services. the movements of personal communications 2 mobile services is both dramatic and exhilarating. earlier this year, it was announced that for the first time the number of homes having only a cell phone and no land line service now exceeds the number of homes having only a landline had no cellular

services. at the end of 2008, there were approximately 270 million wireless subscribers in the nation, including an estimated 40 million active users of mobile internet services. daly, do attractive and useful applications are added to wireless services, and data rates continue to increase as consumers require faster access to mobile communications. as more americans use data instances more phones and services like multiple video, we will continue -- the demand for devices and broadband will continue dramatically. the subcommittee continues its examination of possible ways in which federal telecommunications policy can be altered in order to meet these challenges. with the goal of enhancing the consumer experience and facilitating future growth of

mobile services. in july, i was pleased to join with chairman waxman, full committee ranking member and subcommittee ranking member stearns in introducing a bill h.r.-3125, the radius beckham inventory at. that measure, now before the subcommittee, would direct the nci and the fcc to undertake a comprehensive survey and develop an inventory of each spectrum band in the u.s. table of frequency allocations, between 225 mhz and 10 gigahertz. the inventory would include the identity of both federal and non-federal uses of spectrum, and the types of services they offer at each spectrum band as well as the amount of use in each band on a geographical basis.

when the inventory is completed, me and cia and the fcc would create a web site to inner-created website available to the public. they would report the results of the inventory to the congress, and that report would include a description of information that could not be made publicly available for national security reasons. it would also include a recommendation of which, if any of the year least utilize blocks of spectrum should be reallocated for commercial uses. the creation of the inventory is an essential step in making available for spectrum for commercial and wireless services and meeting the restored respect of the man's that our nation will soon face. i am also joined by fred upton in introducing the spectrum --

this would bring an urgent need brought to light after the fed cc auctioned the advanced past the fcc auctioned the advanced special in 2006. while the special was often more than three years ago, the winners of the commercial licenses still did not have full access because it has not been fully cleared by the government users. the bill that we have jointly introduced would hasten the process of clearing federal users from spectrum that the government has reallocated for commercial purposes. it would require the and cia to publish the transition plan of each -- the mtia to clarify the steps that users must take to receive payment for their relocation costs, from the spectrum relocation fund, including a requirement that the

spectrum fully be reallocated and vacated by the federal users within one year. my goal is to have both the inventory legislation and the bill speedy the reallocation of previously auctioned government spectrum through the committee and through the house at the earliest possible time. i want to thank our witnesses for joining us this morning. we look forward to your testimony and your views on the future demand for wireless spectrum as -- in the ways in which we can take constructive steps to meet those challenges. that concludes my opening statement. i am pleased now to recognize the ranking republican member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns. >> good morning and thank you, mr. chairman. you mentioned these bills and you talk about what they do, so we are very pleased to have this hearing. i am a co-sponsor of both of these bills, original cosponsor. it is very clear the united states will need additional spectrum to meet the growing

demand for wireless bought and. -- for wireless broadband. we may be victims of our own success. the united states currently leads in the world and wireless, wireless providers leading in innovative voice and services. the number has passed the number of wireline customers. the number of bob and custer's -- broadband customers has increased exponentially. cell sites become constrain for capacity. as a result, providers need more spectrum, especially in order to increase the speed of local of local broadband services. we are facing a looming spectrum crisis. for example, a voice call requires approximately 10,000 bits per second.

while up loading and downloading video requires millions of bits per second three countries will need 1.3 or 1,300,000 megahertz of spectrum dedicated for commercial use around the year 2015. yet the united states currently has only 500 mhz allocated and only 50 mhz in the auction pipeline. in order to increase the amount of spectrum available for commercial mobile services, the administration and the fcc need to inventory the current uses of spectrum bands, especially those below 3 gigahertz that are ideal for mobile services. the bottom line is that we need to know who uses with spectrum band and the purposes for which they use such bans. once we have the answers to these questions, the government needs to decide whether to

reallocate spectrum for commercial mobile users. if the government is requiring existing spectrum users to vacate reallocated bands, the government needs to establish a meaningful process for reallocating in, and users. the process needs to begin sooner rather than later. inventory reallocation takes time, and the commercial demand for spectrum is increasing exponentially. furthermore, one way to make more spectrum available for commercial purposes is to use government spectrum more efficiently than simply reallocate spectrum saved. that was the idea behind the commercial special enhancement act, enacted in 2004. the law is designed to provide funding to upgrade the wireless resources of government agencies while clearing additional spectrum for commercial use. while the csea, government --

the proceeds are used to relocate agencies of wireless facilities, pursuant to the csea and the sec, held an auction in 2006. of the 13.7 billion raised by the auction, approximately $1 billion has been spent to reallocate the wireless operations of 12 federal agencies. the reallocation procedures outlined in the csea were 12 in most cases, but some problems have cropped up. t mobil paid $4.2 billion to build a 3-d network. the department of defense and the drug enforcement agencies are behind schedule in clearing some of the spectrum. however, because of unforeseen costs and complexities in their moves, have been compounded by the continental nature of some of the agency's activities, problems like these have

prevented the bidders from fully realizing the benefits of their investment in the time frames originally promised and may discourage participation in future reallocation auctions. h.r.-3019 will make the process more efficient. the goal is to better coordinate reallocation so prospective commercial bidders have increased confidence to bid on the clear spectrum. this not only helps the commercial bidders, but also the reallocating agency since they will have increased revenue from the auction and a better plan for transition. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i look forward to hearing from witnesses. >> thank you, mr. stearns. the gentleman from california, mr. max -- mr. waxman, is recognized for five minutes predominant thank you, mr. chairman. -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. this will enhance our ability to

develop forward-looking spectrum policies. ongoing developments in wireless broadband technology, along with increased consumer demand have raised questions about the sufficiency of current spectrum allocations for wireless communications services. some experts estimate that the wireless industry in the u.s. needs an additional 150 megahertz of spectrum to simply keep up with the explosion in wireless data usage and to remain competitive with other nations. before we can start identifying bands of spectrum that might be made available, for these new services, however, we need to understand how existing spectrum is allocated and utilized. in simple terms, we need better information about spectrum usage by federal and non-federal entities. in july of this year, a bipartisan group introduced

h.r.-3145, the radio spectrum inventory act. this legislation represents a critical first step in developing the forward-looking spectrum policy. h a r-3125 is simply about making use of allocation transparent. it would direct the national telecommunications information administration and the federal communications commission to develop a publicly available -- the bill directs the agencies to examine whether there is underutilized spectrum that might be reallocated for more sufficient usage. of course, any comprehensive look at spectrum must be sensitive to military uses and the need to protect information about such uses. the bill there for establishes a procedure by which information pertaining to national security will continue to be safeguarded.

the committee will continue to work with the department of defense to make sure that we are sensitive to any concerns regarding our national defense. i would also like to express my general support for a chart- 3019, the spectrum relocation improvement act -- four h r- 3019, the spectrum relocation improvement act. to improve the current spectrum relocation process. by increasing the flow of information and resources as well as enhancing transparency. thank you again, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i look forward to working with you as we move these bills forward. >> thank you very much, chairman waxman. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would say that we need to be working on d block.

if we cannot get that right, how in the heck are we going to do and other allocations of other sections. my focus on the d block, as everyone knows, hopefully my colleague will show, and jane harman, and we will say, shame on us if we have the next disaster and we are not ready to communicate effectively. shame on us if we have another 9/11. shame on us if we have another katrina and we have sheriff department's not talking to firefighters, we have firefighters not talking to the national guard. i appreciate this focus, and we all understand the importance of having an inventory. but if we can again be -- if we cannot get the d blocked right in a timely manner, who are we

kidding ourselves? we should really work on the parameters to push for appropriate and proper auction in which we get all the benefits. we bring in additional revenue, but we also developed the revenue streams which will allow us to provide grants and money to our first-time responders to get this one important aspect of our homeland security issues and debates in line. >> thank you very much. the chairman emeritus of the commerce committee, mr. dingell, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for convening today's hearing and h.r.-3125, the radio spectrum inventory act. and h r-3019, the spectrum relocation improvement act of 2009. these two bills, which i may refer original cosponsor, will

aid the reallocation of spectrum, a commodity of increasing importance, given recent advances in mobile broadband services. like all the rest of us, i am concerned about the allocation, about the future, and also about what we have done so far and whether it has contributed to the proper usage of spectrum for the future and for all of our people. these two pieces of legislation, so complementary to the federal communication commission, duty to represent the congress a national broadband plan as mandated under the american investment and recovery act. to be certain, the success and development of such a plan and the implementation of its recommendations will be facilitated in no mean degree by the clear and better understanding of the spectrum available for use and a better to more efficient process by which to allocate it for commercial use. this i believe will be accomplished in large part by

the enactment of the bills pending, the committee consideration today. with this in mind, i welcome our witnesses and look forward to hearing their views on the legislation before us. in particular, i hope they will engage in a frank discussion about the relationship between a chart-3125, a charge-3019, and proposals -- h r-3125, h r- 3019. thank you for your courtesy, mr. chairman. i commend you again for this hearing and the foresight that you're showing with it. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, chairman dingell. the judgment from oregon, mr. walden, is recognized for two minutes. >> thanks for holding in legislative hearing on these two bills. i think that is important and an improvement of our process to have this oversight. i want to welcome my center,

gordon smith, who has overtaken the raids of the national association of broadcasters. i am still his congressman, even if he is not now by senator. but we have been friends and colleagues in the legislative arena for years, and we welcome you. now that i have sold our broadcast stations and you have gone to the broadcasters, i'm going to go into p packing. i am going to point out a couple of things. i encourage my colleague from illinois on the d block issue. i also want to point out another issue related to public safety, and i am not sure it will get spoken today. that is use of the ban by amateur radio operators as well. as we evaluate the value of spectrum, understand that when 9/11 happened and other communications systems failed, and any day when there is a hurricane or disaster anywhere in the world, it is frequently the amateur radio operators who stepped to the fore with their own equipment and work and when

all else fails. it is hard to put a value on that as rescue crews get through difficult times. that needs to be a part of what we consider. regarding the fcc's notice, i am very concerned about what i am reading. regarding professor benjamin's comments and his paper, he is now a top adviser to the sec, and i hope we will look at some of the things he had to say, reducing the attractiveness of the broadcaster as a business model, for regulation intended to entrench limits on the spectrum, and not freeing up spectrum should be avoided. in other words, he is calling in the death of open air

broadcasting, and i think that is a real abomination. >> thank you very much, mr. walden. the chair recognizes the gentleman from 70, mr. bill, for two minutes. >> -- from pennsylvania, mr. balildoyle. we will add two minutes to your question time. >> the gentleman from washington state is recognized for to the bill minutes. >> thank you for holding this hearing. we know how important this is. s we have hundreds if not thousands of constituents, and this is important to a lot of my neighbors who might represent. it is important the country as a whole was job creation possibilities. president obama has recognized it as a tremendous job potential, but we know we will have to have additional allocation of spectrum for

commercial use. in order to first identify the spectrum, i want to commend chairman waxman for his inventory bill, which is a first step. once the spectrum is identified and ready for auction, we really have to insure the procedures are in place, this time to adequately guide the auction process. in 2007, the advanced wireless services option, the process of reporting requirements was insufficient to praise the length, complexity, and size of effort. it is this very problem that the bill seeks to address. fundamentally, our bill does two things. it increases the men of cali information available to potential bidders before an auction occurs.

to the relocating agency to keep the relocation process on track. i am convinced that this more complete intimation about the effective federal agency systems, the relocation cost estimates, that schedules will reduce the risk, will insure timely relocation payment, movement by federal agencies, and will ensure that the next generation of consumer demand and services are delivered. it will not cure the common cold, otherwise it sounds pretty good. i want to cite my colleague, mr. upton, for your work on advancing this, that we can merely fulfil the promise to our constituents. thank you. >> the dublin from nebraska is recognized for two -- the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. >> i look forward to hearing our witnesses. we have to make sure that we do this right and balance what the

spectrum is used in the military. i have the pleasure of representing the 55th wing, which is at an electronic -- i have a letter from the association that sets out some of the issues that we may be discussing here, and i would like to offer that letter into the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> last in our committee memorandum, it starts off with the introduction criticizing the universal service fund, calling it ineffective. the second paragraph also starts off with universal service. so somehow universal service fund is important in this discussion, and i will look forward to your comments on how universal service fund affects the spectrum and they're in

usage of that. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentle lady from california, ms. matsui, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would also like to thank you for being with us today. we're here today to discuss how we can promote greater transparency and spectrum issues for expediting the process in which we can allocate additional spectrum at the market price. according to recent research, there are possibly 200 million wireless subscribers in the united states, but that number is growing. according to recent reports, the current economic recession has increased the number of consumers opting for only cell phones over traditional land lines. there is concern that the current allocation of spectrum from mobile but banned services is inadequate to meet the rapidly growing demand. in fact, the sec recently warned of a potential spectrum crisis that could threaten the expansion of broadband services.

while the dtv transition free up more special, the need for commercial spectrum capacity will only spend as far as broadband needs to be delivered to more areas. chairman waxman and boucher have introduced the inventory act, and congressman inslee and upton have introduced the broadbent improvement act. moving forward, especially availability will be key to ensuring competition, improve public safety, meet growing demand for wireless services, and any proposal going forward should insure underserved communities are properly considered. i think you mr. chairman for its holding this hearing today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the gentle lady from tennessee, this blackford, is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to welcome the panel before us today. we are delighted you are here, and i am also delighted, mr.

chairman, that we are talking about legislation that actually represents what is a balanced give and take. that is not something that we often do. we often talk about taking from the american taxpayer and given to big business, but today we are going to be talking about raising money from big business through an equal exchange of value for a commodity. this represents the policy and good government, and i am pleased with having the hearing. as we plot a strategy on how we move forward on broadbent and how to best utilize the spectrum, i am one of many on this committee, as you have heard, who have long advocated for an effective and efficient inventory and assessment of what is available and how we best use it and how we best allocate it. i think it is important. bebop was mentioned, and some of

the work that needs to be done -- d block was mentioned, and some of the work that needs to be done over 80% of consumers are happy with their wireless service, according to a recent gao study. that is pretty good, 80% of people like the product that is there and that is available. there is ample motivation to get as much information as possible on spectrum availability and evaluate all of our options for relocation, so i am pleased we are bringing many different parts of this discussion together today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, ms. blackburn. >>the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you for convening this hearing, the partisan bills that are intended to help our country make better use of our special bid h.r.-3125 will provide the

gathering of information about spectrum used to increase transparency and help us understand exactly how spectrum is now utilized. this is no small task but it is absolutely essential to make informed decisions on allocating meeting the need for broadband spectrum. it has been reported that the u.s. allocation of spectrum compares poorly with oecd nations and is inadequate to meet the growing demand. we cannot let that happen. we are going to do the best we can to help industry take the lead and make our nation lead the world in broadband. hr-3019 streamlines the process and will reduce the time

required to reallocate federal spectrum cleared for commercial use, allowing the licensees to utilize the spectrum without unnecessary delays. as a co-sponsor of both of these bills, i recognize the importance of properly managing available spectrum. i also understand that the sponsors of h.r.-3125 are working with the department of defense to make sure that the bill also -- i look forward to work with my colleagues to improve this legislation. i think the witnesses for taking time to share their perspective on this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. mcentee. did the amount -- the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, is recognized for two minutes. not here. the gentleman from indian is recognizeda for two minutes.

