thought for a while, what is the difference? the main error that they have made was deciding to attack saudi arabia. understanding what is being taught -- look, i agree. there are rehabilitative efforts that go beyond that. one thing i like about the saudi program is those rehabilitative efforts, drawing in the family, for example, and the programs that can be described as aftercare with jobs and the like. those will work, but the main way they will work is increasing much more stability for saudi arabia. i am not convinced that the programs and of creating more stability at large. in part, when you look at saudi arabia, they openly allow terrorist finance years to operate, and you can name them. they have been designated by the u.s. my former employer is a major

financier of terrorist organizations throughout the world. you can find saudi money going to somalia to go to -- and to groups in iraq and afghanistan. does that make us safer? i know it makes the saudis safer. i am not convinced it makes us safer. in many ways, this comes back to the question of ideology, which need to factor into the analysis. look, there are many other factors as well. it is not just ideology. everybody agrees on that. but as much as -- if ever one can keep -- if everyone can keep that as a about crown question -- as a background question and not a forefront question, we will not have these programs function in the way that we would like to believe they will. >> ladies and gentleman, thank you for coming and please thank the panelists. we are adjourned. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

>> taking a look at the economic stimulus program, which is more than a year old, $353 billion have been committed, while $202 billion has been paid out. a reminder, we have a web site dedicated to the economic stimulus program. you will find news conferences, debates, as well as links to government watch dog groups that are tracking the spending. >> c-span, the public affairs content is available on television, radio kamal online, and you can also connect with us at twitter.

>> should terrorism suspects be conducted in u.s. courts? morris davis, anthony romero, hosted by new york university center of law and security, this is just over 90 minutes. >> this is probably our 30th discussion of trying terrorists in military courts. this may be our last discussion, so that is the note on which i

began. we will give you a brief overview of the contents of the the's discussion and then turn it over to our panelists. tonight will end at 7:30. we will leave as much time as we need, given our loquacious speakers, for the discussion, but i will begin with my questions. as you know, the reason we have had so many panels is the discussion of how to try terrorists that we apprehended off of american soil began with the invasion of afghanistan in the fall of 2001. president bush issued a military order, later renamed and exited order, where he stated those matters of detention and trial would be turned over to the department of defense for the foreseeable future. there are details of that i will not go into, but one thing that eric holder did when he

announced that khalid shaikh mohammed would be coming to trial in manhattan was to make it clear the obama administration wanted to redress what had happened during the persian administration, which was taking many of the powers that could have been placed in the department justice and giving them to the department of defense. it was not insignificant that he picked the same day to announce khalid sheikh mohammad's moved to new york. it was the same day bush issued his military order in 2001. however, as a surprise to me and others of you, that was not the end of the story. what has ensued since november of last year and today is a long attenuated discussion about whether or not the united states can or should try khalid shaikh mohammed in what are --

and those high-sided detainee's in civilian courts. there are many politics surrounding this, and we will get to that today. there are many legal issues that are complicated, many still unknown, and we will talk about that today. i think that this decision is: to be made rather clearly and definitively in the very near future. i thought today the purpose of this is not to come out with a let's do it one way or another. the center along and security has spent years working on the terrorist report card. we have examined nearly 1000 trials that have taken place in this country, that child -- that have tried people apprehended here, but they have tested the courts in terms of terrorism, and not only that they have

created a profession. i thought we would like to hear it this from the point of view of advocacy, and also what the military commissions could offer. there have been a number of commissions, and our speakers and that to them. there is one that would be in effect if we brought khalid sheikh mohammad khatami to trial in a military commission, and i am not sure of all the details of it, but i will push our panelists to tell something about it. what i am trying to say is i am hoping -- i say this to my speakers -- this will be an open discussion, and with the open mind of, what are the possibilities for trying these people, what is it we are trying to accomplish other than conviction, how much of this is about things that are separate from the criminals or enemy combatants, whatever it is we want to call them, and how should we be thinking about this, then maybe we are not

thinking about now? without further ado, i will introduce our panelists briefly, and then i will ask them to talk. to my far right, is anthony romero. anthony is a good friend of the center and one of my personal hero is. he has one of the hardest jobs in america. i do not know how they do everything they do. he is the head of the aclu, and he is responsible for all the things you read about in the papers that you both agree and disagree with, depending on what the at topic it is. anthony is someone who understands the politics of fhese issues and doesot j pragmatic and, and that is why i have asked him to join us tonight. closet to me in every way is just what dratel -- it is joshua dratel, who is a co- editor on our committee. he is the person who is getting the most flak for our new blog,

and on my left is of the need to the center, morris davis, who was the prosecuting -- the chief prosecutor at guantanamo in the years during the years when this session was one forward. he was involved in charging off the individuals who were later convicted, and he was there for the conviction of david hicks, who was joshua's client. he has an interesting perspective, and i will let him tell you this, he is no longer a prosecutor, and i will let him know -- i will let him tell you how that came about. he and i talked about this on the topic of military commissions, military courts martial, and i thinking she adds a perspective that is not

necessarily antagonistic, because that is not how this conversation is what happened tonight, although it may, but it is -- he has a different take on how we might go for it. i thought it would be interesting to hear from him as well, and then we will hear from you. we will start tonight with joshua, who will tell us about status of things now and why we may or may not proceed towards a military commission. >> thank you, karen. thank you to the center for sponsoring this program. i come to this issue with a dual perspective. one is as a criminal defense lawyer who has been involved in a significant number of terrorism-related cases in the federal courts. also, someone who was involved in the first military commissions, 2004, and i represented david hicks, 2005,

2006, 2007, and i have been following in an unofficial capacity the commissions that have followed since then. there are a couple questions that people might have about military commissions versus federal courts. what is the difference between the two, and why is the difference between the two, meaning, why would you choose to try someone in a court reverses a military court or vice versa, and what motivates the preferences of first, you have to look at the history of the military commissions we are looking at now, which began with a military order by president bush in 2001. the commission's themselves were not effectively instituted until mid 2003, with a few

military orders, but then 2004 was the first iteration of the commissions that charged for detainees. the names might not mean anything, so i will not bother. hicks and hamdan attracted attention, in that they were cases that went to conclusion. those commissions halted by federal courts that effectively -- that succeeded in getting a stay from a federal judge. in the fall of 2005, after the initial decision invalidating the commissions by the district was overruled by the district of columbia circuit, there was administrative changes, and in the fall of 2005, there was the detainee treatment act, which had an impact on commissions.

you're dealing now with three versions of the commission's before you can have a single education. then, in the summer of 2006, before a single case had reached fruition, he had the supreme court decision in hamdan, the supreme court invalidated the commissions, including the authority, unlike the commission president roosevelt convened after world war ii, with respect to both german and japanese war crimes, president bush acted unilaterally. there were other procedural and substantive deficiencies in the commission system that the courts found in hamdan. they went back to the drawing board generally, and in the fall of 2006, congress passed what is called the military commissions

act of 2006, which instituted version 4 of the military commissions. there were three educations in the context of that commission. david takes pleaded guilty to material support for terrorism and -- and how the west sentenced to time served, five and a half years that he had served at once, all -- had served at one, no -- had served at guantanamo, and then was sent back to yemen. another was convicted the life in prison. those are the three cases. after the election of obama, he issued an order, his first, as president, effectively staying all the military commissions, pending a review, and in the fall of two dozen 9, we had the

military commissions act of 2009, with further changes to the military commissions system. in terms of what is the difference, there are several princes between article 3 in the prosecution and a military commission. one is the threshold, is who can be prosecuted? these commissions are applicable only to aliens. this creates a discriminatory effect as a threshold matter. it is unconstitutional as far as us who have challenged the commission's, based on a variety of different positions -- provisions. the role are different from the commissions and the courts. there are no rules in military commissions, because the 2009 act had not been followed it by a manual for roles.

there was a manual for roleules after 2006. six to eight months, i was asked to sign something where i abided by the rules, and ike declined to do so. the judge would not permit me to appear. rules are important because rules are promulgated by congress that are either statutory or in the federal case law that has been established by the history that has evolved, and the military commission has none of that.

in federal court, you are entitled to a lawyer. a capital case, which would be the 9/11 cases, as we have been informed, seeking the death penalty, the defendant would be entitled to two lawyers. one should be learned in capital cases, which is important in the reform of death penalty law as applied in the federal system, which has only had a death penalty since the mid to late 1980's. the resources allocated in a federal case are extraordinary in terms of death penalty cases. experts, mitigation experts to investigate family background, other issues, psychological background, cultural issues -- all that is required in the federal system.

it is part of the frame work of the capital resource center that exists for defense attorneys in capital cases, federal cases, and just as a matter practice in the 20-year penalty --. -- in the 20-year. -- in the 20-year period. denied access to the defense to a variety of different experts and forensic issues, including the impact of the detention of clients for up to five years, incommunicado, hundreds of instances of waterboarding for a least one of the defendants. nonlitigation experts, no ability to do the kind of research that is stan beard in

capital cases in the federal system. evidenciary, the fourth and fifth amendments would apply to both statements and seizures, and would obviously have -- there are other aspects of the speedy trial, the question of outrageous government conduct which exists as a principal in the federal system. i think there have not been more than one or two cases in the 40 years now since the case that at least recognized the principle but it is a difficult threshold to me, but it exists, and one could consider the application of that in federal cases. in the military commissions, we do not know, this is a clean slate. it is an on clean slate in the

military commissions -- unclean slate in the military commissions, especially in the last six years. whether constitutional rights apply or any other rights apply, it is an issue that distinguishes in some ways the military commissions from the federal courts and remains to be seen how it distinguishes in practical course. in the context of why the difference, there is i think a pathology as to the advantages of military commissions, and one that we hear a lot of, based on perhaps a last -- a lack of education on how the federal system operates or a denial of how the system operates, is the question of secrecy of

intelligence information. the federal courts have procedures that controls the use of classified information in federal criminal cases. the courts have a perfect record in preserving classified information to the use of this statute. there is no danger that a terrorist is one to come into possession of that information because they do not have security clearances. no defendant in these cases has a clearance. only their lawyers, and the lawyers are permitted to review these materials based on their agreement to keep them confidential, and that is what has occurred in dozens and dozens of cases, but terrorism and non terrorism cases.

that is something that is used in the federal system on a regular basis. the other issue, is the government always controlling the ultimate the summation of classified information if i see something that is advantageous to my case and i see -- i say i want to use this in the court to establish one defense or to rebut an allegation by the government, the government has the right to say to the judge -- the government has three choices. one is declassify, which is a possibility, where they might find the information is not sensitive enough to keep it secret. the government could offer a substitution used in lieu of that classified information. the judge gets to decide whether the substitution is sufficient or not.

i could object, but the judge could say it does, and if the judge does not, the government could appeal. this happened in the moussaoui case in the miss halley case, statements -- in the miss our case, since made by people like collie should mohammad khatam--d shaikh mohammed, statements were put in evidence, suggested by the government, that the judge found were sufficient. the government can refuse all together to give up that information. the government did not have to use this substitutions. if the government thought it was too sensitive. the court can sanctioned government and say -- and moussaoui case, the judge said he cannot use the 9/11

collection action -- the 9/11 conviction. the government was allowed to seek the death opanel that. the other argument is that government commissions are faster. we might still have a case going in that context. these cases will drag on for so much longer than the closure that could be provided by federal criminal trial, which did not have the issues of the to the machine that are challenged by the commission's. why the difference is becoming more transparent, commentators who want commissions is a dilution of defendants' rights. what you have is this topsy- turvy version of justice which is the worst crimes with the

highest stakes, not only for the defendant, but for society, just by a lower standard of proof and a lower standard of procedure. that is the military commissions versus the federal courts. >> from the point of view of a defense attorney, i am interested in briefly your thoughts about the purpose of having a public trial, and if that -- not the military commissions would be public, but what you actually think or have you thought about the fact that we have had so many trials in the 1990's that were international islamic extremists cases where people have done harm to americans, and i am wondering, is the benefit beyond protection of the rights of the defendants in the civilian courts that is beyond that for society as a whole?

>> one benefit -- after 9/11, a significant part marshaling international support for the u. s response and the identification of al qaeda as possible for 9/11, was due to a publisic trial. vast majority of the 9/11 reports section on al qaeda and history and evolution is from the testimony at the trial in the first half of 2001, which basically eliminated for those who were paying attention the nature of al qaeda, its existence. sq%ei+ before that trial started and said, he not think that al qaeda

is a creation of the united states government, designed to deflect attention and create another attention -- another enemy now that the soviets are no longer available? at the trial, nobody could hear that point of view hearing the evidence. the second part of public trials is i have heard people state that one of the advantages of a military commission is you do not want to get terrorists a public forum and as if the commissions have not offered that in terms of a circus-like atmosphere where defendants have had a certain amount of control that they would not enjoy in federal court. i offer the converse, which is in the context of world opinion and where we stand now after eight years of a failed policy in this regard, i think we need a platform of a public trial as much or more than terrorist do

to make our case to the world that we abide by the rule of law, that our judgments are accurate and reliable and just. >> that is a good enough introduction for colonel davis roo. >> is your mica on? >> sorry. if you can talk a little bit about your experience and talk about what you are thinking now. >> i want to thank erin for inviting me. it is nice to be out of washington. if you have been watching what is going on there, there is a lot more civility on the streets of new york than in washington. for me the fundamental question -- what are the source of the rights that detainees are

entitled to, and one of the disagreements i may have, i cannot believe they have constitutional rights. you're only connection to the constitution is a desire to destroy it, and then you do not get the benefits. they have rights under the geneva convention. the first question is, what is the basis of the rights of the detainees? second point that i try to implement in the time that i was there, there's a lot of talk about, article and the common law, and there is an absence in my view of common sense. that was always a touchdown, what if the shoe was on the other foot? what rules would be accepted if it was an american, and would weaken donut if it was on the other foot? i turn on npr last week and came in the middle of the story, and the first part of what i heard was that someone was being detained in cuba up without

charge and had been held for three months. i thought they were talking about the detainees, but it was a citizen they were talking about, that they were holding an american citizen in a cuban jail without charges. i was thinking, we have been doing that for eight and a half years now. my final touchdown, what if the shoe was on the other foot poker i will not try to repeat, but i look at it as past, present, and future. if you look at the order sign , if president bush had submitted his order as a law review paper, he would be accused as plagiarism, and i do not know how many times i heard from others that the not see saboteurs were captured, prosecuted in about 15 days, and

here we are five years later and nobody is going to trial. it ignored the fact that the geneva conventions did not exist in the 1940's. you have to remember that guantanamo bay, people were not taken there with a view towards prosecution. they were to be exploited fort said intelligence purposes. one distinction -- his view of prosecuting in federal court, it is like the underwear bomber, advised of his rights, there is a chain of custody, for all those things were lacking in the cases at guantanamo bay. there were no lights at license, no chain of custody, some very enhanced interrogation techniques. a lot of things that would cause fundamental problems in a trial in federal court. that is why the bush administration worked hard to

come up with this and lawful alien in the cotton -- alien combatant designation. if you look at their roles for courts martial and the federal rules, they are almost identical. the problem you have any court marshal had to be created and come up with another classification to get around having to extend those rights. in the present, i am disappointed. i thought in january of 2009, they had not taken the putting down from the in our parole -- from the inaugural parade, that they'd land -- the deadline has come and gone and guantanamo is still going. the trial in federal court was the right way to go, yet he has waffled back and forth as to

whether we are run capped commissions -- as to whether we are going to have commissions. i am not convinced that we will still be sitting here eight and a half years later. the military commissions act of 2006, i met with john mccain and lindsey graham, and a question was, what the need to get the job done right? they made changes on what president bush had done. if you look at the commissions act of 2009, i was asked to review it, and the phrase that came up, a lipstick on a pig, is what i would describe the changes made to the act of 2009. there is very lesittle substantl changes.

the changes made were superficial. one of the changes was, under the old rule, the proponent of here say, prosecution, the burden was on the opponent to prove that statement should not be admitted. under the new rules, the person offering the statement has approved by the perot conference of the evidence. the shift it, -- you shift it. susan crawford is the head of the military commission. at her retirement from the court of appeals, the only person she mentioned was david addington. if you get below the level of eric holder, the folks who are running the process, the same people are running it as when i

was there. in one of the trials, a person with a degree from emory university, and the judge asked if he understood his rights, and he said yes, same circus, different clouds. there has not been any change that i can see here for the future, if i were king and i could do what i wanted, one of the points mentioned about why we should have public trials -- we went alone in the global war on terrorism, and the bush administration struck out on their own. if we want to be a part of the global community -- terrorism is not a domestic issue. it is an issue that affects everyone around the planet, not just us. another issue is piracy. what do we do with these pirates?

if i were king there should be an international terrorism tribunal, something similar to the international criminal court to handle these kinds of cases. the problem is, we have that at it for eight and a half years and cannot agree on it domestically, so to agree on and a traditional consensus would be another problem. there should also be a security court. it is all this cheney lambast at some of the justice attorneys, she'd call them the al qaeda 7. one of them is now the deputy solicitor general. now he is being tarred and feathered as being part of the al qaeda 7. neil is a proponent of national security courts. if he is on the al qaeda

payroll, they ought to get a refund. if we cannot get said that one, the question of military commissions or trial in federal court, i go back to the rights the detainees are entitled to, and either a military commission or a federal court surpass that standard. the administration needs to pick one and not have it both ways. that has been my discipline hurry and i read an article that said the administration has a double standard just to say that some will get the full benefit of federal courts and some will get something less. the three americans held in iran right now, if they said to will get a full trial, and one will get less, i would object to that. i wrote an article about that. i was working for congress after

i retired. i got fired for doing that. so now i am anthony's client picket for a while -- so now i am anthony's client. >> i am going to use a different microphone. i will follow up with one issue. when eric holder announced that khalid shaikh mohammed was coming to manhattan, he went out of his way to say that he had strong beliefs that there would be a conviction. there has been a lot -- i do not know if it is under the table or over the table conversations about what if yohe were not convicted?

does that come into your figuring, that there is a chance of not conviction in a federal court as there is in the military commission who >> you can have a fair trial in either forum. there were three people who were waterboarded. in my view, having spent two years immersed in the evidence, there's ample evidence to convict them. hondwe can have the trial withot using it and had a secure connection. as long as they are enemy combatants, they can still be kept off the battlefield.

