if the community cannot back up on its feet, one-third of the businesses will go belly up. they simply do not have the capital to get that started. that will be the death of the community. if you're using schools as shelter, how you get kids back to school? it becomes critical in this thinking. what we are rolling out, and we plan to announce in the summit we are doing which are five communities, annapolis and anne arundel county, and essentially do a dry run of this effort so these communities can say, "this is an hard. other communities can do this , too."

we spend time talking about homeland security as something the federal government needs to do for us. they have responsibility to deal with threats and dangers, but have we asked what we can do for ourselves? have we invested in that? every generation of americans from those who were here, to those who landed in virginia, massachusetts, have fought diversity and overcame it. they have instilled confidence in shaping the future, not because they avoided risk but because they confronted it and never came. that is what we need to nurture again. we can do this in very meaningful ways. on infrastructure, there are practical things we can do to ensure that come out when stressed, it will bend ideally and not break. we need to map that. >> we need to know what they are. we need to see the interdependency is from one to

another. it is not happening at the national level. we do not see things at the national level. it is something that governors and mayors have to be on the front lines on. >> thank you very much, dr. flynn. we look forward to working with you. i think this is a tremendous opportunity as you have underscored for governors to honor the sacrifices that so many people have made it to make our homeland more secure at the borders, ports, afghanistan, iraq, police, and our departments by harnessing that american spirit so that we can become a more resilient nation. we are going to be dealing with this sort of threat for the perceivable future, for a couple of generations. you have summed it up very well. we need to confront the risk and overcome it. the executive committee in committee leaders will need to establish overarching policy for

the national governors association. following that meeting, the committee will begin work to consolidate, revise, and align our policies for the priorities set by the executive committee. it is our hope that we will be but to build a consensus around key principles, like resilience, that can guide our advocacy efforts and better inform not only our federal lawmakers of the issues but do a better job of informing our citizens of the things that we can do as a free people to make our homeland more secure. the executive committee, we have agreed to allow all policies up for consideration for new policies and process, whatever that means, and we will discuss it at that time. once the new policy is in place, the nba is not precluded from engaging on that issue.

-- the nga is not precluded. this is an ongoing process. i have spoken to other governors and they have said that we continue to have the special committee, but just for another year. hopefully we will have police secured the homeland and 12 months and we will get back to you on our progress. we forge ahead. anyway. are there any questions regarding the policy process? i have them, but i am prepared to arrest them offline and not with c-span. hearing none, we move forward for the consideration remembering those who responded to the terrorist attacks of the 9/11. drafting this resolution began this past spring with the status advisory committee of the special committee on safety. consensus was reached. in order to prepared for consideration today, the nga

does not offer consider resolutions, but this is one on which we can all agree, especially as we approach the teachable moment of reflection and a moment to inspire greater action because of the sacrifices made on 9/11. governor, is there a motion to adopt? >> i move approval of the resolution. >> a second. all in favor? all opposed? the motion passes and is complete this meeting. i want to thank both of our guests for testifying. thank you for your tremendous work you do for our country. thank you both very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> routing up this session led by gov. martin o'malley and the governor of arizona. the associated press reports they are accusing gop negotiators to be damaging debt talks. we will bring you more news out of this session again tonight at around 10:15 p.m. eastern.

more live coverage of salt lake city tomorrow for the closing session of the conference with author and "the new york times" thomas thomas friedman and the washington governor. she will be our guest on "newsmakers" with the governor's view on the debate of raising the debt ceiling and the challenges of leading a state during a recession tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. lawmakers in washington remain on call this week and for more talks on reducing the deficit and raising the government debt ceiling. in his weekly address, president obama says congress should be willing to compromise on spending and some tax increases. in the republican address, senator hatch urges his colleagues to pass a balanced budget amendment. >> today, there is a debate going on in the washington over the best way to get america's fiscal hasen in order and get our economy and a stronger

