[Senate Hearing 109-319]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-319
NOMINATIONS OF DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE AND MICHAEL J. COPPS TO BE
COMMISSIONERS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 13, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-425 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMint, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 13, 2005................................ 1
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 25
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Sununu...................................... 4
Witnesses
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Copps, Hon. Michael J., Renominated to be Commissioner of the
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Biographical information..................................... 11
Tate, Deborah Taylor, Nominated to be Commissioner of the Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Biographical information..................................... 6
Appendix
Frist, Hon. William H., U.S. Senator from Tennessee, prepared
statement...................................................... 31
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe
to Deborah Taylor Tate......................................... 31
NOMINATIONS OF DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE AND MICHAEL J. COPPS TO BE
COMMISSIONERS OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m. in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order, please.
This morning the Committee will hear from two of the
President's nominees for the Federal Communications Commission.
Deborah Tate is the Director of the Tennessee Regulatory
Authority and has been a senior staffer to two former Tennessee
Governors, including Senator Alexander who is here. Senator
Frist has also submitted a statement for the record in support
of her nomination. Michael Copps has been renominated to a
second term on the Commission. Those of us at the top of the
dais here know Michael from his days as Senator Hollings'
Administrative Assistant.
We all know how fast the telecommunications landscape is
changing. Many of today's technologies were never anticipated
when we passed the 1996 Act. There are many issues that are
still squarely in front of us: universal service, preserving
universal service and bringing broadband to rural America,
promoting competition and a healthy telecommunications
industry, minimizing the regulatory burden on the
telecommunications providers also.
I've enjoyed meeting each of the nominees and we look
forward to working with them on these and other issues when
they are confirmed.
Ms. Tate, I understand you have family with you today.
Would you please introduce them for the Committee and for the
record?
Ms. Tate. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
The Chairman. You have to press a button there somewhere.
Ms. Tate. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so very much.
My family is with me: my husband Bill Tate, an attorney in
Nashville, and my sons Will and Taylor Tate, and my daughter
Carlton. Two of them are here in the midst of their college
exams, so I appreciate very much your allowing them to be with
me today.
The Chairman. I heard from my youngest. She is in exams,
too.
Mr. Copps, would you introduce your family and supporters,
please.
Mr. Copps. Thank you, sir. Some of my family is here: first
of all, my lovely wife Beth behind me. She is just recuperating
from open heart surgery, but she is here and, as you can see,
she is looking not only well but looking beautiful. Our two
daughters are here: Betsy Von Hagen, who is the mother of our
two little red-headed boys, one of whom is here today, our
grandson Sam; our daughter Clair, a senior in high school, is
here; also my namesake and middle son Michael is here, and this
week he is enjoying the announcement of his promotion to Senior
Director of Membership at the Community Associations Institute.
Absent are my son Robert, who is an attorney in New York City--
he is up there billing hours so he can afford to live in New
York City, and that is why he is not here today--and our
youngest son, Will, who is in the midst of final exams at Mary
Washington University. Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to introduce them.
The Chairman. As a father of six, thank you for bringing
them.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No, I yield to Senator Alexander.
The Chairman. Senator Alexander, Senator Inouye yields to
you.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Senator Inouye. I have now been yielded to by the--that is the
maximum amount of seniority I could possibly be yielded to in
the U.S. Senate. I thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief but I hope sincere in my
remarks about Debi Tate. I would like to take credit for her
appointment, but I cannot. I did not find President Bush
somewhere and say: Be sure and appoint Debi Tate. She earned
his respect the same way she earned mine and that of many, many
others.
She began work with me in my first term as Governor of
Tennessee more than 20 years ago as a lawyer on our staff. She
earned the respect of Governor Sundquist, who is here, one of
my successors as Governor of Tennessee. She is Director of the
Tennessee Regulatory Authority, of which she has been Chairman.
She earned the respect of her colleagues there.
She earned the respect of her colleagues around the country
and at various times she has been a member of the Federal-State
Joint Board on Advanced Telecommunications Services, the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and
many other similar organizations.
She is here, as you have already noted, with her family. I
would like also to acknowledge the presence of Bart Gordon,
Congressman from Tennessee, who is dean of our Tennessee
delegation, and I am delighted that he has taken the time to
come.
Let me simply say that I found Debi to be smart and
thoughtful. So far as I know she would bring to the Commission,
if we should choose to confirm her, no particular agenda. She
knows to listen carefully and that these issues are complex. I
would expect her, if she is confirmed, to be an excellent
member of the Commission. I am glad the President nominated her
and I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to come here and
introduce her.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator from Tennessee
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commerce Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today to speak in support of the nomination of
Deborah Taylor Tate to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal
Communications Commission. I have known Debi since I served as Governor
of Tennessee, and I believe that President Bush has made a superb
choice to help us navigate the complicated communications questions
that we will face in the next few years.
Debi has devoted a lifetime of service to the State of Tennessee,
but our state's loss with this nomination is the nation's gain. She is
a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University and Vanderbilt Law
School. She served as a policy advisor on numerous issues to me when I
was Governor and as a mental health and juvenile justice policy advisor
to Governor Don Sundquist. She currently serves as a Director of the
Tennessee Regulatory Authority after serving as Chairman in 2003-2004.
Debi's work at TRA has provided her with a valuable understanding
of regulatory issues that has led to her serving on numerous national
advisory bodies. She has been a member at various times of the Federal-
State Joint Board on Advance Telecommunications Services, the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Washington Action
Committee, and the American Public Gas Association Security and
Integrity Foundation Board of Directors Advisory Board.
In addition, Debi finds time to volunteer for numerous
organizations with a particular emphasis on children and women's
issues. She and her husband William have also raised three children--
Will, Taylor, and Cacky--who are all following in their parents'
successful footsteps.
I take the time to emphasize Debi's broad background and experience
because I believe it will be an asset in taking on the job of FCC
Commissioner. The last decade has seen an explosion in the complexity
of telecommunications regulation. The Internet has changed the way we
all live our lives, and it has blurred the lines that have
traditionally separated telephones, television, and other technologies.
More than ever, regulatory decisions regarding these technologies can
now have an effect on education, health care, homeland security, and
defense. Even more significantly, regulatory decisions can have an
effect on tax policy, which can have serious consequences for the
ability of the federal, state, and local governments to set and adhere
to their budgets.
Debi's breadth of experience across a wide range of issues and her
insight at both the national, state and local level will make her an
invaluable asset to the FCC as it navigates these increasingly complex
issues. If confirmed, the next few years of communications regulation
will be in good hands.
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be able to be here today to speak
in support of a good public servant and a good friend. I thank the
Committee for the opportunity, and I urge the Committee to support the
nomination of Deborah Taylor Tate to the FCC.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Congressman Gordon, did you wish to make a statement at
all?
Mr. Gordon. Amen.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce
Commissioner Michael Copps as a nominee to serve a second term
on the FCC. I would like to welcome him back to the Committee.
As you indicated, he spent a significant part of his career
working in the Senate, and he continues to work closely with
the Members of this Committee.
It was my pleasure to join you, Mr. Chairman, in
recommending that the President nominate Commissioner Copps for
a second term. During his first term he demonstrated that he is
highly qualified and a very able Commissioner, and he has taken
seriously his duties to further the public interest for the
benefit of the American people. Commissioner Copps has been a
strong and outspoken voice on issues critical to our country's
future. He has recognized that having the most advanced
communications networks and capabilities is critical to
America's future economic competitiveness. He has worked to
ensure that all Americans have comparable access to
communications services, including those who live in rural
America and, most importantly, on tribal lands and in the inner
cities, those with disabilities and those who are economically
disadvantaged and others who are at risk of being left behind.
Commissioner Copps has pushed the FCC to concentrate on the
challenge of broadband deployment so that America remains the
technological leader in the global marketplace. He has also
focused attention on the need to ensure safety of our citizens
through robust, reliable, and redundant communications.
Commissioner Copps has worked tirelessly to bring attention to
the large issues concerning the role of media in our country.
When the FCC addressed media consolidation, Commissioner
Copps reached out to his fellow citizens by holding public
meetings across this country. For more than 25 years,
Commissioner Copps has dedicated himself to public service. He
has worked to build a closer relationship between the public
and private sectors to tackle the challenges we face.
I join all of my colleagues in thanking him for his
commitment in serving the American people and I am pleased to
support him for another term as an FCC commissioner. I must
also say and I join all in welcoming Director Deborah Tate
before the Committee today, and I thank Senator Alexander for
being here to introduce her.
Thank you very much, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Sununu, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. We can for the sake of expediency assume
that I gave a 10-minute very eloquent opening statement and
proceed right to the testimony of the witnesses. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Tate, do you have a statement to make?
Ms. Tate. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Would you pull that mike toward you, please.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE, NOMINATED TO BE COMMISSIONER
OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Ms. Tate. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairman Inouye,
Members of the Committee: It is indeed a privilege to be here
and have this opportunity to appear before you today. Please
let me thank Senator Alexander for being here today, as well as
Congressman Gordon, and your former colleague, Governor Don
Sundquist. I also appreciate so very much the kind remarks that
the Majority Leader, Bill Frist, put into the record. And I am
of course very proud to have my family here today. I would not
be here without their blessing.