>> anthony, you are going to have to wrap up. i would like to talk a little bit about how easy the politics in washington and whether this is a substantive issue or whether it has become such a political football that is at of our hands. >> it has become a political football. i will start by saying i appreciate the work and research done by karen. we have to rely on individuals who will look at the facts and the report she put out on the trials has been a very helpful tool for us to show that the federal courts are best able to handle these types of terrorism cases. it is different that new york and university the so. colonel davis and to joshua

dratel, one of the things i like about my job, what you'd never imagining happens happens to you, so when i started my job the week before 9/11, and then my world changes. and then the last time i saw these fellows was when i was an observer in august of 2004. i wandered the base in guantanamo before the people down may, because the head of the aclu was wondering the secure base, looking for a place to stay until they found me. i probably gave cheney a heart attack. i saw both of these guys in action. it is always a live and learn process. what is played out has been a

complete capitulation of what the clear promises that the president made, as colonel davis pointed out. also, a possible reversal of the attorney general, and it is all politics, all the time. they have fumble ball in terms of how they were going to announce a deal with the new york venue. the justice department screwed it up. phone calls were not made to the mayor or the senators or members of the house, who were gracious enough to acquiesce that morning, but then as they began to see that dustup in new york, they did not have much buy in of how they were going to do it.

then things began to unravel. the not in my back yard resolutions, pontificating of the republican senators that gave some reason for the democrats to begin to inch away from their commitments. you see the changes of decisions by mayor bloomberg. they did not play hardball on these issues. ray kelly saying that trowels low-cost $200 million a year? -- saying that the trials would cost $200 million a year? who rebutted that? and the police commissioner get out there and assert these numbers without anyone

saying, show me the numbers. what was the response to the local officials and local citizens about the shutting down of lower manhattan. i do not know how many of them have walked to the federal system. it is barricaded. a lot of hyperbole played out in a way that left ball get away from the justice apartment. let me tell you what i think the real politics is of such a decision traversed this, leaving aside the civil the day's principle, which are near and dear to my heart. he take the principles and to play politics. the biggest concern have is that the mature conditions are an inferior form of justice.

if you use a second-class system to achieve an outcome, before ever have that outcome in doubt. if the west wing reverses holder and forced him to do a stall to damascus speech, which is what was speculated, where the attorney general will not let rahm emanuel of the white house to reverse him, it shows such a politicization of aquatic -- lives as isolation of the justice department. the people in just as are taking their orders from someone else on pennsylvania avenue. the demoralized nation of people talking to me, it is amazing the leaks in this administration, because they are demoralized.

people in government talks still likes of me because they're fed up by the fact that they cannot get the job done. that is likely to get even worse and continue as they go forward. the other reason they will not work, as joshua and mars said this, my mind is that the military commissions will never work. i do not like predicting. the record of thousands verseus three convictions. for having sat in this commissions, a dozen times from the first round of the divisions to the one i was down in january before the president signed his order, it is a complete and utter joke. lawyers stand up, they make motions, cross-promotions, and a judge said this was a learning experience.

this is on capital cases for the most notorious criminals, and we are calling it a learning experience. in god we trust in the background. the translations. i did not speak arabic. i speak spanish. you hear perfectl full paragraps whaof error, and the translatios are fragmented words, the finish the sentence is, and the guy just spoke for four minutes, and out of the translation from arabic to english be less than a minute? we would just caught it. -- clock it.

that is just the interest orchard. if they go down this road, it is going to be a lot of fun on the legal issues. iwhen the commander in chief sas these people should be put to death, he can say that in an ordinary particle 3 context because judges have lifetime tenure and they did not have to listen to what the president says. a lot of them do, the supreme court, but most of them have an objective third branch of government that can say the president might think they are guilty, i do not have to follow that. in the military context, he had this thing about the commander

in chief being the boss down the line in the military. the question is, having said these guys are guilty, you are going to be able a loay a lot more gloves on this president. it will take a lot of time. you will be running for office in two years. you will be running for office in two years, mr. obama, whicifi were speaking to him, you have no convictions, there will be increased pressure from the 9/11 family members, it is a complete mistake to not use criminal courts as the quickest, easiest, and most sure way to get a conviction. i love the optics of this. you are right, mo, if i can call

you that. there's so much evidence on some of these detainees that you did not have to use the evidence gleaned from torture to convict. when you are in a defense context, when the adjudicator of guilt is the same agency that perpetrated the torture, boy, are you giving us a place to litigate the torture. whereas in criminal courts, torture that you will have a lot more fun. if i were talking directly to the president -- which i have talked once, but not on this issue. it has been quite interesting. the week leading up to the big press release, we were scrambling to get all of the people who were so nice to meet

inviting me to the white house the first time around and gave me their phone numbers and their cellphone the business cards -- we want to hear from you. but when we heard the rumors they were going to switch to military commissions we tried to activate the behind-the- scenes channels -- and not a phone call. doj or the white house. where i got phone calls ironically was dod or fbi, go figure. from the folks coming to us, we knew the decision was made at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. you don't get the hearing of the white house, you kind of have to screen. that is when we ran a full-page "the new york times" ed, what would be, mr. president, change or more of the same? created a lot of debate whether we were being too harsh. a picture of obama on one side morphing into bush on the other and one picture has bush's eyebrows, then bush's nose, and then bush's shape of his head and you see the progress of

transition. a lot of people were saying, this was to up -- ross. what is wrong? it was a question, a statement. what will it be? early monday morning we got a call back. then we spent an hour and a half talking about -- and we were able to say, what do you want to accomplish in these trials? do you want a speedy conviction? do you want to put this albatross of a burnett? under establish rules that have legitimacy. where no one will able to poke at how you got the job done. do you want to seek an execution -- but do you really want to execute? do you want to make them poster boys? i understand why you might want to say you are seeking the death penalty but is that really the best public policy decision in terms of relationships with the muslim world? if you back into it that way, you have many more opportunities about venue and use in criminal

courts that don't limit you in a way that they seem now to be limited. i say ultimately they're the reason why military commissions would be an enormous mistake, it will be the exception that eats up the rule, meaning the fourth and fifth amendments, because i also -- not given to prognostications -- but i know that these types of situations will torn -- turn up an organized crime, gangs, the drug war. we have seen it with the patriot act. this was something i can point to explicit truth. if you look at the annual report on the department of justice how patriot act powers were used in the aftermath of 9/11 -- it is used on lottery crimes, embezzlement, people extorting the elderly, environmental terrorism, immigration.

i guarantee if you allow a context where you can't convict individuals with hearsay evidence, worst evidence, hold them probably without charges or trial, then you will find themselves in a situation where the exception becomes the rule of law and eats up what are very clear various for due process in fourth and fifth amendments that will do enormous damage for the country. that is why this issue is of such high importance for us. people keep saying -- i will wrap up -- in wide use spend so much time focusing on these 200 individuals? to many people in jail -- and we litigate conditions of confinement in u.s. prison. but the reason why we some $3.5 million into this project, the john adams project, which josh was the architect of, to bring the best of the best in terms of criminal defense lawyers, to supplement good men and women in uniform, is to ensure that if you lose this game, you lose a

lot more than just 200 cases or clients. the implications for us going forward are not to be underestimated. that is why frankly the idea that we are dealing with potentially carving up enormous exceptions in our establish justice system because of their real politick in washington is frightening and why questions and comments across the political spectrum has to be as loud and vociferous as possible regardless of where we end up. >> i want to follow with a question. which is -- this issue of this bleeding into the criminal justice system across the board for other kinds of crimes, do you think we have already seen that? because one of the things happening with the civilian military court discussion or debate is back we have -- that we had discussion of miranda or not, discussion of preventive detention, but overall

discussion of what it means to close guantanamo, not moving but actually close it. so are we going to try anybody in civilian courts is also out there as a question. really what i want to ask you, do you see it eroding already or do you think it is still something in the future? >> you are exactly right. it is eroding already. the question of codifying back into law -- it's doing the -- it into law, doing so with a democratic president or congress, makes the exceptions or holes that are poked through the fourth and the amendment that much larger that you can drive a truck through them. what is remarkable is the lack of public outcry. one anecdote on this one. i was dealing with a budget. part of my job is to run an organization in this economy that is not often it easy. at times i don't -- have to go underground or underwater, i did not pay as close attention to e- mail and blogs.

i got a phone call from somebody in the government from law enforcement myself and say, where the are you on this underwear bomber. nothing for me to do. you are arrested the guy, read him his rights. that is the way it is supposed to work. i was told, no, we are getting clobbered on the hill and the press for having read them -- him his rights. we need to hear from you. which is incredible. usually i get phone calls that asked me to stay out of a controversy, don't ask me to jump into it. ironically, here we are in a context where law enforcement did it -- the fbi, exactly the way they were supposed to. a guy on american soil, which we might disagree, in an airplane in detroit, tries to blow up his fellow passengers, you kind of have to read him his rights. it is not a discretionary role did you have to charge him with a crime. he is in america, on american

soil. even if he is not an american, he is on american soil, and we established that. we have lots of undocumented immigrants who break the law and we don't not read them their rights or hold them without charges or trial. the exceptions -- if you allow non-citizens to be apprehended for these narrow cases where they are not read their miranda rights, we will be seeing a lot more of that i think with your ordinary mexican documented in the grant on a bwi case in future years. and the idea of that more thing is certainly borne out by the facts we have seen in the aftermath of 9/11. look at the immigration enforcement issue. massive deportation of immigrants that have nothing to do with terrorism. when you ever get that fear mongering and those lax enforcement of the rules, you are going to see it play out. >> chris, we will get to your questions.

just a comment. the patriot act has not gone away. and how the future and the patriot act deals with so many of the issues -- >> and obama defended everyone of the powers that are up for renewal and the patriot act and the most we could do -- but they made the same arguments for the very same powers that were put in place under the bush years. there is very little substantive difference in the policies and pronouncements of the justice department on actual security issues when you look at some of the cases. the rendition case, same arguments. different clown same circus. i am being provocative. >> there are some differences. >> we don't torture. >> that is a big difference. >> and our differences in intent and also differences in alliances, as you pointed out.

when we started the terrorist report card the idea was to embarrass the department justice. halfway through it we realized it was a different story what we started out finding. everybody had already gotten to their corners and the corners and not the same because now the issue of civilian and military trials put people who debated how we try domestic cases into a sort of on the same idea that we want to use civilian courts. it is kind of a weird realignment -- what i am saying, this could happen down the road -- maybe. >> point well taken. this is why you need academics -- >> it is called a moderator. we are ready for your questions. you have to turn on -- yes. >> i assume that the case that we are talking about, and transferred to the u.s. attorney's office in new york and talking about taking back has been vetted at the u.s. attorney's office and they went

through the evidence and examine whether or not they could get a conviction on the issues that would not raise constitutional questions. some hypothetical is, there are other cases out there. and a hypothetical question is somebody confesses to a terrorist act, in a culvert -- coal wars of convention, but it is cooperative but we know they are excellent terrorist and that is evidence. do you think what we should do is transfer the cases we have not seen yet to the article 3 courts and these people should be acquitted? or maybe just keep them in prison without and a process as well? -- without any process as well? and the two parts of the question that i think not consistent -- consistent in essence that you had a confession obtained by torture that is corroborated -- and that

might put it in the same position as 9/11 cases. if you look at the -- case, a great example because it is going on right now. charged an embassy bombings in 1988. apprehended in 2005 i think pakistan and held and a black site in 3 1/2 years and transferred to gtmo at the end of 2006, i believe, with the other high-value detainees, and was transferred to new york and is in federal custody in new york since at least june -- certainly no later than june of 2009. when this case was a centrally resuscitated because the embassy bombings kansas had essentially been over for a long time. ghailani is a case in which the government has forsworn his statements and relying on the other evidence they had previously, for which was indicted in 1998 long before he was ever in custody.

that is always a choice for the government to make in that regard. it may be difficult to comprehend this -- and i'm being serious about this. and i understand it from the point of view of the public, if you are not involved in the criminal-justice system on a daily basis for a comprehensive basis -- which is despite what you read in the newspapers, some people who you actually certain are guilty -- are not. how many people thought john delorean was guilty? how many people really doubted that john bloggers was guilty. he was not. acquitted by a jury, unanimous, 12 jurors, no doubt in my mind that that particular video showing in the opening a case of a cocaine was a set up for him. you have to let juries decide the facts of these cases. khalid sheikh mohammed got acquitted -- has to be not guilty to get acquitted.

come on, really. anybody charged for 9/11, would have to be not guilty, in front of jurors of new yorkers are anywhere, to be acquitted. who can name all four? you think it is fair that will be tried with this guy at a military commission does because tried with khalid sheikh mohammed? i think that each case has elements of it -- one in to get into a false confessions even without conversion but the question of the whole dynamic of false confessions particularly in the context of coercion is extreme. look, the consequences are also extreme but there is someone named shaikh al -- who was a pivotal part of: paul's presentation to the u.n. in

november 2002 -- colin powell's presentation to the u.n. in november of 2002. he was an al qaeda operative are apprehended after 9/11 was said there was a connection between al qaeda and iraq and it had to do with weapons of mass destruction and all that and a couple of years later it turned out that, well, he had been tortured and recanted his confession was deemed, even by law-enforcement, intelligent people, to be in valid, false. so think about the consequences of that when you go forward. >> i was asking a different question. i was asking a hypothetical. given the fact that the u.s. attorney looks at a case and says there will not be sufficient evidence under the current laws that will acquit this person -- and if and that they knew he was guilty.

it may not be -- your answer is, how do you know that is really ballot? but the question is is there any circumstance where the government should in fact acquit somebody where it is popularly thought and the government truly believes that are built of the evidence is not sufficient to pass muster in a court? >> the roles we play by. if we are not good to play by those rules it is anarchy, actually. >> you are fine. >> one of the things that really concerns me about having these two different systems, one of the criteria they came up with to decide which for, the cases would go to public is which would allow for the best presentation of evidence, or words to that effect -- so basically they were saying let us look at the evidence and see what bar it will clear and if it will clear the high bar we must give them full blown trial in federal court and feel good about them -- giving them full

measure of justice, and if it will not clear that far we will fall back to a military commission and that is exactly what they did to determine how high the evidence will jump. that is what picks the forum. the prosecution -- where we prosecute them is the fairly easy question, it's a large number of people we do not intend of prosecuting and never releasing and what is their right. that is the more difficult question. but to that point, i would say, we ought to give it -- >> to that point, i would say what ought to give it a world before we start writing the fourth of the amendment. i hear this argument there are 30 or 40 people that all two would do damage to the country and we will not able to convict and i the uniform code of military justice or military commissions or article 3 courts -- what do we do with them? first, i think you've got to give it a whirl. i happen to think that the

growth of anti-terrorism laws that have been put in place in the aftermath of 9/11 -- forget the part of patriot act. there has been so much more in addition to that. it is so much easier to convict people for crimes after 2001 that you could not go after before 2001. the material support for terrorism can be read so broadly, to barring lawyers assistance to humanitarian groups, now before the supreme court. we ought to try it. and i think is in established rules, which i prefer, not the military commissions. i prefer the court marshals, utmj, article iii court, the two lanes i find acceptable. if you can't prove a person is guilty, then they walk. that is what happens. guilty people walk when they are not convicted. and if they are radicalize now after being in guantanamo does

not mean that they were radical extremists when they got there. because that experience will radicalize almost anyone. so, you are going to hold them guilty for a crime that the government committed to on them by breaking the rule of law and having a different ideology on the way in that they had on the way out. and i think that would just be a debacle for our society. >> i want to ask you a question about this, just from your years at guantanamo. because during the first six years of guantanamo and spelling a little into now, there have been coming from my count, over 600 detainees from guantanamo bay will have been returned home and are free. some of them have likely been radicalized. others are predicted to have been radicalized. was there any of discussion -- discussion of this to your knowledge at guantanamo bay where there was some idea that

there were four people being charged or the sense that we were letting you go back that -- now what everybody is afraid of in this particular debate that is going on? >> one of the ironies, one of the jokes, in order -- like david hicks and sully and honda in -- salim hamdam, convicted war criminals and free men. others never charged and behind bars. yet to lose to win. yet the misdemeanor punishment been the worst of the worst in order to go home. >> more questions? >> i am having trouble reconciling how, article iii can provide -- and when i think, an article ii -- the executive cannot be in charge of the

courts, your crime. i am trying to reconcile how bad common article ii can be applied to the military commission? they do not seem to be reconciled, in my mind. >> again, i think in that hamdan decision, justice stevens, article 75, additional protocol that lays out the fundamental rights recognized as civilized people. if you look at those rights and compare those two military commissions right i think, in my view, declared that bar. it is a question of -- again, it goes back to what is the source of their right? did they have constitutional rights, for 10th amendment? in a way the bush administration may have preferred constitutional rights otherwise they would not have if we have done a right from the start. but at the military commissions could satisfy the geneva convention requirement. when i was on active duty, if i faced a court-martial, the

commander in chief was still the commander in chief and i was still prosecuted in the same system before the same panel of officers. and i guess another in comparison, in federal court in says -- 12 people have to say you are guilty. a military commission, court- martial, two-thirds vote. four -- is greater than 11 and a military commission. it is not an apples to apples comparison. >> of the questions? in the back. >> i want to ask sort of a practical question. i think it seems pretty clear that khalid sheikh mohammed will end up in a military commission. my question is, what is that half a loaf that would make you happy? >> have the is the wrong word. -- happy is the wrong word.

let me start off with -- the last eight years, because that has a lot to do with the theoretical position. i do not oppose a properly constituted military commission to try war crimes. i think what we have now is a situation that is too toxic in the context of what the military commissions are and they also don't meet the standards that, at least for myself, and 30 weeks of litigating the 30 years of litigating, have come to believe provide a reliable, fair, and get adjudication of guilt or not to get to. i don't think the military commissions are there -- could there be a military comes in -- yes, ucmj provides the commission. we never argued that ucmj has

constituted presently would not provide a fair trial. ironically, there are elements of the military system that are more favorable to defendants. discovery is far better in the military system than the civilian system and a criminal courts. the breakdown of jury voting could be good and bad. the question of not having to have a unanimous acquittal -- all you have to get is more than a third. we get all the math. in hicks' they knocked it down -- instead of seven jurors, we had three because we ended up getting a couple disqualified. but it really changes the percentages of what you have to do. really an extraordinary difference. two out of three as opposed to three out of seven.

a very different. -- or two out of seven, i should say. i have never taken a position that properly constituted military commission would not be a viable means to try war criminals. that raises the second question, what is a war criminal. much of what we are talking about it, particularly talking about abdulmutallab, christmas day at underwear bomber, criminal defense, plan and some, not a war crime. the question of whether you can backdate war crimes, define them now and charge them for conduct before they are any delay in a -- delineated as war crimes. but you cannot erase that eight years, and that is the problem. >> i guess for me, i love the questions you've asked because they are the hardest ones. i do not think that is a half a loaf that i would even bother

eating frankly. just of the reasons you say. the implications, the precedent behind its, the fact that the jurors are going to be military officers and not a jury of american citizens, troubles me. and the think frankly -- it would come as no surprise -- our goal is to blow these commissions up just as we blew them up under the bush era. we will show how bad they are. we gave it -- when we jumped in and said, ok, now they have rights, what do we do to make sure that these rights are secure, there is not much to do to secure the rights. you can blow up the military commission system and that will be i think the next round of what we do. if you wanted to diffuse me, which is also the question -- kind of make it harder for me to do my job, i guess someone should get up there and say we will run the military commissions and a very transparent and accessible way and we are going to uphold every single legal standard, that you

would have an article iii courts and we will resource the case just as article ii courts. if obama wants to push forward and used a military commission, said a really high bar so that the likes of me cannot be jumping of that are too easily. >> questions? >> it is there and right of appeal from a military commission, and the -- does the appeal applied to rulings of evidence, etc., and to the decision of the courts? >> the way it is set up their act to four layers of appeal. one of the things i used to really hate when i was in the prosecution's side is people would say, they would all but norbert as a golden standard of justice -- nuremberg as a gold

standard of justice. there was no appeal. they were swinging from a rope in a week. we have four layers -- to the d.c. circuit and also the supreme court. >> that is a feature of the revised military commission system. in the initial system there were another -- no appeals to civilian courts, anything but a newly created appellate panel handpicked by the secretary of defense. that was all that was in the first one. >> can i ask you a practical political question or maybe in practical political question? it comes along the line of one -- what went wrong. obama established these tasks forces that surround these issues one way or another. basically it was a discussion between extremes, right?