footing going forward. for one decade, america has been spending more money than we have taken in. for several decades, our debt has been rising. let's be honest. either party is blameless. we have talked the issue to death without doing anything about it. this is what drives people nuts about washington. they're more concerned about playing politics and in serving special interests and resolving the real problems are focusing on what we're facing in our own lives. right now, we have a responsibility and an opportunity to reduce our deficit as much as possible and solve this problem in a real and comprehensive way. simply put, it will take a balanced approach, shared sacrifice, and a willingness to make unpopular choices on all of our parts. that means spending less on domestic programs, spending less on defense, reporting programs like medicare to reduce costs and strengthen the program for

future generations. and it means taking on the tax code and cutting out certain tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest americans. some of these things did not meet people in my party to happen and i would not agree if we were in a better fiscal situation, but we are not. that is why i am willing to compromise. i am willing to do what it takes to solve this problem even though it is not politically popular. i expect leaders in congress to show that some willingness to compromise. it the truth is you cannot solve our deficit without cutting spending. you also cannot solve it without asking the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share or without taking on all the polls to give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class americans do not get. it is pretty simple. i do not think oil companies should continue to get big tax breaks when they make tens of billions in profits. i do not think hedge fund managers should pay taxes at a lower rate than their

secretaries. i do not think it is fair to ask nothing of someone like me when the average family sees their income decline over the last decade. when many of you are just trying to stretch every $1 as far as it will go. we should not put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of people who have already borne the brunt of this recession. it is not reasonable and it is not right. if we are going to have seniors, students, middle-class americans to separate, then we have to ask corporations and wealthy americans to share. we have to ask everyone to play their part because we are all a part of the same country. we are all in this together. i have put things on the table important to me and democrats, and i expect republican leaders to do the same. after all, we have worked together like this before. ronald reagan worked with tip o'neill to raise revenues and reform social security. bill clinton worked with newt gingrich to balance the budget and create a surplus.

nobody ever got everything that they wanted, but eventually they worked together and they moved this country forward. it is that kind of cooperation that should be the least you expect from us, not the most. you work hard. you do what is right. you expect leaders to do the same. you sent us to washington to do the tough things, the right things, not just for some of us but for all. not just enough to get through the next election, but what is right for the next generation. you expect us to get this right, to put america back on a firm economic ground, to forge a healthy, growing economy, to create new jobs and rebuild the middle class. that is what i am committed to doing. thanks. >> the morning. i am senator orrin hatch of utah. we are in the midst of the debate about the size, scope, and shape of our national

government. it is a debate over whether we act responsibly so our children and grandchildren are not left carrying the burden of unsustainable debt. while the details of this debate change daily, the fundamentals are clear. president obama and his democratic allies refuse to come up with a legitimate plan to confront our runaway spending that has left our country over $14 trillion in debt. he refuses to reform the bankrupt entitlement programs, all while pushing job killing tax hikes. we have been down this road before and republicans will not go down it again. in 1990, congress and the president struck a deficit reduction deal that combined spending cuts with tax increases. unfortunately, while the taxes remained come in the spending strength did not and the debt has only moved higher. the solution to a spending crisis is not tax increases coming in washington is consistently demonstrating that

they cannot control their urge to spend. that is why the only long-term solution is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. only by restoring constitutional restraint on the ability of congress to spend in constrain the growth of the federal government. think about every dark as the picture would be if we had passed one in 1997. the balanced budget amendment of the constitution that i introduced was defeated by just one vote in the u.s. senate. instead of sending the amendment to the states for ratification and addressing the need for its fiscal balance, 14 years later, our nation faces a debt crisis of the proportions. our national debt has gone from $5 trillion in 1997 to over $14 trillion today. that is more than $45,000 for every man, woman, and child. the debt keeps growing. according to the non budget

scorekeepers at the cbo, the nation's debt could reach an astonishing 101% of gdp in a decade. with interest payments, that could reach over $1 trillion per year. the situation has only gotten worse after the obama administration, in its first two years in office, discretionary spending has skyrocketed by 84% including the failed stimulus which had spending reaching 25% of our nation's economic output. we have not seen spending levels that high since world war ii. our economy continues to flounder and families across utah and all of america are forced to cut back among washington refuses to make the tough choices to bring down our massive debt. they know we need immediate spending cuts. they know we need to cap spending. they know we need a balanced