>> i welcome my friends steve largent and gordon smith. >> the gentle lady from the virgin islands, ms. christensen, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm also going to waive my opening statement and put it into the record. i would like to welcome the witnesses, especially senator smith, who i believe this year for the first time. >> thank you. the gentleman from massachusetts coupl, mr. markey is recognized. >> thank you for having this hearing. back in 1993 we were in a world where there were two cell phone companies. they each charge about 50 cents a minute, and it was analog. but in 1993 this committee moved over to hundred megahertz of spectrum, and we created the third, fourth, fifth, and six

license, and they'll win digital. the first to the real companies moved itself, and we had a revolution of is ongoing. it was so successful that right now there are people sitting out here in the audience that are checking their blackberry rather than listening to my opening statement. that is a tribute to what our community made possible. now we're on to the next stage of this revolution, where we know that the google/e day /amazon revolution is something that continues on. this committee should be very proud of it, and that by reallocating even more spectrum will make it possible for the entrepreneurs bid will make it possible for these technology genius is to once again be part of a grand revolution made in america. we have to make sure that is something that is american. we did that in the 1990's.

we have a chance to do it again. i congratulate you, mr. chairman, for the work on this issue. it was bipartisan. it should be partisan again. we are into a wealth creation. that is what this is all about. more effectively, we can think this issue through, which is what you're doing, it is the more likely we will create the greatest amount of wealth that will help our country become more prosperous. .

>> former member of the house of representatives and a member of this committee is the president and chief executive officer of the cellular telecommunications industry association, the wireless association. mr.. calabrese is the president at the new america foundation. former senator gordon smith, we welcome to this committee for the first time and his new role as president of the national association of broadcasters. we look forward to a long and successful partnership with you.

dr. ray johnson is the senior vice president and technology officer of the lockheed martin corp. for a and mr. thomas strauss is the president of shared spectrum company. we welcome you. you're prepared written statement will be made part of the record. we would ask that you keep your oral summary to approximately five minutes. mr. hatfield, we will be happy to begin with you. >> and thank you. >> if you could be sure that the microphone is on and pull it close to you, we can hear you better. >> members of the subcommittee, i am very pleased and honored to appear before you today to testify on the topic of radio spectrum management. there are issues raised by a chart-3125 and h r 3119. i am the executive director of

the silicon flatirons center for law, technology, entered onto proportion that university of colorado at boulder. in the past, i have engaged in independent consulting activities including some members represented on the panel today. as a detail that might prepared testimony, i have other affiliations but today i am testifying on my own behalf as a private citizen. in my written testimony, i present some background on spectrum management and then focus on five overarching themes. it is those five points that i will briefly summarize. first, i have been involved in spectrum as the issues for over four decades. it is very clear to me that we are now at an unprecedented period of demand for access and spectrum and the critical for its range of roughly 300 mhz-3 gigahertz. this increase in demand for

spectrum is propelled by increases in the number of uses. and the number of users and the amount of bandwidth or capacity consumed per user or use. while the exponential growth in commercial cellular band requirements is perhaps the most visible, there are a host of other increase in demand for spectrum in this range, as well. this includes one that supports public safety, homeland security, and national defense priorities. in my opinion, the spectrum scarcity issue that the legislation sets out to address is a very real. second, in my written testimony, i review by traditional techniques that we have used in the past to accommodate growth and demand for resource. one, going higher and frequency, 12, improving the efficiency of utilization, 3,

reallocating existing spectrum increasing the amount of spectrum sharing, and five, we using spectrum more intensely. i conclude that for technical reasons going higher in frequency will be as limited a utility to soften the current crisis associated with wireless mobile data applications. while further improvements in technical efficiency can help, they are apt to be inadequate in solving the problems associated with the orders of magnitude increase is inspector in demand. in that leaves reallocation, sharing, equity reits use in some services as potential solutions. there was with unique challenges of their own person. third, setting aside spectrum reallocation for the moment, i next focused on increased sharing and more intense frequency reuse.

with regard to the former, i comment favorably on past debts that the fcc has taken to encourage voluntary sharing of the resource for secondary market. i go on to conclude that a combination of increased incentives or mandate for spectrum sharing coupled with more de-centralized and technologically sophisticated techniques for access can be a significant help in avoiding the looming crisis in terms of increased frequency re-use, it is not always possible because the nature of some services. some services require high-power operate over long distances and you cannot reuse the spectrum as easily. spectrum reuse may be constrained but the availability of suitable into locations and economic facilities. .

i'm a strong supporter of constructing spectrum inventories. for the legislation itself, because i strong believer in the old adage," you cannot measure -- you cannot manage which cannot measure." it is that simple. i want to conclude that a comprehensive and ongoing inventory is necessary to support two of the most promising of the three ways of averting a spectrum crisis. that is, relocation and increased sharing. fifth, i observe that while i may strong supporter of conducting spectrum inventories, i also note, based on many years of experience, that there are potential shortcomings associated with the paper study that leads to some services. i conclude that the inventory mandated in the proposed legislation should be augmented by selected field measurement to gain additional information on

actual usage and those bands identified as the most promising for reallocation or increased sharing. that concludes my oral testimony. i would be happy to respond to any questions that you or the rest of the subcommittee might have. >> thank you very much mr. largent, will be happy to hear from you. >> i want to thank you and say to all the members that i hope you had a merry christmas and have a happy new year. i want to thank you for the opportunity to share the wireless industry's views on the radio spectrum act are these bills are much needed bookends for a process that will enable additional spectrum to be made available for the wireless broadband initiative and other ;nñservices the united states as the world leader today and wireless broadband. well having less than 7% of the world subscribers, the home is more -- home to more than 20% of

subscribers the 112 million ge subscribers are more than any other country. the most advanced wireless devices which are manufactured by global companies and could be launched anywhere in the world routinely debut in the u.s. marketplace. the convergence of mobile wireless services and high-speed internet access and the illusion of handsets from telephones to powerful hand-held computers promises to transform the way we work, learn, to deliver health care, manage energy consumption, and enhance public safety. the key to translate this promise into reality is access to more spectrum. cgie believes we can identify additional spectrum for wireless broadband and other advanced wireless services. by providing for a comprehensive inventory of

spectrum below 10 gigahertz. enactment of the bill would meet the demand and maintain u.s. leadership in the global wireless marketplace. how much spectrum do we need? by 2015, developed countries will meet at least 1,300 megahertz of spectrum for commercial wireless operations. since the united states currently has less than 500 megahertz of spectrum available for commercial wireless services, we have asked the fcc to identify additional spectrum that could be reallocated to help us meet the benchmark. many of our trading partners are taking steps toward this goal and the u.s. needs to keep up if we are to stay ahead. a properly constructed inventory effort is a sound place to start. the inventory is only the. first the once the inventory is complete, policy makers must use it to reallocate spectrum for advanced

wireless services. history demonstrates that it can take a decade or more to be allocate spectrum for commercial use and push such spectrum and as the providers of commercial mobile services. given the exploding demand for mobile broadband, we must move more quickly than was the case with either aws or 700 mhz efforts. we cannot wait until 2020 or beyond. we recognize there will be critics of the effort to move forward with an inventory and reallocation of spectrum. they will claim that carriers should be more efficient with the spectrum already available that we can build our way out of the problem or that we have already seen an expansion in the amount of spectrum available for commercial services through the reason aws auctions. there are sound reasons why the subcommittee should dismiss these criticisms. i discussed these my written testimony. one and inventory is complete and spectrum is identified for reallocation and auction, the

spectrum relocation process proposed by hr 3019 will ensure that the relocation process works smoothly for all parties. thank you for the opportunity to discuss these matters with the subcommittee. we look forward to working with you to ensure that the u.s. wireless industry continues to serve as an engine for jobs, economic growth, and the american competitive advantage. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. calabrese. >> good morning. i would like to thank the committee's leadership for taking up these two very complementary and important pieces of legislation on a notably bipartisan basis. in national goal of affordable broadband access and of seamless mobile connectivity anywhere and anytime will require an enormous increase in available spectrum capacity. the apple iphone has proved to be the canary in the proverbial spectrum call mine.

oalmine. release of -- pervasive spectrum witdth will explode. the exploding demand and focus on exclusive licensing by auction has served to reinforce the conventional wisdom that spectrum is scarce. in reality, the only scarcity is government permission to use spectrum. that is licensing. spectrum capacity itself is very abundant. even in the most valuable beachfront frequencies below 3 gigahertz, actual spectrum used measurement shows that the vast majority of frequency bands are not being used in most locations and at most times. this gross under-utilization of the nation's spectrum resources should be an urgent concern. spectrum is not only an immensely valuable and public owned resource, but it is one

that is infinitely renewable every millisecond. that is what new america and the broader public interest spectrum coalition that we work with strongly supports an act and hr 3125 per we agree that the more comprehensive inventory described in the house bill is needed a more granular and comprehensive description of spectrum use in each market will assist policy makers, on triple north, and technologists to propose new ways to enhance access and efficiency. we also agree it is important to extend the inventory up to 10 gigahertz. spectrum mapping would help facilitate expanded access to broadband in at least three ways -- first, by improving the functioning of secondary markets for a license transfers and leasing, second, it will provide information on what it would take to clear some very under- utilized bands for new uses, and

third, and perhaps most important, it will reveal the far greater number of requests to bands that can be made available for shared access indiscrete geographic areas at certain times of the day or year or at certain altitudes of power levels. we expect rural areas to be the most likely beneficiaries of this mapping. the one shortcoming of h.r. 3125 is that an inventory of spectrum assignments should be augmented by actual spectrum used measurement. measurements and eventually a spectrum -- a system of spectrum monitoring can provide a more nuanced window into how when and where what extent spectrums are in use. we realize that measurements, a budgetary cost. we believe appropriated funds are available over the next four years for a very robust

implementation of the inventory act. as part of the recovery act, congress appropriated $350 million for a comprehensive nationwide inventory map of the nation's existing broadband capabilities. since ntia will work less than half of the funding to this date for broadband mapping, congress could clarify that a portion of the remainder be used to inventory the airwaves as well we also strongly support h.r. 3090. -- 3019. we support h.r. 3019, we believe the legislation should be broadened to taken passage of a critical opportunity to free up the greater spectrum capacity. h.r. 3019, would continue to limit eligibility for radio system modernization to agencies

actually clearing frequencies. while only a tiny fraction of federal spectrum could be cleared and auctioned in the near future, a for greater number of bands could be shared more intensively by taking advantage of advances in smart radio technologies. federal spectrum incumbents need the resources to take affirmative steps to enable more intensive access and then sharing by other users. this could be a real win-win for the military. new and upgraded federal systems could be designed and procured with the broader public interest inspectors access in mind and not only in the very limited case of a band being cleared for auction. i will stop there. thank you very much and i will be pleased to take any questions. >> thank you. mr. smith. >> mr. chairman, ranking membersterns and members of the hon. committee. it is a privilege for me to be

before you to speak a few thoughts about spectrum on behalf of the national association of broadcasters. nab believes that any inventory spectrum should be comprehensive. let's look at all the balance of all the services, including the federal government banned. let's do have each service is using its existing spectrum. second, our national party should recognize the value that free, over the air broadcasting brings to every american. broadcasting and broadband are not either/or propositions as some suggest i believe that as a false choice. third, we should challenge all services to be efficient and innovative users of spectrum. through our recent transition to digital, broadcasting has become more efficient for it with your help, the transition was a resounding success the

benefits are remarkable. in the digital world, of yours received more new program strings and a wide variety of con tent and local news and in high definition. it would be shortsighted to stump that growth and dampen what is an even brighter future for broadcasting. if broadcasting is limited or eliminated, consumer investment and expectations would be stranded. consumers spent an estimated $25 billion in hd-tv receivers in 2009 alone. millions of other americans invested time, effort, and funds the converter boxes and the u.s. government spent $2 billion to help them with this. the broadcasters spent an additional $10 billion to make the transition.