the idea was to -- as i understood it, the president's idea was to take all of these different opinions and passions into play. so people kind of gave on maybe their extreme versions. is that now mistake? it seems like in the negotiation of what you give up and take -- i don't mean you personally, but each side -- somehow the entire project was lost before we knew it. do i have that wrong now? >> a couple of things about what went wrong. there were some very good people -- this is where i will cede to the chair. there were some very good people who i interacted with who were doing but client review of the files, taken the 200 or 300 or so and marching through them to see where they had evidence, would it hold up. what i hear from people's reputation from a couple of hours of speaking with them and hearing more about how they interacted with other lawyers

working with nacdl and aclu lawyers, i think there were very competent people do in that part of the review. that task force of thing was one of the best ones. the ones looking more and policy, not these group of guys, but another group, interdepartmental, d zero d, state department, doj -- i think you have to -- this is a great idea because you are given me an idea of what we should do next. you go back to the words of the executive order, it sounded so strident and so bold and yet when you read the fine print there were a lot of mays in there. the attorney general was put as chief to review the guantanamo policy. and he was to do so in consultation -- doing this all on memory -- with the secretary of defense. why even you would have included the secretary of defense in that leadership role, especially when they enumerate agencies that

were part of it, they had a joint chiefs of staff, if i remember correctly. so you set up the process where you try to hedge what -- what was a pretty unconditional promise but he gave yourself will go room and gays in needed to back out of it. and i think part of what you do in politics is if you keep your own exit door at least marked for you on the way out, your opponents are going to push out exit door and not let you walk through the front door the way you want. i think frankly the ibm that -- i think, frankly, the idea that it was his first promise in office and everything got behind the health care bus -- it is notable that this administration, i think, if they encompass health care, would be a success for them, but the lack of success everywhere else, this is an in the station that could not walk and chew gum. they were not able to push through a lot of promises they

made and they keep pushing balls in the air. don't ask, don't tell, state of the union speech. immigration reform, another ball in the air. frankly i would have preferred -- i say this in retrospect, and i gave a big party after the executive orders. i would have preferred deferring this rather than just announcing this and just letting it be the stepwise to another agenda that would foil your ability to get this done. you take a bite out of apple, you don't want to eat the whole thing. don't put but apple down for a year and come back to it and think it will be healthy. >> i think what went wrong in the context of federal criminal trials, karen, is hesitation. if on november 13, attorney general eric holder made an announcement the trials would be in new york and they deliver them to new york on the 14th, which obviously the headed to given 45 days' notice, they could have given it in july. if they were there in the 14th, the case would be under way and

there would be no question and now all of this politicking, grandstanding, red herrings, and fear mongering -- the case would be on going without the problems, the chicken little atmosphere. them on guantanamo, would anthony said -- you say it in january and he denied this and about its in november. >> even the stage crafting of the announcement of guantanamo trials coming to new york was fundamentally fumbled, if you play football. if you want to announce that right, you would have the attorney general made the announcement, some great u.s. attorneys in the room flanking them, you have the mayor speak, you would have greg kelly up there, you would have nadler, some republicans from the upper east side. you put them all up, you all make them cheer for the announcement and all give them a little bit of love and the print and the ink. when you go at alone just by

making a phone call the morning of, you have not made -- it is politics. anyone who stages any event, you always have to balance it out. that is why moe and i and josh on the panel, she once balance. i think that is acceptable. from professionals who have to manage politics and the biggest announcement of the attorney general so far it is absolutely inexcusable for them to handle this way. in private conversations with members of congress, it was their egos more than concerns about money and security, where most snubs and then ended up in this context. >> i would just say -- if they do decide to give the military commission -- i think it ought to be turned over to dod and turn into a military mission. chief prosecutor john murphy, doj attorney, great guy, and now

the put a uniform on and made him chief prosecutor of military commission but always a game when i was there -- doj, look at the cases and said it would not stand up and articles records and put -- then put in military uniform on and cut military commission and we will pull the strings behind the scenes. make a decision, whether it is article 3 courts and get dod out of it -- if it is military commission, get the military, executive branch, and tape doj part of an out of it. >> you are assuming the military wants it. but there has been conversation recently that perhaps some of the people in the pentagon wants it but the legal core of the military may not wanted. is that what you hear? >> uniform side. a judge -- judge advocate general from the start, i think if anything good has come of this, is the reputation of military attorneys and judge advocate. they were the one standing up

and saying, do the right thing, applied the geneva conventions, treat these guys as pows, and it was the political appointees, big brains who have never won a uniform, who wanted to do a different route. the military kind of got years of -- got left holding the bag. >> ok, well, our time is out but i can't sum up everything but i think that the lack of leadership, and lack of an arctic and that mission, has really left many in the room feeling a little bit disappointed about the course of events. i think also the fact that i couldn't ask prosecutor to come up and talk care or a representative of the department justice because it is not their job to argue this case, makes it even harder to educate the american public about what is at stake. i hope you learned something. and i hope we see you next time. thank you for coming.

let's thank our panel. [applause]

>> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online, and you can connect to us on twitter, facebook, and youtube and sign up for a schedule under e-mails at c-span.org. >> which president was very wrapped in an american flag and a copy of the constitution under his head? andrew johnson. find these and other presidential facts and c-span's updated "who is buried in grant's tomb?" >> a guidebook, a travelogue, if you will, but also in many history -- mini history work a biography, and let's face it, you can tell an awful lot about people at the end of their lives. >> a resource guide of every presidential gravesite, their final moments and insights. "who is buried in grant's tomb?" now available at your favorite book seller or get a 25%

discount at the publisher's web site and type in the grant's tomb at checkout. >> looking at the $787 billion economic stimulus program, which is now more than a year old, just under $353 billion have been committed to recovery projects while $202 billion have been paid out as of march 16. as a reminder, we do have a web site devoted to the economic stimulus program, c-span.org/a stimulus is where you will find news conferences, hearings, congressional debates and links to government and what stock groups who are tracking the spending. and look now at the 2010 census from this morning's "washington journal." host: robert groves is the director of the u.s. census bureau. here is the form that everybody in the united states, every household in the united states, received this -- has everybody

in the united states received this form? guest: the vast majority have. many received a bilingual form. because of the two languages, it is a little longer, because it is double in the questions. the vast majority of households should have received these by now. they're a little pockets here and there. there are some roads that are still closed because of snow. there are pockets here and there. and there are little glitches here and there. but the vast majority of people should have this by now. host: is this the only form that has been sent out? guest: there is only a short form. this, indeed, is good news to the vast majority of people. we have gotten some e-mail's saying, "it was so short. shouldn't you be asking more questions?" but that is the minority, i think.

there are only 10 questions here. if you live by yourself. you have seven for each person. a friend of mine called, who lives with his wife, and he said, "you guys are lying. you said it was 10 questions in 10 minutes. it only took us three minutes." so it is pretty short. host: is it required by law to fill this out? guest: it is, and it is not a new idea. the way, way back march 1, 1790, the very first congress, and if you remember your history, a lot of the founding fathers were members of the first congress -- they passed the census act, said we are going to count everybody, counted them where they usually live, that is how we're going to do it, and we have to make this mandatory. if we are going to be apportioned the house of representatives based on this count, we have to make sure everybody participate spree in

1790, they levied a $20 fine -- make sure everybody participates. in 1790, they levy a $20 fine. in 79 he that was a lot of money. they wanted to -- in 1790 that was a lot of money. they wanted everybody to be part of this. host: what happens if you do not fill out the form? guest: there is a fine. we have learned that emphasizing prosecution does not make for a successful senses. " we try to do is emphasize the benefits of participation. that is your rightful share of political influence, your representative, and the financial benefits that derive to your community based on proper accounts. host: what is the fine? guest: it depends on whether you refuse to give misleading

information. it can be as much as $5,000. -- it depends on whether you refuse or give misleading information. it can be as much as $5,000. host: 10 years ago, did you know if anybody was fine? guest: no. host: if you were a betting man, do you think anybody will we find this year -- be fined this year? guest: if i were a betting man, and know. here is this form. a prepaid envelope. if you fill out this for a drop in the envelope, it is costing the taxpayers 42 cents, roughly. all of us will pay 42 cents for you to send it back. if you don't do that, by law, since we have to count everyone, we are obliged to hire

someone to go to your house at interview you in person. compared to the 42 cents, that is going to cost us taxpayers roughly $60 per household. $60 versus 42 cents. if you bring that up to the aggregate, for every one person in the household that returns it, we saved $85 million nationally. the neat thing about the census is if we don't need the money because people return the forms, we are obliged, and i would be overjoyed to return that money to the treasury, and that would be a great thing. host: what is the budget for the senses this year? guest: roughly $7.2 billion. host: with a b. guest: in a lot of that is spent for follow-up. we have contingency plans for follow-up if everyone returns the form, we would save $1.5

billion, with a b, dollars that would go back to the treasury. all of us are worried about federal deficits and federal spending. this is one thing we can do individually to attack the deficit. host: 10 i had it to you and save 42 cents -- can and 80 and save 42 cents -- guest: no, i would advise you to put it in the mail, because the postal service is more reliable than i am. host: democrat in san diego, you are on at the line. caller: high. i guess what to say i did receive my for in the mail, i have completed it, and returned it. we acted the same day we received it. i just want to say thank you for making the forms so easy to complete. it did not take 10 minutes. it took maybe five minutes. or less.

but i have only two people in the household. it was very easy. it is not complex. i encourage everyone to please complete the senses. i want to thank you so much for being so thorough in your explanation. all these fiscal conservatives out there, i encourage you to complete it. you just heard the gentleman say how many billion dollars will be safe for the government. host: why do you care so much about the senses? -- census? caller: because of the federal dollars being spent and how it encourages us to be participants in politics. a lot of money goes to help us as individual citizens. guest: well, first of all, thank you for sending it back. it is great. and if you are sending it back early, it is probably worth talking about. i have gotten a few e-mail's

from people who say, "you have asked us to report who lived in my household on april 1, and in the same breath you are saying fill it out immediately. isn't that kind of out of sync? what is this about?" it is a good thing to say why we do that. the vast majority of households will stay with the same membership between now and april 1, and for those people, it makes a lot of sense to fill it in early or like me, and you put things aside, on the desk with a table, you forget to do it entirely. for the household who are anticipating a new baby to be born, and the baby has not come yet, or on the other side of life, there is somebody who may not be with us on april 1, or if you are planning to move, don't fill it out. but the vast majority of the people to do exactly as you did, filling out early and mail it back and we appreciate it.

host: why is it necessary to know ethnicity? guest: good question. we have two questions that are linked. ethnicity, at no. 8, and race, number 9. we think of those as combined. as you know, we have a set of laws, voting rights act, civil rights legislation, that are pertinent to the redistricting process. after we finished our nonpartisan accounting, we give it to the country, a variety of groups, for political uses. you're not a partisan organization -- we are not a partisan organization. we are not partisan statistical agency. but after we determine how many representatives each state has, states are given the responsibility for drawing the new congressional district boundaries.

as you know, those districts are reviewed to make sure that they do not -- that they have not been formed in a way to be unfairly treating certain minority groups. we need those measures to implement those. host: randy in oklahoma, republican. good one. caller: i'm just wondering what they made the census bureau for any way. you have the irs. they know where you are at. guest: great question. as it turns out, the irs has their own -- first of all, we need to note that not everyone files and income tax return. we need to count everyone. for that reason, if we rely only on tax returns, we underestimate how many people are in the country. ever since 1790, at every 10 years, we have counted everybody in the country, and that in the

years when we are not doing this s census, we have other responsibilities. we do thousands of surveys. we provide the kind treat estimates of retail sales every month, housing starts -- we provide the country estimates of retail sales of the month, housing starts, the consumer base information that is important for economic planning in the country. although i must admit i have a conflict of interest, we need a census bureau to produce a lot of other statistical information that the country needs to see how well we are doing. host: next call for dr. robert groves is from south dakota, lowry on the independents' line. caller: good morning. i have a question based on my wife and myself's lifestyle. we are full time rvers, and vehicles are registered in sioux falls, s.d. and we've got out

of south dakota in the presidential elections. currently we are in florida, and my wife picked up the census form, but we noted that they are marketed. we want to make sure that we are counted as two people in sioux falls, s.d. how would you answer my question? guest: great question, first of all. thanks for calling in. it is a great way to educate us all, the efforts we go to to do this. starting on march 19 and going to about april 12, we are actually visiting rv parkes- brier hopefully you have gotten a visitor, if you stay at -- we're actually visiting rv parks. hopefully you of that and a visitor. you are counted in that park. although in your mind your eight sioux falls resident, following the guidance of the founding fathers, we can people where they usually live -- townspeople

with the usually live, or where they are around the april 1 period. those living this life style, and are a lot of them -- i have visited several frv parks over the last few months -- the fact that your wife went out and got a for his great. but have you counted in sioux falls is problematic. host: i never thought of rv as a lifestyle. guest: 0, it is. it is amazing. i went to the texas-mexico border, looking at complicated situations. if you look at google earth on a certain area on the border, you see a lot of empty places. when i went out there, the were filled with rv's and license plates -- host: those folks get counted

down there because they happened to be there on april 1? guest: ideally -- here is the rule we use. we want to catch you were usually live -- how you where you usually live, and that means, for a college student, where you usually live, in the dormitory. there are people who are truly living in multiple places all the time. the time. for them, we so, if you have someone who has two houses, exactly six months of the year they live in one and six months of the year in the other, then the notion of usual residents not work and we say count yourself where you are april 1. host: what about overseas americans? guest: great question. we did not attempt to measure american citizens who have gone

abroad -- to retire, example. and lot of people retire to italy. they have no intention to come back to the united states. it think of themselves of this -- and lived there. expatriates'. we did not attend to measure them at all. if you think about that for a minute, attempting to measure all american citizens worldwide is probably only done through a world senses which is just an awesome thing to get your mind around. we do measures some americans who are abroad. military personnel stationed abroad are counted through a wonderful partnership we have with the department of defense. they use their personal records to enumerate them and then assign the people to a state based on their home of record. we also do that for the state department and a couple of other federal agencies. host: michigan, ken, republican.

you are on with the director of the senses. guest: former state of residence. caller: i filled out mind and sent off yesterday, family of five. i have questions. first, i'm kind of a genealogy buff. became that over the past year. i know i can access old censuses offline -- all my interesting stuff. my question on that portion of the senses, is how many years to you have to go by before you make them available online, and will this senses at some point be available on-line for my great-grandchildren to look at my handwriting? my great-grandchildren to read my handwriting? guest: great question. the current regulations on this is that 72 years from now, your descendants will be able to look at your form. this will be 2082. hopefully you are alive, if you can do it.

72 was chosen decades ago. it was chosen as the number to make sure that, basically, at the moment your census form is revealed, you'll probably passed on to another state -- you have probably passed on to another state. it would not surprise me, although as a genealogist i have mixed emotions about this, but it would not surprise me if over the years we will change that to a bigger number, because all of us thankfully are living longer. this form that he mailed in will indeed be captured electronically, an image of this form, it digital images of this form are being captured. your descendants will be able to look at your handwriting on it is formed. it will not be just a bunch of numbers. they will be able to see your riding, and if you are like me, it is getting that personal insight about your ancestors

that is so rewarding as of genealogists. we will do that for them. host: why is it necessary to know somebody's phone number, especially when a lot of people are getting away from land mines? -- landlines? guest: great question. i will give you an example of why we do this. let's say, question one, how many people live in your household, you write three, and then you fill out the form describing characteristics of only two people. an innocent mistake. an e-mail in the form. in our process, we catch that, and we say that it looks like a discrepancy. there are only two people there, or someone forgot. we will call and say, just did a quality purposes, can we tell you what we're finding, and is this right? after the process, we literally

destroy these phone numbers. we are only using them for that kind of follow-up purpose. on question 10, it's as, "does this person sometimes live somewhere else?" we discovered in the 2000 census that we had a double counted a lot of people. that discovery made us very concerned about following a people we might have ended up double counting. host: josh, atlanta, a democrat. caller: good morning. i was going to ask the colleges to in question, like whether i count my family -- the college student question, like whether i, i, address or college address -- host: did you get one in your door? -- dorm? caller: no, my mother got it

back in her house. i am on leave of absence from college anyway. i suppose to be back in the fall. but my college and home or in two different states. i will ask a question about u.s. house redistricting. are there any indications of which states are going to gain house seats and which ones are going to lose house seats? i could you go over the process of that in general -- and could you go over the process of that in general? once the census forms, in the government, it is up to the state legislature to actually write the boundaries? guest: great, great questions. let me say at about college, though. i cannot resist. i have two college sons. this is a big source of confusion. anything all of us can do to remind college students that the first time they have to step up to the plate and take care of themselves -- if you lived in

a dorm, this will start next week. we will pass out individual census reports to students in dorms. this is a great opportunity for the younger generation for the first time to enumerate themselves. parents need to know, don't count the kid in the dorm at home, even though you are paying tuition and doing all the other stuff for the kid. your question on redistricting -- let me tell you something i feel quite passionate about. the census bureau is a non- partisan, independent statistical agency, independent of regulation and independent of enforcement. there is one thing that i sort of deliberately don't follow as the census bureau director, and that is speculation on what states are going to gain

representatives and what don't rea. my job is to count everyone, and to do the counting in a way that is completely non-partisan. we will deliver to the president and to the full society in late december the counts by state, and that will reveal at that moment the gainers and losers of representatives. at the end of march 2011, we will deliver to the states counts way down at the block level to allow them to exercise their legal responsibilities, which is a redistricting. we are not involved in that at all. we provide the information, they do the work. host: a viewer tweets in -- guest: great. great question.

i'm surprised she received four, but let me tell you what was done. we sent to almost all households and advance letter. we then sent the package with the questionnaire, just like the one you have today. and then just this week, we sent a little reminder postcard. why do we do this? we do this because research has shown that that advance letter kind of jogs the mind of all of us. we anticipate the receipt of this questionnaire package. the tests that were run over the decade showed that about five percentage points of a hostile population returned the form -- five percentage points of the household population return the

form above the rate. it is a 5 percentage point gain. let's translate that into money. we did indeed, as the tweeter notes, spend money on those mailings, but week shows that they increase the percentage of people who responded of every one percentage point of folks who respond, we save $85 million. five percentage points is about $500 million, and it is even more than that. we did not spend anywhere near $500 million to send out those little advance notice is. for those who are annoyed by it, i apologize, but we save taxpayer money by spending. -- by spending that amount of money for the mailings. host: if you'd think you of heard of robert groves, it is probably because you have read one of his seven books.

chicago, republican, you are on the air. caller: good morning, and i thank you for all the information. my question has been partially answered. t"r 4ñbs1btf residence. i did receive a form at each place, fill it out at the main city because we enjoy chicago. if we fill out both of them, how would you check that problem? guest: what we recommend for people for the second house, a house they do not usually live but sometimes live, is to market zero on the number of people and sent it back. we will follow up a sample of houses for these kinds of checks. we will do checks for duplicates in various ways. we are concerned about the duplication problem, because, as i said earlier, it was one of the findings of 2000 that we can

do better on. we will try to check on those three innocent mistakes can be made. we do checks -- we will try to check on those. innocent mistakes can be made. we will do checks on those. hopefully, on question 10, when you fill out the form in your usual residents, you noted that sometimes you live elsewhere, in the other house, and that will be a flag for us to make sure we check. great question. host: south carolina, good morning. caller: can you hear me ok? host: please go ahead. caller: if you do your history, like this is indicating, the only right you have is to know how many people live in a home. you'd have no legal right to ask the phone numbers or anything else. when you come to my door, i will invoke my miranda rights, which is legal to do -- host: why would you do that? what is your hesitation about

sharing information? caller: i get all my infowars -- i know what i get all my news -- i get all my news from infowars.com and i know what the government is up to. guest: we should all go back to article 1, section 2 of the constitution. there is indeed a line that says there will be an actual enumeration of the population every 10 years, and then there is a comma, and then there is at very important clause, which says, "in a matter that congress shall by law so direct." the constitutional rights of the senses -- census, the responsibility of the census, is given to the congress to direct. let's go back to the very roots of the country, when there were

rus4?r]$sd2 -- justice, state, treasury, and ;ya2sú;vq the smallest federal government there was a sense is there, and the very first congress said we will direct a specified by the constitution of the senses will be done. it did it march 1, 1790. what did they say? they said in the 17 90 cents is we will collect name, age, race, and sex. way beyond just the number of people live in a household. it is crystal clear that the intent of the founding fathers, since men -- many were members of the first congress, if you read your history, that they viewed this as more than just a count of people on the hospital -- household. and if you examine the 2010 census form, it is the closest

to the 1790 census form in our lifetime. host: which missing piece of information will trigger a visit? name, phone number, at the city? any of the above? guest: it is a complicated algorithm but i can say to the last caller, if you only report the number of people in the household, we must under law go to your household and visit you and collect the information. that is what congress has specified. wade -- looking at congress 2007, the topics that would be included. in 2008 we delivered the exact wording of the questions. so, we are following the footsteps of the constitution, how congress has directed us to do it and we will go back to this --

host: what was the situation in kentucky with the census worker? guest: is completely different question. he was working for one of the samples at the time. an absolute human tragedy and thereby the tragedy for our institution. the final judgment of the state police working along with the fbi -- this is a man, you know, who was found hanging in a forest dead, a census worker. it is pretty clear, i think, that he was that day working on it senses activities. and the judgment of the state police is this was a suicide and that indeed the appearance that this was an act of hostility toward the federal government's was part of an active deception on his part.