budget amendment. next week, we have an opportunity to set things right. in the senate, all 47 republican senators back a balanced budget amendment i have introduced with my colleagues that would require the president to submit and congress to pass a balanced budget every year. most importantly, it limits spending to 18% of gdp and requires a supermajority in both houses to raise taxes. unfortunately, last week, the white house dismissed a balanced budget amendment saying it would not be good for the economy and that our debt is not a constitutional issue. the american people know better. a balanced budget amendment is the solution and our debt is definitely a constitutional issue. after all, the constitution belongs to the people who determine what is a constitutional issue, not the white house.

if the debt is not a constitutional issue, why is it that every state of the union, except vermont, has a balanced amendment? this strong work reform would put us on a path to fiscal health and would prevent this white house, or any future winehouse, for forcing more debt on the american people. the only reason this administration does not want a balanced budget amendment is because they want to keep spending your money. the only reason they would refuse to pass it is because they know the people would rise up and quickly ratify. a balanced budget amendment makes sense. it's time has more than come. now, congress must act. thank you for listening and may god continue to bless america. >> at the russian foreign minister met with the secretary of state hillary clinton to sign documents for stricter

adoption rules. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you very much, and again this is a pleasure for me to welcome the foreign minister back to washington. we have had a very constructive day of conversation. before i began on what we have discussed, i want to say a few words about today's bombings in mumbai, india. we condemn these disparate -- despicable acts of violence designed to provoke fear. those who perpetrated them must know they cannot succeed. the indian people have suffered from acts of terrorism before, and we have seen them respond with courage and resilience. we are continuing to monitor the situation including the safety and security of american citizens. at our hearts are with the

victims and their families. we have reached out to the indian government to express our condolences and offer support. i will be traveling to india next week as planned. i believe it is more important than ever that we stand with india, dig deep, and reaffirm our commitment to the shared struggle against terrorism. neither of our countries, the russian federation or the united states, are unfortunately strangers to terrorism. it has been a mutual goal of both of our presidents to increase our cooperation in order to prevent terrorists from wreaking their violence on innocent russians, americans, and others come and to bring those who do so to justice.

we want to add our condolences for those that were on the boat. there have been suffering the terrible loss of children. let me begin by saying that the past 2.5 years has been a time of great strides in the relationship between our countries. we have signed a historic arms control treaty and have opened a vital new air and land supply route to afghanistan. we are cooperating on addressing the nuclear threats and working to coordinate our diplomatic approach to libya, consulting closely with the changes unfolding in the middle east. across the world, we are not only working bilaterally but multi-laterally on it so many issues from counter-terrorism to non-proliferation. our challenge now is to

continue and maintain the momentum in order to deliver more results for our people. to that end, we discussed missile defense cooperation. i believe we do have an opportunity to address common challenges in a way to make russians coming europeans come and americans safer. we're committed to working with both russia and our nato allies to do so. we also, of course, discussed the broader range of issues on which we're cooperating beyond security and arms control. for example, we strongly support russia's exception to the world trade organization. the membership will allow us to deepen our economic ties. this is a high priority and a priority for president obama and the administration as a part of our broader global effort to promote economic competition.

we also discussed the increasing emphasis within russia on democracy. we obviously, as i have said many times, as our presidents have discussed, support the rights of russian civil society to assemble land speak freely, four russian journalists to report on official actions, and to work independently to uphold the rule of law. i am especially pleased that we were able to reach several new agreements. first, we are signing an agreement on into country adoptions. we take very seriously the safety and security of children that are adopted by american parents. this agreement provides new and important safeguards to protect them. it increases transparency for all parties involved in the adoption process. i want to thank senator mary landrieu in the senate as well

as congresswoman bass who are present with us. second, the negotiators have concluded a peace agreement. we think this is especially important so people can travel between our two countries over 36 months on a single visa. this is a big deal for those doing business and we are laying the groundwork for even more trade and travel. third, we exchanged diplomatic notes on plutonium management and disposition which brings forth a protocol that survey and i signed last year -- sergei and i discuessed to throw away the equivalent of the 17 nuclear weapons. we are renewing the protocol on the effects of radiation which

