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@@@@ 8oe åo7z that would allow us to deliver on the recommendations. it will be the subject of the rule making. we will have opportunity for input but i am pleased that many have looked at our plan as a sensible way to go. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we appreciate you being here and sharing these thoughts with us. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent that

the response that chairman genachowski said to me about the creation of the plan be entered in the record. >> without objection. . 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 tremendous amount of litigation or decisions for t the speaks directly to these issues, and it is really as commissioner baker was saying, and i think we would be exposing ourselves to a tremendous amount of litigation and an ultimate loss if we tried to impose regulations that have been laid subsequent to those court cases. >> i noticed the executive

director of the broadband initiative dismissed its in a december 21, 2009, interview as "not very productive." the reason he explained is, not that terribly interested in moving to things that will freeze investment and have court battles. more importantly, he observed, these suggestions "failed to look get what was going on in the market." what were your thoughts? >> the goals of promoting investment and innovation in the sector are high goals. promoting competition is one of if not the best strategy to get there. what the plan actually focuses on 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 that they lack choice and therwe found three areas with competition issues. it keeps up an inquiry by the commission, and i think it is important to look at those. -- 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 is a dictionary platform for job creation and investment. there are some real problems that we need to solve. i am going to push to move forward as quickly as we can because i think it is critical for world leadership in this area. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> think you, mr. upton. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. the first broadband plan was the 1996 telecom act. that, of course, actually resulted in broadband being regulated under title two. from 1996 until august 2005, broadband was under title two, just for the record.

during that time, we got a lot of policies that were implemented, consumer protection, universal service, protecting consumer privacy, interconnected and competition provisions, access for individuals with disabilities, consumer billing protection. what was also possible under title two? the fcc could [inaudible] if it wanted to. the availed themselves of that car right until august 2005 for everett thought it was necessary. i do not think wish to pretend that going back to title two would mean the earth with a stop spending on its access -- the earth would stop spending on its acix. -- axis.

i know that the sec is fighting in court to different -- to defend the current free market. hopefully the court will uphold that. if that does not, cool heads will prevail and we will work with the sec to ensure that all of the goals that are in this broadband plan, universal service, investing in the competition, privacy, disability access will all be implemented. the agenda for connecting america does not change. i know that there are some people out there saying they should not have the authority under title 1 or title two. they turn it into a ditch that is enforcing the law without any ability to do rulemaking. i disagree with that. history says that that is completely wrong. -- i disagree with that.

this is the next innovation of that. this is broadband planned #two going into the 21st century. do you agree? >> your live did. it could not possibly be wrong. during those years, from 1998- 2008, i was in the private sector. i am very sensitive to the effects that policies can have on investment. i am confident that this fcc will tackle all of these issues in a way that has great respect for the private investment that we need to get to world leadership on broadband. as i have mentioned, the fcc has been operating under title 1. a company made a decision to challenge that in court.

the fcc is defending it. i believe we have the authority and that we will have the authority. >> i agree with that 100% otherwise the whole history of the telecom act of 1996 makes no sense. all of those regulations were implemented under title two. it really does not make any difference except that there are some companies out there that enjoy the forbearance that was engaged in by the fcc during a to a killer. of time. -- during a particular period of time. competitiveness, darwinian inspiring competition, introducing its into every single aspect of the marketplace is how we got hulu, google, youtube, and ebay.

not one home in america had broadband in february 1996 when the telecom act was signed. 10 years later, it is a completely different dialogue in our country. one final question on e-rate. we have both introduced e-rate 2.0 to change the way in which we look at e-rate to make sure there is more taxes. how do you feel? >> i feel it is essential. i think you and the committee for your work on e-rate over the years. one of the things i see is how frustrated teachers are by the fact that some of their kids have broadband access and some do not. they are frustrated that their facilities, while the have connected classrooms, are not good enough to give them what they want. tackling that is a recommendation of the plan. >> we thank you, mr. chairman,

and of the commissioners for their excellent work on this plan. it is going to actually play a historic role in ensuring america regained its position as number one. >> the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this question is to commissioners. i am concerned about changes to privacy lot. can you explain why this is necessary? cleanse the first. to make -- >> the first point to make is that the internet should be open. the plan is very clear that we need to make sure that companies can enforce their rights and that we do not have rampant piracy on the internet.

over the course of our broadband proceedings, we heard from teachers and others in the education community that. it's -- that pointed to some areas that they're teaching would be inhibited but not to challenge the fundamental. -- fundamental point that it is essential. >> those with copyrighted works need to feel comfortable post an on-line. we need to have the strongest possible privacy rights. the need to be able to work with carriers to police and act against stolen intellectual property. first of all, we are not experts on intellectual property or copyrights. just as a note of caution when it comes to any recommendations

that could be seen as wanting to intellectual property rights. i think will help if we have stronger party rights enforcement requests there is no discussion in this document about legal content protection for it is not a priority at all? >> i believe there is some discussion and we would be happy to follow up with you on that. intellectual property is not a central issue in the broadband plan. there is an endorsement of the importance of copyright protections and there is the identification of an issue that was raised with us in the record with respect to education and a suggestion for further work on that. >> sections 11.4, 15.7, and 15.9 had some discussion there. some this -- some concerns that we would be suggesting a

weakening of the intellect or property rights protection. >> to akko my concern in the document, the example you cite in ferreous is actually -- use a teacher's seeking to use beatles lyrics to promote literacy is the example that you cite. in education, the best way to improve literacy is to cite the beatles? this is the example you used for this argument. do you care to comment on that? >> what i would be happy to do is to make sure that we share with your office the comments we received from educators on their concerns in this area. i am confident the reports emphasize the importance of intellectual property and puts ideas on the table. we would certainly be happy to be a resource to you and i would be happy to supply the

information we received about the process on the issues that that addresses. >> i would appreciate that very much. does anyone else care to comment? >> i have not visited with the educational community, but i haven't visited with consumers and media companies. video is the driving broadband adoption. for media companies to put their expensive content on the web, they need to have assurance that it will be protected. i think it is very important we consider this as we move forward with broadband and it is important to protect intellectual property. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> think you come ms. bono mack. -- thank you, ms. bono mack. >> i hung on every word of your testimony and welcome it. thank you again for your extraordinary work.

i am convinced for your testimony and otherwise that you recognize the need for speed. i continue to have concerns when it comes to spurring competition with new and innovative uses of the spectrum. there are so many entrenched interests that seem to be able to stop new ideas from taking root through delaying tactics. i think this concern has been raised by other members of the committee, as well. if we are going to see that 100 megahertz reaches -- 100 megabits reaches 100 million homes they need to complete rulemaking faster. we need to see immediate action. i do not know what you all have to say about that. i think it is more in the hands of the chairman.

i am disappointed that the advanced wireless spectrum was not recommended for immediate deployment. deployment. you're not surprised by it was a proceeding from years ago, and i do not think businesses can afford to or should be allowed to lose money for years. it is my understanding the spectrum fans the national broadband plan you are considering paring -- that is a spectrum that is currently jammed with titles system, including the drones for air strikes in afghanistan and pakistan and border security here at home, and these systems

cost over $100 billion that cannot be relocated until 2013. i do not know if you want to comment on this. i do not see the dod giving up spectrum. have you contacted the dod? have they contacted you? that is my first question, and if you do not find that by the october deadline you outlined in the report, are you actually going to auction the spectrum and put it as soon as possible. i am going to continue my questions. the next generation 911, we are cochairs. we have offered legislation, and if you had a chance to take a look get it, what your take is on death 3 -- your take is on

death. we are going to submit more questions -- your take is on that. we're going to submit more ahead to grow making announced in the plan to reclaim the 1 20 megahertz spectrum from these broadcasters, can you give us any assurances that public television stations will be protected from involuntary reallocations of the spectrum? i think it is important that they're protected. i think the represent one of the treasures of our nation. those are my opening questions and i will submit more to you, to the commission to respond to in writing to. whoever would like to answer, i welcome it. >> i would be happy to do so.