. final act of good will toward his family, in an attempt to make sure they had life insurance benefits. it is a horrible tragedy, no matter how you think about it. host: west palm beach, florida. caller: [unintelligible] host: couldn't hear you. caller: can you hear me now? host: yes. caller: social security and state agencies. what agencies have access to this information? guest: we don't ask your social security number. we don't have your social security number. more fundamentally, we don't know if anyone lives and your

address. we don't know anything about you except your address. if you check, one e-mail you something, we may lead to a -- the address went week -- what we mail you something, we mailed to the address. if you notice what we ask, we ask for each person's name, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and whether they live somewhere else. we don't ask social security numbers, we don't ask income, we don't ask citizenship or documentation status. all of the things that may make some people uncomfortable or gone from this form. host: you talk about citizenship. citizenship. joe tweets in -- guest: let me speak to that.

as i said, i think, already, the job the census bureau is to job the census bureau is to execute the specified by congress over past years and how the census is to be done. we must follow the law. now they will say, what is the law with regard to this? well, it was clear, way back in '79 the, that everyone was counted. citizens are not. in 1790 that everyone is counted, citizens are not. the 14th amendment makes absolutely explicit, -- citizens or not. the 14th amendment makes this absolutely explicit. since 79 become everyone in the country -- uncounted since 1790, everyone in that country has been counted. i view this as a healthy discussion. the fact that we have different viewpoints on this is a good

thing to talk about. the law is absolutely crystal clear on what we as the census bureau must do, and it turns out that there is nothing new here. we have done it this way -- this is the 23rd census that we've come together to do. host: anna, you are on with robert groves of the census bureau. caller: this is the first time in my 72 and a half years on earth where and i said in a card with the census bureau being that large. i am black. i did not appreciate the black, afro-american, and negro. that goes back to when i was living in tennessee. i do not like that. that is out of character. it hurt my feelings. that to me is a racist.

guest: first of all, let me apologize to you on behalf of all my colleagues. i need to tell you why that word is there. it takes a couple of minutes. before the 2000 census, there was a lot of research done on how to ask grace, and some of the research was set up to -- ask race, and some of the research was set up to not give categories at all. we would say to tell us what word they would call themselves in racial terms. the result of the research was that there was an older cohort of african-americans who come in that research, for release said, "i would think of myself as a negro." the results of the research produced the wording of the questionnaire, which is exactly what you see here. there is one other thing we need

to know. about 56,000 people in the 2000 census, in addition to checking the box, one to blow -- went below and wrote the word "negro ." when you analyze the characteristics of those people, about half of them were less than 45 years of age. this was a big surprise. those were the results of the 2000 census. now, i have noted this already. i think in retrospect we should have done some of the same research this decade. it was not done. there was focus on other attributes of this. the intent of every word on at the race and ethnicity question is to be as inclusive as possible, so that all of us can see a word here that rings a bell for us, that is how i think of myself.

it was not to be offensive, and again, i apologize on that. my speculation is that in 2020, that will disappear, and there will be other words that will change. our language about race and ethnicity is under constant flux. it's a challenge for us to keep in tune with that dynamic nature, but we need to do it. host: why this question eight specifically about hispanic origin -- guest: great question. we have questions on ethnicity and race. we discovered any research -- in research, and people around the country have been doing this research -- if you embed hispanic as a racial category, one way of doing that in past years, there are hispanics to say -- who say "i have a problem in answering that question,"

because there are white hispanic and black hispanic the separation of ethnicity and race was to get a better measurement of that. both white hispanics and black hispanics sought places for themselves. host: robert, hi cal. caller: i am a conservative republican, and the only question i answered on the question is how many people live in the household. the rest of the questions are unconstitutional. host: we just heard from him on that one. if that is all you answer, you will get a visit to your house. caller: i will exercise my moran rights as well, as the previous caller got -- my miranda rights as well, as the previous caller have claimed, because these questions on race and ethnicity are clearly a move on the current congress, and the

census is a lap dog to continue to show how many people are here illegally, so that they can redistrict in that manner. it is just not right. guest: for everyone who feels that, i urge you -- a lot of my friends, we have had discussions about this. i urge you to take a minute to go back to the constitutional rights. read the first census act, read the discussions of the clause in the constitution. and then you have to somehow deal with the fact that the very first congress said, "we are going to measure h common name -- the very first congress said we are going to measure h, name, and sex. that was the will of the congress the very moment this wonderful mission was founded. you have to think about what

that implies about your behavior on at this questionnaire. host: west milford, connecticut, in the end line. -- independent line. caller: my question concerns basically the grendell guarantee that you have -- , forthe gran ularity you have, for agents in particular. the different -- for asians in particular. the different categories you have, and compare that to the selections for whites. whites have a far greater granularity, even among religion, where a jewish people who are considered as white would consider among themselves as a different group. why are you not going for that kind of granularity?

guest: great question. let me comment on a series of questions. this discussion has gone on in the country about race and ethnicity measurement on the census for decades. this uniquely american. -- it is uniquely american but we are constantly and dynamically changing racial and ethnic compositions. the process by which these questions are constructed is one that is renewed every decade. indeed, there is a process by which we oppose this census -- we post this census that will pay attention to distributions. we pay attention to what people write in for race and ethnicity that is not part of the check box category.

there is an attempt to have as jack boxes those -- as check bo xes those that are most prevalent in the country. there is a premium onin this -- premium on space in this form. this is an attempt to make a compromise. race, as you think about it, we separate conceptually from country of origin. there are other measurements were we ask, where are you bored, what are your ancestors, and that is as -- a little bit where are you -- where are you born, who are your ancestors, and that is a little bit different from grace. -- race. host: host: traverse city, michigan.

please go ahead. caller: yes, i live in traverse city, which is in the state that your guest is from. the question i have is this. the office that they chose to do their census from in traverse city was a prime piece of property. it used to belong to a member of the new york stock exchange. they came into that building and were about all the old furniture and carpeting and in doors and windows, and i was one of the few people that would get down there by the dumpster every day and try and get carpeting. it was brand new stuff. so they chose to use this prime piece of property. they tore up the concrete floor becausand reported the floor. host: what is your question.

caller: he is telling us how he will save us money with a 44 cent stamp, and they are taking a short-term lease. they're doing all this government -- work to satisfy the government -- guest: i think they give the. . i must admit, i do not know the particular case. let me act on what you have been saying. i can tell you how we do this. as most federal agencies do, we acquire space, especially rental space, through the services of another federal agency called the general services administration, who are nationally clued into the markets, and they act as our agents in seeking big step for space and having the specifications. i do not know this case. a visit a lot of our offices around the country, and i can tell you that they are not plush

of stairs in my personal opinion. we do have to have chairs for people to sit on while they work, and we have to have consumer -- computer systems, but most of these spaces are fairly modest host: robert is the director of the u.s. census bureau. dover, delaware, edward. we may have time for this call. caller: why do people view the census data with such suspicion? why are there so many questions about hispanics? thank you. guest: the first question, let me express the in my view of the history is that america is a feisty lot. i have all the newspaper stories from the 1800's where people were worried about this. i think it is part of my nature

to be a little suspicious of government. and to those people suspicious, i remind us that this is a constitutional thing. i have actually for bonior said in question. >host: the hispanic. guest: i think we spoke about that a bit before. but it is an attempt to separate ethnic origin of latinos and spanish from the race question. >> former republican presidential candidate, john mccain, is in a primary fight for his reelection. a former congressman is a check -- challenging him. tomorrow, he is joined by his former running mate, sarah palin, at a campaign event in mesa, arizona. will have that for you tonight on c-span. and the cbs national security correspondent is on sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. this week, prime minister gordon brown pay the tribute to a man

returning from the house of commons after serving since 1970 and answers questions about the british airways strike, the economy, and mental health care. the prime minister's questioning, 9:00 p.m. eastern sunday on c-span. >> this weekend on "book tv," former education secretary examines american at the end of the 20th century in the beginning of the 21st. he is interviewed by former managing editor at "time" magazine. the national book critics circle award ceremony. throughout the week in, look for highlights from the virginia festival and find the entire schedule online. throughout april, see the wonders of c-span's student the video documentary competition. middle and high school students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's greatest strengths or challenge the country is facing the which

the top winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern and 8:30 a.m. during the program, meet the students who made them. for a preview of all the winners, visit the web site. >> president obama announced a new treaty on nuclear weapons with russia, calling for both countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals by a third. following the president's standing, we hear from the secretary of state, defense secretary, and three chief of staff share. this is about 35 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i just concluded a productive phone call with president

medvedev. i am pleased to announce that after a year of intense negotiations, the u.s. and russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades. since taking office, one of my highest priorities has than address saying the threat posed by nuclear weapons for the american people. that is why last april in prague i stated america's intentions to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a world that has been embraced by president like john f. kennedy and ronald reagan. this aspiration will not be reached in the near future. i put forward a comprehensive agenda a person to stop the spread of these look good -- weapons and secure vulnerable nuclear the jurors from terrorists and reduce nuclear arsenals. a fundamental part of that effort was the negotiation that they do the treaty with russia. furthermore, since i took

office, you have been committed to a reset of our relationship with russia. we have worked together on afghanistan. we have coordinated our economic efforts through the g-20. we're working together to pressure iran to meet its international obligations. and today, we have reached agreement on one of my administration's top national security priorities, a pivotal new arms control agreement. in many ways, nuclear-weapons represent the darkest days of the cold war and the most troubling threats of our time. today, we take another step forward in leaving behind a legacy of the 20th-century while building a more secure future for our children. we have turn words into action. we have made progress that is clear and concrete. and we demonstrate the importance of american leadership and american

partnership on behalf of our own security and the world. the new treaty makes progress in several areas. it cuts by about a third of the nuclear weapons of the united states and russia will deploy it. it significantly reduces missiles and launchers. it is a strong and effective verification regime and maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies. with this agreement, the u.s. and russia, the two largest nuclear powers in the world, also sent a clear signal that we intend to lead by upholding our own commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities. i am pleased that almost one year to the day after my last trip to prague, the czech

republic, a close friend and ally of the u.s., has agreed to as president medvedev and me on april 8 as we sign this historic treaty. the following week, i look forward to as the leaders from over 40 nations here in washington as we convene a summit to address how we can secure vulnerable nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists. later, the world will come together in new york to discuss how can build on this progress in kenyan -- continue to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. through these efforts, cooperation between the u.s. and russia will be essential. i want to thank president medvedev for his personal and sustain leadership as we worked through this agreement. we have had the opportunity many times over the last year, and we both agree that we can serve the interests of our people through close cooperation. i also want to thank my national security team who did so much work to make this day possible. that includes the leaders here with me today, secretary

clinton, secretary gates, and admiral mullen. it includes the tireless negotiating team. it took patience, perseverance, but we never gave up. as a result, the u.s. will be more secure and the american people will be safe. finally, i look forward to continuing to work closely with congress in the months ahead. there is a long tradition of bipartisan leadership on arms control. presidents of both parties have recognized the necessity of securing and reducing these weapons. statesmanlike george shultz, henry kissinger, and bill perry have been outspoken in their support of more assertive action. earlier this week i met with my friends john kerry and dick lugar to discuss this. throughout the morning, my administration will be consulting senators. my administration will be consulting senators from both parties to prepare for what i hope will be a strong bipartisan support to ratify the new treaty. with that, i am going to leave you in the able and my secretary

of state, hillary clinton, as well as secretary of defense gates and joint chiefs of staff, chairman mike mullen. i want to thank all of you for your attention. >> is iran part of the conversation, sir? >> well, thank you all very much. this is a good day for america and our security. and as president obama just reiterated, it is one of the highest priorities of the obama administration to pursue an agenda to reduce the threats of -- posed by the deadliest weapons the world has ever known. president obama said that fourth in his speech at a prague last year, and today, he and president medvedev reached an agreement to make significant and verifiable reductions in our nuclear arsenal.

long after the cold war's end, the united states and russia still possess more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. we do not need such large arsenals to protect our nation and our allies against the two greatest dangers we face today. nuclear proliferation and terrorism. this treaty represents a significant step forward in our cooperation with russia. we were committed from the beginning to reset the u.s.- russia relationship, because we saw it as essential to making progress on our top priorities, from counter-terrorism to nuclear security and non- proliferation. now we will continue to have disagreements with our russian friends, but this treaty is an example of a deep and substantive cooperation on a matter of vital importance. more broadly, it shows that patients, a principal, and diplomacy can advance our

national interest by producing real results. in this case, results are good for us, good for russia, and good for global security and stability. the treaty also shows the world, particularly states like iran and north korea, that one of our top priorities is to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime and keep nuclear materials out of the wrong hands. the new start treaty demonstrates our commitment to making progress for disarmament under the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, the so- called nct. as we pulled our commitment and strengthen that, we can hold others accountable to do the same. i know that secretary gates and admiral mullins will say more about the details of the treaty, but i want to make clear that we have adhered to the russian proverb that president reagan frequently employed. trust but verify. verification provides the transparency and builds the trust needed to reduce the chance for misunderstanding and

miscalculation. president obama insisted on a a whole government effort to reach this result, and that is exactly what this was. he and president medvedev met several times and spoke often by phone. secretary gates, admiral mullins, general jones worked closely with their russian counterparts on the foreign minister and i met in person, most recently last week in moscow, and we spoke on the phone to many times to count. the assistant secretary worked tirelessly in geneva for many months as our chief negotiator. the undersecretary, who is here with us, joined her at a crucial time to help complete the agreement, assisted very ably by our state department's expert team. teams of people at the state department, the white house, dod, elsewhere worked tirelessly to make this happen. let me conclude by saying that i look forward to working with my former colleagues in the senate.

they will be our partners in this enterprise. i know president obama had an excellent meeting his -- as he reported to you with both senators kerry and lugar. general jones and others of those of met with members along the way. i look forward to working toward ratification to bring this treaty into force. now it is my great pleasure and honor to turn the podium over to my friend, secretary bob gates. >> this treaty strengthens nuclear stability. it will reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons that both russia and the u.s. are committed to deploy by a third, and maintains an effective verification regime. america's nuclear arsenal remains an important pillar of the u.s. defense posture. both to deter potential adversaries and to reassure more than two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear

umbrella for their security. but it is clear that we can accomplish these goals with fewer nuclear weapons. the reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad, nor does this treaty limit plans to protect the united states and our allies by improving and deploying a missile defense systems. now to the analysis that supported the u.s. negotiating position. it was provided by the defense department's nuclear posture review, which will be released shortly. the number of weapons and declines, and will have to invest more heavily in our nuclear infrastructure in order to keep our weapons safe, secure, and effective. i look forward to working with the congress to make sure that the departments of defense and energy have the funding necessary to properly accomplish this mission. the subject of america's nuclear deterrence in this treaty carries special personal meaning for me. my professional career began as

a junior air force officer under the strategic air command, and my first assignment 43 years ago was that white man airforce base, then home to 150 minute man icbm's. i've been involved in strategic arms negotiation in 1971 in different capacities at cia and here. i particularly recall the day president reagan signed the intermediate range nuclear treaty, which marked the transition from arms control to disarmament. that process accelerated the start and it reaches another important milestone with this treaty. the journey we have taken from being one misstep away from destruction to the substantial arms reductions of this new agreement is testimony to just how much the world has changed and the opportunities we still have to make our planet safer and more secure. and ramallah.

>> good morning. i would only like to add that i, the vice chairman, and the joint chiefs, as well as our combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly behind this new treaty. having had the opportunity to provide our counsel, to make our recommendations, to help shape the final agreement. we greatly appreciate the trust and confidence placed in us by the president and by secretary gates throughout this process. and we recognize the trust and confidence this treaty helps foster in our relationship with russia's military. the trust complementary to that which the president has saw to achieve between our two countries. i met with my russian counterpart no fewer than three times during the negotiation process. and each time we met, we grew closer, not only toward our portion of the final result, but also toward a better understanding of the common

challenges and opportunities our troops face every single day. the new star deals with some of the most legal of those common challenges that are stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons, it dramatically reduces these stockpiles. this treaty achieves a proper balance keeping in today's security in garnick, reducing tensions as it bolsters non- proliferation efforts it is much more effective and transparent with werke fit -- verification methods to get quicker data exchanges and notifications. it protects our ability to develop a conventional global strike capability should that be required. and perhaps more critically, it allows us to deploy and maintain strategic nuclear forces. bombers, submarines, missiles, the triad which has proven itself over the decades. in ways best suited to meeting our security commitments. in other words, through the

trust it engenders, because it requires and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do, protect and defend the citizens of the united states. i am is confident in its success as i am in the safeguards. thank you. >> we're going to take three or four questions here and let them get back to work. >> how confident are you of early ratification in the senate? secretary gates, you mentioned no limits on missile defense to the beaufort sea and the future engaging with russia or more broadly in any kind of limitations? >> well, let me say that we're focused on ratification. we're working hard. we're going to engage a deeply and broadly with all of them members of the senate, and we are also informing members of

the house as well. i am not going to set any timetable, but we're confident that we will be able to make the case for ratification. in fact, i think if you look at the last three major nuclear arms treaties, the treaty of 2003, 95-0. 1992, 93-6. inf tweeted, 1980, 93-5. so i think when it comes to do the goals of this treaty, both bob and mike allen did, it is a great balance that it strikes. there should be very broad bipartisan support. >> i would say that we will continue to try and engage the russians as partners in this process. one of the technical benefits of the adaptive approach and the

president announced last year is that it actually makes it easier to connect the russian radars and capabilities to those in europe. so we think that there is still a broad opportunity to not only in gauge of the russians but hopefully make than a participant in a european line defense capability. >> secretary clinton, first of all, the you believe these reductions are enough? second, can you expand a little bit more on what this means to the u.s.-russia relationship? is the recent complete? >> well, i think that this was, in and of itself, a major achievement in our relationship. and equally importantly, it builds to that foundation of trust and confidence that we are establishing between the u.s. and russia. this is a very complex relationship, and it is one that we have given a great deal of

attention to, from the president all the way through the national security team. because we believe that there are so many other areas of mutual cooperation that we can pursue. bob mentioned one. we continue to look for ways to engage with russia on a missile defense in a way that is mutually beneficial and protective of our country's security against these threats we face in the world. but our relationship coming out of the by national commission that president obama and president medvedev announced last summer has covered so much ground, and we would be glad to give you all and in-depth briefing on that because that it demonstrates that we are not just talking about big ticket items like iran sanctions, like european security, like missile defense. we're back in the business of

trying to create more people to people contact and more business investment opportunities. we're very committed, and we will continue to work together on it. >> thank you for doing this. congratulations on your success. [laughter] i wanted to ask. you're facing a difficult task of convincing the u.s. congress to ratify this bit of the russians will face the same task. i assume the process was mutually beneficial. please tell me how the russian side was taken into account into the negotiations. quite obviously, the russian leadership will be in the best position to speak to the russian interest and how those were met. but what we both believed as we went through this difficult negotiation was that cutting our arsenal by 30% was in the best interest of both of our

countries, increasing more confidence between us with respect to our nuclear programs. the kind of decisions that the russian leadership authorized to be made in this negotiation are clearly, in their view, in russian security interest. you're right, just as we have to go to our congress, president medvedev has to go to the center of thing, and the president i think is that he would send an rahm emanuel to moscow. [laughter] and we all immediately endorsed that offer. so of president medvedev wants to take us up on it, we are ready. >> madam secretary, congratulations. obviously, a couple deadlines were missed on the way to today's announcement. what were the sticking points, and how were they ultimately resolved? what is your message to

europeans who are still concerned about the nuclear missiles aimed at them from russia? >> no, in any complex negotiation, there are going to be points along the way where negotiators have to go back to their capitals, where the negotiators need to delegate in- depth conversations. you heard mike mullins said what he had to do with his counterparts. i had to talk to my counterpart many times. because president obama and president medvedev's directions were very clear. we want to do this, and we want to get it done in a timely manner. but it took a lot of work. just a few weeks ago, i dispatched under secretary to geneva because we needed to make it absolutely clear that this was a priority at the highest levels of our government. the russians responded to that very positively, and we began to

just work out the last details. in addition the though, it is important to note that we made a decision that we wanted not just to add to the treaty agreed to. we wanted the protocols agreed to. sometimes the treaties and the past have been submitted while the work on the protocol still goes on. but we thought it was important that we go through all the work and the protocol so that when we went to our senate or when the russian government went to their counterparts, it was not just, what will be in the protocol, but it was that we can look to the treaty in the protocol. that was also some of the time that had to be taken in order to get to the point where we both felt like we had the package a necessary to go to our legislative bodies. and we have consistently conveyed to our european friends and allies, america's absolute commitment to our nato partners

and to their defense. the phase adaptive approach that the president concluded was the best way forward on missile defense, we think actually makes europe safer from what are the real threats out there. there is still work to be done in the nato-russia council to build confidence in our central and eastern european partners with russia, but everybody is aware that that is something that is still ongoing. one of the reasons why it is so significant that the president will meet in prague is because we want to send exactly that signal, this is good for europe as well as the u.s. and russia. >> i think the average american and when they hear talk of arms reduction, their eyes glaze over they are worried about if this will get into the hands of terrorists and nations like iran getting nuclear weapons. can you explain how this treaty paves the way for progress on those two issues?