I am of course, as anyone who sits in this seat, so deeply
honored to have been nominated by the President of the United
States, President Bush, for this position at the FCC. Over the
past few weeks I have had the opportunity to meet many of the
Members of the Committee and talk with you about issues of
concern and interest. Of course, if confirmed, I look forward
to continuing those discussions.
Before we begin to hear about the concerns that you may
have this morning, I do want to express that if I am confirmed,
I will perform to the best of my abilities. I will bring a
commitment to study the issues and to find sound, practical,
reasonable solutions that I believe are best for our country.
As a sixth generation Tennessean, I have very deep roots
that run in the rural part of our state. So I am especially
interested in those issues that are affecting rural Americans
and, if confirmed, I hope to continue to be a voice for
families and consumers, as I have been in Tennessee, on the
FCC.
In many ways I feel like most of my entire life has been
spent in preparation for this position. Having spent most of
the past 20 years in public service, as Senator Alexander said,
as an aide for two governors, the head of a state health
administrative agency, and then most recently as both the
Chairman and Director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority. I
believe that I bring the talent, the training, and the energy
necessary to succeed as a Commissioner at the FCC. With your
support and approval, I can assure you that I will bring a
spirit of consensus and bipartisanship to the Commission, as I
have with my Tennessee colleagues; a willingness to build on
what the Chairman and the other Commissioners have already
begun.
The communications landscape in our country is indeed
changing. There are unprecedented changes. We are seeing a new
world, a new digital age. Some liken it to the industrial age,
the printing press, or even putting a man on the Moon--major
innovations which have changed and shaped our world and country
forever. If confirmed by the Senate, I pledge my steadfast
commitment to work closely with you, with Congress, to tackle
the complex issues that are facing America in this new digital
age.
As public servants, I believe we are all called to build an
America full of promise and opportunity, to improve our
economy, to help create more jobs and investment, to boost
family incomes, and to try and make a positive difference in
the lives of every single American.
Again, I am so very honored and so very grateful to you for
this opportunity to appear here today. Of course, I am happy to
answer questions, and thank you very much.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
Tate follow:]
Prepared Statement of Deborah Taylor Tate, Nominated to be Commissioner
of the Federal Communications Commission
Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairman Inouye, Members of the Committee, it is a
privilege to have the opportunity to appear before you today.
Please permit me a moment to thank my mentor and friend, Senator
Alexander, for his wonderful introduction; Majority Leader Frist for
his thoughtful remarks for the record; and my family, sitting behind me
today--my husband, Bill; my son, Will; my son Taylor; and my daughter,
Carlton--for their love and support.
I am deeply honored to have been nominated by President Bush to
serve as a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. Over
the past few weeks, I have had the pleasure of talking to many members
of the Committee and I want to thank all of you for taking the time to
share your thoughts about communications policy and the FCC with me. If
confirmed, I look forward to continuing our discussion.
I look forward to discussing telecommunications issues that concern
you this morning. But before we do so, I wanted to express that, if
confirmed, I will perform my duties to the best of my ability. I will
bring a commitment to study the issues and find sound, reasonable
solutions that are best for our country. As a 6th generation
Tennessean, with deep roots in the rural part of our country, I am
especially interested in issues that affect rural Americans, and if
confirmed, I will work to be a voice for families and consumers on the
Commission.
In many ways, I feel that my entire life has been spent in
preparation for this job. Having spent most of my professional life in
the public sector, as a gubernatorial aide for two different governors,
head of a state administrative agency, and, most recently, as Chairman
and Director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, I believe I bring
the talent and energy necessary to succeed as a Commissioner at the
FCC. And, with your support and approval, I will bring a spirit of
consensus and bi-partisanship to the Commission; a willingness to build
on what Chairman Martin and the other Commissioners have begun at the
FCC.
The telecommunications landscape is undergoing unprecedented
changes. Indeed, we are all witnessing a new world--a new digital age.
Some liken it to the industrial revolution; the printing press; major
innovations which shaped and changed our world forever. If confirmed, I
pledge my steadfast commitment to work closely with Congress, Chairman
Martin, and my fellow commissioners to tackle the complicated issues
facing America in the new digital age.
As public servants, I believe we are here to build an America full
of promise and opportunity; to improve our economy; to create more
jobs; to boost family incomes; and to make a positive difference in the
lives of every single American.
Again, I am so very grateful and humbled for the opportunity to
appear before you today, and I would be happy to answer any questions
you might have. Thank you.
______
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Deborah
Taylor Tate.
2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Federal
Communications Commission.
3. Date of Nomination: 11/9/05.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: information not released to the public.
Office: Tennessee Regulatory Authority, 460 James Robertson
Parkway, Nashville, TN 37243.
5. Date and Place of Birth: 7/30/56--Columbia (Maury County),
Tennessee.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Spouse: William Howard Tate, Partner: Howard, Tate, Sowell,
Wilson and Boyte, 150 Second Avenue N., Nashville, TN 37201.
Children: William H. Tate, Jr. (22), Taylor McLean Tate (20),
Carlton McLendon Tate (18).
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended: University of Tennessee-Knoxville (B.A. 1977; J.D. 1980);
also attended Vanderbilt University Law School.
8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated: Director,
Tennessee Regulatory Authority (2003-present), Chairman (2003-2004);
Director, State and Local Policy Center, Vanderbilt Institute for
Public Policy Studies; Senior Staff to former Governor Lamar Alexander
and Don Sundquist; Executive Director, Health Facilities Commission.
9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years: FCC Federal State
Board on Advanced Services (2003-present); Census Information Center,
Director, located at Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies
(state advisory board to U.S. Census Bureau, CIC Program (2000-02)
10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational or other institution within the last five years:
Centerstone, Inc. (mental health center)--Board of Directors, Chairman;
Family and Children's Services, Board and Executive Committee:
Director, State and Local Policy Center (VIPPS); Tennessee Voices for
Children-Board of Directors; Renewal House, Inc.-Board of Directors/
Advisory Board;
11. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age or handicap.
Westminster Presbyterian Church--over 20 years.
Nashville Bar Association--over 10 years.
Nashville Bar Foundation--3 yrs.
Lawyers Association for Women--over 10 years.
Tennessee Pediatric Foundation--1 year.
Tennessee Tomorrow, Inc.--1 year.
Richland Country Club--over 20 years.
12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? Yes,
Tennessee General Assembly, House of Representatives (1986).
12a. If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding debt,
the amount, and whether you are personally liable for that debt. None.
13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
2002--Alexander for Senate $1,000.
1999--Alexander for President $1,000.
1997--Campaign for New American Century $500.
14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements: TN Pediatric Society
Foundation Board; Nashville Bar Foundation Fellow; National
Philanthropy Day (Volunteer award); ``Invisible Child Award,'' NAMI and
Mental Health Board awards for service; Athena (outstanding women)
nominee, Junior League Sustainer of the Year.
15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have
given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
a. FCC--Individual comments, NPRM: IP-enabled services (March
04).
b. OP-Ed: ``VOIP Technology''--Tennessee newspapers
(statewide).
c. ``Ma Bell's Newest Grandchild: VOIP'' (April 04).
d. Tennessee Bar Journal: ``VOIP--A Case for Practical
Federalism'' (September 05).
e. Panelist, ``The Role of States and Cities in Regulating the
Internet,'' Advisory Committee to Congressional Caucus,
Washington, D.C. (4/29/05).
f. Panelist: VOIP Forum for Senate/House Committee Staff,
Washington, D.C. (3/04).
g. Moderator: ``All Politics is Local: Broadband,'' National
Summit on Broadband, Washington, D.C. (10/04).
h. Tennessee Telecommunications Association, Nashville, TN (8/
02).
i. Numerous civic club speeches, interviews during 2003-2004 as
Chairman, TRA.
16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a nongovernmental capacity and
specify the subject matter of each testimony: None.
B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
a. State of Tennessee Consolidated Retirement.
b. State of Tennessee 401 K Plan (9/30/05)--Fidelity Funds.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? Yes,
Centerstone, Inc.
2a. If so, please explain: Nonprofit mental health organization
Board of Directors.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated: Spouse Investments:
AT&T, Lucent Technology, Nortel Networks, Comcast, Motorola, Verizon
Communications, Nokia.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None other than in my
official capacity as a Director of the TRA.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
a. Encouraging Tennessee delegation to support various
increases to low income energy assistance/LIHEAP.
b. Encouraging Tennessee delegation to support/continue various
Welfare to Work/TANF proposals.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items: In accordance with law and regulation, my spouse and I will
comply with any potential conflict of interest requirements including
those involving divestiture.
C. LEGAL MATTERS
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere ) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: None.
6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any
other basis? No.
D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? To the best
of my ability.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? To the best of my ability.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
Unless someone has an objection, let us hear from Dr. Copps
next, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL J. COPPS, NOMINATED TO BE
COMMISSIONER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Mr. Copps. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, Senator Sununu:
Thank you for granting us this hearing so soon after our
nominations. On a more personal level, let me thank you for the
many courtesies you have extended to me during my tenure at the
Commission.
Mr. Co-Chairman, your warm and generous introduction and
your support touch me in a very deep and a very fundamental
way, coming from one of America's true heroes. It is just
beyond anything I ever expected when I first came to Washington
so many years ago. Thank you very much, and thank you, Senator
Stevens, for your support also.