on the first issue,, our staff at the fcc and their colleagues at other agencies have to talk about spectrum trade with regards to the spectrum have mentioned, they have identified a potential opportunity that could be very good to the country in terms of pairing. i completely agree with you that it is a bad practice to extend proceedings of the death in at the fcc. we put a deadline on exploration of the pairing alternatives. i believe the plan goes on to say that is the pairing is not possible that the commission should proceed, adopt rules, and auction off the spectrum. with respect to e-911, i think we owe you and the other congressman thinks because i think that is discussed in the broadband plan as far as looking to the future on public safety

in the 21st century and tackling 911 and how people are using communication devices. on public tv, the answer is yes. for public tv, too, there's an opportunity here for a win-win and i think we can work on that with everyone together. >> thank you so much. i am very excited. the cobwebs are being cleared and we have a vision for our future. i really look forward to working with the commission and the fall subcommittee on this. thank you. >> the gentle lady from tennessee, mr. blackburn, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank you all for being here. i have to tell you that it is the lack of attention to intellectual property and the way you are putting the question is troubling to me.

i think that we have to look at the fact that -- you are talking about wanting a robust broadband deployments and expansion. to not have some of the intellectual property protections, and i know you are not the central agency that handles that, but i do think that it is worthy of eight revisit -- a revisit. that is one version of that fear used. fair use. i have about seven questions. i am not going to get through all of them. commissioner mcdowell, you mention something i want to go back to. that is the notion of that neutrality -- net neutrality.

those rules could complicate efforts to enforce the law. illegal content, illegal downloading, and i would like for you to expand a little bit on the relationship between net neutrality rules and enforcement against illegal content. >> first of all, proposed rules and to call for a car about for illegal content -- a carve out for illegal content. that includes matters of national security and child pornography. my concern with adopting those rules in general is the amount of uncertainty in will inject. i will be filing a letter with the committee regarding my position on that. it is being litigated before the courts. these things do take years. in the meantime, would new rules actually give network operators

pause in terms of acting on a number of fronts including the enforcement of intellectual property where it might not be so clear especially if we're talking about relaxing or undermining fair use? i think it creates uncertainty. after the 1996 act, we had the legislative, regulation, and a litigation cycle that went on for a decade. i think if we try to promulgate such roles as we would of the top five years of uncertainty and that is not your for intellectual property rights holders. >> mr. chairman, let's go back to commissioner victor, -- commissioner baker's comments and the push to get to the content online. if you want to ensure both a robust broadband deployment and the protection of intellectual

property and its content from those copyright industries, they are going to be essential and contrary to that growth. how are you going to go about that? i think we have to realize that our copyright industry has contracted nearly one-quarter of the real growth we had in our economy last year. you're talking about ease of access. how are you going to marry those two? we are all interested in it. we have a lot of innovators that have invested a lot of money in new platforms. how do you guarantee that? >> i could not be more firm in my conviction and that it is essential to be able to protect intellectual property on the internet. i've been clear but this is the first day i sworn in as chairman. i understand that it will been video -- it will be video that will be an important part of

driving broadband error and one of the main ways a strong broadband policy will promote job creation and innovation in the country. i think in general i am in complete agreement with you on this. we have to be sensitive as a commission to suggestions that we have from teachers or others saying, can you look at issues to see what makes sense? we would not do anything in this area without a robust, open, percent the tory proceeding to hear views from everyone. -- for us, open, for suppository -- participatory proceeding. thank you for being here. -- >> thank you for being here. i submit the balance for my questions and we are appreciative of your participation. >> the gentleman for michigan,

mr. stupak, is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. waxman talk about public safety and i have a couple questions. the national broadband plan proposes a brahmin and priority access to public safety organizations for all licensed holders in the 700 mhz from. what type of obligations would be placed on commercial providers to ensure that public safety is given more than just primary access but also robust and resilience access at times of emergency? >> the details of that are exactly the kind of thing that would get worked out in the rulemaking that would hold. what you described is the goal. with to put in place a mechanism where public safety can have prioritized access, the spectrum that it needs. the team believes that there is a path that can work for public

safety and deliver on the 9/11 recommendations and that is also reasonable for wireless industry's plan and take advantage of this unique moment in time where if we do this as the commercial networks are being filled out a, we can do this efficiently and deliver on the 9/11 commission recommendations. >> in order for it to work, you need to have a ready and willing commercial partner to work with for law enforcement. very confident we will have its in all parts of america, especially the rural areas? how would public safety proceed to have this plan? >> i asked this question of our team. i wanted to make sure that we met the goals. they're confident this mechanism will work for public safety and that commercial providers will provide the access as described. >> even in areas that are not developed now? >> that is certainly something we would be able to follow up

with you on the idea is that as we push forward on a of 4g of broadband -- on a 4g mobile broadband effort, it would be expanded because we could do the commercial networks and together. i fear if we do not do that, in some areas we will not get any 4g networks. there is public safety spectrum that is their that it is not being built. >> you mention 4g. provide support for 3g -- you provide support. how are you going to get 4g when the minimum is 3g in the proposal?

how would you determine which provider in a given area would receive support if they are only supposed to be a3g and public safety need 4g. >> 3g is the foundation for 4g so i tihnk it is part of the solution. you are raising issues that we would develop in the rule making. in the meantime, we would be happy to follow up with you on the development of this plan. >> let me ask you one more. in the compensation scheme that will be in the universal service fund over 10 years -- is that what it is? how does the fcc plan to ensure the necessary support for liberal telecommunications remains considering how essential to many of these rural

companies? >> we believe this proposes a change over 10 years. as i said to one of the earlier questions, the team is also suggesting an alternative to accelerate the transition. there is a possibility of identifying additional funding and we would be happy to work with the committee on that. the goal of the plan would be to deliver what you are seeking for rural america. >> i appreciate the goals and analysis that went into this. whenever we do this, whether it is the touch mission -- telecommunicattiosn act of 1996, we just tell rural areas that we will get to them. you say we need 4g, but we cannot even get basic cable in some of those areas. the bill we introduced, the

collaboration act. give me a quick comment on why we need it and hopefully we can commence the chairman to get a commence the chairman to get a hearing on this soon i want to commend you again on introducing the legislation to make this possible. i think it would be a great step forward from the standpoint of this thatching the business of the commission. we were all standing around of fun, waiting for the hearing to start, -- standing around, waiting for the hearing to start. we would be delving into the world of substance, so i think from the standpoint of doing business, we have five people here who come from five very different backgrounds to contribute different perspectives. you can only benefit by sitting around and talking about these issues that serve the public

interest. you do it with the counsel present. you do it with protections, but the system serves the public interest in a timely fashion, and there was one reform i could make it the fcc. the one you propose would be it. >> thank you very much. >> one example to augment that -- i have the opportunity to share the joint force, and one of the things -- my colleagues are members. i distinctly remember on our inaugural call, we had a lot of voices, and the commissioner was in the middle of a significant point, and it was 17 minutes after the hour when commissioner

baker came into the room, and commissioner cox had to get off line, so what happens is we have lost that exchange, and a loss that train of thought, and it is a very cumbersome process. recognizing that even on that level where no votes would be taken that this country would be better served having a process that is more relaxed. >> thank you. >> let me assure you it there will be a hearing on your measure in the not so distant future. >> the gentleman from alabama, mr. griffith, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity. if many mentioned staff, is it your staff that is going to make the recommendations so we remain competitive and enhance the creativity of our internet?