>> is the president said in his remarks, we have a long term vision of moving toward a world without nuclear weapons. we're absolutely realistic about how long that will take to convince everyone that this is in the world's interest. but the steps we're taking add up to something that makes a very clear statement of intent. so the treaty, it says to our country that the cold war really is behind us, and these massive nuclear arsenals of both of our country is maintained as part of deterrence no longer have to be so big. we can begin to cut that. that is not only in our security interest, but it is also a commitment by the u.s. and russia toward non-proliferation and toward the eventual goals of the world without nuclear weapons. the nuclear security summit of the president almost in two

weeks, the largest gathering of international leaders probably since the end of world war ii in the united states voted for the idea of how to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of rogue regimes and of terrorists. we come with more credibility. russia comes with more credibility having negotiated this treaty. then the non-proliferation treaty in may takes it one step further about how we bring the non-proliferation regime into the 21st century when we know, unfortunately, that terrorist groups are seeking nuclear weapons, and states that are not -- they do not have the confidence of the international community in their ambitions like iran and north korea, are also pursuing nuclear weapons. you have to look at this is a part of our whole approach for non-proliferation. >> it was a fairly brief conversation, finalizing the

treaty. president medvedev mentioned to president obama that he wanted to speak with him when they met next in the czech republic. >> you mentioned the bipartisan overwhelming majority this past with in the past. is there nothing that concerns about this particular political environment that you will not be able to get the votes? and for secretary gates, the point -- is the pentagon uncomfortable about the campaign, considering we do depend on nuclear weapons for national security? >> well, first, i think that national security has always produced large bipartisan majorities, and i see no reason why this should be any different. we have had a very dynamic political debate in our country over health care, which was

brought to a successful conclusion of this week to the betterment of the american people going forward. but i do not believe that this ratification efforts will be affected by anything other than individual senators assessment of whether this is in the best interest of american security. and i think that, as you heard from bob and mike nebraska will hear from many other experts in the administration over the weeks ahead, as we testify and make the case to the press and the public for this treaty, we're absolutely united in our belief the this is in america's interest. it is in america's interest in the particulars of this treaty, and it is in america's interest because it puts us in a very strong leadership position to make the case about an iran,

about north korea, about other countries doing more to safeguard nuclear materials. i believe that the vast majority of the senate at the end of the day will see that this is in america's interest, and it goes way beyond politics. >> let me first say a word about ratification from my perspective. there has been a very intense continuing consultation on the hill as the negotiations have proceeded. two of the areas that have been of concern in the senate, among senators, are, are we protecting our ability to go forward with missile defense, and are we going to make the investment in our nuclear infrastructure so that the stockpile will remain reliable and safe? we have to address both of those. missile defense has not been constrained by this treaty, and we have in our budget, the

president's budget that went to the bill for fiscal year 2011, almost $5 billion in investment in nuclear infrastructure and maintaining the stockpile. i think we have addressed the concerns that there may have been on the hill. so i echo the sentiments of the secretary clinton, then i think the prospects are quite good. in terms of going to nuclear -- zero nuclear weapons, the president has been very realistic. when he originally discussed this, perhaps not in his lifetime, in those terms. but we realize other countries sepsis potential members of nuclear weapons. others are attempting to develop them. so we will do this in a realistic way. but what this treaty does in some of the other steps trying to get control of fissile material, the non-proliferation treaty -- these are concrete steps to move in that direction, but i do not think anybody expects us to go anywhere close

to zero nuclear weapons soon. >> to what degree in the preamble will this be addressed, and does -- to the russians insist upon some kind of linkage to future missile defense plans with the u.s., and is there any concern that you have about a russian dissatisfaction with the bulgarian-romania propone it? >> no, if i could, i would like the anders secretary to address this, fresh from geneva. >> thank you, madam secretary. president obama and president met their of -- medvedev met and discussed that this was a strategic weapons treaty, and there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive and defensive. but that is where the discussion ended. i think when you see the treaty

and the protocol, there are no constraints on missile defense. when it comes to romania, the phase-adapted approaches in the face, as you can see, it 2011, 2015, 2018 deployments. we have gone to extensive links to brief the russians. frankly, the phase-adapted approach has been up on the web and the review has been on the web for weeks and months. we've gone through sensitive briefings with the russians. we do not pre clear a time and double-cut the conversations we have with allies and friends when we do things with them with anyone, including the russians. we certainly spoke to the russians soon afterwards, and they knew about the romanian deployment. >> i would like to follow-up with the secretary of state. you touched on iran.

without russia's corp., where does that put in going ahead with iran and sanctions, getting them on board? >> we have had very constructive talks with all of our partners, and in-depth consultations with the russians, most recently last thursday and friday when i was in moscow. we are working on language. the russians are involved in being consulted on the drafting process. we're pursuing the plan we set forth from the very beginning of this administration to track the process. the first track was engagement, which the president has fulfilled in every way as he has reached out to the iranians. and the other track of pressure in the event that the iranians will not engage or refuse to comply with their international

obligations. the recent iaea report that the director general put out summarizing many of the questions that raised concerns about iran's behavior is was, i think, widely viewed as an authoritative source, not coming from the united states, that summarized why the international community needs to move on this second track. i believe that you'll see increasing activity in the very near future as we work to bring to fruition and irresolution that can muster -- a resolution can -- that can get the votes that are necessary. president medvedev and president obama have talked about this continuously. >> [inaudible] >> as robert gibbs said, when they are together, they talk about this. >> [inaudible]

>> we will take one more. >> do you know of any country in the middle east that has nuclear weapons other than iran? >> helen, i have missed you. [laughter] >> thank you. we both got an honorary degree. >> we did. we were both out on the new yankee stadium field for the nyu commencement. we did not step on the grass. we were very careful. but you know, she was, as always, in the center of activity. helen, one of our goals is to try to move, as we have said, the world toward a recognition that nuclear weapons should be phased out. so from our perspective, that is our goal in fulfilling the president's vision. it is what we are doing with the

nuclear security summit. a number of countries from the middle east will be present. it is what we're doing with the non-proliferation treaty conference in june. and it remains one of our highest priorities. so i am going to reaffirm our commitment to a convincing countries that the path of non- proliferation, lowering the temperature when it comes to nuclear weapons, which we're doing with this treaty, is the path they want to be on. >> verification is such an important part of this process. for the american people when they hear you talking about the treaty, how can you assure them about your level of confidence to the verification process this is everyone will be working in the favor? >> the verification measures for this treaty have been designed to monitor compliance with the provisions of this treaty. for example, because the throw

weight of missiles was not an issue, telemetry is not nearly as important for this treaty as it has been in the past. in fact, we do not need telemetry to monitor compliance with this treaty. nonetheless, there is still a bilateral agreement to exchange telemetry information on up to five missile launches a year. i'd think that when the testimony of the intelligence community comes on the hill, ddni and the experts will say that they are comfortable that the provisions of this treaty for verification are adequate for them to monitor russian compliance and vice versa. >> thank you, guys. >> thank you, all.

>> which president was buried wrapped in an american flag, and a copy of the constitution under his head? andrew johnson. find these and other presidential facts in it sees's been a newly updated book, "who is buried in grant's tomb?" >> it is a guide book, travelogue, if you will, but it is a small biography of each of these presidents. you can tell a lot about people at the end of their lives. >> a resource guide to every presidential gravesite. the story of their final moments and insights about their lives. it is now available at your favorite book seller, or did a 25% discount at the publisher's web site. type of ingrant's tomb at checkout. >> looking at the seven saturday

the $7 billion economic stimulus program which is now more than a year old, just under three under $53 billion has been committed to recovery projects. dollars202 billion has been paid out as of march 16. a reminder that we have a web site devoted to the economic stimulus program. www.cspan.org/stimulus. news conference, hearings, and debates as well as links to government watchdog groups for tracking this spending. this weekend on "book tv," build in and examined america at the end of the 20th-century and the beginning of the 21st. he is in your bid by the former managing editor at "time" magazine. this year's national book critics circle awards ceremony. directly in, look for highlights from the virginia festival of the book. find the entire schedule

senate both upper the reconciliation measure yesterday and the speaker was obligated to sign the bill before sending it on to the president to be signed into law. this last about 25 minutes.

>> good morning. it is with great pride and even more humility that we come together today to enroll this important legislation. in doing so, congress will act, as others before us did, to do something very important for the american people. very significant to their daily lives. others before us brought for the social security, medicare, the civil rights act, some of the landmark legislation in our country's history. and today, we have the opportunity in the house to sign this legislation to enroll this important legislation to send to the president of the united states for his signature. we reviewed the events of the last week or so, which brought

us to victory in passing the base bill, the senate bill. essential to its passage was the passage of the second bill which would make significant improvements on the senate bill. only then would we be able to pass the senate bill. a matter of trust between the house and the senate, we were able to pass the senate bill here, knowing that the senate would pass the house improvements. senator reid did a remarkable job keeping everyone together. we were thrilled yesterday to see a very substantial victory for these improvements. what happens now is the result of the work of many people. you have heard me sing the praises of our leadership over and over again. and of course, the president of the united states. but the victory that we have is largely attributed to our newest members of congress.

we have had generations of working on this legislation. what an honor it is to serve with use, mr. dingell. you have been our inspiration. [applause] . . >> more important than that, it was about the significant improvements in the legislation. because of some of the members who are here and their

colleagues in the class of 2006 and 2008, the legislation enrolled here today makes this health care reform more affordable for the middle class. it makes it more accessible to many more people. it has more equity for the states by removing the nebraska arrangement. [laughter] state equity. it holds insurance companies more accountable by improving the reforms that were in the original legislation. it changes because of the work of the 06 and 08 classes. it makes it fair again for the middle class. it closes the doughnut hole for seniors. it closes the doughnut hole for seniors, and that is really very important. if you are not a senior, as i am becoming more and more by the

minute, the doughnut hole is the disparity and the inequity in the senior space in terms of paying for their prescription drugs. so again -- more affordable for the middle class, more fairness to the states, more accountability for the insurance companies. it is better paid for in terms of the middle class and closing the doughnut hole. something that captures why this is so important came home to me last night, when i was reading some letters. listen to this. cindy mercer jones will not wynn wrote -- "my beautiful daughter died at the beginning of 2010.

she was a diabetic who was kicked off her father's insurance when she credit from college. she was not able to find a job that would give her insurance or a reasonable income to get medical supplies. i helped her financially as much as i could, but being a single teacher -- but being a teacher and single mother of five, my income was also limited. she attended to wean herself off her nighttime insulin dosage, resulting in ketoacidosis. she slipped into a coma and never woke up. she was unable to afford her fall insulin supply. now this legislation is signed, sealed, and passed into the law, courtney would be able to stay on her father's insurance

company -- insurance policy and toss to is 26 years old. this makes a tremendous difference in the lives of the american people. >> 2 of the pillars of the president's economic plan more investments in education and investments in health care. when we did the reconciliation, it was on a dual track. i think the leadership of george miller and members of the education and labor committee, many of whom were present today -- this education peace is in this legislation. on any given day, this would be an enormous victory for the american people it lowers the cost of student loans -- 8 million families affected. it improves the pell grant for many people who need pell grants. there is assistance for community colleges -- a historic

to play $5 billion for minority-serving institutions, making colleges more affordable for the middle class and making it more accessible for many more people. it is about training our work force in our community colleges, about reducing the cost of student loans. thank you to chairman george miller and leaders of the education and labor committee. [applause] so many members of the committee -- rob andrews -- i

want to introduce the others on that committee, rob andrews and rubin he now hostinajosa. he has been relentless on this. that is why so many young people are here. their lives are affected by this legislation, not only in terms of staying on their parents' policies but being able to stay in education and eliminating pre-existing conditions. being a woman has been one up until now, but not now. it is important to note, and the senate would want me to make this strongly, that every step of the way, in the education peace, we have saved $10 billion for the taxpayer. overall, we save over $1.30

trillion for the taxpayer. this is about approving affordability and access. more affordability for the middle class, in terms of health care and education, but in a way that saves the tax payer money. when it comes to our seniors, we protect medicare and make it solvent for nearly a decade longer. we close the door not hol -- the doughnut hole. if you are young, middle-aged, middle-class -- whatever your situation, this legislation affects you very directly. if there were only one reason to do the bill, fiscal soundness, this bill fills the bill. this president has said that health care reform is entitlement reform.

family budgets and the federal budget cannot sustain the current system. he also says we will measure our success here by the progress that is being made by america's working families with this legislation that is relevant to their lives. we hope they will be able to reach their aspirations, liberated from the weight of health care costs, free from the high cost of education so they can honor the bows of our founders -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i am honored to sign this legislation which we will then send to the president of the united states. the wonderful ideas that we had will go from being ideas to legislation to the law of the land, to make a difference in the lives of the american people. first i want to a knowledge -- i mentioned that steny was here.

who else of our leadership -- our chairman sandy levin. george miller i acknowledged. with the rain -- i mentioned mr. dingell. all of our leadership -- they are well known to you, and you see them frequently at these sessions. as i said, this they would not be possible without the vision and leadership of the president of the united states, the inspiration of senator kennedy who has been with us every step of the way including right now. all of the difference in the world and all the difference for america's working families is made by our class of 2006 and 2002, our newest members bringing their fresh thinking, their tireless energy, and their deep commitment to the american people to bear on this legislation.

paul tonko of new york, steve cohen of tennessee, mr. kilroy of ohio, carol porter of new hampshire, peter welch of vermont, franz kline of florida, and all of these young people that here who helped. all that we want to do to maneuver and win votes in the congress is not possible without the outside mobilization of people who understand the impact of the legislation and make their voices known to the members of congress. remember, nothing is more eloquent to a member of congress than the voice of his or her own constituents. many of our colleagues have already gone home to talk to their editorial boards, to see

their families, and to meet with their constituents on this legislation. i think our class of 2006 and 2008 who are here in their own right and as representatives. [applause] i signed the big bill. this is a much smaller bill we are signing now. but none of these bills matches the number of pages that led to this -- letters from constituents asking for this legislation.

[applause] [applause] >> the bill is embroiled. it will now go to the president of the united states to make things better for our country. we have made history here. we will make progress for the american people with this

legislation. thank you all very much. [applause] >> happy birthday to you. happy birthday dear speaker. happy birthday to you ♪ [applause] >> can you imagine a more important birthday privilege then signing health care for all

americans? [applause] this is our gift to the american people, this bill. thank you all very much. [laughter] go ahead, sandy. >> i've got to have a piece of this cake. [laughter]

[unintelligible] host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> can we get a picture?

>> let me acknowledge mr. butterfield. we have also been joined by congressman butterfield from north carolina. he was an important part, along with the tremendous leadership of jim cliburn, our democratic whip in promoting historical black colleges as well as hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges for our native americans. that is it. [laughter] >> we are never going to have

the cake. let us go. >> here -- take the bill. i will stand here. >> guys, let's go. let's go. come on come on come on. >> can we get you in? >> madam speaker -- >> come on. >> let's hear it for the staff. [applause]

>> do you want to get a picture with the chairman? [laughter]

>> former republican presidential candidate john mccain is in a primary fight for his reelection. former congressman and j.d. hayworth is challenging the incumbent. tomorrow, the senator is joined by his former running mate, sarah palin, in arizona. we'll have that at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. cbs's national security correspondent is on "q and a."

prime minister brown answers questions about the british airways strike, the economy, and health care. that is 9:00 p.m. eastern, sunday on c-span. >> this weekend, on c-span 2, education secretary bill bennett examines america at the end of the 20th-century and the beginning of the 21st. he is interviewed by the former managing editor at "time magazine." throughout the weekend, look for highlights from the virginia festival of the book. find the entire schedule online at booktv.org. >> throughout april, see the winners of our student documentary competition. students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's greatest strengths or challenges the country is

facing. watch this just before "washington journal." meet the students who made them. for a preview of the winners, visit studentcam.org. >> members of the sec met tuesday to discuss expanding access to broadband. deep fcc wants to connect households liking broadband today. the plan is part of the $787 billion stimulus package passed last february. rick boucher is the subcommittee chair. this is about 3.5 hours. >> the subcommittee will come to order. good morning, everyone.

in the economic recovery act of 2009, we directed the commission to prepare a plan to expand abroad and access to and increase broadband adoption among those who have access to it. today, the united states stands 16th among developed nations in broadband usage. for the benefit of our national economy and our quality of life, which simply must do better. the commission has done a soup -- has done a superb job developing the plan. i want to thank the members of the commission and the staff who have devoted a year and thousands of hours to listening to public comments and carefully constructing the blueprint before us. i think you have truly done a superb job. i am going to comment this morning on several core recommendations of the plan and

then recognize other members. first, i was pleased to observe your proposal to transition the high cost find in the federal universities -- the federal universal service fund from supporting solely telephone service to also supporting broadband deployment. the commission's recommendation closely tracks the provision in the comprehensive universal service reform legislation that for the last four years i have been working with our committee colleague in order to vance. we've been preparing discussion draft, the most recent of which was the subject of a legislative hearing in the subcommittee. today, universal service monies may not be spent for broadband. our legislation will immediately allow carriers to use their usf monies for broadcast and -- for

broadband deployment. those receiving universal service money must provide broadband throughout their service territories within five years of the measure becoming law. the carriers could no longer receive usf monies if they failed to meet this broadband build out mandate. the commission's recommendation also targets using the high cost fund for broadband, and i commend the compatibility of the broadband plan and the legislation we have placed before the committee. secondly, i was pleased to note that the plan incorporates the recommendation that we set a high goal for future broadband speeds. today, the typical broadband service to the home here in the united states is between three and five megabits per second. in countries like south america -- like south korea and japan, the rates are far higher, often

reaching between 5100 megabits per second. the plan explicitly sets a goal of delivering to 100 million homes in the united states broadband speeds of at least 100 megabits per second. i commend you for that. the commission's proposal for auctioning to commercial bidders at the d block of the 700 mhz spectrum without conditions is commendable. the proceeds from the auction could be applied to helping first responders purchase and install the equipment that is necessary to bring to fire, police, and rescue agencies nationwide a truly interoperable communications capability. it is essential when they converge from different localities on the scene of a disaster that fire, police, and rescue be able to communicate with one another. we are 10 years beyond 9/11.

that capability does not exist on a nationwide basis today. i offer my support for obtaining the appropriations that will be necessary in addition to the proceeds from the d block auction in order to complete the buildup of first responder communications equipment. i think that on a matter so fundamental to the nation's security will have bipartisan support for the provisions of the money necessary for the purchase of public safety equipment. finally, i want to commend the approach that you take in your plan to work with television broadcasters to identify the spectrum they now hold. on a consensual basis, it could be real purpose for wireless use. broadcasters to surrender spectrum would receive compensation in exchange for a voluntary spectrum transfer. that is the right approach. we will soon pass in the house

our bipartisan bill to direct you and the ntia to conduct a comprehensive inventory of the entire spectrum that could be used for commercial purposes. that inventory will offer a clear path for the next steps in making available adequate wireless spectrum. the spectrum will be necessary to meet our nation's rising demand for wireless services. you've done an outstanding job in preparing the plan, and we want to thank you for joining us here this morning in order to discuss your recommendations. that concludes my statement. i am pleased to recognize the ranking republican member of our subcommittee and our partner in so many telecommunications initiatives, the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns. >> we appreciate you taking your time to come here. this is an important hearing. we do this regularly, but this is important considering we just got the broadband plan from all

of you. i have a lot of ideas. i have not been to the whole plan. my staff has been through it. we have marked up and done an analysis. i think all of us agree broadband is critical to our economic growth, and the goals outlined in the plan are encouraging. on page 10, it mentions goal number four, which i think is really exciting -- to think that every american community should have access to at least 1 gigabyte per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and government buildings. i think all of us in america would not even comprehend what would happen in this country to its productivity and to the innovation of technology if we had 1 gigabyte. as you mentioned, often we get less than 5 mb through our

broadband today. i think this goal is outstanding. it is important for the commission to recognize that much about our broadband market is working well. that perhaps is my theme this morning. that the plan should complement what is working rather than scrapping it. key findings, according to the report, that 290 million americans, 95% of the population, today have access to at least 4 megabytes per second and two-thirds of adults subscribe. approximately 200 million subscribers have broadband at home, representing a 25 fold increase in the last 10 years, up from 8 million. by comparison, i ask the staff to look at this. it took 90 years to go from 8 million voice subscribers to 200 million under the old title to commentary regulations. that should tell you something. this confirms that the private

investment plan we have in place for broadband has worked, considering how quickly we have moved. all the fcc need do is remain focused on the 5% of households that otherwise may be uneconomic for the private sector to serve. what congress and the fcc must not do is refer to failed regulatory ideas that were designed for all technologies in a monopoly era marketplace, such as opposing network neutrality for access to facilities and regulating rates as a way to deter investment we need to reach the goal of 1 gigabyte here in america. if we do not oppose regulation of broadband providers, we can meet the fcc's goal of making service available to 100 million households by the year 2020. we must avoid any investment killing government interventions and avoid any attempt to

reclassify broadband as a title two service. i think the plan obviously has some good points. i want to thank the chairman for entering my letter i sent to him. it was nice to get the letter before the hearing. we appreciate his response. as he pointed out, the plan costs $20 million to create. i am concerned that we had to spend $20 million to confirm what a lot of us knew, but i think it is worthwhile to get this perspective in this report. it could end up saving us more money as we move forward. our approach investment approach must continue and we should refrain from putting burden this regulations in place. this does not mean the government has no role. two approaches in the plan show particular promise. the plan proposes to cut the waste in the universal service program and refocus on the 5% of

the program that does not have access to at least 4 megabytes per second broadband. if we are going to subsidize broadband, concentrating on the 7 million homes that are uneconomic for the private sector to serve makes sense. second, the plan seeks to make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for wireless broadband within 10 years. that is good, so long as the fcc does not give the spectrum away or rig options with conditions. we will generate needed federal revenue. i hope the broadband spectrum, on the part of the broadcasters, will be looked at carefully. if the have to relinquish anything, it will be on a voluntary basis. mr. chairman, i think you for this hearing. i look forward to the testimony of our commissioners. >> thank you very much. the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you for scheduling this important hearing. the release of the national broadband plan was eagerly anticipated or the last several months, and i am pleased that the committee is examining its recommendations today. the national broadband plan is the most significant and ambitious infrastructure program for america since the interstate highway system. our competitiveness and prosperity depend on meeting its core objectives. america cannot settle for the second best in the digital age. writing this detailed blueprint was a massive undertaking, and i commend chairman genachowski, the broadband team, the sec staff -- the fcc staff, and the transparent process they used in preparing this report. the real test of the plan's success will be in its implementation. congress, the fcc, and the

administration all have a role to play. one aspect of the plan is the recommendation to enhance public safety by building a new interoperable broadband network. according to the chairs of the 9/11 commission, "the plan offers a realistic framework to move forward, and we hope that all stakeholders will work with the commission to refine the plan as needed and make it a reality." i have asked my staff to begin drafting legislation to implement the public safety recommendations. we will work in close consultation with subcommittee chairman boucher, ranking members barton and stearns, and other members of the committee. we need to realize the concepts outlined in the plan. we must find a way to move forward on a bipartisan basis to meet the needs of the public safety community. the plan identifies a looming

shortage of spectrum as a major problem facing the expansion of wireless broadband. members of the committee will have different ideas about how to address this issue. as we will hear today, the broadband plan makes a series of recommendations for freeing up spectrum. these deserve our serious consideration. as the plan recognizes, there is a pending legal challenge to the commission's ability to regulate broadband networks. the outcome of that issue could have serious implications for the commission's ability to protect consumers and implement the plan. whatever the court rules, the commission should take the steps it deems necessary to assure it can implement the plan and to assure that broadband consumers are protected. there are other key recommendations in this plan. we need to take steps to safeguard consumer privacy,

ensure transparent and accurate billing, provide access for disabled americans, and reform the universal service fund. i hope today's hearing will be only the first in a series of hearings on the future of broadband. we can benefit from additional hearings that will focus on individual aspects of the plan, including creating a public safety broadband network, reforming universal service, improving spectrum policy, providing better access to persons with disabilities, eliminating barriers to deployment, and promoting broadband adoption throughout the country. i look forward to working with chairman voucher and other members of the subcommittee as we move forward. i think our distinguished panel for being here today and appearing before the committee. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, chairman waxman. mr. barton, ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, is recognized for

five minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i am going to summarize because we want to hear from you folks on the fcc, first of all, if you have to have a federal broadband policy plan, you done about as good as can be done. but it is kind of like the old movie -- "the good, the bad, and the ugly." you say some things that need to be said. you try to reform the universal service fund. you try to free up some spectrum, as chairman waxman just alluded to. the bad -- the worst idea i have heard in years is reclassification. i do not know about anybody else on this committee, but i do not want to regulate broadband likely regulated telephone services in the 1930's.

i do not want to do it. i do not think the country wants to do it. as far as the ugly part of its -- just generically, mr. waxman talk about the internet -- the interstate highway structure. if the federal government had not decided to do the internet highway system, we would not have had that type of a system. but 95% of america has broadband. the federal government has not had to spend a dime. this is not a have and have not program. this is a find something for the up fcc to do that makes sense in the 21st century program. some of their components are things i think we can work together on, but overall, as everybody knows, if it is not broke, don't fix it. you try to fix something that in

most cases is not broke. i would yield back. again, i want to commend the commission for working really hard, but you have produced a product we can use as a road map, but we do not need to reinvent the wheel. >> the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, mr. dingell, is recognized. >> i commend you for holding today's hearing. i want to also commend the federal communications commission chairman genachowski and his team. they have completed a road map to insure broad and reaches every corner of the united states. there are two elements that should be the core of this effort. first, it should focus on promoting broadband adoption. second, it should establish and address a support mechanism for broad bands expansion into high- cost in underserved areas of the country. i am pleased that the national

broadband plan includes chapters on these issues. nonetheless, i have great concerns about several of the plan's recommendations about spectrum reallocation. there are competition based issues. at best, these matters are ancillary to the congress's intent to expand national broadbent access. at worst, they would institute the old policy fights long said satisfactorily sceptred. -- satisfactorily settled. i wrote to address my misgivings about reallocating spectrum from broadcasters to mobile communications providers. over the air broadcasters surrendered nearly a third of their spectrum to facilitate the recent transition from analog to digital signal transmission. further loss of spectrum can have a very serious adverse affect -- effect on the public

by limiting consumer choice. this potential outcome would also reflect a marked weakening of the long cherished principles of diversity and localism. since the commission's establishment in 1934, before considering with -- if or how to reallocate frequencies used for television, it behooves the commission to work with ntia to complete a comprehensive spectrum inventory such as the one mandated by a sharp 3125 -- by h.r. 3125. i recommend this in consideration, to grant the commission the authority to conduct spectrum reallocation in said of spectrum auctions. a serious apprehensions about the chapter on competition issues. this chapter is an unpleasant

reminder of all the arguments from the '90s. the commission required that local companies should make their networks available to all manner of carriers at below market prices. this so-called unbundling resulted in a glorious mess. my colleague and i moved legislation through the house to eliminate unbundling requirements with respect to carriers' investment in broadband facilities. the senate, as it is unfortunately often to do, did not pass this eminently sensible legislation, but eventually adopted the bills essence in its triannual review of 2003. the result has been enormous investments by carriers in broadband, both in my state of michigan and across much of the nation. chapter 4 of the national broadband plan signals the commission's intention to

revisit the unbundling statute. this, i think, is to reopen an old fight, and it gives me great concern. it could very well serve as a disincentive to necessary investments in broadband facilities. in conclusion, i would like to remind the witnesses today that the congress is the sole progenitor of the commission's authorities. to "sam rayburn, if the commission remembers it works for us, everything will turn out fine. in keeping with the sentiment i have just articulated, i respectfully suggest the commission stay focused on the congress's simple goal of assuring that broadband is accessible and affordable to all americans rather than to seek to rehash old and unproductive policy debates and to start counter-productive fights which are quite unnecessary. mr. chairman, i think you for

your courtesy. i ask unanimous consent to submit letters to the commission to finish out the questions we need to ask today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. the record of this hearing will remain open for members to submit additional questions in writing to members of the fcc. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> i will yield my time to mr. upton. >> welcome, commissioners. it is good to see you. the trend in the telecommunications sector is for development of advanced technologies and increased competition. deregulation has successfully promoted investment, innovation, and more competition, benefiting consumers. 95% of americans now have broadband and more than one choice of carrier. that statistic, along with more

than $100 billion recently invested in infrastructure, speaks for itself. as mr. barton said, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. if it works, let's not break it. it is clear that as the level of competition increases the amount of regulation should decrease. i hope we all can agree that markets have done a better job of protecting consumers than the regulators do. in a competitive market, which should permit market forces to work and not interpose government regulations between providers and consumers. all that does is impede the competition we all want to see. i applaud your goal of providing 100 million homes with access to 100 megabytes per second broadband by 2020. i believe we can do that without regulation. the level of deployment will only come with a continued robust investment by the private

sector. i would agree with the chairman dingell that the fcc requirement on carriers to unbundle their fiber will not be met by this legislative body. do not change the rules after investments have been made. do not put up roadblocks to new investment. finally, i have concerns about spectrum proposals that could cause harm to consumers and broadcasters as a result of the digital transmission. broadcasters return over 100 megahertz to the government and at the same time increase their services. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much. congratulations to the federal communications commission. when i put the language in the stimulus package mandating that

the federal communications commission had to return this as a report back to the american people on the future of broadband, just 30 months ago, i can tell you right now that you met the highest expectations i had when i answer to that language into the law. the table of contents is just an indication of how thoroughly you have examined this subject -- health care, education, energy, the environment, economic opportunity, government performance, civic engagement, public safety. this is as thorough a compendium of the issues that we have to work on in order to make sure that america once again regains its position as no. 1 in the world in broadband as could ever be asked to be put together. we have dropped from second to

15th in the world, behind luxembourg, behind canada, finland, over the last eight years. with the company's going to court, going to the fcc, chipping away at the competitive rules we had put on the books. as that happened, we saw the united states slipped step-by- step into a position where the rest of the world looks at us over their shoulder. this gives us the opportunity with this plan to once again regain that leadership. google, ebay, amazon, hulu -- we have been slowly slipping behind. this is an incredible plan. if it is fully implemented, both investment and consumer protection will be unleashed in a way which will guarantee that the american people will be the

country that the rest of the world looks to with envy. we thank you for that. we want to work with you to insure that it is fully implemented so that we can regain a competitive edge that gave us that incredible position that we enjoyed and that has slipped from our grasp. we thank you for holding this meeting. >> the gentleman from illinois is recommended -- is recognized. >> i am glad i followed my friends from massachusetts. as far as i know, this is a product of the chairman, not a product of the commission. there was no vote on this plan. i think we're going to hear that through the questions today, not that the chairman did not put a lot of time and effort into this. i want to debunk this 16th place. you have to be joking me. lichtenstein, monaco bahrain, south korea, iceland,

singapore, st. kitts? everyone in the top 20 -- we can fit the 25 in the continental united states. we have to get off comparing as -- comparing apples to oranges. it is like saying the city of new york has it and so we are fine. we have 95% of our people on broadband. 5% do not. they are in my district. the stimulus fund is not going to them. that is what works people up. 95% of us have it. it is the private sector that throws it out. we want to take over another sixth of the economy through moving this whole information age from title i to title ii? we're not going to get a surprise from the chairman this time because it is here.

some commentators have suggested a second approach in which the fcc would implement certain plan recommendations under its title ii authority. let us have this hearing. let us have this debate. the system is working. what is not working is in rural america. we spend billions of dollars and the money is not going there. we have the stimulus rollout. we are overbuilding places that have broadband right now with our tax dollars, and it is not going where it is needed. i yield back. >> the lady from california is recommended -- is recognized. >> thank you for moving so quickly to schedule this hearing, and welcome to the entire federal communications commission. i have read the plan. i want to congratulate you. i think it is a bold one. i think it is what our country needs. on this issue of where the united states is ranked in the

world, accorng to the international telemmunications union, they have measured the united states. they say that we have slipped from 11th to 17th between 2002 and 2007. we know that our standing in the world is not a source of pride to us. pure than 27 out of every 100 americans have broadband service, compared with much better numbers in other countries. today, we are going to hear the plan. we're going to ask questions about it. i am very pleased that many of the priorities that i have kind of pounded away on over the years are contained in the plan. it really reflects my own legislative agenda. i hope will move expeditiously on the broadband conduit bill, which will ensure that federally funded transportation projects require laying the broadband

infrastructure so we do not have to dig up what we have already built in order to lay down what we know we need. i also look forward to the subcommittee fast tracking consideration of the next generation 911 builill that my colleague, in his fright about where we are or are not -- he would have mentioned this. we introduced the bill two weeks ago. i am ready to vote on a thorough and complete reconstruction of the universal service fund and its programs so that we essentially can leapfrog into the 21st century. america has always led the world in countless ways. that is what i find so exciting about the plan. it is a road map, a plan of how we can get there. we also need to decide the future of telecommunications services and their individual classification so that we can

ensure that consumers are properly protected and that competitiveness is encouraged. no matter who i me with, they are always for competition unless it cuts into the competition that they have a total hold on. we need an aggressive agenda because the united states lags badly. i look forward to hearing from each one of the commissioners. this is going to be a lively debate. at the end of it, i think what we all are -- our common goal must be competition, that every person in the country is reached by 2020 with high speeds, not this lagging speed that somehow people have a source of pride about. i do not. i do not think it is good enough for our country. i look forward to working with everyone to accomplish this for our country. thank you for a job well done.

it is broad, it is a visionary, and it is bold. i think it is exactly what we need to be talking about. >> the lady from california is recognized. >> good morning. i also would like to thank the sec for its hard work on the national broadband plan. it is clear that a great deal of effort and thought went into this effort. i see opportunities for the committee and commission to work together to increase investment and opportunity. in a general sense, i think the approach to universal service is promising. further, i believe most of us agree the goals of the plan are admirable. who among us does not want to facilitate capital investment and increase constituent access to broadband? however, like the broadband plan, members of congress also have goals. was there at high unemployment rates in our district. i plan to create jobs for my

constituents. i have to question portions of the plan that require a heavier governor -- heavier government plan. i am unconvinced that a sector of our economy that continues to attract investment is in need of more government interference. as a matter of principle, i believe broadband and the high- tech sector are best served if we enact policies which incentivize capital investment and promote greater economic freedom. additionally, i strongly believe we need to take great steps to tax the digital content. -- to protect the digital content. we should reward entities that work to secure its protection. when i read sections of the plan that call for react -- for relaxing such protections, i become concerned. i would like to caution you on pursuing any agenda without legal authority. you can -- if you make decisions

that increase uncertainty in the lawsuit and encourage legislation. i look forward to the question and answer portion and yield back the balance of a my time. >> mr. stupak is recognized. >> thank you for convening the hearing. welcome to the commission. the national broadband plan hits a number of important issues such as public safety interlock ability, transitioning the usf for broadband, and freeing of spectrum for commercial use. i want to focus on recommendations for the interoperable public safety broadband network. the plan's recommendation identifies an issue of and highlighting for years -- the need for a funding plan for an interoperable public safety net work. the plan calls on congress to establish a grant program to establish the network and create

a funding mechanism. if the fcc is moving forward with auctioning be d block spectrum, we should use 100% of the funds to build this not work. . .

>> needless to say, we have all been following what you have been doing with the national broadband plan and we are anxious to have the discussion. a couple of quick points among -- about my specific concerns and how these recommendations will affect job creation and because of this, i am anxious to drill down a little bit deeper with you all. you know that my district and its creative community and their expression of concern with the availability of broadband. in this vein, chairman genachowski, i agree with chairman barton on this. i was hoping for stronger language on this.

instead, i have found the language to be in big u.s. -- to be ambiguous and i am hopeful that we will see some changes. investment is a concern that i have. we all know that reclassification is nothing more than a stepping stone for implementing that neutrality which i believe would be detrimental to a thriving telecommunication industry. before i yield back, i also want to flag a concern over what i think is a toothless effort in the plan to curb copyright infringement. i applaud your knowledge in -- your acknowledgment of illegal distribution of copyrighted content being a problem. i am anxious to get your

thoughts on how we can put a little bit more heft behind that in continuing to protect the innovations of those who are burned in next generation technologies and uses and our creative community. >> thank you. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, is recognized. >> thank you. i will be brief. i always thought that if you failed to plan, you plan to fail. looking over the broad baband p lan, congratulations. you have passed. it is a bold plan of action and it gives us a few things to do. i will not run down a laundry list but i think the plan to promote competition is much needed and well received. competitors need access in order

to deliver more affordable or innovative services. additionally, the plan for universal service fund reform is well thought out. i hope the commission takes this up as soon as possible even without a bill out of congress. chairman genachowski, you have a lot to be proud of. i want to congratulate you and your team. >> thank you. the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent to submit my opening statement for the record. >> without objection. >> just a few comments. i never thought i would ever see the fcc commission. i found an fm frequency and put it up for public notice in seven years later we got it on air. you can see that i am not pro- regulation. i do believe that the report is done with a good heart and with

the american people in mind. i recognize that the competition that exists in the marketplace has accomplished a great deal and i hope that as we go through these hearings, i am sure the debate will be spirited, i hope we have in mind that there is not a lot that we can do to improve what has been done or in the spirit of what has been accomplished by private industry. i appreciate your being here and look forward to the discussion. thank you. >> thank you. the gentle lady from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. thank you for calling the hearing. i also would like to think chairman genachowski for being with us and for the work on the national broadband plan.

they crafted a bold and visionary plan. no plan of this magnitude is perfect, this plan demonstrates american leadership and will serve as a blueprint for the world to follow. i am pleased that it aims to close the digital divide by recognizing the fact that millions of americans, particularly in such tough economic times, cannot afford the high cost of broadband. i introduced the broadband affordability act that would expand a program for universal broadband adoption. this would ensure that all americans living in urban and rural and suburban areas have access to affordable boucher services. i applaud the fcc for adopting these suggestions. this is a major step toward closing the digital to buy it. a look forward to working with

the fcc and my colleagues. this recognizes the importance of introducing more competition into the marketplace. this promotes competition in our economy. and the plan recognizes the critical role that brought a band placed in moving our nation today greater path of efficiency and energy independence. i plan to introduce legislation in the coming week that will complement many of the sec recommendations on smart grids this nation can promote a smarter electric grid that allows consumers to make choices that can save energy and can save them money. i am looking forward to working with my colleagues and the commission on overseeing and implemented many of the important initiatives recommended in the national broadband plan.

thank you for holding these important hearings. >> thank you. the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. >> thank you. thank you for being here. i appreciate your input. i felt the plan lays a good overview. it brought it from a nebulous 50,000 foot level down to a 10,000 foot level without getting into the granular activities or details which i think is good in the sense that it may signal that we actually have a role in congress. you have done a good job in inc. different entities. congress needs to take your plan and use that as the recommendation but we need to do our job in congress. frankly, i am uncomfortable with

just saying you take the lead on all of this stuff and we are not going to deal with that. i think the role as for us to do it and we take your plan as a recommendation. on the republican side, we have heard a lot about private sector involvement and i want to make sure that when i read the plan, there are some regulatory types of policies outlined in that we will have great debate within this committee on. let us not short the private sector. $60 billion per year by the private sector rolling out broadband should not be lost faugh. . government spending and subsid ies are a small percentage. if we think government is going to be the answer, we are not

going to get this plan adopted. with that, i will yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to thank you note, mr. chairman, for having discontinued and timely hearing. i want to commend the commission for your hard work. this is a comprehensive plan. you have worked hard. if the plan clearly includes many important issues but i am only going to be able to focus on a couple of them. a large part of my district has been severely hit by the economic downturn and promoting job creation is my highest priority. it is significant that many of the company's in the telecommunications industry are still expanding even during the economic downturn. i am very excited by the job

growth potential that implementing this plan can produce and a vigorous investments by the private sector couple by sensible policy will clearly benefit our entire nation. finally, i would like to ask the commissioners to discuss briefly the issues pertaining to the spectrum allocation and special access. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. but the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope we get to some result of where we are going. i think title ii reclassification is dangerous, at best. this has put a shiver of cold into the investment community about where we are going with broadband development. we want to talk about what has made america great. it was not the u.s. congress or the executive branch. it was private entrepreneurs

putting capital at risk and making things happen. the reason that we have 27% is because the private market will pursue a plan that allows ever turn on the investment so they can go to the next phase of that investment. any time that we seek to stand in the way of that, we are going to get a horrible outcome. the notion that we are talking about going to net neutrality and more regulation, if you look at why it took so long for wireless to get where it is in for phones to get where they are, if it is because they based the original rules and regulations on the common carrier act for railroads in 1897. we applied that to telephones. this is exactly that same kind of iron horse regulatory idea on that industry that is changing so fast that we cannot keep up with it.

satellites are getting ready to go to4g pretty soon. we should get out of their way and let competition rule the day. other countries did it the way they did because they do not have the economies like the u.s. or the kind of investment that we have. there is a marketplace here that is attracting money. my fear is if we continue down this path, we will stop that investment and i think we will do far more harm than good point it does not mean there is not a welcome return for government but the idea -- . it is not that i did not think there is a place for government. we can work on that. >> the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i associate myself with a

portion of those remarks except to say what i think what made this country great is free markets but structured for markets. this provides the type of structure that we need to make sure that the type of robust capital investment we know will build out our broadband system is done and the most fair means possible. i like to associate myself with remarks made with respect to the issue of online piracy. i understand in the rule making, the chairman has stated very clearly that the internet should not be a shield for violations of the lot and copyright infringement. there is a little bit of dissatisfaction on both sides of the aisle about the focus in this report on that issue. is this country is losing billions of dollars every year to internet piracy and the trend

is going only up. as much as we can ask content providers, the solution largely lies in the hands of those distribution networks that are going to take advantage of what is now partially federally funded network. i think you are hearing from a number of people on that. but like to hear how we revised that plan or -- i would like to hear how we revised that plan or work and that further. this is a product of great labor and of great importance for the rollout. >> thank you. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. >> the why, mr. chairman. in addition to my remarks for the record, i would like to say the comments that i made and

others made at our hearing on this last year about on served and underserved areas continue to trouble me. as we go into how we define it unserved areas, we run the risk of making that service untenable because you create a competitor in a marketplace that and barely handle one provider. i am concerned by that and concerned by what net of neutrality might lead to with needless rhythm -- with needless regulation. i do think that the universal service reform and the spectrum of the new plan probably keep us away from that regulation if we focus on them instead of the other things.

thank you for holding this hearing. i hope that we become vigorous partners with the commission as you now look at the product you -- as we now look at the product to put before us. >> thank you. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank you for convening this hearing and for the commissioners coming to have this conversation that all of us. i have a copy of the plan. i have not read every word of it but i certainly plan to. it is a very comprehensive plan and i want to thank you for your work. from what i can understand, 95% of households do indeed have access while 5% do not. my district is home to many of

those households who are without very basic access to broadbent. there are everyday tasks moving on line and those who cannot access broadband third losing and i look forward to achieving a productive meeting. it is important that efforts are made to connect the unconnected first so that students, teachers, job-seekers and others have the opportunity to play on equal footing. and my district is in no less need of high-speed internet and certainly no less deserving. the national broadband plan in the emirate's six long-term goals -- illustrates six long- term goals. they are achievable if the

government proceeds responsibly and quickly. i would like to note the extraordinary private investments made to building the networks will use every day. as congress and the fcc move forward, it is important that we take that into account when drafting its policy around the goals of the plan. between 2006 and 2008, at&t invested more than $1.20 billion in my state of north carolina and an effort to enhance and improve our networks. increased regulations on companies that build these network with -- networks with a profit daughters -- private dollars may not be the best way to implement this plan. we need to work in concert with private industry when drafting those policies. thank you for your indulgence. >> the gentle lady from

colorado is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i will put my full statement in the record. i just want to mention a couple of things. i agree with my colleagues that this national broadband plan is a comprehensive and forward- looking document and i strongly share the goal. i want to raise just a couple of issues. the first one is cities like denver, which is my district, are often the first to get access to communication technologies but access alone is not alone. we have to remember as we go forward that broad band also has to be affordable for low-income americans, many of whom live in urban areas like mine and have seen a real divide even though broadband is accessible. the second issue is the conflict with existing uses that

we are going to have to resolve. the plan recommends allocating new spectrum to satisfy consumer demand for networks. this could provide important benefits but it also raises the question about how the significant transfer of spectrum can be accomplished in the most fair way. and this is one of the questions i hope we can explore today. i want to mention two other aspects of this plan that i am pleased to see. the first one is the emphasis on i.t. which will be important as we move forward. we have seen this in my district with denver health how much health i.t. can help with patient efficiency. and i am pleased to see mention of expanding a national smart energy grid. i think that will be very

important as we become independent from foreign oil and develop alternative energy. >> thank you. in the gentle lady from florida is ready -- is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. you have given us a lot to consider and there are many competing interests. i think our overarching goal is to ensure that all americans have access to broadband and the many benefits the technology has to offer. whether we live in big cities and urban areas or small rural towns, rich or poor, black or white, broadband holds so much promise. it appears that the national broadbent plan is a commitment -- the national broadband plan is getting everybody on board

and we are united by the most important technology since the invention of the telephone. we must continue to modernize and innovate. i would like to point out a couple issues that are important to the families in my state. the universal service fund. florida historically has paid a lot into it and has not gotten much back i would like to hear how the national broadband plan will correct this past discrepancy. did you have a commitment to the use of spectrum -- do you have a commitment for the use of spectrum? there are a lot of students and teachers and older people who will need our help accessing this vital technology. the e-rate program should be robustly funded to make sure that schools and libraries have access to affordable broadband,

including wireless connectivity. the universal service fee must address this going forward. the public said the network is indispensable to the functioning of our communities. hurricane season is just around the corner and florida. our first responders will be on high alert. there is a lot of debate as to whether it dedicated blocks of spectrum would serve our first responders better than a shared network and i would like to hear more about that proposal. i am supportive of the recommendations and the plan. it struck a good balance between innovation and incorporating practical mechanisms to bridge the digital divide. congratulations. >> thank you. the gentle lady from the virgin islands is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. thank you for holding this hearing so we can go home better

informed about the national broadband plan. although the number of people connected to broadband in this country has gone up to almost 200 million, to many families are not connected. this plan is a solid blue print and i look forward to implementing changes to close the gap. it cannot be that because they are not connected, children cannot do their homework, individuals cannot access jobs, small businesses cannot be competitive, health care cannot reach those who need it and our public safety agencies cannot communicate well enough to protect us in an emergency. this plant has to ensure all of this while stimulating competitiveness. this is quite a challenge that you and we have ahead of us.

to have several concerns, one being that the territories be fully included. -- i have several concerns, one being that the territories are fully included. welcome all of you back to the subcommittee. >> thank you. the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. " thank you. i want to welcome members of the commission and express the gratitude of our committee for the work that went and to this report. but i want to associate my self with remarks that were made and i want to make brief mention of my good friend remarks -- good friend's remarks. it is important to know that having a conversation about

broadband without looking about what we are doing or not to win and how we are slipping is folly. we have learned with our history with the internet and technology that it is a great job producer. it is a way we keep our competitive advantage. it would be akin to opening a shoe store in a neighborhood and say i am not going to look at any of the shoe stores in the neighboring towns to see what they're doing right or wrong. we have to think that way. too often, we think until the next budget or the next fiscal year or appropriations bill. this document that was produced by the fcc takes that and turned it os it on its head and says we have to look for the next 50 years.

that is exactly the type of thinking we of should want to do. we have to remember as we look at this that we are looking for opportunities in this document to produce thousands and thousands of jobs. we are not going to know exactly what it are going to look like. that is the way technology operates. we are at our best when we are laying the groundwork for innovation. the fcc has done that and i want to thank you very much for setting us down this path. we will make some amendments and find our own way but as a blueprint, you have really scored. i want to express the gratitude of our country for doing so. >> thank you. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i would like to thank the chairman genachowski and the

commissioners and staff for a lot of hard work. a lot of people have been working hard but i don't know if anybody has matched the work of your teams. thank you. there are a lot of exciting and forward thinking aspects to national broadband plan that you have prepared. but like to highlight two areas of interest -- i would like to highlight two areas of interest to me. i am delighted to see the plan proposes to transform the existing high-cost universal service fund into the connect america fund. it will support broadband networks. the testimony before us, 95% of americans have access to broadband. that is impressive but we still have a lot of work to do to cover that 5%, many of whom live in rural districts and have no

options. many of those people are my constituents. transitioning the high cost fund to explicitly support broadband deployment to rural areas will be a tremendous help to residents of appalachia. in 2007, an ohio health network was successful in building a fiber-optic network across 12 countries to collect health care facilities -- to connect health care facilities. we are attempting to leverage this previous deployment to more counties. many places have no options. success breeds success. we must strengthen the role of

world broadband to make it -- by making it permanent. i stand ready to assist on this front and i reiterate my support for the plan. i very much looked over to working with the commission, my colleagues in congress and industry partners to realize our potential. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for conducting this hearing and abel, chairman genachowski -- hearing and welcome, genachowski. we have seen far more of our fair share of plants before us

that promised us the sun, moon, stars, and celestial bodies seen and unseen. this plan promises to enhance america possibility to improve life choices of people. i may sound skeptical but i am not. much of this sounds good on paper and certainly makes for a good and polished sound bite. i understand the power of new communication technologies and the importance of innovation. [inaudible] the promise of widespread access is important to our

nation. the unique opportunity we are presented with at this moment is unprecedented and i want to ensure that congress and the fcc step up to the plate to serve the best interests of the american people. we will not get too many bites at this apple. if we did not exit k -- to execute this thoughtfully, we will miss out on a huge opportunity while setting back the short-term and long-term technology needs of the american people. i am keenly interested in hearing the commission's perspectives, especially on the adoption of the broadband plan helping to stimulate new jobs and small business.

[inaudible] mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. two points. the work you are doing is absolutely critical to the future of economic growth in this country but of what you have presented is a solid plan that increases competition and knowledge as if we have competition, we have to have access to the wires and we have to have universal service so that it can reach the most remote parts of our country. tremendous. you have done this on a

bipartisan basis. i have to tell you, that is pretty unique around here and i want to thank you for that. this is my observation. you have taken a very difficult topic, presented a solid plan and the net on a bipartisan basis. it is so effective it might embarrass us. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i just want to note the work you are doing is helpful to improve our health reform efforts which are new and still building. one instance where broadband can help the city of republic, washington, you have to turn all the computers off to have an extra red. -- to have an x-ray read.

that is unacceptable. i want to commend you on freeing spectrum. i am pleased that you support the direction we're moving in the spectrum allocation. we passed a bill to get that done and you join us in that effort. we hope that is a lot before we get the next version of the report out. -- that is a law before we get the next version of the report out. you have some ideas about how to move forward. it is festering -- frustrating for us to not have an interoperable system with law enforcement and firefighters not having systems. we have to get that done and we are on the right track. >> thank you. you have heard from us.

now we get to hear from you. we would like to welcome the members of the federal communications commission. the chairman, julius genachowski, commissioner michael copps, commissioner clyburn, and commissioner and baker. we ask you keep your oral opening statements to approximately five minutes so we have at full-time -- ample time to question you. >> thank you. thank you for the chance to testify on the national broadband plan. and this addresses the opportunities and challenges of high-speed internet in a way that reflects the strong conviction that as our nation rebuilds the economy, broadband can and must serve -- >> if i could get you to pull

that microphone a bit closer. >> how is that? >> much better. >> ongoing investment and enduring job creation. multiple studies tell us the same thing. even modest increases and adoption can yield hundreds of dozens of new jobs. a broad array of people throughout the economy agree if we have world leading networks, there will be a powerful new wave of innovation and job creation. the title of one recent op-ed said it all, "fix the bridges but did not forget broadband." the status quo is not good enough. notwithstanding the positive developments in the u.s., our country is not where it should be or needs to be to maintain our global competitiveness in

this rapidly changing world. the u.s. is lagging globally, as low as 17th in one survey. 40th out of 40 among countries survey and the rate of change of innovative capacity. other countries are improving faster than us. certain communities within the country are lacking. for these groups, adoption rates are much lower than the 65% national average which itself is much lower than other countries and a lower than what we would tolerate for electricity or telephones. altogether, 93 million americans are not connected to broadband, including 13 million children and 14 million americans cannot have access with a live even if they want it. that is too many. the costs grow higher every day. not having broadbenand had been

an inconvenience a few years ago but now is a real hindrance in many areas. the plant will submit it is a call to action but the times require. the to reckitt staff have produced a plan that as strong as it is non-partisan. it does the outcome of a process that has been unprecedented and so many respects. it is open and transparent and the public has participated and it is focused on data and analytics. this will provide or bus service to every american. -- this will provide broadband service to every american.

access for every first responder to a nationwide interoperable public seeking network. in addition to this and other goals, it rolls -- it gives a robust road map for achieving them. it proposes a transformation of the universal service fund from yesterday's technology to tomorrows. it proposes unleashing spectrum so we can head off the looming spectrum crisis. it proposes ways to cut red tape, or the cost of private investment, and accelerate wireless networks. everybody will be able to enjoy the benefits of broadband. i am heartened that it brought

zero array of companies have voiced strong support for the -- a broad array of companies have voiced strong support for the plan. one wrote that this is a platform for social innovation. it is time to overcome our broadbent complaisance it. the national broadband plan is critical to our national security. without this plan, we cannot compete. i believe it will to live for fiscal and economic benefits over time. i believe the plan is fiscally prudent and identifies opportunities for billions of dollars of spectrum auctions. i look forward to working with the members of the committee on the plan and on all ideas to unleash the power of broadband.

thank you. >> thank you. commissioner copps. >> good morning. thank you for having us appear to discuss the plan. this is something that has been near and dear to make for the almost nine years i have been at the commission. i have long lamented the lack of it -- lack of a broad band strategy where other nations were leaving us in their competitive best. that has -- in their competitive test. that has changed. we are setting off down that road. we are beginning to walk the walk. broadband is not just a " noble but because this is the great and a bulwark of our times. this infrastructure intersects with every challenge confronting

our country. it opens doors of equal opportunity, news, information, and our democratic dialogue. and there is no solution to any of these challenges this -- that does not have a broad band component to it. it was music to my ears when congress called for the development of they national broadband plan. under the leadership of chairman genachowski and the hard work of the fcc team and and the most open and transparent process i have witnessed, we have a plan with clear objectives aimed at insuring everybody has an equal opportunity in this new digital age the matter who they are, where they live, or their particular circumstances. foremost amongst our charges is a digital inclusion. everybody must have access to this technology to participate in 21st century life. you will not get a job without it.

you cannot be well educated without it. you cannot be engaged citizen without it. america cannot afford to have a digital divide between those living in big cities and rural areas or tribal lands. broadband must leave no american behind including the original americans, native americans. i encourage the team that this works for them and i am pleased by the recommendations that have been delivered. these are people that asked nothing more than an equal shot at being fully productive citizens. broadband can make that so much more achievable. my written testimony elaborate on these points. i am pleased that the plan addresses the need for better research and the public safety plan which we will talk about.

i want to spend a couple minutes on the less tangible but still important aspects. as the infrastructure begins to my great online, we become increasingly dependent upon broadband for news and information, civic engagement, and democratic dialogue. the feature town square will be paved by broadband bricks and we need to make sure it is open to all and available to all. those that are connected to have the world at their fingertips. if they are not connected, it is beyond their reach. if an increase of technology does not by itself guarantee a more informed said its -- citizenry. the well-connected nation does not translate to a well informed nation without significant effort. a nation connected but not informed or cynically engaged is about as useful to democracy is

a plug and lamp with no light bulb. -- p luugelugged in lamp with no light bulb. time spares you might extended remarks on the subject but we all know that journalism is in trouble. we better do something about how the american people receive their news and information in a world where the town square is going broadband and where a critically important public interest has somehow to be safeguarded. any viable solutions have to address a traditional and online media. i look forward to working on this with the members of this committee. each of the commissioners will have some variations on the plan that has been presented.