consumers have been promised that the digital upgrade would usher in a new era of high- quality television with new and more diverse programs and a host of new services. all for free. and over the air. some advocate that this should be done away with. consumers would realize that -- none of these would be realized. broadcast television is the first wireless service to ever substantially reduce its spectrum use while providing an increase in services. then there is mobile d-tv. the television industry adopted a new mobile television standard turning on the green light for manufacturing and implementation.

the results are nothing short of stunning. members of the committee, this is a mobile tv. right now, it is playing a program from nbc. there are seven channels in the washington, d.c. metropolitan area that are doing this. it is also a cell phone. this combination of technology is the future, i believe, of mobile wireless communications. it is not an exaggeration to say that you will soon be able to receive broadcast television signals on any device this is an example. soon, your blackberry will be a tv. your iphone could be a tv. you name it, we are on the cost

of it. to short circuit it now seems to me would be very unwise. broadcasting's ability -- and this is important to understand -- broadcasting's ability to serve one to many bend with segments is unique among all services. at moments of national significance or tragedy, when millions of americans are seeking information, broadcasting is most -- is the most efficient delivery system. with each new york are broadcasters use of spectrum becomes more efficient without any additional burden on spectrum. by contrast, with wireless broadband, each string of content to every individual places an individual strain on the wireless network. it clogs up the band with. there is more.

for example, a company is working with broadcasters to provide a blended, broadcast/broadband system. you have not seen this, i urge you to do it. that system is more affordable, high-quality, and an alternative, a more affordable alternative to cable and satellite. a comprehensive objective examination of spectrum allocation and usage is a worthwhile endeavor. such an analysis, if done forthrightly and without bias, will demonstrate that broadcasters will continue to be the effect of custodians of our nation's airwaves. many broadcast services have not been and cannot be efficiently replicated by broadband services. broadcasters helped to save lives through timely coverage of natural disasters and other emergencies. by coordinating with local law

enforcement officials,via kemper alerts, broadcasters have participated in the recovery of 492 abducted children. >> mr. smith, if you could wrap up. >> let's not forget the concerns we shared during the d-tv transition. we spent a lot of time to get it right and we did it so that economically disadvantaged, the elderly, rural and ethnic minorities are not left off -- left out with critical news and permission. finally, if my statements in the record, i think it is important that when you consider the highest and best use and you put all of these public values in, the value of broadcasting is self-evident. thank you, a separate >> thank you very much, mr. smith. dr. johnson. >> good morning and thank you

for inviting lockheed martin corp. to participate in today's hearing on the radio spectrum inventory act. my name is dr. ray johnson and i served as the vice-president and technology officer. my role provides me with a broad perspective of important spectrum issues relevant to the discussion today. i appreciate the opportunity to contribute and i am honored to offer input that may help inform your consideration of these important policy matters. lockheed martin is a global security company that employs approximately 140,000 people in all 56. where are principally engaged in the design and development and integration and testing of advanced technology systems, products, and services and most of these solutions depend on access to the spectrum we are discussing our customers include a broad an array of agencies both military and civil for whom we support diverse critical security missions at home and

abroad. at any given time, lockheed martin corp. hold approximately 400 fcc authorization for a variety of uses including an experimental licenses that enable the testing of new technologies as well as new applications being applied to existing technologies. as a general matter, spectrum scarcity is not a problem that is unique to fcc licensees. federal government users are experiencing the same pressure as they are required to meet increasing demands of their critical roles and missions. therefore, it is an important ballast that h.r. 3125 achieved by getting federal and non- federal resources. our own activities in developing the best systems and solutions meet federal meat, we see growth in requirements in terms of access to that end with, intensive applications whether that is video streaming from

unmanned vehicle or surveillance from a high altitude air ship. when doors the enactment of h.r. 3125. we have some concerns with the bill as it was introduced. we respectfully suggest the bill be modified to reflect the following issues. first, i note that the stated purpose of the bill is to propose spectrum the bill does not explicitly require that the fcc conduct an efficiency test, the proposed section 119-a1-ree, steers the agencies in that direction. there is no single metric that spans all communications and non-communication uses of the spectrum which can be used for point of comparison. the intensity of use metric is not correlated with the effectiveness or efficiency for many spectral users efficiency improvement should not be equated to a reduction in ban with utilized. measuring spectrum efficiency as a proxy, the price entities will

pay for licenses inappropriate. many critical spectrum users deliver tremendous value to our country. they do not directly generate chip revenues. we're concerned that the bill in that burden the require fcc and the ntia to disclose information that should not be disclosed. this impacts the federal government but in packs some licensees like lockheed martin. we agree with the administration-stated concern and note that any security concerns, it is important to release that the -- important to note that the release of sensitive information may be properly disclosed when viewed more than aggregate. third, i would like to raise a concern regarding the possible misinterpretation of the legislation there is the potential in a burton as if it has into our allies and a national communities given the scope of the frequencies being inventoried.

the department of defense and the defense industry have worked hard to achieve an international spectrum harmonization to support li to upper ability. there is a requirement for an ordeal spectrum. this can create an act -- an impression of instability in spectrum allocation and impact long-term research and development. suggestions of instability in access could result in a chilling effect a long-term technology investments pri finally, we have identified a few technical issues. we will submit that separately to the staff. i am here today to address h.r. 3125, i would like you to know that we have some concerns with h.r. 3119 and would be happy to offer a follow-up discussion with the committee. i appreciate having the opportunity to testify h.r. 3125 is a good start at lockheed martin commend you and the other sponsors for identifying the need for spectrum inventory and

taking the initiative to draft legislation. we hope that you will agree with our suggestions to improve the bill and we look forward to working with you and the committee staff throughout the legislative process. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. straub. >> good morning. thank you for this opportunity to testify. my testimony this morning will focus on two main points -- first, to determine how and if spectrum resources are being used efficiently. an inventory database must include data on actual spectrum utilization. second, until a database is compiled and analyzed, we caution against jumping to any conclusions as to what is next for particular frequency bands because new technology presents spectrum access alternatives that have not existed until now. i have been involved in the wireless industry for over 25 years. in the early 1990's, i was

president of the personal communications industry association which helped the wireless industry when the reallocation of fixed or micro spectrum for new personal communications services which were the source of competition and innovation that were referenced by congressman markey. i ran a company called columbia spectrum management to negotiate a relocation of fixed microwave incumbents for the auction winners. since march of this year, i have with the ceo of a shared spectrum companies. we're a small technology company located in vienna, virginia. since the founding of the company, we have been conducting studies to document the on tap potential of many unused frequency band. attached to my written testimony is a list of our public studies to date. the video monitors in the room are also displaying some sample results of our measurements. these studies include measurements from new york city, chicago, and washington, d.c.,

during periods of anticipated high-radio traffic. they indicate that less than 1/3 of the alligator radio spectrum was being used at any given time period to take advantage of this empty spectrum capacity, sse pioneered spectrum access technology. i take a dennis of the spectrum capacity by adapting to the spectral and garment and changing transmission or a reception parameters. this allows for more efficient wireless communications without interfering or requiring the dislocation of legacy systems using the same band. the company developed dsa over the past nine years for several military projects and the technology is now being implemented in several military radio systems. we are also exploring several commercial applications including new cost effective oral wireless broadband systems that can access preferred lower frequencies. the demand for spectrum across all sectors in markets is

substantially increasing. we agree that the necessary first up in confronting the spectrum to mall, -- in a spectrum dilemma is to confront the resources. we are pleased to support this act. the bill would provide guidance to the fcc and ntia to create a database of spectrum allocations out assignments. it is also important to supplement this data with information regarding the actual use of the airwaves. virtually every service to which spectrum is allocated to enjoy let me just need for the spectrum. most incumbent will argue that the make effective use of their allocations. compiling a database of spectrum assignments will be interesting but that alone will fail to show how much or even if the spectrum is actually being utilized. until such a database is compiled and available, we caution against any presuppositions as to what is next for it to the radio band. the next up would be a traditional reallocation proceeding and that would amount

to a plan for years and years of fighting among entrenched interests that have no notion or incentive to have their existing spectrum rights diminished. this is based on my personal experience where it took six years for the pcs spectrum to be reallocated and that look like the fast track. as the subcommittee moves forward, we believe it is important to recognize the new d technologies thesa to enable better use of spectrum reallocation and can create new opportunities for sharing spectrum with the existing services in under-utilized then spray bands. such a primer would focus on multipurpose and legacy bans with flexible overlay rights and responsibilities. this approaches we purposing

certain bands and relocating incumbents and that would be too difficult and too costly and too time-consuming and in light of new technology, unnecessary. a better policy would build upon the approach taken when they pcs banter made available in 1995. the licensees work -- the losses that were auctioned were subject to a requirement with the existing microwave incumbents. most of those licensees were relocated to new systems on other frequencies, the advances made in dsa and commented radio technology provides the ability to coexist with legacy systems that was not available at that time. thank you again for this opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> thank-you and think it'll all of our witnesses for your informative remarks this morning. i appreciate the broad consensus that is evident from her testimony about the need to move forward with both of the bills

that are the subject of our legislative hearing this morning. particularly the need for an inventory of spectrum that could be real allocated -- reallocated for commercial purposes. a number of new just mentioned the potential of spectrum sharing. as a way to accommodate new commercial services within our spectrum constraints. could you talk a little bit about the state of the technology with regard to spectrum sharing and what potential does it cold and what limitations does it face? who would like to begin? mr. hatfield. could you pull the microphone closer? >> i think you can look of this in two ways. we already share a lot of the existing spectrum. we called a static sharing.

an antenna pointed at a satellite or point in different directions and that provides sufficient isolation that a satellite system can share with a terrestrial system. that is been with us for quite some time and used effectively. i think the key here is combining the concepts that tom talked about that many -- that much of the spectrum is not being used all the time today. in other words, if you are in town today a particular channel might not be used by a private microwave or industry. that spectrum could be shared on a dynamic basis. >> you are not talking about technology and that example that would use the same spectrum simultaneously by various users but simply with a face use of the spectrum by various users, each using it fully within the

allotted time? >> yes, they are using it but not all the time. there may be directionality that could be employed which would allow dynamic sherry. >> given that opportunity, talk a little bit about the state of technology development for actual simultaneous sharing of the same spectrum. >> i am not sure -- >> we have tested this on multiple occasions with members of the military and the public present. we are turned over to several radio stations. those ratios should be ready for testing next year and deployed into the field no later in the air. >> there is now commercially available today that would provide simultaneous use of the spectrum by multiple users? this technology is under development and ready for testing next year? >> i would suggest it is beyond the level of testing and is now being deployed into radio

systems. within the commercial sector, we have initial licensing agreements with two different companies to use it with in the tv white spaces per upon conclusion of that proceeding, the development of those rules that sometime within the next 18 months, they will be deployed. >> any other comments mr. calabrese? >> as you have heard from three of us, there seems to be a part greater opportunity in terms of quantity of spectrum to open it up on a share or opportunistic basis. there are a couple of important precedents to build on. one is the military already allows shared use of certain > spreradar bands. the military agreed to open up the five gigahertz band based on a technology that uses dynamic

frequency selection. the devices cents before a transplant and if they do not detect anything like radar, they operate and keep checking and they can get off real quick. the other more important technological president to build on is the order last year from the fcc on opening the tv white space for unlicensed sharing what the commission has required is a geo-location database. the smart devices will need to have a gps and in that access. they look up and get a list of available channels with conditions attached. we can build on that database and add a lot of other frequencies over time that would have conditions attached. >> that is very encouraging to hear. i would note that the first

commercial application of the technology is now occurring in my congressional district. >> right. >> my time has expired but one other question do you have any brief comment about this? are their shortcomings at the present time in the licensing and spectrum management processes that are employed by ntia and the fcc? if you detect that there are any, do you have recommendations as to how those processes can be improved? anyone want to answer? >> i would repeat some of the problems that have taken place in the aws spectrum. this is addressed to both of these bills. this is a definite step in the right direction. >> thank you very much. anyone else want to briefly comment on that? >> the commission has done

things in the past to encourage the secondary market -- one problem with the existing system is that it is centrally controlled and therefore there is frigidity built into it. the commission has gone to the use of secondary markets where companies can lease spectrum. that has not worked out quite as well as some of us would have hoped. i think there is a possibility to continue to encourage the secondary market to reduce some of the rigidities associated with trying to centrally manage the resource. >> thank you. my time has expired for the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. largent, when we had the option in the d-tv transition and raised $18 billion, it became the backbone of the

fourth generation wireless service. that was one approach. the other approach appears to be the stimulus package. they put in $700 billion to provide grants. the auctioning of the spectrum, it appears to be a more efficient way to do it in giving out the stimulus package. you might comment on the two approaches and which one you think is more advisable. >> we need to have additional spectrum in the wireless space in order to meet not only the demands but the promise, the hope, of the broadband world. however you get to that point, that is subject to debate and can become partisan. the bottom line is, more spectrum is needed and sooner rather than later.