>> the sec staff is what i was referring to. -- the fcc staff. >> is there a group that is specifically in tune with what has happened in the marketplace in the last 10 years? has the relationship with the that marketplace -- >> that is the job of the staff of the agency to be proactive, stay on top of market developments, and make sure we can discuss it necessary to do our jobs. but those individuals have experience in the marketplace and understand the reality of the capitalistic system and the development, risk capital, that sort of thing? . .

a very real understanding of technology, the market place. >> would be five or six staff members that will be assigned to the development of language and how it might affect a private investment? >> i think the implementation of the plan will be worked on by many more staff members then that. >> i would love for you to identify those for me, and i would love to sit and see their resume and also talk with them, if that would be fair, because it is of great interest to me, having been in the

communications field once before. i have read the health care bill, and there's nothing in there about broadbent. i hope you can solve that. thank you for being here. i appreciate it. >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> in many districts, there are households who cannot afford broadband services. a recent survey found that 93 million americans do not subscribe to in-home broadband services in large part because of affordability barriers. the fact is that the high cost least many low-income families in urban and rural areas at a

severe disadvantage in our economy. i introduced a broadband affordability act last year for universal broadband adoption. this bill will ensure that all americans will have access. i am -- i applaud you and the commissioners for having this central element of your plan. however important is it in your view for the economy and for the country to close the divide? >> said think it is essential. i appreciate your -- >> i think it is essential. i appreciate your leadership on this. today, job postings have moved on line. most jobs orequire on-line

applications. if you do not have access, you are disadvantaged. most jobs, they require digital literacy. it is one of our biggest? globally, where other countries are ahead of us -- it is one of our biggest gaps globally, where the countries are ahead of us. >> if this were implemented, in your view, how much would you estimate the adoption rate would be? >> we expect to move from 65% to 95% reduction in the next two years. -- 95% adoption in the next two years. we want to work with smart pilot projects so that we can figure

out what works and focus our energy on those. >> that is it a focus on urban and rural areas. >> right. >> broadband is going to play a major role in a sustainable path to clean energy. as i mentioned before, i will soon be introducing legislation that will complement many of the recommendations made in your plan to modernize our nation's smart grid. in doing so, it will be more reliable and efficient and ensure its resilience during national disasters and will help consumers make more energy efficient decisions. how important do you believe broadband is to modernize our smart grid? >> the have buses to look at the relationship between broadband

and energy and health care and education. -- they have asked us to look at the relationship between broadband and energy and health care and education. >> can you expand on the point man in the plan about the importance of ensuring that consumers have greater access to information about their electricity usage? why is it so important? water the barriers in order to provide that access -- what are the barriers in order to provide that access? >> many technologies rely on broadband connectivity and wireless connectivity to full ec and visualize. homes that do not have access -- to fully see and visualize. homes that do not have access

fail to have the benefits of those kinds of technologies. the nature broadband as a general-purpose technology that can do so much innovation investments and benefit- producing activity relies directly to energy. >> in sacramento, the utility district, they received $129 million grant for a smart cred. we felt it was very -- for a smart grid. we felt it was very important to look at how the connection is so and important when you look at the community and what we need to do. for some reason, when you think about things like smart meters and being able to find out what is being used in a house, people seem to understand that this is somehow connected to broadband. so i think it is important. thank you. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from michigan is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am very impressed. i like a lot of what we're saying current but when i took a look at your statement, -- what you are saying. but when i look at your statement, there is no mention of the neutrality. this is a great work. makes me want to salute the flag. but then you introduce a sweeping rule on the neutrality. today, i heard you tell this panel backethat a light touch on regulation has generated all of this competition. but there is argument that you had the ability to regulate the internet. maybe you can commanders and how we get from that position to net

neutrality and your position of the day -- and a position today -- maybe you can expand on how we get from that position to net neutrality and your position today. >> i have been very public for lea very long time to preserve a free and open internet, pro investment rules, pro competition, and pro innovation. we have an obligation to make sure that we have an open architecture of the internet and that it continues going forward. i see a real consistency between my priorities of innovation and investment and preserving a free and open internet. >> the very things that you referenced in your speech to the brookings institute, where you talk about -- where you talked

about chevrolet and apple pie, is great stuff. these innovations did not happen because of this social justice notion that we will have this exchange of innovation and we will be in the backyard and have kumbaya and played drums. it happened because someone was going to make some money, right? >> absolutely. >> you say that you believe in a light touch and a free and open internet and that is why we are going to regulate the internet. there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant. when you get into the regulation of the internet, you will make a determination. you have to make determinations. you are arguing the fact that you have the ability to do it. i agree with the panel. i do not think you do. obviously, yet we are going to disagree.

unit to help manage and where it says, in what section -- you need to help me understand where it says, in what section of a law, that that is so. >> i am not in favor of regulating the internet. >> but you are in favor of net neutrality. >which is regulating the internet. >> i disagree with that. the fcc had rules that applied to the on ramp to the internet to promote competition, to make sure that those are free and open and fair. i do think that we should continue that in the internet world so that the next facebook or the next e. they are the nex -- or the next ebay or the next whenever has a chance. >> when the federal government,

the fcc, gets into the business of setting up what those rules are that do not exist today, you have regulated the internet. i don't see how you think there is no harm/know foul -- no harm/no foul. we're going to create these big programs to give broadband to people because maybe you have all gotten in and regulated the internet where there is not a clear market solution, but there might be in your terms a social justice issue for having that broadband at the house. now you have completely dismantled the very model that got us to 200 million folks having access to broadband. how you do not intertwined that is beyond me. you say "light touch." four days later, you unleash a

progressive regulation of the internet. what is next? obviously, this is something that you are wedded to and are fully committed to this. section 17, is that right? >> you clearly laid out the platform to do this, and is it your position you are going to continue to pursue it least in court that you have the right to regulate the internet? >> when i started, the prior administration had adopted a set of principles regarding the internet and enforce those principles against the company. it was the prior administration that did it. that is why we are now in court. it took those principles and attached them as conditions in a merger, so i inherited a lance

get around this area where there were open internet rules -- 0 land around this area where there were open internet rules. i think it is important to adopt a clear rules of the road that encourage innovation and competition and that may clear what is not prevented. are -- there are certain people involved that will tell you that there are certain things that you should not be able to do. i think there is a way to do this completely consistent with and investment growth policy. >> thank you very much, mr. rogers. your time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i have enjoyed this hearing so far. i have a question concerning access. do you believe that pursuing a purely engineering approach to meeting data flow challenges

would make net neutrality an obsolete issue? >> one of the suggestions i made for the rulemaking that we proposed is increased transparency, increasing the information about the engineering network management rules that would be available to entrepreneurs and cto's. it would have the effect of minimizing government rules. that is something that -- it would have the effect of minimizing the role of government. that is something that i would like to introduce. >> that may be enough to override when government neutrality issues there are. >> i think you are on the right track.

what can obviate the need for -- there is no need. the internet is not broken in this regard. the most robust area for competition has been wireless. the commission has worked hard for years on getting on licensed use of the tv white space off to the market. we announced a brought -- we announced a ground breaking order. it was absolutely a wonderful moment. but we have bogged down in our progress. on mises use of white spaces could obviate the need for any -- miss use of white spaces -- all licensed use of what basis could obviate the need for any rules -- unlicensed use of

white spaces could obviate the need for a new rules. >> thank you. i have another question for you. do you feel that the plan will succeed in meeting the six goals that are identified? do you think the plan, as written and published will? >> is an ambitious plan. -- it is an ambitious plan. all the moving parts will be difficult to say that they will realize the recommendations. but we can always be optimistic. >> one more question, if you do not mind -- i certainly appreciate the risk of additional regulation. creating jobs is as very important to me, considering the situation in my district and

the country. do you think there's any risk of abuse without further regulation, without additional regulation? do you see that as a potential problem? >> in the context of net neutrality, the antitrust commission filed comments in january. it not only said that the marketplace was not broken, but it was downright optimistic. more competition is coming because of wireless. the federal trade commission also looked at this. their report said that we need to be very careful. this is a competitive marketplace. while new rules have the best of intentions, they could create more uncertainty. >> would you like to take a stab at that? >> as it relates to competition,

i am concerned about the future. in chapter 4 of the plan, it describes what 2012 looks like. it talks about rolling out a new product that would provide incredible potential high speed. it also points out that, in the market that we're speaking, the competition may only exist and at 280% of the market. if we -- exist in 18% of the market. i do not see robust competition in that particular section of high speed deployment and availability in the next couple of years. >> i appreciate and understand the concern. my concern is that we

proactively pursue these regulations. i think the market is competitive and any significant change in the regulatory environment will cause investment to dwindle and that will cause jobs to dwindle. i think we need to be very careful in this area. >> thank you so very much. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> let me move over here. thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. let me see which questions i can ask and which ones we will submit later. in 2007, the fcc determined that a wireless service is not required to provide another wireless carrier with roaming services if the second carrier holds a license for spectrum usage in the same geographic location. is there anything in this plan that changes that?

