before i call on senator can cantwell, i have to make a committee announcement. i am not pleased by the way that -- this was my fault so i take full responsibility for it, that people made their statements then left. some happily came back. and for that i applause them. but it is wrong -- i mean, this is a mammothly important hears for a nomination and a vote to follow. we cannot have it that people come in and make their opening statements, get into their opening statements the questions they're going to ask anyway and then having done so leave. this is an embarrassment to you, it's an embarrassment to me, it's an embarrassment to the united states senate and to this committee. soo from now on, there may be very rare occasions, but we will not have opening statements except fra the chairman and the ranking member and then we will go directly to the witness. and that will be the order. i now call on senator cantwell. >> mr. chairman, will that be the janikowski rule? i thank the chairman and i agree. i'm hear to ask questions in person and i think it is an import

senator cantwell? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and miss tenenbaum. great to see you in my office and we're glad your nomination is before the committee today. i was wondering if i could ask you about emerging products that are associated with hazards. in 2007, the commission established be a pilot program for an early warning system on emerging products and associated with hazard. it uses subject matter expert to allow the commission staff to quickly identify these issues and propose corrective action. do you know whether this pilot has been successful? >> i don't, senator cantwell. i thank you for the question, but i don't have information on that. if it seems like a commonsense approach to work with the industries ahead of time the advise them of the regulation and the requirements on consumer products before they develop these products and then put them in the stream of commerce. >> i guess that's what i was getting at is whether in principle that approach helps the commission to be more proactive than completely reactive and should the commission

i now call on senator cantwell. >> mr. chairman, will that be the genachowski rule? [laughter] >> i thank the chairman. and i agree. i'm here to ask questions in person and i think it is an important hearing so thank you for your statement. mr. genachowski, the diversity of media -- i don't know if any of my colleagues have asked about that so far. but i've supported technical changes required to expand the number of low-powered fm stations. and these are important because they develop local content and they are important to the very community interest. i certainly have opposed media consolidation particularly with the cross-ownership and i don't think it's really the way that we're going to save newspapers. i don't think that's the issue. i think that there is an important role, though, for police, education and government, the peg channels. and their service. and peg channels provide an outlet for people in the community to create and distribute their own television programming. but i'm concerned if the -- i know you're working on a rule-making, but if the translat

senator cantwell was at the hearing and she talked about low-- she talked about net neutrality, and this was mr. genachowski's answer. >> if there's a competitive market for broadband services where consumers can purchase broadband for multiple independent providers with the discussion over net neutrality change? >> well, i think that any market of unlimited competition it might change. the cult, as i see it, of the net neutrality debate is to preserve the antonette as the greatest platform for innovation and small business creation that we have never had. the more competition, more consumer choice would have course help achieve that and that would be an excellent thing. >> but obviously, the concern obviously is not to artificially segment off parts of the population in giving them a higher cost? so, you see more competition in broadband services? >> competition is clearly a goal for the fcc and of the communications act and something that i would hope to pursue and promote at the fcc. >> host: ander feinberg of broadband census.com. >> guest: i heard him say competition a lot of times.

senter cantwell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms.tenenbaum, thank you for the meeting in my office last week and we are glad that your nomination is before the committee today. i was wondering if i could ask you about emerging products associated with hazards. in 2007 the commission established a pilot program for an early morning system on the emerging products and association hazard and my understanding is that it uses expert assessment tools to quickly and avoid these issues and proposed protective action. do you know whether this pilot has been successful? >> i don't, senator cantwell. thank you for the question but i don't have information on that. it seems like common sense approach to work with the industry's ahead of time to advise them of the regulation and requirements on consumer products before they develop these products and put them in the stream of commerce. >> i guess that is why was getting that weather in principle that approach helps the commission to be more productive than completely reactive and should the commi

. >> host: well, senator cantwell was at the hearing, and she talked about low-power -- i'm sorry, shetalked about net neutrality, and this was mr. genachowski's answer. >> if there is a competitive market for broadband services where consumers could purchase broadband from multiple independent providers, would the discussion over net neutrality change? >> well, i think that the in a market of unlimited competition it might change. the goal as i see it of the net neutrality debate is to preserve the internet as the greatest platform for innovation and small business creation that we've ever had. more competition, more consumer choice would, of course, help achieve that, and that would be an excellent thing. >> but, obviously, not -- i mean, the concern, obviously, is not to artificially segment off parts of the population and giving them a higher cost. so you see more competition in broadband services. >> competition is clearly a goal for the fcc and the communications act and something that i'd hope to pursue and promote at the fcc. >> host: andrew feinberg, what did you hear in that

. >> was it significant that senator cantwell from washington state as the question? >> you mean that she represents the state where microsoft is located? i think so. microsoft is one of the companies as worried about, i would say, excess of overregulation. i do not think they're going to object to the current status that the fcc is doing now. this is one of the examples of the senator asking a question on behalf of the industry that employs a lot of people in her state. i agree with andrew. it is a very deft response. he turned a question about network neutrality into a question about competition. he actually did not use the term openness, which is a buzzword of the obama campaign. very nicely done. >> she talked about and probability with julius. >> my co-chair of the united caucus, i am a former prosecutor. some of these interoperable in the issues, -- we had a bridge collapse. they had a very good job of and probability. i have seen difficulties in the past and as some of our rural areas with that. it seems like that is one of the areas of our nation's infrastruct

durbin, murray, tester, udall of colorado, klobuchar, reed of rhode island, baucus, merkley, lincoln, cantwell, dorgan. mr. reid: i ask that the mandatory quorum be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask now that we proceed to a period of monk business, senators allowed to speak -- of morning business, senators allowed to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, let me just say a brief word on the cloture that was not invoked on the travel bill. i hope that everyone understands what obstructionism is. this is obstructionism at its best, and it goes along with what the republicans said they wanted to do and that is stop everything. as indicated in "roll call" newspaper last week. this is a bill that saves the government money, almost a half a billion dollars over ten years. it would create in the first year of the -- after passage of the bill 40,000 jobs. the republicans just killed t

[inaudible] >> it's the cantwell amendment. i don't know the number. >> but may i follow up with the dow jones, if those amendments were not to be offered or passed, as it currently sits -- >> i'm much more inclined to support it, absolutely. >> you have a question up here? >> yes. you talked about the process earlier about the healthcare bill and how that was kind of opposite of what you're seeing with the energy bill. speaking about that just real quick, is the healthcare process so onus right now as you see it early on that it's really going to affect things as it moves to the floor? and with the energy bill, what do you see as being realistic things you've seen on the floor. you've talked about anwr and natural gas. what are the common ground with some of the folks on the other party. >> let's do your second part of your question first. i think nuclear is an issue where we can do a little bit better than we have in committee. i've had conversation with some of my colleagues on the other side who agree for a multitude of dif