the fact is, the last bits of spectrum that were allocated for a wireless use, the last options took over 10 years to come to fruition. one was 12 years and the other was 16 years to get it to come to fruition. this is really a process that is developing today that should have begun years ago. there are different ways to get to the bottom line but the important thing is to get to the bottom line and that is additional spectrum for the wireless industry. >> two members of your association, will they benefit from the $7 billion in the stimulus package that will be directed? i understand it will go to develop those wireless lines but do your companies see it as a positive? >> i would say the majority of

the money that has been allocated will not be going to the companies that are in our association. >> ok, you mentioned briefly t- mobile and the spectrum reallocation and indicated the problem in the transition. i would think that if we want other commercial carrier -- carriers to compete and get involved, this would be a flag to them that it will take too long and they have this investment of over $4 billion. how long can they continue to deal with that procrastination? you might give us some ideas on what could be done to improve this reallocation timeframe and perhaps what we in congress should be aware of. >> the second bill we are talking about today, 3019, goes to that subject was the spectrum is identified, the spectrum is auctioned and getting the people that are on the spectrum of the

spectrum more expeditiously it is really helped by this particular bill we're talking about today. my hat is off to you. i think congress has gone forward, made mistakes, recognized the mistakes and is trying to correct them and that is a positive development. >> you feel pretty confident that will solve the problem? >> i am not positive it solves all the problems involved but it solves the problem we know of. with the auction process that took place two years ago. >> mr. hatfield, what steps could be taken to make more efficient use of commercial and government spectrum that is already deployed? >> in my written statement, i go through the list of by techniques that can be used anm+ the two that have not been talked about as much here is one, more technical efficiency. it is like getting mpg on your

car. there are two ways we can improve transportation efficiencies and one is by more miles per gallon or by carpooling, for example. the sharing we talked about is the car pulled analogy but we also need to look at ways a more efficiently using the spectrum and getting more bits per second, per hertz. there is a couple of ways of doing that. one is through compression, reducing the number of beds that have to be sent for the other is using more efficient modulation techniques. what scares me is those techniques only look like they can provide us with incremental improvements. i'm not saying we should not do it right we should. the difficulty is, they will not be adequate that leads to the need for more sharing or reallocation.

the other way is through more intense reuse of the spectrum. for example, when the cell phone tower is two miles away and you are taking up an area with a two-mile radius, if you shrink the cell phone dam, you can use that same channel more and more times in a city like washington, d.c. you can see the cellular carriers have made enormous investment in more towers which helps a lot but as you keep getting the sell smaller, you have to get that information at the cell tower back to a central location. that is where your broadband policy of getting fiber up their intersects with the wireless industry because the wireless industry needs to get the wireless data back to their central point and that requires a broad ban facilitate. i think there is a real link between what is being done in

the broadband policy and a wireless policy. >> i thought dr. johnson might want to comment. i have no further questions. >> in the commercial receivers debtor, the military already has standards for radars. none of those standards exist for commercial systems. there may be opportunities to take advantage of some of those standards that have been developed there. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to welcome our panel, particularly mr. largetn, our former colleague, welcome back. has ctia conducted usage studies which measure actual usage to see of the spectrum is being used?

>> you're talking about the spectrum allocated for mobile wireless? >> has business in -- been completed to tell whether the spectrum is being used? >> i am not sure i understand the question. >> has anybody made any study to find out if the spectrum is properly being used? anybody? >> the commercial mobile wireless spectrum we have available to this industry today is used more efficiently than in any other country in the world. >> i will take it as a no and i figure for that. to all ctia carriers operate a full spectrum today? >> no, sir. >> as the fcc conducted any usage studies which examine whether the spectrum either by your members or anybody else is

being properly and adequately used with regard to that spectrum which is assigned to them? >> i am not aware of any. >> the argument seems to be that you have enough spectrum for now but will need to 10 years from now or at some future time, is that correct? >> we have enough spectrum for right now but we will need spectrum before 10 years. >> i thoroughly agree with you. our problem here is to see how we will get that spectrum officially allocated. you'll remember that we had a serious problem due to the fact that the spectrum was was going to be sold for budgetary reasons as opposed to addressing the proper use of the spectrum. to all witnesses, starting on your right and my left, how do

you do h.r. 3125 and h.r. 3019? do you view it as, iii to the sec's alert -- do you view as complementary to the fcc's alert system? >> yes. >> yes, very much. >> the answer is yes but i believe it can be expanded. >> next witness, please? >> no. >> yes. >> if the completion of national broadband should be delayed pending enactment of h.r. 3125 and h.r. 3019, how long should such asuch a delay be?

how long should or could that the lady? -- that the leg be? >> -- that delay be? >> i think the requirement is so great that we do not want to wait pending some of these of -- taking some of the steps pending the inventory. >> i would agree with that. >> next witness, please? >> likewise, dick >> how long should the delayed the ball away for the studies? >> the answer is that delay is not good but delay is frankly better if you do not have the right information. if you need the right information, delay may be necessary. >> i am no special pleader for

the leg. my concern is that if we do this, we do it well i'm not satisfied that up until this time, we have been doing these things well. i am very much troubled that we will expend that that history by again doing things poorly. we have built upon a faulty edifice. next witness, sir? >> we would recommend moving forward with the spectrum inventory including the actual measurements which will help identify bands that are particularly useful for spectrum sharing. >> all right, mr. chairman, i am 4 seconds over my time for it i yield back in thanks to you. >> thank you very much. the gentlemen from oregon is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much and thank you for this hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for your testimony.

dr. johnson, i appreciate your technical council on the legislation, as well senator smith, want to go to you on this notion put forth by the distinguished scholar and resident at the fcc for first amendment spectrum, dr. benjamin britten in his paper, this is from may of this year, he writes that the most obvious desirable regulations are probably those that are pure dead weight loss. regulations because broadcasters to give in amounts of money would have no impact on their behavior. this category would include owners keeping records, these are unlikely to have any impact on programming and will likely be pure cost. his thesis is a modest proposal it is to make it so costly on broadcaster that they surrender their spectrum.

i find it an abomination and i find it offensive and i do not understand why he is in this position at the fcc and i will follow-up on that. given the fact that we just went through a $2 billion d-tv conversion and you are on the cusp of a digital television technology that is mobile and you make the argument in your statement about how every new subscriber to that free over the air digital mobile service makes it more efficient because you're not adding to the stream, if we follow prof. benjamin's council or the sec does, are we just throwing that $2 billion into a paper shredder? >> yes, you're throwing $2 billion of u.s. taxpayer money away. you are throwing away potentially on told billions of dollars that u.s. citizens have spent in detrimental reliance upon the congressional urging of

the digital transmission. suffice it to say, my phone has been ringing off the hook ever since this gentleman's work has been revealed. i think what he does is simply try to monetize the highest and best use in pure dollar terms, disregarding all the other public values that are served through localism, local news, local weather, these are things like when it comes to emergency information, amber alerts, i don't know how you monetize that. i am hesitant to say it but when it comes to broadcasting and the broadcast airwaves, they have always been a public option. they make sure that everybody gets served. he seems to be suggesting that that maybe should yesterday. >> all right, dr. johnson, a

raise the issue in my opening statement about the amateur radio broadcast service. i failed to disclose that mr. ross and i are the two licensed amateur radio operators would give us lessons to be real hams. [laughter] as well as politicians as you look at the spectrum from a technical perspective, what should amateur radio licensees be concerned about? what value do you see in that spectrum? >> i will not be able to give you a full and detailed answer because i have not looked at that particular issue in detail. i would support, however, and i am also a ham radio operator, i would support your thesis that the ham bands have been an important backup system for the nation's security and i think they are a vital resource for citizens who have an interest in that kind of technology.

there are other avenues to address those same issues outside of the ham bands, i still think they are important. we would be happy to look at the technical details of the challenges to that particular band. >> mr. hatfield, do you have any particular comments about ham radio bands? >> i name my license expired but i started as a ham radio operator when i was 14 years old. the problem that the amateur radio community has is that they do provide a very vital, final backup communication network. it is totally de-centralized so there is nothing central that can fail. if you tune across the band, they are often idle. if somebody was really clever, maybe we could figure out ways we could do a little sharing their that would not diminish the amateur opportunity of all for use in emergencies. it might be used for other vital public purposes, as well.

>> mr. chairman, i know my time has expired and i will excuse myself. we have a classified briefing with the secretary of state and the secretary of defense on afghanistan and pakistan that i will go to. i think food -- i thank you for your testimony and i look forward to working with all of you as we move forward in a thoughtful and constructive way on the produce of spectrum. .

>> i am not sure why you think going up to 10 megahertz is there. is it doctor? >> yes, it's doctor. but i think the answer is maybe the confusion, it's a range up to roughly 3 megahertz that is critical to people in the cellular industry. on the other hand some of the services we might want to relocate could go higher, it would work ok if they go higher in frequency. and therefore we could make an argument to make it up to 10 of

opportunities of example of some reallocated from below. >> so there are limitations of sight? >> that's correct. for mobile applications. but for certainly radar applications where you have line of sight, it may work fine. that's the basis for the difference. i would support going up higher for that purpose. but we must not kid ourselves there is technical limitations that could prevent it. >> thank you, dr. johnson. you mentioned the idea that there is no single metric for efficiency. is there anyone out there that you are aware of or would be useful of a set of definitions? >> we think a single definition like intensity of use is not appropriate. we propose a variety of metrics

that align to the applications. for example, metedrix of communication systems would be different for radar systems. >> you would supply the committee with that information? >> we would be happy to provide that. >> the last thing i have, the notion that the paper inventory isn't going to be adequate. i didn't appreciate that, i come from a technical background and a field tester. and when mr. stroup showed the graphs with all the blank spaces. people that own spectrum, will say, we use all of them and don't reallocate and will need to do a lot of testing. and it seems to me on the basis of what was spoken this morning, a fairly big task to judge how much spectrum is available out there, could you comment on that?

>> yes congressman, we submitted suggestions in our testimony of shorter term approaches and longer term. we recommend 10-20 stations supplemented by testing, and over a longer period of time with universities and other organizations to compile an inventory of spectrum. >> that's a lot of time and money. even what you call a short cut seems like a fairly big undertaking. >> i believe that the ntia and other organizations, the national science foundation are already compiling this information. some studies are already available publicly and can be integrated into this database. it's not as large as undertaking it as it may seem. i agree there is a great deal of data that will be compiled.

the illinois institute of technology is conducting ongoing studies in chicago. they have over 2 terra bytes of information. >> i mentioned in my written statement that the costs are coming down for doing this. the british telecomregulator completed a measured device of air waves on the roof top of a national vehicle fleet that , we can do on a public vehicle service and that is downloaded over wi-fi. and there is a monitoring network that is being field tested by a company and hope to have one on the roof of our building. >> my time has expired, mr. hatfield do you have a response? >> in my written testimony i

said to focus on those bands that are the most promising. >> it comes down to one of our favorite presidents saying, trust and verify. thank you mr. chairman. >> there mr. mcnerney. the gentleman from indiana, mr. buyer is recognized. >> thank you, are you aware of this title of phone service? >> i have not read the entire thing but aware of it. >> are you aware of the recommendations of gao, and they recommend to improve the outreach to consumers of related performance goals and measuring and monitoring complaints. and two, develop state roles and three, communicate with the states. you are familiar with

these recommendations? >> i am more if -- familiar of the facts, that 84% -- >> that's where i am going, you are getting ahead of me. they have these recommendations based on and i ask you to comment based on what they are based on. and whether we look at the choices of of the consumers in the christmas season and would you look at the basis that they rely upon for these recommendations. >> i think -- it's not the way i would have written the report based on the statistics they found in the study. knowing this city as i have for the last six years and seeing the consumer complaints decline every year. and the consumer satisfaction going up every year.

we feel that is movement in the right direction. the 84% is not enough for us but it's a positive mark for the industry. and i hope to sit before you in a year or two and how we are not at 84% but higher today. i think that the report did highlight in things that the f.c.c. could be about that would improve their service. but the bottom line is that i think it's a star for the wireless industry to show the improvement of our services for customers. >> in regard to companies that make judgments in competition, wouldn't consumer satisfaction be an important element? >> absolutely, it's the key statistic they look at all the time. >> i get excited when i listen to my good friend, mr. markey

share his excitement about competition in the marketplace. i share with my friend, mr. markey, when you rejoice in competition with the marketplace and bringing consumers relative to choice, be not too eager for government control when the consumer satisfaction is driving it. and the other thing, if i have latitude mr. chairman, because i am co-sponsor of this legislation. i would like to shift gears and turn to mr. smith and ask a particular question. as a matter of fact it may drive, mr. chairman, i think we should take a really good look here at comcast and nbc. so i will ask a question about comcast and nbc, mr. smith.