>> what we are trying to do is revisit that a little bit on the premise that rowling is central to competitive environments -- that roaming is central to competitive environments. this would inhibit the small loans and inhibit their ability to interconnect -- the smaller ones and inhibit their ability to interconnect. we are trying to look at that and see what other changes need to be made. >> you think there is some potential that this will reverse some of the 2007 structure? >> i would not say that. that proceeding has not happened yet. the plan does identify roaming

as an issue whose resolution could affect speed and competition in the mobile broadband market. it suggests that it is something that the commission needs to look at. >> the previous view was that, if you have a license to serve the area already, you were required to provide your own service. do you have a view on that? >> as a policy matter, we need to encourage billed out from their home region. there was a concern in 2007 about making sure that rowling was not a resale. -- that roaming was not a resale. that has to be a fundamental policy objective for us to encourage build out in how your

own area. >> this committee and this congress passed a bill where the fcc would create an inventory of all the spectrum out there and how it is being used. that has never been voted on by either the house or the senate. i think this report calls for the need to find another 500 mhz of spectrum. do you think it would be helpful to analyze how the spectrum is currently being used? would you encourage us to move forward and ask the fcc to find out how the spectrum is currently being used before you try to find more megahertz of spectrum? >> the spectrum inventory bill is very important. it is the recognition of the importance of spectrum and mobile to our economic landscape. much is known already.

the demand on our noble network, the constraints we are -- the demand on our mobile network, the constraints we are heading into, there's information about where licensees are. the white -- the wireless industry came and suggested we needed 800 megahertz of spectrum to satisfy forthcoming mobil needs -- mobile needs. of course, there is a lot more work to do and i look forward to working with the committee to find a sensible way to on the spectrum for economic activity, to make sure that the broadcasters are treated fairly, that the viewers are served with the possibility of generating billions of dollars through auctions. >> i thought this committee was right when we encouraged the

that you be funded, allow, and directed to make that review. i hope we do that. if we do not do that, what is the impact on over the air broadcasting on any spectrum reallocation? i know we have some areas all over the state that are not served by the same over-the-air broadcasting in the digital conversion. how worst does that get as we reallocate the spectrum? in narrett -- in some areas of america, you pay for the satellite or you do not have television. >> the goal for the proceeding would be to respect the needs of the viewers, especially those who still get their tv signal over the air. the congestion issues we are concerned about are chiefly market issues. we can make substantial progress

for the country and a small number of large markets. we can free up significant amounts of spectrum for our mobile broadband economy, generating auction revenues. we have confidence that there is a win-win here. the congestion issues on april 0 -- on the mobile broadband side are [unintelligible] >> a lot of the un serve people are the people closest to the station -- a lot of the unserved people are the people closest to the station. thank you to all of you for being here. >> thank you. the gentle lady from the virgin islands is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome.

before coming to energy and commerce, i was on homeland security. the issue of interoperable was and remains a big challenge and one that i am very concerned about. i have heard concerns that the 10 megahertz of broadband might be inadequate for public safety needs. is there now or will there be in the future? from your comments, it seems that you are pretty satisfied that you are meeting the needs of public safety. do you have concerns that there is not enough or do you plan to expand the spectrum later on? >> my charged to the team at the fcc was to take a fresh look at

public safety mobile communication needs and recommend a plan that would most quickly and effectively deliver on the 911 recommendation. there is no strategy to build the network. this ms@@@=:zzj:zzç:zz:zz";:'2℠&

provides enough capacity potential to meet those concerns? >> it provides some promise, but i remain concerned in some sense. the concern for me is that, when we talk about -- i am for voluntary spector reallocation. but the potential of that is that some of these entities, who may be financially strapped, maybe the first to sell the space, which would possibly further dilute the gains in their quest for diversity. but the frontier, when i look at the overall plan, i am hopeful. it provides a host of opportunities. some are named and some are not.

low-power television, entertainment, and other types of sourcing a program over the internet, they are growing enterprises who exclusively want to stay in that space because of the flexibility and the potential for keeping more of their dollars. while i am concerned on the other front, i am hopeful that this base will be one that has literally the sky is the limit potential. >> so it would be the role of the fcc to do the outreach to make sure that these smaller entities know what is available or is it our role or the fcc rule? >> i think it is a global effort. when i go out and speak, a young lady came up to me and said that she was in her senior year of college, what should she do? she wanted to get into

broadcasting. i am a proponent of "in the meantime." you can use the internet to promote yourself and recruit yourself. i look at this as an opportunity and a bridge. >> thank you. >> i know that preserving and stimulating competition is a major part of the plan. are there any new mandates imposed on the industry in the broadband plan? if so, which industries would have mandates that might require additional investment? >> the plan itself is not self- executed. there are several ideas in the plan to promote competition. i spoke earlier about the complaints that we heard from the commission about small businesses that want to move on

broadbent, but they are unsatisfied with the choices -- on broadband, but they are unsatisfied with the choices that they have. there are issues that require further work. thank you. i yield back with every time i have left. >> thank you. the gentleman from nebraska it is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it has been asked before, but i have not ask it, as the old saying goes. i am going to ask it in terms of the over-the-air tv and the option of being able to give back or sell back the that part of the spectrum. the second half of that is -- if there are not enough station holders willing to give back some of their spectrum, we have heard that you will not just

force it. does the fcc even have authority to force them to give back for have the authority to take back some of that spectrum? >> the authority we do not have is to structure an incentive option with respect to any band. we have the ability to ensure that any spectrum that is used that way, some of the proceeds are used [unintelligible] on the first question, i would emphasize that there is a real issue ahead of us for the country and our ability to lead the world. we have all the ingredients lining up with the incredible innovation we are saying, the fact that we are moving quickly to 4g. we would be happy to share with

you the data that will close the gap. >> i am aware of that. i was just wondering if you have the authority or if congress would have to give you that authority to grab back the spectrum if they do not voluntarily offer it to you. >> the authority we lack is the incentive option. >> so if we were to take that back, you would have the authority. >> in general, yes. >> ok. whether you give it back for buy it back, i do know if they have the power to sell it back. i like the plan. of course, we are going to disagree with some of the details. but i view this plan as mostly an infrastructure.

in a lot of the opening statements was on the uptake rate. i want to talk about what part of the plan do you think is important on the take rate, which then dovetails into "affordable." that is a term of art, not necessarily signs. are there mandates in here on pricing? how would you make this "affordable" for more people to take it once we get the infrastructure and access out there? >> i can get us moving quickly. >> we can go to michael.

he needs to be involved. >> i think there is a competitive environment out there to reduce consumer costs. i think that digital literacy is important so that people understand the importance of this to their individual lives and to the future of the nation. going back for just a section to the previous question you asked -- licenses all expire. we're not necessarily talking about going in and grabbing. i have been a believer of use it or lose it. in a broadcast system, while serving the public interest, my advice to the broadcast industry, while you are looking at all of this [unintelligible] >> i hate to be rude to you, but i only have 23 seconds left and

i want to follow-up on the affordability and how we're going to do that. i thought the e-rate was the answer to that question. in this discussion of affordability and take within urban course and rural areas, has the e-rate not been successful? >> e-rate has been a stunningly successful program. just from the standpoint of connecting kids to the 21st century, i has been an outstanding success. >> thank you very much, mr. terry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this has been an excellent hearing.

through the joint efforts of this committee and the subcommittee that i chair, we draft day in federal policy legislation. in recent days, much has been made in the planned proposal to commission future spectrum auctions for free broadband service for advertising business models. if the sec imposes conditions on spectrum, -- if the fcc imposes conditions on spectrum, the purchase price would be through advertising-based services. [unintelligible]

if i am a better at the option and i do not know what the final rules of the road would be with respect to protecting consumer privacy, then i may not be inclined to the dissipate. this puts the cart before the horse and could open the door to another set of unsuccessful auctions. with the passage of privacy legislation, what impact do you think this passage will have on your option design for the 700 mhz license? >> the privacy issue is an important one. it is discussed in the plan. it is one of the looming topics that the plan does say needs to

be addressed. it gives consumers and businesses in the confidence they need to participate in a broad ban future. i think we're glad that there is more proceeding in legislation. clarity on the rules of the road would have a visit -- would have a benefit to the business community. i agree with that. >> would any other commissioner like to respond to that? >>as you know, one of my observations of the broadband plan places too much emphasis on the induction side.