allows our scientists to collect and analyze data as well as the cancer risks that come with exposure to radiation. our national aviation agencies signed an air navigation services agreement that will increase air traffic control corporation, and hanson permission sharing, and ultimately make even more air traffic between our countries even safer. this relationship now involves cooperation in many different areas. the bilateral presidential commission that president obama and medvedev began, we have the honor of a code-sharing and it has emerged as an important vehicle for pursuing our common interests. we are very committed to continuing to move our relationship forward. again, i thank the minister for the excellent work that we have

done together. >> we have two questions on the american side and two on the russian side. first on the american side, please? >> thank you very much. a question on both. york branch counterpart says that colonel gaddafi is looking for a way out of libya. there are reports he is running out of resources. can you tell us if you know anything about him being on the ropes? is there any thing in place that would get him out of the country? the question for the minister is on syria. can you explain why russia has blocked action in the u.n. to condemn the syrian government for the crackdown on protesters in syria? is now not time with more than 1000 people killed? thank you. >> that is three questions. >> that is the way that it is.

let me take the when you directed at me for libya. the foreign minister and i discussed, at length, and compared notes on our respective diplomacy and we very much appreciate the diplomatic work that russia is doing for their special envoy. we are still getting contradictory signals from colonel khadafy's camp. he has yet to meet the lines set by the international community to see some violence against his people, withdraw his forces, and step down from power. although neither of us can predict to you the exact day or our that gaddafi will leave power, we do understand and agree that his days are numbered. we will continue to work closely with our international partners, including russia, to increase pressure on him and his regime. we will keep looking for a way

to achieve a ceasefire and military action, give the libyan people a chance to plot their own way forward, and i think both the survey and i believe that the u.n. needs to be in the lead helping to organize the international community so that we are ready when that finally happens. [speaking russian; no translation]

[speaking russian]

[speaking russian]

[speaking russian] >> next on the russian side, channel 1 tv. >> [speaking russian]

>> [speaking russian] [no translation]

[speaking russian]

>> the only thing i'm a dad in addition to my thanks to the minister and the ministry of foreign affairs and the other russian government agencies that have worked on the is that i think it was a useful process to share our perspectives and look for answers to common problems. we both want the same outcomes. we want all children, whether they be russian or american, to be able to have a loving homes with families that will take good care of them. the united states wants to be sure that we meet all the concerns that the russian side raised, and i do believe we have. >> reuters. >> yesterday at the russian embassy, you describe that approach towards iran on the nuclear issue, one that you

called a step by step process whereby the iranians might take steps to redress some of the iaea concerns and the p5 + 1 would ease the pressure of sanctions. can you give us details on the types of steps he would like to take the iranians take under such an approach? secretary clinton, can you address the possibility of easing sanctions early in the process? historically, i think the administration has been reluctant to do that because of the feeling that to do so would be to give up your leverage at the start of negotiations. >> [speaking russian] [no translation]

[speaking russian]

[no translation] [speaking russian]

[speaking russian] >> as the minister said, we share the same goal and we have worked together with others to achieve that goal of preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. we will be spending -- sending a team of consultants to work with russian experts to discuss ways we can move forward. i have said we are concerned by the failure of the responses thus far to hire

representatives and the resistance of iran by iaea of further access regarding military related activities. nevertheless, we are committed to the dual track of pressure and engagement. we want to explore with the russians ways that we can pursue more effective engagement of that strategy. >> last question from the russians' side. >> [speaking russian] >> [speaking russian]

[no translation] >> that is absolutely right. we're very pleased about this step forward to greater be sold legalization between our countries and i look forward to all the christmas travel. thank you all very much. [applause]

>> consumer charges before the fcc. >> and we welcome back to "the communicators" robert mcdowell, the lone republican commissioner on the federal communications commission. also joining us of this half hour is amy schatz who covers telecommunication issues for "the wall street journal." commissioner, let's start there. what's it like to be the lone republican on the fcc at this point? has it made a difference? >> well, first of all, over 90% of what the fcc does is not only bipartisan but unanimous, so it's probably one of the least partisan pieces of washington, d.c., that you can find. so the party label doesn't mean a whole lot. i've been there, i guess, the second longest out of all the commissioners with commissioner cox having been there almost 10 years. i've been there a little over 5. so that gives you some institutional memory to work with, but i think since commissioner baker left, i'm trying to think if i've cast a dissenting vote, maybe i have, but i don't remember what it was at this point. >> has there been movement for another republican commissioner? >> i don't know.

all i know is what i've read in the newspapers, and i understand that maybe there has been as well as on the democrat's side. >> to replace mr. cox? >> correct. those would be paired up so it's easier for them to travel through the confirmation process, but i don't have any sort of first hand knowledge. one would hope that if that's going to happen that it would happen some time in the fall. >> let's talk about some of the issues at the fcc, and the congress, and that the country is looking at right now. if we could begin with the security of cell phones, and given what is happening in the u.k. now, both the chairman of the homeland security committee here in the states, peter king, and jay rockerfeller, commerce committee chair, have called for an investigation into hacking. if this comes over to the states, will the fcc have a role in looking at the security of cell phones?

>> well, if there is wire tapping that's going on anywhere for any reason by anybody, it's illegal. it's a criminal matter, so law enforcement agencies would be the best to be tasked with looking into it. certainly congress can do it's own investigation, as well. if there's a violation of an fcc rule then we should look at it. right now we don't have any evidence of any wrongdoing by anybody regarding recent headlines that i know of, but should evidence be presented to us and it is within our jurisdiction, then certainly we should examine it. >> do you agree with the congress that there should be an investigation? >> i subscribe to the notion that congress tells me what to do. i don't tell congress what to do. so if there are members of congress who want an investigation, they are free to conduct their own and the commission should abide by it's own processes. if there's evidence of wrongdoing by anybody, any company, for anything, then we should look at it in due course. >> amy schatz? >> another issue that the fcc tackled this week was cramming,

which is when an item shows up on your phone bill and it was unauthorized and you didn't ask for the service. i had a question about this because cramming has been illegal for a very long time, and yet the senate came out with a report this week, some senate investigators, that suggests that this is a widespread practice and it's something that is affecting consumers a lot. why do you think this is still going on when the fcc already has rules about this? what does the fcc need to do about it? >> well, certainly the first thing we could do would be to enforce the existing rules, which you pointed out, that we already have on the books and have since the 1990's. we did just launch a notice of proposed rulemaking earlier this week, and for my father-in- law, jack griffin, who is watching at home, what that means is we've put out for comments and ideas what, if anything, more we need to do. so this will open up a record where consumer advocacy groups, consumers themselves, and industry, and anybody who wants to comment can comment on whether or not the fcc needs to do more and give us facts. i'd like to see facts. what is the current state of the market?

what is exactly going on? the fcc gets about 2,000-3,000 "cramming" complaints per year and that is, as you said, unauthorized charges appearing on your phone bill, either by third parties or by phone companies. it is a growing matter. we're hearing chorus in congress for us to look into it or for congress to pass new legislation. so let's take a look. let's see how bad this is and see if maybe we just need to enforce our rules. >> one of the things, though, when the fcc took action this week on a notice on this thing, you were basically looking at transparency issues. one of the major issues here is about whether to expand these rules, not just on your landline phone, but to wireless phones and internet phones. where do you stand on that? >> well, again, let's see what the facts tell us, and if there's something that we need to do, then let's look at our statutory jurisdiction. let's look at the law as written by congress to see what authority we have to do something in that regard and go from there.