It is always good to come home to the Senate. Fifteen years
working here imparted a deep and lasting loyalty in me to this
institution and to this Committee. Those years, from 1970 to
1985, working with your friend and mine Fritz Hollings,
instilled in me great pride in the honorable calling that is
public service.
During my 4-plus years as a Commissioner, I have worked to
build an ongoing and cooperative relationship with each of you,
with the Committee, and your Congressional colleagues. I have
sought to implement the laws that this Congress passed with as
thorough an understanding of Congressional intent as I can
muster. I look forward if confirmed to a second term continuing
to build on this close relationship with you.
Serving as an FCC Commissioner, being on the front lines as
the telecommunications revolution transforms our lives and
remakes our world, has been an exciting, challenging and
inspiring experience. There is always a sobering part to it and
that is that it is a high public trust and a lot rides on how
we perform, and we need always to remember that communications
is the business of every American and every American is
affected by what the Commission does.
My objective as an FCC Commissioner is to help bring the
best, most accessible and cost effective communications system
in the world to all of our people, and I always underline that
word ``all,'' whether they live in rural areas or tribal lands
or the inner city, whether they have limited incomes or
disabilities, whether they are school children or rural health
care providers. I believe that Americans progress together or
we progress not at all, and each and every citizen of this
great country needs to have access to the wonders of advanced
communications and information if he or she is going to succeed
in the 21st century. I think today having access to those
advanced communications is every bit as important, maybe more
so, than having access to basic telephone services was in the
century just past.
I know that many of the issues now before the Commission
are difficult and complex, and I do not believe that any of us
at the Commission has a silver bullet solution to all the many
challenges that confront us. I find always that a little
humility as we wade into these discussions at the Commission
always helps. But I do believe that my colleagues are working
collegially now to reach agreements that benefit consumers,
foster innovation, and encourage investment in this fast-moving
environment.
I also believe that the FCC can serve an even more
important role as a resource for Congress as you look at the
statutes and how they are accommodating new marketplace
developments and what changes may be necessary. We are the
expert agency on communications, staffed by incredibly
competent public servants. I hope you will look to the
Commission more and more and even push us, to provide the data
and the analysis and tee up the options on various suggestions
that have been made for changing the Telecom Act. There is no
reason why we cannot do that. It is not something we have to
vote on or whatever at the Commission. We ought to just be
churning out these expert papers: If you go down this road on
contribution methodology, that road on something else, here are
the costs and benefits. I think that would help and I think an
independent regulatory agency really has a responsibility to
perform that role.
I look forward if confirmed to working with Chairman
Martin, the other commissioners--Commissioner Adelstein is here
today and my fellow Commissioner-designate Debi Tate--to
implement the vision enunciated by Congress, and I pledge to
continue working tirelessly, inclusively, and with the best
judgment I can garner to get that job done.
I do put a high value on public service. Most of the time I
enjoy it. But, as you Senators know far better than me, it can
be demanding, especially as those demands fall on the members
of one's own family, and that is where they most often fall. So
I am grateful to each member of my family for their support and
patience and encouragement over quite a few years in public
service. I have enjoyed a lot of benefits and a lot of
blessings in this life, but the family I introduced is the
sweetest reward of all.
So I thank you for having us up here today. Thank you for
this hearing. I will be happy to try to answer any questions
you may want to ask.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Copps follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael J. Copps, Nominated to be
Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye, distinguished Members of this
Committee, thank you for granting us this hearing so soon after our
nominations. On a more personal level, allow me to thank you for the
many courtesies you have extended to me during my tenure at the FCC.
It's always good to come home to the Senate. Fifteen years working
here imparted a deep and lasting loyalty in me to this institution and
this Committee. Those years from 1970 to 1985, working with your friend
and mine, Senator Fritz Hollings, instilled in me great pride in the
honorable calling that is public service. During my four-plus years as
a Commissioner, I have worked to build an ongoing and cooperative
relationship with each of you, the Committee and your Congressional
colleagues. I have sought to implement the laws Congress passed, with
as thorough an understanding of Congressional intent as I can gather. I
look forward, if confirmed for a second term, to continuing to build on
this close relationship with you.
Serving as an FCC Commissioner--being on the front lines as the
telecommunications revolution transforms our lives and remakes our
world--has been an exciting, challenging and inspiring experience. The
sobering part of being a Commissioner is that the office is a high
public trust. A lot rides on how we perform, and we need always to
remember that communications is the business of every American and
every American is affected by what the Commission does. Every American
has a vested interest in how the Commission performs. Everyone is a
stakeholder, and I try to think about that every day.
I have tried during my time at the Commission to give meaning to
the public interest by promoting the core values Congress gave us in
the Communications Act--things like promoting the safety and security
of the people through reliable communications, a challenge brought home
to us by 9/11 and also by the ravages of nature's hurricanes this past
summer; values such as preserving and advancing universal service so
that every American can benefit from the liberating opportunities that
new technologies and services provide; values like developing more
competition to benefit consumers and to spur innovation; and values, in
the media, supporting localism, diversity, competition and family-
friendly programming--things this Committee has worked hard to
preserve.
Mr. Chairman, my objective as an FCC Commissioner is to help bring
the best, most accessible, and cost-effective communications system in
the world to all of our people--whether they live in rural areas, on
tribal lands or in our inner cities, whether they have limited incomes
or disabilities, whether they are schoolchildren or rural health care
providers. I believe that Americans progress together or we progress
not at all. Each and every citizen of this great country needs to have
access to the wonders of advanced communications and information if he
or she is going to succeed in the 21st century. Today, having that
access is every bit as important--maybe more so--than having access to
basic telephone services was in the century just past.
I know that many of the issues now before the Commission are
difficult and complex. I don't believe that any of us at the Commission
has a silver bullet solution to all the many challenges that confront
us, and I find that a little humility as we wade into these discussions
always helps. But I do believe that my colleagues and I are working
collegially to reach agreements that benefit consumers, foster
innovation and encourage investment in this fast-moving, paradigm-
shifting environment.
I also believe that the FCC can serve as even more of a resource
for Congress as you look at how the statute is accommodating new
marketplace developments and what changes may be necessary. We are the
expert agency on communications, staffed by incredibly competent public
servants, and I hope you will look to us more and more--and even push
us--to provide the data and analyses you need, and to produce more
options for you, teeing up the pros and cons of different ideas to deal
with the communications challenges confronting our country. I believe
that an independent regulatory agency has an obligation to provide you
with that kind of input.
I look forward, if confirmed, to working with Chairman Martin, the
other Commissioners, and my fellow Commissioner-nominee Debi Tate, to
implement the vision enunciated by Congress. I pledge to continue
working tirelessly, inclusively, and with the best judgment I can
garner to get this job done.
I put a high value on public service, and, most of the time, I
enjoy it. But as you Senators know better than me, it can be demanding,
especially as those demands fall on the members of one's own family,
and that is where they most often fall. I am grateful to each member of
my family for their support, patience and encouragement over quite a
few years in public service. My lovely and wonderful wife Beth and I
have been blessed with five great children--three of whom are here
today. They are our pride and joy and life's sweetest reward.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my brief statement. Thank you for your
attention and for your many kindnesses through the years.
______
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name: Michael Joseph Copps.
2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Federal
Communications Commission.
3. Date of Nomination: November 9, 2005.
4. Residence: information not released to the public. Office: 12th
Street, SW., Room 8-A302, Washington, DC 20554.
5. Date of Birth: April 23, 1940. Place of Birth: Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage):
Spouse: Elizabeth Miller Copps, Church Secretary, St. Mary's
Catholic Church, 310 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Children: Robert Edmund Copps, 34; Elizabeth Copps Von Hagen,
31; Michael Albert Copps, 27; William Thomas Copps, 19; Claire
Louise Copps, 17.
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
B.A. Wofford College, 1963.
Ph.D. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1967.
8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.
Administrative Assistant, U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings,
1974-1985.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, 1993-1998.
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development, 1998-
2001.
Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, 2001-present.
9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years: None.
10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational or other institution within the last five years: None.
11. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age or handicap.
Westgrove Citizens Association, Alexandria, VA, 1976-present.
My neighborhood community association. This group has no
membership restrictions.
AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), 1995-present.
This group has no membership restrictions.
St. Mary's Catholic Church, Alexandria, VA, 1976-present.
Parish member. No membership restrictions.
St. Mary's Home and School Association, 1977-2002.
University of North Carolina Graduate School Advisory Board,
1997-1998. Unpaid advisory position. Resigned after being
appointed Assistant Secretary of Commerce. This group has no
membership restrictions.
Gonzaga High School Fathers' Club, Washington, D.C., 2000-2004
(while son attended). This group has no membership
restrictions.
12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? If so,
indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and
whether you are personally liable for that debt: No.
13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
Hollings for Senate Committee, $1000 in 1992.
Hollings for Senate Committee, $1000 in 1998.
DNC Federal Account, $1000 in 2000.
DNC, $500 in 2004.
14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
Honorary Doctorate of Laws, Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC
2005.
Phi Beta Kappa, Honorary Academic Fraternity.
Pi Gamma Mu, Honorary Social Science Fraternity as college
undergraduate.
NCM (New California Media) 2005 Ethnic Media Appreciation
Award.
Common Sense Media Award for Outstanding Contribution to Kids &
Family Media.
2003 Communications ``Good Scout'' Award.
Alliance for Community Media Director's Choice Award.
2005 American Spirit Award from The Caucus for Television
Producers, Writers & Directors, 2005.