small businesses are a critical part that could help to offset the huge numbers of layoffs that we have witnessed from large carriers. [unintelligible] minority ownership has been a concern for you over the years. have you plan on addressing this very silent omission in the national broadband plan? >> there is complete agreement on the importance of small businesses said the challenges and opportunities around broadband. we held three workshops on

business issues. i would be happy to follow up with you. with respect to training, information, digital literacy for small businesses, there are recommendations in the plan with respect to small business administration, a joint projects, get the information that they need. with respect to the affordability issue that we heard from small businesses, their recommendations with respect to moving fort on competition issues to get more competition to help reduce price -- respect to moving forward on competition issues to get more competition to help reduce prices, i hope we can follow up and make sure that we are being as clear as we should be. >> for my part, i commend the emphasis on the plan on small

businesses. i have dealt a lot with small and medium-sized groups. [unintelligible] @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

the opportunity to create jobs will come to the rural community soon. i appreciate your concern on that. i want to ask you about this. the commission recognizes and addresses the problems in the wholesale market, particularly with high-speed, special-access connections. and vermont, with the help of the governor and the legislature, the vermont telecommunications authority has

addressed the high cost of wire list back hall. it is one of the most significant potential barriers to our area to get wireless service to rural vermont. we have an impediment that requires leadership and guidance from you. i want to go down the line a little bit about your views on that. thank you for coming into my office and saying hello. >> i am glad that we had the time. special access is important. we are taking a look at that. we need to gather the data. we are in the process of doing that now to look at what parts need to be regulated and what needs to be unregulated. >> thank you.

>> i recognize the importance and that it will increase competitive options and make the cost of deployment lower. i am looking forward to engaging more fully with the that'. >> let me elaborate on this. in vermont, we have been trying to encourage some local generation of power. local generators have to use the wires and polls that were there before and hanhand. to some extent, these chargers remind me of the battle that we went through. it is the property of the honor on the one hand appeared on the

other hand, -- on the one hand. on the other hand, there is a necessary -- there is a necessity of not reinventing the wheel so that all of the economy can prosper. do you have any thoughts on how to thread the needle. >> that is a very perceptive question. sometimes it does come down to the nitty gritty, such as paul attachments. >> that is what it is -- such as paole attachments. >> that is what it is. with special access, for three years, i have been calling for a mapping. i want to commend the chairman for issuing a public notice so

that we can make a very informed decision on what is next. >> on the special access, i think it is time to do this. the broad band planned to seize this up -- the broad band plan tees this up. i do not think we should take forever to resolve that. i think we need to get the essential core of data we need and then go ahead and act. >> i agree with the tip of my colleagues. i think it is an example of the kind of blood and guts issue where government plays a positive role to promote investment and competition and to tackle the rules. i think there is opportunity in this issue and others were very healthy discussion and debate and to focus on the barriers in the marketplace. >> my time has expired, mr.

chairman. thank you. >> thank you very marcmuch. >> c-span.or[unintelligible] [laughter] >> you are recognized for five minutes. these are going to be -- >> these are going to be yes or no questions. webster's dictionary defines the word "voluntary" as being done, made, brought about, undertaken by one's own accord or by free choice. is that the definition that would be applied to the word open "volunteer" in the commis's

broadband plan? >> yes. >> i assume that would apply to the questions where they are talking about voluntary channel sharing and motivating the existing licenses to voluntarily vacate [unintelligible] >> yes. >> if the fcc does not receive authorization to provide incentive options or if they do not provide significant spectrum, the fcc should pursue other mechanisms. are these other mechanisms going to be voluntary? yes or no? >> i think that language speaks for itself. the other mechanisms would be

determined in the future. >> if these -- or rather, if they are not voluntary, how would they be accomplished? >> sir, that would be speculation. i focused on a near-term win- win. >> there's a concern here because everybody wants to know what this is going to constitute. would we assert that these other mechanisms would be 100% voluntary or involuntary or what? >> i would be speculating to talk about what would happen if we face a spectrum crisis in the country. >> i hope you understand that this is a point of no small importance. to all of the witnesses, this is

again a yes or no question. i apologize if this is discourteous. does the commission possess the authority, whether under the communications act of 1934, the telecommunications act of 1996, or otherwise, with which to require broadband networks to unbundle access? >> i would like to be devised by counsel. we have been focused on broadband policies. >> i will ask you to submit the for the record. >> ok. >> i would say yes. >> i would say no beard >> i would say i would submit that later. -- i would say no. >> i would say i would submit that later. >> i would say no. >> unbundling network access

would have a chilling affect on further business to expand on infrastructure. yes or no? >> i am not sure that that lends itself to yes or no because unbundling means different things to different people. >> i think that would give the same answer. the shorter answer would be "not necessarily." >> if history is our guy, yes. >> i echo mr. [unintelligible] >> yes. >> does the commission intended to require unbundled access to broadband networks? yes or no? >> again, the plan speaks for itself. it does not speak about unbundled elements. >> i cannot predict with the commission will do here. >> i can predict what the commission will do your.

>> i cannot answer at this time. >> i hope not. [laughter] >> my time is running out. mr. chairman, the plan mentions wireless services as a source of the spectrum. on february 16, 2010, i sent a letter to the commission outlining my concern that it would result in interference with satellite radio signals. can you unequivocally assure me that this will not be the case? yes or no? >> if the agency says that there is no interference, then there will be no interference. >> i did not hit the enter. >> if the engineers at the agency say that there will be no interference, then there will be no interference. >> will it allow for comment

prior to its implementation? yes or no? >> i do not see why not. that is the way we always do. >> ladies and gentlemen, they do very much. i reiterate my request for the privilege of sending a letter for further questions to the commission and have answers inserted into the record. >> thank you. the record of this hearing will remain open until such time as a letter has been sent to you containing questions that's there is members of the committee made -- questions that various members of the committee may ask. we thank you for your attendance here today and for sharing your views with us extensively. we have been here for about three and a half hours. we have certainly been enlightened by the information you have provided.

hopefully, you have been enlightened by the views we have expressed as well. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, just for the history, a letter from 2007 from this committee to the fcc about the de-block. -- the d block. we sent a letter to your predecessor recommending a similar approach. i am optimistic that congress will consider legislation encouraging them to build a public safety network. hopefully, your staff can help us draft something to implement that. >> thank you. this hearing is adjourned.

.

the hard part is exploiting and using the intelligence we are able to get. from a report issued last week, states that within central command, less than half the electronic signals collected by a predator are exploited. the report advised a shortage in analytical staffs process isr. joran mentioned limited bandwidth. challenges there. -- you already mentioned. the current structure was unsustainable. i am concerned. can you give me some idea of what dod is doing to help

coordinate services so that we match our capability with the ability to access. also, coordination within the services? >> there are two aspects. when you say that the commanders'appetite for isr is large, i would say onethat is oe of the great understatement of all time. in satiable is more like it. two things, first, we understand -- i understand very much that when we talk about isr, it is not just the platform. it is the alice, linguists, the ground station. one of the problems we had a year and a half or two years ago when we began pushing this capability to the field in megyn

kelly added numbers, was the shortage -- shortage of grounds bases. another problem that has been remedied by the air force and the army was a shortage of crews to run the uav. we are addressing those issues. we have linguists. that is a real challenge, as well as analysts. there are two bureaucratic vehicles for coordinating this effort on behalf of the department. the first and the most institutional is the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, who has complete overview of this and watches the full package, not just a platform. the other has been the special task force that i established on isr about a year-and-a-half for two years ago that has been focused on how can we get this capability to the field.

and using natalie on piloted vehicles but also we are putting a number of kin-air's in there, the mc12 liberty aircraft. we are aware of the full package. if we cannot get the stuff to the commanders in the field, it is not worth the investment. >> getting adequately analyzed would be a significant part for the course and gett -- in getting it to them in the field. orakzai went to a facility the other day and i took the canadian defense minister there. i had no idea. we talk about the commanders in the field, but with today's electronics i walk into a home that probably has 60 analysts from all over the intelligence

community in the washington area with real-time links to the uav's and other capabilities in the theater and providing information on ied networks to the theater, if so the theater does not have to do all the analysis. a lot of it can be done here with today's capabilities. there are going to be some imbalances that we have to fix. >> i appreciate you are on top of it. >> thank you very much. some of you wish to go, be my guest. [laughter] senator mccaskill. >> secretary clinton, secretary gates, good to see both of you again. so many of us have had an

opportunity to travel recently to afghanistan and recognize the challenges, the great difficulty that we face over there that the men and women serving face every day. we were in a situation -- we were down in helmand province and were able to walk through a market and felt very comfortable, given this situation. five days later there was a blast in that community eight days later as a result of suicide bombings. we recognize the volatility of the situation. a term that we heard used frequently was the deficit of trust that remains there. secretary gates has said that successfully accomplishing a training mission represents the exit strategy and the key to long-term stability in afghanistan.