>> commissioner mcdowell, the fcc this week forwarded rules to the omb toward net neutrality to codify net neutrality. where do you stand on that? >> omb, being the office of management and budget, is a part of the white house operation, and there is a whole convuluted review here in washington under something called the paperwork reproduction act, sometimes called the pra, not to be confused with the professional rodeo association, as i like to remind people. but anyway, they review what the effect of our rules might be on businesses of all kinds. how much paperwork is this producing? by the fcc's own estimate, the net neutrality rules, against which i dissented last december 21st, will generate three times more paperwork than the fcc estimated, and that number seems to be going up. this is just tier one, i think, of the unintended consequences of what i thought was a very ill advised rule making order that we came out with last

december. what's been happening in the past seven months is this review by the office of management and budget and that requires more notice and public comment. the last round of that, or the latest round of that, is commencing now so it could be those net neutrality rules don't become effective maybe until mid to late october. and then they could be appealed. they can't be appealed by the court or overturned by the senate under another statute until they become on file. >> and do your foresee them being appealed? >> i think they will definitely be appealed. some parties have already tried to appeal them even before they become effective, and we are told by the courts to wait until they are effective. i think there is a better than average chance that these rules can be staid, or frozen, in court because i think they could cause irreperable harm in a number of areas. now, when i say "better than average," the average chance for a stay is still pretty small.

better than average isn't much better, but i do think it's better than average. >> what has been the problem on the net neutrality rules? because all these rules always have to go through the paperwork reduction act stuff, but they rarely take six months. this seems to be abnormally delayed. do you have any guidance on what the heck happened there? >> there was some artful language not included in the order. i did not try to approve the order. we saw a lot coming. that is part of the issue, how the actual order was britain that prevented the fcc from publishing that order, those rules, threw out right away. that allow for further review. it has created a lot of uncertainty. under the president's executive order for agencies to reduce the

amount of unneeded regulations, i think this should be first on the list. >> i cannot believe i am going to say these words, but let's stop right universal service reform. what is the status of this? this was broadband before it came out and there was some speculation by the chairman's office that it would be out before the leaves changed in the trees. now they say that will not happen and it is in the final stretch. what is going on? >> it could be the leaves this fall. the universal service is in a dollar billion per year subsidy program -- is an eight to dollar billion per year subsidy program that services a low- income, schools, libraries, a big umbrella. i have been pushing for reform for many years and we have come very close to resolving many issues on universal service in related areas about carrier

compensation, exchanging money for terminating traffic in each other's networks. in fall 2008, we have two republicans and two democrats on board for many reforms. there is a lot of room for bipartisan agreement. i get concerned when i see they continued to slip away. i have seen this movie before. my concern is that we could get two new commissioners this fall. a republican and a democrat. i would like to see us get an order done before that happens. that could be used as an excuse for further delay and we are slipping into an election year which would be more pressure from congress for independent agencies. we have been charged a through congress to get this done. it has been 14 years or so since the commission has really put

out a comprehensive order. what we are looking at is the distribution side of universal service. i want to make sure we do not seen increase in the size of the fund. we had sort of deflation in the telecommunications context so we should see a reduction in the overall size of the fund. we're not doing contributions to the taxing side of this animal. we are only focusing right now on distribution, the spending side. they should have been done together, so i would like to see come out as quickly as possible, a notice on proposal making on the taxing. >> do you think you can get the distribution side it done before members are nominated? >> i am optimistic and have expressed these it to the chair. i'm sure he does not want me to speak for him, but i think he

shares my sense of urgency. pretty much any idea that has been around for carrier compensation has already been worked on for the last 14 years. the staff has already fought over and written many drafts of orders. it is a matter of cutting and pasting more documents together which we could probably get done by midnight tonight if we put our minds to it. i understand there are new ideas that the industry wants to float and want to get those out for public comment. i would like to see that done no later than our october meeting. if we have new commissioners by then, i hope that is not used as a disuse. >> y no action on funding? >> i do not know. it should have been done comprehensively. the reason i have been given is there is not the band with the needed or personnel within the fcc to get this done. that was not the case in 2008. we could do distributions and

contributions all at the same time because it is all related. there are issues that touch one another. this is like fixing a watch. you cannot tinker with the one component without affecting all the other moving parts which is why you need to do this all of the same side. >> from "the communications daily," the consider using usf to close the deficit and some to pay down the budget deficit. they have told "communications daily," and eric cantor circulated cuts and savings proposed in the talks including between $20 billion in spectrum usf savings, all coming from auctions. >> i have not been briefed by