SHHH (Self Help for the Hard of Hearing) 2005
Telecommunications Access Award.
15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have
given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
Speeches & Remarks: As an FCC Commissioner, an important part of my
responsibility has been to deliver remarks and speeches to a variety of
audiences on a broad range of communications issues. These
presentations no doubt number in the hundreds. I retain copies of many
of my more formal presentations and some of these are also available on
the FCC web site.
Articles, Columns, Other Publications:
1. Michael J. Copps, As Broadcast Decency Wanes, Feds Stand
Ready to Act, USA Today, February 4, 2002, at 15A.
2. Michael J. Copps, Crunch Time at the FCC, The Nation,
February 3, 2003, at 5.
3. Michael J. Copps, Battle to Control Internet Threatens Open
Access, San Jose Mercury News, December 15, 2003.
4. Michael J. Copps, The ``Vast Wasteland'' Revisited: Headed
for More of the Same?, 55 Fed. Comm. L.J. 473 (2003).
5. Michael J. Copps, Corporate Media and Local Interests:
Downsizing the Monster, San Francisco Chronicle, July 19, 2004.
6. Michael J. Copps, Homeland Security Is Job One, Broadcasting
& Cable, August 16, 2004, at 36.
7. Michael J. Copps, Show Me the Convention, N.Y. Times, August
30, 2004, at A19.
8. Michael J. Copps, Consolidation and Obligation, Broadcasting
& Cable, September 27, 2004, at 68.
9. Michael J. Copps, A Chance to Weigh In on Media
Consolidation, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, December 9,
2004.
10. Michael J. Copps, Where Is the Public Interest in Media
Consolidation?, in The Future of Media 117 (Robert McChesney,
Russell Newman & Ben Scott eds., 2005).
11. Michael J. Copps, Disruptive Technology . . . Disruptive
Regulation, 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 309 (2005).
16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and
specify the subject matter of each testimony.
I testified three times before Congress as an employee of the
American Meat Institute, (Arlington, VA):
July 12, 1990--Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and
General Legislation, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry. Subject: U.S.-Canada Open Border
Agreement.
March 13, 1991--Committee of Agriculture, House of
Representatives. Subject: Support of Fast-Track Trade
Negotiating Authority Extension.
April 9, 1992--Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and
General Legislation, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry. Subject: U.S.-EU Trade Dispute.
B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers: None.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? No.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated: None.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
As a Commissioner at the FCC, I have been inevitably involved in
implementing the communications statutes passed by Congress and in
rule-makings and adjudications coming before the Commission.
Additionally, I have tried to serve as a resource for this Committee
and for Members of Congress on communications issues. I believe that it
is part of the Commission's responsibility, as an expert agency in
these matters, to provide information and options to Congress.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
I have no such conflicts of interest, nor do I envision any
developing. Should one ever develop, however, I would immediately take
whatever steps are required to eliminate the conflict as well as the
appearance of any conflict of interest.
C. LEGAL MATTERS
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: I have no material to add to the
information already submitted.
6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any
other basis? No.
D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes, insofar
as the authority of the position to which I have been nominated can
influence the actions of the agency.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes, insofar as the authority of
the position to which I have been nominated can influence the actions
of the agency.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
The Chairman. Well, I thank each one of you for your
statements, very welcome statements as a matter of fact.
Commissioner, we are pleased to see you here.
Ms. Tate, during your time there at the Tennessee
Regulatory Authority did you focus on any particular area of
communications?
Ms. Tate. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we deal mostly
with telecommunications, as opposed to the broader array of
issues that the FCC deals with. But while there, obviously, I
would like to answer the question, if I could, in terms of
broader issues. I really tried to concentrate on outreach to
consumers, education to consumers, holding forums, updating our
website, for instance, to provide more information to
consumers.
Then the other, rather than an issue, but more a
philosophical approach, and that is trying to bring consensus
with the industry. I also have a background in mediation and I
believe that this is one of those areas in which sometimes
litigiousness actually gets in the way and, that when you bring
people together and actually realize that we are after many of
the same goals, and I believe that as we recognize these they
are not partisan issues, they are really goals that we can all
sit down and discuss. So I was fortunate enough to be able to
work with the industry in Tennessee and feel that I was able to
bring some consensus together with the industry.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that. Just thinking
back, the two of us being from offshore states, years ago you
used to see on television the ads which would say: These rates
apply throughout the United States except Hawaii and Alaska. We
sponsored the resolution requiring rate integration, which
really led to the formation by the industry of a universal
service fund. It was not a tax. It was the industry itself that
broadened the scope of communications and took our two states
into it through the universal service fund.
So I ask you, Ms. Tate, in terms of your service there in
Tennessee, did you deal with universal service? Are you
familiar with the concept and have you formed an opinion about
universal service?
Ms. Tate. Well, absolutely. Have I formed an opinion? Yes.
What an incredible, not just program, but national issue that
it has been; to provide telephone service to all Americans at
affordable rates. So yes, I have seen that. In fact, people in
Tennessee are tired of hearing the story that I remember the
day that my grandmother, the very last farm on a gravel road
between Tennessee and Kentucky, got her phone. So I have seen
what it is like to be in a home where there was no phone, where
you were not connected to the outside world.
Certainly I have not had the opportunity to see what
``rural'' means in terms of your State, but this was a very
rural existence on a farm that was far out in the country. So I
remember the day that the phone got put in and how exciting it
was to be connected to the rest of the world and to services
that you needed.
So yes, sir, I am very supportive of universal service and
the concept.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Copps, I spoke to Fritz Hollings just last
week, and I know you were with him for a long time and that was
a wonderful statement you made. We are going to take you up on
that offer to work with the Congress, because if the Congress
will listen to me we will modify the Telecommunications Act of
1996 to become the Communications Act of 2006.
Can you tell us, do you have any specific initiative that
you would like to follow, pursue, in your coming term at the
Commission?
Mr. Copps. Well, I do, and I think we have already talked
about some of them. If I really had to prioritize and try to
generalize what we need to do, let me mention one thing in
telecommunications, maybe one thing in media, and one thing
about how this Commission runs that I think could use our
attention and the attention of the Congress. There have been
lots of suggestions for changing the Act. Universal service is
so central to the future of this country, whether you go out on
the tribal lands and see the digital divide that exists out
there or you go to Aniak or Manokotak or Levelock in Alaska and
see how removed these people are from the wonders of
communications, and that divide is just going to get wider and
wider unless we can make universal service really serve all of
these people and bring opportunity to them.
So I think we have got to fix that system. We have got to
get the contribution methodology right, and also deal with
distribution, where it is going.
Then I think we need some guidance from the Congress on
what is it that is meant by ``universal service.'' I think I
understand what the intent of the Telecommunications Act is. I
think it talks about advanced telecommunications and I think it
wants me to be working to get advanced telecommunications to
all Americans. But I do not know that everybody quite agrees
with my interpretation.
So I think there is a need for Congress to make clear where
advanced telecommunications and where broadband fits into the
21st century and how do all of these new technologies that are
coming along--and Senator Sununu and I have talked about this--
do they have some obligations that attend them, as obligations
attended the telephone system in the past century? If we are
going to communicate in a new way, do consumers have a right to
expect consumer protection, universal service, homeland
security, disabilities rights and other protections? We really
have to make that accommodation and that is a huge, huge
challenge. So I guess that would be my telecommunications
emphasis.
Media, as you know, is near and dear to me and close to my
heart. I am very worried about the extent of media
concentration in the United States of America. I do not oppose
all mergers and all acquisitions, but I think we need to look
at them more closely and I think the rules on ownership have to
be tightened. The previous Commission under the previous
chairman tried to loosen the ownership rules and did it in what
I thought was kind of a ludicrous way. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals agreed, turned those rules down, and sent them back
to us.
So I think a huge priority of the Commission in 2006 is to
get this proceeding right, do it in the open, do it publicly,
ask the right questions, do the studies, and reinvigorate
broadcasting. I love broadcasters and I think the flame of the
public interest burns brightly in many of their breasts. But it
is hard for them in a consolidated media environment to
survive. It is always ``the bottom line, the bottom line.''
We have got to reinvigorate broadcasting with some public
interest obligations. We have allowed licensing terms to go to
8 years and to get it renewed, you send in a postcard and you
are relicensed. It should be every 3 years or 5 years and I
think that licensing should be conditioned upon the
Commissioners at the FCC saying: That station is serving the
public interest; you are doing a good job; you get the go sign,
you get it for another 5 years. But we have just drifted too
far from that.
I get carried away on this issue, so I will just leave it
there.
Third, on FCC reform itself, I did not know we had a
mediator here in the person of Debi Tate. Where were you a
couple of years ago? We really could have used you then at the
Commission. But you know when these mediation skills would
really work: If we could sit down together at the Commission
and talk together. We have an Open Meeting Act that precludes
more than two Commissioners from ever sitting down and meeting
together to decide issues. Nobody else works that way that I
know of. Congress does not work that way. The court does not
work that way. Even in my Catholic Church, the cardinals get
together and select the new pope. So if it is good enough for
Congress and good enough for the courts and good enough for
Holy Mother Church, it ought to be good enough, I think, for
the Federal Communications Commission.
So I think we need to look at that. And you know what?
Since we now have only three members at the Commission, I have
spent the last 3 days trying to find out if I can talk to
Jonathan Adelstein; can I go down the hall and talk to Chairman
Martin? I am told they think I can, but we are still
researching this. That is pretty sad. We have got three people
down there at the FCC and we cannot talk to each other. So I
think we need some help on that.
So those would be three things that I would suggest for
your attention and for our attention.
The Chairman. We intend to address that last question. I
think it is stupid that we cannot have more than one
Commissioner here at a time. As a matter of fact, we may be
violating the law right now.
Let me say this. I think communications has gotten to the
point where safety is involved. I am reminded of a young man
who came to see me. He was one of two snow machiners who were
going across an open plain, a really snow-covered plain near
Mount McKinley, and he didn't expect to, but he hit a crevasse.
He had a partner that did not hit it and suddenly he is down
there about 30 feet below the surface and stuck. His skis are
stuck in the sides of the crevasse.
His partner is trying to figure out how to get to him; did
not have a rope, did not have anything. Finally he remembered
he had a cell phone. He pulled it out, turned it on, and dialed
911, and 24 minutes later the National Guard pulled him out of
there with a helicopter with a rope.
Now, you have to hear those stories to understand what
communications means to this country now, whether it is the
single woman driving on a lonely road who has a flat tire and
needs help or a person stuck in a crevasse. This is to me one
of the basic rights of Americans now, is access to
communications wherever you are.
I look forward to working with you.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Rockefeller could not be here with us and he
regrets that very much, but he has asked me to ask a couple of
questions. The first is to Ms. Tate and the question goes as
follows. As you know, the FCC has a notice of proposed
rulemaking in which it seeks public comment on changing E-
rate's current application-based program into a formula grant
program. Do you support maintaining the system for allocating
schools and libraries funding or do you support allocating
funds to states in the form of a block grant. Ms. Tate?
Ms. Tate. Thank you, Senator. Well, first of all I just
have to say, and with former Governor Sundquist here, I want to
say that through his leadership; Tennessee was the first state
to have every single school connected through the E-rate funds.
So we have seen first-hand what that has been able to do for a
poor, somewhat rural, southern state. It has been wonderful to
see first-hand.
I know I had an opportunity to go to several schools while
I was on the Governor's staff and to see what they were able to
do in those classrooms and the libraries and how they would be
able to connect to professors and experts all over the world in
ways that would not have been possible without the E-rate
funding.
I have to be honest that I have not had an opportunity to
review all of the comments and so I have not had an opportunity
to study what some of the proposals may be. I am frankly not
familiar with all of those proposals. However, like all of us,
we want the funds to be spent well, we want to reduce any
possible inefficiencies, and I think that the FCC has begun to
look at some ways to be able to do that.
So I am very supportive of the E-rate funds and what they
have done for Tennessee and Tennessee school children. Thank
you.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Copps, I am certain you are aware that 67
percent of Native households as compared to 94 percent for
America, the rest of America. As far as Internet access, as the
Chairman pointed out, less than 10 percent of Indian Country
has access to Internet. So obviously there is some digital
divide or gap.
What do you propose to do as a Commissioner?
Mr. Copps. Well, there is a serious problem here. I have
been to Indian Country. I have seen that digital divide. I have
seen the unemployment rate, which is just unbelievable. In some
of these places, 60 or 70 or 80 percent of the people have no
job. Communications can do so much, especially advanced
communications if you can get them in there, to move Indian
Country ahead.
The first thing we have got to do is really treat Indian
Country the way it should be through our trust relationship. I
think it is important always to recognize that precious
relationship. Then we have to do a better job of outreach. I
think the Commission has tried to outreach and do a lot of
meetings and sessions and seminars and things like that. But I
think we need to do a lot more in the way of outreach and make
sure that the folks in Indian Country know what is going on at
the Commission and which decisions are being made that can
affect them.
Then we need to be serious about making sure that advanced
telecommunications are getting deployed there. We have tried to
do enhanced lifeline and enhanced linkup programs which help a
little bit on universal service. But we have not scratched the
surface of what we need to do. It is a glaring national problem
and it is a glaring national embarrassment. We need to fix it
and we need to fix it now.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
I am certain both of you are aware that in recent weeks,
under the guidance and leadership of Chairman Stevens, the
Committee has been focusing on indecency and violent
programming. In fact, yesterday we had a forum on that. Ms.
Tate, how would you approach these issues? For example,
yesterday the president of the cable companies announced that
several cable companies will now establish family tiers. Do you
have any views on that?
Ms. Tate. Well, obviously as a mother, first of all, who
has just raised three children, I share a lot of the concerns
that I hear and that I have read about. I would just like to
congratulate you and Chairman Stevens for scheduling these
hearings.
I was studying yesterday, so I did not have a chance to
view all of the hearing. But what was incredible to me was that
in just a short period of time several members of the industry
had actually come forward and are engaging in a voluntary, I
guess, code of conduct, and that they themselves are coming
forward and saying that they want to participate rather than
have regulations foisted upon them, I suppose.
So I thought in a very short period of time there has been
an awful lot of progress made, and I would just congratulate
you on that. I think that it is important that the Commission
enforces the law that we have and the rules and regulations
that the FCC has implemented to interpret that. I think that I
support the broadcasters' choice of not showing certain
materials. Then of course, it harkens back to when I was
growing up and you actually sat around the television and had
family viewing hour and we watched ``The Wonderful World of
Disney,'' I suppose, on Sunday night together.
So I think a lot of progress is being made at this time.
Senator Inouye. Do you believe that under the circumstances
of voluntarily coming forth with programs of this nature that
it would not be necessary for Congress to legislate decency?
Ms. Tate. Well, Senator, I think I would want to see what
the industry perhaps proposes specifically rather than trying
to give you a specific answer. I am not sure exactly right now
what their specific proposals are, but certainly I would want
to review those, and also recognizing that these are issues
that I believe the courts and the FCC have said are--that we
need to have a contextual analysis for each one of these on a
case-by-case basis. Is that something I could get back with you
on?
Senator Inouye. Oh, yes.
Ms. Tate. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Copps. Can I comment on that?
Senator Inouye. Please.
Mr. Copps. I think the first statement I gave at the
Commission was on indecency when I went there 4 years ago and
it was kind of a lonely battle at the time to get most of my
colleagues interested. Events since then have helped make that
happen. But you have really brought the industry along in this
Committee a lot farther than I was able to do. I have tried for
3 or 4 years to get cable and the broadcasters and the
associations to sit down and finally hash this out and give us
something meaningful, like they used to have in the old
voluntary codes of conduct years and years ago.
So I am encouraged that they are stepping forth. I think we
are in the early stages of this. I think it is going to require
a lot of pressure. I do not think we are anywhere near the
point where we can say: no, we do not need legislation, or we
are not going to need legislation, So for now, I'd take the
Ronald Reagan approach of ``trust but verify.''
But this is not going to happen by itself. We have got to
define what a family tier is. We have got to figure out how
much it is going to cost and figure out if it is going to solve
the problem. In the final analysis, it is not going to be the
media or anybody else who decides if this fight against
indecency is working. It is going to be the American people. If
they have programs that are cleaned up, if they have the
opportunity to enjoy family viewing, then we will have made
progress.
A 2005 Kaiser study reported that 70 percent of shows on
television contain sexual content. So you can cite some
examples where companies are doing things, but we are not there
yet. We have a long way to go. Again, I would say trust but
verify. Most importantly let us keep pushing.
There are roles for everybody here. There is a role for
families. There is a role for the Commission to do its job and
enforce the law. When we put out statements saying, yes, this
is indecent or, no, this is not indecent, we need to explain
our reasoning. That is how you figure out what indecency is. We
cannot sit there and write a guideline or a little book and
say, here, Mr. Broadcaster, this is it. Like in law, you amass
a history of jurisprudence and use that to set the parameters.
That is not easy and it is not clean. It is kind of messy, but
I do not know any other way to get there.
So there is a role for the Commission and there is a role
for Congress, and I am glad to see you leading.
Senator Inouye. Commissioner Copps, how would you grade the
performance of the Commission in combating gratuitous violent
programming?
Mr. Copps. D minus or close to an F. I do not think we have
met the issue of violence at all. We might need some help from
Congress there. The House asked for a report on violence over a
year ago. I think under our new Chairman that report is now
being produced. But we have not stepped up to the plate on
that.
On indecency generally, I would not give us good marks. The
Commission is as much a cause for the state of indecency in
this country as any broadcaster, because we ignored the law. We
just turned the other way for years and years and years. So
some in industry kept pushing the envelope. Nobody said
anything, so they pushed the envelope farther.
We made it hard for consumers to complain. They had to come
with a tape or a transcript. Imagine my wife riding around in
the carpool with seven kids in the van and she hears something
on the radio that is indecent. How in the world is she supposed
to record that or have an exact transcript? But that is what we
demanded for years and years up until recently. I think that is
getting better now, but I am not 100 percent convinced yet.
So we have to have a good process. We have to do these
things in a timely way and we have to establish the precedents,
as I said before. We have done a lousy job of that
historically. I think in the last year or so we have done much
better, and I think I am encouraged that we are more resolute
now in this Commission than we were before. But if you look at
it historically it is not a good grade and we have not been
part of the solution. We have been part of the problem.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to vote for these
two.
The Chairman. Senator Sununu.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Copps, I cannot tell you how much it warms my heart to
hear you looking to Ronald Reagan for regulatory guidance.
I very much appreciate both of you being here, but more
importantly putting in the time to meet with Members of
Congress. Both of you have taken the time to come to my office
to talk about a number of issues, some of which I would like to
go over again. But it is very time-consuming. The issues are
complex.
One of the nice things about this Committee from a member's
standpoint is that a lot of the issues we work on cut across
party lines. The bad news for you is that it does not matter
whether you are a Democrat or a Republican nominee; you are
going to get it from both sides, and that does make your job
difficult. But both of you obviously have dedicated yourselves
to public service and that is very much appreciated, I think.
Mr. Copps, in your opening statement you said that you
would work on the Commission, continue on the Commission
working to achieve, ``as thorough an understanding of
congressional intent as I can muster.'' Do you mean to suggest
that in the past Congress has been less than crystal clear in
the legislation we have passed?
Mr. Copps. I would only suggest that as time goes on and
technology evolves in a revolutionary way and markets change
and services change, that from time to time we all need to take
a look at the new world around us.
Senator Sununu. Maybe you should be in the Foreign
Relations Committee pursuing a diplomatic post.
I appreciate the fact that we are not always as clear as we
should be. I think one area that has shown itself to fit in
that category is universal service. I really just want to make
a comment, picking up on some of the points that you made. You
talked about three areas. I think as we do a reform bill it is
very important that we do what we can to make this program work
better. There are things about the program many of us like,
things about the program many of us dislike, but I do not
believe it works nearly as effectively as it can, keeping in
mind the original intent.
You mentioned three areas: contribution, and I think the
points you made are very good. We need to revise and reform the
contribution methodology, broaden the base, lower the average
per-line charge that I think disproportionally penalize some of
the people that this is intended to benefit. The single line
subscriber who might be older, on a fixed income, lower means,
they are still paying a charge and oftentimes it is
disproportionately high.
So I think we need to broaden the base. I support a
methodology based on numbers. I know that is something the
Commission is looking at. But the contribution methodology
reform is extremely important.
Second is distribution, and I think this is equally
important: improving the way we distribute the resources,
keeping in mind the original Congressional intent, which I
think was fairly clear. High-cost areas and areas of
disproportionately low incomes, that is the intent. In creating
the complexity in the distribution system, I think we have
either made the program less effective or created situations
where those two overriding concerns are not always first and
foremost in the program.
I do not think we need eight or ten different streams of
distribution support for universal service. I think it could be
much more effective if we reform the distribution, again
keeping in mind what the original objectives of the program
were.
Then the last is probably the area that is more
challenging, which is exactly what do we mean by universal
service, what are the services or the technologies or the
products, consumer products, that we are subsidizing here. It
is a little bit more challenging and I think that will be an
important part of the debate. But I do think there ought to be
an opportunity for states to participate to a greater extent
than they have in helping to decide exactly how these resources
can be used.
We should not just assume that Members of Congress or the
Commission are the only ones that could possibly know how these
universal service funds can be best used in the State of
Tennessee or the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii. I
think there are going to be different services and needs and
infrastructure that ought to be receiving funds in order to
meet whatever goals you or I might have in mind.
So I just want to make those three points. I think they are
roughly in keeping with the concerns you raised and concerns
others have raised, but all of those are much more important
than the size of the fund. I can imagine an excellent program
and one that someone who is fairly deregulatory minded like me
would support that costs $10 billion, which is far larger than
the current program. I can also imagine a program that is a
disaster, that does not really get assistance to those high-
cost states, to the rural states, to states with higher levels
of income, that only cost $5 billion, and just does not work,
does not achieve our goals, does not meet Congressional intent.
So I think we need to focus on the parameters you laid out.
First and foremost, obviously we want to have a fund that is
fiscally responsible. But the way we handle it is much more
important.
Let me move to Voice Over IP, something we talked about in
my office. There are a lot of VOIP companies that have done all
that they can to date and will continue to do all that they can
to comply with the FCC's E-911 VOIP ruling and obligation.
There are a number of technical limitations and there are also
some operational problems for which the VOIP providers are not
responsible that have made it difficult for them to hit all of
the deadlines.
First, I want to make sure we are working on the same wave
here. You believe these companies, do you not? You do not think
they are misleading or lying about the technical challenges or
the organizational challenges associated with getting access to
the routers?
Mr. Copps. No, I do not.
Senator Sununu. The marketing ban that has been proposed by
the FCC, though, is something that strikes me as quite unusual,
actually preventing a company from marketing a consumer
product. Can you give any examples of other areas or other
cases where the FCC has imposed a marketing ban like the one
that is affecting the VOIP providers?
Mr. Copps. No, and I would note that we did not vote on
this particular aspect of what we are doing. I understand
people who express doubts about imposing a marketing ban. By
the same token, though, I have doubts about a company who would
offer service without this kind of protection that the public
expects. I think we ought to be asking them that question, too.
But a lot of the large companies now, with only a few
exceptions, are not marketing while they develop the capacity
to do this. We have come a long, long way in the 120 or however
many days it was since last July that the Commission really
took this up in a strong way and came with these requirements.
We have gotten there, I think, with a lot of cooperation. I
think there has been considerable flexibility. There was
initial talk we are going to disconnect people, but I think the
Chairman and the bureaus have shown flexibility in making sure
that did not happen.
But we have got to get to a situation where we do not have
a repeat of what happened in Texas or what happened in Florida,
when somebody picks up that phone and is confident that that
phone, like any other phone, has the capacity to connect them
to E-911 and it does not. This whole public safety and homeland
security thing has to be much more of a priority at the
Commission. I think we are doing a good job recently, but we
have really got to jump on it.
I think we need to get this done. I think we are making
progress and I think we will get it done.
Senator Sununu. I agree that we are making progress. I
certainly agree that it is important and it is something that
the Commission should focus its attention on. But my concern is
that we, one, are not punitive or discriminatory in terms of
setting goals or objectives and then working to implement them.
A case in point: Is all wireline service compatible with
providing E-911 coverage and capability?
Mr. Copps. The answer is no, but I have tried to be as
tough on those carriers as I am here. We should remember since
the mid-1990s wireless has been able to deliver a 911 call to
the local PSAP.
Senator Sununu. I am not speaking----
Mr. Copps. I know you are talking about the----
Senator Sununu. But I am talking about wireline.
Mr. Copps. Wireline, I am sorry.
Senator Sununu. I am talking about traditional wireline,
that not all wireline providers have E-911 service. In fact,
not all wireline providers have 911 service. There are still
over 100 counties in America where you have to dial ten digits
to get emergency service, and I think we should work to help or
assist or make sure that we have good emergency response
systems in those areas, as we should for wirelines or VOIP, but
we should not be discriminatory and punitive in the solutions
we put out.
I believe that you appreciate those points. I hope you will
take them to heart. I certainly cannot speak to exactly how Ms.
Tate would deal with these issues. We had the opportunity to
speak about them as well. As a commissioner in Tennessee, I
think she had to deal with a lot of rural areas that do not
necessarily have the 911 service that we would like to see. But
we want to make sure--I would like to make sure that you are
not being discriminatory in your approach.
I would like to ask both of you, make sure both of you are
aware of the nature of the legislation that passed this
Committee unanimously just a few weeks ago, it dealt with E-911
for IP providers, that provides a waiver process for the FCC
rules, which would include the marketing ban. I think it
provides those waivers in a very reasonable way. Is it fair to
say that both of you are familiar with that?
Mr. Copps. I am aware of that. I know it talks about access
to routers. I know we talked about it when we voted on all of
this, and I stated that the companies had to have the tools if
we were going to have the expectation that they were going to
be in compliance. I welcome what the Committee bill does on
liability. I do not think the Commission has too much authority
there, so we are glad for the help from there.
I think we will look at the waiver process. At the risk
of--I hope I am not being confrontational, but I have a doubt
about 4-year waivers when we get into something like this.
There is always the opportunity for companies to get a waiver.
There are conditions perhaps where it would be appropriate to
grant a waiver. But I think we have to look at the time and set
that against the progress that is going to be made. I think in
a year or two all this is going to be behind us.
Senator Sununu. I love that sense of optimism. That is
Ronald Reagan's sense of optimism talking there, too.
Mr. Copps. I love it too.
Senator Sununu. One final question, and I appreciate I have
asked quite a number of questions already, but for Ms. Tate. I
think Commissioner Copps mentioned the idea of mediation. I
believe this is something that you worked on to quite a degree
in Tennessee. You advocated in a piece that you wrote that
consumer complaints and carrier-to-carrier disputes for IP
could be resolved through an FCC-led arbitration process based
on a best and final approach similar to, not identical to but
similar to, the arbitration process in baseball.
This is something that I have taken a look at and we are
looking at crafting IP legislation. Could you talk a little bit
about what the value of this kind of an arbitration process is
dealing with regulations or complaints, and do you think that
it could be used for circumstances even beyond IP, Voice Over
IP?
Ms. Tate. Well, I am certainly a strong advocate, as I said
before, of alternative dispute resolution, and we even touched
on this a little bit, and I am hopeful and optimistic, as
Commissioner Copps and you have noted, that carriers would be
able to come to some kind of agreement between themselves, and
that this might be in order to not have the government enter
into any of that.
So I would love to sit down and talk about this further. I
do not really have anything specific to lay out here today. But
it was really just more of the concept of the carriers
agreeing. It is to their advantage to work these things out.
Just as an aside, yesterday I wanted to--I am sorry Senator
Alexander is not here to hear me say this, but--``Find the good
and praise it.'' Yesterday we had all of the VOIP providers
come to Tennessee to make presentations on where they were on
meeting these deadlines. So we invited them to come; we did not
order them to come. They are not required to come through any
kind of legal authority. But they all came, and they have made
tremendous progress. Vonage and BellSouth have actually come to
an agreement, which was something that had not happened before.
So I guess just to say, I am really optimistic, based on
what is going on in Tennessee. So I would love to continue to
talk with you about some of these more specific provisions and
whether or not we might be able to craft some language for a
bill.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I just might say parenthetically to the Senator from New
Hampshire, I think that this waiver business depends on who the
entity seeking a waiver is going to compete with. If they are
going to compete with someone who is providing 911 and want an
exemption from it, it gives them basically an economic
advantage to get the waivers. I would oppose such waivers at
that time.
Senator Pryor.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Copps, I would like to start with you if I may, and
that is just a general question because, as you are well aware,
there has been a lot of discussion here in the Committee and in
the hallways around the Senate about a broad telecom rewrite.
In fact, I know that many were hopeful that this Committee
would take that up this year. We have not done that, at least
not in full, and many are hopeful we will try to do that next
year.
But my question for you is, from your perspective, given
your expertise and familiarity with the lay of the land today
and the state of the law today, do you think that the Congress
should pass a broad telecom rewrite or do you think we have
enough existing law on the books today and maybe Congress
should pass some tweaks or some less broad, more narrowly
tailored type telecom legislation, or should we pass nothing at
all. I would like to get your thoughts on that.
Mr. Copps. Well, if I knew it was going to be delivered and
passed and produced, I would take the generic wholesale rewrite
that delves comprehensively into a lot of these problems. But I
know it demands a certain correlation of political forces and
elsewise to get that done, so we may have to settle for the
tweaks.
But as I indicated earlier, I think in just about every
area under the jurisdiction of the Commission and the Committee
I think there is a need for some elaboration. We talked about
the need on broadband: is broadband going to be a part of
universal service? That is a big question that goes to the
fundamental purpose of universal service. Is it really going to
be all about taking these new technologies and making them
available to everybody in the United States no matter where
they live, and when they use these new technologies do they
have a right to expect some of the protections that were
provided in the era of telecom and the telephone companies--
consumer protection, disability rights, and these other things.
We have got to make that clear.
That may already be in the law. I think I am happy going
forward and my interpretation is that it is there, but I do not
know that I could get a majority for that. So I think there has
to be some additional clarity there. We have got to fix
universal service, although that may be something that we can
kind of isolate on the contribution methodology and work on
that.
But then we have to do something, I think, to clarify the
media ownership rules and where are we going in the media. I
would just say as a general statement, I am also a small ``d''
democrat. I believe if you give the people the information they
need and the facts they need that more often than not, maybe
not always but more often than not, the American people will
come down on the right side of a question and make an
intelligent decision.
I think, in some degree because of media consolidation,
that we are skating perilously close to denying them that kind
of information. I think we are tampering around the edges of
hurting our democracy. Some may say this is overblown rhetoric,
``there he goes again,'' but I feel this really deeply. I think
it has already had some bad effects in harming localism and
diversity and competition.
So we have got to do that. And we have to--and we were
talking about this a little bit earlier--reinvigorate some of
the old public interest obligations. There are almost none
right now. Thirty or forty years ago if a station wanted to get
a license, they had to meet an explicit list of different
things that they are doing. Are they going out to the
community, finding out what people want to hear and see, doing
children's programming, public events, community events. That
is all basically gone. You mail in a postcard and every 8 years
you get your license.
I think the people expect more than that, people I have
talked with in going around the country expect more than that.
They own the airwaves. They want those airwaves to serve the
public interest. Nobody is denying a broadcaster the right to
make a good living by the use of those airwaves, but there is a
precious quid pro quo involved for the use of those airwaves.
That is serving the public interest, and we need to emphasize
that again.
We talked a little bit about maybe doing something with the
Open Meeting Act at the Commission so the Commissioners can
meet together. Those were some of the things I would like to
see changed. If it really does open up into a comprehensive
exercise, we can probably produce several more suggestions.
Senator Pryor. Ms. Tate, do you have any views on whether
there should be a comprehensive piece of telecom legislation or
just more isolated pieces or nothing at all? Do you have any
views on that?
Ms. Tate. Well, I want to agree with what Commissioner
Copps has said. These are changes that we need, if confirmed,
to be able to function as an agency. The concern about the
sunshine law. And I agree with him as well, it is hard to say,
yes, I would definitely be for an entire rewrite when you are
not sure what all might end up in that. But I think that he has
outlined some broader policy principles.
I would want to underscore what he said about persons with
disabilities and some of the other responsibilities that he
outlined. I think it is really important, too, to recognize
that while everybody here is connected to a Blackberry, not
everybody across America is. There has got to be some kind of
transition between now and where we all see we are going.
So thank you.
Senator Pryor. Good.
Dr. Copps, you may have covered this earlier and I may have
missed it, but do you know what the rate of broadband
deployment is in the U.S. today? Is there a number out there?
Mr. Copps. I do not have the exact number, but I can tell
you that broadband deployment generally is not anywhere where
it should be. The ITU pegs the United States as number 16 in
the world in penetration of broadband. I do not think that is
acceptable. Other countries obviously have different
demographics. I do not think you can compare rural Alaska or
Hawaii or rural areas in any State with maybe an apartment
building in Seoul, Korea, or Tokyo, so we cannot expect that to
be equal.
But I think there are lessons to be learned. We have
fiddled around until now at the Commission, defining broadband
as 200 kilobits up and down. The world moved beyond that a
long, long time ago. We are finally catching up.
We looked at broadband penetration and said, oh, one person
in this zip code has broadband, ergo deployment is proceeding
in a reasonable and timely fashion, when in truth it is not. So
we have got to be realistic.
I cannot get you a good figure on broadband because we have
not deployed the analytical tools that we need. I know we need
to do more and I know we need to do better.
Senator Pryor. Well, is getting to 100 percent, is that a
reasonable goal?
Mr. Copps. I do not know. It should be a goal. It should be
our goal. I do not know if we can achieve it. You never get 100
percent on things. But I do not think that young kid in the
tribal village or the Alaskan village or the countryside
anywhere or the inner city is going to make it in the 21st
century without high-speed broadband.
Some people talk about the E-rate program for schools and
suggest it has done enough, so why are we still supporting it?
I do not think we should have our kids in schools where there
is dial-up Internet when everybody else in the world is working
on broadband. We are just not going to make it that way. We are
not going to make it.
Senator Pryor. Let me change gears if I can. In the last
few days, due to the work of the Chairman and Ranking Member
here, the cable industry came out with a proposal about family
tier. If we just ignore the specifics of their proposal, we do
not have to get into the specifics of their proposal, but in
your view is family tier the right approach? Is that the right
approach that we should be looking at, or is there another
approach that in your view is better?
Mr. Copps. I think there are a number of approaches and
options that have been suggested. If the industry is most
interested in this particular option and willing to move ahead,
I think we ought to give it a try. As Chairman Martin told the
Committee last week, there are other options, like a la carte
cable. Some questions have attended that about whether it is a
viable business plan or not, but it certainly brings consumer
choice and consumer options, and I think we need to look at
that.
These things may never really take off, and that's why I am
not willing to say no legislation ever, because I think it
might one day be called for. These things do not just happen
easily and I think the industry, with Mr. Valenti up here the
other day, has come a long ways. But we are not there yet.
People want this settled. Jack is one of the most delightful
people in the world and I am proud to call him a friend, but I
think when he suggest that all of these polls universally say
that people do not want the government to do anything, I do not
think he has looked at all those polls. For example, a 2004
Kaiser poll reported that over 60 percent of the American
people want the government to do something.
It depends how you ask the question. ``Are you in favor of
trampling the First Amendment? '' What do you expect people to
say? Of course not. But, ``are you in favor of the government
taking some reasonable steps to control this? '' Everybody is
going to say yes. You have got to be careful on those polls.
Senator Pryor. Well, let me ask about the Commission just
for a moment. I know that you have been very concerned with
media ownership and consolidation of ownership. As I understand
it, there was a challenge to what you did and it went maybe to
the Third Circuit and was overturned. Is that right?
Mr. Copps. That is correct.
Senator Pryor. As I understand it, part of the reason it
was overturned is--I have not read the decision, but the Third
Circuit made the determination that there was not enough
evidence to support what you were trying to do. One question I
have for you: Is that a function of there really is not enough
evidence out there or is it a function of the fact that you are
limited in your ability to collect the evidence and collect the
data that you need to do your job?
Mr. Copps. It is a function of the previous Commission not
being willing to go out and ask the questions that need to be
asked on media ownership, such as is there a relationship
between the indecency that we were talking about a minute ago
and media consolidation. You can make an argument that there is
because these big companies are so focused on selling products
to 18 to 34-year-olds and maybe that dictates the kind of
programming.
I do not think we have the answer to that, although we have
some indication from a study done by Jon Rintels and Phil
Napoli that indicate there is a connection. But I asked, I
begged, for us to look at that, before we voted in 2003. We did
not do that. Surely we cannot go to the courts with something
like that diversity index that the previous Commission came up
with, that could not differentiate between a network station
and a weekly paper and a home shopping channel, and expect a
court to say: Oh, yes, the FCC has really done their work here;
congratulations.
We have got to get the evidence. It is not rocket science.
It is out there. We can get it and do it and satisfy the
courts.
Senator Pryor. And you have the resources to collect the
data?
Mr. Copps. Well, that is an interesting question. It is a
question of priorities, but I think we should be doing some
studies and contracting out and making sure that we are making
use of other information that is out there, peer-reviewed
studies on media consolidation. Take a little time to do that.
Then the other way to find out what is going on is what I tried
to do and Commissioner Adelstein tried to do last time. That is
to go out and talk to the American people. Do not stay in our
offices down there in Southwest D.C. and just read the usual
submissions from the usual people, but instead see what is
happening in the local media markets. Boy, you do that and you
are surprised, and you see what is happening to localism and
diversity and competition in Arkansas and everywhere else.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you both very much. We appreciate
your candid answers to the questions.
Senator Inouye, do you have anything further?
Senator Inouye. No.
The Chairman. We are going to try and move these
nominations out of the Committee as rapidly as possible. We
congratulate you both on your nominations and hope to see if we
can get you confirmed before we go home for Christmas. Thank
you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. William H. Frist, U.S. Senator from
Tennessee
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express to the
Committee my support for the nomination of a fellow Tennessean, Deborah
Taylor Tate, to serve as a member of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC).
Debi Tate is a native of Columbia, Tennessee and grew up in
Murfreesboro, just outside of Nashville. She received both her
undergraduate (B.A.) and law degrees from the University of Tennessee-
Knoxville.
Ms. Tate has a long and distinguished career in public policy. She
began her professional career as an attorney and senior policy advisor
to then-Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, and later served as a
policy advisor to Governor Don Sundquist. In 2002, Governor Sundquist
appointed Ms. Tate to serve as a Director of the Tennessee Regulatory
Authority (TRA), which regulates privately-owned telecommunications and
utility companies in Tennessee. She served as Chairman of the TRA from
2003-2004.
As a TRA Director, Ms. Tate has been involved in telecommunications
policy at both the state and federal levels. She was appointed by the
FCC Chairman to the Federal-State Joint Board on Advanced
Telecommunications Services, and she is an active member of both the
Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (SEARUC)
and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC).
On a personal level, my family and I have known Debi for years, as
she lives near us in Nashville and is an elder at our church. She is
active in the community in Nashville, serving on the boards of
Vanderbilt Children's Hospital and Centerstone, Inc., the largest
mental health provider in Tennessee, among others. She is also a
founder of the Renewal House, a recovery residency for women with
addictions and their children.
I am proud that President Bush has nominated such an accomplished
Tennessean to serve on the Federal Communications Commission, and I
know that Debi Tate will serve with dedication and distinction. I want
to thank Chairman Stevens for scheduling a hearing on her nomination so
expeditiously, and I look forward to seeing her confirmed by the Senate
and starting work at the FCC.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Deborah Taylor Tate
Question 1. What do you believe the goals of Universal Service
should be?
Answer. The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), are to promote the
availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable
rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications services
throughout the Nation; advance the availability of such services to all
consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost
areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban
areas. If confirmed, I am committed to working with Congress to explore
how best to promote these objectives.
Question 2. What do you believe the value of the Universal Service
E-rate program for schools and libraries to be?
Answer. As a state Commissioner, I saw first hand the benefits of
the E-rate program for classrooms throughout Tennessee and, if
confirmed, would be committed to advancing the 1996 Act requirements
that all schools, classrooms, rural health care providers and libraries
should have access to advanced telecommunications services.
Question 3. Do you support the E-rate program for schools and
libraries?
Answer. Yes. See answer to Question 2 above.
Question 4. Which providers do you believe should be required to
contribute to the Universal Service Support Mechanism?
Answer. The 1996 Act requires all telecommunications carriers that
provide interstate telecommunication services to contribute, on an
equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the Universal Service Fund
(USF). According to the 1996 Act, ``[t]he Commission may exempt a
carrier or class of carrier from this requirement if the carrier's
telecommunications activities are limited to such an extent that the
level of such carrier's contribution to the preservation and
advancement of universal service would be de minimis.'' And, ``[a]ny
other provider of interstate telecommunications may be required to
contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service if
the public interest so requires.''
Question 5. What impact do you believe the Universal Service
Support Mechanism, and the E-rate program specifically, has on
universal broadband deployment?
Answer. I believe that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) should do all it can to facilitate investment in
broadband infrastructure throughout the Nation. A key principle for the
preservation and advancement of universal service in Section 254 of the
1996 Act is that access to advanced telecommunications and information
services should be provided in all regions of the Nation. In addition,
Section 254 states that elementary and secondary schools and
classrooms, health care providers and libraries should have access to
advanced telecommunications services. If confirmed, I am committed to
working with my FCC and state colleagues to explore how best to promote
these objectives.
Question 6. Recently, through the efforts of Chairman Stevens and
others, Congress passed a temporary exemption of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (ADA) through December 31, 2006 for Universal Service programs. Do
you believe the universal service telecommunications fees are ``federal
funds'' and therefore subject to the Anti-Deficiency Act?
Answer. I understand that the question of whether USF monies are
``federal funds'' is a complex question dependent upon federal
accounting laws and requirements, and other factors. I have not had the
opportunity to study this issue in my capacity as a state official. If
confirmed, I will carefully evaluate this issue. Certainly, to the
extent that Congress specifies a legal status for these funds, I will
adhere to the will of Congress.
Question 7. Express your position on permanently exempting
Universal Service from the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Answer. I believe the determination surrounding exempting the USF
from the Antideficiency Act is a congressional decision to make. If
confirmed, I will adhere to the will of Congress.
Question 8. Discuss whether you agree that a robust Universal
Service System and E-rate program are needed to speed broadband
deployment consistent with the national broadband goals set-out by
President Bush.
Answer. Yes. See answer to Question 5 above.
Question 9. What is your definition of indecency?
Answer. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits
the utterance of ``any obscene, indecent or profane language by means
of radio communication.'' The Commission has defined indecent speech as
material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory
activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. I would
apply this definition, which calls for a contextual analysis, which
carefully balances the government interests in regulating indecent
speech with the important principals underlying the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
Question 10. How would you propose to enforce it?
Answer. If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to encourage
my FCC colleagues to investigate and resolve all complaints in a timely
manner. Moreover, I applaud the Commission for its recent creation of
Form 475(b), which, for the first time, allows consumers the
opportunity to use a specific form to delineate complaints surrounding
obscene, profane, and/or indecent programming.
Question 11. What are your views on local program insertion by
satellite radio on terrestrial repeaters?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to study this issue in my
capacity as a state official. Local program insertion by satellite
radio providers might offer public interest benefits, including
increased competition in local radio markets. If confirmed, I am
committed to working with my FCC and state colleagues to carefully
evaluate this issue.
Question 12. If protection/insulation of children from questionable
content is the rationale for indecency standards and the defining
distinction is paid-for service versus free over-the-air broadcasting,
how do you reconcile the fact that the vast majority of children have
equal access to both? (i.e. cable TV's penetration coupled with the
fact that broadcast stations sit side-by-side with the likes of HBO---
AND satellite radio can be purchased/used by underage listeners)
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to study this issue in my
capacity as a state official. As a mother, I understand that children
watching cable television do not distinguish between broadcast stations
and cable networks as they channel surf. This is cause for concern
since, as you note, the law restricting indecent material does not
apply to cable television. Certainly, if Congress enacts a law
restricting indecency on non-broadcast video programming, I will
enforce that law.
Question 13. How do you define ``in the public interest"? And would
you agree that audience size can be a good indicator of service
regardless of the content? If not audience, who?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Commission has broad
discretion in determining whether a broadcaster has served the public
interest, convenience and necessity. Practically speaking, it would
seem that audience size may serve as one indicator that a broadcaster
is providing programming of interest to its community. Although I have
not had the opportunity to study this issue in my capacity as a state
official, if confirmed, I am committed to working with Members of this
Committee and my FCC colleagues to carefully evaluate this issue.
Question 14. What are your views regarding the consolidation of
media?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to study this issue in my
capacity as a state official. Given the important role that the media
plays in promoting the marketplace of ideas and enhancing our
democratic society, if confirmed, I am committed to working with my FCC
colleagues to ensure that our actions further competition, localism,
and diversity in the media market.
Question 15. Which is the higher priority---increasing the number
of outlets via LPFM or protecting the signal integrity of the stations
that are already licensed and serving the public?
Answer. When evaluating priorities, the Commission should take into
consideration how that action would impact the public. The Commission
should take into account whether members of the public would lose
access to an existing broadcast service, which may offer very localized
communities and under-represented groups within communities the chance
to be heard.
Question 16. What are your thoughts on multicast must carry?
Answer. I understand that the Commission has addressed this issue
twice and found that cable operators are not required to carry more
than a single digital programming stream from any particular
broadcaster. Moreover, the Commission has pending before it a petition
for reconsideration of its most recent decision addressing this issue.
Although I have not had the opportunity to study this issue in my
capacity as a state official, if confirmed, I will review this petition
and the arguments made for and against multicast must carry carefully.