but going back to the deficit of trust situation that we heard so much about, it was very clear that the people there appreciate that there is a clear choice. you can either side with the americans, who will someday leave, or you can side with the taliban, who will likely be there forever. an exit strategy is part of any military operation. what assurance are we able to give to the afghan tribal leaders to ensure that they do remain on our side of the fight, that they believe that it is more worthwhile in long-term to stay on our side of the fight? >> first, i think the thing to remember historically and culturally about many afghans is that they have been at war 30

years. the average afghan is going to come down on one side or the other only when he thinks he has spotted who is going to win. that is part of what our endeavors are about. i spoke earlier about gen. mcchrystal's first objective being to reverse the momentum of the taliban. that is in the first instance about changing the psychology of the people about who is going to win this struggle. i think that the thing also to keep in mind is that the taliban may be a vicious, but they are also incredibly unpopular in afghanistan. every reliable poll i have seen over the past couple years shows taliban support in afghanistan is around 10% or less. so these people are not fond of the taliban.

they're just intimidated by them for the most part. the key here is when we begin the process of transitioning security control to the afghans, province by province or district by district, that we have degraded the capabilities of the taliban to the point where local security forces and the afghan national army and various national police units can sustain the stability of the people. it is not that the afghan army or police are ever going to achieve the skill level of american forces. nobody in the world will ever do that is the truth of the matter. with all due respect, even to our allies. but can we degrade the capabilities and numbers of the taliban fighters to the point where the local security forces and the afghan army can keep them under control and provide the type of local security for people that is required? the way this worked is you get

the population on your side -- we saw this in on our province -- that is a self-reinforcing of security. it's the local population in on our province, once they felt they could defeat al qaeda in iraq that they began telling us where the ied's were being planted. we are beginning to see that in some places in afghanistan, where the local population is figuring maybe this will go the way the afghan government and the coalition. so they are beginning to cooperate with us and support us. it's a complex business, but having the population not necessarily just us but have confidence that their security will be protected is a mix of our capabilities over the next number of years, the capabilities of our allies, and capabilities of the afghan forces.

if not just national forces but also local security forces. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator? >> i will try to keep mine to four minutes or less because we have a vote. thanks for being here. secretary clinton, let me start with you. you have been a champion for women's rights for a long time. in afghanistan, as i understand, girls and women are doing things we take for granted in this country. they're going to school, getting jobs, and participating in the government. i would like to hear your thoughts on where that stands and if you think that is a long- term change in afghanistan or if that is still in its infancy and could go at any time. >> thank you for asking, senator. i think it's important that we use that as one of the markers for the kind of success that we

are hoping to achieve there. you are absolutely right. there has been a great deal of change in the opportunities available to women and girls. when you look at the increase in the number of young women going to school, it is dramatic. but there's still a long way to go. there are still lot of obstacles that are deeply cultural and historic. what we are looking out for is not that we can mandated a change in culture and history, but to keep the door of opportunity open and not let anything slam it shut. we are particularly concerned about the reintegration /reconciliation plans that the karzai government has undertaken. they have thus far made it clear that they are expecting people with homes they reconciled to abide by the laws and constitution of afghanistan --

people with whom they reconciled. >> the u.n. office of growth and crime estimates corruption comprises 25% of afghanistan's ddp. when i see a number like that, it is obviously shocking. and it also makes me realize that we need to be very careful in how we are spending u.s. tax dollars in afghanistan. when it comes to accountability for foreign aid there, could you give us a status report for things your department is doing to try to make sure there is sufficient accountability? >> senator, we are increasing our support for our inspector general. we are also adding more auditors in order to keep track of funding. we are surviving in the afghan

government entity that would receive any of our funding, to be clear that it is managing those funds in the way that we find acceptable. we are working to put people into those agencies. so we are taking a lot of prophylactic steps. corruption is a deeply ingrained problem. we just have to be very vigilant about making sure that we are not caught up in that. >> thank you, madam secretary. mr. chairman. >> senator specter? >> [inaudible] i propose to use it to raise a number of questions. there is hardly time for questions and answers within four minutes and i understand the limitations we have.

first question i have relates to a report in the washington post yesterday where general petraeus is quoted as saying that "the conflict foments anti- american sentiment due to a perception of u.s. favoritism towards israel. the commentary issuggested u.s. military officials embracing the idea that failure to resolve the conflict had begun to imperil american lives. that is obviously very serious. my question which i would like you to respond to is what evidence is there for

[unintelligible] also, the expense of war in afghanistan, the question of success in afghanistan is very much open. i think it's going very well and i commend what is going on at the present time. i've recently been there with other colleagues. the question on my mind, when all kited could organize somewhere else like yemen or somalia or somewhere else, why fight in afghanistan where it is so costly and where the soviets and the brits, going back to alexander the great, there is not an success?

third area of questioning is what is happening with pakistan and india. there have been some suggestions there could be a cooling of the tension, which might relieve a number of boxes on military -- a number of bocka pakistani military. the prime minister of india was explicit, saying that he would like to see a lessening of tensions oand the soldiers released, but there would have to be cooperation with the pakistan government. he thought it was realistic.

it's their creation. there's a real prospect of that, there may be more pakistani soldiers showing inclination to help us, then that would impact the picture very decisively. the area of sanctions is a very difficult one against iran. we've been discussing that for a long time in a lot of projects. there is no simplistic answer. the question that i get consistently involves where we are going, whether there are military options on the table. everybody says it's not acceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon. if president obama drew a line in the sand in december, hard to be specific about lines in the

sand, but that was my sense of it and the sense of a number of people. so the question is what is it going to take? is it constantly moving position by china? i don't envy you having to deal with china or russia. congratulations on what appears to be a breakthrough on nuclear weapons, but what are we looking for? there was talk about bringing them to their knees if we got tough on financial matters. looks like that could go on indefinitely. [laughter] >> i beg to differ. >> you have a question. >> i do. >> i have proposed those areas of concern.

my request would be for you to respond on the record as opposed to answering the question in these only four minutes i had. >> thanks for your service. thanks for taking the job, secretary clinton. thank you, secretary gates. a graduate of the grade school in wichita, kan. that i attended. doing so well in the top floors we are fighting -- tough wars we are fighting. gates'experience is limited to a tough area in kansas that i left when i was 12. thanks very much. >> to another kansan. >> [unintelligible] >> we are going to make the rest of the country kansas. mr. chairman, secretary gates was kansan of the year this

year. his mother was at a ceremony. she was very proud of her son. we all workere, for everything you have done. and you gave a beautiful speech, a touching moment. a couple of things i wanted to raise with you. secretary gates in particular. this is the old one you are familiar with, very familiar with, the tanker contract. what i have been reading is the airbus is asking for it an extension of your rfp time. for them to make another bid at this. i've been reading throughout the european press that presidents are sarkozy and others are

concerned there would not to bi d. i would hope the timeline not be extended foray bid to be put forward by eads. have you made a decision on that? the last i heard was you were reviewing that. >> that is correct. we have had some informal -- as best i am up-to-date --we have had informal questions from eads about it. i think they are going to do a letter to us. i have not seen that letter. i don't know if it's been received and the department. we will look at it. as i told the house appropriations committee, defense subcommittee yesterday, we will not change the requirements. we are buying the best planes

for the air force and to meet air force needs. and so, we will look at this letter. believe me, no one is more eager to get on with this than im. >> but no decisions made to extend the time deadline? >> no. >> i would urge you to stay with the current time deadline. this thing has gone on far enough. it's time to move on. you've also seen the wto has recently ruled in favor of the u.s. that the airplane theeads has proposed -- the airplane that eads has proposed to bid was illegal. >> i've just been handed a note of late breaking news. we have received the letter requesting an extension from eads, so we will look at it. >> my vote is no on this, that