with spectrum, for example, i will be especially vigilant to make sure it does not decrease the scarce denver city would have in programming or media ownership. -- does not decrease the scarce diversity we have in programming or media ownership. this may require some very tough decisions but i believe the plan provides ample opportunity for us to tackle and resolve such problems as we proceed. my final comment is on an issue i tried to highlight every time i come before you. it is the need to facilitate the work of the commissioners by modifying the closed meeting will that prohibits more than two of us to ever talk and share our experience about the issues before the commission. my experience has shown me that this has had had pernicious and unintended consequences

stifling conversations and delaying decisions and shortchanging the public interest. i note that congressmen have introduced bills to remedy this. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions, comments, and guidance. >> thank you. >> commissioner mcdowell. >> the plan offered last week does represent a tremendous amount of hard work. it was not put to a vote and contained no rules. that is because the plan represents the beginning of a process and not the end of one. we may disagree at times on the best path to follow during our upcoming journey, we can all agree on at least the primary destination, a country that offers faster broadband access

to more americans at affordable prices. before going further, all policymakers involved should pledge to do no harm. precisely because the sec classifies broadband services as less regulated information services, we have seen adoption of broadband technologies flourish. as the plan itself asserts, the number of americans who have broadband at home has grown from 8 million in 2000, to nearly 200 million last year. in fact, out of 114 million households, only 7 million lack of access to broadband. some form of broadband is available to roughly 95% of americans. there is phenomenal growth in wireless broadband adoption. mobile broadbent was virtually unheard of in 2000. by the end of last year, an

estimated 100 million americans subscribe to these technologies. we lead the world in 3g build out and adoption. we are home to more wireless companies than any other country. more than half of all americans have the choice of five wireless providers. economic activity has been nothing short of explosive. last year, american's lead the world by downloading over 1.1 billion applications on their mobile devices. the u.s. has one-third of the world market share of global applications but the market has grown over 500% since 2007. some researchers estimate that annual domestic application

download will reach 7 billion by 2014. the internet is the environment that is growing and evolving faster than any individual company or government can measure. it operates any open and free marketplace where innovation and investment are thriving. some estimate that infrastructure exceeded $60 billion last year alone. any policy the government adopts should nurture and strengthen these trends and not undermine them. for instance, cable modem services alone are available to 92% of american households. unless the government provides assistance -- incentives to business, the goal of reaching 100 million households with 100 meg services should be attained

before 2020 if we allow the current trends to continue. in that spirit, we call for further regulating one of the brightest spots in the american comedy. chapter 17 opens the door to classifying services as old fashioned, monopoly-era voice telephone services under title ii of the communications act of 1934. broadband has flourished because of the absence of such regulations. let me clear up a persistent myth. broadband has never been regulated under title ii, . the plant does contain ideas that are worth exploring further. bringing more spectrum to market should be a party for the

commission -- should be a priority for the commission and it has been for years. the commission should encourage more efficient use of the airwaves. the need to spectrum efficiently is inevitable. we should work to stay ahead of the spectral efficiency curve. plan -- the pallan calls for changing the rules. our first priority should be to contain costs. the contribution factor which is directly paid by consumers has ballooned from two 0.5% -- from two 0.5% to 15%. and this hurts consumers and is

unsustainable. the universal service fund cannot support additional obligations. i have outlined many other ideas in my written statement. i look for to working with congress and my colleagues to adopt policies that allow investment, innovation, job growth, competition public and adoption in the broadband market to continue. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner clyburn. >> thank you. it is an honor and privilege to appear before you today to discuss the national broadband plan. over the past nine months, the fcc undertook the mammoth task of developing a blueprint for this nation that aims to bolster our standing as a bold leader in

technology, inclusion, and technology. under the german's leadership, we have conducted an unprecedented and transparent plan to maximize public input. and there are three issues that i want to touch on. in my view, each of these warrant our utmost and immediate attention. fostering the development of a nationwide interoperable public safety network, ensuring an environment consistent with universal broadband adoption and competition in the broadband marketplace. developing a public safety net is no easy task. this is no excuse for where we stand today. it is inconceivable that almost nine years since 9/11, we still have not meaningfully addressed this critical need.

the national broadband plan attempts to meet this challenge. it offers concrete steps for public safety that will provide functionality and interrupt ability for the public's intercommunity. the recommendations for the emergency address to of the fundamental building blocks for making this a reality. it sets forth a rigorous program to make sure we get the details right and the commission has already put ideas into motion by hosting a technical panel to review the finer points of the proposed network. another indispensable part of the plan concerns broadband adoption. approximately one-third of americans have -- to not have broadband at home. high speed internet is the gateway to opportunity and is

becoming a requirement for meaningful citizenship. if you want to apply for a job, get more information on health issues, take classes that are unavailable in yorktown, on what economic opportunities or be able to obtain government services, you must have direct access to the internet. if we steamroll ahead without our fellow americans joining us, we will merely be reinforcing problems that will weigh heavily on our nation. the plan recommends wholesale reform of the universal service fund to make it more efficient and enable it to directly support broadband service. this process adjusts nearly every aspect of the current suf methods -- usf methods.

competition is the lifeblood of innovation and affordable prices. without it, the industry has little reason to upgrade its facilities and improve services. the cable industry executives recently noted that there is no need for the company to roll out faster internet speed available today in areas where it does not have competition from another high-speed provider. thus, only in areas where americans are lucky enough to have more than one provider with truly high-speed capability will providers like this have any economic incentive to offer better service. the same holds true for prices. there is little question that where there is limited or no competition, consumers pay higher prices for broadband.

indeed, just recently, we saw a new fight in prices levied by providers on the lowest tiers of service. when increases like this occur, the public interest requires us to take appropriate action. in closing, i would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues and my enthusiasm for working with them to adjust the challenges ahead. i also want to recognize the important work of the committee and i look forward to engaging constructively with you in the weeks and months ahead. the american people rely on us to work cooperatively to make sure we implement a national broadband plan that is good for consumers and helps to have our economy. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you put a i look forward to answering any questions you might have. . .

we have gone from a dial-up world to a multi platform broadband world. we promote facilities based competition. private industry from every platform has responded to the framework with substantial investment and deployment to the great benefit of consumers. this has resulted in

availability to 95% of americans and healthy competition from rival providers. there are only 7 million households were forces have yet to have a wired provider. i am pleased to be here to talk about the national broadband plan. turning to the plan itself, there are places where i would have made different recommendations, but i am grateful to the broadband team for its hard work and find that significant parts of the plan deserves careful consideration. i would like to say a few words about three key priorities from the plan today. first, since i arrived at the sec, one area where prompt iran action is policy. the continued success of the state of the our mobile broadband depends on our ability to align our spectrum policy with the changing needs of consumers and industry.

other nations like germany and japan are already planning significant additional blocks of spectrum to be auctioned for mobile broadband. the united states must act similarly. to laydown the spectrum for a meaningful alternative to a fixed broadband. i hope policies will be guided by three overarching objectives -- facilitating the spectrum, allocating additional spectrum, and encouraging investment and innovation in wireless technologies. the second policy area is comprehensive universal service funds and compensation reform traded at broadband investment in underserved areas. we need to update our funding mechanisms to reflect a broadband world. we must do so in a manner that ensures accountability and efficiency. we need to do this in a manner

that does not expand the size of the $9 billion fund. the graja region factor for next quarter will be the largest ever. -- the contribution factor. this is real tax. nationwide interoperable he must be a top priority. the plans and recommendations are inappropriate place for us to start focusing on first responder funding and available spectrum resources. the need for interoperable the was highlighted in the 9/11 report and illustrated again in the aftermath of hurricane katrina and rita. as we consider all of the plans and recommendations, our policy should be focused on these efforts directly tied to promoting adoption, the climate, and facilities based

competition. -- adoption, deployment. i am concerned that some of the proposals referenced in the plan chart a more radical past changing our regulatory framework midcourse. this could diminish our much- needed emphasis on adoption and chilled the private investment we need for our infrastructure. we must, in particular, resist dictating how networks are managed and operated. i have attended two workshops and reviewed neutrality and have yet to see a systematic problem that needs to be addressed today. we also sued -- should reject calls to monopoly the internet. these selectively for that are

long and checkered history with government manufactured competition. lastly, i am hopeful we -- avoid the one-size-fits-all approach. this is true to affordability, relevancy, and literacy hurdles facing one-third of americans today. each one of these has its own importance. thank you for the opportunity to be here today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you to each of the commissioners and chairman for your thoughtful comments to us today. we appreciate your sharing some of the rationales you have had in developing this comprehensive and very well constructed plan. commissioner, i was pleased to the ambitious deadlines that you set forth in the plan for achieving the competitive availability of the set top boxes. i think if consumers could shop for set top boxes and choose one

that had buried functionality, a variety of different functions available from different manufacturers all of which are compatible with every cable system and every satellite system for delivering multichannel video. we would see tremendous innovation in the market for the origination of these devices and i think we would soon see devices on store shelves that would have functionality well beyond the typical set top box you buy from the cable company or the satellite company today. i commend you for setting forth these ambitious deadlines. this is not a new issue. in fact, it is a 15-years old. we directed the commission to move forward with the rule making in order to assure the competitive availability of these boxes. still today, consumers cannot go to the store and shop for a

variety of different set top boxes. i am glad to see the recommendation. i would ask you if you agree with me that rather than putting forth a notice of inquiry and continue for a much longer period of time a discussion about this that it is now time to move to a notice of proposed rulemaking. i think it is and i hope you would agree and i ask for your response. >> thank you for raising that topic. it is an important one. you mention that congress required competition in this area and we see much less innovation than we could. the reason it is in the broadband plan is they realize during its work that while computers are only in about 76% of homes tv's art in 100% of homes. if we could unleash this particular market, that could help accelerate broadbent read

with respect to the exact process, i would be happy to work with you expeditiously as possible. we have not made a final decision on the -- >> thank you very much. i would encourage you to give this favorable discussion. we have been discussing this for 15 years and that is time enough. you appear to be recommending a role for local governments, principalities across the country in helping to deploy broadband. i sure that aspiration. in the past congresses i have introduced legislation that would free local governments to offer broadband particularly where there are gaps for whatever reason the commercial providers have not provided an array of services for broadband. the mention of this in your plan implies support for legislation that would remove the roadblocks that various states have

erected to their municipalities offering blog and -- offering broadband. >> mr. chairman, if i could, we would happy to give you a resource for that. the cool of unleashing local government to experiment and innovate around broadband access seems to be a highly desirable goal. i would be happy to work with you to encourage the local experimentation that could be of benefit. >> a very diplomatic answer you are providing. let me is the balance of my time to talk about [inaudible] i think you are on the the right block -- the right track by

saying the remaining part of the spectrum should be auctioned. because the auction to fail several years ago. i heartily endorse your idea of auctioning without those kinds of conditions. i have two questions. first of all, would you need legislation in order to use that in some significant part were totally to the build out of equipment for fire, please come and rescue nationwide? >> i agree. >> we will certainly work. i am working with chairman waxman that would provide that for a free the second question i had relates to your proposal that the winners in the auction and the holders of 0700 mhz

spectrum which would include the cellular companies that prevailed in previous auctions provide it roaming access to first responders at reasonable rates. also, give priority access to first responders at times when the public safety spectrum is either fully occupied or for other reasons unavailable. the recommendation may give pause to some who would consider taking part in an auction because it needs a better definition. i suppose my direct question to you is how does that requirements relate to the existing priority system that is in place today for federal personnel? would it be a simple extension of the which may prove to be --

or would it be something beyond that that might prove to be more onerous ta? >> the goal is to adopt rules of not be onerous -- rules that would not be onerous. there is plenty of opportunity for input, but i am pleased that members have looked at our plan and says it -- and say it is a simple way to go. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate you being here. the general from florida, mr. stearns. -- the gentleman from florida. >> i ask unanimous -- you indicated you spent $20 million to develop this plan and it took about one year. that is about $50,000 per day.

when we develop the 1996 telecommunications bill we did not have a plan and later on there was some talk read your former chairman, let me read his speech in 1999. "the fertile fields of an invasion across the spectrum are blooming because we had taken eight deregulatory competitive approach to our structure, especially the internet." i think with those statements from your predecessor, do you agree? >> yes, i do. >> they remain valid today? >> making sure that we have policies that unleash investment and encouraged innovation -- >> policies from the government? >> whether it is a universal service funds there are policies

that the government needs to be involved in. the question is what kind of climate and policy can make sure we have that promote investment, innovation, and promote competition. >> ok. you have indicated this is a bipartisan plan. i think he pointed out that no one voted on it. it is to you did not vote on this, correct? >> that is correct. >> were you ever consulted to development in the development of this plan? >> absolutely. >> when did you get a plan to see -- a chance to see the final plan? >> we saw the final draft of 21 days before the march 18th meeting, so late february. >> and did you think it might be helpful that you would have seen

it earlier? how you feeling that your participation? >> i think it was a benefit that there was not above. it allowed the broadband planting to have the liberty to put in their what they saw fit to put in there. i think it was a net positive. obviously, there are things i agree with and disagree with. i think we can all say that. i think it is positively did not have the vote. originally, one year ago long before our german was nominated, the commission only had one year but the plan together. there were time constraints, as well. >> the broadband plan recommends appropriating an additional $9 billion to your already $8 billion. if this was appropriately spent,

why you need an additional $9 billion? >> sir, that is not exactly what the plan says. the universal service fund outlines a roadmap for the fcc to cut and cap telephone service and transition the funding to broadband without increasing the funds so that over a 10 year. the transition from the oldusf to the new can happen without any additional funding. the plan goes on to say that if congress found it desirable to accelerate the transition and have not happening burster -- faster than 10 years that it would cost several billion dollars over a few years to do so. that is something that, as part of developing the plan, it was thought it should be presented for consideration. >> they said that neutrality could be employed as a pretext,

or an excuse, for taking activities we would agree with the fundamentally treated days earlier, the president of venezuela called for regulation of the internet while demanding the crackdown on news that was critical. the internet cannot be free when anything can be done and said. every country has to impose rules and regulations, is what he said. how do we hold the other countries to higher standards if we ourselves are beginning to get involved in regulation. perhaps you can add comment on some of the, the assistant secretary of said this is a tree of state said as well as the president. >> i have expressed similar concerns as government encroach more into management that we really start to lose a moral high ground. what appears to be reasonable to us might not appear reasonable to other countries and vice

versa. commissioner baker said, some of the policies of the u.s. government like that management issues and the governance of the internet should be left to a non-governmental body. this has worked quite well. what has me the internet so robust and lawless and it is positively chaotic in a constructive way. i think we need to be cautious before we venture into this area. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman, is recognized for five minutes. >> before i begin my statements, i would like to correct a statement that broadband has never been regulated under title two. dsl broadband was a title to the service until august 2005 when

the commission moved it to title 1. i like to ask questions about the plan's recommendations regarding the nationwide interoperable broadband network for public safety. all parties agree that the problem of interoperable the needs to be resolved. it seems like there's a strong disagreement on what we should do with the block. in your february 25th remarks, you emphasize the directed fcc staff to begin anew and not take anything for granted, the data driven and cream, and come up with the best recommendations for success. to the recommendations in the plan reflect that? >> yes, they do. that was the charge to him. he has been committed with a team on developing a framework

for finally living on the bridge of delivering on the 9/11 recommendations. >> did you determine that was the best and for public safety? >> yes. >> do you agree that the spectrum in combination with access to the additional commercial spectrum is enough to ensure public safety interoperable the at this time and what about the future? >> i agree with the very deeply thought for a plan that is the together by the public safety team. in the future there may be an additional need for spectrum. we need to acquire more of the spectrum for a variety of purposes. it should be part of our strategic planning progress process over time. >> is it correct to say that your experts fully analyzed were the 10 mhz the kitty to broadband would yield adequate spectrum capacity and did they do their due diligence on this question? >> yes, i believe they did.

>> i would like to ask the commissioners, is the outline in the plan the best way to achieve interoperable the in your view? do e.g. support that the block the auction for primarily commercial purposes? we do each of you support? >> i supported this when i was acting chairman. all the options are on the table so we could really start and look at all of these. as the commissioner pointed out, we are eight years beyond 9/11 and we have to get moving. this is a far more solidly grounded plan and a far more thought out plan. i think it is the only plan, and i am not saying of the questions are answered, but i think this is one to proceed on if it meets the approval of the congress. congress has a role here to. -- a role here, too. i think we've had a unified plan

here. >> let me ask your colleagues to give me a yes or answer. do you support the proposition for the block to be auctioned for parlaying commercial purposes? >> the transition component of the broadband zone is for regulators. i would be happy for me to file a supplemental indicating that. the bloc should primarily serve commercial services and should be auctioned off accordingly. keep in mind that congress of 1997 set aside 24 megahertz of the 700 megahertz block that is just sitting there that should be used for some of the narrow band. there is 97 mhz total of the spectrum. >> do you agree?

>> to be auctioned off commercially. >> commissioner? >> i believe the auction model is comprehensive. >> i believe with the plan. >> chairman, is the six and $45 billion estimated for the network account for state matching funds -- does the $645 billion match funds? to require states to pay part of the cost required with construction? >> we would be happy with -- to supply you with that. i am not sure. i would say one thing, but to move forward on this now while commercial 4g networks are being nailed down, it is the least expensive way to make sure we have a public safety network. if we wait, the price will only

go up. >> thank you very much. and the forward on moving forward on a bipartisan basis and look forward to working with the fcc towards that goal. mr. chairman, i would like to put into the record a press, by the fcc dated august 5th, to thousand five, regarding the title one and title to that issue. -- august 5th, 2005. >> welcome, commissioners. a number of us had a good number of questions. chairman, welcome again. first question from me, as relates to the broadcast spectrum, we're working on legislation here. i think one of the things you want to make sure is that you all did not force the broadcasters to give away our option some of the spectrum. are we on the same page? >> i think so.

the need here is urgent for the country. mobil broadband is as important a platform for innovation and job creation for decades to come. we have the opportunity to lead the world but not if we do not have enough spectrum. but our team has done is develop a win-win-win plan that i would be happy to discuss with you further that i think should work for everyone and is based on voluntary actions by broadcasters and incentives and we hope congress would authorize. i like those words. mr. mcdowell, as we look at broadcast speeds, in the chapter for it seems to me that if there were a fire requirement that it would hurt us dramatically -- that if there were a fiber requirement.

i mean you are in agreement with not that -- i wonder if you are in agreement with that. >> i think we will see tremendous amount of litigation or decisions for the washington d.c. circuit that will speak directly to these issues. it is at this point settled law as commissioner baker was saying. i think we would be exposing herself to a tremendous amount of litigation if we try to impose ourselves went i noted that the executive director of the broadband initiative dismissed in december 21st, 2009, issue as not quite productive. he said it is not that terribly interested in things that would freeze capital investment and

how complicated court battles. more importantly, he observed these "failed to look, was really going on in the market." what are your thoughts as this relates to your executive director? >> the goals of promoting investment in innovation in the sector are our highest goals. promoted competition is the the strategy to get there. but the plan actually focuses on it are some issues we heard from businesses in the market whether it is special access, providing choice for small businesses, we have heard many complaints from small businesses that the lack choices and their prices are too high. the plan suggests several discrete areas for the records show competition for small businesses tees up an inquiry.

>> to understand the fear that we would have -- you understand your we would have if you pursued such a course. >> of course i do. the goals of the commission are to adopt policies that promote investment, innovation, promote competition, and in price -- and protect and empower consumers. >> as we look at this document, tell me what your next step is. what is the timeframe the you're going to try to embark. >> the staff has been working on an implementation schedule. in the time ahead we will be announcing a schedule as i said in my opening remarks, i am not satisfied with the status quo. i think this