i have, i got some concerns about your member companies out there. i got concerns about consolidation in the marketplace. i have concerns about what type of new business model does this bring and what is the impact and how does it drive impact for advertising. you held up your phone and talked about the platform and as a marketplace in the future, it's all about individualizing and advertising. and if we permit the marketplace to mine and profile people, and pretty soon how it's driven not only upon a web, you can have individualized advertising appearing on tv. as i think about into the future and how a vertical integration is this deal when you have this many eyes of comcast and to control content, it almost turns our present

business model inside up and upside down, i welcome your comments. >> congressman, some of my members are for it and some are concerned about it. and i am with my friends. >> very good, senator. [laughter] >> the naba has not taken a position on this at this juncture. we are going to watch and see what kind of conditions develop. but we are intuned to the issue and the problems you cited. >> the supreme court talked about the importance of having diversity among our media and that was in the 1940's. with regard to ideas. if i am a member company and have affiliates, can you relate to their concerns even about retransmission and fees and

what impact does that have? and where upon others and if there is cost shifting because of this vertical integration? >> i answer their phone calls because they are concerned with the very issues you identify. but i assume that the f.c.c. and department of justice will look at these things and propose conditions if this is to go forward. and at this juncture it's the association that we allow this process to work. >> one concern i have, mr. chairman, and why i encourage you to place your eyes and concerns on this issue. is defined by the silence. when there is silence in the marketplace because of this type of deal, that tells me that there is great concern in the marketplace and fear that if in fact the company were to come out and come against this

type of merger, what type of repercussions in the marketplace would occur. the fact that there is silence out there, is beginning to bother me, mr. smith. that member companies may confine in that phone call but they are not coming out publicly because they don't want to get jammed in the communications. >> i believe they are concerned of this process and share the concerns you expressed. we have networks and affiliates and they have most issues in common. but this is one where there needs to be an accommodation and understanding and a legal structure put in place that allows both to survive. >> i would encourage us to put our ice -- eyes to have a better understanding and to see what impact this merger will have on a multi-media platform

and business model. >> thank you, let me assure that we will have one hearing of comcast and nbc next year, and the gentleman is right in expressing the need on this. and it's our indication to do so. we have mr. stupak for next five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. largent, i have a question for you, recognizing the challenges that congress and the f.c.c. spectrum, are companies in the cta are exposing the dynamics of the possible solution? >> i would say our companies

are exploring every opportunity and option available to them. including to utilize their own spectrum, to use it more efficiently and look at every avenue ahead in the years ahead to access more spectrum. >> are any companies in your organization using the dynamic spectrum access? are any trying to borrow f you will, in a peak time surrounding system, is that going on now? >> i am sure they are looking at every option available to them. >> ok, mr. smith. good to see you and thanks for being here. let me ask you this one, i think it's important to search for a solution of the spectrum crisis to serve free over the air broadcasting. in your testimony you cite how the use of white space spectrum in rural america is the way to

go. this is solution useful in urban centers as well? >> it could be but we want to be sure that we don't integrate other signals. >> let me ask this, does nde have plans for multicasting, have you done studies? >> we are doing a study now on % that very question, because we understand the importance of this issue and want to have the best information possible. >> any idea when that study will be done? >> i don't have a date, but i will get it to you, congressman. >> mr. hatfield, we talked about the spectrum crisis, do we only worry about the high

population centers, in our rural areas we have places that don't have anything. >> exactly, it's primarily a large, urban area issue. and even within that urban area, there are real hot spots. for example a football stadium on a sunday afternoon. and having said that, i tend to divide the market in two parts, that's the urban problem and rural problem. and we need to use the spectrum in the rural areas that is not needed because of population density. >> let me ask this, is more access for spectrum the only issue that this committee should be focused on. but for the next generation smart phones? >> as i indicated in my written testimony, i don't hold out a lot of hope for the traditional

solutions for the major urban areas. but there are certainly the examples that i gave, like compression and so forth that we should be pursuing. you don't think they solve the problem completely. >> if we start using the smart phones won't the manufacturers help alleviate the problems of freeing up more spectrum. is that a solution to find in manufacturing and the f.c.c. and government? >> i don't see how the hand sets by themselves can do a lot to improve with the exception of the sort of dynamic spectrum access where the handset is smart enough that it's looking around to see what other spectrum is available and move to it. so we can use the intelligence in the handset to find

additional spectrum. i am not sure how intelligence in a handset will improve the existing spectrum use. >> i talk in my written statement about the importance of encouraging hybrid networks. because as dale said we are reaching the limits, and reaching limits in terms of how close the carriers can bring cell sites and back-haul to the consumer. so you need to shrink the cell size, and pending at the f. c.c. is the rules to consider the phone to wireless. and if the consumer has the choice, they can decide on the fly what is my most economical path, and in most places like a

place like this or at home, it's over unlicensed spectrum into local backhaul and that will unload a lot of traffic from carriers. >> thank you mr. stupak. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. hatfield you are talking about capacity for dynamic sharing of a spectrum. so that we can make more efficient use of currently allocated spectrum. what percentage of our spectrum needs can be satisfied by use of dynamic sharing? >> i have no looked at it candidly in a sort of quantitative way. but i think, i think -- i am not going on answer you

satisfactory, but it's sufficient enough that it's a help, but i don't think it gets us all the way there. >> what you are talking about is something that is supplemental to what the needs are going to be in the future. but not a substitute for transfer of spectrum nord deal -- in order to deal with the issue, is that right? >> i would put it slightly differently, i think we need to use all of the techniques. >> yeah, i use polysimple words, do you agree with that mr. largent? this reminds me of cafe standards and improvement of vehicles or appliances efficiency, and if we can use new technology to get better efficiency out of the

automobiles or the appliances. but at the same time you want to do the research on all new technologies. all electric vehicles, whatever, to move out of the old technologies. and that's kind of what we are talking about, to get the additional spectrum and squeeze out from the old. >> i have a chart i will submit for the record, and it talks about how efficient different countries utilize the spectrum, and in the u.s. we have 270 million consumers, and we use per megahertz 600,000 per spectrum. and that's the most efficient say than mexico, they have 79

million users, but we are using the spectrum to us in the most efficient way possible and sometimes by magnitude too. >> mr. smith. >> your question to us is about -- >> about this balance of squeezing the efficiencies out of the old technology as opposed to moving over a spectrum to augment what we have allocated to maximize the wealth generating opportunities. >> i think it's one of the miracles we have before us, how much more efficiently we are using the spectrum. and broadcasting has invested bill -- billions to achieve that. i believe because we have seen the explosion of the technology that you spoke of at the beginning of the hearing, congressman, there will be technologies that will provide the answer here, so we can

preserve the broadband and broadcast values that we seek to preserve. >> i would like to make comments, first our customers are driven towards efficiency. we mentioned the use of unmanned systems and streaming video and the intelligence of surveillance and needs in iraq and afghanistan that are driving that efficiency as they are with the commercial market. lockheed has developed some tools for that efficiency. in the federal and non-federal binary view, it's not that, because it's important to raeltz -- realize that the department is a major consumer of the systems. so they have to balance that

accommodation between commercial and federal needs. >> 20 seconds. >> yes, i would emphasize that the military is deploying access being built into radio systems. and going back to the p.c.s. allocation proceeding, that spectrum was through paths and received through the auction with the understanding not to interfere with that and we use that model with those technologies where they are not relocated but share the spectrum. >> yeah, i think we have to be flexible in terms of the goal and of what the final accommodation looks like. but i think it will have substantial portions of both. and we need to encourage both

to make ourselves as competitive as a nation. and looking over our shoulders at the world, so we maintain this lead. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to start by thanking all the witnesses. and especially thank dale hatfield for his dedication to public service and his persistency for helping others to understand these issues. i never had the chance to tell you that personally. mr. largent and mr. smith, you both talk a lot about mobile/video broadcasting. and i am curious do you think that people want to watch a limited number of channels on a device this big.

or do you think they want to watch their choice of programs when they want to watch them. and should that consumer preference drive spectrum decisions? >> i would say from my personal experience, the older i get, the harder it is to watch television on a handset. but we are serving close to 280 million customers in this country, and i would say there is probably some consumer uptake of that particular service as it becomes available and as it is available now. >> mr. smith. >> congressman doyle, i don't think they should be regarded as exclusive. i think we can do both. and i know young people are highly interested in mobile tv. and i suspect that many who don't have to wear these are as well.

that said, i think it's very important that these new inventions like hulu coming along and using broadcast content, it won't be many years until your laptop will have a broadcast signal too. it's not either/or, it's both. >> and it seems to me, i agree, i think it's young people, i couldn't watch on this either. it seems to me those same people are the ones that don't want a set schedule. they want to watch their show when they want to watch their show. that being the case when we talk about the best place to allocate spectrum, yeah, i saw a note, i want to watch this deal or see the sea hawks in real time. right now the steelers aren't beating anyone. yeah, eddie, were you responsible for that?

>> and congressman to that point, i hear your point and i hear congressman markey's point. people saying i want to watch when it's happening. and it's part of being the american tradition. particularly when it comes to sports, people are anxious to see it live, realtime. >> mr. hatfield. >> i want to thank you for your kind remarks, and stepping back from this, you have asked the fundamental question. if people want to watch content simultaneously, that broadcast model is the way to do it. if people want to watch individual things, then the more cellized approach is more efficient. so your decision and our decision is how that balance should be made. and, of course, on the broadcast side we probably have this additional public interest benefits that general

broadcasting that may sway the decision. but from an engineering standpoint that's the fundamental question, how much is individual choice and how much is simultaneously with the other people of the country. >> i have one other question, mr. smith in the pittsburgh area, roughly 8% of my people in the region get their broadcast with rabbit ears. i was curious if you had numbers on how many people -- 8%, yeah, 8%. watch with rabbit ears. how ozvmany people, do you have numbers of how many watch hd-tv and versus the rabbit ears? >> i have heard the range from 8% to 20%. but there are a couple of other

factors, depending on your congressional district, mr. barton's district may go as high a 40%. and over the air seems to be people that are rural, poor or elderly ssand have invested in the digital. >> you think they have hd-tv's? >> i believe that the figure of $25 billion which is an estimate of what people have spent in the digital transition. many of them do now and they really like high-definition and don't want to see it degrade the. -- degraded. and they value the broadcasting, this is the miracle that is now made possible because we did this. and it's a very exciting future that i hate to see clouded by ill considered idea that is pit

broadband against broadcast. i think in the fullness of time there are opportunities for both. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from washington state is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. largent, we know that americans will be looking at their cell phones more frequently and on an how do -- hourly basis. i want to know what we can do for the networks that will be necessary? >> number one i would applaud what the f.c.c. did in november of improving the tower sight initiative. we have been fighting this battle for a long time, giving local jurisdictions the ability to object to tower sighting proposals and to do it in a

timely fashion. and that goes a long way to help this industry provide more service to this country. i applaud the f.c.c. for their action on the tower sighting. the two bills today are the beginning of the process and the end of the process. the spectrum inventory bill is to look at the spectrum out there. and your bill comes in at the end of the process and says, here is a more orderly fashion to move the current spectrum holders to their new spectrum and do it in a more efficient, effective way and do it faster. so both of these bills are good bills and go a long way to improve the process to require additional spectrum that the wireless industry will need in the years to come. >> i don't want to miss anyone,

i didn't hear any good or not so good construction of our bill. does anyone have any suggestions of the bill that i am working on to improve the product? we are always looking for good suggestions. this may be the only hearing in american history where there is no constructive criticism. you suggested to broaden the spectrum fund to provide for a wider degree of band sharing. can you give us a sense of what you are suggestive of and cost and what kind of approach? >> right, it's very difficult to know the exact cost. in fact i would assume that first of all that the agencies that would be proposing to modernize their system to free up spectrum for sharing that they would be second in line.

that first from that spectrum relocation fund the priority for those agencies that need to migrate off of band so it's clearing for licensing. and secondarly, we have remaining funds and agencies should be able to apply to the technical panel that you proposed in the bill setting up, which would then recommend to omb which of those on a competitive basis, which would have the greatest impact of freeing up spectrum for the current sector or for spectrum benefits. and it's a great benefit to make them more effective and also freeing up spectrum. >> thank you very much, mr.

inslee, i will ask unanimous consent from mr. cherry to insert in the record the letter of the subject matter of electronic warfare and operation and association. and that would be made a part of the record. and the lady from california, is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like that ask a question of dr. johnson. in your testimony you indicated that future government spectrum needs will be focused on high-bandwidth, use for video and aircraft, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> can you provide a percentage of what is used for the aircraft that is provided for commercial satellite systems

using spectrums above 10 megahertz? >> i can't provide it, but can after the hearing. >> thank you. and can you say that video iv's will use spectrum above 10 megahertz? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> thank you, and >fkif i can g that in writing after the hearing. and i yield the balance of my time to steve buyer. >> thank you, and the question i have and thank you for yielding. it's about the delays and the delivery of spectrum and its impact of delivering commercial systems. if you look in 2006 when t-mobile paid a lot of money, 2.4 billion for spectrum, we are years down the range and still don't have systems delivered.

when we layout these timelines for the delivery and they are not met. so i look at this legislation that is before us, and i am interested in your opinions if i were to offer an amendment, so when mr. markey talks about giving encouragement. what if we offered an amendment that had a penalty clause. so if a government department or agency does not deliver the relocation at the timeline that is specified. then that department or agency is to pay interest on the monies relative to where that spectrum is located. so you can figure out the economic impact. if d.o.d. says it's too expensive to deliver, then deal with it.

you said what they were, and said you can deliver on a date, then deal with it. if i offer an amendment as incentive. if we ask for the companies to do the next auction and government takes the money andee -- and we use the money and yet don't deliver when we said we would. you talked about public values, and those are based on virtues and you need a deal required on fidelity, and if the government is not upholding its fidelity and then have a penalty clause, what is your thoughts? >> i like your thinking going into this. i would prefer and i am thinking about this free-wheeling now. i wasn't prepared for the question, as i think about it, you can perhaps build

incentives for the people moving off the spectrum to get off. and you give them the spectrum relocation money and if they are off in a year, and something less than that amount if they are off in two years. so you give them more money to relocate than opposed to that. >> so we can incentize and penaltyize. >> we like incentives. >> and if he doesn't have i dog -- have a dog in the fight. and having said that, i applaud what you are thinking, i think it would have the effect of incentizing the auction and know it's a two-way street. >> i thank you, i would like to

explore this with my colleagues to build this into the next piece fof legislation. >> you may have to put a second dog your amendment, and we may have to punish congress that spend that spectrum money five times over. >> i agree with that. >> i think we will close this happying hearing, thank you to our witnesses and have a good holiday. thank you for being here [gavel] >> all this week get a rare glimpse in america's highest court with 10 supreme court justices. >> anyway once we hear the

argument, we go to the conference room that week and sit around the table and talk about it. no one else in is the room. and then we vote. >> tonight our interviews with associate justices, stephen brier and clarence thomas. 8 p.m. on c-span, and get your own copy on dvd, it's part of c-span's american icon association, a three-disk set. >> tonight on c-span-2, notable books of 2009. book tv looks at the best books of the year, tonight david plouff, michelle malkin and doug stanton and david finkle,

that's at 8 eastern and you can see the various list at book-tv.org. >> on thursday a look at world leaders, then new year's day a look at what is ahead for the new year, russian prime minister discusses his administration. the creator of the segway and co-founder of guitar hero, on innovation. >> michelle malkin is our guest on book tv, the blogger and best seller of four books. three hours sunday live at noon eastern on book-tv, part of a

three day new year's weekend, starting friday. >> there is less than a month left to enter the c-span youth contest, top prize $5,000. create a video of the country's basic, it must incorporate c-span's programming and showing varying views. don't wait another minute, go to studentcam.org for contest rules. >> speak yesterday, author walter oleszek talks about the lobbying and the process. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning.