we not extend it, and certainly not off the french president's concern. the very thing they're going to bid whitith is the thing that knocked several of our big companies out. it's been 20-years of litigation that we've just one and they've driven down our shares in the commercial market cities. now they want to take it into the military airplanes base. i see no reason to conceded this to the europeans and particularly because they have been cheating on subsidize aircraft and cheating on commercial market share. i noticed yesterday you said, whether or not the current dod law prevents you from addressing the illegal subsidy issue. you said that you were not required or there's no basis to

include it. if i could get a final point on that. you understand current law would prohibit dod from addressing the illegal subsidy issue or are you saying no provision requires dod to account for illegal subsidies? >> i think we are prohibited. but let me get you an accurate answer for the record. >> ok, if you could. finally, general caldwell, working with afghan training forces, that looks like to me paramount for us, looking at an exit strategy in afghanistan. do you have any idea on time frames of when you think you'll have sufficient afghan troops stood up for us to be able to pull down? >> i think it's got to be a gradual process. like we saw in iraq, as an example, when the marines first went into the south last summer,

the partnering with the afghans was about nine americans for every afghan. now in the marja operation is three americans for every two afghans. as they train them, those capabilities will grow. i think that in some ways the way to look at the process that we will use is very similar to that, that we used in iraq. it's more a transition that a transfer. the afghans are with us and we are the leads. at a certain point we will partner and then they will be in the lead. then we will withdraw to a tactical or watch and then a strategic over what. this multi phase approach is the way we did province by province in iraq. it worked well. i think gen. mcchrystal has the same process in mind.

we don't need the afghan army to be fully trained at the same time all over the country. we will do it province by province. i think that he is pretty optimistic that we can make this work. >> over two years to ? five to >> as th -- over two yes to five years? >> we will begin the first transfer in july of 2011. from that point we will decide on a province by province basis, based on the conditions on the ground. i expect that to take some time. >> thank you. >> senator? >> thank you. i had a brief shining moment when i might be in your position and it was a wonderful feeling, however fleetingly it

passed. secretary gates, i have read a lot of press reports recently that describe our marines as extremely frustrated with their afghan counterparts. i must say that i have been surprised at that, because i have always had an image of the afghans as being very good fighters and very effective fighters, but there have been two major stories that suggest the marines are so concerned that the shortcomings of the afghan soldiers could undermine our joint effort in the region. could you give me your assessment of whether these reports are valid and whether the afghans, themselves, have the desire and the skills to

succeed in the fight? >> in terms of answering the last question first, this is actually one of the principal reasons, senator, why i came around to the view that it was important to set a time when we would begin to transfer or transition to afghan security control. they need to know this is their fight and that they are going to have to assume responsibility for it and not at some distant unknown date, but beginning next year. between that and the pay raises we saw last november, if we have seen a significant increase in recruitment in afghanistan for the afghan army and the police. retention has improved significantly in the army, but still a problem in the police. but they need to know that this

is going to be their fight at some point. i think they are taking that on board. the feedback i've gotten, i have not heard complaints from gen. mcchrystal or the commander in the south, donald carter, about the quality of the afghan troops. i must say it, as i mentioned in my opening statement, i went to a camp outside kabul a couple weeks ago where the afghan army is being trained and the americans that i spoke with were pretty impressed with them. by the same token, when i spoke to our troops, i've got mixed reviews. some of them say that they are really good fighters and really good partners and are very impressed with them. that was certainly the case nawaz, where i toward the marketplace. security is a lot better there,

but i had no illusions as to the security that was around because i was there. on the other hand, others are not as impressed. and so, i think it is a mixed picture, but in terms of the views of the commanders who have a view of the entire battle space, they are very impressed with the quality of the afghan national army and they believe it's making good progress. >> thank you. secretary clinton, when i was last in afghanistan, the most common complaint i heard from our military personnel was the lack of a civilian surge. i know you commented earlier today that we have increased the number of civilians to do the civilian counterpart that is so essential to the

counterinsurgency strategy. could you give us these updates because i just got a notice my time is expired, telling us your level of satisfaction in meeting the requirements for civilian employees? >> yes, senator, and thank you. we have roughly quadrupled the number of numberin a year -- the number of civilians in a year. they are in kabul working with the government of afghanistan and they are out in the country. they are imbedded with our military, so they move with our military. they are working closely to leverage their presence. you know, we don't have battalions of civilians. it is a much smaller number in comparison to our military forces, but each one beverages on average about 10 other civilians.

ngo's partnering with civilians from other countries who are there as part of a government commitment, partnering with united nations, hiring afghans, partnering with afghans. one of the examples i was going to give, if senator bond had asked, on agriculture. as soon as the marines secured marja, civilians began to go out. they have a program called the afghanistan vouchers for increased production in agriculture. they have distributed 7000 vouchers for fertilizers, new seeds, trellises for grapes. it's that kind of intensive work on the ground if that does not take a lot of civilians, it takes the right kind of civilians. we have usda agriculture

experts. we have people from national guard units who have expertise in agriculture. so we are leveraging the presence of our civilians and we will probably be adding more, but we want to be sure that where we add to them is critical to the mission. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. madam secretary, mr. secretary, this afternoon we have focused our attention on afghanistan and iraq. i believe we focused our resources there also. however, we have been receiving disturbing news of the deteriorating conditions in somalia and that somalia is becoming a safe haven for all kai eial qaeda. my question is do we have sufficient resources to counter

the somali als shabab? is that becoming a threat to us, the somalia situation? >> go-ahead? >> [inaudible] senator, we are working very hard to in our civilian military cooperation with the aim of trying to bolster the transitional federal government in somalia, which does not have a lot of scope of authority. it is basically confined to a parts of mogadishu. our main source of support is the african union troops,

primarily from uganda, that are providing a lot of the logistical and back of support as tomthe somali's need. al shabab is a threat. it's more a into a sort of a al qaeda junior partner over the last year. but there is a growing sense that many of the somaliland's themselves are no longer willing to be intimidated by or give in to al shabab. they have been extremely brutal in their treatment of people. a lot of temptations and other kind of very barbaric punishments. they have stolen and diverted food aid and prevented it from getting to the people. so there's a gradual growth of opposition internally in

somalia. but clearly our support for the african union mission and the additional help that our military is providing in terms of training is critical to the survival of the nascent government there,e in our hope that we can gain more ground. >> ? > >> mr. chairman, i would like to thank our witnesses, the secretaries, for being here and tell us understand what we need funding for. i've been impressed with your testimony and your leadership in the department's. >> thank you. now the committee stands in recess.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, an online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. yen-hsun up for our scheduled alert e-mails at c-span.org. >> president obama made a surprise visit to afghanistan, his first visit to that country since becoming president. if he met with president karzai and announced the afghan president will visit washington in may. president obama also spoke to some of the air force and other troops at bagram -- president obama spoke to some of the tubes at bagram air force base. this is about 20 minutes. >> ♪ [a march playing]

[applause] >> how's it going, bagram? [applause]

well, you know, it turns out that the american people let me use this plane called air force one, and so i thought i would come over and say hello. [applause] a couple of people i want to thank in addition to sergeant major eric johnson for the outstanding introduction and for this service. i want to thank major general mike scaparrotti for his outstanding work. i want to thank ms. dawn liberi for her outstanding work. and brigadier general steven kwast, commander of the 455th

air expeditionary wing. thank you all for your outstanding service. give them a big round of applause. [applause] thank you for the unbelievable welcome. i know this is all short notice. >> no worries. [laughter] >> its great to be at bagram and it's great to see all the services. we've got air force, we've got army, we've got navy, we've got some marines in the house. [applause] and we have a lot of civilians here too, making an outstanding contribution. i am honored to be joined by america's outstanding civilian military leadership team.