members of congress on this. congress tells us what to do, not the other way around. there are a lot of issues with universal service. there is $800, $900 million million in unused money. i do not know what leader cantor is thinking about what portion of the fund would be used. we have a statutory obligation to carry out our mission to help subsidize rural areas and low- income people as well. >> amy schatz? >> will this decrease the amount of funding available to companies that currently get this or that we could see a rise in the contributions of the people who are paying this every month on their phone bill may have to start paying more? >> i have not seen come out

first hand, any of the documents circulating regarding this. one summary said that they do not want an increase in the contribution factor. i do not know what they are thinking. your questions would be better addressed to leader cantor. >> two bills have come before the congress. senator rockefeller and senator hutchison's bill. the republicans have put out the broad outline of their spectrum auction bill. do you lean toward one or the other? >> congress tells me what to do. i cannot say that enough times. when i have said on this topic is should there be options, some kind of provision to give broadcasters an incentive to relinquish their spectrum, it should be voluntary.

broadcasters should be compensated for the cost of buying new transmitters come new towers, etc. just because of the tv transition we went through, it is that all over again and there will be broadcasters who will not participate in the auction but who will incur costs. we want to make sure, unless congress changes their priorities and no longer believe in broadcasting, then we have to take all of this into account. having said that, and there is the need for more spectrum. we need to get more to the marketplace. beyond that, i will let congress bill in the details. >> dna be has endorsed the democrats' plan -- the nab has endorsed the democrats plan and have supported d-block to emergency communications. do you support that? >> that is a 10 mhz slice of

"prime real estate" in the spectrum world that congress has been looking to somehow use for public safety. with the digital television act of 2005, we have an obligation to option that off. i voted in 2007 for the idea of a partnership where this d-block would be next to the block they set aside near 24 megahertz. 24 mhz is several blocks of downtown manhattan in real estate terms, very desirable. it is long distance. it is a tremendous amount. about one decade ago or so, many entities decided to use 10 mhz for a narrow band voice and have

been locked into that technology. that is like building a one story gas station in lower manhattan. it is not the best use of that land. instead of rebuilding the gas station, public safety now wants the next piece of land. public safety, in all, had about 97 mhz worth of spectrum. not all frequencies are critically, but that is about 2 million users. when you start to drill down, and i can say this as an unelected officials, i do not have to worry about the political aspect, but public safety is looking for more money. they need money to have a nationwide interoperable network. i think that is the direction we ought to go when. in the meantime, they have granted about 20 waivers nationwide for jurisdictions both large and small, new york, washington, where they can build out their own regional

communications networks. that would be in the absence of government action. it is complicated. i think more spectrum is not necessarily the answer. new technology in an all i.p. world using that 24 megahertz block would be best for public safety and the american people. >> this is c-span's "the communicator's." our guest is robert mcdowell, a commissioner on the fcc, and amy schats from "the wall street journal." >> part of the bill deals with white space. they say all the unlicensed spectrum should be auctioned off which seems to suggest that the white space is an issue that has been kicked around for the last year's. where do you stand on that? do you think should continue to

use wide license to use it? >> i am a strong proponent of unlicensed use of white space. those are the unused tv channels. it is the same specter we were just talking about for public safety, so it is very powerful. some call it wifi on steroids. the public benefits are fantastic. like wifi, you may remember, on friday no one had heard of it. when it is unlicensed, that really stimulate a lot of law -- a lot of small businesses to get involved. i do have concerns. it is a pragmatic concern and it is very difficult to license white space, especially in larger metropolitan areas. it is because of where the

unlicensed space is and it makes it difficult to license it in a pragmatic manner. it may be in rural areas where there is more white space, more unused channels that would be easier to do. again, i did not tell congress what to do. >> when they ask you and say that is the draft they are hoping for, do you think there should be at some carve out for some white space? >> that is exactly what i would advise. it adds positive, constructive chaos to the marketplace. is an escape valve for those who are concerned about competition in the wireless marketplace, for instance, or proponents of having roles instead of regulation, to have a chaotic market place that can be an escape valve for consumers and a work around if there is any work around if there is any anti-