[inaudible] the special institute that trains people how to go into advocacy and lobbying. and this morning i am pleased to introduce a colleague of mine. he's been a distinguished adjunct professor and award winning adjunct professor. working here for 27 years. and he's a senior analyst in the government. and he's been there since the 60's. and most importantly he's really a world-class scholar when it comes to understanding congress and congressional procedures. he's got the best book on congressional procedures, and

he's the co-author and it's in its 12th edition on congress and its members. walter oleszek, he will talk about the legislative process and lobbying, and how at each stage lobbyists need to know what is going on. walter, welcome. >> thank you jim for that kind introduction. and i am glad to be back, and soon classes will start for the spring semester and i will be back on campus then. with that introduction, jim mentioned the only book on congressional procedures, and that's why it's probably used. whatever, thank you. you know people like jim, anyone who introduces someone, they have to make a lot of statements about the person they are introducing, otherwise why are they there.

we have storytellers and wits and one that is not there, the republican from wyoming, and he tells the story that applies to all lawmakers and why they have to go back to their states and speak to audiences like this. and share the highlights of what simpson has done for the great state of wyoming, and doesn't stop there and all he's done for the united states of america. and doesn't stop there, and all he's done to promote world peace and prosperity. and finally at the end of the statement, he says well, now for the latest dope from washington, here's senator simpson. and i will give you my spin in this time, and king henry the viii said to his many wives, i won't keep you long, but long enough. i want to make some general

observations about lobbying and the business. and secondly i will do as jim suggested to walk through some major stages of the lawmaking process and indicate where a lobbyist may be able to enter and influence the process and the decisions that congress makes. when you have a question or comment or story or joke, shoot up your hand. or yell out, maybe you have to raise your hand on c-span. i will take it then or the end you can ask questions. in terms of general observations. number one, i will make three or four of these points. we are all well represented in this institution. in this country. no doubt about it. in this room, we are well represented. because everything in it is probably represented by some

group or organization located off and here in washington, d.c. from the tie i am wearing, and the industry is well represented and some who are drinking and the cups, we are represented tremendously well, from the tables you sit at and the chairs. from birth to death we are well represented by all kinds of organizations. and i suggest if you want to get a sense of what moves washington, d.c. at times, i can recommend reading the constitution, that's valuable. but look at the telephone directory and whether it's d.c. or fairfax county or maryland. you will list all kinds of associations and wonder what they do for some of them. but they all represent someone, because this is a representativive democracy.

and congress gives to the voice they represent or businesses, whatever it may be. so well represented. and another point that is part of that, probably the third largest business or industry in washington, d.c. besides government and tourism. so there is lots and lots of people affiliated with the lobby ing -- lobbying broadly. you can probably identify registered lobbyists. and i am not sure of the vñstow 15 or 20,000, but it varies. and now there is movement for deregistration. but there is far more people involved in the lobbying community than those just officially registered. your professor, jim, the head of the center for right next door. i think you counted over

260,000 people affiliated maybe in washington, d.c. area. and there are probably hundreds and tens of thousands that are not counted but in grass-roots lobbyists across the country. so it's large, and you have internet providers and all kinds of policy and media specialists. all the folks in this town that are associated with some lobbying enterprise, when you look at it broadly. and you know there is maybe a second point i will make now. that our system is conducive to lobbying. you know some of you probably have read, and maybe many times, james madison, federalist no. 10, that fraction is sown in the men and

women of today. and he himself of the federalist papers and they were lobbyists using the media to try to converge the new constitution drafted by the framers. and you look at the classic french colnier that talked about american life and he articulated that americans are a nation of joiners. and i bet everyone in this room belongs to one or more group or organization, and maybe not directly influencing policy decisions. but you belong to a group, maybe soccer team or whatever it is. citizens like to join groups. many of them. and of course the constitution itself. we can't forget that.

which the right to petition the government for grievances and the right of association and the right of free speech. all of this combined is very conducive to the formation of all kinds of groups. and we have numerous cleavages in society that help to trigger special interests if you will, the form and organizations. urban versus rural. labor versus business, you can go down the list. there are all kinds of groups that are formed based around these cleavages or differences over issues. what is a special interest, that's a good question. one thing i suggest is to look in the mirror. all of us are special interest. you are college students and you can be sure you have lobbying on your behalf. probably you want more student loans at cheaper interest rates. i am a so-called political

scientist along with jim, and what happened is you are probably familiar with the name tom coburn, from oklahoma and he offered an amendment on the floor of appropriation bill and there were all grants that are provided to political scientists across the country from the national endowments of the country. many of these grants are worthless, we have a better use for this kind of money. what happened? we have an association of the american political scientist association, a real farce. but they get mobilized and get political scientists around the country writing into their favorite lawmaker saying it's not a good idea. so a lot of special interests

and all of us among them. and another point i would make, part of this program for two weeks i believe. and so when you go home and talk to your mother, father, friends or colleagues, you can tell them lobbying is an honorable profession. it does have over a period of time a sort of corrupt at times and sorted and legal kinds of experiences. right from the very beginning if you will. some periods more prominent than others, from the guilded age to the late 1900's, you had senators from standard oil or u.s. steel. i say that and you move it to the contemporary period, to today. you have problems no question about it. you probably know the name jack aberrson, and he got involved

in bribing lawmakers, and he's in the federal pen, and as a lobbyist, one bad apple spoils the barrel. but it's a useful profession, so don't hesitate to go into it. in order to do a good job you have to have skills and talents. internally if you are going to try to move the congress, that's an obstacle course. you have to have knowledge about policies, and you can call in experts of course to testify if you are not the right person. you have to have a good sense of what strategies and tactics are use to feel -- useful to move your idea through the process. you have to know the actors involved. the way you have to persuade

and influence a senator like bernie saunders from vermont, that is probably different from the senator from the state of utah. you have to know the differences of what will move these people and that's one of your fundamental jobs. and you know have to know the procedures. and externally you need a communication strategy to win the support, how do you win public opinion. how do you move grassroots support to move your idea or stop a bad idea through the process. a couple of other points and maybe i will stop and see if you have questions. how about this one, this is more academic, scholars and others have been worried about  the issue of when does the private interest overwhelm the

public interest, this conflict if you will. and they try to get a better grip from a theoretical perspective of what are lobbyists engaged in. and you have three theories, one is called the exchange theory. this is the idea that lobbyists are able to provide many things but certainly two big things that all lawmakers want. that's money and votes. and they are often able to deliver both of those ingredients that are necessary for lawmakers to perhap win re-election and stay in office. money and votes. so the idea here is that you get access this way, and then you are able to perhaps encourage lawmakers to vote a certain way. well, this is sort of a crude measurement. and another thing, be careful about cause and effect.

in terms of vote buying or renting a vote for a limited period. because if i was a make believe member and from the state of oklahoma or louisiana or texas. you can be sure that i would go around with my cup and say to the oil and gas industry, please fill it up. i have been very helpful. and they will fill it up, right. and then the analysts will come along and look at my voting record, and what will they say? boy because he votes right down the line for the oil and gas industry, bought and paid for, right by the oil and gas industry. well, how about we take the reverse example. same example but the reverse case. i don't accept a dime or penny from the oil and gas industry,

record and i vote right down the line for the oil and gas industry. because this is a representative government. and most of my employees are in that area, oil and gas, if i don't vote to elect them, they will pick someone else. . .

>> they call it a lobbying and subsidy, that lawmakers and their staff are very busy, they have limited time, limited resources. what lobbyists to do is to work with lawmakers who support their point of view. they are allies. they reinforce the position of their allies by helping them out. they serve fundamentally as had junk staff, if you will, and provide them -- as adjunct staff, if you will, and provide them with procedural advice and pull all this together. the last point on this contention -- conceptual faiz, if you will. this is something i'm not sure you will find in the textbooks or whatever, but if you look at all of the lobbying groups around, here is how you might want to think about it.

one would be, you have all kinds of -- we will call them individual lobbying shops, you know, businesses, corporations like google or ford or chrysler if they are around. they all have their shops on the case reade, probably headed by somebody called the vice president -- on "k" street, probably headed by some because the vice president. his job is to communicate the troy its views to lawmakers. at the same time, -- detroit's views to lawmakers. at the same time, these people here communicate what is going on at the hilt with the people back in detroit. it is a two-way process. the second kind of lobbying group, organization or entity -- however you want to characterize it -- would be the organization's.

the big ones we all know, the afl-cio, the chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, the american medical association, of course, the american political science association. all of those and more. and if you are a smart businessman or woman, you probably belong to the national independent federation of small business -- i forget the exact title, but that is roughly it. so what happens then? maybe you run a small hardware store, you know, a barbershop, with four or five employees. to whatever the dues may be for you in that bracket, maybe $25, $50, maybe you get some literature explaining to you what is happening on the hill with respect to small business. maybe they send you some information about an annual conference in las vegas, maybe.

that is the association. then you have a lot of boutique lobbying shops around. you have a lot of former members, former hill staffers, former executive officials who have specialized knowledge, or interest in a certain area. they form their small shop with a limited number of employees. but for example, if i was a staff director -- a former staff director of the house transportation and infrastructure committee, may i would decide i want to go out and start my own lobbying shop, boutique lobbying shop. what am i going to do? i'm actually going to specialize in one person, really, the chair, because i worked for the chair and we are pals. then you can be sure probably lots of other transportation modes will want to hire me because i had easy access to the committee chair who has jurisdiction over their areas

that are vital. you have boutique shops as well. and of course, law firms are another one. we have lots of lawyers that are engaged in lobbying. probably many of them have never seen the inside of a court, but that is not their job. their job is to work on behalf of their clients, whomever they may be, with the regulatory agencies on the hill to get stuff done or to stop that stuff -- that stuff from happening. and we have a large public relations firms like hillard 5 fleischman, or whatever. what is it? fleischmann hillard, ok. these are one-stop shopping centers, if you will. they do almost everything a client wants. if you want some law help, they

can probably provide that. if you want campaign fundraising help, they can do that. if you want bills drafted, they can help on that. if you want amendments, they can help on that. if you want coalition building, they can do that. so, one-stop shopping, if you will. that is what i want to save by the way of introductory comments. if anyone has any questions right now, or stories or jokes, by all means. >> you say that we are well represented. and would you say that we are equally represented? >> no, not equally represented. a lot of people are not engaged in the policy process at all. and there are certainly those folks who are better educated, if you will. they have more money, more attentive to go -- but to what is going on. they're likely to have their hoard -- their voice heard a little bit louder.

we will call them in the needy category, those people that are less well-off, they have different issues in mind. i suppose if you are fairly wealthy, and all of you are going to fall into this category, you are going to think about issues of health or transportation or war and peace, clean air, global warming, all of that. if you are just struggling, you have other issues. how am i going to put food on the table? how am i going to keep my job? you have got lawmakers who represent them, but there is not equal representation. this is an imperfect system. that is just the reality of life. anything else? now you want to go to the stuff about lawmaking.

all right, in many ways you could almost argue that the history of lawmaking is the history of lobbying because right from the very beginning in 1789 with the new constitution you have lobbying going on then, you know, farmers, merchants, etc. the abolitionist movement, the anti- saloon league, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, a consumer movement, environmental movement, whatever. we have always had it and will always will have it. based on this kind of system. i want to run through some of the major places where they can jump in. i will start at the very beginning, if you will. somebody has an idea, somebody is advocating an idea -- and of course, a lot of groups advocate ideas for lawmakers. and the lawmakers lobby the lobbyists to get their input for what the agenda ought to be for their party.

again, a two-way process in many respects. in terms of one of the first things you think about in terms of a bill or idea, if you will, is what are you going to call it? they must have a cottage industry in this town about coming up with clever titles because as probably many of you are aware, most of the bills that are introduced in the congress are dead as soon as they are introduced. we have roughly 10,000 introduced in a biannual congress. out of that, roughly 400 or so become public law. there's a tremendous win-win process, if you will. very few make it through -- there's a tremendous winnowing process, if you will. very few make it through. maybe we can give it an attractive title to give it the

ability and attract some support from the private interest groups. i will pitch this in a bigger way in just a moment. you have things like "usa patriot? ." maybe "safe -- "u.s.a. patriot act." maybe "saved banking act. -- "safe banking act." you want to pitch it to a bigger point, if you will. the idea of message sending, the idea of framing is very important at this moment in terms of how you move public opinion and how you may move public interest groups as well. what i am driving at is the idea of words as political weapons. that is how we think, you know, they shape our thoughts in terms of if they can penetrate our public consciousness with

certain words, then we are almost there. if you can frame the debate, you may be able to frame the outcome. what happens in this town between congress and the white house, between democrats and republicans, it reverberates across the country, if something -- if not sometimes are on the world as well. who can shape the message in a way that really resonates with a large number of people? this idea of a word as political weapons is very important. all of us are subject to this kind of -- to put it may be crossly --crassly -- manipulati. many people in this room and around this country no longer

recall the estate tax that, nor do they call it the inheritance tax. what do they call it? the death tax, right. it has all been spun, if you will, right? but the death tax. both parties have their consultants, if you will who meet in focus groups and they try to solicit responses to this -- to their ideas and, sure enough, someone mentioned a death tax and the group got all fired up. they are taxing me when i'm dead. you know, it cannot be. taking money from my ears, eveh even. and they have a winner. this goes out and state and national republicans just are talking about the death?

over and over and over because one of the ways that you -- about the death attacks over and over and over because one of the ways that you penetrate the public consciousness is through repetition. both parties do this all the time. the interest groups are also skilled in this business of coming up with the right frame or message. during the debate on health, we have heard "government take over." of course, that resonates with folks. mccourt "socialized medicine." that is an explosive -- or also "socialized medicine." that is an explosive statement as well. and we have the light switch that tax, any time you turn on the like, you get taxed as americans. it is something that has been picked up by the congress and become more sophisticated, particularly as the technology and technology becomes more sophisticated. in terms of marketing, i do not

know how many of you -- well, you have probably all gone to restaurants many times. there may be on the menu on one of these special occasions something that would be called to lay in sea bass. anybody ever ordered that? -- a chilean sea bass. anybody ever ordered that? if the correct name was on the list, had a ghanian to fish coming -- patagonia in to to fi, you might not want to order that. less than a year, they indicated that hunger is gone in america. what people have pains in their

stomach, what they are suffering from, that is not hundred is low food security. that is their problem. [laughter] again, framing is very important. this idea of sending a message of a training, you can be sure that some of the debate down on the floor of the house or the senate is done by teams or message groups. some are going to be produced by the republican national committee, democratic national committee, outside organizations. again, message sending, here is what our party stands for and what the other party does not stand for. why you want to vote for us. is branding. -- it is branding. another thing that does not work all the time, but sometimes mike is when you introduce a bill in the house, there is a box next to the -- but sometimes, is when you introduce a bill in the house, there is a box next to

the speaker's desk and they introduce an order to it. sometimes, the bills' no. might attract attention. you have had bills that have been introduced during the income tax season. it is something that we all want to pay because we all benefit from taxes. it is a message that it's hard to friend, but people sat down and when you think about it, it is a helpful thing. anyway, you have a 1040, you know, an s1040 or you want to make d.c. the 51st state, new columbia or whatever you call it, you would have h.j. res 51. that is the idea. sometimes they give you better

play. but people spend a large amount of time on it as well. the actual drafting the bill, and you can be sure that scores of groups around town, and certainly the executive branch and other groups on the hill as well, certainly draft amendments to those bills as well. what you are trying to do in terms of the drafting process is to influence its reference to a committee that is likely to act on it rather than one that may not act on it. how do you know this information? you know from experience, from some of your staff that has done private consultations, you also know it from the assistance provided by your friendly interest group allies who are making sounds on your behalf about which members and committees are helpful and which are not. and which chairman might at least hold a hearing at which might not. what you are trying to do is come up with a -- with the right

words and phrases and legislation while you are drafting so that it will go to the committee that you think is going to act on it positively. there are certain people engaged in this enterprise and have a big role. one of those is, of course, the alleged council -- the office of legislative council and the senate. the guy that had the office on the house side, when he testified for the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee, made some kind of comment that i briefly recollect that more and more he sees drops of bills brought to him by lawmakers -- or their staff people -- that have been drafted by outside groups. they are trying to have a bigger voice in terms of the structure of the bill itself. the house parliamentarian and a half -- and the senate parliamentarian, they do their referral legislation and usually it is a cut and dry process. but there are ambiguities. cut and dried in the sense that

military to the armed services or a banking bill to the banking services committee, but there are overlaps. how do you take advantage of these over last? here is perhaps where guidance and assistance from outside interests might be of some value, along with others as well. let me use the example of alcohol. based on how you want to draft this, you can get it before a committee that you think will act on it rather than will not based on the thrust of the legislation. and it depends on how you, as a member, view the issue of alcoholism. if you do it -- if you view it as a worker related problem because maybe too many employees are coming to work under the weather, so to speak, then maybe you want to use some work related language in europe

legislation so -- in your legislation so that it goes to the education labor, for example, and house of representatives. if you believe it is an advertising issue and maybe you want to use commercial language in the legislation so it goes to the committee that deals with advertising in the house and senate. if you view it as a health issue, then you use a lot of health language and have a bill, perhaps, to the health committees. this can be critical at times to the fate of legislation. there is more than i -- that i could say about the drafting and referral process, but maybe i will just give you one other example about how it could be significant in terms of action or inaction with legislation. i am reminded of -- some of you may remember the name of senator pete domenici, republican of new mexico who retired at the end of the last congress. there was a book written about this.

when he was a freshman senator he came in and had the idea, or somebody gave him the idea, that the people use the nation's waterways, the barge operators in the u.s., you know, they do not contribute to the federal treasury for the construction and maintenance of these waterways, he said. and they ought to pitch in not just like all the other transportation modes to the federal treasury. that was the idea. this goes back a ways. the person who headed a key committee, the finance committee, was a man by the name of russell long of louisiana. davinci's idea initially was one of the ways -- pete davinci's idea initially was one of the ways you do this is you tax people. louisiana, big river, a large number of large operators.

a high probability would be that the finance chair would not be so sympathetic to domenici's proposal. so, what did he do? any time you mention the word tax, they will send it to the finance committee or ways and means. soviet he said, no, we are not going to tax them. what we're going to do is impose on u.n. inland waterway charge. the parliamentarian read that and said come out the word "tax" is not mentioned here and i'm going to send this to the subcommittee on water resources development. pete davinci happened to be the ranking republican -- pete domenici have meant to be the ranking republican things became more complex after that because the parliamentarians also

shifted it to the senate commerce committee and that again goes to the drafting issues in how you want to direct -- address a problem that is a little bit about drafting a referral. another thing i will mention and then move on as co-sponsors of. -- ." sponsorship. -- i will mention and then move on is a co-sponsor shipship. if you are in robert -- lobbyist you can go from office to office and you have different choices. you want to demonstrate fairly broad support for your idea. one of the things you want to do in the house is to get at least 218, off the house plus one, to sign on to your idea. -- half the house plus one, to sign on to your idea. or perhaps what to want to do --

what you want to do is target it, you know, you have a sense of where your bill is going to go and if you get the chair of the committee and other committee members to sign on, maybe that will encourage activity on this legislation. or maybe you want to get the lions and lambs to join together, those people who are ideological opposites. the late senator ted kennedy once said that if he and strom thurmond, republican of south carolina, if they ever co- sponsor a bill is either an idea whose time has come or one of them has not read the bill. co-sponsors of, again, interest groups began can be very helpful in lining up. or they may persuade people not to sign up as well. it works both ways. that is something about pre introductory consideration.

in terms of committees, let me mention two or three items. the structure, maybe the assignment process, may be a bit about policy-making, and then we will move on to the floor. time is running out. i can demonstrate a filibuster. [laughter] >> this is the house. >> every second of debate time is limited. in terms of a committee system in terms of structure, if you want to design a committee system in the house or the senate, you have different avenues to do that. these have been debated on the hill for a long time. one of the ways you might want to do it is to say, we need greater house-senate parallelism. we have that to a degree. we have a correspondence between the two. or maybe you want to organize a committee system that is based on function. we have a degree of that as

well, meaning a transportation committee, commerce committee, health committee. maybe that is what we want to do. maybe you want to have a committee system that is parallel somewhat and corresponds someone to the executive branch. you create a department of homeland security and what happens? you have in the house committee on home as security and also in the senate, homeland security and governmental affairs. or there are special interest that can also play a role in the creation of these kinds of committees, even their creation and continuation. jim and i have worked on a number of committee reform panels over the years and i will just use the example that sometimes, sometimes committee reformers say that may be a certain committee ought to be merged. we never like to say that we are going to eliminate or abolish anything. what we are born to do is merged committees on the theory that you put related functions together and this will promote coordinated, comprehensive, functional system making.

all nice words, but if you're going to be the victim of one of these reorganizations as a member, or outside group who spent years wooing these committee members and suddenly disappears, you are not so happy. one of the target, sometimes i say, is the veterans affairs committee. some have suggested in the past that our bias is toward a smaller number of committees with larger jurisdictions. if that is your objective, then you look around and see which kinds of panels might be merged. veterans affairs, maybe. and then you have a choice, where does it go? it could go to the armed services committee in the house or senate. veterans' problems are primarily health-related, so do you send it to the health committee? in some of those hearings i can remember on veterans, that

issue, you know, the hearing room fills up with representatives of the veteran'' organizations, and it is an indirect message sending technique, if you will. because all the lawmakers realize that these veterans organizations are located in every state and district across the u.s. and is probably not a wise idea politically to think about abolishing -- or not abolish, really -- merged the veterans function with something else. that is a little on structure. the house and senate are basically a three step process in terms of how you get on committees. the one in the house -- there are four of what are called, generically, committee on committees. most of them are called steering committees. this is a party panel. the we have got four of them. most of the time they are called the steering committee.

they are the panel that hands out committee assignments to lawmakers at the start of every congress, particularly a new commerce and -- a new congress and those that want to transfer from one committee to another. these can be part of a highly secretive political process, to say the least. if you want to get on a certain committee, if you're a freshman and you know a lot of lobbying friends, you and list their help to get on a certain committee. and leaders will put you on committees that will help you get reelected because that is one of their fundamental objectives. but during the time of term limits, i would use this as an example. when republicans were in charge of the house from 1995 through 2007 and hastert was the speaker, he came up with a different technique of deciding who would chair a committee. remember, term limits were six years as a committee chair and

subcommittee chairs. the democrats kept it for the 110 and eliminate it -- eliminated it for the 111. you would have three or four more republicans from the committee coming in before the steering committee, this committee on committees for house republicans, one by one and they would have to explain and answer questions about why they were the best choice to be the committee chair. then they would have to respond pretty positively to certain questions. for example, how much money have you raised for the party? that was an important criterion in terms of being a committee chair. how good are you at putting together coalitions? and working with outside groups to do that, to pass our agenda. what kind of public relations

strategy have you devised to communicate internally or externally? you know, the giant -- the agenda of our party priorities and preferred measures. all of these questions were critical in whether or not a or b was going to be the committee chair. at the start of this congress you have a clash of titans, you may recall. john dingell, the chair -- the longtime chairman and ranking member of the house energy and commerce committee. low and behold, henry waxman who was ranking democrat on that panel decided he would challenge john dingell for the chairmanship of the 111th congress. the point is, both have decades- long experience. waxman in the class of 1974, john dingell, the longest serving house member ever in history. you have two giants of the lawmaking process going head to

head. because they have been around so long, you can be sure that they had a lot of allies, a lot of that works out there in the broader influence committee -- community that they could engage and be part of their formal team to determine whether or not one or the other will prevail and get the votes to do that. because a second step is after the committee on committees makes its recommendation, they have to submit it to either the democratic caucus or the republican conference in both chambers, for that matter. part of the instrumentality -- the heart of the party instrumentality can approve or reject. and the last stage is basically pro form, and that is the house and senate vote to place people on standing committees of each party respectively. and then policy-making, basically, that boils down to three phrases. hearings, marked and report. -- mark up and report.

no lobbyists or people they represent are going to be up there to testify. they have probably been the testimony of people. they have worked with the committee staff to suggest this witness over that witness. they are engaged throughout the particular process. the mark up phase as well. the mark up phase means the committee amending phase, the idea of making marks on the so- called draft bill or a mark that is before the committee for consideration. again, they are active as well. the hearing stage, the mark up the stage, most of them are going to be open and they are the room watching. it is not private discussions -- not to say that there are not private discussions that precede these as well. the third stage is the report and you have to have the role of the house and the role of the senate. one of the lobbyists jobs might be to make sure there are the right people in the right place at the right time because you

have got to have the votes. you do not want people not attending and having a net -- and having an official quorum, that is having the majority physically present in the room. the first step would be for the lobbyists to go to the lawmaker and say, you're going to vote today to put out the bill, just do not show up. that may trigger other forces that could change this dynamic in terms of this particular legislation. in terms of the floor, maybe i will just say a few more things and then stop for whatever questions that you have. one of the points i want to make is that the house and senate are fundamentally different. they differ in always you are familiar with, size, term, constituency. but that is not what i want to emphasize. what i want to emphasize is the house of representatives operates on the principle of

majority rule and the senate operates on the principle of minority rule. what that means in the house is that all rules, all the president's -- precedebtnts are accomplished by majority rule to move their agenda. madrid is cap and trade, financial overhaul, what ever -- whether it is cap and trade, financial overhaul, whatever. since it is a more polarized environment, you see more party- line voting then we have in a while. one of the big differences -- maybe i ought to spotlight the big differences between house and senate just briefly. the house has a rules committee and what they do is to lay out the conditions for the debating and amending legislation. this committee is controlled these days by the speaker. it is the speakers' committee,

whether or not it is democratic or republican speaker. they determine what issues will be raised on the floor of that chamber. the senate has no rules committee. in the house, as you indicated, every second of the daytime is regulated by rules or president. in the senate, they have unlimited debate, so-called filibuster. in the house, germaine amendments only, unless the rules committee permits non- germane amendments. in the senate, not relevant amendments are ok. there are some others as well, but those are some fundamental differences. back to the house, the point is here that if the majority stayed united, and if they are determined that they will eventually win they will prevail over the minority obstructionism. it may take them some time.

it may be very frustrating, but eventually they will win if there could -- if they are united and cohesive in their endeavor. it is very frustrating whether you -- when you are in the minority party. the message is often, it is no fun being in the minority in the house of representatives. the job of the minority is to do what? the job of the minority is to oppose. they are the opposition party. one of the techniques is to come up with message sending, you know, to highlight what they stand for, to come up with a dueling agenda that they can take to the paulick -- body politic in 2010. it is a fight, particularly when they do not have the white house. when bush was in the white house, that is the bully pulpit. today, they do not even have that. it is an uphill struggle. but they do have their successes, and a question about

it. last year, august 2008, remember, gasoline prices were approaching $4. august is a traditional recess month for the house and the senate. and republicans, many of them refused to go home. they stayed in his darkened chamber and invited in people to come out and listen to them and they got a fair amount of visibility over energy, and lambast the democrats for not addressing this important issue, but taking the whole month of while we are here working hard. in the senate, and if you are following this health debate and of all, you know it is a much different institution. minority ruled idea. every single senator has awesome parliamentary operatives. the filibuster is but one, but a potent one. that is why in order to stop a talkathon you need at least 60

votes. they call in and buys of everybody that they know, inside and outside the institution, in terms of how you keep 64 win 60 in order to prevail upon -- to shut down the filibuster. mcconnell wants to get 40, 41 would be the ideal number and that would stymie democrats from doing anything. so far, harry reid as majority leader has done a pretty good job of keeping 60. we will see what happens when they bring the conference report again to the floor. but this house versus an idea it, the point of it is this, -- but the point of this house versus senate idea is, if you win in terms of an advocacy group in the house, you have another chamber over there to

revisit committee to read fight the battle in a different context. what you lost in the house, maybe you can gain in the united states senate because they operate fundamentally differently. there is a quick i like, you know, byron dorgan, the senator from north dakota, he said the senate is filled with 100 human break pats. that is -- brake pads. that is why the job of majority leader is one of the toughest jobs in washington d.c. trent lott, who was the majority and minority leader once said while he was majority leader that the job of being majority leader is tougher than in the president of the united states because the president has all his advisers, the whole executive establishment to call on for advice, counsel, help, whatever. the speaker of the house has the

rules committee she or he determines, as the case might be, whether or not certain amendments are going to be allowed or not, how much debate will go on or not, etc. what have i got? good looks? the power to persuade? the right of first recognition and to set the scheduler agenda, basically, is what it amounts to. limited power, ltd. prada is in that institution. -- a limited product is in that institution. -- limited prerogatives in that institution. the reach and scope and size of government is massive. that has triggered a large number of lobbying groups, you can be sure. it is probably the principal factor in the creation of more

and more lobbying groups in town. i brought one clip. our remember reading it, so i brought it. it is out of the "wall street journal" and written by a well- known lobbyist in town. it is called "in defense of lobbying." what i liked was that he quoted at the end -- you know, presidents, many presidents do not often like lobbyists, for whatever reason. harry truman, jimmy carter, barack obama has not been to for leanna * with lobbying organizations. and likewise harry truman. he is as a press conference -- the reporter asked him, mr. president, to go back to lobbyists, would you be against lobbyists who are working for your program? truman answer, "well, that is a different matter. it would probably would not call

these people lobbyists. we would call them citizens appearing in the public interest." [laughter] jim? >> let me start with the first question. the health care bill will be going to the commerce committee and if we get a cap and a trade bill -- we have one in the house and if we get one out of the senate, is likely to go to the conference committee. could you discuss a bit about conference committees and how advocacy and lobbying occurs at conference committees? does it, and it is it's very effective? and can you give some examples? >> we have a bicameral system. to start out with the basics, bicameral system. and the constitution has implicit requirements that all bills must pass both chambers in absolutely identical fashion before they go to the white house. this is implicit in the constitution, based partly on the presentation clause and the bicameral nature of the

institution. how you get bicameral admission? the most prominent way you get it is one one chamber passes a bill, send it to the other, and the other chamber rubber stamps it. that is because it is not controversial. roughly 7% of public laws follow that rubberstamp route, as i characterized it. the second way is -- and this may be used in the health care measure and -- what we call the exchange of amendment route, where one chamber passes a bill, send it to the other chamber, and the other chamber decide what they want to do is amend it. maybe you have a house bill sent to the senate. they had a senate amendment. they could ask for a conference right then and there. but what they decide to do is send it back to the house. now the house receives it and they say, that senate, they are

always amending our stuff, right? now you have a house bill with a senate amendment. what they decide to do -- we are going to add a house amendment to the senate amendment and they could ask for a conference then. but they send it back over. this could get a bit complex. it is sort of a silly example, you know, -- i will get to the bottom line in a moment. i'm just using this for props. in 1995 when new gingrich came in and said we do not want to have any more laws commemorating national orchid month, you know, i scream week, as baird is a day, whatever, one of them was the national dairy goat awareness week. the house passes it. we will call this the house.

this prop is the house. national dairy goat awareness week. they sent it over to the senate and the senate says, what is so special about dairy goats? it is not very good that is important to the diet of americans. it is beef, that is what we want. they have got all kinds of -- there is probably a cattle caucus and the cattle caucus gets activated. then they make an amendment to the dairy goats and now it is the national dairy goats and cattle and awareness week. they do not ask for a conference. they send it back to the house. here is the house. they say, the senate, what are they always doing to us? it is not beef. the chickens, americans love to ins. that is what they like. -- americans love chickens. that is what they like. then they have the interest

courage, you know, frank perdue and his forces out there. now we have the national dairy goats, cattle, and chicken awareness week, right? and now the last one is, over here, this is back over to the senate. what happens here? grassley and harkin, they say, wait a minute, this is all wrong here. pork, it is. that ought to be honored. -- is pigs that ought to be honored. now becomes the national dairy goat, cattle, chickens and pigs awareness week. that is the exchange of amendment route. all i'm suggesting is, that is the route that might be followed because before the senate went out, senate republicans blocked the ability of harry reid to form a conference committee. his goal, of course, is to get action on health as rapidly as possible when they return in

january because they have lots of other items on their agenda and no longer that health stays out there, that maybe there -- maybe there greater resistance to it there might be. you get it done rapidly by potentially creating a -- you do it rapidly potentially by creating a conference committee, but also by doing this route. if they block going to conference, and the way you do that in the senate is that there is a three-part motion made from a request if you will. technically, it is probably not a motion. it is generally request and they will say, i move that we disagree to the house amendment or the senate amendment or the house amendment to the senate bill, or agreed to hours and insist on a conference with the other body, but the language is open " we insist on our amendment -- but the language is

"we insist on our amendment, request a conference, and authorize the presiding offered -- officer to name the conferees." it has three distinct parts to it. in my example, we insist on our amendment, request a conference with the other body, and authorize the chair to name conferees. if someone objects to that, which if they did i have not had a chance to read that record, but objection was heard and so, the choice for majority leader is to offer a motion. i moved to insist on our amendment. filibusterable, you still need 30 more hours of debate before a vote. if you get that, then you have another one on the request part of it, another filibuster. if you break that, you have got authorize.

it is impossible to get to conference. if that is going to be the strategy of the republicans, then the amendment exchange route will probably be route -- be used. that could happen partly because there will be relatively small number of people that are going to be in the room. it will probably be in the offices of speaker nancy pelosi or majority leader harry reid and they will hammer out things that both sides can agree to and particularly to hold 60 in the u.s. senate. if you go to conference, the presumption is more openness. most people do not have a chance to see conference committees in action. i commend it to you because c- span sometimes covers conference committees. if you get a chance to observe one, or go to one, it is well worth seeing. go to many, because they're all different in their characteristics. here is where an opportunity, in part, for interest group folks to be in the room, to suggest

the bargains or compromises that ought to be made between the two sides, right? they can work with the chair, the overall terror and the chairs of the respective conference delegations -- the overall chair and the chairs of the respective conference delegations to try to hammer out a report. at the conferences are basically threefold. one is, we want to try to uphold the position of our chamber, and that is hard to do. if you are going to read the second goal, and the second goal, coming up with a conference plan that will pass the house and pass the senate. it is tough to do. in any event, you have people who monitor all the time what is going on in these negotiations as best they can, even the secret ones. they get a sense of where they are going on or who is doing the

bargaining. it will be outside in the hallway, and maybe sometimes inside. you know, the conference room itself. how is this going to work out? it is not clear at the moment, but is either going to be the conference route and they will travel -- probably try to speed it up and get it done as rapidly as possible because it is also going to be filibustered. you have got to come up with the conference report which gives advantage to the senate, it seems, but the house is one to have to get in more than the senate because of the difficulty of holding 60 because that is what they need to break a filibuster on the conference report. we will see what the outcome is. anything else? yes, sir? >> is there a special way to hold the no., or do you have a staff member just sit there and count? >> [laughter] all the bills will be published -- if you want to look on the congressional record or on line,

they publish them day-by-day. but yeah, if you've got a certain number in mind for your idea, then you want to go down and talk to the court that is handing it out. they will try to be accommodating. why shouldn't they be? make sure you reserve december for me -- reserve this number for me and make sure your staff is there. by special order, the first 10 members in the house are reserved to the majority party. that reflects the majority's agenda. the next could be the republicans in the senate. the next five or 10 will be reserved for the republicans as well. but yeah, you want to make sure -- if you really want a number, you have to make sure you get it. you have a question? >>.com much of a role does lobbying play in crafting a

manager's amendment? >> that is a good question. a manager's amendment is something that can happen at different places along the line in terms of the legislative process. that is been -- has been in the news of late because senator harry reid, he recalled that the press has covered this extensively, he took the products of the health, education, labor and pensions and finance committee and basically merged them according to his likes and whoever he consulted. and i'm sure he consulted a large number of people. in terms of drafting the bill, the late senator kennedy and max baucus, they met for months with outside groups, consultants to try to craft their product. who was in the room merging this manager's amendment, i do not know, quite frankly. i was not there, i tell you. but you can be sure all the key

senators, you know, they have their network of allies outside, many former staff people, many former members who may be lobbyists and maybe some of them had an opportunity to make suggestions about the manager's amendment. it would not surprise or shocked me. in this kind of situation, the leader in bites in whom he or she -- invites in whom he or she wants. they merge the products, that became an -- a substitute amendment and after he got the reaction of that, we have a manager's amendment. so, you have the managers amendment, the substitute, and the base bill. that is why he needed three cloture votes on one of those three. sometimes you're on the floor and you find out, i've got problems right here. i'm not sure where my support is. you can come up with your own managers amendment, negotiating privately with different lawmakers.

then as the floor manager, you are for your manager's amendment at some point in the process. it could also occur as soon as a committee report a bill. you thought you had all the votes. where is it? they are gone. then you cross a -- a manager's amendment to accommodate -- then you craft a manager's amendment to accommodate certain people. does that help? but certainly. >> -- >> certainly. >> because the senate allows for non germaine amendments, is there a greater opportunity overall for lobbying in the senate based on the fact that you can lobby for anything? >> certainly. you have to remember the fact that our whole system is multiple access. the framers designed a plan that allows for -- you know, lobbyists would call them interest groups. and whatever, average citizens,

joan and jane american. we have checks and ouncesbalancd we have a lot of access, especially in the senate. your point is well taken. the idea that harry reid controls the schedule and he calls up and never coulter bill and maybe the banking industry -- and he calls up and agriculture bill and a the banking industry is brought up and is given attention and debated. you can offer a banking amendment to the agriculture bill and you are talking about banking amendment. that is commonplace in the u.s. senate. it is harder to do in the house. terminus -- germaineness district. what this does is bolster the majority rule. you can offer a banking amendment to an agriculture bill. your not -- you are on agriculture and that is what you stay on.

the general rule of the speaker strengthened the committee. they will not deal with non relevant issues. yes, ma'am? >> some of the lobbyists are a little bit more substantive and content based in terms of language and there are others that are more procedural in terms of where lobbyists can enter into the process. in terms of the cap and trade bill in progress, where you see lobbyist efforts going? are they being more substantive or more procedural? >> that is a good question. i wish i had a crystal ball and could answer it directly. it sounds like a research assignment. my sense is at the moment that is a matter of, let's see what we've got in front of us. particularly in the senate, and it is a tough vote for a lot of house members and what is good

to happen when it goes to the senate, i'm not quite sure. -- what is going to happen when it goes to the senate, i'm not quite sure. senator boxer, who is one of the three principles, if you will, worked very closely with henry waxman and ed markey on their version of cap and trade. she emulated that to a large degree. but they're having much more difficulty in the senate in terms of coming up with a plan. we've got three, gramm, lieberman and carrkerry all worg together to see what they can come up with. they're in a stage of the vetting this with all kinds of people. you know, inside and outside the institution to see what can pass. it will be another tough vote. the question is whether or not it will be postponed until after the election or whether or not it will be postponed until after the election or whether or not