ambassador karl eikenberry is doing outstanding work. the commander of our 43-nation coalition gen. stanley mcchrystal as well. the two of them together have paired up to do an extraordinarily difficult task, but they are doing it extraordinarily well and we are proud of them. please give your outstanding team a big round of applause. they've got my full confidence and my full support. [applause] we are also joined by troops from some of our coalition partners, because this is not simply an american mission or even just a nato mission. al qaeda and their extremist allies are a threat to the people of afghanistan and the threat to the people of america, but they're also a threat to people all around the world, and that is why were so proud to have our coalition partners with us. thank you very much for the great work you do. we salute you and we honor you

saw all the sacrifices. you are a true friend to the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] we also salute the members of the afghan w national theho are fighting alongside you. -- afghan national army fighting alongside you. our intent is to make sure the afghans have the capacity to provide for their own security. if that is core to our mission. we are proud of the work they're doing the and the unticontinued increased support. thanks for taking control of stability in your own country. to the afghan people, i am honored to be a guest in your country. the afghans have suffered for

decades. decades of war. but we are here to help afghans forge a hard-won peace, while realizing the extraordinary potential of the afghan people. the afghan sons and daughters. the soldiers, the police, farmers, young students. we want to build a lasting partnership founded on mutual interests and mutual respect. i look forward to returning to afghanistan many times in the years to come. for most of you, you did not get a lot of notice i was coming, but i want you to understand there is no visit i consider more important than this visit i am making right now. because i have no greater honor than serving as your commander- in-chief. and it is a privilege to look out and see extraordinary efforts of america's sons and daughters here in afghanistan. so my main job here today is to

say thank you on behalf of the entire american people. [applause] you are parts of the finest military in the history of the world and we are proud of you. and so i want you to know that everybody back home is proud of you. everybody back home is grateful. and everybody understands the sacrifices that you have made and your families have made to keep america safe and to keep america secure in this vital mission. i know it's not easy. you are far away from home. you miss your kids. you miss your spouses, your family, your friends. some of you, this is your second or your third or fourth tour of duty. i'll tell you right now the same

thing that i said at west point last december. if i thought for a minute that america is vital interests were not served, were not at stake here in afghanistan, i would order all of you home right away. so i want you to know, i want every american serving in afghanistan, military and civilian, to know, whether you're working the flight line here at bagram or patrolling a village down in helmand province, you're standing watch at a for operating base or training our afghan partners or working with the afghan government, your services are absolutely necessary, absolutely essential to america's safety and security. for those folks back home are relying on you. we cannot forget why we year. we did not choose this war. this was not an act of america

wanting to expand its influence, of us wanting to meddle in somebody else's business. we were attacked viciously on 91/11. thousands of our fellow countrymen and women were killed. this is a region where the perpetrators of that crime, al qaeda, still base their leadership, plotting against our homeland, plots against our allies, plots against the afghan and pakistani people are taking place as we speak. if this region slides backwards, if the taliban retakes this country and all kai eide can operate with impunity, then more american lives will be at stake. the afgha -- if all kai eid qae

operate with impunity. as long as i'm commander-in- chief i'm not going to let that happen. that's why you are here. i've made a promise to all of you serving that i will never send you into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. i anguish in thinking about the sacrifices that so many of you make. that is i i promise i will never send you out unless it is necessary. but that is only part of a promise. because the other part of the promise is that when it is absolutely necessary, you will be backed up by a clear mission and the right strategy and you will have the support to finish the job, to get the job done. and i am confident all of you are going to get the job done right here in afghanistan. i am confident of that. [applause]

that's why i ordered more troops and civilians here into afghanistan shortly after taking office. that's why we took a hard look and forged a new strategy and committed more resources in december. that's why we pushed our friends and allies and partners to pony up more resources themselves, more commitments of aid, and additional forces and trainers. our broad mission is clear. we are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy all kai ei qaeda and its extremt allies. we are going to deny them safe haven. were going to reverse the taliban's momentum. you're going to strengthen the capacity of afghan security forces and the afghan government so they can begin taking

responsibility and gain the confidence of the afghan people. our strategy includes a military effort that takes the fight to the taliban while creating conditions for greater security and a transition to the afghans, but also a civilian effort that improves the daily lives of the afghan people. and combats corruption. a partnership with pakistan and its people, because we cannot uproot extremists and advance security and opportunity unless we succeed on both sides of the border. most of you understand that. many of the tubes that i ordered to a afghanistan have begun to arrive. more are on the way. we will continue to work with congress to make sure you have the equipment that you need. -- more troops are on the way. we are providing more helicopters and reconnaissance capabilities, more special operations forces, more armored

vehicles that can save lives. in afghanistan you have gone on the offensive. the american people back home are noticing. we have seen a huge increase in support istateside, because people understand the kind of sacrifices you guys are making and the clarity of mission you are bringing to bear. together with our coalition and afghan partners, our troops have pushed the taliban out of their strongholds in marja. we've changed the way we operate and interact with the afghan people. we see afghans reclaiming their communities. we see new partnerships that will help them build their own future and increase their security. across the border pakistan is mounting major offensives. we've seen violent extremists pushed out of their sanctuaries. we are struck major blows against al qaeda leadership.

it's harder for them to train an attack and plot and all that makes america safer. we're going to keep them on the run because that is what will be required in order to ensure that our families back home have the security they need. that is the work you are doing. thanks to you, there's been progress these last several months. we know there are going to be difficult days ahead. there will be setbacks. we face a determined enemy. we also know that's the united states of america does not quit once it starts on something [applause] . you do not quit. the american armed services do not quit. we keep at it, we persevere. together with our partners, we will prevail. i am absolutely confident of that. [applause] i also want you to know that as

you are doing your duty, we're going to do right by you back home. you're going to help take care of your families. that is why the first lady michelle obama visited with military families to make sure. their needs sure. that is why she stays after me when i'm back home at the white house. we're going to make sure we are continuing to improve your pay and benefits as well as child care support and make sure you have a little security knowing your family is being looked after back home. we will be there for you when you come home. that's why we are improving care for the wounded warriors, especially those with piech yazdi and traumatic brain injuries. we are moving forwar-- whith pt. we've made the biggest increase

in the va budget because we're going to keep our sacred trust. you have been with us year after year. at a time when many american institutions have let us down, when many institutions have put short-term gain in front of a commitment to duty and a commitment to what's right, you have met your responsibilities. you've done your duty. not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. that is why you have inspired your fellow americans. that is why you inspire me. that is why you have earned your place next to the very greatest of american generations. all of you represent the virtues and values that america so desperately needs right now. sacrifice and selflessness,

honor, and decency. that is what i see here today. that is what you represent. i see your sense of service, moving forward in a time of danger. i've seen it from the marines i've met at camp lejeune, the cadets at west point, a midshipman at annapolis, the troops i met in iraq at the bases across america and afghanistan as well. i have seen your courage and heroism. the story of a young sergeant first class named jared who gave his life in afghanistan to save his fellow soldiers, whose parents i'm proud to present with our nation's highest military declaration, the medal of honor. i see your tenacity. [applause]

and determination in our wounded warriors at walter reed. americans fighting to stand together and to walk again and to get back with their units. incredible dedication, incredible focus. incredible pride. i have been humbled by your sacrifice. in the solemn homecoming at dover, and at arlington where the fallen rest in peace alongside the fellow heroes of america is stored. in afghanistan each of you is part of an unbroken line of american service members who

have sacrificed over two centuries. you are protecting your fellow citizens from danger. you are serving alongside old allies and new friends. you are bringing hope and opportunity to people who have known a lot of pain and suffering. i know that sometimes when you are watching tv the politics back home may look a little messy and people are yelling and hollering and democrats this and republicans that. i want you to understand this, there is no daylight when it comes to support of all of you. there is no daylight when it comes to supporting our troops. that brings us together. we are all incredibly proud. we all honor what you do. all of you show america was possible when people get together not based on color or

creed, not based on faith or station, but based on a commitment to serve together, to succeed together, to bleed together as one people, as americans. make no mistake, this fight matters to us. it matters to us and our allies. it matters to the afghan people. al qaeda and the violent extremists want to destroy us. but all of you want to build. that is something essential about america. they have no respect for human life. if you see dignity in every human being. if that is part of what we value as americans. if they want to drive religions and races apart. you want to see the world move forward together. they are for cear and you are for hope -- they are for fear. that's why it's important you know the entire country stands behind you.

that's why you put on that uniform. in an uncertain world, the united states of america will always stand up for the security of nations and the dignity of human beings. that is so we are, that is what we do. much has happened to our country and to the world since 9/11. i'm confident that so long as brave men and women like you, americans willing to serve selflessly half a world away on behalf of their fellow citizens and the dreams of people they have never met, so long as there are folks like you, i am confident the nation will endure and will hopefully overcome fear. i am confident better days lie ahead. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states armed forces. god bless the united states of america. [applause]

>> ♪ [ a march playing] rohrbaug [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .